FSA Triple to Campagnolo Compact Crankset: My Experience

There has been much written on the web and usenet regarding swapping a
triple for a compact crankset. I've just gone through a conversion and
thought I'd post my observations for the benefit of anyone who might be
thinking about doing a swap themselves.

Background:

I purchased a Fuji Provence 2004 men's road bike in the Summer of 2005
from Performance Bicycle. The bike came equipped with Campagnolo
Centaur drivetrain except for and FSA Gossamer triple crankset and FSA
ISIS bottom bracket. While the drivetrain worked, it wasn't the
precision of one would expect from Campagnolo. I used to own a bike
outfitted with Campy Athena components back in the mid 90's. That
bike's shifting was extremely precise and I was a bit surprised that
the Provence would occasionally hiccup on some gear changes. Still, I
was so enamored with the integrated braking/shifting mechanism of a
modern bicycle, that I didn't spend too much time contemplating the
intermittent pauses in shifting I was experiencing with my Provence.

My bike seemed to ride decently enough with the factory set up and I
was mostly pleased with the configuration but something did start to
bother me. Over time, I began to think that thirty gears was just a bit
too many. First of all, there seemed to be a great deal of duplication
across the gearing combinations and secondly, every now and then, I'd
pop the chain off the crank entirely when down-shifting from the forty
to thirty tooth chain ring. I began to entertain the idea of replacing
the FSA triple with a Campy compact crankset. I had been eyeing the
expensive Record & Chorus carbon compacts when I noticed that Excel
Sports was selling an aluminum Centaur compact (50/34) crankset for
$129.00. For this price, I figured I couldn't pass up the opportunity
to try a compact out.

Finalizing the order:

The first vital detail I encountered was making sure I bought the
correct bottom bracket. Initially, I tried to order a Record BB until
careful reading of the Campagnolo web site clued me into the fact that
Centaur cranksets use 111mm bottom brackets with a symmetrical spindle.
This is markedly different to the configuration for a Chorus or Record
compact crankset. Both of these versions require a 102mm bottom bracket
with an asymmetrical spindle. In the end, my ONLY option was to buy a
Centaur BB for this crankset. Unfortunately, this threw a monkey wrench
into my master plan because ALL people who ride Campagnolo components
secretly aspire owning Record equipped bike. I wanted to begin my
assault on a Record-only bicycle with the BB. My plan for world
domination had to be postponed until a later date when the monetary
gods were shining more favorably upon me.

After reading the Campagnolo literature, I was also convinced that I
needed to purchase a new front derailleur, however just before I placed
an order for one, a bike shop mechanic told me that I might not need
one after all. Several people he had known were using a standard front
derailleur with a compact crankset without incident. Hence, I decided
to save a few bucks and order a new front derailleur only if I found it
necessary.

A Big and Nasty Surprise:

As I mentioned above, I bought my 2004 Fuji Provence at Performance
Bicycle (Towson MD) in the Summer of 2005. Since this bike was last
year's model, at the time I purchased it, I got a good deal.

I took my bike to a local mechanic to have the FSA cransket and bottom
bracket removed for me before the installation of my new equipment. As
the mechanic took the crankset apart, I stood by watching the process.
I wasn't going to spend money on tools to remove these components
because I never planned on using them ever again. I bought the tools
for the Campy installation and wanted to watch the disassembly of the
FSA equipment because I'd never actually done a bottom bracket
replacement before. From what I'd read, it seemed like a simple process
but watching it seemed prudent at the time.

Initially, all was going well. My mechanic removed the crank arms and
slid the assembly off the bike easily. Then he began unwinding the
bottom bracket covers and explaining to me about the directionality of
these pieces. Eventually he removed the left side cover and pulled the
spindle out of the frame. My mechanic paused as he looked at it the
bottom bracket and then began to laugh. He handed it to me and said:

This is a little trick bike shops do to save money. Since 99.9% of
people will never see the insides of their bottom bracket, bike shops
will pull out the expensive one that's supposed to be in there and
replace it with a cheap Chinese knock off. This is a cheap $15 bottom
bracket and not an FSA ISIS.

If you look at the Fuji web site, you'll see the listed component group
includes and FSA ISIS bottom bracket. I looked in disbelief at the
hardware in my hands. Indeed, this what NOT an FSA ISIS at all. I was
planning on putting the Gossamer crankset and bottom bracket on ebay
and doing a $30 buy-it-now deal for someone to scoop up. I guess we can
nix at least part of that idea.

Obviously, I was not pleased when the reality of my components were
exposed to me. I wonder if my bike would have shifted better with the
FSA bottom bracket? I wonder if the chain-line would have been better
set by an FSA bottom bracket? Needless to say, I won't be buying
anything from Performance Bicycles in the foreseeable future. Not sure
what to really do about this though. It does say on the Fuji web site
that components can change without notice, however I have a hard time
believing that Fuji would have swapped out the bottom brackets on a
bike with a $2150 list price and replaced them with $15 cheap Chinese
knock-offs. I've got to believe that my mechanic was correct in his
belief that the Performance retail location (Towson MD) was responsible
for the old switcheroo.

Installation and Test Rides:

Eventually, all the components arrived and much to my amazement, I had
successfully installed my new Centaur bottom bracket and crankset in
less than a half hour. I quickly put the pedals back on the bike and
took it out for an immediate evaluation. I didn't have time for a
serious test and had to be content with riding immediately around my
house. Much to my surprise, the entire system seemed to work flawlessly
from the first shift. I hadn't even bothered to adjust the stop-limit
screw on the front derailleur, so I had to be careful not to drop the
chain off the thirty tooth inner chain ring. I really liked what I was
feeling immediately. The drivetrain seemed to be running better than it
ever had with the FSA crankset and while I hadn't noticed any real
problems with my original set up, shifting with the Centaur crankset
already seemed crisper to me. As I said, I didn't have time for a full
test drive that day and would have to wait until the following day to
do a proper evaluation of how my new drivetrain components were
functioning.

The next day I went for a twenty five mile ride which included lots of
rolling hills and several moderately steep and long (0.8 mile) climbs.
It quickly became apparent to me that my initial positive impressions
were absolutely correct: my bike was indeed performing better than it
ever had using the old FSA Gossamer triple crankset. By this time, I
had adjusted the front, inner stop-limit screw and the front shifts
were flawless. I tried to push my chain off the crankset with a series
of quick double pops (quickly dropping the chain from the larger to the
smaller chain ring while simultaneously dropping down three to fours
gears on the rear cassette in one coordinated motion) but the chain
didn't miss a step. It stayed properly positioned on the bike and all
shifts were executed without a single hiccup. Perhaps the weirdest
thing was the improvement was not solely bound to front shifting. The
rear derailleur was now shifting better too. My rear cassette is a
12-25 and every now and then, movements to and from the two spaced
gears (e.g 17 to 19, 19 to 21...etc...etc) would slip for a brief
second. Suddenly, all these shifts were now flawless. Five subsequent
rides of greater than twenty miles have reconfirmed these findings: my
bike is a superior machine with a Campagnolo Centaur compact crankset
installed.


Questions:

Needless to say, I'm extremely pleased to the results of my $170
upgrade (for crankset and bottom bracket), however I'm slightly
perplexed by a couple of things:

Why didn't Fuji just put a Centaur crankset on the bike to begin with?
When you look at the price of an FSA Gossamer triple versus a Centaur
compact, the Campagnolo is actually cheaper. The price of the ISIS
versus Centaur bottom brackets are approximately the same. Hence, it's
hard for me to believe that Fuji saved much money by swapping out the
Campy for the FSA.

Why is the rear derailleur/shifting functioning so much better? About
the only explanation I could come up with is the fact that the chain
line is better with the Campy bottom bracket and crankset. This once
again leads me back to my first question...why would Fuji sacrifice
superior performance and slap an ill-suited FSA crankset on these
bikes?

Why do I need a compact front derailleur? Perhaps if I had one, I'd
know the answer to this question?! As I mentioned at the outset, I
was relatively pleased with the performance of my bicycle before I ever
swapped out my crankset and hence, if I replaced the front derailleur,
perhaps I'd find out that shifting could be even crisper than what I'm
currently experiencing.


Conclusion:

Having ridden my compact crank for a while, I find that twenty gears
does indeed suit my tastes better than thirty. I've quickly found my
way around the chain rings/cassette and can easily anticipate which
gears I need in most situations. A triple made my choices a little too
confusing. The compact makes for simpler and more intuitive
shifting...at least for me. While my gear range has been compressed
slightly from both the top and bottom, I rarely would spin a 52/12 or a
30/25 and hence, I don't feel like I've sacrificed anything useful by
making this switch.

Campagnolo parts like other Campagnolo parts! I've always heard that
mixing and matching manufacturer's parts in a drivetrain was a bad
idea, however there seem to be plenty of professional teams (CSC comes
to mind immediately) which use cranksets made by FSA mated to Shimano
drivetrains. Perhaps Shimano equipment takes to mixing and matching
better than Campy equipment? I don't know for sure but when you read
the material published on the FSA web site, they claim there cranksets
should work very well with Campy drivetrains. Perhaps the bottom
bracket fiasco is a vital part of the discontinuity I seemed to be
experiencing?

Perhaps the only dilemma I now face is the fact that Campagnolo is
going to do a major overhaul of their bottom brackets and cranksets for
the 2007 season. As a result, I should be able to pick up one of those
shiny, black Record compact cranks pretty cheaply near the end of the
2006 season. Hmm, but I've already spent a couple hundred dollars on a
crankset which seems to be working perfectly for me. Is vanity (and my
inherent need for world domination) enough to tempt me to shell out
more money for some Record components?

On 9 Jul 2006 05:33:54 -0700, wrote:



There has been much written on the web and usenet regarding swapping a
triple for a compact crankset. I've just gone through a conversion and
thought I'd post my observations for the benefit of anyone who might be
thinking about doing a swap themselves.

