twocicle

Exclusive First Look: Fully modular Ciamillo Gravitas 3.1 crankset unveiled!


This crankset could be an interesting product, especially for tandems. However if you needed to buy 3 sets to build a crossover drive, that could get pricey ($2700 based on retail pricing announced) unless the mfr could be talked into packaging a special setup just for our needs. I think they wouldn't even need to create the reverse threaded crossover crank end piece because the ends are modular. Everything appears to be universally useable. Same-side drive sidesteps only requires 2 sets of standard cranks which is still pricey at $1800, but you've got to love the adaptability of the system they created... until something comes loose.

I have been toying with a product idea for some time that would use what I called an "ISIS-Pipe" axle of various dimensions and interface that with ISIS cranks. SRAM Red cranks are close to that, but they don't offer axles in an assortment of lengths and diameters, plus the proprietary Red chainrings limits size and mfr availability. This Ciamillo Gravitas 3.1 crankset does that and a lot more (too much IMO), but I may be a bit squeamish with all the little bits working loose.

budhaslug

While I appreciate Ted Ciamillo's engineering, I've read just enough horror stories about parts ordered and paid for but not received and him avoiding warranty issues (of which there seem to be many) to not even consider his parts. There are some long threads about him and his parts on WeightWeenies and other forums, and what I've taken from all of them is this: Beautiful, light weight parts that sometimes don't hold up for the long term, and if there are problems, you are S.O.L.

These cranks themselves have a LONG history of prototypes that he sold to customers and then didn't support, and over the years they have gotten heavier and no more trustworthy. Looking at this vs the original intended design (where the 2 or 3 carbon tubes were the bulk of the body of the crankset and the aluminum endcaps were as small as possible to make it lighter), I have to wonder if this is a crank design that should have been scrapped instead of being reiterated as you see above. From my armchair observations, the tube-cap interaction had many problems in the original (creaking, coming loose), so he made the caps longer and longer to support the tubes. It went so far that now the caps are covering 80% of the carbon tubes, and so you nearly have a carbon-tube-inside-aluminum-tube design which I have a feeling is heavier, no stiffer, and still more prone to problems than a purely aluminum or purely carbon design. It seems like this has become a solution in want of a problem rather than the other way around, and Ted probably should have stopped and rethought the whole thing rather than continuing on down the road of tube+cap design at some point in the last 5 years.

Perhaps the only real advantage to this modular design is that you could put together a set of tandem cranks from parts. Captain's cranks are just a matter of swapping the endcap off the left and right crank so that the pedal threads are correct. Since Ciamillo is talking about these being modularly repairable, it wouldn't be too hard (theoretically) to order the right set of parts to build up the crossover cranks as well. Whether you'd actually get all these parts if you ordered them, and whether it would all hold up is another story perhaps.

Team Fab

The adjustable crank arm length seems to be the Achilles heal of this design.

What he should have done is made a crank disk(as opposed to an arm) for either side with threaded crank arm lengths around the disk giving all the needed sizes. this could be used by bike fitters and coaches to determine the preferred crank arm length.

Then offer the above cranks in modular lengths. customer could effectively order a 180 for the right and a 170 for the left.

Before you engineers out there steal my idea, I should say something like Patent Pending hahaha.

budhaslug

That is actually a completely new feature as far as I can tell, and wasn't present on any of the prior prototypes. Ted took a creaky interface and added adjustability (and likely more creakiness) that doesn't seem necessary or frequently useful. I have a feeling that the adjustable nature is accidental. In trying to fix previous problems, the solution he settled on happened to be adjustable in length by a small degree so it became a "feature".

joe@vwvortex

The answer to the question no one ever asked.

Ritterview

In looking over the Fairwheel Crank Test, for possible tandem cranks, I think Specialized S-Works Crank has the greatest promise.

Specialized S-Works (2015)




Complete Weight: 663.2 Grams
Price: $665
Spindle: 30 mm
Deflection-D: 4.26 mm
Deflection-ND: 5.75 mm
Average Deflection: 5.01 mm
S/W: 3.013

The Sworks crank has done very well in testing. Like the SISL2 the shorter spindle of this crank should help to keep the weight down as well as improve the non-drive side stiffness. In terms of total weight it hits 6th out of 15. Its real quality though is in its stiffness with the best total deflection of any crank we’ve tested to date (as expected it did very well with nds deflection being the only crank to drop below 6mm). Mix those two attributes and the stiffness to weight ratio is great coming in 2nd out of 15. Shift quality is not the best of all the tested cranks but is certainly more than adequate. Finish is very nice as is installation and its unique preload adjuster. The biggest drawback with this crank is the restricted use to only bb30 and pf30 frames. Given its $665 price tag it could be a pretty popular aftermarket crank if it were available in a 386 version.

• There's a Hirth Joint in middle, so it'd be a matter of having a spider on both axle halves.
• The crank tests fairly stiff and light.
• Specialized makes no triple spider, but the Lightning spider will fit. I think.
• Its BB30, so would require the bottom bracket opening to match on new tandems.
• Its not so expensive as to be prohibitive.

