Weight Weenies

Look what the post office had waiting for me!!

172.5 110 BCD




Complete with spacers and washers sized for PF30 BB along with Praxis rings 50/34 and Extralite Chainring bolts:






First impressions: Very solid and not as massive looking in person. Visually a work of art and finished like jewelry.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

I have a friend that bought a pair and received them two weeks ago, he has already bent one of the arms. He is about 190 lbs and is known to be tough on bike parts. He is going with a different crankset. I saw them when he first received them, they looked good.

sedluk wrote:I have a friend that bought a pair and received them two weeks ago, he has already bent one of the arms. He is about 190 lbs and is known to be tough on bike parts. He is going with a different crankset. I saw them when he first received them, they looked good.

Mine was delayed several weeks and believe the reason was due to that issue mentioned which has been addressed according to Ted. I'm in the 170lbs range and no Cavendish. I'll get a few short local rides in to sort this new crank out.

I might add that Ted's been very forthcoming about the status and issues with me in the last several months in spite of how busy he's been. He's a perfectionist to fault and patients was key in this process. I'm confident in the design and that Ted will be all ears "if" I find a gremlin or two down the road.

Damned this crank looks so cool in person. Definitely has a unique character all its own.

The design is really where it needs to be now. With the changes to the pinning of the carbon tubes, the cranks really perform. We've put a significant amount of effort behind it with mating a power meter as well to it. This was reviewed in bike rumor about 2-3 weeks ago and have done a few road races and criteriums on the crank in an effort to see where we could find fault. Each issue we encountered, Ted has addressed with changes to the design. What you're seeing now in the latest release is a crank, non-power meter and power meter versions, is one where there has been a lot of input placed into it by a lot of knowing people. Delays are to be expected, if you look at the earlier post from someone else, they cited that Ted works all flaws out and sometimes it is to his detriment in delivery.

Another thing is to really look beyond the weight of the crank. The weight is awesome, however, the crank itself is more impressive to us in terms of stiffness and power transfer when compared to a Sram, THM, or Rotor. The crank is clearly superior on even the tactile feel of it and we're seeing much less flex within the 130 and 110 bcd spiders (base line was use of Praxis chain rings and Rotor chain rings each).

Hard to look too far past the weight of the crank when he was touting it so hard pre-release. I just don't think they're the most efficient way of designing a crank, or brake for that matter. I'd call it all a styling exercise. They definitely have a distinctive look.

Echoing what Thisisatest said, I have a friend with a compact Exogram 175, praxis rings and sanded arms, that comes in at JUST below 500g (497g to be exact, on his scale). He bought the crank new on eBay for $350 and the rings $170~.

runner999 wrote:172.5 110 BCD

*cough*
172.5mm, 110BCD, possibly among the stiffest available (pending FWB's next Cranksetshootout)... oh, and available under $400USD shipped, including the chainrings which you can either keep or sell off. Below is the GXP version, the BB30 is even lighter. GXP is also one of the easiest systems to use for standard BSA (or 86/92) setups.

jmocallaghan wrote:The design is really where it needs to be now. With the changes to the pinning of the carbon tubes, the cranks really perform. We've put a significant amount of effort behind it with mating a power meter as well to it. This was reviewed in bike rumor about 2-3 weeks ago and have done a few road races and criteriums on the crank in an effort to see where we could find fault. Each issue we encountered, Ted has addressed with changes to the design. What you're seeing now in the latest release is a crank, non-power meter and power meter versions, is one where there has been a lot of input placed into it by a lot of knowing people. Delays are to be expected, if you look at the earlier post from someone else, they cited that Ted works all flaws out and sometimes it is to his detriment in delivery.

Another thing is to really look beyond the weight of the crank. The weight is awesome, however, the crank itself is more impressive to us in terms of stiffness and power transfer when compared to a Sram, THM, or Rotor. The crank is clearly superior on even the tactile feel of it and we're seeing much less flex within the 130 and 110 bcd spiders (base line was use of Praxis chain rings and Rotor chain rings each).