Background:

I purchased a Fuji Provence 2004 men's road bike in the Summer of 2005
from Performance Bicycle. The bike came equipped with Campagnolo
Centaur drivetrain except for and FSA Gossamer triple crankset and FSA
ISIS bottom bracket. While the drivetrain worked, it wasn't the
precision of one would expect from Campagnolo. I used to own a bike
outfitted with Campy Athena components back in the mid 90's. That
bike's shifting was extremely precise and I was a bit surprised that
the Provence would occasionally hiccup on some gear changes. Still, I
was so enamored with the integrated braking/shifting mechanism of a
modern bicycle, that I didn't spend too much time contemplating the
intermittent pauses in shifting I was experiencing with my Provence.

My bike seemed to ride decently enough with the factory set up and I
was mostly pleased with the configuration but something did start to
bother me. Over time, I began to think that thirty gears was just a bit
too many. First of all, there seemed to be a great deal of duplication
across the gearing combinations and secondly, every now and then, I'd
pop the chain off the crank entirely when down-shifting from the forty
to thirty tooth chain ring. I began to entertain the idea of replacing
the FSA triple with a Campy compact crankset. I had been eyeing the
expensive Record & Chorus carbon compacts when I noticed that Excel
Sports was selling an aluminum Centaur compact (50/34) crankset for
$129.00. For this price, I figured I couldn't pass up the opportunity
to try a compact out.

Finalizing the order:

The first vital detail I encountered was making sure I bought the
correct bottom bracket. Initially, I tried to order a Record BB until
careful reading of the Campagnolo web site clued me into the fact that
Centaur cranksets use 111mm bottom brackets with a symmetrical spindle.
This is markedly different to the configuration for a Chorus or Record
compact crankset. Both of these versions require a 102mm bottom bracket
with an asymmetrical spindle. In the end, my ONLY option was to buy a
Centaur BB for this crankset. Unfortunately, this threw a monkey wrench
into my master plan because ALL people who ride Campagnolo components
secretly aspire owning Record equipped bike. I wanted to begin my
assault on a Record-only bicycle with the BB. My plan for world
domination had to be postponed until a later date when the monetary
gods were shining more favorably upon me.

After reading the Campagnolo literature, I was also convinced that I
needed to purchase a new front derailleur, however just before I placed
an order for one, a bike shop mechanic told me that I might not need
one after all. Several people he had known were using a standard front
derailleur with a compact crankset without incident. Hence, I decided
to save a few bucks and order a new front derailleur only if I found it
necessary.

A Big and Nasty Surprise:

As I mentioned above, I bought my 2004 Fuji Provence at Performance
Bicycle (Towson MD) in the Summer of 2005. Since this bike was last
year's model, at the time I purchased it, I got a good deal.

I took my bike to a local mechanic to have the FSA cransket and bottom
bracket removed for me before the installation of my new equipment. As
the mechanic took the crankset apart, I stood by watching the process.
I wasn't going to spend money on tools to remove these components
because I never planned on using them ever again. I bought the tools
for the Campy installation and wanted to watch the disassembly of the
FSA equipment because I'd never actually done a bottom bracket
replacement before. From what I'd read, it seemed like a simple process
but watching it seemed prudent at the time.

Initially, all was going well. My mechanic removed the crank arms and
slid the assembly off the bike easily. Then he began unwinding the
bottom bracket covers and explaining to me about the directionality of
these pieces. Eventually he removed the left side cover and pulled the
spindle out of the frame. My mechanic paused as he looked at it the
bottom bracket and then began to laugh. He handed it to me and said:

This is a little trick bike shops do to save money. Since 99.9% of
people will never see the insides of their bottom bracket, bike shops
will pull out the expensive one that's supposed to be in there and
replace it with a cheap Chinese knock off. This is a cheap $15 bottom
bracket and not an FSA ISIS.

If you look at the Fuji web site, you'll see the listed component group
includes and FSA ISIS bottom bracket. I looked in disbelief at the
hardware in my hands. Indeed, this what NOT an FSA ISIS at all. I was
planning on putting the Gossamer crankset and bottom bracket on ebay
and doing a $30 buy-it-now deal for someone to scoop up. I guess we can
nix at least part of that idea.

Obviously, I was not pleased when the reality of my components were
exposed to me. I wonder if my bike would have shifted better with the
FSA bottom bracket? I wonder if the chain-line would have been better
set by an FSA bottom bracket? Needless to say, I won't be buying
anything from Performance Bicycles in the foreseeable future. Not sure
what to really do about this though. It does say on the Fuji web site
that components can change without notice, however I have a hard time
believing that Fuji would have swapped out the bottom brackets on a
bike with a $2150 list price and replaced them with $15 cheap Chinese
knock-offs. I've got to believe that my mechanic was correct in his
belief that the Performance retail location (Towson MD) was responsible
for the old switcheroo.

