I’m about to upgrade to a DA get-up on my P3 and was just curious why Cervelo specs FSA team issue cranks on all of their top-end bikes. Even the CSC guys are on the FSA cranks. Is there a functional reason for this or just a price/supply thing?
Keith
I am really glad you asked that question…
Good question. I would suggest there is a price/supply element to the answer. That said, they are nice cranks. I like 'em. I’ve used and continue to use them. They’re good.
probably because they are way cheaper wholesale OE than Shimano DA. yet the ‘carbon factor’ allows them to still be percieved as ‘high end’.
in the end, a bit more profit; or a lower retail price for the complete bike (which means more bikes will likely be sold, which also means a bit more profit). the folks that make cervelos have to make a living.
Thanks. I fully support Cervelo in making a profit and selling bikes at the best price possible for customers so that’s not an issue to me. I just was curious with the reasoning behind their decision and if for some reason the FSA cranks are functionally better on Cervelos than the DA. Price-wise, the DA cranks + bb cups are about $30-40 more than the FSA team issue + titanium bb, which basically means they cost the same to me…
or to keep the price at set price points
.
While we are responsible for some of the parts spec of team CSC bikes, the cranks are Riis’ decision. He really likes them, and to his credit he also continually pushes suppliers to make even better stuff so that helps everybody. And since we want to spec our team bikes as close to the original team spec as possible, we spec the Team issue cranks as well.
FSA makes a great product. FSA’s two carbon cranksets that have intgrated BB (the MegaEXO SL-K and K Force) are on par or nicer than Dura-Ace IMHO. The SL-K is about the same weight as Dura-Ace and is cheaper when you consider that FSA includes their BB cups and Dura-Ace they are extra. The K-Force is lighter than Dura-Ace for about $50 more than Dura-Ace. I haven’t riden the Dura-Ace, but every set of FSA cranks I have had are as stiff as I need. Even the older ones that use a octalink BB are stiff enough that I don’t rub my chainrings on the ft derailier like I do with every other crankset I’ve used except the new XT set on my mtb.
I guess they are spec’d by Cervelo for the same reason that one comapny uses Mavic Wheels and another uses Velocity, Profile vs. Syncros, Fox vs. Rock Shox…
Because they are significantly cheaper, they are lighter when paired with a good BB, and even some serious cyclists cannot feel the slight advantage of stiffness that a DA has to offer.
While I still think the DA crank is a skoosh better, i don’t think the difference is significant enough to warrant increasing the retail of a bike by $200.
Agreed…although the K-Force turned me off because its crank arm is straight. I prefer a tapered arm as in the DA or FSA Team Issue.
I am a big fan of the MegaEXO SL-K, have a set waiting to be installed on my new s-works frame.
Kind of OT, but have you guys noticed that almost every bike in ads in Triathlete has Zipp’s? Lots of free advertising for Zipp.
It funny that you mentioned that because I was thinking the same thing when I was thumbing through the May issue of Traithlete last night.
although the K-Force turned me off because its crank arm is straight.
Yes, IMO this is a big design flaw. With clipless pedal systems and how close they place the rider’s foot to the crank, with most people it is critical to have some ankle space by having an angled crank arm. I don’t understand what the straight crank maker(s) are even thinking. Do the designers even ride a (modern) bike? The last straight crank (that I recall) was the Campy Record and Super Record Series, last made in the 1980s.
Thanks for replying Gerard. That makes sense and I guess like most things, people just like what they like…even Riis. The CSC guys aren’t doing too bad on them either ; )
Keith
Its becoming more of a problem. With a set bottom bracket shell width and the newer outboard bearings something has to give, either the crankarms dont angle as much or your feet will be further apart, or the chainrings will be further from the bike giving worse shifting. Every newer generation of shimano since square taper has been worse for ankle clearance and / or had a wider q factor.
Styrrell
Yeah. I haven’t used the new DA 10-speed, have you? So you are saying they have even worse clearance that DA (octalink BB) 9-speed?
(I could see the difference between octalink and square taper, but didn’t know ankle space got even worse with the DA 2-piece 10-spd. crankset.)
I haven’t tried the new DA either but just by eyeballing the taper in the arm, it looks like there adequate clearance (for me at least…). I’m not excited about the external bearings pushing the Q factor out but I’m also not sure it really does. Even with the 9sp cranks if you look there is a gap between the bb and crank arm. With the 10sp cranks the gap is basically filled with the bearing and the crank arm is pretty flush against it. It may be a tad wider than the 9sp though…I haven’t pulled out a ruler to measure the difference.
I have read q factor for DA 10-speed is within 4 mm of DA 9-speed (10-spd. is 4 mm wider), but that is not nearly as much a concern for me as actual ankle clearance (between inside bone and nearest spot on crankarm)…
Lemming – why are you selling you new DA cranks?