Why are FSA Cranksets so Lowly Regarded?
 

I have an FSA crank set, compact double 10 speed, that I find to be trouble and worry free but I'm often seeing comments about them being low quality and such. So why are they held in such low esteem? Does these things carry over to the other parts offered buy FSA? I see some of the other products that, price wise, aren't low end.

Particularly the lower end FSA cranks are widely believe to cause poor front derailleur shifting. My SL-K and K-Force cranks have always allowed excellent front shifting.

I have several older FSA cranks and bars. They seem OK. Lots of carbon wrap on the cranks, but the net is they are heavier than the Dura-Ace all alloy. I think they are fine, but I expect the reaction is about being faux in many areas.

Because performance cycling tends not to be about functionality...

Is it more of a snub of the cranks themselves or the bike manufacturer for spec'ing the cranks? I feel like it's the most obvious and visually noticeable cost cutting measure by bike brands to save a few bucks on the build and use a non-series shimano or low end fsa crankset. I've heard the new gossamer pro used on some 105 level bikes are decent and offer pretty much the same shifting performance. I'm more suspicious of random brake calipers than I am of cranks...

I personally don't get it..you'd think the bike makers would get a better package deal using all the same brand components on a bike than piecemealing it, and IMO a more attractive setup being all same brand. Eg. a Diverge Comp comes with 105 bits, but with a FSA Gossamer crank. Maybe it's the opposite and a Gossamer is considered an upgrade? On Ribble, a gossamer crank sells for more ($98) than a 105 crankset ($86).. so.. I don't get it.

My limited experience with FSA cranks is they are decent price line stuff. Often mixed group spec'd to save money at entry level. I don't particularly care for them but they do work.

I've got a FSA Carbon crank. I bought it used and the seller said it just needed tightening up. Big mistake. It is obvious that the left insert has worked itself loose and just tightening it won't fix anything. I don't know the whole history of the crankset, but apparently several FSA cranks suffered from similar problems.

So, no FSA CF cranks here. I know that may be harsh, but....

I have them on three bikes, all different model, no problems at all. Maybe it's a snob thing, my bikes to good for FSA!

I have an FSA SL-K Light crank that has been awesome for well over two years, no complaints with it whatsoever. I thought I had an issue with my 53t ring but ended up needing new bearings for the bottom bracket. I also weighed it just for fun while it was getting serviced and its light too.

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/a...psdjzjbpa9.jpg

From my research the chain rings caused poor shifting but that has been corrected in recent years. The new chain rings are apparently stiffer and shift great based on reviews. I had new Gossamer cranks that shifted great with 6800. I just bought slk light that I'm pairing with campy 10 speed so I'll report back once I have some miles.

So you will only buy cranks that will last forever?

It's definitely a cost cutting measure. As most frames these days come with a pressfit bottom bracket (and there are many different types pointlessly competing with each other) and Shimano are still sticking to their guns with 24mm spindles. It's cheaper for the bike makers to use any competitors chainsets that fit those pressfit bb's more easily (i.e BB30,BB386 etc) VS the bike makers having to convert (more expense) their pressfit BB standard into a Shimano compatible BB that would be required to complete the groupset.

Last week a friend had the metal insert in one of the crank arms break free from the carbon in an SL-K.

Is that not unusual? I'd considered getting a set of the cranks previously to replace the Praxis cranks that came on my Specialized, though was going to wait to hear if FSA took care of him first.

The Praxis cranks are pretty good, why do you want to replace them?

The one that I have is pretty chunky and heavy, it works fine and thats about it.

I wonder what will happen when FSA groupset comes out? Will they get into OEM market with full groups? Will it still be considered cost cutting if it's a matching groupset?

What? FSA is coming with a groupset?
In my opinion yes, it will be considered cost cutting. There are already 3 names in the market and it would take a while, and cheap prices for people to consider them. So until they build a reputation they will be cheaper alternatives.
I would only expect to see them at entry level bikes for a long time.

It's a high end electronic group so probably not

First Look: FSA Electronic Group Set : Hybridized Shifting | Bicycling

Rotor also has a very interesting hydraulic groupset coming out but thats a discussion for another thread

From experience with mid range FSA (Gossamer, have had 3 now), there is nothing wrong with the crank arms, themselves, the rings, especially the inner do wear quicker than their Shimano equivalents.

Being as it's often cheaper to replace the complete crank when the inner and outer need replacing, I would normally just replace the complete chainset with a Shimano, but currently I am running a Gossamer with Shimano rings as I got the rings very cheap, and this was overall the cheaper option to replacing the Chainset.

I've had two FSA cranksets so far (SLK and Gossamer) and have had no trouble at all shifting or compatiblity wise. Both have been used with Ultegra front and rear. Actually in the market for another SLK BB30 so if anyone knows of anything....

Dunno about the low and mid range products but the SL-K and K-Force cranksets tested pretty well for weight and stiffness and reviews have rated them well for shifting too. From what I've read their highend stuff particularly turned a corner a few years ago. My bike came with the current SL-K shown in the test, and while it performs exceptionally, it is ugly a sin.

Road Bike Crank Test - Fairwheel Bikes Blog

Because they're often OEM items and the modern road-bicycle industry is founded on getting the customer to believe what they have and what they are isn't good enough. This allows all sorts of "upgrades" to be sold and the wheels of capitalism to turn.

There is no agreement about the looks of any particular crankset. Eye of the beholder and all that.

LOL. The bike industry isn't a cartel. Trek et. al. have no motivation to help Shimano et. al. sell more components into the aftermarket. It's really pretty simple. The people selling complete bikes design their various models pretty carefully to hit specific price points, and choose OEM parts accordingly. FSA hit upon an opportunity to make money by selling a relatively inexpensive external bearing compact crankset to manufacturers in enormous volumes, and it worked out pretty well. The reason for the "poor" reputation of the Gossamer is because it was, for a while, pretty much ubiquitous on mid-range road bikes. Because it was lower cost than an equivalent Shimano crank at the time, it was also (somewhat) heavier and less stiff than the name brand alternative. And it's really that non capital 'B' Brand status and the obvious conclusion that the presence of a non-matching crankset on a bike otherwise clad with Shimano components was a cost-cutting measure that cemented the impression of FSA cranks as crappy products. In reality, of course FSA cranks were fine and functioned well even if they were not quite as refined as Shimano's product. They also let a lot of people get the low gears they needed without the shame of a triple crank, so in that sense it was a great product for those folks. Shimano just wasn't selling compacts when FSA first came out with them. The larger difference in size between compact and standard chainrings could've contributed to the perception of poor quality associated with FSA, but I'm not sure. These days, I still don't think anyone makes as good a crank as Shimano does, but the FSA cranks were never bad and their high end models are very, very good.