jason,
thx for the comprehensive crank review. i'm done buying cranks, but sheds some nice info for those in the market.
Fair Wheel Crank Review #5
Moderator: robbosmans
deltree wrote:madcow wrote: We're already putting together round 6 which will have Red22 as well as a new model of a crank that has been around for a while(sorry can't say more). Plus hopefully a few more boutique cranks.
I know you can't say but I'd love it to be a Cannondale SISL2 with spider-rings.
I second that.
Thanks for the very informative review.
My favorite components are the ones I never have to think about.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
HammerTime2
- Posts: 5814
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
- Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
Yes, per
which I quoted in an earlier post in this thread.On May 28, 2013 in Ciamillo Gravitas crank, review and poll, madcow wrote: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.
Do all the current Super Record cranks come with a titanium spindle? I'm not even sure if that's what I have. My group is 2013.
-
HammerTime2
- Posts: 5814
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
- Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
Ti axle is still an option for SR crank.
See also http://www.campagnolo.com/repository/documenti/en/Campagnolo_2013_Road_Catalogue_EN_d.pdf and http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/groupsetdetail/item_guarSRST_catid_12.jsp, which mention titanium axle as an option for 2013 SR crank.P.2 of http://www.campagnolo.com/repository/documenti/en/Tec-Spec_componenti_ENG1.pdf wrote: SUPER RECORD™
ULTRA-TORQUE™
TITANIUM
11S CRANKSET
170, 172.5, 175, 177.5,
180 mm,
39-52, 39-53
170, 172.5, 175 mm,
42-54, 42-55
full-carbon unidirectional-multidirectional cranks - hollow cranks
(Ultra-Hollow Structure) - light alloy fixing bolts - light alloy
chainrings with XPSS (eXtreme Performance Shifting System) -
chainrings with hard anodization treatment - 8 pins on the large
chainring - CULT bearings (Ceramic Ultimate Level Techno-
logy) - integrated ULTRA-TORQUE semi-axles in titanium -
requires Super Record ULTRA-TORQUE BB cups
584
SUPER RECORD™
ULTRA-TORQUE™
CARBON 11S CRANKSET
170, 172.5, 175, 177.5,
180 mm,
39-52, 39-53
full-carbon unidirectional-multidirectional cranks - hollow cranks
(Ultra-Hollow Structure) - light alloy fixing bolts - light alloy
chainrings with XPSS (eXtreme Performance Shifting System) -
chainrings with hard anodization treatment - 8 pins on the large
chainring - CULT bearings (Ceramic Ultimate Level Techno-
logy) - integrated ULTRA-TORQUE semi-axles - requires Super
Record ULTRA-TORQUE BB cups
625
-
thisisatest
- Shop Owner
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
- Location: NoVA/DC
Specialized have a new version of their SWorks cranks, with broader arms. It would be nice to see those tested. Other tests have them neck-and-neck with the sisl...
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Many years ago I played around with exotic cranks when a youthful MTB'er. I came to the conclusion that really the big manufacturer (Shimano at that time) really was as good as it got and have stuck with that idea ever since.
It's good to see the top three manufacturers leading the pack - the shift quality, reliability and cost of complete groupsets makes them hard to beat IMHO. Boutique cranksets seem to represent something of a compromise most of the time - hardly surprising given the limited R&D budget that is applied to them in the first place. It's good to see tests like this that demonstrate that more clearly.
It's good to see the top three manufacturers leading the pack - the shift quality, reliability and cost of complete groupsets makes them hard to beat IMHO. Boutique cranksets seem to represent something of a compromise most of the time - hardly surprising given the limited R&D budget that is applied to them in the first place. It's good to see tests like this that demonstrate that more clearly.
Bonehead me could have taken 2 seconds to look at my crank to see if it had the titanium axle.
"Saddened to see the Lightning crank go to a wider Q-Angle. Jason, would you know why they decided to go that direction? It was a strong consideration for my next crank but not anymore."
I recently purchased a set of the Lightnings and was surprised to see the wider Q-Factor. At my request, Lightning returned the spec of my cranks to the narrower stance width by boring out the extra carbon next to the pedal inserts. According to Lightning, they added the extra carbon to reinforce the pedal inserts as they sometimes loosened. As I am light, I told them that I was willing to live with that risk in exchange for the narrower Q-Factor.
I recently purchased a set of the Lightnings and was surprised to see the wider Q-Factor. At my request, Lightning returned the spec of my cranks to the narrower stance width by boring out the extra carbon next to the pedal inserts. According to Lightning, they added the extra carbon to reinforce the pedal inserts as they sometimes loosened. As I am light, I told them that I was willing to live with that risk in exchange for the narrower Q-Factor.
Thanks for the great crank review. In addition to the Q-factor (width at the pedal flats), many riders with ankle clearance issues are interested in the U-factor (width at the spindle) - did you get a chance to measure this with your cranks? Or if not yet, do you still have the cranks so this can be measured?
As we know, some riders are a bit narrow hipped or bowlegged, and there are some that are a bit duck-footed (and even a few that are both,like me), who are most comfortable with the feet/pedals as narrow as possible. Often, the limitation on width between the feet isn't the crank Q-factor, but is instead the U-Factor. Some cranks in the test have narrow Q-factors, but if they don't also have narrow U-factors, some riders will have to move their shoes outward on the pedals to keep their ankles from rubbing on the cranks. For me, anyway, the U-factor can be more important than the Q-factor.
As we know, some riders are a bit narrow hipped or bowlegged, and there are some that are a bit duck-footed (and even a few that are both,like me), who are most comfortable with the feet/pedals as narrow as possible. Often, the limitation on width between the feet isn't the crank Q-factor, but is instead the U-Factor. Some cranks in the test have narrow Q-factors, but if they don't also have narrow U-factors, some riders will have to move their shoes outward on the pedals to keep their ankles from rubbing on the cranks. For me, anyway, the U-factor can be more important than the Q-factor.
