"snip" i am curious - how well would a "composite" frame made from an aluminum skeleton, covered in foam, and wrapped in a carbon weave skin be ?? particulaly if it cost more, and was heavier ( thanks, gary), and was probably just as stiff but according to at least some tests was actually more flexy than current offerings in hollow carbon or aluminum??? but hey - it IS strong ! "

The great thing about this is just how specious an argument you are making - it perfectly parallels your comments so far.

The goal of good engineering is to use the appropriate materials to do a given job. Your example of a bike frame invalidating a construction method from consideration for another application, is, of course, absurd.

By the way, if you have an example of a well done test showing the results you are citing, I would love to see it... (rhetorical comment of course - you don't, but please don't let that stand in the way of your bad argument.)

The FSA CHAINRINGS are heavier, but you would, of course have to have read Gary's post to have understood that.

MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

snip - "i will encourage YOU, sir, to reread the post without your defensive and aggressive and challenging demeanor, and - you know, just read what i said. if you like, remove the word "engineering", since it seems to offend you or perhaps you place more meaning in the word than do i. anyway, i did not call you out as offering BS, - nor did i misinterpret your words and add to them in my own version of same."

Frankly, I think that you and all the members of this forum deserve a "challenging" read of their posts. That's part of why I am on this forum.

I don't see how you can say I am misinterpreting you - I have been parenthetically citing you throughout this discussion.

"Engineering" has a meaning. If you don't mean it, don't use it: the whole context of your original post was framed by that term. If you had said "look, from a layman's perspective, knowing very little about materials science or the actual construction of this product..."

I do not have a vested interest in this product, nor am I unaware of it's shortcomings - notice I am not disputing anything Gary has said. I do work in the bike industry, and was at one time employed by FSA.

AHA, you say!!

Sorry to burst your bubble. My parting with them was not particularly amicable, and I don't have any particularly good reason to stick up for them. If you would care to listen some time, I could certainly give you some valid engineerig critiques of this and most of their products, ditto their competitors. That isn't the point, of course. My original purpose was not to stick up for FSA, but to point out the factual innaccuracies in your post. Please, by all means attack the company: there is plenty there to go after. Just please do it with some semblance of logic and thought.

Of course, in best high-school debate style, you have turned this around so that I have a hidden agenda - kind of like your nonsense about the cranks being a 100% marketing gimmick (I paraphrase loosely, obviously.) This is, of course, the last refuge of a losing argument.

Please, if anything I have said is BS, and you can logically support that conclusion, by all means call it out. I would hope that you would (although I doubt that you can...)


MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

First off to hell with how it performs - I think FSA cranks are ugly and would never put one on any of my bikes. Second, is that new Record Carbon crankset I ordered a aluminum shaft with black woven decor? Third...more of an idea...now, if I was to take a titanium spoke, wrap in in foam, carbon, aluminum and more titanium with a carbon weave....would that be stronger and lighter? (maybe only if I had an ISIS BB?)



And I challange ANY ONE...to NAME a person and BACKUP with facts PROOF that ANYONE has ever "Broken" more than one Dura Ace crank in a LIFETIME let alone a year (with out the help of ignorant crashing skills or the support of a wayward motor vehicle). Something sounds a bit fishy with that one to me



.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

"aluminum shaft with black woven decor"

That was one person's interpretation, but not what I read from fredly. He said (paraphrasing liberally) that the significant strength comes from the carbon, with other materials being present not so much for stiffness as to create a substrate for the carbon.
I can't say which one is correct, but in my opinion they are clearly saying two different things.

"And I challange ANY ONE...to NAME a person and BACKUP with facts PROOF that ANYONE has ever "Broken" more than one Dura Ace crank in a LIFETIME let alone a year (with out the help of ignorant crashing skills or the support of a wayward motor vehicle). Something sounds a bit fishy with that one to me "

Gee, do you want his phone number? how about his email address? He happens to be a personal friend and a gazillion time national champion, who also weighs right around 200 lbs. He breaks - yes BREAKS cranks at the arms. He runs a 56t chainring on his road bike, and I can't even imagine the wattage this guy puts out...

PS. broken DA cranks aren't that unusual. I used to see them occasionally as a wrench.

Your BS meter needs re-calibration.

By TTN's standards, ANY crank with aluminum inserts for the threads and bb interface isn't a carbon crank. THAT'S MY POINT!
(and by the way, Campy has had some problems with the inserts pulling out of their carbon cranks. I have personally seen a couple of examples. It will be interesting to see how these cranks hold up over time. I hope they do well - I'm a huge Campy fan.)

MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

wow fredly. now i am " setting standards" ? and to think, you still claim you are not putting words in my mouth ! always so fun to try to have a casual conversation with an engineer, or at least with a guy who have to prove to himself and others that he is one.

anyway, the phrase " all carbon" is acommon one in bike speak, and is well enuf understood. tell me, do you go around correcting everybody who talks about their "all carbon" fork ?? it means the thing is - you know, all carbon and not carbon wrapped around something or bonded to something orwhathaveyou. it does NOT imply the fork doesn't use an insert to hold the wheel in.

etc etc. you cannot stop from misinterpreting what was a valid point and commentary, so this is it. my original statement was but a couple lines long, and tho you claim not to, you have extrpolated it into an entire thread ! you continue to say i am wrong about what the crank IS, when i am in fact correct, plain and simple. you take accurate conversational statements and dissect them into engineering treatises. you seem completely unable to grasp that there is more at work in the marketing of a high end bike product than. . . . . . .engineering. i say the product has a large market driven appeal with carbon-lust and you say i just said the product is a sham. do you see how it your OWN insistance on misreading and misdirecting materail that makes you such a pain to have a conversation with ? gee, nobody has ever said THAT about an engineer before, i bet.

here is a little joke for you : what do you call three overly verbose , arrogant, and patronizingly hostile eggheads wildly intent on reshaping casual conversation into technical arguments they can bully their way around in with grand self-styled bluster- buried up to their necks in sand ??? .....

Well this has certainly been an entertaining thread!

t-t-n insists on writing his own dictionary and re-interpreting things that are still sitting there for all to read, and fredly is too anal retentive to just shrug and walk away.

For the record, fredly, you won this one on a TKO in the first round. Cool Hand t-t-n just refuses to leave the ring (I hope that reference doesn't date me too badly).

So what else can we argue about?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

>So what else can we argue about?

Nobody can eat 50 eggs!

snip -
"Well this has certainly been an entertaining thread!

t-t-n insists on writing his own dictionary and re-interpreting things that are still sitting there for all to read, and fredly is too anal retentive to just shrug and walk away.

For the record, fredly, you won this one on a TKO in the first round. Cool Hand t-t-n just refuses to leave the ring (I hope that reference doesn't date me too badly)."

To be honest, I was getting kind of a sadistic pleasure out of the thread, but there was no way I was going to follow up today. My apologies for "carrying" the other corner into the later rounds.

I have walked away.

I love Cool Hand Luke.

MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

What else can we argue about...?



CLYDESDALES RULE!!!



Take that you freakin' skinny bastards.

---

"Nobody gets out of here alive."

And I didn't even have to pay anything to watch it...

I'm only 170 lbs, you fat b@st@rd, but after I kick sand in your face, I can outrun you...

The cool thing about Clydesdales is that they start in the wave AFTER my ancient butt, and I don't have to bike through them like an obstacle course, the way I have to do with all the young dorks who don't realize that some of the geezers are actually pretty fast.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

i just have to laugh that a war of words started over a smooth long shaft. oooohhh baby!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

If you want carbon cranks, get either the Cat Carbon Bikes Cheetah cranks (with square spindle) or the Colnagos. Yes, they cost a mint, but they're done right. Neither of these companies put their name on anything until they are right. I am not particularly saying that about Campy at all, as I have not seen the specs on those.

If it were me, I would go with a pair of aluminum Ritcheys or Shimano (for the Shimano inclined), Stronglight, or Tiso. I wouldn't waste the money on a carbon crank that is below the price point of $700, myself (unless I got them for wholesale).

I ride Sweet Wings, which are made of chromoly, and weigh a little over 450 grams with bottom bracket (outboard bearings) and integrated, splined spindle (from 1996). With the exception of the material, it sounds like a certain maker is doing something AWFULLY familiar...

And on one other subject, carbon can be done right. It is just expensive as hell. Think you can't find a pair of carbon drop bars that can have an aerobar attached? Think again- Kestrel makes a pair for $200, but Schmolke Carbon makes two (for $370 U.S. incl. shipping for their cheap model) that are lots lighter than the Kestrel bar. I am not saying that carbon wrapped around a skeleton is not "done right", but it is a poor man's use of carbon, and frankly carbon not done to it's highest potential.

I franly can't wait until the carbon lust passes, or that the carbon "done right" gets cheaper to manufacture. This is why you won't see me on a pair of carbon cranks. I do like the carbon bikes- they are "done right".

yeah, what he said ( bunnyman).

answer to quiz: not enuf sand. :)

Not to take this even further...but I would like to know how Lance Armstrong can sleep at night knowing that with his huge strength he may snap his Dura Ace cranks at any given moment. I just have a very hard time thinking that a "National Blah Blah Blah" is busting cranks all over the place - and the peloton is not having any issues.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

I'm about 99% sure the Cipo is riding DA this year. That is probably why he didn't make it into the tour, the danger of his taking out the peleton when he busted the cranks is too great.

Have you ever heard the little story about the chain??The chain is only as strong as the weakest link,how can you break cranks without breaking thousands of chains?

So after all was said.....I have a new Tri bike that is spec'd and delivered from the manufacturer with the FSA Carbon Pro Crank...I've put 200 miles on the bike over the last week, and I have to say that I can't tell the difference from the Ultegra cranks I have ridden for years...The only difference I can feel is more power in the aero position because my bike is now a Tri geometry bike....

However, I am now almost afraid to ride the carbon cranks based on these posts!! Should I have swapped out the cranks for Ultegra??

I wouldn't give it a second thought. I have rode DA in past and still have a bike with DA. However, I ride the same FSA cranks that you have every day. I've probably got about 4k on mine and honestly cannot tell a difference between the FSA and DA.

I wouldn't worry about the FSA cranks. Although they don't use carbon in an optimal way according to the purists, the internal skeleton should make them more resistant, or at least give some warning prior, to the inserts abruptly going their separate ways.

I really wouldn't call anything that expects carbon and aluminum to happily coexist good design. I ended up with FSA since it seemed to be the best compromise out there and Negmass weren't (and still aren't) available. For god's sake I had no choice but to get carbon since I have to have carbon cranks on my carbon bike to go with the carbon saddle, carbon seatpost, carbon bars, carbon wheels, carbon cable casings, carbon bottle cages, campy carbon ergo lever and r.der, carbon ahead cap, carbon seat clamp...

Thanks for the reassurance (my boys thank you also)...I'd be upset to have to change out the FSAs...They look so darn cool on my all black Felt S22!!!

I did not necessarily say that FSA carbon cranks are not any good, I just only said that I would buy Dura Ace or any of the other aluminium ones before the FSA ones.

That being said- there is NOTHING wrong with them if they came delivered on your bike. If you can get them at a good price point- there's absolutetly nothing wrong with them.

What I mean by "carbon done right" is chiefly that- carbon done right. Nothing wrong with skeletons, but the problem I have is that they are not much lighter or particularly that much better than the aluminum ones they replace. I even agree that the spine could make the crank safer. They do look cool, and they may even be a smidge stiffer.

Carbon and aluminum is perfectly safe if the carbon is insulated by fibreglass. Carbon/ ti or carbon/stainless is better, but would cost a lot more to fabricate.

A good portion of your "carbon" handlebars (particularly aero bars) are carbon-wrapped aluminum. As long as they are not outrageously expensive, I would own a pair.

And as I say- If you gotta have 'em, there's a lot dumber purchases than an FSA crank. They are a quality product.

I would not ride an all-carbon (no spine or mandrel) crank unless it was put out by someone who knows their carbon. This is why I choose Colnago and Cat Carbon Bikes over all of them, as they do very intimate testing of their products.

Of course we now have Dura Ace 2004 which changes everything. I'm not sure if it is a better system than traditional cranks/bb but it is definately in a different boat than the carbon stuff that FSA is putting out.

If Shimano made a carbon crankset I'm sure it would be on par with the best. They seem to understand that just because a product can be made out of carbon it does not necessarily mean that the product SHOULD be made out of carbon for best results. This is precisely why Shimano favours aluminum. Campy, on the other hand, is making their 2004 Record group with lots of 'cosmetic carbon' which has carbon pieces all over each compenents except brakes and hubs - whoopy!!

I believe that FSA is only around because they offer a 'flashy carbon product' which seems 'better' because it is carbon. Are carbon frames 'better' than aluminum? I think not. I dont think that 'better' is the correct term. I think that 'cosmetically different' is about the only term I would use with the FSA cranks.

Here's a question for the FSA fans:

If those same FSA cranks were made out of aluminum and weighed the same as Dura Ace would you still buy them??

"Of course we now have Dura Ace 2004 which changes everything."

It sure does. Now there's no way I'd consider going with Dura Ace. Those cranks/rings are the most gawd-awful, ugly ass, hunks of crap I've ever seen.

Maybe they are the cat's ass "from an engineering perspective", but come on, we all know it's all about looks. Safety and performance be damned, the gear's gotta LOOK good!!



Oh, I agree with an earlier post, fat ass Clysdesdales rule!!!