Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GearTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    443

    2012 Gravity Light Crankset


  2. #2
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,981
    what are the weighing in at?

  3. #3
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,928
    imo gravity makes some of the nicest looking cranks around.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GearTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck
    what are the weighing in at?
    I'll get a weight on them soon. My scale isn't working right now but as soon as I get it working I'll strip them off the bike and get an accurate weight for you.

  5. #5
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,981
    Thanks

  6. #6
    Slap happy crappiness
    Reputation: DHgnaR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,085
    7050 should hold up better than the 6061 they used to use. Hopefully they won't be plagued with the bending issues they had in the past.
    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,448
    Yah, awesome to see them making them out of metal and not cheese. Hope it works out for you. After bending mine when they should *NOT* have bent, I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole (one of the few products in the bike industry that's really the case for), but it'd be cool to see them put out a product that didn't suck. So far I haven't been real impressed with my FSA cranks, road and mountain. If this pans out, it looks like they could pull it together.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GearTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by William42
    Yah, awesome to see them making them out of metal and not cheese. Hope it works out for you. After bending mine when they should *NOT* have bent, I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole (one of the few products in the bike industry that's really the case for), but it'd be cool to see them put out a product that didn't suck. So far I haven't been real impressed with my FSA cranks, road and mountain. If this pans out, it looks like they could pull it together.
    Yep, happy to be the test mule. I probably hope that they work out more than you. They are absolutely beautiful in person...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,448
    let us know how they perform! hope to hear they stand up to abuse better, would be nice to see another player in the crank game besides saint (and by the looks of it, e13) now that raceface is gone.

    Also curious to know how the BB holds up. I swear, my saint bearings are running smooth as the day I got them, I've never had any trouble with any other bearings, but for whatever reason, those glite bb's would give me about 3 months before the bearings would literally rust out (ride in the rain alot).

    These certainly look good, and if the alloy is stronger (which it should be) then hopefully they'll hold up awesome.

    Keep us posted!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    823
    Bump?

  11. #11
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    Bump?
    I'm responding in the same timely fashion that you bumped the dead thread with.

    I got a pair of these in the 7050 version after having run the 6061 version for several years. I really liked the old ones, they were about the same weight as an XT+bash but came with steel pedal inserts and could be adjusted with a 5mm allen. Mine are still in service on my canfield balance, although i had to replace the BB (with an xt, it was available locally) when i smashed my bashring into a rock a couple years ago. The old ones have a reputation for bending, but i never had any problems in 4 years, 3 frames and counting... and i destroy bike parts. Clipless pedals help i'm sure. Mine still have the finish intact and i haven't needed to replace the rings. These have been EXCELLENT cranks and haven't given me an ounce of trouble.

    The new ones are perceptibly heavier, i haven't weighed them but the difference is 100g+ fosho. Otherwise they seem about the same- same BB, same chain rings, same removable inner bolt circle thingie. It looks to me like FSA enbeefened the arms in response to complaints of bendy cranks and kept everything else the same. For me, i'm disappointed; if i wanted real sturdy cranks i wouldn't be running an XC bb, so it's needless weight, although i guess the change gives them more credibility as a lightweight DH crank that can handle a few pedal strikes from flat pedals.


    Here's a crap picture i could take without moving my butt. I know nobody cares and this is only gonna be interesting to some lurker 6 months from now.
    .

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rsullivan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    I'm responding in the same timely fashion that you bumped the dead thread with.

    I got a pair of these in the 7050 version after having run the 6061 version for several years. I really liked the old ones, they were about the same weight as an XT+bash but came with steel pedal inserts and could be adjusted with a 5mm allen. Mine are still in service on my canfield balance, although i had to replace the BB (with an xt, it was available locally) when i smashed my bashring into a rock a couple years ago. The old ones have a reputation for bending, but i never had any problems in 4 years, 3 frames and counting... and i destroy bike parts. Clipless pedals help i'm sure. Mine still have the finish intact and i haven't needed to replace the rings. These have been EXCELLENT cranks and haven't given me an ounce of trouble.

    The new ones are perceptibly heavier, i haven't weighed them but the difference is 100g+ fosho. Otherwise they seem about the same- same BB, same chain rings, same removable inner bolt circle thingie. It looks to me like FSA enbeefened the arms in response to complaints of bendy cranks and kept everything else the same. For me, i'm disappointed; if i wanted real sturdy cranks i wouldn't be running an XC bb, so it's needless weight, although i guess the change gives them more credibility as a lightweight DH crank that can handle a few pedal strikes from flat pedals.


    Here's a crap picture i could take without moving my butt. I know nobody cares and this is only gonna be interesting to some lurker 6 months from now.
    Any way to get a better pic of the Canfield Balance...... I have the version 2 Balance coming shortly to go along with all the other Canfields in my stable....
    Trying to painfully relive some of youthful adventures!!

  13. #13
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by rsullivan View Post
    Any way to get a better pic of the Canfield Balance...... I have the version 2 Balance coming shortly to go along with all the other Canfields in my stable....
    Just for you, my weird old bike. Super SUPER fun, even if i can't ride to its potential it's easy to ride it way past mine.

    small gallery

    Now let's see the stable
    .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •