# XX crank weight...it's heavy!



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

786g....that's just too heavy!


----------



## MMeglen (Apr 8, 2009)

yet this'll probably be on my bike next year as shimano isn't offering 2 ring cranks


----------



## mk00 (Jul 30, 2008)

MMeglen said:


> yet this'll probably be on my bike next year as shimano isn't offering 2 ring cranks


why you cant leave 2 rings at M970 for example?...it needs to buy rings separately, but M970 is great I think...


----------



## Kitakeng (Oct 29, 2006)

It's just the cassette that seems to be ok. ([email protected] [email protected])

rest... agree with nino. just toooo heavy.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

mk00 said:


> why you cant leave 2 rings at M970 for example?...it needs to buy rings separately, but M970 is great I think...


Because with all those integrated cranks you can't adjust chainline!

With 2 chainrings you need to shift the rings to the middle which isn't doable with those cranksets.You need a specially designed spider which places the rings in the correct position or you need "old" style cranks with separate BB where you can change BB lenght to get the correct chainline.
Just taking out 1 ring on a integrated triple crank isn't giving you the optimum. Proper double cranks offer perfect chainline so you can use ALL gears on the cassette without having the chain too crossed (eating away the drivetrain and your precious leg-power).


----------



## nikoli8 (Mar 23, 2008)

Why so heavy


----------



## Smart Sam (Jul 12, 2008)

nikoli8 said:


> Why so heavy


They've been made for the masses, rather have a slightly heavy crankset that can cope for all weights that one thats going to splinter for guys over 100 kgs/ 220 lbs.

THM have a specific target market and all sorts of warnings. They can thus supply a niche market with uber light crankset and forks.


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

fastest shifting rings in the world.

bar none.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Another downside of XX-cranks is the custom BCD of the chainrings! Limited chainring choice, heavy and expensive...i don't like this approach!

Right now i'm trying to convince the guys from Lightning Carbon do offer a double-specific 64/104 spider for their carbon cranks. That's the most used BCD these days and you have a wide variety of lightweight rings to choose from.

Anyway - when i compare my Lightning Carbon 27/40 crankset (522g complete) with the XX crank i have a smile on my face


----------



## Tiffster (Jan 30, 2008)

Im actually tossing my options between the XX crank or the Raceface next SL at the momment. Sure the Next is lighter but the XX is dedicated for 2 ring use which is appealing. Just trying to figure out if the XX will fit, it's REAL narrow.


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

Hand/of/Midas said:


> fastest shifting rings in the world.
> 
> bar none.


If that's true then it might be worth the extra weight.



nino said:


> Another downside of XX-cranks is the custom BCD of the chainrings! Limited chainring choice, heavy and expensive...i don't like this approach!
> 
> Right now i'm trying to convince the guys from Lightning Carbon do offer a double-specific 64/104 spider for their carbon cranks. That's the most used BCD these days and you have a wide variety of lightweight rings to choose from.
> 
> Anyway - when i compare my Lightning Carbon 27/40 crankset (522g complete) with the XX crank i have a smile on my face


But how does your Lightning crank perform in the mud and how do those custom chainrings shift?

I have another question, what about using Cannondales Hollowgram crankset with the adapter for non BB30 frames? Would it be heavy once you add the adapter?


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

it's brand new ring/shifting tech... i'm sure SRAM/Truvativ will whittle the rings down in time... can the BB be swapped for something lighter?


----------



## yamapro (Aug 9, 2009)

limba said:


> If that's true then it might be worth the extra weight.
> 
> But how does your Lightning crank perform in the mud and how do those custom chainrings shift?
> 
> I have another question, what about using Cannondales Hollowgram crankset with the adapter for non BB30 frames? Would it be heavy once you add the adapter?


I would like to know this also, I am wanting to put a hollowgram on my scott genius (73mm) So what is the weight of the adapters?


----------



## amillmtb (Jun 24, 2005)

yamapro said:


> I would like to know this also, I am wanting to put a hollowgram on my scott genius (73mm) So what is the weight of the adapters?


PM Eliflap and see if he has a weight for the whole system. I know he will have pics of the hollogram set up.

