OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's close. I've been following the compact crank threads and am about to replace my old Dura-Ace 39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price, however, Supergo has it @ $279. The FSA Energy compact seems to make more economic sense for half the price. Both FSA cranks have a 10 year warranty on the crank arms which is good as most crank failures happen at the pedal or spindle interface. Ritchey claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS compacts, Octalink only, but I have never read any comments from someone who has one. Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than Campy? Octalink is passing away and I am afraid that ISIS may as well if manufacturers move to outboard bearings. Also, does anyone using the FSA models have any chain rub issues. I read some review where the user had a lot of rub using the 34 tooth ring, but he may have been technically challenged. Thanks to all who offer useful information.
Ritchey claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS compacts, Octalink only, but I have never read any comments from someone who has one.
I picked up a short comment in the german tour magazine IIRC that called them "not too stiff". Looking at the groove I'd assume they are torsionally challenged. Ritchey AFAIK will switch to ISIS in 2005.
Quoted message said:
Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than Campy?
Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have the chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the big ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's simple geometry.
Seeing as it's a cross-over system, those combinations aren't really necessary. However, in some terrain, it results in LOTS of shifting - back and forth between 2-3 in the back for each shift between rings.
Tim McTeague said:
OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's close. I've been following the compact crank threads and am about to replace my old Dura-Ace 39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price, however, Supergo has it @ $279.
[snip] Also, does anyone using the FSA models have any chain rub issues.
Quoted message said:
I read some review where the user had a lot of rub using the 34 tooth ring, but he may have been technically challenged. Thanks to all who offer useful information.
drt-<< I picked up a short comment in the german tour magazine IIRC that called them "not too stiff". Looking at the groove I'd assume they are torsionally challenged. >><BR><BR>
Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would soon break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack thereof, when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have the chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the big ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's simple geometry.
Not within my experience. I have an even more radical set-up; MTB-compat cranks with 46/30. I can use all but the smallest cog (9-speed Campy) with no rub.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass. _`\(,_ | What are you on?" --Lance Armstrong (_)/ (_) |
Agreed.. it would be interesting to stick a crank and BB combo onto some sort of testing machine to actually test any flex. See how many degrees it flexes with a certain weight.. etc. Just to disprove (or even prove) the claims that people can feel cranks flexing.
"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
drt-<< I picked up a short comment in the german tour magazine IIRC that called them "not too stiff". Looking at the groove I'd assume they are torsionally challenged. >><BR><BR>
Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would soon break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack thereof, when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
FWIW, I had a similar thought last year while building up another road bike. I normally ride 53/39 + 23/13. I have no problem with hills but at age 59 do not use the big ring enough for cruising. Rather than buying a new compact crank I replaced the 53 with a 48 and later, as the old 39 became worn, replaced it with a 38, the smallest that fits a standard Shimano road crank. I'm quite happy with this combination and may put a 48 on my other bikes if I ever wear the 53 ring out...
Mike Yankee
(Address is munged to thwart spammers. To reply, delete everything after "com".)
Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would soon break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack thereof, when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
Peter Chisholm
That drives me crazy as well. With all the flex and can see, as well as feel, in the frame and tires how in the world can you notice ANY flex in the crank?
"richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5pRHc.62254$Oq2.19430@attbi_s52...
Quoted message said:
Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have the chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the big ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's simple geometry.
Seeing as it's a cross-over system, those combinations aren't really necessary. However, in some terrain, it results in LOTS of shifting - back and forth between 2-3 in the back for each shift between rings.
Well, that is what I was wondering about. As I only read one complaint about chain rub I assumed it could easily be a case of improper setup. But the 16 tooth difference made me worry about it. I would never use the big/big, small/small chainring/cassette crossover and rarely even get closer than two cogs to it. My chainstays are 41cm BTW.
"Tim McTeague" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's close. I've
been
Quoted message said:
following the compact crank threads and am about to replace my old
Dura-Ace
Quoted message said:
39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price, however, Supergo has it @ $279.
The
Quoted message said:
FSA Energy compact seems to make more economic sense for half the price. Both FSA cranks have a 10 year warranty on the crank arms which is good as most crank failures happen at the pedal or spindle interface. Ritchey claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS compacts, Octalink only, but I have never read any comments from someone who has one. Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than Campy? Octalink is passing away and I am afraid that ISIS may as well if manufacturers move to outboard bearings. Also, does anyone using the FSA models have any chain rub
issues.
Quoted message said:
I read some review where the user had a lot of rub using the 34 tooth
ring,
Quoted message said:
but he may have been technically challenged. Thanks to all who offer
useful
Quoted message said:
information.
Tim McTeague
I've used an FSA Energy compact crank for 500 miles now with good success.
No chain rub in any gear combo (41.5 chainstays), very good shifting. Easy set up and installation. The only thing, other than proper torque, that you have to pay attention to, is to move the front der down to the correct big ring clearance.
Agreed.. it would be interesting to stick a crank and BB combo onto some sort of testing machine to actually test any flex. See how many degrees it flexes with a certain weight.. etc. Just to disprove (or even prove) the claims that people can feel cranks flexing.
"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
drt-<< I picked up a short comment in the german tour magazine IIRC that called them "not too stiff". Looking at the groove I'd assume they are torsionally challenged. >><BR><BR>
Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would soon break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack thereof, when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Dear Mike,
In January, there was a long thread about testing what does or doesn't flex. Here's where Chalo Colina weighed in (a pardonable pun):
The question is whether the frame, the bearings, the bottom-bracket spindle, the pedal arms, or the spindles inside the pedals themselves are flexing, and how much (as well as how much flexing is real and how much is in the mind of the rider).
OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's close. I've been following the compact crank threads and am about to replace my old Dura-Ace 39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price, however, Supergo has it @ $279. The FSA Energy compact seems to make more economic sense for half the price. Both FSA cranks have a 10 year warranty on the crank arms which is good as most crank failures happen at the pedal or spindle interface. Ritchey claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS compacts, Octalink only, but I have never read any comments from someone who has one. Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than Campy? Octalink is passing away and I am afraid that ISIS may as well if manufacturers move to outboard bearings. Also, does anyone using the FSA models have any chain rub issues. I read some review where the user had a lot of rub using the 34 tooth ring, but he may have been technically challenged. Thanks to all who offer useful information.
Tim McTeague
I've got the FSA compact with campy 10s. The chain rubs the large chainring when in the small/small combo. Slight touch when small/ 2nd smallest.
"Tim McTeague" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... Ritchey
Quoted message said:
claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS compacts, Octalink only, but I have never read any comments from someone who has one. Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than Campy? Tim McTeague
I have received a pair of black, WCS 50/34 170mm compact cranks. I have put a weeks' worth of rides on them and I like them a lot. The one issue some people may have if they are like me, is i tend to have a lot of movement at the ankle so I rub my crank arms with the inside heel of my shoe. Since these cranks are hollowed on the outer surface in the middle, i tend to hit the groove every once in a while. Lots of metal around the pedal hole compared to the Ultegra I was using before, dunno if that is good or bad. It's painted black, with a machined surface extending from the pedal hole, over the grooves. If it were not for the much lower gearing, I could not tell the difference between these and my Ultegra or 105 on the other bike or the Sugino on my track bike.
My setup works very well in the big ring/2nd biggest cog. Although it's discouraged, it behaves well in the detestible big-big combo as well.
Tim McTeague said:
"richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5pRHc.62254$Oq2.19430@attbi_s52...
Quoted message said:
Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have the chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the big ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's simple geometry.
Seeing as it's a cross-over system, those combinations aren't really necessary. However, in some terrain, it results in LOTS of shifting - back and forth between 2-3 in the back for each shift between rings.
Well, that is what I was wondering about. As I only read one complaint about chain rub I assumed it could easily be a case of improper setup. But the 16 tooth difference made me worry about it. I would never use the big/big, small/small chainring/cassette crossover and rarely even get closer than two cogs to it. My chainstays are 41cm BTW.
"richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4D2Ic.31266$WX.25452@attbi_s51...
Quoted message said:
My setup works very well in the big ring/2nd biggest cog. Although it's discouraged, it behaves well in the detestible big-big combo as well.
Thanks, Richard, that is the sort of answer I was looking for. Now, my decision is whether to buy now or wait till next year to see if ISIS bottom brackets start going the way of Octalink when more manufacturers switch to outboard bearings (which seems to be the way they may be headed).
Why wait? Ultegra BBs are cheap. Get the crank you want now and get a spare BB to go with it, in case they become unavailable when Shimano forces us all to buy something different. Two BBs ought to last as long as you want to use the crank, i.e., until we all gotta have the next cool thing. If you never use the spare, someone will be glad to buy it from you on eBay.
"Saltytri" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Why wait? Ultegra BBs are cheap. Get the crank you want now and get a
spare
Quoted message said:
BB to go with it, in case they become unavailable when Shimano forces us
all to
Quoted message said:
buy something different. Two BBs ought to last as long as you want to use
the
Quoted message said:
crank, i.e., until we all gotta have the next cool thing. If you never
use the
Quoted message said:
spare, someone will be glad to buy it from you on eBay.
If I go that route is there any consensus on which BB type to get, Octalink vs ISIS? I think Ultegra BBs are very reliable but the FSA ISIS ones seem to get mixed reviews and Sheldon Brown has a scary story about one: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fsabb.html . Perhaps the new ones are more reliable.
There is lots material on this question. Do a google groups search and you'll find plenty of opinions. I vote for for Ultegra. In spite of a few detractors, Octalink is a well-established standard and the Ultegra version is long-lasting, easy to install, and works just fine. No flames please.
"Saltytri" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
There is lots material on this question. Do a google groups search and
you'll
Quoted message said:
find plenty of opinions. I vote for for Ultegra. In spite of a few
detractors,
Quoted message said:
Octalink is a well-established standard and the Ultegra version is long-lasting, easy to install, and works just fine. No flames please.
I have Googled this several times and seem to end up with analysis paralysis. Octalink is going the way of the Dodo, ISIS does not leave room for decent bearing size, etc., etc. So, I may wait it out a year and see what 2005 brings. My crank is an 8 speed era Dura-Ace and still has life in it. I wish I could say the same for my knees. A while back I added a 12-27 cassette and now keep trying to go to shift to a bigger cog only to find that I am already in the 27. Thus the interest in 34/50 cranks.
If I go that route is there any consensus on which BB type to get, Octalink vs ISIS?
Why not a square taper? They have been around for quite a while and I expect them to be available in the future, too. Not fancy stuff, of course, just simple cranks like Stronglight or Sugino. They do their job, I am quite happy with my 110mm BCD Stronglight and just bought an NOS RX100 for another bike.
