Is XTR worth it?
 

Ive got the Diamond Back 05 Coil Ex. Im thinking about getting the Shimano XTR setup on my bike. Is it worth it? I can get it at a super good discount (about half off)

XTR is light and great for XC racing. XT works a little better and is more reliable. Slightly heavier. SRAM X.9 is smoother than either and just as reliable as XT.

not unless you race professionaly. get yerself some xt lovin

XTR is worth it, if you can afford it. The frame that you are using, on the other hand, isn't really worth building up w/xtr parts. I'm not trying to insult you or your frame choice, but using that frame will mean that the complete bike will weigh at least 1.5-2.5 pounds more than it has to. Trust me, I have a 2003 Jamis Dakar built up with XTR/XT, Thomson post and stem ,Ti-rail 180 gram seat, LP composite handlebars, and a Rock Shox Reba Team . No matter what parts I hang on my Dakar it will still weigh a couple of pounds more than it should, because of it's heavy frame/shock .

I definitly wont be racing professionally. the only reason i have the coil ex frame, is that i got it for free. XT sounds a lot better

no...but X.0 is

Exactly. There have been some exceptions, but they're few and far between.
In the early spline era XTR cranks were much bettere than XT. That quickly passed though.
However, unless you're a gram counting weenie, in the current groupos, XT is the way to go. Every bit as crisp and smooth and a bit stronger, you're paying to lose a few grams and that cool grey color.

it would be best if you mixed the build with sram and shimano. The sprokets, chain, crankset, front derallieur should be XT. Shifters, rear derallieur could be sram x-9. that in my opinion is a good build.

Actually chain should be SRAM for powerlink alone...

You can put a powerlink on a Shimano 9 speed chain..

XTR is not limited to XC racing.

XT does not work better.

XT is not more reliable.

NO.

XTR is just as reliable at XT and is a better deraillure. It is also lighter.

X.9 is relibable but is leaps and bounds better then XT.

The thing about these questions is that "it" is never defined and often means different things to different people. I'm going to address "it" from an economics standpoint as that's a fairly common denominator.

Bang-for-buck, XTR is not worth it. LX and XT is usually the sweetspot there. However, I consider XT to be where you want to be if you want an all around good group with as many bells and whistles as XTR but with a lower pricetag at the sacrifice of some bling "lightness" and advanced technology introduction. In the world of Shimano MTBing, Deore is for the entry level, LX is for the mainstream and XT is for those who are more serious.

XTR is sort of reserved for those who want bleeding edge (although sometimes bleeding edge shows up in the other groups first), lightweight and bragging rights. That said, if you have the spare cash, by all means step up to XTR. Consider it a polished version of XT.

I personally don't build my bikes all from one group though. I tend to pick the shifters, derailleurs and cassette from a single manufacturer but will typically mix cranks/chainrings/BB, headset, brakes, brake levers, hubs/wheelsets from several different manufacturers.

if you can buy it buy XTR if not stick with XT almost as good

I'd go with XT in your situation, if you can get half off of that group too, of course

Way to throw out opinions with nothing to back it up.:rolleyes:

What about the opinion he was refering to:

"XTR is light and great for XC racing. XT works a little better and is more reliable. Slightly heavier. SRAM X.9 is smoother than either and just as reliable as XT."


Where is the data to back up this statement?

Meh..... I still want a Rolhoff.

Those are not opinions.

Those are facts.

HTH.

if you can afford XTR, then go for it :)

A fact that is backed up by research done by an individual company and an opinion is something that you think is better. A fact cannot be a blurb on the company's website that says one is better than the other. You stated an opinion that says one thing is better than the other but then you didn't tell anyone why you thought that XTR is better than XT.

So facts are only those things that are backed up by research done by an individual company? That's more funny than the typical goofiness that can be found on this forum.

What if that blurb is backed up by research by an individual company (your silly definition)?

So you think that people shouldn't be able to state facts without offering the basis for those facts?

That's funny too.

You can state what ever you want to. When challenged about these "facts" however, you need to present how you arrived at them. Otherwise they are called "opinions".

No, Hanks Post was fine. He was never questioned to back it up untill now...but its already done by other posts in this thread.

In my opinion? No.

Is it good? Yeah. Is it better? Yeah. Is it worth it? No.