Installation and Test Rides:

Eventually, all the components arrived and much to my amazement, I had
successfully installed my new Centaur bottom bracket and crankset in
less than a half hour. I quickly put the pedals back on the bike and
took it out for an immediate evaluation. I didn't have time for a
serious test and had to be content with riding immediately around my
house. Much to my surprise, the entire system seemed to work flawlessly
from the first shift. I hadn't even bothered to adjust the stop-limit
screw on the front derailleur, so I had to be careful not to drop the
chain off the thirty tooth inner chain ring. I really liked what I was
feeling immediately. The drivetrain seemed to be running better than it
ever had with the FSA crankset and while I hadn't noticed any real
problems with my original set up, shifting with the Centaur crankset
already seemed crisper to me. As I said, I didn't have time for a full
test drive that day and would have to wait until the following day to
do a proper evaluation of how my new drivetrain components were
functioning.

The next day I went for a twenty five mile ride which included lots of
rolling hills and several moderately steep and long (0.8 mile) climbs.
It quickly became apparent to me that my initial positive impressions
were absolutely correct: my bike was indeed performing better than it
ever had using the old FSA Gossamer triple crankset. By this time, I
had adjusted the front, inner stop-limit screw and the front shifts
were flawless. I tried to push my chain off the crankset with a series
of quick double pops (quickly dropping the chain from the larger to the
smaller chain ring while simultaneously dropping down three to fours
gears on the rear cassette in one coordinated motion) but the chain
didn't miss a step. It stayed properly positioned on the bike and all
shifts were executed without a single hiccup. Perhaps the weirdest
thing was the improvement was not solely bound to front shifting. The
rear derailleur was now shifting better too. My rear cassette is a
12-25 and every now and then, movements to and from the two spaced
gears (e.g 17 to 19, 19 to 21...etc...etc) would slip for a brief
second. Suddenly, all these shifts were now flawless. Five subsequent
rides of greater than twenty miles have reconfirmed these findings: my
bike is a superior machine with a Campagnolo Centaur compact crankset
installed.


Questions:

Needless to say, I'm extremely pleased to the results of my $170
upgrade (for crankset and bottom bracket), however I'm slightly
perplexed by a couple of things:

Why didn't Fuji just put a Centaur crankset on the bike to begin with?
When you look at the price of an FSA Gossamer triple versus a Centaur
compact, the Campagnolo is actually cheaper. The price of the ISIS
versus Centaur bottom brackets are approximately the same. Hence, it's
hard for me to believe that Fuji saved much money by swapping out the
Campy for the FSA.

Why is the rear derailleur/shifting functioning so much better? About
the only explanation I could come up with is the fact that the chain
line is better with the Campy bottom bracket and crankset. This once
again leads me back to my first question...why would Fuji sacrifice
superior performance and slap an ill-suited FSA crankset on these
bikes?

Why do I need a compact front derailleur? Perhaps if I had one, I'd
know the answer to this question?! As I mentioned at the outset, I
was relatively pleased with the performance of my bicycle before I ever
swapped out my crankset and hence, if I replaced the front derailleur,
perhaps I'd find out that shifting could be even crisper than what I'm
currently experiencing.


Conclusion:

Having ridden my compact crank for a while, I find that twenty gears
does indeed suit my tastes better than thirty. I've quickly found my
way around the chain rings/cassette and can easily anticipate which
gears I need in most situations. A triple made my choices a little too
confusing. The compact makes for simpler and more intuitive
shifting...at least for me. While my gear range has been compressed
slightly from both the top and bottom, I rarely would spin a 52/12 or a
30/25 and hence, I don't feel like I've sacrificed anything useful by
making this switch.

Campagnolo parts like other Campagnolo parts! I've always heard that
mixing and matching manufacturer's parts in a drivetrain was a bad
idea, however there seem to be plenty of professional teams (CSC comes
to mind immediately) which use cranksets made by FSA mated to Shimano
drivetrains. Perhaps Shimano equipment takes to mixing and matching
better than Campy equipment? I don't know for sure but when you read
the material published on the FSA web site, they claim there cranksets
should work very well with Campy drivetrains. Perhaps the bottom
bracket fiasco is a vital part of the discontinuity I seemed to be
experiencing?

Perhaps the only dilemma I now face is the fact that Campagnolo is
going to do a major overhaul of their bottom brackets and cranksets for
the 2007 season. As a result, I should be able to pick up one of those
shiny, black Record compact cranks pretty cheaply near the end of the
2006 season. Hmm, but I've already spent a couple hundred dollars on a
crankset which seems to be working perfectly for me. Is vanity (and my
inherent need for world domination) enough to tempt me to shell out
more money for some Record components?


You'll never know, but the original FSA setup may have shifted pretty
damn well also, had it not have been swapped out for the $15 cheapie.
Fuji had most likely matched up the FSA BB and crank for a near
perfect chainline.

wrote:
There has been much written on the web and usenet regarding swapping a
triple for a compact crankset. I've just gone through a conversion and
thought I'd post my observations for the benefit of anyone who might
be thinking about doing a swap themselves.

Background:

I purchased a Fuji Provence 2004 men's road bike in the Summer of 2005
from Performance Bicycle. The bike came equipped with Campagnolo
Centaur drivetrain except for and FSA Gossamer triple crankset and FSA
ISIS bottom bracket. While the drivetrain worked, it wasn't the
precision of one would expect from Campagnolo. I used to own a bike
outfitted with Campy Athena components back in the mid 90's. That
bike's shifting was extremely precise and I was a bit surprised that
the Provence would occasionally hiccup on some gear changes. Still, I
was so enamored with the integrated braking/shifting mechanism of a
modern bicycle, that I didn't spend too much time contemplating the
intermittent pauses in shifting I was experiencing with my Provence.

My bike seemed to ride decently enough with the factory set up and I
was mostly pleased with the configuration but something did start to
bother me. Over time, I began to think that thirty gears was just a
bit too many. First of all, there seemed to be a great deal of
duplication across the gearing combinations and secondly, every now
and then, I'd pop the chain off the crank entirely when down-shifting
from the forty to thirty tooth chain ring. I began to entertain the
idea of replacing the FSA triple with a Campy compact crankset. I had
been eyeing the expensive Record & Chorus carbon compacts when I
noticed that Excel Sports was selling an aluminum Centaur compact
(50/34) crankset for $129.00. For this price, I figured I couldn't
pass up the opportunity to try a compact out.

Finalizing the order:

The first vital detail I encountered was making sure I bought the
correct bottom bracket. Initially, I tried to order a Record BB until
careful reading of the Campagnolo web site clued me into the fact that
Centaur cranksets use 111mm bottom brackets with a symmetrical
spindle. This is markedly different to the configuration for a Chorus
or Record compact crankset. Both of these versions require a 102mm
bottom bracket with an asymmetrical spindle. In the end, my ONLY
option was to buy a Centaur BB for this crankset. Unfortunately, this
threw a monkey wrench into my master plan because ALL people who ride
Campagnolo components secretly aspire owning Record equipped bike. I
wanted to begin my assault on a Record-only bicycle with the BB. My
plan for world domination had to be postponed until a later date when
the monetary gods were shining more favorably upon me.

After reading the Campagnolo literature, I was also convinced that I
needed to purchase a new front derailleur, however just before I
placed an order for one, a bike shop mechanic told me that I might
not need one after all. Several people he had known were using a
standard front derailleur with a compact crankset without incident.
Hence, I decided to save a few bucks and order a new front derailleur
only if I found it necessary.

A Big and Nasty Surprise:

As I mentioned above, I bought my 2004 Fuji Provence at Performance
Bicycle (Towson MD) in the Summer of 2005. Since this bike was last
year's model, at the time I purchased it, I got a good deal.

I took my bike to a local mechanic to have the FSA cransket and bottom
bracket removed for me before the installation of my new equipment. As
the mechanic took the crankset apart, I stood by watching the process.
I wasn't going to spend money on tools to remove these components
because I never planned on using them ever again. I bought the tools
for the Campy installation and wanted to watch the disassembly of the
FSA equipment because I'd never actually done a bottom bracket
replacement before. From what I'd read, it seemed like a simple
process but watching it seemed prudent at the time.

Initially, all was going well. My mechanic removed the crank arms and
slid the assembly off the bike easily. Then he began unwinding the
bottom bracket covers and explaining to me about the directionality of
these pieces. Eventually he removed the left side cover and pulled the
spindle out of the frame. My mechanic paused as he looked at it the
bottom bracket and then began to laugh. He handed it to me and said:

This is a little trick bike shops do to save money. Since 99.9% of
people will never see the insides of their bottom bracket, bike shops
will pull out the expensive one that's supposed to be in there and
replace it with a cheap Chinese knock off. This is a cheap $15 bottom
bracket and not an FSA ISIS.

If you look at the Fuji web site, you'll see the listed component
group includes and FSA ISIS bottom bracket. I looked in disbelief at
the hardware in my hands. Indeed, this what NOT an FSA ISIS at all. I
was planning on putting the Gossamer crankset and bottom bracket on
ebay and doing a $30 buy-it-now deal for someone to scoop up. I guess
we can nix at least part of that idea.

Obviously, I was not pleased when the reality of my components were
exposed to me. I wonder if my bike would have shifted better with the
FSA bottom bracket? I wonder if the chain-line would have been better
set by an FSA bottom bracket? Needless to say, I won't be buying
anything from Performance Bicycles in the foreseeable future. Not sure
what to really do about this though. It does say on the Fuji web site
that components can change without notice, however I have a hard time
believing that Fuji would have swapped out the bottom brackets on a
bike with a $2150 list price and replaced them with $15 cheap Chinese
knock-offs. I've got to believe that my mechanic was correct in his
belief that the Performance retail location (Towson MD) was
responsible for the old switcheroo.

