New FSA SL-K Carbon Compact with Mega Exo BB

[Bruce K]

I just took delivery of a set of the new FSA SL-K Carbon Compact crankset (50/34) with the Mega Exo Bottom Bracket and had it mounted on my Ottrott ST.

Visually it is very impressive. The fit and finish is excellent. The molded carbon crank arms appear flawless and have a very nice finish - not a woven look but more "swirling".

Hopefully the weather hasn't gone completely in the toilet around here and I will get a chance to ride them in the next week or two.

Has anyone else gotten a set of these, either compact or standard who has had a chance to ride them? Opinions?

BK

[Ray]

Has anyone else gotten a set of these, either compact or standard who has had a chance to ride them? Opinions?


Nope, but I'm thinking about a set of those or the Bontrager compact crank with the integrated BB for a new frame I'll be building up in February or March. I'm real interested in any input between now and then. Keep us informed.

-Ray

[jeffg]

I certainly think the new FSA stuff is interesting, and I am gratified they have an alloy version as well. The one downside to the FSA stuff is the chainrings, which have a reputation for being of poor quality. Since you are much more likely to flex chainrings than the BB area, it seems a shame to get a very stiff crank/BB only to miss the boat with the chainrings. Also, the Q on FSA, while better than DA is still more than Campy, PMP, etc.

I am still intending to go with a Campy Chorus CT to keep my Phil BB, but who knows ... Bruce, write us a review when you get some miles on the crank :banana:

[Dave]

Never heard the claim of poor quality rings before. They're the same alloy as most any brand. What makes them "poor quality"? I've got about 3000 miles on my FSA carbon triple crank with campy 10 and it's been flawless so far.

As for the Q, the FSA doubles are about the same as any other double crank (147mm). If someone thinks a couple of millimeters is going to hurt their knees, I guess they'll never be able to ride a triple with a 160mm Q or an MTB with a 168mm.

I switched to nothing but triples for the Colorado mountains after 20 years on doubles and it didn't bother me bit. Some folks even find a wider Q beneficial.

[jeffg]

Never heard the claim of poor quality rings before. They're the same alloy as most any brand. What makes them "poor quality"? I've got about 3000 miles on my FSA carbon triple crank with campy 10 and it's been flawless so far.


FSA has had several poor reviews of their chainrings (including Tour, which found them "unacceptable"). Even TA rings, which are of very good quality, do not shift quite as well as matched DA or Campy rings (just ask Peter White). So, when you are spending top dollar for a carbon crank and new-fangled crank/BB that purports to be stiffer, it begs the question as to whether the rings themselves negate any stiffness advantage of the crank/BB.

Hey, these are just questions that I would ask (and am asking) before buying one. I am not saying that a Campy setup will necessarily be stiffer or shift better than an FSA, though both my old DA 9 rings and Campy 10 speed rings shift better than my TA Syrius. One thing I am sure of is that a Phil BB will outlast even an integrated BB.

As for Q, yes I will not go to a triple. I notice a substantial difference between a DA 9 double and a PMP or Campy double, so Q does matter to me. If it makes no difference to your knees, then rejoice! You just have more choices in setting up your bike! :banana:

[93legendti]

Never heard the claim of poor quality rings before. They're the same alloy as most any brand. What makes them "poor quality"? I've got about 3000 miles on my FSA carbon triple crank with campy 10 and it's been flawless so far.

As for the Q, the FSA doubles about the same as any other double crank (147mm). If someone thinks a couple of millimeters is going to hurt their knees, I guess they'll never be able to ride a triple with a 160mm Q or an MTB with a 168mm.

I switched to nothing but triples for the Colorado mountains after 20 years on doubles and it didn't bother me bit. Some folks even find a wider Q beneficial.

I have 3 sets of FSA Carbon cranks, all different models. No chainring shifting or flex issues here.

[CalfeeFly]

I have an alloy FSA compact on one bike. It replaced D/A 9. I noticed no shifting difference. Possibly the rings they use on their new "high end" cranks are different than your experience. Mine shifts great and I was a little worried before trying it out.

I just ordered the new integrated carbon one for another bike. (That name is the pits to pronounce or spell. Somebody let marketing get carried away.) It isn't in yet since I'm going with a 175 this time.

I'm another that doesn't feel any huge difference when I go from triples to doubles in the feel of the Q. I've felt for a long time that what we can and cannot perceive/feel in changes is very different from person to person. For example I swear by carbon seatposts making the ride a little softer. Others say I nuts. My butt can also tell when the bearings in my King Hubs loosen. So I get my butt is more sensitive then my lower body on the pedals! :)

[gasman]

I have an FSA carbon compact crank and I love it. No issues with flex, shifting or premature wear.I also just switched to an alloy FSA compact for my rain bike and it works just as well but it doesn't look as nice as the carbon.

[Dave]

I never heard of chainring stiffness being a concern like crankarm stiffness, except perhaps in the case of a very large ring with a small BC (like a 52 with a 110mm BC). The two are also totally unrelated. Even crankarm stiffness (or lack of) has never been proven to increase or decrease power output.

If you understand that all aluminum alloys have about the same modulus of elasticity (E) and deflection for a given load is directly proportional to E, then you also understand that chainring flex can only be greater if the ring is thinner or has less material in the web area. Take a look at the pictures of shimano, campy or FSA rings (excluding the new DA) and all have virtually identical shapes. The idea that FSA rings are more flexible just doesn't make sense.

Shifting quickness is mostly a function of the ramp and pin design on the big ring. It's possible that Campy or Shimano has an edge there, but many user reports (including mine) don't agree with that. I rode two bikes last year, one with a Campy double and one with the FSA triple. I didn't find the two to be significantly different myself. I wouldn't discourage anyone from choosing a much cheaper FSA crank over a Campy.

[Bruce K]

I now own 4 different modelfs of FSA cranksets.

The "standard" carbon 53/39 on my TT bike, the Compact Carbon (50/34) that just left my Ottrott for my Concours, the Energy Compact (46/34) on my cross bike, and now the SL-K's.

I have a fair amount of mileage on the older Octalink cranksets and have experienced neither shifting problems, flex problems, or premature wear. I guess that is why I keep going back to the FSA's.

I will let you all know if I see/feel any differences with the new Mega Exo BB after I get some miles on them.

As for FSA in general, I'm a believer.

BK