Best Performer...Zipp cranks or Shimano?

[mikki]

Ok bike folks...

What experience do you have with Zipp cranks? I have only had Shimano but am toying with changing to Zipps or maybe even Campy's this time. Any advise and information about the differences in comparing them to Shimanos?

[coylifut]

performance..hmmm...from a crank set. I think you'd notice a difference between a traditional set of 32 spoke box section rims as comapred to a set of $5200 Lightweight wheels, but between cranksets. I don't think so.

[mikki]

So it doesn't really make any difference when building your bike as to the cranks?

[mikki]

:butt: Sorry if I've asked a stupid question. Ignore the poll ya all.

[coylifut]

they are all so good at at going around in circles and attaching a pedal to a bicycle. my take is that between the DA, Record....you pick the one that looks the best. My favorite looking is the aluminum Record crank with the square taper bb. However, i'm using the da so go figure.

[Lanternrouge]

So it doesn't really make any difference when building your bike as to the cranks?

It makes a big difference in how your bike looks. Just think of it as jewelery for your bike :banana:

[Jack Brunk]

I have set of Zipp's on my Meivici. I really like how they work/look on the bike. I would buy them again in a heart beat. A first class product.

Jack

[cadence90]

Zipps?
A ridiculously overpriced crankset using a compromised bottom bracket technology?
Forget it.
Won't perform any worse but certainly not better and not worth the money, imo.

Square taper or UT for bb.
Campa looks better, imo.

[sw3759]

Shimano works great but are kinda fugly.Campy looks the best by far..Zipp,well they won't get another penny of my money for any of their products period.they burned me in 90's and wouldn't stand and behind their crap ATMO.rant over.


Scott

[dauwhe]

For me there are two (well, three) very important questions about a crank:

[1] What gearing will it allow? A 135bcd double (Campy) would allow a 38t inner ring minimum. My new 94bcd TA Carmina double will have a 30t inner ring!

[2] Heel clearance. I pedal with my right foot tilted out, so on many cranks my heel strikes the crank at the BB. What I need is a "low profile" crank. TA Zephyr bad (unfortunately), Sugino good...

[3] Aesthetics. Sorry FSA! Your cranks are not works of art atmo...

Dave

[aaronbarker]

I've got a 170mm set of Gass Project Torsk carbon cranks that feel absolutely heavenly. They're some of the lightest cranks I've found (390ish for the bare cranks) and are a noticable improvement over the Zefiro/Colnago cranks they replaced.

have fun,
aaron

[regularguy412]

My opinion: Prolly just as important to know what kind of Q-factor an individual crank set yields. I've been using an old DA 7410 crankset that uses 103 mm , square taper BB. I absolutely love them. Proper Q-factor relative to your particular bodystyle/ riding style can help avoid or alleviate many foot/knee/hip problems.

Mike in AR

[Jeff N.]

My personal opinion...and I have good reason: Stay away from ANYTHING Zipp, ESPECIALLY their cranksets. Jeff N.

[cadence90]

I've got a 170mm set of Gass Project Torsk carbon cranks that feel absolutely heavenly. They're some of the lightest cranks I've found (390ish for the bare cranks) and are a noticable improvement over the Zefiro/Colnago cranks they replaced.

have fun,
aaron
Those are made by Gigantex iirc, like Thorius and a bunch of other brands.
You can tell by the "point" on the crankarm end. They are fine. Very light.

[cadence90]

My personal opinion...and I have good reason: Stay away from ANYTHING Zipp, ESPECIALLY their cranksets. Jeff N.
Yup. Definitely.

[yeehawfactor]

sw3759, cadence and jeff n get it. shimano or campy in this instance, anything other than zipp as a theorem

[nobrakes]

I like the look of, and have had on my Look 585 Campy carbon for over 2 years. They still look great, and they haven't had an easy life. I've also got FSA carbon on another bike that's only a year older, and they are pretty scarred-up and beat looking. Seems to me the Campy cranks' finish is far more durable than FSA's. I think the Zipp's are good looking, but way overpriced in comparison to most other carbon cranks. As Coylifut said, they are all good at turning circles.

[Simon Q]

Campy definitely look the best IMO. You have to see them in the flesh to appreciate them.

[Xyzzy]

I think the Si Hollowgrams are the best performers. I think they look best of all, too. Too bad they cost so much and too bad you have to go to a dealer to get parts. The BB design is so simple it is amazing. The bearings are bigger than the outer shell of a regular BB.

I would give my left testicle for a 165mm Si Hollowgram crank, just to see how it works out. I hate being constrained by 170mm/172.5mm/175mm thinking.

[Tommasini]

Velonews recently ran a test that showed Shimano outboard bearing design was terrible for bearing friction (and the same for similar designs such as FSA). The winners were Campy square taper, several FSA ceramic upgrades, and close behind the campy ultra torque BB/Crank. So for those that said aesthetics were superior for one or the other........go for it.

[Vancouverdave]

Shimano and Campy both have far better quality control than any of the generic Taiwanese crank makers--and Shimano's is better than Brand C's.
Believe me, it hurts a little to say that! Non-group cranks are often lighter and never as good. Have a Campy bike? Want to be free of oddball pattern chainrings for gearing changes? Buy Shimano.

[Ti Designs]

Wow, lots of cranky issues here...

The bottom bracket bearing friction issue is kinda funny. If you hang your frame up and turn the cranks by hand a lot, I suggest an older campy BB or a Phil Wood. If you ride your bike, the friction at the bearings is insignificant.

