Can anyone tell me if FSA Gimondi 165mm cranks are worth buying? at just over $100 im not really worried about my pocket, but just curious about wether or not they will break since I will be skidding a bit? Any help would be greatly apperciated! Thanks
I wouldn’t be expecting a great performance out them as far as stiffness goes. But i also think there is zero chance of you physically snapping the crank or a spider arm while skidding. At the end of the day you get what you pay for.
Unless your name is Tomhall.
But yeh, i imagine for the street they will be fine!
Frame, wheels and even chainrings will flex before a crank does. Talking about crank stiffness is not only a misnomer but also dumb. Don’t believe the rubbish that the bike industry feed out.
^ You’re right in that crank stiffness is the last thing you should worry about on an everyday bike. However for a high end racing bike, stiffness might be considered important- and it is something you can measure with deflection tests etc. In the context of racing, a more stiffer crankset is generally considered a good thing.
Labelling crank stiffness ‘rubbish’ is generalising too much- if you do that you may as well dispute every other modern cycling ‘innovations’ like beefy carbon bottom brackets etc etc…
Ok … how do measure more stiffer and please show me anyone who has done static deflection tests on cranks alone. I’d also like you to explain how cranks actually bend whilst on a bike being ridden. Wheels, tyres, rims, and even frames deflect (bend, twist, and flex) so that the crank doesn’t even get a chance to. I’ll stand by my words - cranks stiffness is one of the biggest crocks of shit ever. Bike marketing rubbish that manufacturers roll out and sucker punters and buyers believe it without any question of supporting claims or tests are offered.
I’ve yet to see one single test that shows cranks bending in isolation whilst attached to a bike. Everything else is designed to flex/bend/deflect as are your legs, ankles, feet and knees and whole body.
Don’t hide behind gobbledook “racing, stiffer”. A whole world of that bullshit exists. If you believe it that’s fine but if you’re arguing the case prove it rather than trot out “they say”. If everything about a bike was stiff as bike manufacturers and unsupported marketing hype makes out they are they’d be un-rideable, way too heavy and slower. Cranks are more than stiff enough as they are … there’s a whole lot more flexing happening on a bike before it gets to the cranks ever being flexed. If they’re either too light or poorly designed the cranks will break.
There’s already tonnes of data that documents bicycle design and engineering/science that goes into them. It’s not a new idea that some riders are faster on stiff bikes and some are faster on bikes that have more compliance (flex or planing). Stiffness is one term that never gets qualified or evaluated … “20% more stiffer” … (yeah right)
I dunno… I just swapped over to some new Campy Power Torque cranks and, I don’t know about stiffness, but the bike feels like a new bike ! I’m no expert either, but the change in feel was remarkable. Could have to do with the new style BB as well I guess.
Base on spirito’s argument, maybe you should just get the ones that look the prettiest.
haha, PAUL royal flush crank it is then I think i may still get this FSA crank just to try it, as I said, its only $100 or so… and there seems to be mixed opinions on it… Once I have it ill write up what I think of it
This is always how I choose my cranks.
I don’t even care whether the stiffness stuff is true or not, I’ve certainly never noticed it. And I don’t care much about weight either. So, as long as there’s no proprietary bullshit to turn me off, “best looking” is the only criteria worth mentioning.
And no, not the Paul cranks. Not only is there proprietary chain rings and a 44mm chainline, they as ugly as a hatful of dicks.
Ok … now go over to your bike. Stand side onto it and hold the saddle and the bars with the crank at the 6 o’clock position. Now step on the pedal … yes do it again, and again … watch the bottm bracket move and the whole bike flex. What you’re flexing is the whole bike and the cranks aren’t flexing at all. In fact they can’t as they’re far stiffer than the sum of parts (frame/wheels/tyres).
Thanks for the gobbledook. You’ve just proved that most cyclists are silly enough to believe in numbers without any practical basis rather than common sense. Bikes flex - cranks don’t.
And choose frames by colour.
well that last bit is entirely personal opinion! I think the Paul cranks look awesome, but the chain ring is a small issue…
perhaps you forgot …
spirito’s rule # 2,127
With regard matters of taste and visual appeal Sir Kev is always right.
With regard the Paul cranks I too find them vulgar, needlessly heavy in detail and a poor design.
i must agree with these sentiments in regards to both aesthetics and proprietary ‘systems’.
amusing thread. haven’t you had this very same argument about crank stiffness before, spirito?
in regards to the stiffness factor, i’ve heard thesea re good:
^ there’s enough pills there to service the hatfull of dicks.
Paul cranks look too BMX’y Ghey.
if there’s an opposite of Viagra I need it !!!
I must have a very small hat …
Anyway, if I had to choose one crank that really is sexy it’d be the Stronglight 105 bis. Silly me sold a NOS just like this in the styrofoam packaging about a decade ago.
^ was the drillium factory standard?
I wish i’d never sold my 165mm 600 arabesque cranks with the one key release. They were kinda sexy.