FSA Compact Carbon Crank--First Look

"Mark A. Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

After lusting for a carbon crankset for a while I finally
broke down and bought the FSA Compact Carbon. I got mine
from Dave Lettieri at FasTrack Bicycles.

Installation

Very straightforward. It is replacing a Campy Record
39/53. FSA doesn't offer a Campy tapered version so I also
had to get an ISIS bottom bracket to go with it. Dave
recommended the Platinum (Cro-Moly) version because he
thinks it is stiffer and more durable. It seems like a
decent enough bottom bracket but wish I could have left
the Record one on. FSA included installation instructions
with the kit but no torque spec's. I was able to download
them from the web site though. I also had to lower the
front derailleur a bit due to the smaller chain ring plus
readjust it a bit.

Riding

I was getting some creaking at first. I was very careful
during installation to do things according to directions.
I used anti seize on the cup threads and Phil grease on
the ISIS spindles. After a couple of rides however this
went away. If these really are stiffer than my record
crankset I can't tell. I have ridden this with an 11-23
and 12-25. I used the 12-25 to go up a very difficult
climb outside of Davis, CA where I live called Mix Canyon
Road. The last mile exceeds 20% grade. The 34-25 helped a
lot getting up this thing. I had planned to use the 11-23
most of the time with the exception of really steep climbs
but may just leave the 12-25 on unless I find myself
missing the
11. While the lower gears of the 34 are noticeable, I had
a hard time noticing a difference between the 50
vs.53 tooth big ring. It took me a little while to
get used to the bigger jump between chainrings when
anticipating shifts but am getting used to it. The
front derailleur is working noticeably harder to go
from the 34 to the 50 but handles it reasonably well.
If you are upgrading to this from a triple you may
want to just leave your triple front derailleur on.

Summary

So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and
greater gear range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite
as good as the 39/53, and front shifts for me feel more
awkward due to the greater change in chainrings. If you
are already running Campy 10 speed like me you can get
about the same range I'm getting with the 12-25 by using
the 13-29 cassette with a 39/53--and for a lot less money.
Of course you could go really low with this thing and use
a 13-29 cassette. It would give you about the same low
gear as a 30-25 without having to use an ego-crushing
triple crankset, but if you need gears that low my
recommendation is get the triple.

Mark Clark

Mark,

Thanks for the report. Mine is due in at the bike shop on
Friday. I hadn't thought about having to lower the
drailleur. Makes sense, though. I'm gonna use mine with a
12x27 cassette.

Another less expensive way to go is to keep the standard
front chainrings, throw on a mtb rear derailleur and you can
get up to a 32t rear cassette. That'll take you up a wall
with a 38 or 39t front ring.

Bob C.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:10:57 -0400, "psycholist" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the report. Mine is due in at the bike shop on
Friday. I hadn't thought about having to lower the
drailleur. Makes sense, though. I'm gonna use mine with a
12x27 cassette.

Mark's Campy double front derailleur will shift the 50/34
FSA chainrings better than anything Shimano has. If your
front derailleur is STI indexed, a DA front will work best.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the report. Mine is due in at the bike shop on
Friday. I

hadn't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thought about having to lower the drailleur. Makes sense,
though. I'm gonna use mine with a 12x27 cassette.

Mark's Campy double front derailleur will shift the
50/34 FSA chainrings better than anything Shimano has.
If your front derailleur is STI indexed, a DA front will
work best.

We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-
speed DuraAce the other day, and it worked, by all accounts,
fantastic. Everyone here was blown away with how nicely it
performed. Definitely in the future for my own bike...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

Mark A. Clark <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Summary

: So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and
: greater gear range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite
: as good as the 39/53, and front shifts for me feel more
: awkward due to the greater change in chainrings.

For me the benefit of a compact setup is not having to front-
shift to find a comfortable gear. With a 48/36 and a 12-27
10spd cassette I can maintain a comfortable cadence in the
big ring for anything between 12 to 35mph, so I just stay in
the big ring most of the time.

- mark

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the report. Mine is due in at the bike shop
on Friday. I

hadn't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thought about having to lower the drailleur. Makes
sense, though. I'm gonna use mine with a 12x27
cassette.

Mark's Campy double front derailleur will shift the
50/34 FSA chainrings better than anything Shimano has.
If your front derailleur is STI indexed, a DA front will
work best.

We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-
speed DuraAce

the

Quoted message said:

other day, and it worked, by all accounts, fantastic.
Everyone here was blown away with how nicely it performed.
Definitely in the future for my own bike...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

Funny, but I just put mine on last week. I rode it 40 miles
the first time and 75 miles today. I LOVE it! I put on a
Record 12-23 in the back and it shifts just great. I also
got the platinum ti isis bb, and the only issue I had was
due to my short chainstays. The chain line isn't perfect,
but I get no rubbing in any gear and it shifts great. I went
from a 39/52 13x26, which didn't have a big enough top gear.
The FSA setup gives me a bigger top gear, smaller low gear,
and much better steps along the way, with only one crossover
and NO duplicate gears!

Cat who couldn't be happier ;

Why not use 48-34 instead? That's exactly the same tooth
difference as 53-39. And TA make a really nice matched
pair of lightweight chainrings in that size - see --Open ↗
www.schwabcycles.com/cgi/wc.dll?SCHWAB2~catalog~DETAIL~18-
44 for a photo.

Nick

Mark A. Clark said:

So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and
greater gear range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite
as good as the 39/53, and front shifts for me feel more
awkward due to the greater change in chainrings.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:27:10 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction

Bicycles said:

We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano
10-speed DuraAce the other day, and it worked, by all
accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was blown away with
how nicely it performed. Definitely in the future for my
own bike...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

Once you find the best front derailleur, the FSA big ring is
the best I've used for this application. It doesn't care
what crankarm is holding it. Neither the Stronglight nor
Vuelta SE rings work as well.

