Let me answer your question with a few questions...

1. Are you at 10% or less body fat?

2. Can you feel a "normal" crankest deflect under the pressure of your mammoth power and pedal stroke?

3. Are you willing to accept the less that perfect shifting that you will get with "non-standard" chainrings?

4. Do you really like to impress people with your equipment?

(Note: I did just order the new Campy Record Carbon crankset for one of my bikes...all show baby, all show)

---

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

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

check this out

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/crank.shtml

Doesn't that crank cost around $750? Ouch. I thought I was nuts about spending money on equipment.

My vote goes to Ultegra even though I ride Dura Ace. They seem like the best bang for the buck. I'd also consider the shimano octalink splined Ritchey Cranks. They are different and really nice looking.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

Tom D. has demonstrated that there is little if any performance difference between cranks. That being said, I have FSA carbon cranks and their aerodynamic Lenticular TT Chain Rings. :-) These look slick as hell and shift like a dream. If you prefer silver, then the Shimano Team Issue Dura-Ace cranks with their SuperRings look very nice also.

How the heck do you decide which one to ride!! Nice problem to have, I'll bet.

I ditched the FSA 54t aero ring I bought, it weighs freaking 255+ gms !!!

Holy xxxx !!!

Do you know how much the Shimano SuperRings weigh?

I was at a bike swap meet type of deal and trying to decide whether to go with the DA or FSA myself. I was talking with my friend about the pros/cons as they were only 15.00 apart in price. A LBS employee heard us and stated, " Dude, go with the FSA. I tested them on my bike and they are so much stiffer than DA." Many people think like this and I believed at that time the FSA may be stiffer but after riding DA in the past didn't think it would be anything a human could quatify by riding alone. Then the bikesportmichigan article came out . . . and when I finally get my "slam" bike built up Ultegra all the way baby.

I appreciate everyoone's input. I was very concerned that the cost would not be justified in buying a carbon crank. I had seen the article by Tom some time ago, but couldn't remember the conclusions or where to find it. Thanks for the link. Yall have confirmed what I had almsot decided on my own and that is to save the money for something else like wheels. Once again thanks

Look, I hate to burst everybody's bubble, but the test methodology used in the bikesport crank test is so flawed it's practically worthless. There, I said it.

Tom was good enough to post an addendum to the test outlining one of my problems with the test, 'cause he is an honest, well meaning guy who is really trying to get good info out there. The problem is bad methodology=bad data=useless test= people drawing conclusions about products that have no basis in reality.

I have seen better (or at least differently) designed tests on the same products that came up with markedly different results.

What does this mean? It means that you can't take somebody's word for something, and you can't take test results on face value.

To me, this seems very much analagous to the discussions about biomechanics that go down on this board quite frequently: unless you can read a whole study, and have enough info to critically analyze the way in which that study was conducted, it is a leap of faith to accept the results at face value - and in general, people here don't. For some reason, though, when Tom or anyone else posts an obviously flawed analysis of a product, it doesn't seem to be subject to the same intellectual rigor as certain other topics.

This is interesting to me.

Several months ago, someone posed a question regarding an ergogenic aid and it's possible performance benefits. As I recall, The response to this enquiry was pretty overwhelmingly negative - never mind that this product has some pretty good peer-reviewed science behind it, or the fact that many pros are currently using it. The responses were overwhelmingly sceptical, even though most (if not all) of the respondants had never tried the product.

What's up with this? Why are people willing to believe a test on cranks but not one on cadence, and that they can save more time in the bike leg by wearing an aero helmet than they can by intelligent ergogenic supplementation?


Just curious...

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/

well i do not know what an " ergonuetronisticogenic suppleceuticalplemnetation" is, but there is this:

the fsa crank is a iffy use of carbon. not saying the thing isn't a decent lever to bolt your chainrings to, but it is also fair to say the piece is as much show as go, from an engineering perspective. most simply, it is NOT a carbon crank at all. it is an aluminum spine section wrapped in foam and dressed in a ( to some) cool looking skin of carbon to add stiffness. a crank employing carbon's attribute fully would be hollow. to me the fsa looks cheesey and trendy and most decidedly overdone - but that is me. i have a ritchey - it has a rounded i-beam cross section. good stuff, cheap, cold forged, simple, light and stiff in plenty measure. whatever.