Getting the S-Works crank to work would likely require a new axle to be CNC'd, and this cobbled together with the existing spiders and crank arms.

Team Fab

Are you volunteering to be the guinea pig?

As a non-engineer question, why does this require a new axle?

twocicle

Regarding the S-Works crankset, I recently installed these on my S-Works Tarmac SL4 along with the carbon spider option and a set of Praxis 52/36 chainrings. It is indeed stiffer than my previous Dura Ace 9000 cranks + adapter cups used to step down from the BB30 bearings in the narrow OSBB carbon shell in the bike frame. Plus, the full S-Works setup is 136gm lighter than the DA setup was

I'm not sure about the weight that Fairwheels posted, but my S-Works cranks complete with Praxis rings and the carbon spider came to only 558gm (vs. 694gm for the DA w/Wheels Mfg adapters). Shifting quality with the Praxis rings is exceptional.

It's my understanding that this crank design originally came from Lightning. Though, AFAIK, the Liightning cranks use proprietary bearings. Interesting how the Lightning crank info in the Fairwheel article shows those are woefully flexy while the Specialized are far better in that aspect.

FSA already has external adapter bearings to go from a BSA BB to a EVO386, so the need for a BB30 on a tandem frame might not be necessary, but the axle length would need to be 86mm (+16mm longer). I believe the axle on the Specialized mtn bike crank version is +5mm longer.

Dean V

As the crank test pointed out any performance gain in crank stiffness is minute and it may even be worse than that for carbon arms and their energy damping (absorbing) properties. So you could go to all the effort and expense of making some of these cranks fit and work on your tandem and gain absolutely nothing, except some bling of course.

DubT

What a comment, "Gain absolutely nothing except some bling of course". That is MY OPINION about RH drive and 2X10, 2X11 wide ratio gearing. I much prefer close ratio gears and that can currently be achieved with 3X10 gearing. When 3X11 becomes available in Ultegra quality I may upgrade but for now it is 3x10.

twocicle

When opinion rules over experience and fact.

RH drive does have known technical and equipment choice advantages, so it does indeed have some gain. Also, in most cases requirements for a 2x(nn) chainring setup are driven more from using current electronic shifting setups, which also has a great deal of technical advantage. If your opinion is against either of these independent points simply because you prefer 3 chainrings instead of a 2x(nn) system, then so be it, but don't confuse fact with preference.

joe@vwvortex

Experience can't bring closer gear ratios to a 2x11. That's a fact. I agree with DubT. The fact remains I want closer gear ratios and need a lower low than currently available in a standard 2x11 configuration without going to the 40T rear cogs. I've mixed, matched and modified chainrings, cassette cogs, derailleurs (cages, pulleys, cable angle) and shift mechanisms more than I care to remember over the past 43+ years to know that nothing works quite as well and is as easy to set up as stuff made to work together. There is always a tradeoff. That's fine for those that want to try out new things and spend hours getting it to work just right - but at this point in my life I'm past that. I recognize the advantages of electronic shifting - especially on a tandem - but limiting how we like to ride and where we like to ride because of the wider gear ratios and lack of low enough gear is a tradeoff I'm not willing to make - and that isn't just my opinion. It's a fact.

DubT

it is very obvious that you like technical improvements and enjoy being on the cutting edge.

Do do you or anyone have any HARD evidence that RH drive or even electronic shifting has improved your comfort/speed/endurance over LH drive mechanical shifting.

i have entertained going with rear electronic 10 speed shifting but it would end up costing $600+ and from a performance/$ spent could not justify it. I have a good friend who is the shop manager of a bike shop in Tulsa, Ok and he does not recommend it at this time. Citing cost/complexity/insignificant performance gains. Again these are my preferences/opinions. Yours and others may vary. I have learned how to shift, maintain and adjust mechanical shifting and will for now stay with it.

twocicle

Again, electronic shifting has NOTHING to do with LH drive vs RH drive and same goes for comfort/speed/endurance. If you need evidence that Di2 shifting is an improvement over mechanical, then perhaps read some tech news/reviews for the last few years. Currently it does limit road implementations to 2x(nn) drivetrains, but then so does 11spd mechanical shifting - so no discount there.

Remaining with a 3x10 mechanical is fine if you want mechanical and a whole bunch of duplicated cogs. I think if you work out the crosschaining and duplicate cog numbers, you'll find that the actual useful and distinct gears are fairly close between 3x10 and 2x11 but the former has a lot more wastage. Comparing sample gear calculator setups as I would use them, a 3x10 has 17 usable and distinct gear combinations (56.6% efficiency) vs a 2x11 which has 15 usable and distinct (68% efficiency). The 3x10 essentially has 6 more useless cogs than the 2x11 setup, and that is like carrying an extra 1/2 cassette for no reason. Also need to factor in how much added front shifting you must do with the triple vs a double.

Ok, I'll cede the point that a triple can allow a slightly tighter rear cluster and therefore closer ratio steps between cogs... I like tight ratios as much as anyone. However, on the tandem we are finding acceptable steps with 11spd cassettes up to the 11-32 size which by the way is a fine setup for our climbing needs. For flatter terrain a 11-25 is plenty (and tighter).