This is his picture of the THM BB:


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

nino said:


> Because with all those integrated cranks you can't adjust chainline!
> 
> With 2 chainrings you need to shift the rings to the middle which isn't doable with those cranksets.You need a specially designed spider which places the rings in the correct position or you need "old" style cranks with separate BB where you can change BB lenght to get the correct chainline.
> Just taking out 1 ring on a integrated triple crank isn't giving you the optimum. Proper double cranks offer perfect chainline so you can use ALL gears on the cassette without having the chain too crossed (eating away the drivetrain and your precious leg-power).


BS depends on bike chainline second if works on three it works on two...

I use all my gears easily with an XT HT II Crankset. with the big and big ring combo too, I also could remove the 2mm spacer to move the crank further left if I wanted too...

I use big big combo on short bursts uphills that just ain't wasting any power...

Quit over thinking everything.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Feb 18, 2004)

XTR's next redesign will have a double... and I'm guessing a lot of companies will embrace doubles now with wider range 10 speed cassettes from SRAM and soon Shimano. 2x10 will be mainstream, 1x10 will become what 2x9 is/was, 3 rings will be for clydesdales...

I'm not too surprised by the heavy weight. Any (real) weight on the BB30 version?


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Dan Gerous said:


> XTR's next redesign will have a double... and I'm guessing a lot of companies will embrace doubles now with wider range 10 speed cassettes from SRAM and soon Shimano. 2x10 will be mainstream, 1x10 will become what 2x9 is/was, 3 rings will be for clydesdales...
> 
> I'm not too surprised by the heavy weight. Any (real) weight on the BB30 version?


And people looking at climbing 3000 ft at plus 12% grade, on switchbacks.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Feb 18, 2004)

I was exagerating... or rather generalizing. Plus, going 2x10 doesn't mean you need to have XC racer's ring sizes. XTR will have both double and triple cranks.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Considering how much more the 11-34 XTR cassette weighs than the 11-32 XTR cassette, it would be interesting to see what happens with an 11-36 XTR cassette versus the weight saving of a 2 ring crank.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Feb 18, 2004)

2 ring cranks are not that much about weight saving IMO but rather about a more efficient drivetrain. Front shifts are much slower than on the cassette and they are more risky with chainsucks, dropped chains... A double means you shift more often on the quicker, smoother and safer rear shifts, less on the front. I usually stay on the big ring, use the whole cassette and only drop on my smaller ring when the climbs are too steep, too hard, too technical... You can get a narrower q-factor too, weight loss is minimal in many cases.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> Quit over thinking everything.


Maybe time to start thinking about the BS you let out...


----------



## COLINx86 (Apr 8, 2009)

Just out of curiosity what's the weight without the rings?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> Quit over thinking everything.


Yeah.

Double specific crankset moves rings by half the distance between cogs. So the maximum increase in the chain angle at the first and last cog will be half a cog equivalent. 2x9 is easier to use, with bigger gap between front rings - less shifting, but the chain line issue is over-thinking it. For 7 out of 9 cogs its the same. Simple geometry. my granny-middle-bashguard cranks work just fine.

back on topic - all that carbon, and no real savings over bulletproof XTR? I will pass.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

*S-Works crankset + XX chainrings*

must admit to being disappointed at the XX BB30 crankset's weight - but that's hardly new news, XX componant weights have been available for months now

Specialized might have the right idea with XX chainrings + their S-Works crankset like here on the spendalicious 2010 S-Works Stumpjumper hardtail 29"


----------



## limba (Jan 9, 2004)

Cannondale put the XX chainrings on their Hollowgram crankset too.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Noir 3.3 cranks were already chubby compared to the XTR. 

It is kinda surprising that Race Face hasn't decided to respond since they introduced yet another carbon crank downmarket from the Next at Eurobike. And they have the SS version of the Next cranks, they should be able to whip up some chainrings suitable for a 2 ring with a big granny and a middle ring.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

limba said:


> Cannondale put the XX chainrings on their Hollowgram crankset too.


good call, Hollowgram is a feather already so probably even lighter than the S-Works (?)


