Carbon Cranks



I_paint

New Member
Jun 2, 2006
23
0
0
There was a recent thread on carbon fiber handlebars, with a discussion on their durability, either here or on bikeforums.net. Someone mentioned that carbon bars could be easily damaged in a crash or even if the bike simply fell over, as the bars take a lot of the impact. What about carbon crank arms?

I have an FSA carbon crankset, and its suffered some mild impacts through normal use, along with one pretty rough crash. I'm wondering if i should replace it. I've already replaced my carbon fork and carbon seat post, as those really took a lot of impact (collision with the drivers side door of an SUV attempting to make a left turn from a side street).

The impression I'm getting is that we need to be suspicious of any carbon component after its suffered any sort of impact. To what extent is this true? The expense of carbon coupled with its questionable durability is really leading me to reconsider the wisdom of using it.
 
I would only replaced damaged carbon stuff if there was severe damage to the layers of carbon. I crashed my Cervelo in a race and the carbon fork was scratched, but I didn't replace it and it still works fine.

I think many carbon cranks are just carbon wrapped over a metal insert / inside, so if they're scratched they're ok still.
 
I_paint said:
There was a recent thread on carbon fiber handlebars, with a discussion on their durability, either here or on bikeforums.net. Someone mentioned that carbon bars could be easily damaged in a crash or even if the bike simply fell over, as the bars take a lot of the impact. What about carbon crank arms?

I have an FSA carbon crankset, and its suffered some mild impacts through normal use, along with one pretty rough crash. I'm wondering if i should replace it. I've already replaced my carbon fork and carbon seat post, as those really took a lot of impact (collision with the drivers side door of an SUV attempting to make a left turn from a side street).

The impression I'm getting is that we need to be suspicious of any carbon component after its suffered any sort of impact. To what extent is this true? The expense of carbon coupled with its questionable durability is really leading me to reconsider the wisdom of using it.
Take your bike to an LBS that you trust and get them to check the cranks. They're used to inspecting frames and components for cracks or signs of stress. I wouldn't replace them without a qualified second opinion.
 
Cranks are far tuffer than other carbon parts. I would get a second opinion if you dont feel comfortable making that decision on your own. I have never heard of carbon bars cracking or breaking from a bike falling over.
 
Unless they've changed recently, believe all of FSA's "carbon" cranks are built with a core of aluminum and just an outer wrapping of CF. As a result, wouldn't worry about them at all.

Agree inspection after impact is important, as well as being alert to creaking noises or any flexing of the component. IMO, high-quality CF components should be tough enough to survive minor impacts (eg bike falling over) without damage, as well as perform safely for many thousands of miles. After all, millions of CF forks have been on the road now for many years with a proven track record. I've got over 12K miles on my Reynolds Ouzo Pro forks now, and have full confidence in them to last a lot longer.
 
dhk2 said:
Unless they've changed recently, believe all of FSA's "carbon" cranks are built with a core of aluminum and just an outer wrapping of CF. As a result, wouldn't worry about them at all.

Agree inspection after impact is important, as well as being alert to creaking noises or any flexing of the component. IMO, high-quality CF components should be tough enough to survive minor impacts (eg bike falling over) without damage, as well as perform safely for many thousands of miles. After all, millions of CF forks have been on the road now for many years with a proven track record. I've got over 12K miles on my Reynolds Ouzo Pro forks now, and have full confidence in them to last a lot longer.

What he said. Plus, unless I'm mistaken, I believe that FSA may be releasing a set of cranks that don't have the metal skeleton.

I've crashed--was hit by a car and dragged along the road, and then had another crash with a hard impact on the DS crank arms--with FSA Carbon Team Issue cranks (CF wrapped over metal skeleton), and the crashes did not harm the cranks. I've also been using CF bars for the last 1+ years. They were in the last crash and survived with nary a scratch or busted fiber.

Well made CF components are very crash worthy. In the early days of bicycle CF use, manufacturers were less skilled and less knowledgeable about using CF. As a result, there were a lot of failures (comparitively). Now, the technology is maturing, and the majority of CF components are very durable. In last year's TdF, a rider crashed into a guardrail, pretty much head on, on a mountain descent. He and the bike flipped over the guardrail. The bike frame--forks included--was still rideable after the crash (although I believe the rider did switch bikes). That's pretty damned impressive considering it was a frontal impact at a pretty high velocity.

The biggest problem that CF has today is that the opinions of some people haven't matured re: CF apace with the rate at which CF component quality has matured....but that's usually the way it is with people. Remember that for quite a while aluminum was victimized by all sorts of myths and false assumptions. It still is today, in fact.

