's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Weyless Carbon Crank, Any good?(14 posts)

Weyless Carbon Crank, Any good?stillridn
Nov 8, 2003 7:29 AM
I have been bitten by the Carbon bug. I was looking at the Weyless Crank vs F.S.A. There is a 100.00 price differnece, almost a set of new Carbon Bars. Anybody seen or used the Weyless stuff. Looking for opinions
Just curiousfiltersweep
Nov 8, 2003 7:34 AM
I really don't understand carbon cranks... what is the motivation? Is it weight or stiffness or what? I mean, it doesn't improve the ride like a carbon frame does. About the only thing NOT carbon on my bike IS the crank... but again, what exactly is the point of a carbon crank?
... I don't have any ''scientific'' info for you...Akirasho
Nov 8, 2003 7:56 AM
If you've read the most recent issue of VeloNews (Vol. 32/No. 19) then you've probably seen their crank review... and as you'd expect, the new DA wins on stiffness and cost (especially stiffness per cost) over well known carbon and at least one alloy crank).

I'm no racer or sprinter so the nth degree if stiffness is not a primary focus... but them carbon arms can shur be sexy.

I've got an old set of ZIPP cranks as well as FSA and Weyless... and while I suspect that the ZIPPs are the stiffest, they're not as svelte (aesthetics) as the latter two.

Here is a visual accounting 'tween the FSA and Weyless... actual performance is too subjective for me to make the call.

I suspect that composites in cranks have not reached a pinnacle... there are probably a few more surprizes in store (all carbons are coming sans alloy spines for arms and spiders... stiffer (especially when they match the new DA BB) and lighter). Still, I don't see alloy going away soon (too easy to make (relatively speaking)).

Be the bike.
Just curious, heres whystillridn
Nov 8, 2003 7:58 AM
It is lighter, and alot stiffer than an aluminum crank. Plus you always want to cut rotating weight. They look pretty sweet too!
Rotating Weight QuestionFez
Nov 8, 2003 8:39 AM
This is kind of an offshoot, but wouldn't less rotating mass on the cranks not be much of a factor, since most folks keep the cranks spinning, as opposed to the rotating mass of a wheel, which suffers many accelerations and decelerations?
Even the roatating mass of wheels is an overestimated factorrussw19
Nov 8, 2003 12:16 PM
And you are correct, the rotating mass of the cranks is negligable. And carbon cranks are not "a lot stiffer" but rather stiffer in increments of 1/1000th of an inch in total deflection under pedaling loads higher than you or I can achieve in real world conditions.

Just curious, heres whyrussw19
Nov 8, 2003 12:12 PM
OK, you need to look at what you just posted... sorry, but the difference is not that great. The stiffness factor is very very slight, as in a one thousandth of an inch in total defection under load (look it up, it's an incredibly small amount) and the rotating mass at the crank is not an important issue either. There are articles on analytic cycling proving these statements with the math, instead of the speculation. On top of all that, even if you run carbon cranks, what pedals, bottom bracket, chain, chainrings, and shoes do you use? All those add up to a system that unless you are saving like a full pound or two from that total system, you won't see any dramatic results.

The reason people use carbon cranks (and yes, I have a set on one of my bikes) is aesthetics and marketing. They are new and cool and expensive and not everyone on your group ride has them, which makes you and you ride that much cooler than the other guys and gals on the ride with you.

Don't ever underestimate the fact that marketing, if done correctly, can create desire, which fuels our consumerism and causes us to purchase things that we don't need, but just want, like $400 carbon cranks and $6000 plasma TVs.

Your last sentence, stillridn, is the only reason we bought them, they look pretty sweet! That's it. The rest is just BS justification for spending the extra money over a set of aluminium cranks that were stiffer anyways, like the Ritchey Pro cranks.

Just curious, heres whyyeah right
Nov 9, 2003 5:23 PM
the funny thing is, in engineering applications carbon fiber is almost always stiffness critical, meaning it usually is way over built to achieve stiffness. There are no reasons I can think of that you couldn't build as stiff an aluminum crank for a given weight
re: Weyless Carbon Crank, Any good?R600DuraAce
Nov 8, 2003 8:08 AM
Is OK. I was using one last year. For some reason, I have a hard time centering my front wheel. They do standup OK though after some 6000 miles.
Nov 8, 2003 12:19 PM
What the heck does your crank have to do with your ability to center your front wheel???

Are you sure you aren't talking about your forks and not your cranks?

Nov 8, 2003 10:02 PM
Hahahaha....sorry. I was referring to the fork. :)
someone scanned the velonews report hereweiwentg
Nov 8, 2003 9:21 AM

weyless wasn't covered in this one, but the new FSA superlight was.
I love mineDave Hickey
Nov 8, 2003 9:47 AM
I have over 1000 miles on mine and it's great but I bought it for looks not for lightness or stiffness. I can't tell any funtional difference between the Weyless and the Dura Ace it replaced. It is a very well made crankset.
New VeloNews has crank comparison...peter1
Nov 8, 2003 5:00 PM
...and the results (which put Dura-Ace alloy way above the carbon cranks in stiffness) indicated that more expensive carbon cranks are stiffer than cheaper ones. You might want to pick up the issue. They don't include the Weyless, but an inexpensive Profile carbon crank finished last, behind Campy, Colnago ($950 for the set!) FSA and TruVativ. As for weight, they included bb, chainrings and bolts, and I think the FSA was lightest, but DA was barely heavier because bb was lighter.

It looks like Shimano's integrated system is so far matching carbon cranks on weight and beating them in stiffness.

Aesthetics are another matter.