FSA K-Force or Dura Ace?
 

I was thinking of upgrading my crankset. I currently have a FSA Energy 53/39 on my Fuji SL-1 Pro (47cm). I was thinking either Dura Ace or FSA K-Force. Any opinions on either? Also my crank is currently a 170mm, my friend suggested getting a 175. Would there be any advantages or disadvantages to this? Thanks

-Mark

I'd try to borrow a 175 before spending the $$ on an upgrade. It's a reasonably big change (don't forget to adjust your seat).

I like the Ultegra/DA cranks myself. Can't speak for the FSA ones. A DA crank always looks good, and is kind of the standard for stiffness and shifting

I've put well over 10,000 miles on the Dura-Ace 7900 crankset and more than 15,000 miles on an FSA K-Force (Light) crankset.

Dura-Ace 7900 will be better than FSA K-Force. FSA K-Force "Light" is more on par with the Dura-Ace crankset. I like the fact you get ceramic bearings with the K-Force Light. Dura-Ace 7900 will be a little stiffer, but also around 100 grams heavier as well. I'd recommend going to a 172.5 instead of 175.

forget weights and ceramic bearings, how well does K-force shift over DA?

Dura-Ace without a question. I absolutely hate FSA cranks.

small frame (47cm), long cranks (175 cm) is an odd combo. Are you short with super long legs? i.e. 5'4" with 34"inseam.

i would think if anything you would move to a 165 crank with a 47 frame, thats pretty small.

My current crank on my frame is 170. I'm 5'4-5'5 (Depends on the day lol) 28" inseam. So in general I'm short.

My FSA K force light 172.5 works great, no problems. Shifts fine, rides fine, looks fine.

I've got a Dura Ace crank and an FSA K Force.

DA chainrings definitely shift quicker and crisper than FSA. The FSA's work, but if you're a stickler for crisp shifting you want Shimano rings.

FSA cranks tend to creak, DA does not.

FSA's single bolt design for both bering preload, and holding the crank arm on is inferior,imho, to Shimano's design where one bolt does the preload, and others secure the crank arm. ( The fact that FSA wants you to assemble it with Loctite 242, which no one carries, tells you there's a deficiency in the design.)


I would go with the DA everyday.

And by the way FSA repeatedly lies about the weight of their components.

It is probably just in my head, but I swear I can feel a 175 vs. 170 (all things being equal).

I am 5'10" and run a 56cm frame (typically) and 175 just starts to feel right with my leg length, that sounds awful long for that size frame as posted above-


Edit to add- When I started cycling, the commonly available cranks were 170's and 172.5's if I remember correctly, all these crank length choices are relatively new in the cycling world. I wouldn't get too wound up about crank length (no pun intended).

I went to 175 just to try it out, adapted to it, and have run it since.

As to the cranks, Dura-Ace is some awesome stuff, I always thought that FSA was the "poor mans" Shimano 105?

An important consideration: the FSA crank has carbon bling, the Dura-Ace does not.

doubt it's in your head

175 on a 46cm? How about no.

Yet the Dura Ace looks better.

So it seems like DA is the better choice for shifting and stiffness? What about length? 175 is out of the question.. would 172.5 be out of the question as well? or just stick to the 170?

going 170 - > 172.5 isn't a huge jump, and if you've had an inkling that you want a longer crank, that's something I'd try.

DA 7900 crank compatible with other components? I read somewhere that it was only compatible with like DA 7900 components. I have an Ultegra SL drivetrain... will it work out?

the difference is noticable if the length is just outside of your range. If the rider is something like 5'4, they are much more likely to notice the difference between 170mm and 172.5mm. They should be on 165mm.

might as well try crank lengths with a cheaper crankset, like sora or tiagra, than play the swapty swap with DA. much easier on the wallet that way.

for a 52cm and under, you want generally want 165mm cranks.

or something like 18~20% of your inseam.

good point

Dura Ace all the way.

A lot of FSA cranks don't do well with reviews, and this one (K-force carbon) has 40 so it is a better sampling than something with only a couple of reviews.

http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/dr...7_2491crx.aspx

K-force mega exo
http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/dr...3_2491crx.aspx

slap your friend, then get the DA with a 165 arm length. I'm of remarkably similar dimensions, went 170 to 165, and love it. going the opposite direction would have been...not good. 170 wasn't bad by any means, but it's hardly ideal for me.

any thoughts on the Ultegra SL crank? they're pretty cheap on ebay. And the plus is it would complete the group set. How does it compare to the current Ultegra? Sorry for all the questions. completely clueless when it comes to components.

my foot rubs on my ultegra sl crank, and the crankarm looks like **** now. I don't mind, since I subscribe to the "beausage" philosophy (despite not owning a fixie), but some might be turned off by this.

It's a nice crankset, however

So I opted with the Ultegra SL to keep the group the same. Was considering changing the cassette since its a 105, but the weight difference between the 105 and the Ultegra doesnt justify the cost.