I know that this is all academic and, on a practical level, it doesn't make a hoot's difference for me because I don't have any talent. But. Why does a Record compact crank weigh *more* than the equivalent full sized carbon crank, especially when both are carbon and equally outrageously priced? When does the compact front derailleur weigh *more* than the full sized front derailleur? Do they figure that the pros ride the full sized stuff and that only weakling weenies ride the compact stuff.. so we can just give the shaft to those weekend riding types? Its not as though the compact stuff is cheaper!

Why does a Record compact crank weigh *more* than the equivalent full sized carbon crank,

Why would anyone who needs a compact crank care? You are already slow and weak, a few extra grams isn't going to make a difference. :-)

Hahaha :D

You're absolutely right. just look at Hamilton, he needed blood doping to move from compact in 2003 to regular in 2004 :-D

Why would anyone who needs a compact crank care? You are already slow and weak, a few extra grams isn't going to make a difference. :-)
very cold comment. True, but cold.

Do they figure that the pros ride the full sized stuff and that only weakling weenies ride the compact stuff.. so we can just give the shaft to those weekend riding types?

One reason might be because they have to make a different set of manufacturing equipment to make the compact, that means great additional cost for them...

Another reason is to "give the shaft to weekend riding types." I like that.

Here is a third possible reason: To make more profit.

;)

[QUOTE=jakerson]One reason might be because they have to make a different set of manufacturing equipment to make the compact, that means great additional cost for them...

That is true, but I am sorry that is the cost of entry into a new market sector. Gotta spend the capex and invest in teh R&D to reap the cash flow. They also probably figured that they are not cost competitive relative to FSA and therefore saw the need to go upstream in terms of launching a carbon compact crank. Now, that is a novel marketing concept. Sell $700 cranks to the lame amateurs who cannot hack riding in a 53 tooth chainring, but make sure $200 versions are not available :) Ahem. Aluminum versions are strangely unavailable. Would the reason possibly be that FSA's version could be up to $200 cheaper because of their lower production cost?

Another reason is to "give the shaft to weekend riding types." I like that.

That is strange business logic. Their core customer base inherently is the middle-aged fatso with the bald head or the rich young kid who has a penchant for "looking cool." It has never been the pro with the sexy shaven legs that is the core customer. The company probably doesn't make a dime selling to the pro teams of this world. Simple economics of scale dictate that their best customers are probably the ever-crashing CAT 5s who ride the weekend criteriums, who desire to look like pros but can barely keep up an 18 mph average speed during the club rides :)

Here is a third possible reason: To make more profit.

Dittos the last point. There ain't no profit to be made from the Gibo Simonis of this world, who probably *demand* free stuff just for a photo opportunity. Come to think of it, most of the up and coming stars in the pro ranks are now on the Japanese brand. Ouch!

Seems that's what all the bike talk is these days, compacts, and triples and mega cassettes and long cage rear der's and compact triple front der's to shift this whole mess.

Seems to me there's a lot of really freeking expensive bikes out there going really freeking slow.

Can't you slow guys just buy a british roadster and at least maintain your dignity while creeping along. I mean if you're gonna go slow why pedal so damn fast.

Ron

Next rant will be about racer delusions and manufacturers who think that there's more than 12,000 people on the planet who need an 11.

It's not. The listed weight for the regular carbon cranks is 40-45 grams too low.

Think about this guys:

the specs given for the CT's are the same weight as the regular CF's because...who wants to pay the mad $$ for a "heavier" Record or Chorus CF traditional crankset, when for the same cash they could have a lighter CT and use a smaller cassette (11-21 or 11-23 vs. a 12T with a 53/39) - thus saving weight and keeping very similar gear ratios?

Then guess what would happen - they'd not be selling as many traditional cranksets, but more CT's.

Figure it out!

EDIT: same idea with Campy thus far only making Veloce and Record versions of the 12-23 10v. Why? Because the 12-23 would probably outsell the 11T cogsets and the 12-25 if they were available in Centaur & Chorus. So - you either pay whack $$ for a nice Record cluster, or get the heavier Veloce. Many of us don't want to do either so we buy one of the other sizes and make do, or make our own from add-on or spare cogs.

What kills me about Campy's marketing strategies is: what the hell does it matter, and what do they care? They're still going to sell about the same amount of cogs (or cranks and chainrings) at the end of the day as a total. So, if they don't make as many 11T cassettes or traditional cranksets, they'd make it up selling the other sizes that people would rather have.

Of course, there is still a lot of NOS product out there on the shelves and in the distribution pipeline that needs to be sold, so maybe when current supplies are used up in another year or so some of this will change.