If you've got doubts about your CF parts, get them inspected. If you take them to an LBS, you'd better be damned sure that LBS knows what they're doing. There are just as many LBS that don't know squat about CF as there are riders that don't know squat about CF. If in doubt, you can ask the manufacturer for an inspection. It's also possible that places that do CF repair--like Calfee and maybe Rue Sports--will do inspections.

My current crankset is CF, with no metal skeleton. It has an integrated BB whose axle is solid CF. I haven't been nice to it at all, but after a few thousand miles so far, it's the best performing, most quiet crankset I've ever had.

Another point for your consideration....while the application is completely different it shows the potential of CF: F1 cars, IRL cars, and CART cars all have driver tubs made of CF. I've seen some horrorific crashes with these cars from which the driver has emerged unharmed from his undamaged driver's tub. Similarly, we had sitting in one of our labs, the load cell (i.e., the structure to which something is attached for its operation) for a space telescope primary mirror (a mirror that was roughly 2m in diameter). The space telescope was going to sit at L2 (the second lagrange point, which is on a line defined by the Earth and Sun, but is located on that line such that the Earth is between L2 and the Sun)......anyway, if my memory isn't too screwed up, I believe that the temperature at L2 is roughly 40K (-387.7 degrees F). In any case, L2 is a very hostile environment for materials, but CF serves the purpose muy well. The point to all of this is that CF isn't necessarily a fragile material. It's only fragile when used incorrectly. In bicycling, it's not used incorrectly so much anymore. At least not so much as it was in the past. Still, like with any other part on your bike, a CF part should be inspected now and again to be sure that it is in top nick.
 
alienator said:
The biggest problem that CF has today is that the opinions of some people haven't matured re: CF apace with the rate at which CF component quality has matured....but that's usually the way it is with people.
+1

When I bought my latest bike this summer I got my choice narrowed down to a couple models with all-carbon frames (one of which also had carbon cranks), and one all-titanium frame. I asked my LBS dude about CF's robustness and what to make of all the scuttlebutt about CF being fragile, unsafe, uncrashworthy, etc. He asked how often I crashed my bike.

"Not since I was a little kid" sez I.

"Do you plan on crashing any more frequently now?" he asks.

"Heck no!!" sez I.

"Then you have nothing to worry about."

His contention is that the sort of damage that gave CF its reputation are the result of catastrophic crashes such as those encountered in pro pelotons, *not* the sort of recreational-cyclist-goes-down-hard-on-a-slippery-spot crash that 90% of road riders are more likely to encounter. He also dismisses most of the "My CF Bike Fell Over In The Garage And The Frame Broke In Half" stories as pure hyperbole.

The guy could have just told me "CF is fragile" and sold me an $8000 Merlin Ti bike. Instead he sold me a $3000 Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 (with FSA carbon cranks) and so far it's been stronger, stiffer, and more robust than most of the steel bikes I've owned. And I haven't crashed yet. :)
 
alienator said:
The biggest problem that CF has today is that the opinions of some people haven't matured re: CF apace with the rate at which CF component quality has matured....but that's usually the way it is with people. Remember that for quite a while aluminum was victimized by all sorts of myths and false assumptions. It still is today, in fact.
This is mostly true for aluminum as well. Despite junior armchair material scientists 'facts', aluminum frames are not falling apart due to fatigue. Titanium gets far too much credit I would not buy a ti pedal.

I have broken and bent aluminum bars from a slow crash or falling over. I went to CF bars, I'll never go back: stiff and strong, without vibration transfer and ergonomic fitting.

While I have an FSA SLK CF crankset, I must admit that it is no better or perceptively different than the FSA Gossamer aluminum set it replaced, but it does scratch easier. I think the biggest misperception of CF is that it is the best material for all bike parts. It has some good applications, but it should not be used universally.

FSA, Zipp, Campy, Time, Lightweight all make cranks now without metal inserts.
 
"The biggest problem that CF has today is that the opinions of some people haven't matured re: CF apace with the rate at which CF component quality has matured....but that's usually the way it is with people. Remember that for quite a while aluminum was victimized by all sorts of myths and false assumptions. It still is today, in fact." - alienator

This actually makes a lot of sense. Considering the varied applications of CF, from aerospace to F1, it has to be reasonably durable. I think some of the suspicion of carbon fiber on the part of bike shops may be a liability thing, given that it is still relatively new on the scene, perceptions haven't quite adapted yet, and we live in a litigious society.