2014 Ciamillo Gravitas crankset V3 in white powdercoat

Still pretty fresh outta the oven, Ciamillo continues to tweak the Gravitas crankset. The Revision 3 design has longer pedal ends to make it even stiffer. The original design used a shorter alloy pedal end, but Ted Ciamillo said that didn’t provide the overall stiffness that the carbon tubes could provide.

According to Ciamillo, the original design’s sockets would yield to the force of the tubes and could end up wallowing out a bit over time because there wasn’t as much surface area supporting the carbon as he liked.

The new design provides 41mm of contact area, up from 25mm on the originals. The four pins that help secure the parts (two on each end) have changed from a hollow design to a two-piece, lipped design that better prevents movement and transfers forces better. These changes ended up effectively doubling the system’s stiffness.

Claimed weight remains exactly the same at 395g for a 172.5. The original design let the carbon tubes extend all the way past the pedal’s insertion point. The new one stops the tubes just before the pedal hole, offsetting the additional weight from the longer end piece.

2014 Ciamillo Gravitas crankset V3 in white powdercoat

It’ll be offered in anodized black and powder coated white, which will add a few grams (these are a 175mm and came in at a claimed 415g). Like his brakes, the ends are still anodized prior to powder coating.

The white ones shown here are a customer’s crankset, so they’re shipping now. Retail is $899, add $50 for white. They can also anodize any of the alloy parts, excluding spider and spindle, any color at no additional charge. Available in compact and standard in either BSA24, BBright or BSA Adapted 30 (longer 30mm spindle) and BB30.

2014 Ciamillo Gravitas crankset V3 in black ano

More at caw-designs.com.


  1. These are the uber light cranks with the odd new design. The white pair reminds me of BMC Impec design style. I don’t mind the look, very modern, but it’s the polar oppostie of the traditional nago look a lot of weight weenies love.

    Neat product imo.

  2. 3 revisions since the crank was released just a couple months ago, that screams of a product that wasn’t fully developed or tested. Pretty messed up that they are allowing us consumers to pay them to be the product testers.

  3. The White pair pictured is on my S-Works SL3. Having only ridden S-Works cranks in the past I had nothing to compare what “Stiffness” actually was……, I NOW DO!!! I have put 90 miles on the crank so far, in all kinds of drill conditions. From hard “all-out Sprint” drills in a 53/11, to fast paced standing on the pedals hill climbs and this crank is night and day from my 2012 S-Works crank! These things are so friggen’ stiff its hard to put into words or describe the sensation. A local Mechanic of over 20 years took it out for a quick 1 mile loop and said the same thing! His words exactly: “I have never felt a stiffer crank!” I also love the “Plug-And-Play” benefits of this crank. I can switch the spider from compact to standard super quickly, can get any arm length or Q-Factor I desire and lastly……, They look Pimp as Hell!!!!! Can’t tell you how many people on my loop rides where drooling on them. Yes, thats a silly point but I must admit I kinda liked having a uber “Bling” component that actually lives up to the Hype! LIGHT, STIFF and SEXY!!!!!! Long wait……., but well worth it!!! Bravo Ted!!

  4. MMyers: If what you ride now is a Rotor Crank I guarantee that if you try Ted’s new crank you’ll hate your Rotor Crank……, more aluminum or not.

  5. Now they should make the aluminum part slightly longer and ditch the stupid carbon tube in between.

    Such a bad mechanical design.

  6. Mindless: The Carbon Tubes are what make it super stiff. It is FUNCTIONAL ART that does what it says. Bad mechanical design?….. Please elaborate.

  7. BTW guys, before you post all your negatives, since I am one of few that have this on their bike right now and have logged several rides on it….., you should be asking me questions regarding wether or not if its worth the cost and lives up to the hype. All other negative post mean nothing if you don’t own this crank. Beta testing and wait times included. You don’t have the big picture and I can only assume you never care too.