Installation and Test Rides:

Eventually, all the components arrived and much to my amazement, I had
successfully installed my new Centaur bottom bracket and crankset in
less than a half hour. I quickly put the pedals back on the bike and
took it out for an immediate evaluation. I didn't have time for a
serious test and had to be content with riding immediately around my
house. Much to my surprise, the entire system seemed to work
flawlessly from the first shift. I hadn't even bothered to adjust the
stop-limit screw on the front derailleur, so I had to be careful not
to drop the chain off the thirty tooth inner chain ring. I really
liked what I was feeling immediately. The drivetrain seemed to be
running better than it ever had with the FSA crankset and while I
hadn't noticed any real problems with my original set up, shifting
with the Centaur crankset already seemed crisper to me. As I said, I
didn't have time for a full test drive that day and would have to
wait until the following day to do a proper evaluation of how my new
drivetrain components were functioning.

The next day I went for a twenty five mile ride which included lots of
rolling hills and several moderately steep and long (0.8 mile) climbs.
It quickly became apparent to me that my initial positive impressions
were absolutely correct: my bike was indeed performing better than it
ever had using the old FSA Gossamer triple crankset. By this time, I
had adjusted the front, inner stop-limit screw and the front shifts
were flawless. I tried to push my chain off the crankset with a series
of quick double pops (quickly dropping the chain from the larger to
the smaller chain ring while simultaneously dropping down three to
fours gears on the rear cassette in one coordinated motion) but the
chain didn't miss a step. It stayed properly positioned on the bike
and all shifts were executed without a single hiccup. Perhaps the
weirdest thing was the improvement was not solely bound to front
shifting. The rear derailleur was now shifting better too. My rear
cassette is a 12-25 and every now and then, movements to and from the
two spaced gears (e.g 17 to 19, 19 to 21...etc...etc) would slip for
a brief second. Suddenly, all these shifts were now flawless. Five
subsequent rides of greater than twenty miles have reconfirmed these
findings: my bike is a superior machine with a Campagnolo Centaur
compact crankset installed.


Questions:

Needless to say, I'm extremely pleased to the results of my $170
upgrade (for crankset and bottom bracket), however I'm slightly
perplexed by a couple of things:

Why didn't Fuji just put a Centaur crankset on the bike to begin with?
When you look at the price of an FSA Gossamer triple versus a Centaur
compact, the Campagnolo is actually cheaper. The price of the ISIS
versus Centaur bottom brackets are approximately the same. Hence, it's
hard for me to believe that Fuji saved much money by swapping out the
Campy for the FSA.

The price to Fuji for an FSA Gossamer is likely cheaper than a Centaur. The
markup on the Gossamer is probably higher.

Why is the rear derailleur/shifting functioning so much better? About
the only explanation I could come up with is the fact that the chain
line is better with the Campy bottom bracket and crankset. This once
again leads me back to my first question...why would Fuji sacrifice
superior performance and slap an ill-suited FSA crankset on these
bikes?

Why do I need a compact front derailleur? Perhaps if I had one, I'd
know the answer to this question?! As I mentioned at the outset, I
was relatively pleased with the performance of my bicycle before I
ever swapped out my crankset and hence, if I replaced the front
derailleur, perhaps I'd find out that shifting could be even crisper
than what I'm currently experiencing.


Conclusion:

Having ridden my compact crank for a while, I find that twenty gears
does indeed suit my tastes better than thirty. I've quickly found my
way around the chain rings/cassette and can easily anticipate which
gears I need in most situations. A triple made my choices a little too
confusing. The compact makes for simpler and more intuitive
shifting...at least for me. While my gear range has been compressed
slightly from both the top and bottom, I rarely would spin a 52/12 or
a 30/25 and hence, I don't feel like I've sacrificed anything useful
by making this switch.

Campagnolo parts like other Campagnolo parts! I've always heard that
mixing and matching manufacturer's parts in a drivetrain was a bad
idea, however there seem to be plenty of professional teams (CSC comes
to mind immediately) which use cranksets made by FSA mated to Shimano
drivetrains. Perhaps Shimano equipment takes to mixing and matching
better than Campy equipment? I don't know for sure but when you read
the material published on the FSA web site, they claim there cranksets
should work very well with Campy drivetrains. Perhaps the bottom
bracket fiasco is a vital part of the discontinuity I seemed to be
experiencing?

Perhaps the only dilemma I now face is the fact that Campagnolo is
going to do a major overhaul of their bottom brackets and cranksets
for the 2007 season. As a result, I should be able to pick up one of
those shiny, black Record compact cranks pretty cheaply near the end
of the 2006 season. Hmm, but I've already spent a couple hundred
dollars on a crankset which seems to be working perfectly for me. Is
vanity (and my inherent need for world domination) enough to tempt me
to shell out more money for some Record components?

--
Phil Lee, Squid

wrote:
There has been much written on the web and usenet regarding swapping a
triple for a compact crankset. I've just gone through a conversion and
thought I'd post my observations for the benefit of anyone who might be
thinking about doing a swap themselves.

Background:

I purchased a Fuji Provence 2004 men's road bike in the Summer of 2005
from Performance Bicycle. The bike came equipped with Campagnolo
Centaur drivetrain except for and FSA Gossamer triple crankset and FSA
ISIS bottom bracket. While the drivetrain worked, it wasn't the
precision of one would expect from Campagnolo. I used to own a bike
outfitted with Campy Athena components back in the mid 90's. That
bike's shifting was extremely precise and I was a bit surprised that
the Provence would occasionally hiccup on some gear changes. Still, I
was so enamored with the integrated braking/shifting mechanism of a
modern bicycle, that I didn't spend too much time contemplating the
intermittent pauses in shifting I was experiencing with my Provence.

