Octalink Compact crank: Ritchey WCS or FSA Energy

[RS]

I have a bike I want to put a compact crank on, an older Cannondale 3.0
I have both a Ritchey WCS and FSA Energy Compact, any thoughts on
which might be stiffer, shift better, etc? FSA is about 25g lighter but I
just cruise around.

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Feb 21, 1:28 pm, RS <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a bike I want to put a compact crank on, an older Cannondale 3.0
> I have both a Ritchey WCS and FSA Energy Compact, any thoughts on
> which might be stiffer, shift better, etc? FSA is about 25g lighter but I
> just cruise around.


I have the FSA Energy compact. Pretty nice. Never heard of one
snapping. Apparently the relieved "i-beam" design of the Ritchey is
more (relatively speaking) failure prone. Someone posted a link to a
snapped Ritchey compact crankarm a while back.

I would be more likely to go with the one that utilized an octalink bb
- lotta negative comments about ISIS here - slightly more than about
the octalink - if that is an option for you.

D'ohBoy

 

[Joel]

I have a Shimano compact crankset and it works great.
Just ditch the Octalink BB and get the new Shimano one.
Its made for 10 speed systems so not sure about compatibilty with
wider chains.

Joel

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Feb 21, 2:45 pm, "Joel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a Shimano compact crankset and it works great.
> Just ditch the Octalink BB and get the new Shimano one.
> Its made for 10 speed systems so not sure about compatibilty with
> wider chains.
>
> Joel


At $300?? You can get the FSA and six bb's for that price.

10s cranks are 10/9/8 compatible for sure and probably 7 and 6 as
well.

D'ohBoy

 

[Joel]

> At $300?? You can get the FSA and six bb's for that price.

It's under $200 if you order from the UK:

http://www.probikekit.com/display.php?code=M1236

For some reason these bike part companies think us riders in the USA
can afford to pay more.

 

[roshea]

> At $300?? You can get the FSA and six bb's for that price.

It's under $200 if you order from the UK:

http://www.probikekit.com/display.php?code=M1236

For some reason these bike part companies think us riders in the USA
can afford to pay more.

There is also a cheaper (lower spec?) Shimano FC-R600 compact crankset, though I don't know how it differs from the FC-R700. http://tinyurl.com/2r9odt

 

[A Muzi]

> On Feb 21, 2:45 pm, "Joel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have a Shimano compact crankset and it works great.
>> Just ditch the Octalink BB and get the new Shimano one.
>> Its made for 10 speed systems so not sure about compatibilty with
>> wider chains.

D'ohBoy wrote:>
At $300?? You can get the FSA and six bb's for that price.
> 10s cranks are 10/9/8 compatible for sure and probably 7 and 6 as
> well.

$300? YGBSM!
2007 Campagnolo Veloce with cups is $210 ($180+$30)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
roshea <roshea.2mdu6[email protected]> wrote:

> Joel Wrote:
> > > At $300?? You can get the FSA and six bb's for that price.
> >
> > It's under $200 if you order from the UK:
> >
> > http://www.probikekit.com/display.php?code=M1236
> >
> > For some reason these bike part companies think us riders in the USA
> > can afford to pay more.There is also a cheaper (lower spec?) Shimano
> > FC-R600 compact crankset,
> though I don't know how it differs from the FC-R700.
> http://tinyurl.com/2r9odt

Think Ultegra versus Dura-Ace. Minor weight differences most likely, a
bit of finishing detail, and a lot of money.

In general, even for non-series parts the part number's first number
suggests the equipment level. Dura-Ace is 7xxx normally (The current
series is 7800; and Ultegra is 6xxx (6600 right now).

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Feb 21, 7:38 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2:45 pm, "Joel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I have a Shimano compact crankset and it works great.
> >> Just ditch the Octalink BB and get the new Shimano one.
> >> Its made for 10 speed systems so not sure about compatibilty with
> >> wider chains.
> D'ohBoy wrote:>
>
> At $300?? You can get the FSA and six bb's for that price.
>
> > 10s cranks are 10/9/8 compatible for sure and probably 7 and 6 as
> > well.
>
> $300? YGBSM!
> 2007 Campagnolo Veloce with cups is $210 ($180+$30)
>
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Colorado Cyclist: Shimano R700 Crank $266 + Ultegra cups $49 = $315.
Add shipping and you're up to $325.

And CC has some decent prices IMO.

D'ohBoy

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Feb 21, 12:28 pm, RS <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a bike I want to put a compact crank on, an older Cannondale 3.0
> I have both a Ritchey WCS and FSA Energy Compact, any thoughts on
> which might be stiffer, shift better, etc? FSA is about 25g lighter but I
> just cruise around.

Cannot tell stiffness differences with any two cranks, nobody can,
regardless of what they say. I like the steel inner ring of the
Ritchey. Ritchey is not failure prone, implying that many break, they
don't.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Feb 21, 3:34 pm, "Joel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > At $300?? You can get the FSA and six bb's for that price.
>
> It's under $200 if you order from the UK:
>
> http://www.probikekit.com/display.php?code=M1236
>
> For some reason these bike part companies think us riders in the USA
> can afford to pay more.

$222, plus shipping, with today's currency exchange rate.

 

[jim beam]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:28 pm, RS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have a bike I want to put a compact crank on, an older Cannondale 3.0
>> I have both a Ritchey WCS and FSA Energy Compact, any thoughts on
>> which might be stiffer, shift better, etc? FSA is about 25g lighter but I
>> just cruise around.
>
> Cannot tell stiffness differences with any two cranks, nobody can,
> regardless of what they say.

with respect, that's not true. at my weight, as soon as i get out of
the saddle, the difference is immediate and very much apparent. this
experience is /not/ based on expectation because i would expect, like
you, that this were not true.

> I like the steel inner ring of the
> Ritchey. Ritchey is not failure prone, implying that many break, they
> don't.

they may not be "failure prone", but their design is one that does not
take into account known fatigue mitigation. as such, their failure rate
is expected to be higher than that of cranks whose designs do take these
factors into account.