  8. @ IntenseSworks… I am not sure your opinion is much better than the haters that have not ridden them. You lost quite a bit of creditably with the statement “Having only ridden S-Works cranks in the past I had nothing to compare” and the fact that you think 90miles is several miles for testing. Get back to us once you have logged a few more hundred miles on them and you may want to log some miles on the Rotors before you are so quick to say that the Ciamillo’s are so much stiffer

  9. I’m the designer of this crank and have been building stuff for 25 years. I am the son of a machinist/gunsmith. I started working in my father’s machine shop building parts for satellites on paper punch machines before I had hair on my balls. Aside from my bike components which everyone knows about here, I have built 100 diver propulsion vehicles with onboard scuba (the ones that appeared in the beginning of the Tomb Raider movie, “The Cradle of Life”), a shark caged diver propulsion vehicle which I used to film a 6 ton great whites for Nat. Geo., a 38 caliber anti-shark stun gun, a high performance carbon fiber monofin, my own 30 ton compression molding machine, 2 human powered submarines, and my 6000 square foot cypress timber-frame workshop… mechanical design? Of all the things I’ve done in my life this design is possible my favorite…

    Regarding the implication that I used consumers as testers… wrong. I make running changes to improve my work because I can.

  10. I smell BS from a lot of the people posting above.

    As any engineer (a real engineer not just a dude that works in his dads workshop) knows the bending stiffness of a tube is…

    E(bending)=E(Youngs) x I(area moment of inertia).

    For a tube, I=a*(Douter_diameter-Dinner_diameter)). Where a=pi/64

    So, by using three hollow tubes instead of one single tube (or an oval) you just gone and messed things up.

    These look like ____, conceptually make no sense and the physics screws them in the ___.

  11. Heatwave: I understand that. I am not a tester of all that is bike related. I was only sharing my experience with what I have had the privilege of riding prior to Ted’s new crank. I do take into account the mechanic of 20 years who tried them out though, and HE strongly stated his perception of them. I can only assume he has been on every crank that has passed through his work stand. In all fairness…., I am guilty as well of getting upset with others posts and then replying back with hard tone. It would be nice if people would either ask questions referring to the cranks benchmark attributes or “Chew the meat and spit out the bones” of those who have ridden the crank in question. I doubt few of us have the equipment of measuring wether anything is stiffer, more aero or other. With that in mind, sometimes riders “Felt-Perception” of whatever is being discussed matters as well. I believe with all the Big Companies (often) misleading hype of statistical numbers, variables and side by side comparisons, one often overlooked component is: How does it feel to you – The rider.

  12. Nice to see the designer pop in here! It is an impressive crank for sure. I followed the threads at WW forum on these cranks.

  13. Ted, all the stuff you’ve worked on before doesn’t say anything about these cranks. You could offer to show stiffness comparison data. Likewise you could send Fair Wheel Bikes a set for them to test on their crank test apparatus. They’ve got one of the most extensive databases on crank stiffness, having now completed their 5th crank “shootout”. They’re an unbiased source.

  14. Moderator: Should remove Rob’s post that are laced with profanity and explain to him before he’s ever allowed to post here again the rules. Thank you.

  15. I’m impressed the weight didn’t change with the lengthening of the alu sheath! My first thought when I saw this was “well, there goes the weight.” As purely an observer, and someone who neither aspires to have or needs these cranks, I think they’re a breathtaking design that challenges what the big companies are doing. That’s never a bad thing for progression – whether their claimed numbers have been proven or not. Carry on Ted, you virtuoso of the CNC.

  16. MMyers: Being a police officer, I deal with on a daily bases a lot more than bad words….., and I do make it through the day….Thank you. This discussion chat room should be a place for civil conversation relating to the topic at hand….., PERIOD.

  17. Yeah, but Rob did put some science into the discussion. And some correct science.

    How can three small diameter tubes stacked on top of each other be stiffer than a box section of the same outer dimensions ?

    Calculate your moment of area (I) for yourselves.

    Not saying this crank ain’t stiff, but a simple box section would be stiffer.

    (Mechanical Engineer)

  18. Kevin: I agree that it’s great when someone contributes to the discussion with science and interesting data, but unfortunately when it’s done in the way Rob chose to do it, it over shadows his point. If Rob and MMyers could contribute to this discussion in a constructive way we can all get on with why we are here……, which is to discuss: CIAMILLO GRAVITAS CARBON CRANK.