I'm sorry but as much as I admire the design of this chain set surely all these issues should have been resolved before it's release to the public, "The design is really where it needs to be now" is where it should have been on its release, you don't hear of changes being made after the release of a product from the likes of Shimano and Campagnolo, yes I know Ted is an artisan but if he is to be respected I think his product needs to be 100% before it gets into the hands of the consumer. The vibe I get is a product that has been rushed out.

*Double cough*

MichaelB wrote:Here are my cranks - 175mm, BB30 with std rings (compact)



It ends up at 364g w/out chainrings, but includes the 5 chainring bolts.

All up (w/o BB30 bearings) and with Praxis works chainrings, my crank setup is 491g (391 for crank and 150 for rings). Bearings add another 70g

QED

sedluk wrote:I have a friend that bought a pair and received them two weeks ago, he has already bent one of the arms

Is that spider arm or crank arm?

I'd be curious to see how this crankset does in Fairwheel bikes next crank shoot out, assuming that there will be one. I still think that the Clavicula is the bench mark, in appearance, stiffness vs weight and the fact that it's now effectively an old design. The new Sram Red is a nice crankset and very light, but at the end of the day it's just another mass produced crankset, just with a manufacturer that's starting to exploit the abilities of carbon fibre that THM have been doing for some time. I'm still reserving judgement on the Ciamillo crankset, there just seems to be a lot still going on.

jmocallaghan wrote:The design is really where it needs to be now. With the changes to the pinning of the carbon tubes, the cranks really perform. We've put a significant amount of effort behind it with mating a power meter as well to it. This was reviewed in bike rumor about 2-3 weeks ago and have done a few road races and criteriums on the crank in an effort to see where we could find fault. Each issue we encountered, Ted has addressed with changes to the design. What you're seeing now in the latest release is a crank, non-power meter and power meter versions, is one where there has been a lot of input placed into it by a lot of knowing people. Delays are to be expected, if you look at the earlier post from someone else, they cited that Ted works all flaws out and sometimes it is to his detriment in delivery.

As long as all customers are aware of that it's fine. I get the impression from a few people that they've been expecting a flawless crankset from day one.

jmocallaghan wrote:Another thing is to really look beyond the weight of the crank. The weight is awesome, however, the crank itself is more impressive to us in terms of stiffness and power transfer when compared to a Sram, THM, or Rotor. The crank is clearly superior on even the tactile feel of it and we're seeing much less flex within the 130 and 110 bcd spiders (base line was use of Praxis chain rings and Rotor chain rings each).

Interesting. So are you saying that the crankset is stiffer than the three mentioned and is that just a personal impression or is that tested? Saying that a crank is 'clearly superior' to a THM crankset has got my attention. I've yet to see a better engineered crankset than what they do.

Is that spider arm or crank arm?

It was the crank arm, and you could see the arm twist when standing on a pedal.

This would not have been a big surprise if this was a crankset that was just released a few weeks ago. My friend waited and thought that all was clear and that everything had been worked out. It was deliver May 13th 2013.

I agree that the THM Clavicula is the standard which all other cranks need to be measured against. The only other crankset that I use other than the THM Clavicula is the Ax Lightness crank which ranks close (0.268 vs 0.242) to the THM in stiffness and I prefer the way it installs.

It is hard for me to imagine that the Gravitas crank is stiffer than the THM and I would be surprised if it was stiffer than the Ax Lightness crankset, I would like to see an independent measurement. Talk is cheap.

A couple times these cranks were mentioned in conjunction with our next test. Unfortunately we have not yet tested them. We've requested and been told that we'd be getting a set for testing but so far have not. We have finished the latest round of testing and will be releasing it hopefully later this week. (Thm M3, Tune Smartfoot, DuraAce 9000 and a new Kcnc crank.) Hopefully we'll have the Gravitas to go into our next round which will have the Sram 22 as well as the new upcoming Campag and production EE.

madcow, what is the new upcoming Campag (crank)?

Madcow,

You are the third person to bring up this "new upcoming Campag " crank... Can please you share more info, and if not can you at least let us know the PR embargo data?

Thanks

C

Different thread perhaps?...

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com