Interesting point on the "from an engineering perspective." Too bad you are so off base.

The internal aluminum substructure in the FSA style cranks is non-structural in the loadbearing mode of the crank. It serves 2 purposes 1) it is an alignment aid, or mandrel, and 2) (more importantly) it acts as a torsion rod to prevent the #1 modality of failure in carbon cranks, which is the "twisting" out of the threaded inserts in your much vaunted hollow carbon cranks (all of which have have had a near 100% rate of eventual failure, by the way. How many Zipp cranks do you see around these days?)

The foam is there to insulate the outer layer of carbon fiber (there are 2, by the way) from galvanic corrosion, and to fill dead/hollow space with a less dense material (a quite common and accepted practice in composite engineering.)

The structural/loadbearing element of these cranks is entirely carbon. You can bend the aluminum spline in half with your bare hands.

Ergogenic is in the dictionary.

FSA, by the way, manufactures the Ritchey cranks and chainrings, and yes, they are quite nice.

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/

yah, OK, fredly. i did not say 100% carbon cranks were better, or even worth the packaging they are in. i said they are/were a more appropriate use of carbon. the bits about the internal spine could be true, or could as easily be partially true. one could as easily say it is a way to quickly and cheaply make a crank that costs more, and is about as heavy as, and about as stiff as an aluminum one out of fancier looking materials in hopes to capitalize on market infatuation of said material.

the consumer can be the judge. i will stand by my comments and do not think they are off base at all.

oh, and i love your patronizing too, BTW. i SAID the carbon was to add stiffness, and i never claimed the aluminum spine was the load bearer in the structure, etc. save the pomposity for somebody who is impressed by it.

all i said about engineering was that from that view the crank is as much show as go. -let's see - extraneous use of exotic materials to acheive an end result more or less equivalent o existing technology. what, again, is off base about that ??

give me a break.

125g=54t

"I hate to burst everybody's bubble..."
You're not bursting mine. I would at least like to have seen a force applied a few inches off centre from the crank centerline (as in typical pedal force), with appropriate measurements in appropriate places for both linear deflection and for twist. I suspect these arms are all strong in the direction of their long cross-section (the direction Tom measured), but can have significant variation in resistance to torque around their axes (because they are much thinner side to side). Experimenting with pedal-induced Q factor would be interesting as well.
But Tom's not doing too badly for a bike shop... at least he's trying to gather some facts instead of being content to wallow in misinformation. He measured, and he documented what he measured (it was clear to me, anyway). I commend him for that, and think others can stand on the shoulders of his work for the next round of measurements.
You mentioned seeing other test data... do you have links?

You nailed 2 of the problems with the test. Another big one was the failure to include any measurement of spider deflection.

I'm 100% with you on the kudos due Tom. If other bike shops go the extra mile, he goes 10k.

I would love to show you the test results, but they were all stuff that I saw when I was working for a component manufacturer that did a LOT of in house testing. At one time I had a great collection of broken component pictures on my desktop, along with fatigue cycle numbers. It was pretty scary.

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/

If you read my reply as patronizing, so be it. I don't have tremendous patience for posts that make bold statements with no facts to back them up, or worse, claim facts in evidence that are blatantly false. If you say something is manufactured in a certain way, because of a certain reason, you have an obligation to at least get some of what you say right. If you are wrong, you should expect to get called on your BS. I have been on the receiving end when I got stuff wrong, and it's tough to suck it up and take it. Following up with a post that says "I didn't say that" doesn't work very well when the original is still there for everyone to see.