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Simple geometry.


correct - so now please think twice !


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> correct - so now please think twice !


Your usual condescension is wrong as usual. My point was entirely correct.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Curmy said:


> Your usual condescension is wrong as usual. My point was entirely correct.


yes sure:

If you're on the inner ring the chain isn't all crossed when using the smaller cogs in the rear and viceversa...c'mon!


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

Dan Gerous said:


> ... and I'm guessing a lot of companies will embrace doubles now with wider range 10 speed cassettes from SRAM and soon Shimano. 2x10 will be mainstream...


I hope so! I want to get a double ring LX crank for my girlfriend. She just can't keep track of where she is with three rings up front. Either her cross-chaining or my *****in' about it is going to doom our relationship.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> And people looking at climbing 3000 ft at plus 12% grade, on switchbacks.


I can do it on one gear, so 19 more seems more than adequate.

Ya puss. Come on back to f88me.com whydon'tcha?


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

culturesponge said:


> must admit to being dissapointed at the XX BB30 crankset's weight - but that's hardly new news, XX componant weights have been available for months now
> 
> me thinks Specialized might have the right idea with XX chainrings + their S-Works crankset like here on the spendalicious 2010 S-Works Stumpjumper hardtail 29"


That's not a BB30 on the scale in the OP.


----------



## SmilMick (Apr 9, 2006)

I wonder if the XX cranks are as weak as Ninos cranks?

You know, not all of us put on lycra and hit up some sad excuse for a mountain bike trail. Just because your superlight cranks have been holing up doesnt mean the they will work for the masses.

The XX group was designed for racing abuse from your average 185lb rider in even the harshest conditions. However, Sram has also been pushing the group towards the all mountain crowd. It appears that the weight of their crankset reflects those claims and attributes.

No surprises, and no disappointment here.

Square saper, isis, and other similar bb's have smaller and/or less bearings that are less reliable, less stiff, and are more prone to wearing out with regular maintenance and use.


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

For me square taper BBs with good seals are commonly available and they have been holding up good for me in years, octalinks too, now it´s the BB30 for me, it should be a better design and the sealing system in Hollowgram Si looks promising.

Look at the instruction/installation sheet, NO ONE standard machine bearing with normal rubber seals cannot withstand sub water use for longer time without a proper overhaul shortly after.

Don´t blame the bearings for the improper use, please.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nino said:


> yes sure:
> 
> If you're on the inner ring the chain isn't all crossed when using the smaller cogs in the rear and viceversa...c'mon!


Yes, sure.

Difference in chain angle between a granny on a triple and small ring on a double with the same cog in the rear is less then the difference in angle when you have the same ring in front and switch between two cogs in the rear. It does not matter if you move the front or the rear by the same amount, and difference between position of a granny on a triple and small on a double (which is in between granny and middle) is less then the distance between cogs.


----------



## 743power (Sep 25, 2007)

Heavy or not, I'll be xx'ing my bike as soon as there is a steady supply of parts available here. QBP got a few hundred cranksets in on thursday and they all were gone within hours.


----------



## flafonta (Feb 6, 2008)

Why are the Middleburns not mentioned more often on the WW forum?

They are great for 1x or 2x, very light, beautiful and not crazy expensive. What am I missing?


----------



## DavidR1 (Jul 7, 2008)

flafonta said:


> Why are the Middleburns not mentioned more often on the WW forum?
> 
> They are great for 1x or 2x, very light, beautiful and not crazy expensive. What am I missing?


I agree. They make some great cranks from what I have read. Certainly top of my list when I replace my current cranks.


----------



## COLINx86 (Apr 8, 2009)

flafonta said:


> Why are the Middleburns not mentioned more often on the WW forum?
> 
> They are great for 1x or 2x, very light, beautiful and not crazy expensive. What am I missing?


They are nice, but once you add in the weight of an ISIS bottom bracket there not that light.