  19. These cranks are nice but very expensive and there doesn’t seem to be any real world data to back up any claims of stiffness (lightweight is great but not at the expense of stiffness). I really hope that if anyone has shelled out money for the earlier version that they can swap them in for a huge discount on the updated version. If I am honest, so many revisions so early on doesn’t sit well with me when paying such a premium. If you can’t do enough R&D yourself then let people ride your product at a discounted price until you sort out all the bugs.

  20. Rob, if you smell BS, I think you need to change your underwear. After college, where I studied engineering and physics, it became very clear to me that the lion’s share knowledge and talent I have today came from working with the old machinists that my father employed.
    The flexural rigidity formulas like the Euler-Bernoulli theory (which is one of four theories) are in the machinist’s handbook along with formulas for speeds and feeds in for a wide range of materials. But as any “real” engineer knows, this only gets you in the ball park. The “feel” a machinist acquires over years of fixturing, work holding, and general tooling mechanical design has it’s fundamental basis in rigidity. Machining is an intimate understanding of rigidity. A good machinist understands the rigidity and the limits of material strength on the scale for which he works to a degree that exceeds the accuracy of your elementary equations. Although we know how to use the engineering equations, many machinists find their experience a more accurate and reliable source. The individual tubes were each engineered by one of the best composites engineers in the world, Jeff Engbrecht of Clearwater Composites. Jeff specializes in high-modulus carbon tube fabrication and we worked close together to optimize the Gravitas design. He is a big gun in the composites engineering world and has written papers on composites design http://windpower.sandia.gov/2004BladeWorkshop/PDFs/JeffEngbrecht.pdf. With over 20 years as a composites engineer and 8 of those working for for one of the largest suppliers of carbon fiber, Toray, Jeff and I evaluated our E and I and optimized the design of the tubes. For example, the I for the base and the pedal end of this design have a moment area which is significantly greater than the ROTOR crank for which we benchmarked. (the dimensions which contribute to the I for Rotor are .500 x 1.400 whereas the Gravitas is .640 x 1.875). For the base and the pedal end which have much higher moment area and 2.7 times the modulus of 7075, we are significantly more rigid. This leaves the unsupported segment where the carbon is exposed. Here we optimized the tubes. The two outside tubes have been optimized for bending rigidity and the center tube has been optimized for torsional rigidity.

  21. Jacob… I actually asked all the previous design owners to send them back for an upgrade at no charge. I am paying for shipping as well and express mailing back.

  22. IntenseSworks- are you a paid employee of Ted? Why haven’t you responded to the idea of getting the cranks’ stiffness tested by Fairwheel Bikes? From your first post, I had the feeling you were advertising these, posting the name of the cranks IN BIG LETTERS so people remember them.

  23. A single box section might be stiffer, but what’s important on something like this is the stiffness:weight ratio. I’m not going to pretend to be an engineer, but I think it would only be fair to calculate the weight of a single larger tube that grants equal stiffness. The goal here isn’t the absolute stiffest crankset on the market, it’s a crankset that is as stiff as it can be at such a low weight. If Ted wanted to make the stiffest crankset in the world, I have no doubt he could pull that off with no problem. It might weigh a couple of kilos, but it would be stiff as hell.

  24. Ted, again, how about comparison data? You have to understand that if anyone want to objectively evaluate your cranks, they’ll want to compare it to other cranks. You’ve not offered up any comparison data, so it shouldn’t be surprising that people find your claims suspect. There’s nothing backing up the claims.

    The easy way to answer critics is to submit your cranks for testing. It’s that simple.

  25. Rob: It has taking me sometime to get my composer and reply back to your insulting comment you made about my mother. It really touched a nerve with me because she died in my arms 3 days before Christmas last year from Lung Cancer. I hope you mature in a positive way.

  26. Ted,

    I respect customer service like that. I don’t mind paying more for quality service like that.

  27. Tim: No, I do not work for Ciamillo. I did not respond to what you posted because that had nothing to do with me. That is something that is directly related to Ted. You put it out there for Ted……, let him reply to you.