Gearing: Campy sticks with it's 135mm bolt circle which can be somewhat limiting. Most stick to the Shimano standard of 130, including Zipp. And let's not forget that new (old) standard known as compact, or 110. Compact gearing seems to be a knee jerk reaction these days. I strongly suggest you take a look at your standard "cruising" gear and give yourself a good, straight chain line for most of your riding. Compact gearing doesn't do that very well. In the 34 you'll probably find yourslef crossed over to the smaller side of the cassette, on the 50 you'll be on the larger side. I don't live near the alps so I've never understood the need for compact gearing.

Asthetics: I'm astheticly retarded, ask someone else.

Function: In just about every test I've seen with real pyhsical test data, the Dura-Ace crank comes out ahead, as do the Dura-Ace chainrings. Deflections tests show the Dura-Ace is about as strong as they get, but the numbers on the lower axis tell me that the tests are pointless - the deflection curves start at over 400 pounds of force. I've heard people claim that they can feel the flex in their cranks, but it's often the people turning those 34T chainrings on the flats - something very wrong with that.

The only matter of function I would pay any attention to is the availability of different crank lengths. Shimano offers 165mm arms, as well as 177.5 and 180mm arms in Dura-Ace. That said, how many people really need 180mm cranks? I've sold 5 pair in 20 years (then again, I've only sold 5 pair of Look CX-7 pedals, which have a varus/valgus adjustment. Oddly enough, 2 out of the 5 pair wound up on the same tandem - it's a weird world out there!)

As for Zipp components in general, it's a hit or miss company. My opinion of their cranks is that they're a miss. The people who order them tend to be the ones who put each and every part on the scale ('cept their own a$$). A bikes function has little to do with it's weight. The weight of the wheels matter (Zipp tubulars are an example of a good offering from that company), but most people would be hard pressed to tell if there was a brick tied to the bottom bracket of their bikes. If I had to put an order to which parts you weigh, it would go something like this. The weight on the outside of the wheels first (it's that R squared factor, light hubs count for nothing), weight at the top of the bike next (when you climb out of the saddle that weight is thrown from side to side, more weight = more wasted energy. The third thing you should put on the scale is the rider.

[1centaur]

Compact gearing doesn't do that very well. In the 34 you'll probably find yourslef crossed over to the smaller side of the cassette, on the 50 you'll be on the larger side. I don't live near the alps so I've never understood the need for compact gearing.

Compact gearing is great, but 50/34 is the wrong combo for most situations. If we're talking cruising gear, that gear is not 53/15 (typical stock combo with good chainline) for a non-racer on the rolling hillocks of New England who's just going out for a ride. When I was looking for straight cruising chainline on the big ring for these non-Alp conditions I came out with a 48, and when I considered what I wanted on the small ring to get up 15% grades with a cadence over 50 I came up with a 36. I get very little crossover anymore, and very few FD changes. Without compact BCD I would have been limited to 48/38, which is okay but not ideal.

Compact gearing for me is about options and straight chainline, not 50/34 which a look at a gear inches table showed me was bizarre.

[Serotta PETE]

Thanks for the detailed description......Very good reading. PETE

Wow, lots of cranky issues here...

The bottom bracket bearing friction issue is kinda funny. If you hang your frame up and turn the cranks by hand a lot, I suggest an older campy BB or a Phil Wood. If you ride your bike, the friction at the bearings is insignificant.

Gearing: Campy sticks with it's 135mm bolt circle which can be somewhat limiting. Most stick to the Shimano standard of 130, including Zipp. And let's not forget that new (old) standard known as compact, or 110. Compact gearing seems to be a knee jerk reaction these days. I strongly suggest you take a look at your standard "cruising" gear and give yourself a good, straight chain line for most of your riding. Compact gearing doesn't do that very well. In the 34 you'll probably find yourslef crossed over to the smaller side of the cassette, on the 50 you'll be on the larger side. I don't live near the alps so I've never understood the need for compact gearing.

Asthetics: I'm astheticly retarded, ask someone else.

Function: In just about every test I've seen with real pyhsical test data, the Dura-Ace crank comes out ahead, as do the Dura-Ace chainrings. Deflections tests show the Dura-Ace is about as strong as they get, but the numbers on the lower axis tell me that the tests are pointless - the deflection curves start at over 400 pounds of force. I've heard people claim that they can feel the flex in their cranks, but it's often the people turning those 34T chainrings on the flats - something very wrong with that.

The only matter of function I would pay any attention to is the availability of different crank lengths. Shimano offers 165mm arms, as well as 177.5 and 180mm arms in Dura-Ace. That said, how many people really need 180mm cranks? I've sold 5 pair in 20 years (then again, I've only sold 5 pair of Look CX-7 pedals, which have a varus/valgus adjustment. Oddly enough, 2 out of the 5 pair wound up on the same tandem - it's a weird world out there!)

As for Zipp components in general, it's a hit or miss company. My opinion of their cranks is that they're a miss. The people who order them tend to be the ones who put each and every part on the scale ('cept their own a$$). A bikes function has little to do with it's weight. The weight of the wheels matter (Zipp tubulars are an example of a good offering from that company), but most people would be hard pressed to tell if there was a brick tied to the bottom bracket of their bikes. If I had to put an order to which parts you weigh, it would go something like this. The weight on the outside of the wheels first (it's that R squared factor, light hubs count for nothing), weight at the top of the bike next (when you climb out of the saddle that weight is thrown from side to side, more weight = more wasted energy. The third thing you should put on the scale is the rider.

[saab2000]

If I end up returning to Switzerland a bike with a compact crank will be a very real possibility. To try out as least.

I like the aesthetics of the Campagnolo crank, the new Ultra Torque model. I have gotten used to the Shimano design. It still looks a bit clunky, but I know it is a mechanically good design, other than the more or less insignificant bearing resistance.