2014 Ciamillo Gravitas crankset V3 in white powdercoat

Still pretty fresh outta the oven, Ciamillo continues to tweak the Gravitas crankset. The Revision 3 design has longer pedal ends to make it even stiffer. The original design used a shorter alloy pedal end, but Ted Ciamillo said that didn’t provide the overall stiffness that the carbon tubes could provide.

According to Ciamillo, the original design’s sockets would yield to the force of the tubes and could end up wallowing out a bit over time because there wasn’t as much surface area supporting the carbon as he liked.

The new design provides 41mm of contact area, up from 25mm on the originals. The four pins that help secure the parts (two on each end) have changed from a hollow design to a two-piece, lipped design that better prevents movement and transfers forces better. These changes ended up effectively doubling the system’s stiffness.

Claimed weight remains exactly the same at 395g for a 172.5. The original design let the carbon tubes extend all the way past the pedal’s insertion point. The new one stops the tubes just before the pedal hole, offsetting the additional weight from the longer end piece.

2014 Ciamillo Gravitas crankset V3 in white powdercoat

It’ll be offered in anodized black and powder coated white, which will add a few grams (these are a 175mm and came in at a claimed 415g). Like his brakes, the ends are still anodized prior to powder coating.

The white ones shown here are a customer’s crankset, so they’re shipping now. Retail is $899, add $50 for white. They can also anodize any of the alloy parts, excluding spider and spindle, any color at no additional charge. Available in compact and standard in either BSA24, BBright or BSA Adapted 30 (longer 30mm spindle) and BB30.

2014 Ciamillo Gravitas crankset V3 in black ano

More at caw-designs.com.

78 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Topmounter
Topmounter
8 years ago

Cool, adjustable length cranks… right?

Rico
Rico
8 years ago

These are the uber light cranks with the odd new design. The white pair reminds me of BMC Impec design style. I don’t mind the look, very modern, but it’s the polar oppostie of the traditional nago look a lot of weight weenies love.

Neat product imo.

thatguy
thatguy
8 years ago

3 revisions since the crank was released just a couple months ago, that screams of a product that wasn’t fully developed or tested. Pretty messed up that they are allowing us consumers to pay them to be the product testers.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

The White pair pictured is on my S-Works SL3. Having only ridden S-Works cranks in the past I had nothing to compare what “Stiffness” actually was……, I NOW DO!!! I have put 90 miles on the crank so far, in all kinds of drill conditions. From hard “all-out Sprint” drills in a 53/11, to fast paced standing on the pedals hill climbs and this crank is night and day from my 2012 S-Works crank! These things are so friggen’ stiff its hard to put into words or describe the sensation. A local Mechanic of over 20 years took it out for a quick 1 mile loop and said the same thing! His words exactly: “I have never felt a stiffer crank!” I also love the “Plug-And-Play” benefits of this crank. I can switch the spider from compact to standard super quickly, can get any arm length or Q-Factor I desire and lastly……, They look Pimp as Hell!!!!! Can’t tell you how many people on my loop rides where drooling on them. Yes, thats a silly point but I must admit I kinda liked having a uber “Bling” component that actually lives up to the Hype! LIGHT, STIFF and SEXY!!!!!! Long wait……., but well worth it!!! Bravo Ted!!

MMyers
MMyers
8 years ago

Keep adding aluminum and pretty soon they’ll have a Rotor crank.

Brad
Brad
8 years ago

What’s a nago look?

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

MMyers: If what you ride now is a Rotor Crank I guarantee that if you try Ted’s new crank you’ll hate your Rotor Crank……, more aluminum or not.

Mindless
Mindless
8 years ago

Now they should make the aluminum part slightly longer and ditch the stupid carbon tube in between.