  28. Yes, it is simple and I am ready. I am working with Charles at PezCycling News and Tyler here at Bike Rumor. I am sure the Fair Wheel Bikes review process is solid but I would like a professional component tester to evaluate my product not a dealer of my competition. I just think there is a conflict of interest there.

  29. Tim: Also, I went back up to my first posting and did not see where I posted the name of the crank in BIG LETTERS. Only thing I posted in big letters was: LIGHT, STIFF and SEXY….., which I stand behind.

  30. Hey Intense you can’t police the anonymous internet, it’s a losing battle.

    But! This is a fantastic place to put your products up against a no-holds-barred audience. This is a harsh peanut gallery but there are also a lot of shop owners and serious consumers here who can drive trends. If you can make it through this test your product is surely going to sell. That’s what I like about the anonymity of sites/comment areas like this, people don’t hold back what they really think about a product and I think that helps progress..

  31. So, Ted, you’re going to get a subjective review from Charles and Tyler (no disrespect intended, but there’s a big difference between “feels stiff” and actual deflection numbers, strength to weight values, and so on. It sure seems, Ted, as if you are avoiding critical analysis in favor of “pop” analysis. In the same breath, you seem to be impugning Fair Wheel Bikes methods. I can understand where you see the conflict of interest: having your product objectively measured against your competition conflicts with your interest in selling your product. Further, data from such a test might very well conflict with your “claims” about your product. Avoiding objective testing, i.e. lab testing, really makes your claims suspect.

    To Ted and IntenseSworks: the human body is a crappy sensor, so it doesn’t yield reliable, accurate, or precise information about the physical performance of a part. Certainly, a 90 mile test isn’t significant in terms of part testing. There is far too much that influences human perception (mood, physical well being, biases, and many other things) for it to yield anything that could reasonably be called objective. That’s why we have lab test. In fact, that’s why science exists. How a crank “feels” is no measurement and quantifies absolutely nothing. IntenseSworks, I think you should worry a lot less about what others say and more about the content of what you offer.

  32. I wanted to add that I thought it was pretty brave and proud move by the makers of this crank to put it out here and to jump in and join the convo.

    Good luck!

  33. I just now read that these are $900+ cranks.

    How are these remotely better than the THM M3 cranks at the same price?

    Not that I’d spend a grand on any cranks.

  34. @Rico–well put, I give credit for Tyler, et al credit for letting the venom flow, also credit to Gravitas (Ted) I believe he puts up with almost as much peanut gallery grief as the dude from Culprit.
    The bottom line will be whether they work and are worth the expense.
    BTW my old-ass Bullseye cranks were the stiffest of all time–so there!

  35. Pretty funny that the exact design flaw I mentioned months ago when these first started showing up has caused a re-design.

  36. Well, Ted your “calculation” is misleading…

    “(the dimensions which contribute to the I for Rotor are .500 x 1.400 whereas the Gravitas is .640 x 1.875)”


    The Rotor Crank is one closed profile and so the outer dimensions are determinant for S (Section Modulus) with an exponent of 2 for the hight of the profile. The determinant dimensions for your construction are only the outer diameters of the three small pipes. So your construction lags of rigidity which only can be compensated with more material (even if your are using Carbon).

    At all, your crank can work despite of the design faults, BUT your construction could be way better with one closed profile in the middle section. And well, a 800$ crank which is not designed for the best possible solution… And no, experience as a craftsman can overcome simple physics.

  37. PSI.. You are confusing “feel” from a customer with competent analysis from an occupational component tester. Tyler and Charles will be using a test fixture. I have my data from my test as I have compared my crank in house with several brands. Is it credible to post my own data? No, because I am biased. I also don’t think it is credible for a dealer to perform a crank test for two reasons. First, however well executed the test, the dealer’s job is to sell product… his product. The experience base of a professional component tester who writes tech editorials provides the public with not only unbiased information but also a conciseness and completeness in the report in layman’s terms. Second, a dealer is faced with the credibility of issuing a report about brands he carries compared to brands he doesn’t. The public will always see the problem there just as clearly as it sees a problem with a random customer creating a shining testimonial. I have claimed nothing except that this design is possibly my favorite. You assume that the customer is me and associate his claims with me. Why wouldn’t anyone assume the claims of a test from a dealer for one brand he carries compared to another he doesn’t are suspect?

