Everyone, please help me with the first-worldiest of first world problems. I recently put in an order for a 3T Strada, and my LBS is trying to get all the parts now. It comes with a Force eTap groupset.
My LBS told me they could hook me up with a Quarq D2 crank instead at not extra charge. They claim it is a rebranded Red crank — which is 15 % lighter and makes me 25 % faster.
Is that true?
And are there any limitations that I should be aware of in terms of chain rings and bolt standards?
Both will get a Quarq Dzero power meter, so the power meter is identical save for the mount and the aesthetics.
I looked in to it myself and ended up buying the red cranks because I couldn’t find the red-spec quarq versions any cheaper than red. FWIW, the crank is a worthwhile upgrade if weight is important to you but the rest of the components are very similar in weight between force and red axs.
Sram has/had a few levels of Carbon cranks. Most are carbon wrapped over Aluminium with more layers or less layers of carbon. In any case, yeah basically the Quarq and SRAM units are exactly the same functionally. I’d go with the crank with the better looking graphics.
CF is bad at being precisely machined, AL is good at that.
CF looks like CF.
AL doesn’t look like CF
People pay more for CF
High end AL and low end CF are about the same weight and strength if you’re making something 3 dimensionally strong. The CF part is hard to mfg and takes up more physical space (see stems at understand up to here). CF is lighter when you’re making something strong in 1D or 2D. They make the core out of AL with all the tight tolerance stuff and to set the base 3D strength. They then stiffen the directions that need stiffening with carbon. There aren’t too many layers of carbon, so they don’t need to over-build it to account for manufacturing issues with full carbon items.
Having said that… a Rotor 3D is all AL about the same weight and price. It’s more compact, durable, and stiffer. It’s harder to mass produce though because of the machining.