----------



## whybotherme (Sep 12, 2008)

flafonta said:


> Why are the Middleburns not mentioned more often on the WW forum?
> 
> They are great for 1x or 2x, very light, beautiful and not crazy expensive. What am I missing?


middleburns are okay. flex more (like hitting the CS when standing), and i was less than pleased with the shifting on their rings (if you aren't racing it probably doesn't matter that much).

oh and they are super expensive for what you get because of the exchange rates.


----------



## pinepig (Dec 17, 2004)

I'm curious to know how a 9 sp. chain might shift on the XX cranks (if it will work at all).

I have no desire to switch to 10 sp. (ever), but I'm impressed with some of the features of the XX cranks.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

pinepig said:


> but I'm impressed with some of the features of the XX cranks.


which features?

smaller double rings?
carbon arms?
it's overweight?

Please explain what the XX crankset can what others don't! I don't see any advantage other than it already comes with a perfect chainline for double rings. Nothing you can't do on other "regular",old-style cranks with seperate BB as well.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

nino said:


> which features?
> 
> smaller double rings?
> carbon arms?
> ...


Supposedly shifts faster and more reliabily than anything else out there (who really knows thoughh - I haven't ridden a set). That's worth some trade-off in weight any day for a racer.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Feb 18, 2004)

I'm sure a 9 speed chain will work fine on the XX rings but a 10 speed chain works on a 9 speed cassette so you could go 2x9 with it for sure. I'm using a 8 speed only big ring right now with a 9 speed chain and it works perfectly so I take these compatibility limitations with a grain of salt. I wouldn't use a 9 speed chain on a 10 speed cassette though.

The features I like about the XX cranks are the choice of chainring sizes (they're good and I can't go lower than 29 right now but not enough to justify getting it IMO... and I get along fine with a 29) and the claimed super smooth and fast shifting... that remains to be seen in the real world though. I know the Cannondale Factory Racing team started to use the XX rings but quickly converted back to other rings in 94BCD so I would guess the XX superior shifting is probably more marketing than real world performance... or it is an improvement but the XX rings are so heavy (they sure look porky) that they rather use slightly slower front shifts...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Supposedly shifts faster and more reliabily than anything else out there (who really knows thoughh - I haven't ridden a set).


It got to be a large improvement over existing Noir/Stylo to approach XTR.. I have only tried the triple, and I am keeping my SLX and XTR..


----------



## pinepig (Dec 17, 2004)

nino said:


> which features?
> 
> smaller double rings?
> carbon arms?
> ...


If you look into a bit further, you'll see some novel design features to enhance front shifting, stuff that has not been implemented by any other company (even on SRAM's road cranks). The rings have to be used in specific combinations for it to work, however. No mix-and-matching.

Also like the fact that it comes with a BB30 option. And the 156mm Q-factor.


----------



## pinepig (Dec 17, 2004)

I know a 9sp chain works fine on 10sp ring, but I think it's possible for a 9sp chain to tend to "float" over the top of the rings without engaging properly when shifting in the front, due to the narrower spacing. No first-hand experience with this.

Definitely wouldn't want a 10 sp chain on a 9sp drivetrain: the only reason for staying with 9sp (for me) is for the more durable chain (which is a darn good reason).


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Curmy said:


> It got to be a large improvement over existing Next to approach XTR.


What does Next crank have to do with shifting performance of XX ?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Circlip said:


> What does Next crank have to do with shifting performance of XX ?


Nothing. My mistake. I meant to say Noir.


----------



## barrows (Jul 6, 2004)

*Rotor, another alternative*

If one is looking for another crankset for an alternative to XX for 2x9 or 2x10, there is Rotor. I have a Rotor Agilis, it runs a 74-110 5 arm bcd, which means there are quite a few chainring options, one can run down to 24 tooth inner. I am running 26-40 with a 11-32 cassette, but am looking forward to going with 27-40 up front and a 11-36 XX setup out back. The Agilis is reasonable in weight, (but not in Hollogram or Clavicula territory) works with standard external (shimano spec) BBs, and has 163 mm Q-factor. Rotor will have a new version coming for 2010, which will have a ti spindle option for some additional weight savings, and a more standard pinch bolt arrangement. As these are 2 ring specific cranks, the chainline is defintely better than a triple, or running two rings on a triple crank.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

barrows said:


> As these are 2 ring specific cranks, the chainline is defintely better than a triple, or running two rings on a triple crank.