If you had originally said:
"the crank is as much show as go. -let's see - extraneous use of exotic materials to acheive an end result more or less equivalent o existing technology..."
I would have responded differently, but you didn't say that. You made unfounded and demonstrably incorrect statements regarding a product you clearly know very little about. That's not patronizing, that's the truth. Sorry.

And "ergogenic" IS in the dictionary :0)

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 in the H are you talking about fredly? "bold statement" ?? "unfounded and demonstrably incorrect. . . . " what again ?? are you miffed because i didn't call the spine a "mandrel" ?? i made an accurate description of the thing, and offered a few views on it. it is NOT a carbon crank - it is a spine covered in foam wrapped in a skin. it costs a lot more, and offers little more, if anything, compared to conventional cranks. it is a product clearly hoping to capitalize on a market infatuation with a material - one could say it would not even exist without this market preoccupation, given its limited benfit over the prevailing norm. i made no bold anything nor any threw any BS whatsoever. what in the hell is your problem ?

Hi TTN,
First, please calm down. I'm not miffed, I'm not calling you names, or resorting to profanity, and you need to chill out.

Second, please re-read your original post. Every time you feel compelled to defend yourself, you get farther and farther afield from your original post, which is what I responded to.

Thirdly,

"it is NOT a carbon crank - it is a spine covered in foam wrapped in a skin. it costs a lot more, and offers little more, if anything, compared to conventional cranks. it is a product clearly hoping to capitalize on a market infatuation with a material - one could say it would not even exist without this market preoccupation, given its limited benfit over the prevailing norm. i made no bold anything nor any threw any BS whatsoever. what in the hell is your problem ? "

Is total BS, and that's my problem, if I have one. You are making bold, grandiloquent statements, with absolutely no supporting evidence, and you expect people to take them on face value. Sorry if my refusal to do so gets on your nerves.

You started this entire fiasco by claiming an "engineering perspective," and you have to meet that burden when you make statements if your argument is to have any validity at all. Saying "it is NOT a carbon crank - it is a spine covered in foam wrapped in a skin.." merely proves to the world that you do not have a cogent argument to make; the statement is absurd on it's face. What IS a carbon crank? Here's a hint - there IS no such thing. The proper terminology is "composite crank," as in "made of many parts." To proclaim a hoax based on the presence of materials other than carbon in a crank displays a massive lack of understanding on your part. "Engineering perspective", remember?

"...i made an accurate description of the thing, and offered a few views on it..." is a statement I will not accept. Your description of the product was clearly fundamentally innaccurate. Please re-read your original post.

"it costs a lot more, and offers little more, if anything, compared to conventional cranks"

This may well be true. I have little interest in the argument, truthfully. Interestingly, while this is the part of your argument that interests me the least, it is also the best supported, as it is based on nothing but subjective analysis.I will tell you that I have a friend who broke an average of 3 DA cranksets per year before switching to the FSAs. He has now been on the same crankset for almost 2 years. This product certainly offered something to him.

"it is a product clearly hoping to capitalize on a market infatuation with a material - one could say it would not even exist without this market preoccupation, given its limited benfit over the prevailing norm. "

One could say that, but then one would be trumpeting falsehoods to the world from their nether orifice. Thankfully, I do not share your cycnicism on this topic. I also am personally well acquainted with the entire staff of the FSA R&D department, and can thus merely ignore this statement as the cycnical ignorance it is.

Failing a reasoned response, I eagerly await your flames,


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/

fredly, i went back and looked at that original post. it looks fine to me, and i will stand by it. 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.

it appears you have a vested interest of some sort in this product - care to tell us what that is ?

your point about the thing being strong is well taken. certainly for the multitudes of guys who regularly break their DA cranks the fsa would be a good choice !

From what I have read and seen, the DA 10 speed cranks (with aero chainrings of course ... which are 1/2 the weight of the FSA's) and it's integrated BB blows the FSA out of the water, hands down, FSA is all flash - zero benefit IMHO.

Why does'nt Shimano use carbon bike compenents I wonder? Al. is king.

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 !

i think the c-dale raven looked like this, btw. it stunk.

just curious.