FSA Gossamer versus FSA SLK Carbon Compact



D

DNO

Guest
I am upgrading my bike to compact Crank from FSA (one of the MegaExo
cranksets). I am however confussed between the two cranksets - there is
a slight weight difference the two of them, but other than that I am
not sure if the price difference between the cranksets (SLK is double)
is worth it or not??

Obviously the carbon is sexier, but aside from that does anyone have
any thoughts or differences that would force more one way or the other?
 
DNO wrote:
> I am upgrading my bike to compact Crank from FSA (one of the MegaExo
> cranksets). I am however confussed between the two cranksets - there is
> a slight weight difference the two of them, but other than that I am
> not sure if the price difference between the cranksets (SLK is double)
> is worth it or not??
>
> Obviously the carbon is sexier, but aside from that does anyone have
> any thoughts or differences that would force more one way or the other?
>


After installing both, the carbon has some chi-chi and weighs less but
other than that, the Gossamer one, at 1/2 the price, is a nice piece of
equipment. Unless you are looking for 'coffee shop points', I'd get the
Gossamer.
 
Although I've largely managed to shed my former weight-weenieism (the
fact that I've gained 30 since getting married 7 years ago has helped
diminish the significance of gram counting), I am curious just what the
weight hit is. FSA doesn't seem to advertise the Gossamer's weight,
and nobody I've seen selling them do either. Any ideas?
 
Difference in performance is indetectible; difference in weight is
about 40 gms (gossamer + FSA platinum pro bb vs SLK mega exo with
bearings); difference in wallet impact is about $150.

Think about the FSA Energy (also aluminum)compact as well.

App
 
Thanks, but perhaps I should clarify. I was curious about the mega exo
models of both.

SYJ
 
820 gms for Gossamer compact mega exo, 765 for SLK compact mega exo.

Not much of a difference, but if you are in an impress your friends,
frighten your enemies mood....

BTW, if you had googled Gossamer compact mega exo you would have turned
up the weight.

Lazy you ;-)

App
 
Ooops, that's 720 gms for the SLK. Okay, now you're talking a quarter
pound of rotating bike weight. Not bad. that's $37.50 per oz.
reduction in weight.

App
 
"BTW, if you had googled Gossamer compact mega exo you would have
turned
up the weight.


Lazy you ;-)"

Yup ;-) At least I'm not asking whether or not I should grease my BB
spindle before tightening my cranks.

SYJ
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>820 gms for Gossamer compact mega exo, 765 for SLK compact mega exo.
>
>Not much of a difference, but if you are in an impress your friends,
>frighten your enemies mood....


The SLK is sexier and therefore better bike jewelry.

Other options are lighter than either mega exo crankset.

FSA claims 521 grams for their compact carbon standard crankset. American
Classic claims 140 grams for their ISIS road bottom bracket. Add them
together and you get 661 grams.

I have this combination on my bike but would have bought the SLK compact
because its one piece right crank and spider are more attractive.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.
 
Thanks for the notes on the two - talking with various shops via the
phone, it seems a common answer is that the SL-K is "stiffer" than the
Gossamer as well as being lighter (although one guy at a shop did say
that he has ridden both and could not tell any difference - the SL-K
was just lighter in his mind).....any thoughts?
 
"DNO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for the notes on the two - talking with various shops via the
> phone, it seems a common answer is that the SL-K is "stiffer" than the
> Gossamer as well as being lighter (although one guy at a shop did say
> that he has ridden both and could not tell any difference - the SL-K
> was just lighter in his mind).....any thoughts?


I wanted MegaExo and got the SL-K 'cause my bike has a carbon frame and
wanted to keep a theme. Besides, one of the reasons I'm so fat is that I've
been concentrating on career. Now that I can afford what I want, I get what
I want! :)

"Were the average consumer rational instead of emotional, there would be no
advertising. At least not as we know it today."
- Al Reis & Jack Trout, Marketing Gurus

FWIW I found the SL-K stiffer than the FSA Carbon Compact Pros with the FSA
Ti BB. How much? I have no idea how to quantify it. But I noticed the
difference when I upgraded.
 
Given that the frame you are riding is the least stiff component of a
bicycle "system", the stiffness of a crankarm (or lack thereof) has no
net effect given that it will ALWAYS be stiffer than the frame.
Therefore, crank stiffness should NOT be considered a factor in the
purchase.

The guys who will tell you that a stiffer crank is better are wankers.

App
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Given that the frame you are riding is the least stiff component of a
> bicycle "system", the stiffness of a crankarm (or lack thereof) has

no
> net effect given that it will ALWAYS be stiffer than the frame.
> Therefore, crank stiffness should NOT be considered a factor in the
> purchase.