    I will say it again, there will be an accurate lab test carried out by unbiased component testers which will show the ranking of my crankset.

  38. @MMyers
    >How are these remotely better than the THM M3 cranks at the same price?

    Easy. They’re fully customizable.

    Do you want one crank to be 190mm and another to be 145mm? While at the same time have the Q-factor for the 190mm crankarm be 5mm further inboard than for the 145mm crankarm. With easily-swappable chainring spiders so that you can run 130bcd on your road-disc bike to be a true road bike, or switch to a 110bcd when you want to gravel grind.

    Not everybody wants that ability, but for those of us who do need it, Ted’s the best game in town.

  39. Hi Ted,

    It’s late where I am and I don’t have time to give you a full response. I will just give you a quick replay.

    You speak of machinists that worked for your dad. So my guess is that this was some time ago, therefore unlikely to be working with modern high modulus CFRP/GFRP. So their experience of machining aluminium counts for very little when it comes to making composite.

    Also, just so you know, Jeff Engbrecht is a guy I have never heard off. I have tried to find a single peer reviewed paper which he has written and there is nothing. I have not heard of him at any of the composite conferences I have attended in the last 5 years. None of the American ones or the European ones. (Such as the ICCM or the ASC). So to call him a big shot would be a bit like calling your cranks stiff.

  40. I think what you have here is a simple product which in essence is carbon rods bonded into a aluminium part. Which also brings in interesting questions of interfacial debonding.

    As for your idea of what stiffness is, the feel has nothing to do with it. It is either stiff or it is not. And your cranks are not. How do I know this without riding them? Because E*=EI.

    One of the simplest equations which is large even with large deformations.

    You though it looked cool and knew that some sucker would pay for it. There is no real science or engineering in these cranks.

    Also, woven rods are cheap and not very hard to make. And by reducing your volume fraction you have made them look all “carbony” which is at the detriment to strength. These are just for show and you know that.

    If I am wrong, post me some test data from a lab that did flexural tests on these cranks. But you will not because your starting to realise that your produce might just have been a waste of your time and money.

    Sorry to be so blunt, but you did ask for it.


  41. Yee hah this thing generates some emotion. If you were to combine this crank onto that Pinarello Dogma FS bike from a few days ago you could easily see over a 100 comments in a day- a Bike Rumor record I presume.

  42. Tyler, what is your experience with lab testing of mechanical parts, like cranks? Can you please elaborate on your planned tests? Ted has led us to believe that you will be doing mechanical testing. Likewise, he’s led us to believe that Pez will be doing mechanical testing. Really?

  43. @Matt

    While THM doesn’t offer anything other than 170, 172.5, & 175mm lengths at a given q-factor, They do offer different spiders.

    So, these are to appeal to the leg length discrepant with big wallets?

  44. @ IntenseSworks: your words in a post in the middle of the thread, capitalization yours: CIAMILLO GRAVITAS CARBON CRANK, 7/15/13, 4:45pm. I am not an engineer and can say nothing to quantify the rigidity of your cranks, but I can say you sound like a person getting paid to push a product.

  45. Just got back from riding the crank again. I stand by what I said in previous post. No science or data……, just all out pounding tarmac. They ARE way stiffer than my S-Works crank. BTW….., S-works crank is no slouch, as it has been under foot by riders such as Contador and Boonen. Sorry for you haters that can’t afford it. Sell some of your Transformers!

  46. Tim….., Read the entire context and you will see why it is BOLD and CAP’d!!!!!! I was trying to keep two Ding Dongs on the subject, which was CIAMILLO GRAVITAS CARBON CRANK!!!!!! Now there are 3 Ding Dongs!

  47. Tim … IntenseSworks is not getting paid. In fact it’s quite the opposite. He placed another order today for more cranks and a set of brakes. He’s a good guy. He’s been to my shop and he wants to see me succeed and he is very happy with his cranks.