Well, chainline for the middle ring on a triple is better then for the either ring on a double - as it is right in between them. Rotor is nice.. but double the price of what I can get XTR for. I only put Q-ring 23t granny on XTR - works better then stock IMO...


----------



## 20.100 FR (Jan 13, 2004)

rotor do not come in 180mm. And neither is the XX !

I tried the XX on a home trainer and the front shifting is really much better than on my personnal xtr and xt cranks.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

20.100 FR said:


> I tried the XX on a home trainer and the front shifting is really much better than on my personnal xtr and xt cranks.


Yeah, but that's merely performance, which ultimately pales in comparison to how light (or heavy) they are.


----------



## whybotherme (Sep 12, 2008)

juan_speeder said:


> Yeah, but that's merely performance, which ultimately pales in comparison to how light (or heavy) they are.


sing it with me.... "It's all about performance..."


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

whybotherme said:


> sing it with me.... "It's all about performance..."


That was the best WW post in quite some time


----------



## 743power (Sep 25, 2007)

Does anybody have the sram pdf file that shows the various clearances and dimensions of the xx cranks? The xx portion of the sram site hasnt been working for the past few days and I would like to take these measurements tommorow when I do some drivetrain cleaning.


----------



## raxel (Mar 21, 2008)

LOL... my humble aluminium KCNC 2x9 crankset weighs 662gr, or 126gr lighter than sram XX. It is funny that xx crankset is heavier than XTR triple, let alone modified 2x9 XTR setup... And sram/truvativ cranksets (and cassettes) were never good performer in shifting. Sram claimed big about their openglide road cassette and RED chainrings, both of which has undergone a major revision after some while.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

raxel said:


> LOL... my humble aluminium KCNC 2x9 crankset weighs 662gr, or 126gr lighter than sram XX. It is funny that xx crankset is heavier than XTR triple, let alone modified 2x9 XTR setup... And sram/truvativ cranksets (and cassettes) were never good performer in shifting. Sram claimed big about their openglide road cassette and RED chainrings, both of which has undergone a major revision after some while.


True, but your KCNC is limited to 29t small chainrings which is not low enough for many riders.

But i agree on the shifting part...it seems SRAM has finally managed to get a good working front derailleur. I personally do not believe about any hyper-ring stories after having great results with my simple rings without any shifting ramps at all....if i compare with my buddies XTR i can't see where all the ingenius,fly to the moon ramps and pins make a worlds difference. But it seems the SRAM guys indeed did their homework and got the front derailleur right this time.


----------



## barrows (Jul 6, 2004)

*What?*



raxel said:


> LOL... my humble aluminium KCNC 2x9 crankset weighs 662gr, or 126gr lighter than sram XX. It is funny that xx crankset is heavier than XTR triple, let alone modified 2x9 XTR setup... And sram/truvativ cranksets (and cassettes) were never good performer in shifting. Sram claimed big about their openglide road cassette and RED chainrings, both of which has undergone a major revision after some while.


My XTR M-970 crankset and rings weighs 694 grams, so an XX double is lighter than current XTR triples.
As noted, a dedicated 2 x 9,10 crankset achieves a better chainline than two rings on a triple. I have been running the Rotor Agilis, and I really appreciate the better chainline, and the narrower Q factor. The Agilis is comparable in price to XTR when outfitted with TA chainrings. The Agilis only gets more expensive when priced with Q-rings, but because of the standard 74-110 bcd, there are plenty of standard chainrings that can be fitted. 2 x 9 shifts great with either my XTR FD or a (much lighter) Dura Ace 7900 FD.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

nino said:


> But i agree on the shifting part...it seems SRAM has finally managed to get a good working front derailleur. I personally do not believe about any hyper-ring stories after having great results with my simple rings without any shifting ramps at all....if i compare with my buddies XTR i can't see where all the ingenius,fly to the moon ramps and pins make a worlds difference. But it seems the SRAM guys indeed did their homework and got the front derailleur right this time.


