RT

...or the Oh No, Not Another Gear/Crank Thread.

Much has been said over time in this forum about how FSA is inferior to the big guys in, not to overstate it but, shifting technology and/or craftsmanship. What you see here is an FSA Omega crank with about 3,000 miles on it with a SRAM PC-1031 chain, Tiagra 4600 FD and RD and 105/5700 levers. Under unusual (for me) load/speed, it shifts smoothly by my standards. Perhaps it could be smoother, but I do not see how. I also (clearly) ease up a tad on the upshift, but I think this is natural. I do not upshift when spinning like this, and don't see why anyone would.

The only reason I use FSA is because I am usually on a budget (kids in college) and having ridden 5700 cranks at the highest Shimano level, feel no difference in performance. Let also be known that I do not race, so maybe any improvement in performance, if there is room for it, comes at a cost.

The point of posting this is to get a baseline on what is normal for load and ease of shifting, and to show the FSA detractors what I am experiencing. I do my own wrenching/builds. What say you?

Elduderino2412

*at work so video is blocked by our server*

My FSA cranks shifted OK, not as good as my SRAM Force cranks. The biggest problem i had with them is i didn't like how they looked.

redlude97

Almost all cranks will shift fine under low loads at moderate cadences. Where I find shimano superior is slow cadence or high load cases

RT

This is what I am trying to determine. For me, high load is going little -> big while climbing or accelerating out of a red/green on my commute, or at high speed. Frankly, with a 14t jump, I don't see the point. As for slow cadence, give us an idea of your definition.

vwchad

I've had FSA and Shimano. FSA has been ok, but I prefer Shimano. Shimano just seems to shift smoother, faster, and quieter for me. FSA just gets the job done.

ThermionicScott 

Why would someone shift from small to big while climbing, or be in the small ring at a stop light anyway?

God, I felt like Jobst Brandt all of a sudden, complaining about manufacturers pandering to people who don't know how to use bikes.

RT

Precisely. These are unusual conditions that are often cited by those who complain about FSA. This thread is an attempt to find out exactly what they are talking about, and it is inevitably a list of rare occurrences.

merlinextraligh

One easy example is going from the little ring to the big ring at the crest of a hill in a race. If you can stand up, shift up, attack, simultaneously, you've got an advantage in trying to create a seperation at the top of the hill that will get you clear on the descent, over someone who is finessing the upshift.

That small difference can be enough between a winning attack, and just towing everybody down the hill.

When Leonard Zinn first tested Di2, it was that ability to instantly upshift under full power, that he found most impressive.

RT

Your point is taken, merlin, but it plays into my assertion that everyday riding (I stated I am not a racer), which is a majority of the time, features very few of these exceptions. This thread mainly exists to try and understand the FSA growlers. Shimano makes a great product, but it is not difficult to make FSA work just as well. It would be splitting the thinnest of hairs to try and find the difference in everyday riding.

To be under full power, it would follow that you'd have to be out of the saddle to do this, no? Is it fair to say that this is where full power is achieved? After all, when climbing we stand to rest some muscle groups and also to perpetuate our momentum while fighting gravity (well, physics in general). I doubt that I am unique in that when climbing, rarely (if ever) do I go little->big until at the top of the climb, at which point there's no way I'm under full load. I have tested the full load shift in the wild as well, and even my square taper FSA stuff doesn't drop, skip or hang.

My point is that the difference is negligible when properly tuned in non-racing environments. As far as looks, that's up to the individual.

Trying to keep this one civil, unlike what other gearing threads devolve into :-)

abhirama

I would be interested to see what happens when FSA starts making "beautiful" cranksets.

merlinextraligh

There's no doubt that FSA chainrings shift well enough for most any purpose. Once you get to a bike at the $1000 level or so, it goes going to work really well, regardless of whether the crank is FSA, Shimano, Sram, Campagnolo etc.

That said, there is a difference between FSA, and Shimano.

I can actually see a case for specing FSA cranks on less expensive bikes. Typically bike manufacturers spec FSA cranks because its cheaper than going with the full Shimano or Campy group, and they shift ok. What makes little sense to me is specing more expensive FSA cranks, that do not shift as well as Shimano.

RT

Agreed on spec'ing, and while this may just be semantics, when you say 'well enough' I take it further by saying I can make them equal, and I have. As the video shows, at high cadence going little->big is not difficult at all, nor is it sloppy or faulty. I can take other vids of slow cadence, or tall gear with steep climb or whatever - the result will be the same as if I were using my 5700. The fact still remains these are very rare occurrences, but remain the crux of the FSA inferiority argument.

It can also be stated that moreso than FSA vs. Shimano hardware, having properly aligned derailleurs, proper chain length and good shifting habits are more important.

merlinextraligh

I think we found in the other thread that the significant majority of people who have used both FSA cranksets and Shimano cranksets prefer the shifting with Shimano.

There are technical reasons for this. Shimano's chainrings are better than FSA's. Forged chain rings are better than stamped.

And the video shows nothing, other than your bike shifts on a stand. To actually prove any sort of point, we'd have to do a side by side test, and take some actual measurements. Additionally, shifting on a stand and shifting under load on the road are entirely different. Everyone who's spent much time on a bike knows that you can have everything hitting perfectly in the stand, and the bike doesn't shift properly on the road.