FWIW, I am not stuck on RH drive - just liked the experiment, plus we have an actual need for it due to 1) Q-factor and 2) an acceptable 2 chainring sizing to use with Di2 shifting. It also cost me only $550 for a really nice setup. I would use a LH tandem crankset if there was a nice quality, stiff, narrow Q (<=158mm) available. I do not consider anything with square taper or Octalink/ISS BBs as acceptable in our current era.

I just got off the phone with Tim @ Lightning. Since we only need a compact double spider on the drive side, they could build up a set of double chainring tandem cranks ($$$$) with a Q-factor at 150mm. That is great news for us, because their standard tandem triple for 130mm spacing is 162mm (similar to FSA tandem cranks) - too wide for my stoker. Since we have 135mm spacing (and going with 12x142mm TA on our next frame), there seems to be a lot of wiggle room for us to achieve both a good Q at 153mm and a good chainline at 45mm. I didn't realize Lightning will build-to-order, so seriously considering these.

waynesulak

I view the 2 x 11 vs 3 x 10 debate as boiling down to what you want out of your gearing. For example:

2 x 10 = less overlapping gears between rings. Less wasted duplicate gears, less weight and easier to adjust FD. All good stuff it the gears will do what you want.

For others who ride in terrain where they are often in the middle usable gear ratios then in a 2 x 10 would mean they would move between then larger cogs in the large ring and the smaller cogs in the small ring. For those folks the duplicate gears mean that the middle ring can be used much of the time and avoid lots of front shifting. Also with a 3 x 10 the rings are generally closer together making more duplicate ratios but therefore fewer front shifts and reducing the number of rear cogs shifted each time the front is shifted. Double shifts are quicker and easier as a result. If a wider range cassette is used for the 2 x 10 that lessens the front shifting and gives low gears but introduces the wider steps between gears in the 2 x 10 which is a deal killer for some.

On some of our rides we could use a double and it work well, There are other rides where the triple is really needed. If we were stronger and had a wider cadence range then a double might work on all our rides and be a good simplification. As it is that is not the case.

joe@vwvortex

Exactly.

jnbrown

Our lowest gear is 28 X 30. That would be heard to achieve on a double set up.
Its a gear that I would not give up, in the past we have gotten by with 28 X 25 on a eight speed cassette but now that our combined age is 116 we need lower gears.

I have the S-Works crankset on my Tarmac SL-3 and like it.

One the tandem we have an FSA Gossamer triple and despite the stories about FSA's poor quality at has lasted very well and don't plan to change it although it is heavy.

twocicle

That forgot to factor in a major deciding factor... using Di2 road setup requires 2 chainrings and does not support 3.

However, even the new XTR Di2 triple has such a narrow chainring range, there is very little motivation to use the XTR triple FD for a road setup. The deciding factor to move to XTR Di2 might be the very wide range-capable RD SGS which is built to handle the XTR 11-40 cassette size. Unfortunately the XTR doube FD is built for a close chainring gap, so Shimano is really crippling Di2 usage by not allowing a mixed road/mtn derailleur installation. Really stupid in many people's opinion including mine.

fyi: 28 X 30 = 30 x 32 which is one of our 2x11spd combos

waynesulak

Our low gear is 24/28 or .85. 30/32 = .9375

If you don't mind wearing parts out faster then smaller chain rings give wide gearing even with a fairly close spaced cassette. Our front rings 24/36/50 give a big ring with over twice the teeth as the granny for lots of range. I have thought about moving to a 52 big ring which but it would force us into the middle ring a lot more on our terrain so 50-12 (4.167) is our top gear. That is a pretty good range from the low of 24/28 with a 12-28 cassette with gaps we can manage (12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28).

twocicle

Yeap, 24/28 would be basically the same as a 30/34.

I also have a 28t chainring waiting for the day when we might want that with our biggest 32t cog (would equal either of the first two combos mentioned). Then our 48/28 chainrings would result in a 20t gap between them but I'm confident it would work fine with the road Di2 11spd FD. Our 48x11 is a slightly taller gear than the 52x12. With the 2x11 setup we lose a few extra gear ratios here and there, but gain the best shifting available and so there is no question IMO.

Remind me, what triple crank/spider BCD are you running that allows a 36t middle?

Carbonfiberboy 

Facts: Our normally used 17 gears are (gear-inches): 117, 100, 88, 78, 75, 70, 66, 61, 58, 54, 46, 41, 35, 31, 27, 23, 21. We use them all and frequently. The small difference between the bottom 2 gears doesn't feel that small at all. These are perfect ratios for our team. Yes, this is old technology. So far, there is no newer technology to replace it and nothing on the horizon.

We have been in the crafts business for 40 years. Many years ago, Nicholson File was the undisputed king of file making and file technology. Then they were purchased by a large corporation which eliminated 98% of their product line, and with it the jobs of those who depended on those files for their livelihood. Nicholson File however is still in business and doing very well. The bicycle industry doesn't need our team to be happy, or even riding, to survive. They really don't care. That's irritating, but so are many other, more important things.