|Weyless Team Carbon Crankset||TSuprano|
Mar 27, 2003 5:56 PM
|First of has anyone ever used one of these cranksets. I am interested in the quality and the ride characteristics, especially with how it compares to a FSA carbon team crankset. They almost look identical, but the Supergo brand is over $100 less.|
|re: Weyless Team Carbon Crankset||Akirasho|
Mar 27, 2003 6:24 PM
|... never used 'em... and indeed, they could even come from the same company and molds (maybe different cloth and resins) and have no idea of how stiff they truly are (I wish there was an independent entity that weighed and tested cycling gear on a consistent basis), but for $50 more than the cost of the Weyless (sans S&H) you can get the FSA Teams from Total Cycling...
... again, fundamentally, we're like puppets on someone's string... sigh.
Be the bike.
|seems like a good choice but...||Frith|
Mar 27, 2003 7:07 PM
|Any idea if it would be possible to get rid of those funky decals? |
I'd prefer it if it didn't look like I was riding for team supergo!
|I'm tempted, too.||look271|
Mar 27, 2003 7:44 PM
|I have the same reservations as you. FWIW-there are FSA's being sold on E-bay for $219. Don't have a 175 or I'd grab one.|
|Besides weight, are carbon cranks stiffer than...||Horace Greeley|
Mar 28, 2003 7:24 AM
|D/A or Record (not carbon)??? I'm wondering what the benefit is, which I assume in any event is marginal at best.|
|re: Weyless Team Carbon Crankset||rogue_CT1|
Mar 28, 2003 9:50 AM
|The FSA cranks and the Weyless cranks are made at the same factory by the same company in Tiawan. They just have different decals on them. The Weyless decals are under the clearcoat so they don't come off. Other than that, they are very good cranks.
If you are interested in the FSA Pro Race cranks - the ones with an alloy spider, you can find the exact same ones sold on ebay under the Carbon Lord name. But they have no decals on them at all. Just the great look of carbon. And Carbon Lord is awesome to deal with.
|re: Weyless Team Carbon Crankset||juanteal|
Mar 28, 2003 12:29 PM
|Great article about cranks...
An engineer from a top-4 motor company analytically tests cranks for weight vs. stiffness vs. price. The results will upset you carbon-lovers.
Basically, the FSA carbon cranks are not as stiff as Ultegra, and the weight savings is so miniscule, it's the difference between wearing Oakleys or not.
|try re-reading the article...it's 22 grams for 1 crank arm!!!!||russw19|
Mar 28, 2003 6:12 PM
|OK, how about you admit it's a half truth.....
The FSA crank moved .082 inches. Not even enough to be visable by the naked eye I think is what the tester said.
Also they didn't test deflection at the spider. FSA cranks are stiffer there. And if you know cranks, that's where it matters... that's the anchor point to your chainrings. Also the spider is where the interface to the bottom bracket is at.... the same review you mention makes a specific point to tell you they didn't test for deflection at the spider.
If you are going to bring up how miniscule the difference is (22 grams for just simply the drive side crank arm---skewed results for sure, what about the added in difference of the other crank arm? And the FACT that FSA's chainrings are lighter than Ultegra rings!) why don't you try to explain just exactly how miniscule .082 inches is?
And how about this quote from the testers? "Crank stiffness is a minor factor in ride quality. Excessively stiff cranks may make your ride quality (or comfort) decrease so that, depending on your weight, you feel the road surface to a greater degree."
I mean, damn, if you are gonna take some techno test and try to skew it to favor the fact that you like Ultegra, that's cool and all, but at least read the entire test, and take the time to read it analyticly so you can really see what they say. And what's best is that if you read the review, the impressive numbers come from the Ritchey crank, not the Ultegra cranks....
Anyways, the point you are trying to make about the weight only being a pair of Oakleys... that is simply a dramatic referrence thrown in to capture the eye of the uneducated audience. That is not meant to be a personal insult, so don't take it that way. It's the same trick advertisers use to make you believe their product is better than someone else's product. It's like the Crest Whitestrips commercial I just saw today.. they claim first that 10 million people have tried Crest Whitestrips... wow, huge number... most people can not conceptualize 10 million people. Then they say 4 out of 5 people would recommend Crest Whitestrips... they threw the first stat in to capture your attention so that the second seems to mean more... like millions of people (the number you are to concentrate on is 10 million) would recommend them... not the 4 out of 5 part... that's supposed to slip by. The reality of that stat (that you weren't to catch) is that 2 million people would NOT recommend Crest Whitestrips because they really don't work. The other people said sure because they wouldn't want to piss off the people surveying them. It's an old school advertising trick. Wise up to them and you will see that advertisers are only trying to trick you. This stat you bring up is no different.
It's a half truth... 22 grams, less than a pair of Oakleys... what does that REALLY mean? Let's start with... 22 grams for the driveside arm of a 172.5 crank only. FSA and Shimano cranks both have two arms.... is the other side also 22 grams lighter? Probably less being the carbon spider is not a factor, but let's say 15 grams? Then there are FSA's lighter chainrings. Shimano's shift slightly better, but FSA's are lighter by over 10 grams. Then there is FSA's chainring bolts... alloy on the Team Carbon crank, and lighter than Ultegra's steel bolts by another 10 grams. Add all that up and you have a difference of about 57 grams of rotating mass at your feet.... much larger number when you look at the bigger picture. And just to throw one last piece of info at you, when have you EVER seen an Ultegra crank on a pro's bike at the Tour? FSA cranks and Ritchey cranks were both there last year and will be this year, but I bet you won't see an Ultegra crank on any bikes there.
|You can't be serious!||speedisgood|
Mar 29, 2003 9:47 AM
|Dude, how about taking some of your own advice? What's funny is that you're using the same tactics that you argue against!!
Oooooooh! A whole 57 whopping grams of weight savings! OK, let's look at the REAL big picture. Let's conservatively say you weigh 150# and your bike is 16# total, that's 166 #, right? That is 75,364 grams. (57/75,364) * 100 = 0.0756% difference in total weight. That's less than one tenth of one percent reduction in weight. Wow. I can fly up hills like Lance now! And yes it's rotating mass; but it only rotates around 90 RPM and in such a small circle I doubt the difference of inertia is significant.
Of course the cranks look cool so if you can afford one or get it free then go for it (note to Russ: the pros get it for free and ride what their sponsors give to them). The point of the other poster is that the price to performance ratio may not be justifiable to everyone seeing as how we can lose that 57 grams by sqirting a water bottle on the side of the road for a few seconds.
|try re-reading the article...it's 22 grams for 1 crank arm!!!!||juanteal|
Mar 31, 2003 7:10 AM
|You really made a few good points here. I will spend the extra $350 to upgrade to carbon cranks before I roll out of Paris July 5th.
57 grams? What the hell was I thinking??? I wish I were smart enough too have understood the article properly. But not too smart, because then I'd realize the FSA cranks aren't twice as good to justify twice the price.
And I wish my teeth were whiter.