And as to the "good shifting habits" part of the improvement in drivetrains is to eliminate the need to finesse the drivetrain, through "good shifting habits". If you can use all 20 gear combinations, and slam into any of them under any circumstance,or load, that in itiself is an advantage.

I

RT

But you need to back this up with something, merlin. I am trying to show the performance of the FSA chainset. If you can't see it and compare it to what you know and love, then explain wehy it is better, this is a hollow statement. I started the thread to learn the why, not just hear the same argument over and over.

merlinextraligh

The why is that the rings are forged, not stamped. This allows them to be stiffer, and for the ramping and pinning to be more precise. The superiority of forging is the reason that Praxis is in business.

The backup for it is, the largely consensus opinion of people who have used both, as well as most independent reviews.

For your use, you don't see a difference, that's fine.

But most people do.

And I'd suggest the collected experience of people using both is less hollow, than a video of your bike spinning on a stand.

RT

It is clear we will never agree, so thanks for your input merlin.

hls811

I have FSA on my bike (Caad 8, Tiagra) and really don't have any issues with the shifting. I'm not a hardcore rider or racer so I'm probably the ideal target costomer for them. That being said I have thought about switching to Shimano for the weight/looks.. (I really like the Ultegra 6570 gray crankset) - just don't know if I can justify spending $250-ish it because what I have works well enough. The 5700 105's are nice too if I want to go black and would save me about $50. Differnt topic...

Anyway - this comment kinda jumped out at me.. I've been thinking about asking shifting questions but to me I figured the right answer is "whatever feels right" - Is shifting from small to big while climbing bad? (I don't mean on a steep incline or anything, but as I near the top - and maybe its not really ON the climb, its where I plateau out - I'll shift from small to big so I can get that jump.. And there are many times i'm in the small ring at a light, especially if its on any sort of hill..

99Klein 

Never had SRAM (just don't care for their double tap shifters personally)but have had plenty of Shimano and a few FSA's. FSA cranks (or rather chainrings) shift fine. Fine, but nowhere near as well as Shimano's do. That said, I think (IMO) FSA make the best looking cranksets (Shimano make the ugliest except DuraAce) and SRAM would be second best looking. I would have no problem running a FSA crank, but might feel differently were I still racing.

Carbonfiberboy 

When redoing the drivetrain on our trandem, we went with FSA triple tandem cranksets. A tandem really shows up the weaknesses of a crankset. The rings were crap. We broke the upshift pins off the middle ring pronto. The inner ring burred pronto. The big ring also burred, but its an easier shift and has more teeth, so it lasted longer. I replaced the inner ring with a SS ring and the outer two with Ultegra, which shift better when new and last much longer. Also the bearings in both cranksets went out the first year and had to be replaced. The second set still give trouble because the seals get dirty and create a lot of drag. We'll eventually have to replace the whole lot with Shimano or something else. Very disappointed.

Yes, we upshift under load all the time, which I also do with my Ultegra singles. Both I and my stoker like to stand and rest stroke on long climbs, usually making a shift from inner to middle ring in front. I don't like to climb out of the saddle in the granny, especially on the tandem, because that puts so much strain on the chain and the granny ring teeth. We know to take some of the load off the pedals when we upshift, but one can't just coast on a climb. Doesn't work. Even if one doesn't rest stroke, one always upshifts before the top of the climb proper to be in the right gear to start accelerating. One sure as heck doesn't wait until the descent to shift up through the rings.

Anyway, Ultegra rings are well made and durable. FSA not so much. Wait 'til you put 10,000 miles on them.

redlude97

I think all the points have been covered. Sometimes you just want to smash over the top of a hill which is shifting under power, especially for some of the steep rollers around here. Even on flats when I want to jump around someone I'm drafting I'll shift small-big. Most of the time you won't notice, but there are enough times that you will to decide the shimanos are better. The 5700s aren't even that stiff, compare any FSA to ultegra or duraace and then you'll really be able to feel the stiffness.

grolby

Mostly I just wonder why RT is so damn defensive about the FSA cranks he uses not being as good as Shimano. Get over it.

RT

Just for the record, it was a mistake to start this thread. Hopefully some good civil discourse can come from it, but I am exiting. The 41 tends to miss the focus and go all empirical, and that was not the intent of this thread. Enjoy.

JimF22003

I've never ridden on the lower-end FSA cranks, but I've had no trouble with the FSK K-Light cranks I use on my Di2 setup. I can't tell any difference between them and an Ultegra crank I use on another bike, that also uses Di2.

FWIW, I upshift (and downshift) on the front under load ALL the time. With all of the short steep rollers we have around here it's extremely common to be standing over the crest of a steep grade on the small CR, and flip to the big CR while going over the top. Lots of times this puts you in a better gear than trying to stay on the small CR and downshift in the back.

big chainring 

Best shifting chainrings I have had. Nice steel Stronglight set-up with Huret Svelto derailleurs.

Carbonfiberboy 

Ah, an Aristotelian. Don't see those much any more. Or perhaps "empirical" doesn't mean what you think it means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Nope, sure don't want anything like that around here. Yup, probably a mistake. Try to keep your heels down.