FSA Compact Carbon Crank--First Look

Mark A. Clark

After lusting for a carbon crankset for a while I finally broke down and
bought the FSA Compact Carbon. I got mine from Dave Lettieri at
FasTrack Bicycles.

Installation

Very straightforward. It is replacing a Campy Record 39/53. FSA
doesn't offer a Campy tapered version so I also had to get an ISIS
bottom bracket to go with it. Dave recommended the Platinum (Cro-Moly)
version because he thinks it is stiffer and more durable. It seems like
a decent enough bottom bracket but wish I could have left the Record one
on. FSA included installation instructions with the kit but no torque
spec's. I was able to download them from the web site though. I also
had to lower the front derailleur a bit due to the smaller chain ring
plus readjust it a bit.

Riding

I was getting some creaking at first. I was very careful during
installation to do things according to directions. I used anti seize on
the cup threads and Phil grease on the ISIS spindles. After a couple of
rides however this went away. If these really are stiffer than my
record crankset I can't tell. I have ridden this with an 11-23 and
12-25. I used the 12-25 to go up a very difficult climb outside of
Davis, CA where I live called Mix Canyon Road. The last mile exceeds
20% grade. The 34-25 helped a lot getting up this thing. I had planned
to use the 11-23 most of the time with the exception of really steep
climbs but may just leave the 12-25 on unless I find myself missing the
11. While the lower gears of the 34 are noticeable, I had a hard time
noticing a difference between the 50 vs.53 tooth big ring. It took me a
little while to get used to the bigger jump between chainrings when
anticipating shifts but am getting used to it. The front derailleur is
working noticeably harder to go from the 34 to the 50 but handles it
reasonably well. If you are upgrading to this from a triple you may
want to just leave your triple front derailleur on.

Summary

So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and greater gear
range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite as good as the 39/53, and
front shifts for me feel more awkward due to the greater change in
chainrings. If you are already running Campy 10 speed like me you can
get about the same range I'm getting with the 12-25 by using the 13-29
cassette with a 39/53--and for a lot less money. Of course you could go
really low with this thing and use a 13-29 cassette. It would give you
about the same low gear as a 30-25 without having to use an ego-crushing
triple crankset, but if you need gears that low my recommendation is get
the triple.


Mark Clark

Paul Kopit

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:10:57 -0400, "psycholist" <technico@wctel.net>
wrote:

>Thanks for the report. Mine is due in at the bike shop on Friday. I hadn't
>thought about having to lower the drailleur. Makes sense, though. I'm
>gonna use mine with a 12x27 cassette.

Mark's Campy double front derailleur will shift the 50/34 FSA
chainrings better than anything Shimano has. If your front derailleur
is STI indexed, a DA front will work best.

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles

> >Thanks for the report. Mine is due in at the bike shop on Friday. I
hadn't
> >thought about having to lower the drailleur. Makes sense, though. I'm
> >gonna use mine with a 12x27 cassette.
>
> Mark's Campy double front derailleur will shift the 50/34 FSA
> chainrings better than anything Shimano has. If your front derailleur
> is STI indexed, a DA front will work best.

We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-speed DuraAce the
other day, and it worked, by all accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was
blown away with how nicely it performed. Definitely in the future for my
own bike...

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

Cat Dailey

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote
in message news:Om_cc.33994$6y.1274@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > >Thanks for the report. Mine is due in at the bike shop on Friday. I
> hadn't
> > >thought about having to lower the drailleur. Makes sense, though. I'm
> > >gonna use mine with a 12x27 cassette.
> >
> > Mark's Campy double front derailleur will shift the 50/34 FSA
> > chainrings better than anything Shimano has. If your front derailleur
> > is STI indexed, a DA front will work best.
>
> We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-speed DuraAce
the
> other day, and it worked, by all accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was
> blown away with how nicely it performed. Definitely in the future for my
> own bike...
>
> --Mike--
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
>
>
Funny, but I just put mine on last week. I rode it 40 miles the first time
and 75 miles today. I LOVE it! I put on a Record 12-23 in the back and it
shifts just great. I also got the platinum ti isis bb, and the only issue I
had was due to my short chainstays. The chain line isn't perfect, but I get
no rubbing in any gear and it shifts great. I went from a 39/52 13x26,
which didn't have a big enough top gear. The FSA setup gives me a bigger
top gear, smaller low gear, and much better steps along the way, with only
one crossover and NO duplicate gears!

Cat who couldn't be happier ;>

Mark Vieselmeyer

Mark A. Clark <jedi767NOSPAM@removesbcglobal.net> wrote:

: Summary

: So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and greater gear
: range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite as good as the 39/53, and
: front shifts for me feel more awkward due to the greater change in
: chainrings.

For me the benefit of a compact setup is not having to front-shift to find a
comfortable gear. With a 48/36 and a 12-27 10spd cassette I can maintain a
comfortable cadence in the big ring for anything between 12 to 35mph, so I
just stay in the big ring most of the time.

- mark

Nick Payne

Why not use 48-34 instead? That's exactly the same tooth difference as
53-39. And TA make a really nice matched pair of lightweight chainrings
in that size - see
http://www.schwabcycles.com/cgi/wc....log~DETAIL~1844 for a
photo.

Nick

Mark A. Clark wrote:
> So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and greater gear
> range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite as good as the 39/53, and
> front shifts for me feel more awkward due to the greater change in
> chainrings.

Paul Kopit

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:27:10 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:

>We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-speed DuraAce the
>other day, and it worked, by all accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was
>blown away with how nicely it performed. Definitely in the future for my
>own bike...
>
>--Mike--
>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReaction.com

Once you find the best front derailleur, the FSA big ring is the best
I've used for this application. It doesn't care what crankarm is
holding it. Neither the Stronglight nor Vuelta SE rings work as well.