Such a bad mechanical design.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Nago, I’m guessing he’s referring to “Traditional”

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Mindless: The Carbon Tubes are what make it super stiff. It is FUNCTIONAL ART that does what it says. Bad mechanical design?….. Please elaborate.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

BTW guys, before you post all your negatives, since I am one of few that have this on their bike right now and have logged several rides on it….., you should be asking me questions regarding wether or not if its worth the cost and lives up to the hype. All other negative post mean nothing if you don’t own this crank. Beta testing and wait times included. You don’t have the big picture and I can only assume you never care too.

heatwave23
heatwave23
8 years ago

@ IntenseSworks… I am not sure your opinion is much better than the haters that have not ridden them. You lost quite a bit of creditably with the statement “Having only ridden S-Works cranks in the past I had nothing to compare” and the fact that you think 90miles is several miles for testing. Get back to us once you have logged a few more hundred miles on them and you may want to log some miles on the Rotors before you are so quick to say that the Ciamillo’s are so much stiffer

Padrote
Padrote
8 years ago

how many percents stiffer is it than “BRAND X” cranks?? 12.7%? 15???

Ted Ciamillo
Ted Ciamillo
8 years ago

I’m the designer of this crank and have been building stuff for 25 years. I am the son of a machinist/gunsmith. I started working in my father’s machine shop building parts for satellites on paper punch machines before I had hair on my balls. Aside from my bike components which everyone knows about here, I have built 100 diver propulsion vehicles with onboard scuba (the ones that appeared in the beginning of the Tomb Raider movie, “The Cradle of Life”), a shark caged diver propulsion vehicle which I used to film a 6 ton great whites for Nat. Geo., a 38 caliber anti-shark stun gun, a high performance carbon fiber monofin, my own 30 ton compression molding machine, 2 human powered submarines, and my 6000 square foot cypress timber-frame workshop… mechanical design? Of all the things I’ve done in my life this design is possible my favorite…

Regarding the implication that I used consumers as testers… wrong. I make running changes to improve my work because I can.

Rob
Rob
8 years ago

I smell BS from a lot of the people posting above.

As any engineer (a real engineer not just a dude that works in his dads workshop) knows the bending stiffness of a tube is…

E(bending)=E(Youngs) x I(area moment of inertia).

For a tube, I=a*(Douter_diameter-Dinner_diameter)). Where a=pi/64

So, by using three hollow tubes instead of one single tube (or an oval) you just gone and messed things up.

These look like ____, conceptually make no sense and the physics screws them in the ___.

Rob
Rob
8 years ago

editing lol

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Heatwave: I understand that. I am not a tester of all that is bike related. I was only sharing my experience with what I have had the privilege of riding prior to Ted’s new crank. I do take into account the mechanic of 20 years who tried them out though, and HE strongly stated his perception of them. I can only assume he has been on every crank that has passed through his work stand. In all fairness…., I am guilty as well of getting upset with others posts and then replying back with hard tone. It would be nice if people would either ask questions referring to the cranks benchmark attributes or “Chew the meat and spit out the bones” of those who have ridden the crank in question. I doubt few of us have the equipment of measuring wether anything is stiffer, more aero or other. With that in mind, sometimes riders “Felt-Perception” of whatever is being discussed matters as well. I believe with all the Big Companies (often) misleading hype of statistical numbers, variables and side by side comparisons, one often overlooked component is: How does it feel to you – The rider.

Rico
Rico
8 years ago

Nice to see the designer pop in here! It is an impressive crank for sure. I followed the threads at WW forum on these cranks.

Psi Squared
Psi Squared
8 years ago

Ted, all the stuff you’ve worked on before doesn’t say anything about these cranks. You could offer to show stiffness comparison data. Likewise you could send Fair Wheel Bikes a set for them to test on their crank test apparatus. They’ve got one of the most extensive databases on crank stiffness, having now completed their 5th crank “shootout”. They’re an unbiased source.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Moderator: Should remove Rob’s post that are laced with profanity and explain to him before he’s ever allowed to post here again the rules. Thank you.

pmurf
pmurf
8 years ago

I’m impressed the weight didn’t change with the lengthening of the alu sheath! My first thought when I saw this was “well, there goes the weight.” As purely an observer, and someone who neither aspires to have or needs these cranks, I think they’re a breathtaking design that challenges what the big companies are doing. That’s never a bad thing for progression – whether their claimed numbers have been proven or not. Carry on Ted, you virtuoso of the CNC.

MMyers
MMyers
8 years ago

Poor little fella saw some bad words.

I hope he makes it through the day.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

MMyers: Being a police officer, I deal with on a daily bases a lot more than bad words….., and I do make it through the day….Thank you. This discussion chat room should be a place for civil conversation relating to the topic at hand….., PERIOD.