Umm...you are mistaken. Every sequential component of a structure
contributes to its stiffness (or lack of it). Even if the cranks flex
less than the frame, they still add to the total flex. Moreover, your
front chain molester can get noisy and/or stupid if your BB flexes more
than a little bit.

I worked in a bike shop at the time Shimano introduced cartridge BBs.
The first time I test rode a bike equipped with one after building it
up, I thought it was broken, it flexed so much. It felt to me like the
pedals were diving for cover beneath the BB shell as I rode it. I got
to ride a lot of cartridge BB and cup & cone BB bikes as I built them,
and the difference remained noteworthy to me.

If you don't think crank stiffness matters, ride a bike with a square
taper BB back-to-back with a bike equipped with Bullseye cranks. You
may not prefer the feel of the Bullseye-equipped bike, but you will
notice a significant difference.

> The guys who will tell you that a stiffer crank is better are

wankers.

"Better" is a subjective judgment in this case. I find a stiff crank
more confidence-inspiring, and I think it delivers pedal strokes to the
road more directly, without the crank serving as an intermediating
spring and thus requiring strong follow-through.

Joule for joule, a stiff crank might or might not be faster or more
efficient than a flexible crank, but it _feels_ faster and more
efficient. Isn't that the point of most "high performance" bike
features, like steep frame angles, short chainstays, lightweight
components, narrow tires, etc.? These things may have no substantially
measurable effect on overall speed or efficiency, but many riders
prefer them because of their effect on _perceived_ performance.

Chalo Colina
 
Hmmm.....

If I take a popsicle stick and glue the end of it to a 2x8, clamp the
popsicle stick to an immovable object and then apply lateral pressure
to the end of the douglas fir, which of the two pieces of wood
(popsicle stick or doug fir) will exhibit lateral flex?

Just wondering,

App
 
DNO wrote:
> Thanks for the notes on the two - talking with various shops via the
> phone, it seems a common answer is that the SL-K is "stiffer" than the
> Gossamer as well as being lighter (although one guy at a shop did say
> that he has ridden both and could not tell any difference - the SL-K
> was just lighter in his mind).....any thoughts?
>


'Stiffer'...load of bat dung...
 
You are absolutely right, Chalo, and I would like to modify the above,
with the following:

The amount of flex in the 2x8 will be negligible/imperceptible compared
to that of the popsicle stick.

I will additionally assert the addition of a "stiffer" crankset is
below the level of perception for most if not almost all of the
population.

But yes, the amount of flex of the crankset is a component of the
overall flex of the bicycle. Just not a noticeable one, except for you
and possibly others of your, er, bodily, ummm, you know, you're a big
guy.

App, who will admit he's wrong, even when, in a practical sense, he is
close enough.
 
> I will additionally assert the addition of a "stiffer" crankset is
> below the level of perception for most if not almost all of the
> population.


Stiffer crank, not so sure it will be that easy to detect. But a stiffer
bottom bracket will often be easily picked up by even an inexperienced
rider, as it may cause the front derailleur to rub on the chainring as
things deflect.

Where does stiffness really matter? That's the real question, and it
probably varies from person to person. For me, I couldn't believe how much
better my older, carbon-sole Poggio shoes felt (because the sole is so much
stiffer) than my famous-name shoe that comes in a narrow width. Why did I
give up on my Poggios? Because I'm at that age where a guys feet start
getting longer, and they no longer fit... and the newer style was too wide
for me. With the new shoes, when I'm sprinting hard, the flex in the sole is
very annoying and even mildly uncomfortable (although I'm sure it's a very
tiny amount of flex). With the Nike Poggios, my feet felt as if they were
directly (and comfortably) attached to the pedals. I could push as hard as I
wanted and the shoe didn't appear to flex. For most people, I'll bet it's a
non-issue. For my style of riding (sprinting & climbing, and I'm no longer a
lightweight at 172lbs), it's significant.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are absolutely right, Chalo, and I would like to modify the above,
> with the following:
>
> The amount of flex in the 2x8 will be negligible/imperceptible compared
> to that of the popsicle stick.
>
> I will additionally assert the addition of a "stiffer" crankset is
> below the level of perception for most if not almost all of the
> population.
>
> But yes, the amount of flex of the crankset is a component of the
> overall flex of the bicycle. Just not a noticeable one, except for you
> and possibly others of your, er, bodily, ummm, you know, you're a big
> guy.
>
> App, who will admit he's wrong, even when, in a practical sense, he is
> close enough.
>
 
It was my understanding that the single biggest advantage of the
MegaExo (or Hollowtech II, for that matter) was increased bearing life
due to the larger sized balls possible by not confining the bearings to
the BB shell. ISTR some techie guy from FSA noting that the difference
in stiffness was negligible (even though MegaExo uses a larger BB
spindle).

SYJ