Ciamillo carbon crank now with pre-launch offer information!

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
bricky21
Posts: 1405
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:28 pm

by bricky21

sedluk wrote:448 grams is nothing to get excited about. It is not a bad weight for a modern crankset but many of us are currently riding lighter cranksets so not sure why there would be any excitement. They seem kind of expensive for the weight.

What other cranks are available at or below 450g for crank, BB, and spider at or below $1100? Thats a serious question BTW, as I'm not really up on WW cranks.

by Weenie


deek
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:32 pm

by deek

How are they adjusting the chainline to make up for the different length spindles?

sedluk
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:10 am

by sedluk

The THM Clavicula crank is 336 grams and a THM shell with bearings is 74 grams, total 410 grams. The Ax Lightness is about the same.

It is not clear so far if the Ciamillo 448 grams (or 454) includes a BB and/or what kind of BB, but even if it does it is not breaking any new ground and sells for about what you can pay for a Clavicula or Ax Lightness crank and is heavier. But if you really like the looks and don’t mind the extra weight then it looks like a nice crankset.

mdeth1313
Moderator
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:38 am
Location: Dutchess County, NY

by mdeth1313

THM yes, can you even consider ax-lightness (especially in the US?

BTW, I believe Pez's post states 448g including the BB. Could be wrong though.
Last edited by mdeth1313 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Speedplay is the devil!

User avatar
BeeBee30
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:32 pm
Location: WALES,UK
Contact:

by BeeBee30

I like it 8) Colour options on the anodised part? Blue doesn't do it for me lol. That spider looks a little over engineered, plenty of meat could be removed from that me thinks? I'm assuming this has a Hirth joint yeah? Like Specalized, Campagnolo and my dearly departed Sweet Wings?
Ti or dye!

The Weenie formally known as CAADHEAD

lechat
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:32 pm
Location: S.E. TN

by lechat

Looks nice, but the weight is about the same as the new Red BB30. Which go for ~$375 on eBay. And durability is still a big ?.

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

deek wrote:How are they adjusting the chainline to make up for the different length spindles?

he mentions custom spindle lengths to change non-drive arm position. this would keep the chainline the same. no, i dont think it would be worthwhile either.

gospastic
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:58 am
Location: Chicago

by gospastic

My Red 2012 bb30 crankset is 415g including bb, excluding chainrings and bolts.

SuperDave
in the industry
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:57 am
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Contact:

by SuperDave

[quote="CharlesM"][/quote]

With the hyper-sensitive shifting ramps of the new yaw-type SRAM rings and the 11 speed trimless shifters I wonder how well these will shift with their off-timed chainring spider?

The anti-drop pin on chainrings is also useless with this spider arrangement.

-SD

User avatar
Juanmoretime
Administrator
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:08 am
Location: Urbana, Illinois

by Juanmoretime

SuperDave wrote:
CharlesM wrote:


With the hyper-sensitive shifting ramps of the new yaw-type SRAM rings and the 11 speed trimless shifters I wonder how well these will shift with their off-timed chainring spider?

The anti-drop pin on chainrings is also useless with this spider arrangement.

-SD


Keep in mind you're not seeing a production crank so the alignment of the spider may very well be in a place that will allow full use of the drop pin that many large rings have.

Hopefully at some point Ted may join in to answer some questions that are out here since he is a member.
RESIDENT GRUMPY OLD MAN.

Stalkan
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:04 pm

by Stalkan

bricky21 wrote:
sedluk wrote:448 grams is nothing to get excited about. It is not a bad weight for a modern crankset but many of us are currently riding lighter cranksets so not sure why there would be any excitement. They seem kind of expensive for the weight.

What other cranks are available at or below 450g for crank, BB, and spider at or below $1100? Thats a serious question BTW, as I'm not really up on WW cranks.


Not quite below 450g but close enough to not warrant paying double.

Image

User avatar
runner999
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:01 am
Location: Bay State

by runner999

Vuma Quad BB30 setup with chainrings, bearings, spacers, etc. - 574grams

(Note: 50/34 chainrings as a pair weigh 129grams. Just the arms/spider/spindle weigh 379grams to put things in perspective)

Image

Vuma Quad BSA cups setup with chainrings, bearings, spacers, etc. - 596grams

Image

User avatar
mythical
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:49 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

by mythical

Impressive, Mr. Ciamillo, but not enough to get me warmed up to wanting one. Q-factor is once again too wide for my liking and I won't even mention how little ankle clearance it offers us duck-footed cyclists (which I am to a mild degree). They don't look half bad though. May these cranks come to the market and beget many happy costumers! :)
“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

RideWert.com
Wert Cycling on Facebook

ZeroG
in the industry
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:53 am
Location: Athens, GA
Contact:

by ZeroG

Regarding the orientation of the spider.. the spider is removable and uses the same spline as the arm. The spider was simply placed on the spline for the photograph in the wrong orientation.

Regarding the weight, it will come down .. significantly I think; but I am more concerned about stiffness and robustness than weight at this point. The crank is one of the largest losses of power transfer. Testing is going well and weight will come off but I am not concerned about the Vuma weight that much because I don't know if the push to achieve that weight ultimately resulted in its being discontinued.

Regarding the Q and chainline.. On BB30 frames, there is a large spacer on the non-drive side so to reduce Q I just need the customer to verify that with their existing setup, a reduction in Q would not cause a clearance issue with chainstay and I am happy to shorten the non-drive spindle and spacer. This will not affect the 43.5 chainline for the drive side at all.

I know we are about weight here and pushing the envelope is what I am all about but on this project robustness and stiffness are my first priorities. I love working with carbon and enjoy applying the products and processing advice given to me by the folks at TCR Composites.. I will share some of the manufacturing process on this project shortly.

Thank you for all the compliments on the design. I will post some pics on a bike soon.

by Weenie


uraqt
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:53 am

by uraqt

Ted,

Thank you for the update and the opportunity for the early purchase!!!

C

Locked
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post