Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
I am putting a new crankset on my Fly. I want a compact.
I had a FSA SLK and I was happy with it. I ride Shimano. Does anyone have any first hand experience with another compact that they are happy with? My dealer feels mixing Campy into the mix isn't a great idea.
Thank you.
|
dfcas
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 136
|
|
Hey Lon
Is your bike 8,9, or 10 speed?Is it STI?
I posted this a few minutes ago but it didn't show up.
dan
--------------------
no signature
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
9 speed STI. Sorry I should have mentioned 9 speed. I forget how behind the times I am...which I'll remain until the stuff wears out.
|
dfcas
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 136
|
|
I think the 10 speed cranks have a more narrow chainring spacing,so you maybe better stick with a nine speed.FSA should be fine.The front derailleur may travel too far for the narrow spacing of a 10 speed.
The tricky part lies in the Shimano front shifting-I think a full size front derailleur will work OK with a 50 big ring,but you may get better shifting using the Shimsno triple front derailleur that matches your shifters.They usually have enough travel in the limit screws to block out the 3rd ring travel.
--------------------
no signature
|
Limace
journeyman
Reged: 03/09/05
Posts: 54
Loc: Oregon
|
|
I did not know that there was 9 speed and 10 speed spacing on cranks. Live and learn.
I've used both the FSA carbon compact cranks and the aluminum direct connection version. I like both, but have a preference for the aluminum because the crank arms "seem" to be thinner allowing for a more comfortable foot positioning, for me. I was having problems with shifting using a standard Shimano front d. Put on a compact specific front and haven't had any problems since.
|
Mike
contributor
Reged: 12/25/03
Posts: 101
Loc: Oregon
|
|
Hi Lon,
I would seriously consider the new Shimano compact. It is made for 10sp, but since the "regular" 10sp crank works with 9sp, I suspect it will work as well. For that matter, all the new FSA cranks have spacing that they claim works with 9 or 10sp. In reality it is very close to Shimano's 10sp spacing, which backs up my assumption about the Shimano 10sp compact working well with 9 sp.
Shimano claims this crank has none of the dropped chain problems that other compacts have, due to the "specially designed chainrings", and that it will work well with a normal double front deraileur.
As for FSA, I've used their cranks in the past. The cranks were very nice, but the rings sucked. I was never able to make them shift as smooth as the Shimano cranks they replaced, and had a much higher incidence of chain drop, regardless of how the front deraileur was adjusted. My LBS says the newer FSA chainrings shift much better, but that the EXO Bottom Brackets do not hold up.
Mike
Edited by Mike (12/08/05 01:21 AM)
|
Krash
new member
Reged: 09/04/05
Posts: 17
|
|
Quote:
Lon wrote:
Does anyone have any first hand experience with another compact that they are happy with? My dealer feels mixing Campy into the mix isn't a great idea.
Thank you.
Ritchey Compact WCS works perfect with my Dura Ace 9 speed set-up. Got mine for ~$125 at aebike.com.
Oh darn, I forgot to pay $500 for a carbon crank.
|
Kevan
journeyman
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 70
|
|
Devil's Advocate time...
While cranks have been visiting these forums for years now, compact cranks seemed to be all the rage this year. It might be the Tour's fault with pro's looking towards new solutions that don't involve hotel dumpsters. Anyway, why is it that compacts are all the rage? My basic understanding is the compact is a solution for people to avoid the dreaded granny-gear (3rd ring) solution, dare we think others might think less of us. But there seems to be some dissention developing out there, that maybe the granny solution is the better fix, granted it is added weight and well, we Calfee-ites are weightweenies to an extreme, if anything. What I've heard is there can be what some people feel is considerable chain flop/float/whatever when dropping into the small ring from big and that the transition to big from small is often not as smooth as the more standard crank. Perhaps the grievance is people are over estimating their climbing needs and underestimating their time spent in flat or rolling terrain where the benefits are less felt but the gear change problems remain. Certainly Lon's Pittsburgh area is worthy of special gearing due to that terrain out there, but is it for everyone or are people jumping too fast in this direction where other solutions might exist?
Crank away!
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Well thought out response Kevan...I even agree...but...I have more than one bike. 4 road bikes...2 compact and 2 triples. I like them both and both have advantages. People have tried to make fun of me and my triples particularly since they are not on bikes that a triple is readily accepted.
I usually replay with some or all of the below...
I don't kid myself
I'm 58
I live in Pittsburgh
I have a bad knee
I weight 220 pounds
Other comments can be added. My compacts are different in that I run a long cage rear derailleur to get the same basic gearing as my triple in my climbing gear and a somewhat higher one on the top end.
The compact with ratios this broad may not be applicable to all riding areas as the shifts are not close at all. Around here where you are often either going up or down a big hill it is nice. My triples with closer shifing I often have to double or triple shift to get a proper ratio.
I like them both. It is also nice to have bikes that have different approaches to the same end...getting my fat butt up a steep and long hill. 
|
Krash
new member
Reged: 09/04/05
Posts: 17
|
|
Quote:
Kevan wrote:
What I've heard is there can be what some people feel is considerable chain flop/float/whatever when dropping into the small ring from big and that the transition to big from small is often not as smooth as the more standard crank. Perhaps the grievance is people are over estimating their climbing needs and underestimating their time spent in flat or rolling terrain where the benefits are less felt but the gear change problems remain.
The compact hasn't given me any trouble shifting between rings with a standard D.A. front derailleur. The gap from cog to cog is about the same. I gave up a little on the top end for an extra gear on the bottom.
The compact was a cost effective way to get a lower gear without an expensive trade-out to a triple or a long-cage rear derailleur and big cogset.
I used a 52/42 with a 13/24 7 cogset for years in the mountains and some studs would still be perfectly happy with that. Oh well, that's not me no mo.
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
Compact Crank Suggestion
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: Compact Crank Suggestion
[Re: