New Carbon DuraAce cranks
- Thread starter LeDomestique
- Start date
I thought I heard somewhere that Shimano was going to stay with alloy cranks after being ridden by pros and being disliked compared to their amazingly stiff alloy ones. I guess they're going to the market. It looks really sharp
Yeh, thats the way I see it.alienator said:
Hard to see how carbon cranks could be better than alloy ones
After seeing that, I am reminded why my alu Record cranks are so beautiful....and will remain so for years and years to come: simple, elegant style never goes out of fashion. Maybe I'll shine 'em up today 
CAMPYBOB said:
Now this is where Ohio's village idiot, CampyBob, tells us that he's able to discern such small differences in crank stifness with his body. This is where CampyBob explains what he knows about stiffness and engineering and how adept and sensitive he is to very small deflections in crank arms.
It looks just like the alloy version, only in black with the carbon fiber weave pattern. If you like the industrial look of the earlier version (which I do), you would like the new one. I do prefer the chunky looking, backside machined chainring on the alloy version better though - the new machined through chainring probably saves a few grams though, if that's even important in cranksets.
Record, D-A, Red, Clavicula, Time, Deda, Stronglight, etc. etc. they all have their own look, some have timeless designs (Record), others are just plain ugly (Stronglight Pulsion). Performance wise, I really doubt if anyone can really tell the difference.
Record, D-A, Red, Clavicula, Time, Deda, Stronglight, etc. etc. they all have their own look, some have timeless designs (Record), others are just plain ugly (Stronglight Pulsion). Performance wise, I really doubt if anyone can really tell the difference.
Tech72 said:
This muy true, although I do subscribe to the idea that even the alloy DA cranks are butt ugly. You are spot on about the performance, though. I doubt anyone could tell the difference between square taper and oversized, integrated...hell, even BB30....bottom brackets when it comes to performance.
As a side note, there is word from Eurobike that many manufacturers are rethinking the whole stiffness fetish. They are coming around to the belief that they may have gone overboard with improving stiffness. Their problem now, they think, is getting the public, who have feasted on the stiffness spiel from the marketing heads, to accept the idea that less than über stiff is ok.
+1 for Alienator. Again.
I was thinking about this the other day. What are the major performance characteristics of a frame? Weight comes to mind immediately. But what else can be said about a frmae that truly impacts its performance?
The only thing I came up with is the geometry. The wheelbase, head tube angle, trail, and rake will all affect stability and cornering. The seat tube angle and tube lengths will affect how well the frame fits and where the center of gravity lies. I guess this is why every bike catalog since the 50's quotes these numbers...
But what else? Stiffness? It's been shown/demonstrated/calculated to have a near negligible impact of power transfer and performance. But, like weight, it's something easily measured and quoted in ad copy. What else...? Vertical compliance, harshness, and smoothness of ride!? Hahahahaha. There is no vertical compliance to a rigid truss structure. It's why cranes and bridges are made that way. Harshness and/or smoothness? I'd put five year's wages on actual accelerometer measurements not matching rider expectations or perceptions.
Anyways. I just figure that component and frame stiffness is a good differentiator for marketting types because it implies performance. It does not.
John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com
I was thinking about this the other day. What are the major performance characteristics of a frame? Weight comes to mind immediately. But what else can be said about a frmae that truly impacts its performance?
The only thing I came up with is the geometry. The wheelbase, head tube angle, trail, and rake will all affect stability and cornering. The seat tube angle and tube lengths will affect how well the frame fits and where the center of gravity lies. I guess this is why every bike catalog since the 50's quotes these numbers...
But what else? Stiffness? It's been shown/demonstrated/calculated to have a near negligible impact of power transfer and performance. But, like weight, it's something easily measured and quoted in ad copy. What else...? Vertical compliance, harshness, and smoothness of ride!? Hahahahaha. There is no vertical compliance to a rigid truss structure. It's why cranes and bridges are made that way. Harshness and/or smoothness? I'd put five year's wages on actual accelerometer measurements not matching rider expectations or perceptions.
Anyways. I just figure that component and frame stiffness is a good differentiator for marketting types because it implies performance. It does not.
John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com
Similar threads