I have an XTR 900 front derailleur, which was made for rings
of this size, that works marvelously but it it's a triple
derailleur. I doubt it is STI compatible.

Cat Dailey said:

The FSA setup gives me a bigger top gear, smaller low
gear, and much better steps along the way, with only one
crossover and NO duplicate gears!

I happen to have the FSA on one bike like yours but any 110
bolt pattern crank works fine and costs much less. My wife
runs a Sugino XD, my tandem an old Specialized, and my CAAD4
a Stronglight Granfundo. I looked through a box of old
cranks at a local shop and found a Ritchey Logic/$20 and
Sugino GT/$10. The conversion to 50/34 need not be costly.
48/34 and 52/36 are nice too.

"Paul Kopit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cat Dailey said:

The FSA setup gives me a bigger top gear, smaller low
gear, and much better steps along the way, with

only

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one crossover and NO duplicate gears!

I happen to have the FSA on one bike like yours but any
110 bolt pattern crank works fine and costs much less. My
wife runs a Sugino XD, my tandem an old Specialized, and
my CAAD4 a Stronglight Granfundo. I looked through a box
of old cranks at a local shop and found a Ritchey
Logic/$20 and Sugino GT/$10. The conversion to 50/34 need
not be costly. 48/34 and 52/36 are nice too.

I guess "costly" is a matter of degrees. And I happen to be
very, very partial to carbon fiber ;>

Cat

Mark A. Clark said:

11. While the lower gears of the 34 are noticeable, I had
a hard time noticing a difference between the 50
vs.53 tooth big ring.

Well, it's not that big a difference. Plus a 50/12 is still
a big gear. In fact a 48/12 is big enough for most people --
identical to the 53/13 top (4:1) which has been a standard
for many years.

The main reason to have a 50-53T ring is to be able to use a
13t cog. Drivetrain friction increases as cogs get smaller,
and the ramp-up is quick below 14T. Smaller cogs were the
product of a misguided attempt to save weight. I bet the
drivetrain friction matters more.

Quoted message said:

It took me a little while to get used to the bigger jump
between chainrings when anticipating shifts but am getting
used to it. The front derailleur is working noticeably
harder to go from the 34 to the 50 but handles it
reasonably well. If you are upgrading to this from a
triple you may want to just leave your triple front
derailleur on.

34-48T rings would have the same 14T gap as a
traditional 39-53T setup, and with a 12t cog you'd still
have a 4:1 top gear.

Quoted message said:

Summary

So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and
greater gear range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite
as good as the
39/53, and front shifts for me feel more awkward due to
the greater change in chainrings. If you are already
running Campy 10 speed like me you can get about the
same range I'm getting with the 12-25 by using the 13-
29 cassette with a 39/53--and for a lot less money. Of
course you could go really low with this thing and use
a 13-29 cassette. It would give you about the same low
gear as a 30-25 without having to use an ego-crushing
triple crankset, but if you need gears that low my
recommendation is get the triple.

I see nothing ego-crushing about a triple. I often gear down
and spin right past people who are trying to stomp up a big
hill in a 39/25. Plus I can shift between inner and middle
rings, and alternate between sitting and standing. At the
other end, the 42-52T shift is more usable because of the
smaller gap. So when I need a bigger shift, I just use the
front, and when I want a little one, I use the rear. I use
both almost equally, while other riders seem locked into the
idea of two distinct ranges. To me there's no downside
whatsoever to a triple -- it's all pluses.

Wide-double cranks do have a great niche -- improving
gearing on older STI double-ring bikes, where converting to
a triple is cost-prohibitive. Of course the FSA isn't cheap,
but a 110/74 BCD Sugino with 34-48 rings could be a great
problem solver, for example. If I acquired a 10-15 year old
bike with a double, this is exactly what I'd do.

Otherwise, just get a triple.

Matt O.

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles said:

We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano
10-speed DuraAce the other day, and it worked, by all
accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was blown away with
how nicely it performed. Definitely in the future for my
own bike...

Mike, why not a triple?

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles said:

We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano
10-speed DuraAce the other day, and it worked, by all
accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was blown away with
how nicely it performed. Definitely in the future for my
own bike...

Mike, why not a triple?

Matt O.

Because the "image" of a $5000 Trek Madone, the Lance bike,
with a triple does not work. Ego and image are very strong
and over ride logic.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Russell Seaton
"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles said:

We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano
10-speed DuraAce the other day, and it worked, by all
accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was blown away with
how nicely it performed. Definitely in the future for my
own bike...

Mike, why not a triple?

Matt O.

Because the "image" of a $5000 Trek Madone, the Lance bike,
with a triple does not work. Ego and image are very strong
and over ride logic.

And because DA10 doesn't come in a triple. I've thought though that the next modification to the DA crank (FC7803) will take the "not cut-out" look to the extreme and will have a fully solid-looking face so other riders won't be able to tell how many chainrings are on the inside. What a marketing coup de grace that would be - you could have a bike with a crank that *looked* like Lance's (or Jan's or Iban's) but that functioned more like what a middle-aged guy with fragile knees really needs (thinking of myself here, not Mike... for whom a compact carbon crank would certainly be a more astute selection).

See you at Primavera next week!

Russell Seaton said:

Because the "image" of a $5000 Trek Madone, the Lance
bike, with a triple does not work. Ego and image are very
strong and over ride logic.

Whatever turns your crank, I guess...

Matt O.