Kevin
Kevin
8 years ago

Yeah, but Rob did put some science into the discussion. And some correct science.

How can three small diameter tubes stacked on top of each other be stiffer than a box section of the same outer dimensions ?

Calculate your moment of area (I) for yourselves.

Not saying this crank ain’t stiff, but a simple box section would be stiffer.

(Mechanical Engineer)

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Kevin: I agree that it’s great when someone contributes to the discussion with science and interesting data, but unfortunately when it’s done in the way Rob chose to do it, it over shadows his point. If Rob and MMyers could contribute to this discussion in a constructive way we can all get on with why we are here……, which is to discuss: CIAMILLO GRAVITAS CARBON CRANK.

Jacob
Jacob
8 years ago

These cranks are nice but very expensive and there doesn’t seem to be any real world data to back up any claims of stiffness (lightweight is great but not at the expense of stiffness). I really hope that if anyone has shelled out money for the earlier version that they can swap them in for a huge discount on the updated version. If I am honest, so many revisions so early on doesn’t sit well with me when paying such a premium. If you can’t do enough R&D yourself then let people ride your product at a discounted price until you sort out all the bugs.

Ted Ciamillo
Ted Ciamillo
8 years ago

Rob, if you smell BS, I think you need to change your underwear. After college, where I studied engineering and physics, it became very clear to me that the lion’s share knowledge and talent I have today came from working with the old machinists that my father employed.
The flexural rigidity formulas like the Euler-Bernoulli theory (which is one of four theories) are in the machinist’s handbook along with formulas for speeds and feeds in for a wide range of materials. But as any “real” engineer knows, this only gets you in the ball park. The “feel” a machinist acquires over years of fixturing, work holding, and general tooling mechanical design has it’s fundamental basis in rigidity. Machining is an intimate understanding of rigidity. A good machinist understands the rigidity and the limits of material strength on the scale for which he works to a degree that exceeds the accuracy of your elementary equations. Although we know how to use the engineering equations, many machinists find their experience a more accurate and reliable source. The individual tubes were each engineered by one of the best composites engineers in the world, Jeff Engbrecht of Clearwater Composites. Jeff specializes in high-modulus carbon tube fabrication and we worked close together to optimize the Gravitas design. He is a big gun in the composites engineering world and has written papers on composites design http://windpower.sandia.gov/2004BladeWorkshop/PDFs/JeffEngbrecht.pdf. With over 20 years as a composites engineer and 8 of those working for for one of the largest suppliers of carbon fiber, Toray, Jeff and I evaluated our E and I and optimized the design of the tubes. For example, the I for the base and the pedal end of this design have a moment area which is significantly greater than the ROTOR crank for which we benchmarked. (the dimensions which contribute to the I for Rotor are .500 x 1.400 whereas the Gravitas is .640 x 1.875). For the base and the pedal end which have much higher moment area and 2.7 times the modulus of 7075, we are significantly more rigid. This leaves the unsupported segment where the carbon is exposed. Here we optimized the tubes. The two outside tubes have been optimized for bending rigidity and the center tube has been optimized for torsional rigidity.

Ted Ciamillo
Ted Ciamillo
8 years ago

Jacob… I actually asked all the previous design owners to send them back for an upgrade at no charge. I am paying for shipping as well and express mailing back.

Tim
Tim
8 years ago

IntenseSworks- are you a paid employee of Ted? Why haven’t you responded to the idea of getting the cranks’ stiffness tested by Fairwheel Bikes? From your first post, I had the feeling you were advertising these, posting the name of the cranks IN BIG LETTERS so people remember them.

Sigismond0
Sigismond0
8 years ago

A single box section might be stiffer, but what’s important on something like this is the stiffness:weight ratio. I’m not going to pretend to be an engineer, but I think it would only be fair to calculate the weight of a single larger tube that grants equal stiffness. The goal here isn’t the absolute stiffest crankset on the market, it’s a crankset that is as stiff as it can be at such a low weight. If Ted wanted to make the stiffest crankset in the world, I have no doubt he could pull that off with no problem. It might weigh a couple of kilos, but it would be stiff as hell.

