Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27

    FSA AFTERBURNER MEGAEXO vs TRUVATIV STYLO

    Hi guys,
    I have a dubt...my new bike (Cannondale Rush 1000) is equiped with a Truvativ Stylo Crank instead of the FSA Afterburner MegaExo, as from C'dale specification.
    I don't know which one is better than the other one, and also if the Bottom Bracket is integrated (and then it is also Truvativ, otherwise can be the FSA) but I remember voices related to some Bottom Bracket 's noise with FSA v-drive and some cheaper Truvativ...
    Which one do you prefer?? Problems with those Cranks/BB?? I can use my bike with the Stylo or it is better I make my dealer replace it with the FSA one?

    Thank's so much!!

    P.S.
    Sorry for my english, if you find mistakes, I'm not mothertongue...

  2. #2
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayman
    Which one do you prefer?? Problems with those Cranks/BB?? I can use my bike with the Stylo or it is better I make my dealer replace it with the FSA one?
    Both are great cranks, the stylo will be lighter than the FSA and a German magazine test showed the FSA to be very stiff cranks. (both will be stiff anyway)

    The Stylo's have their own specific bottom bracket bearings, I think. And a smaller Q-factor (important to some).

    I had Stylo's and was very happy with them, I have not used FSA so I cannot comment on them.

    Mr. P

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    Both are great cranks, the stylo will be lighter than the FSA and a German magazine test showed the FSA to be very stiff cranks. (both will be stiff anyway)

    The Stylo's have their own specific bottom bracket bearings, I think. And a smaller Q-factor (important to some).

    I had Stylo's and was very happy with them, I have not used FSA so I cannot comment on them.

    Mr. P
    Thank's, MrP... but Q-factor?? What's??
    Someone answered me that Stylo's has the integrated BB if there is written 'GXP' somewhere in the crank... I will check it in the late evening (now is morning in Italy, precisely 8.40 am)

  4. #4
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayman
    Thank's, MrP... but Q-factor?? What's??
    Someone answered me that Stylo's has the integrated BB if there is written 'GXP' somewhere in the crank... I will check it in the late evening (now is morning in Italy, precisely 8.40 am)
    GXP is the integrated BB and Q-factor is the distance between the pedals. The integrated BB requires some space on the outside of the frame's BB shell so all integrated BB cranks have a wider Q-factor.

    I found this page with more detail:
    http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/qfactor/qfactor.htm

    I just had an espresso while on a road ride, God bless Italy and it's food!

    Mr. P

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    GXP is the integrated BB and Q-factor is the distance between the pedals. The integrated BB requires some space on the outside of the frame's BB shell so all integrated BB cranks have a wider Q-factor.

    I found this page with more detail:
    http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/qfactor/qfactor.htm

    I just had an espresso while on a road ride, God bless Italy and it's food!

    Mr. P
    Thank's, Mr. P... I've checked my crank and it has the GXP integrated BB.
    Now I'm going to heat a 'piatto di spaghetti', and later I'll have a couple of espresso.


    Bye!!

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Call Cannondale to make sure they made the swap and not the dealer. If it was the dealer, and you want the FSA, you might want to point this out.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Call Cannondale to make sure they made the swap and not the dealer. If it was the dealer, and you want the FSA, you might want to point this out.
    Yes, it is the point!
    But if TRUVATIV is better than FSA... well, I'll take the TRUVATIV anyway (and also if they can be considered of the same level...)
    If it is not the case, and so if FSA is definitely better, surely I'll pretend the FSA...
    => the problem is still the same: Which one is better, if there is one?

    Kayman

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    155
    Kayman -

    Ive been trying to sort throgh which is a better aftermarket crank of the two for a bike I am building. The info I have gotten is that the Truvativ tends to not shift well and the GPX exgeranl bearing bottom bracket has a tendency to blow in a year - after which people often swithc to the FSA megaexo as its much better made. The FSA rings are also much better designed for shifting and thus are smoother - very close if not better than XT's. I check reviews and talked to a few bike technicians and parts people about what theve seen. FSA's just tend to be less common. I do think they also wear signficantly better and the rings are cheaper. Its actually a great company from what I understand and has not been bought out by SRAM, like truavtiv, thus more responsive customer service - like the old avid. The FSA crankset is probably about 100gm over listed by the company, depending on how many spacers you need to use. This underrating is pretty standard for cranksets from what I believed. Note that cannondale usually orders the crankset with the two smaller rings in steel b/c its cheaper for them, but signficantly heavier.

    The truvative also seem to have an inferior attachment system for the non-drive crank - its still a press-fit, like a square taper, which is more prone to wearing and creaking, if not failure. The FSA use a pinch bolt, like XT and XTR as thats the best design for attachment, especially if you take the cranks off frequently for cleaning, which is really easy with the FSA and shimano systems. Note that I would totally avoid raceface as they put the bearing/axle attachement on the drive (right) crank, which has a lot of competing forces and is much more likely for failure from what ive read.

    I hope that helps - plus if you demand original speck they may put on the aftermarket afterburner with all aluminum rings (and lighter). Although I really do not know the comparative weights between the two - its likely that the FSA afterburner is actually 950 gm or more - and will last a lot longer than the truvativ, given the issues stated above.

    If anyone has opinions otherwise, Id love to hear them as I am soon to buy some cranks (FSA afterburners).

    ben

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by shapirob
    Kayman -

    Ive been trying to sort throgh which is a better aftermarket crank of the two for a bike I am building. The info I have gotten is that the Truvativ tends to not shift well and the GPX exgeranl bearing bottom bracket has a tendency to blow in a year - after which people often swithc to the FSA megaexo as its much better made. The FSA rings are also much better designed for shifting and thus are smoother - very close if not better than XT's. I check reviews and talked to a few bike technicians and parts people about what theve seen. FSA's just tend to be less common. I do think they also wear signficantly better and the rings are cheaper. Its actually a great company from what I understand and has not been bought out by SRAM, like truavtiv, thus more responsive customer service - like the old avid. The FSA crankset is probably about 100gm over listed by the company, depending on how many spacers you need to use. This underrating is pretty standard for cranksets from what I believed. Note that cannondale usually orders the crankset with the two smaller rings in steel b/c its cheaper for them, but signficantly heavier.

    The truvative also seem to have an inferior attachment system for the non-drive crank - its still a press-fit, like a square taper, which is more prone to wearing and creaking, if not failure. The FSA use a pinch bolt, like XT and XTR as thats the best design for attachment, especially if you take the cranks off frequently for cleaning, which is really easy with the FSA and shimano systems. Note that I would totally avoid raceface as they put the bearing/axle attachement on the drive (right) crank, which has a lot of competing forces and is much more likely for failure from what ive read.

    I hope that helps - plus if you demand original speck they may put on the aftermarket afterburner with all aluminum rings (and lighter). Although I really do not know the comparative weights between the two - its likely that the FSA afterburner is actually 950 gm or more - and will last a lot longer than the truvativ, given the issues stated above.

    If anyone has opinions otherwise, Id love to hear them as I am soon to buy some cranks (FSA afterburners).

    ben
    Wow... and so FSA is definitely better than TRUVATIV?? Mhhhhh... I've about a week to decide, it's hard!!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    155
    Thats what Ive found from doing some research - but not from experience, so its limited> Check the reviews (although the afterburner has 2 negative revies frm one person that seem to be unusual and are for the ISIS BB - FSA didnt know what to make of it when I sent them it). I would be curious if anyone has an opion based on direct experience with both???

    ben

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by shapirob
    Thats what Ive found from doing some research - but not from experience, so its limited> Check the reviews (although the afterburner has 2 negative revies frm one person that seem to be unusual and are for the ISIS BB - FSA didnt know what to make of it when I sent them it). I would be curious if anyone has an opion based on direct experience with both???
    ben
    I have only tested the Truvativ and the new RUSH 1000 in a 3 hours test, but riding in a wide variety of conditions... pedaling on the road was very hard, so or it is due to the wells (MAXXIS CROSSMARK) or the crank has glue inside the bearing balls, I think...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    155
    Kayman -

    Which crankset did you end up deciding on buying?

    ben

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by shapirob
    Kayman -

    Which crankset did you end up deciding on buying?

    ben
    Well, the TRUVATIV STYLO GXP where (and still is) 'on' the bike... and only if someone has really valid argumentation to make me remove it, I'll leave it on the bike...
    I just think it seems to have glue in the bearings as it does not have a fluid rotation (ERRATA for previous post: tires are LARSEN TT, not CROSSMARK as stated above!)

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27
    UP!

    Nothing else to say?

    UP!

Posting Permissions

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