    Regarding Naysayers…
    “It’s not the critic who counts. It’s not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled. Credit belongs to the man who really was in the arena, his face marred by dust, sweat, and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs to come short and short again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming. It is the man who actually strives to do the deeds, who knows the great enthusiasm and knows the great devotion, who spends himself on a worthy cause, who at best, knows in the end the triumph of great achievement. And, who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and cruel souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
    ― Theodore Roosevelt

  48. As Rob pointed out, one of the things that bothers me most about this design is the bonding of carbon and aluminum. Remember how aluminum frames with carbon seat stays were all the rage years ago? Now I see those bikes roll into the shop, and the first thing I look for is cracking and corrosion around the alu/carbon interfaces. I’d say most of the failures are due to neglect (i.e. coating your bike in taint sweat and never washing it), so I would assume that if these cranks are well cared for, the chances of this kind of failure would be greatly diminished. But let’s be honest, the only guy’s shelling out that kinda money for a pair of cranks are a bunch of Fred dentists/lawyers who never wash there bikes. I will say though, they look kinda cool, and I’m glad there’s always folks coming up with new stuff to drool over.

  49. Matt: Go onto Ted’s web site and read up about how the crank is constructed. It is a Patent Pending “Pinned” processed. Far from bonding. Your info is correct but Ted already knew this before his first attempt at this design and subsequently never went down that road. Therefore, this is a non-issue relating to this crank design.

  50. z-torque cranks are patented too. and let me tell you, I have been pounding tarmac with them without science or data and boy are my legs tired

  51. IntenseSworks, I’m not really sure why you are taking everything so personally. Relax.

    As for me, I think I’ll have to wait until someone (FWB, VeloNews,etc.) tests these cranks, but until then I’m skeptical. I definitely want to see these compared to SRAM Red, since my BB30 110 BCD cranks were 58 grams lighter than those white ones and a little over half as much.

  52. Ted,

    I love the newest revision, and still patiently awaiting my set. The revisions seem simple by the looks of it but I am no engineer.

    My s works is eagerly waiting its new heart to pump the chain round’n’round!

  53. I laugh when anytime someone says they can “feel” the stiffness.

    When I used to work at the bike shop, every now and then some snot nose racer would come in to test all the high end model, one vs the other kind of thing. and come telling us how “harsh” and how soft this bike is. We just simply lower or up the tire pressure on the next bike he tests, and he’ll love it. works every time.

    Nobody, I mean nobody, ever checks the tire pressure. 😀 Now that I am actually an mech engineer, I can tell ya, no one can really “feel” the deflection of a few thousands/hundreds of an inch of a crank under their feet.

  54. fairwheel bikes is as close to unbiased as you get. notice that even some cranks they sell dont score all that well on stiffness or stw, although they may have other attributes. im sure if fairwheel tested these cranks and they ended up being the stiffest (doubt it) or with the highest stiffness-to-weight (even more doubtful), fairwheel would be the first to mention it, and then they would possibly place a hefty order for them.
    unfortunately, ciamillo’s spotty customer service record would likely hinder that scenario. i wonder how long some folks would have to wait for their cranks to be “upgraded”. likely some would wait a week or less. others, maybe 8months.
    IMO, just like his brakes, other people are making cranks that are lighter, stiffer, with more ankle clearance, simply better.

  55. Maybe your right. Think it might have been a wiser statement to have simply said that it feels different. Not in a bad way though….., just different. Yes, I haven’t put a sufficient amount of time (mile wise) on the crank, only 130 now, thats including my ride today. I guess all I can say until I’m able to do 1,000 miles on Ted’s crank….., and all the other cranks in the market or until Ted comes back to the table with Lab test results is: So far I am pleased with the way the crank feels and I like the way it looks. It does not feel in the least bit fragile. Also, and this is for those concerned with the weight, I can only tell you that I was able to drop 54 grams from my previous S-Works crank. Also worth mentioning: I am 6′-1″, 155 pounds, ride an average of 180 to 220 miles a week, race for a local cycling team and have been riding for 24 years. I am not a scientist nor an engineer, I paid full retail price for my crank and as for today….., I am happy with it. If it fails in any way, I know Ted will rework the failure, make it better and mail me another one.