Psi Squared
Psi Squared
8 years ago

Ted, again, how about comparison data? You have to understand that if anyone want to objectively evaluate your cranks, they’ll want to compare it to other cranks. You’ve not offered up any comparison data, so it shouldn’t be surprising that people find your claims suspect. There’s nothing backing up the claims.

The easy way to answer critics is to submit your cranks for testing. It’s that simple.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Rob: It has taking me sometime to get my composer and reply back to your insulting comment you made about my mother. It really touched a nerve with me because she died in my arms 3 days before Christmas last year from Lung Cancer. I hope you mature in a positive way.

Jacob
Jacob
8 years ago

Ted,

I respect customer service like that. I don’t mind paying more for quality service like that.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Tim: No, I do not work for Ciamillo. I did not respond to what you posted because that had nothing to do with me. That is something that is directly related to Ted. You put it out there for Ted……, let him reply to you.

Ted Ciamillo
Ted Ciamillo
8 years ago

Yes, it is simple and I am ready. I am working with Charles at PezCycling News and Tyler here at Bike Rumor. I am sure the Fair Wheel Bikes review process is solid but I would like a professional component tester to evaluate my product not a dealer of my competition. I just think there is a conflict of interest there.

IntenseSworks
IntenseSworks
8 years ago

Tim: Also, I went back up to my first posting and did not see where I posted the name of the crank in BIG LETTERS. Only thing I posted in big letters was: LIGHT, STIFF and SEXY….., which I stand behind.

MMyers
MMyers
8 years ago

Having an abrupt edge within a millimeter of a bolt hole doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

Rico
Rico
8 years ago

Hey Intense you can’t police the anonymous internet, it’s a losing battle.

But! This is a fantastic place to put your products up against a no-holds-barred audience. This is a harsh peanut gallery but there are also a lot of shop owners and serious consumers here who can drive trends. If you can make it through this test your product is surely going to sell. That’s what I like about the anonymity of sites/comment areas like this, people don’t hold back what they really think about a product and I think that helps progress..

Psi Squared
Psi Squared
8 years ago

So, Ted, you’re going to get a subjective review from Charles and Tyler (no disrespect intended, but there’s a big difference between “feels stiff” and actual deflection numbers, strength to weight values, and so on. It sure seems, Ted, as if you are avoiding critical analysis in favor of “pop” analysis. In the same breath, you seem to be impugning Fair Wheel Bikes methods. I can understand where you see the conflict of interest: having your product objectively measured against your competition conflicts with your interest in selling your product. Further, data from such a test might very well conflict with your “claims” about your product. Avoiding objective testing, i.e. lab testing, really makes your claims suspect.

To Ted and IntenseSworks: the human body is a crappy sensor, so it doesn’t yield reliable, accurate, or precise information about the physical performance of a part. Certainly, a 90 mile test isn’t significant in terms of part testing. There is far too much that influences human perception (mood, physical well being, biases, and many other things) for it to yield anything that could reasonably be called objective. That’s why we have lab test. In fact, that’s why science exists. How a crank “feels” is no measurement and quantifies absolutely nothing. IntenseSworks, I think you should worry a lot less about what others say and more about the content of what you offer.

Rico
Rico
8 years ago

I wanted to add that I thought it was pretty brave and proud move by the makers of this crank to put it out here and to jump in and join the convo.

Good luck!

MMyers
MMyers
8 years ago

I just now read that these are $900+ cranks.

How are these remotely better than the THM M3 cranks at the same price?

Not that I’d spend a grand on any cranks.

Honeybear
Honeybear
8 years ago

@Rico–well put, I give credit for Tyler, et al credit for letting the venom flow, also credit to Gravitas (Ted) I believe he puts up with almost as much peanut gallery grief as the dude from Culprit.
The bottom line will be whether they work and are worth the expense.
BTW my old-ass Bullseye cranks were the stiffest of all time–so there!

Nick
Nick
8 years ago

Pretty funny that the exact design flaw I mentioned months ago when these first started showing up has caused a re-design.