My bike seemed to ride decently enough with the factory set up and I
was mostly pleased with the configuration but something did start to
bother me. Over time, I began to think that thirty gears was just a bit
too many. First of all, there seemed to be a great deal of duplication
across the gearing combinations and secondly, every now and then, I'd
pop the chain off the crank entirely when down-shifting from the forty
to thirty tooth chain ring. I began to entertain the idea of replacing
the FSA triple with a Campy compact crankset. I had been eyeing the
expensive Record & Chorus carbon compacts when I noticed that Excel
Sports was selling an aluminum Centaur compact (50/34) crankset for
$129.00. For this price, I figured I couldn't pass up the opportunity
to try a compact out.

Finalizing the order:

The first vital detail I encountered was making sure I bought the
correct bottom bracket. Initially, I tried to order a Record BB until
careful reading of the Campagnolo web site clued me into the fact that
Centaur cranksets use 111mm bottom brackets with a symmetrical spindle.
This is markedly different to the configuration for a Chorus or Record
compact crankset. Both of these versions require a 102mm bottom bracket
with an asymmetrical spindle. In the end, my ONLY option was to buy a
Centaur BB for this crankset. Unfortunately, this threw a monkey wrench
into my master plan because ALL people who ride Campagnolo components
secretly aspire owning Record equipped bike. I wanted to begin my
assault on a Record-only bicycle with the BB. My plan for world
domination had to be postponed until a later date when the monetary
gods were shining more favorably upon me.

After reading the Campagnolo literature, I was also convinced that I
needed to purchase a new front derailleur, however just before I placed
an order for one, a bike shop mechanic told me that I might not need
one after all. Several people he had known were using a standard front
derailleur with a compact crankset without incident. Hence, I decided
to save a few bucks and order a new front derailleur only if I found it
necessary.

A Big and Nasty Surprise:

As I mentioned above, I bought my 2004 Fuji Provence at Performance
Bicycle (Towson MD) in the Summer of 2005. Since this bike was last
year's model, at the time I purchased it, I got a good deal.

I took my bike to a local mechanic to have the FSA cransket and bottom
bracket removed for me before the installation of my new equipment. As
the mechanic took the crankset apart, I stood by watching the process.
I wasn't going to spend money on tools to remove these components
because I never planned on using them ever again. I bought the tools
for the Campy installation and wanted to watch the disassembly of the
FSA equipment because I'd never actually done a bottom bracket
replacement before. From what I'd read, it seemed like a simple process
but watching it seemed prudent at the time.

Initially, all was going well. My mechanic removed the crank arms and
slid the assembly off the bike easily. Then he began unwinding the
bottom bracket covers and explaining to me about the directionality of
these pieces. Eventually he removed the left side cover and pulled the
spindle out of the frame. My mechanic paused as he looked at it the
bottom bracket and then began to laugh. He handed it to me and said:

This is a little trick bike shops do to save money. Since 99.9% of
people will never see the insides of their bottom bracket, bike shops
will pull out the expensive one that's supposed to be in there and
replace it with a cheap Chinese knock off. This is a cheap $15 bottom
bracket and not an FSA ISIS.

If you look at the Fuji web site, you'll see the listed component group
includes and FSA ISIS bottom bracket. I looked in disbelief at the
hardware in my hands. Indeed, this what NOT an FSA ISIS at all. I was
planning on putting the Gossamer crankset and bottom bracket on ebay
and doing a $30 buy-it-now deal for someone to scoop up. I guess we can
nix at least part of that idea.

Obviously, I was not pleased when the reality of my components were
exposed to me. I wonder if my bike would have shifted better with the
FSA bottom bracket? I wonder if the chain-line would have been better
set by an FSA bottom bracket? Needless to say, I won't be buying
anything from Performance Bicycles in the foreseeable future. Not sure
what to really do about this though. It does say on the Fuji web site
that components can change without notice, however I have a hard time
believing that Fuji would have swapped out the bottom brackets on a
bike with a $2150 list price and replaced them with $15 cheap Chinese
knock-offs. I've got to believe that my mechanic was correct in his
belief that the Performance retail location (Towson MD) was responsible
for the old switcheroo.

Installation and Test Rides:

Eventually, all the components arrived and much to my amazement, I had
successfully installed my new Centaur bottom bracket and crankset in
less than a half hour. I quickly put the pedals back on the bike and
took it out for an immediate evaluation. I didn't have time for a
serious test and had to be content with riding immediately around my
house. Much to my surprise, the entire system seemed to work flawlessly
from the first shift. I hadn't even bothered to adjust the stop-limit
screw on the front derailleur, so I had to be careful not to drop the
chain off the thirty tooth inner chain ring. I really liked what I was
feeling immediately. The drivetrain seemed to be running better than it
ever had with the FSA crankset and while I hadn't noticed any real
problems with my original set up, shifting with the Centaur crankset
already seemed crisper to me. As I said, I didn't have time for a full
test drive that day and would have to wait until the following day to
do a proper evaluation of how my new drivetrain components were
functioning.