  56. ^ dude has been here for ten hours. That’s a sign that you should seek help. Or at least go where there are no computers. Leave the phone at home and ride a fixie with a one piece crank.

  57. HAHA…. Thanks Jimmy…, Your right! Was working on other computer blah blah. I am taking your advise 🙂

  58. I love all of the usual arm chair engineers who aren’t making us anything come on here to question a product they have no experience with, in a negative light.

    I take some of that back, it is always ok to wear the black hat and question things and I accept that here in the internets there will always be those who just exhibit bad form.

    I’ll say what I say on most forums… “It’s bicycles people” in this case, bike parts people, its supposed to be, FUN! What? You’re not having any fun? That’s because you are arguing about products you have no experience with instead of riding your bicycle.

    I want to ride my bicycle, with these cranks.

  59. Man these comments are comedy gold.

    Also, Ted?

    Sending your $900 crank to be tested by a “professional component tester” AKA “PR shill” instead of any route that would produce hard data really screams “snake oil”.

  60. @IntenseSworks – How can you have been riding for 24 years, yet you’ve only ever used SWorks cranks? Something doesn’t add up.

  61. I’d for sure love to see how the cranks made by the tech critics here stack up against the Ciamillo cranks.

  62. @ Mike C(uriak?)

    Since I’m a chemical engineer, I wouldn’t design cranks, but I do know enough physics, and where to look for what I don’t know, such that I could come up with something better than the cranks in question.

    I’d be happy to have my fictional cranks tested in a lab, too, since it’s the only way to be sure.

    Well, that, and nuking the site from orbit.

  63. Alright guys, Ted’s already stated that he intends to have the cranks professionally tested in an unbiased setting. Why don’t you take a brake from all the hating until the results come back and you actually have some sort of reference point for your arguments? Until then, this is nothing but armchair engineers assaulting an actual engineer over hypotheticals and equations. If you don’t like the design, that’s fine. Say so and move on. If you’re actually interested in how it performs, hold off on your critiques until there are some numbers to critique.

  64. Ted isn’t an actual engineer though, he a designer.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that. Elon Musk of Space-X and Tesla cars is the “chief designer” not “lead engineer” because he has degrees in physics and economics in lieu of engineering, and couldn’t take the tests necessary to acquire an engineering licence (except in Michigan, where one doesn’t need an engineering degree to be a licensed engineer).

  65. I think its rather humorous that the arguement is raging about the stiffness of this crankset & Fairwheels’ test as the standard. If anyone read to the conclusion of test #5, they would have noticed the the TOTAL range from the stiffest to the least stiff cranksets amounted to 1.6 watts at a 300watt load. So it is not unreasonable to assume that these cranks would fall within the range.

    And Ted you wrote..

    The “feel” a machinist acquires over years of fixturing, work holding, and general tooling mechanical design has it’s fundamental basis in rigidity. Machining is an intimate understanding of rigidity. A good machinist understands the rigidity and the limits of material strength on the scale for which he works to a degree that exceeds the accuracy of your elementary equations.

    As someone who has been cutting metal for 30+ years..this is perhaps the largest pile of balderdash I have ever read as it relates to this discussion. Understanding the “feel” of cutting an individual part of a multi-piece structure gives one NO feeling for how the final assembly will perform.

  66. All – We were pretty tied up yesterday and the comments here seem to have taken on quite a life. We’re going to close comments on this one now before they get out of hand. Yes, we are planning to have a mechanical testing machine in the office sometime this fall that’ll be used to test any cranks that manufacturers are willing to send in. Results will be published in raw form so our readers can make their own decision about weight vs. stiffness vs. cost. We’re pretty excited about adding this capability, but it’ll most likely be after all the summer launches and fall tradeshows before we’re able to get everything up and running.

    It’s worth pointing out, too, that in our experience, absolute crank stiffness isn’t the only link in the chain when it comes to how things feel or work. The spider, chainrings and frame all play a role. So, while we’ll be evaluating cranks, there’s still quite a bit of subjective appraisal once all the parts and pieces come together. We’re fortunate that we’re able to ride so many bikes and have a broad foundation to compare against.

Comments are closed.