Max
Max
8 years ago

Well, Ted your “calculation” is misleading…

“(the dimensions which contribute to the I for Rotor are .500 x 1.400 whereas the Gravitas is .640 x 1.875)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_modulus

The Rotor Crank is one closed profile and so the outer dimensions are determinant for S (Section Modulus) with an exponent of 2 for the hight of the profile. The determinant dimensions for your construction are only the outer diameters of the three small pipes. So your construction lags of rigidity which only can be compensated with more material (even if your are using Carbon).

At all, your crank can work despite of the design faults, BUT your construction could be way better with one closed profile in the middle section. And well, a 800$ crank which is not designed for the best possible solution… And no, experience as a craftsman can overcome simple physics.

Ted Ciamillo
Ted Ciamillo
8 years ago

PSI.. You are confusing “feel” from a customer with competent analysis from an occupational component tester. Tyler and Charles will be using a test fixture. I have my data from my test as I have compared my crank in house with several brands. Is it credible to post my own data? No, because I am biased. I also don’t think it is credible for a dealer to perform a crank test for two reasons. First, however well executed the test, the dealer’s job is to sell product… his product. The experience base of a professional component tester who writes tech editorials provides the public with not only unbiased information but also a conciseness and completeness in the report in layman’s terms. Second, a dealer is faced with the credibility of issuing a report about brands he carries compared to brands he doesn’t. The public will always see the problem there just as clearly as it sees a problem with a random customer creating a shining testimonial. I have claimed nothing except that this design is possibly my favorite. You assume that the customer is me and associate his claims with me. Why wouldn’t anyone assume the claims of a test from a dealer for one brand he carries compared to another he doesn’t are suspect?

I will say it again, there will be an accurate lab test carried out by unbiased component testers which will show the ranking of my crankset.

Matt
Matt
8 years ago

@MMyers
>How are these remotely better than the THM M3 cranks at the same price?

Easy. They’re fully customizable.

Do you want one crank to be 190mm and another to be 145mm? While at the same time have the Q-factor for the 190mm crankarm be 5mm further inboard than for the 145mm crankarm. With easily-swappable chainring spiders so that you can run 130bcd on your road-disc bike to be a true road bike, or switch to a 110bcd when you want to gravel grind.

Not everybody wants that ability, but for those of us who do need it, Ted’s the best game in town.

Rob
Rob
8 years ago

Hi Ted,

It’s late where I am and I don’t have time to give you a full response. I will just give you a quick replay.

You speak of machinists that worked for your dad. So my guess is that this was some time ago, therefore unlikely to be working with modern high modulus CFRP/GFRP. So their experience of machining aluminium counts for very little when it comes to making composite.

Also, just so you know, Jeff Engbrecht is a guy I have never heard off. I have tried to find a single peer reviewed paper which he has written and there is nothing. I have not heard of him at any of the composite conferences I have attended in the last 5 years. None of the American ones or the European ones. (Such as the ICCM or the ASC). So to call him a big shot would be a bit like calling your cranks stiff.

Rob
Rob
8 years ago

I think what you have here is a simple product which in essence is carbon rods bonded into a aluminium part. Which also brings in interesting questions of interfacial debonding.

As for your idea of what stiffness is, the feel has nothing to do with it. It is either stiff or it is not. And your cranks are not. How do I know this without riding them? Because E*=EI.

One of the simplest equations which is large even with large deformations.

You though it looked cool and knew that some sucker would pay for it. There is no real science or engineering in these cranks.

Also, woven rods are cheap and not very hard to make. And by reducing your volume fraction you have made them look all “carbony” which is at the detriment to strength. These are just for show and you know that.

If I am wrong, post me some test data from a lab that did flexural tests on these cranks. But you will not because your starting to realise that your produce might just have been a waste of your time and money.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you did ask for it.

Rob

Steve M
Steve M
8 years ago

Yee hah this thing generates some emotion. If you were to combine this crank onto that Pinarello Dogma FS bike from a few days ago you could easily see over a 100 comments in a day- a Bike Rumor record I presume.

Psi Squared
Psi Squared
8 years ago

Tyler, what is your experience with lab testing of mechanical parts, like cranks? Can you please elaborate on your planned tests? Ted has led us to believe that you will be doing mechanical testing. Likewise, he’s led us to believe that Pez will be doing mechanical testing. Really?