The next day I went for a twenty five mile ride which included lots of
rolling hills and several moderately steep and long (0.8 mile) climbs.
It quickly became apparent to me that my initial positive impressions
were absolutely correct: my bike was indeed performing better than it
ever had using the old FSA Gossamer triple crankset. By this time, I
had adjusted the front, inner stop-limit screw and the front shifts
were flawless. I tried to push my chain off the crankset with a series
of quick double pops (quickly dropping the chain from the larger to the
smaller chain ring while simultaneously dropping down three to fours
gears on the rear cassette in one coordinated motion) but the chain
didn't miss a step. It stayed properly positioned on the bike and all
shifts were executed without a single hiccup. Perhaps the weirdest
thing was the improvement was not solely bound to front shifting. The
rear derailleur was now shifting better too. My rear cassette is a
12-25 and every now and then, movements to and from the two spaced
gears (e.g 17 to 19, 19 to 21...etc...etc) would slip for a brief
second. Suddenly, all these shifts were now flawless. Five subsequent
rides of greater than twenty miles have reconfirmed these findings: my
bike is a superior machine with a Campagnolo Centaur compact crankset
installed.


Questions:

Needless to say, I'm extremely pleased to the results of my $170
upgrade (for crankset and bottom bracket), however I'm slightly
perplexed by a couple of things:

Why didn't Fuji just put a Centaur crankset on the bike to begin with?
When you look at the price of an FSA Gossamer triple versus a Centaur
compact, the Campagnolo is actually cheaper. The price of the ISIS
versus Centaur bottom brackets are approximately the same. Hence, it's
hard for me to believe that Fuji saved much money by swapping out the
Campy for the FSA.

When this bike was made, an aluminum Campag compact crank didn't
exist..that came in 2005/6. Called 'hidden spec' and something
manufacturers, not 'bike shops' do....

Why is the rear derailleur/shifting functioning so much better? About
the only explanation I could come up with is the fact that the chain
line is better with the Campy bottom bracket and crankset. This once
again leads me back to my first question...why would Fuji sacrifice
superior performance and slap an ill-suited FSA crankset on these
bikes?

Campag matched stuff, rings and si=]uch, DO work better than FSA. Over
time, we are finding the the flooded onto the market, FSA stuff is not
that great. Poor BBs, soft chainrings, etc. Cheap and bike
manufacturers were given a deal they couldn't refuse. Most don't really
care if the operation of their stuff is good or great, sometimes even
if it's good or poor.

Why do I need a compact front derailleur? Perhaps if I had one, I'd
know the answer to this question?! As I mentioned at the outset, I
was relatively pleased with the performance of my bicycle before I ever
swapped out my crankset and hence, if I replaced the front derailleur,
perhaps I'd find out that shifting could be even crisper than what I'm
currently experiencing.

Use a standard FD..no need for a compact. You could have used the
triple FD w/o problem as well.

Conclusion:

Having ridden my compact crank for a while, I find that twenty gears
does indeed suit my tastes better than thirty. I've quickly found my
way around the chain rings/cassette and can easily anticipate which
gears I need in most situations. A triple made my choices a little too
confusing. The compact makes for simpler and more intuitive
shifting...at least for me. While my gear range has been compressed
slightly from both the top and bottom, I rarely would spin a 52/12 or a
30/25 and hence, I don't feel like I've sacrificed anything useful by
making this switch.

Campagnolo parts like other Campagnolo parts! I've always heard that
mixing and matching manufacturer's parts in a drivetrain was a bad
idea, however there seem to be plenty of professional teams (CSC comes
to mind immediately) which use cranksets made by FSA mated to Shimano
drivetrains. Perhaps Shimano equipment takes to mixing and matching
better than Campy equipment? I don't know for sure but when you read
the material published on the FSA web site, they claim there cranksets
should work very well with Campy drivetrains. Perhaps the bottom
bracket fiasco is a vital part of the discontinuity I seemed to be
experiencing?

FSA onto shimano doesn't work any better. In my experience, for
shimano, the best compact is their R700 one...works great with their
STI levers. Once again, I am not impressed by FSA cranks in general.

Perhaps the only dilemma I now face is the fact that Campagnolo is
going to do a major overhaul of their bottom brackets and cranksets for
the 2007 season. As a result, I should be able to pick up one of those
shiny, black Record compact cranks pretty cheaply near the end of the
2006 season. Hmm, but I've already spent a couple hundred dollars on a
crankset which seems to be working perfectly for me. Is vanity (and my
inherent need for world domination) enough to tempt me to shell out
more money for some Record components?

Carbon on a crank does nothing..The Centaur crank and BB all two nice
pieces of gear. If you need a BB, get a PhilWood, in ISO 111mm..last BB
you will ever need.