I have an XTR 900 front derailleur, which was made for rings of this
size, that works marvelously but it it's a triple derailleur. I doubt
it is STI compatible.

Paul Kopit

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:30:09 -0400, "Cat Dailey"
<catdailey@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The FSA setup gives me a bigger
>top gear, smaller low gear, and much better steps along the way, with only
>one crossover and NO duplicate gears!

I happen to have the FSA on one bike like yours but any 110 bolt
pattern crank works fine and costs much less. My wife runs a Sugino
XD, my tandem an old Specialized, and my CAAD4 a Stronglight
Granfundo. I looked through a box of old cranks at a local shop and
found a Ritchey Logic/$20 and Sugino GT/$10. The conversion to 50/34
need not be costly. 48/34 and 52/36 are nice too.

Cat Dailey

"Paul Kopit" <p.kopit@SPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:sae970tukiqf1mtu52kkuhcckq5r8osbtm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:30:09 -0400, "Cat Dailey"
> <catdailey@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The FSA setup gives me a bigger
> >top gear, smaller low gear, and much better steps along the way, with
only
> >one crossover and NO duplicate gears!
>
> I happen to have the FSA on one bike like yours but any 110 bolt
> pattern crank works fine and costs much less. My wife runs a Sugino
> XD, my tandem an old Specialized, and my CAAD4 a Stronglight
> Granfundo. I looked through a box of old cranks at a local shop and
> found a Ritchey Logic/$20 and Sugino GT/$10. The conversion to 50/34
> need not be costly. 48/34 and 52/36 are nice too.

I guess "costly" is a matter of degrees. And I happen to be very, very
partial to carbon fiber ;>

Cat

Qui si parla Campagnolo

MikeJ-<< We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-speed
DuraAce the
other day, and it worked, by all accounts, fantastic. Everyone here was
blown away with how nicely it performed. >><BR><BR>

Why the surprise? I would HOPE a DA front der/changer would be able to handle
the one extra tooth difference from their advertized maximum of 15.

Glad the person got rid of the very draggy, very expensive, 'flying squirrel'
crankset as well.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Paul Kopit

On 08 Apr 2004 13:17:36 GMT, vecchio51@aol.com (Qui si parla
Campagnolo ) wrote:

>Why the surprise? I would HOPE a DA front der/changer would be able to handle
>the one extra tooth difference from their advertized maximum of 15.

The shape of the inner plate is wrong for the 34t cog. It's not right
for the 50t but that doesn't seem to matter much. The DA front
derailleur inner cage is not as beveled as the Campy one. In my
limited experience, the Campy front works a bit better than the DA. I
don't have indexed front shifting.

Matt O'Toole

Mark A. Clark wrote:

> 11. While the lower gears of the 34 are noticeable, I had a hard time
> noticing a difference between the 50 vs.53 tooth big ring.

Well, it's not that big a difference. Plus a 50/12 is still a big gear. In
fact a 48/12 is big enough for most people -- identical to the 53/13 top (4:1)
which has been a standard for many years.

The main reason to have a 50-53T ring is to be able to use a 13t cog.
Drivetrain friction increases as cogs get smaller, and the ramp-up is quick
below 14T. Smaller cogs were the product of a misguided attempt to save weight.
I bet the drivetrain friction matters more.

> It took
> me a little while to get used to the bigger jump between chainrings
> when anticipating shifts but am getting used to it. The front
> derailleur is working noticeably harder to go from the 34 to the 50
> but handles it reasonably well. If you are upgrading to this from a
> triple you may want to just leave your triple front derailleur on.

34-48T rings would have the same 14T gap as a traditional 39-53T setup, and with
a 12t cog you'd still have a 4:1 top gear.

> Summary
>
> So far my feelings are a little mixed. It looks great and greater
> gear range is nice, but the shifting isn't quite as good as the
> 39/53, and front shifts for me feel more awkward due to the greater
> change in chainrings. If you are already running Campy 10 speed like
> me you can get about the same range I'm getting with the 12-25 by
> using the 13-29 cassette with a 39/53--and for a lot less money. Of
> course you could go really low with this thing and use a 13-29
> cassette. It would give you about the same low gear as a 30-25
> without having to use an ego-crushing triple crankset, but if you
> need gears that low my recommendation is get the triple.

I see nothing ego-crushing about a triple. I often gear down and spin right
past people who are trying to stomp up a big hill in a 39/25. Plus I can shift
between inner and middle rings, and alternate between sitting and standing. At
the other end, the 42-52T shift is more usable because of the smaller gap. So
when I need a bigger shift, I just use the front, and when I want a little one,
I use the rear. I use both almost equally, while other riders seem locked into
the idea of two distinct ranges. To me there's no downside whatsoever to a
triple -- it's all pluses.

Wide-double cranks do have a great niche -- improving gearing on older STI
double-ring bikes, where converting to a triple is cost-prohibitive. Of course
the FSA isn't cheap, but a 110/74 BCD Sugino with 34-48 rings could be a great
problem solver, for example. If I acquired a 10-15 year old bike with a double,
this is exactly what I'd do.

Otherwise, just get a triple.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:

> We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-speed
> DuraAce the other day, and it worked, by all accounts, fantastic.
> Everyone here was blown away with how nicely it performed.
> Definitely in the future for my own bike...

Mike, why not a triple?

Matt O.

Qui si parla Campagnolo

matt-<< We set up a TREK Madone with an FSA 50/34 with Shimano 10-speed
>><BR><BR>
<< Mike, why not a triple? >><BR><BR>


No DA 10s triple left shifters....

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"