Interesting possibility actually about the improved front shifting being more a function of the improved derailleur rather than the supposed magic rings and their new ramps/pins. On one of the other forums a poster got to play with Roel Paulissen's latest Flash with XX. He said the front shifting was fantastic, but the catch was that Roel had swapped out to FRM rings IIRC.

Is it really possible that SRAM has created a front derailleur that is noticeably better than anything else out their in terms of shifting performance, given that a front der isn't exactly rocket science and has been around longer than anyone can remember?


----------



## tileman (Nov 1, 2006)

*Weight?*

My XTR M-970 crankset and rings weighs 694 grams, so an XX double is lighter than current XTR triples.
As noted, a dedicated 2 x 9,10 crankset achieves a better chainline than two rings on a triple. I have been running the Rotor Agilis, and I really appreciate the better chainline, and the narrower Q factor. The Agilis is comparable in price to XTR when outfitted with TA chainrings. The Agilis only gets more expensive when priced with Q-rings, but because of the standard 74-110 bcd, there are plenty of standard chainrings that can be fitted. 2 x 9 shifts great with either my XTR FD or a (much lighter) Dura Ace 7900 FD.

Any chance of getting a weight on the Agilis cranks with 2x9 rings?

Also when ou got the cranks did they come with rings?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> BS depends on bike chainline second if works on three it works on two...


Indeed. The chain angle changes the exact same whether you move chainring by 1mm or back cog by each 1mm. Best chainline is for the middle chain ring on a triple - and using small ring across the whole cassette while cool to have, is not needed.


----------



## b00001 (Dec 28, 2005)

SmilMick said:


> I wonder if the XX cranks are as weak as Ninos cranks?
> 
> You know, not all of us put on lycra and hit up some sad excuse for a mountain bike trail. Just because your superlight cranks have been holing up doesnt mean the they will work for the masses.
> 
> ...


+1 for the stiffness of the XX!!!! I have been running the new XTR stuff since it came out and I feel the XX is on par if not better than the XTR with regards to stiffness. As far as the frt shifting goes, the front XX shifts as well as the rear XTR. Great! I am running them on a 29er so the 26/39 gearing is another strong reason for going with these Cranks.


----------



## b00001 (Dec 28, 2005)

Circlip said:


> Is it really possible that SRAM has created a front derailleur that is noticeably better than anything else out their in terms of shifting performance, given that a front der isn't exactly rocket science and has been around longer than anyone can remember?


Nah, that XX Frt Der is not really needed. I have an OLD XT frt I am running at the moment. Works fine.


----------



## stevesbike (Feb 26, 2009)

I have the XX crank with a Force front derailleur - front shifts faster than anything I've ridden before - just for kicks yesterday I tried some front upshifts while out of the saddle climbing under load and the shifts were instant and smooth. I wouldn't want to do that with other cranks.


----------



## spartan034 (Apr 5, 2007)

XX cranks are the ultimate cranks....for someone who weighs 275lbs. 

Its no doubt the group is for "racers" and people with more dollars than cents, but why design the cranks way overbuilt? Just put a f'ing weight limit on them and built them light as all get out.

Other than being heavy (but still was a huge upgrade for me), it is the fastest shifting chainrings I have ever used. Which makes it entirely worth the weight. And argueably, the extra .5lbs matters less than the response time in shifts in race conditions. 

I'm waiting for an xtr double.....would be awesome.


----------



## spartan034 (Apr 5, 2007)

pinepig said:


> I'm curious to know how a 9 sp. chain might shift on the XX cranks (if it will work at all).
> 
> I have no desire to switch to 10 sp. (ever), but I'm impressed with some of the features of the XX cranks.


It works perfectly.


----------



## KleinAttitude (Jan 14, 2004)

Here is mine


----------



## hellocook (Nov 5, 2006)

I have a BB90 FSA K-force Light 43/29 crankset on my Superfly. Weight is about 685g incl. bottom bracket and has a very narrow Q-Factor ...


----------



## AlexRandall (Apr 2, 2009)

I think they're set up specifically for that bike....like with the Trek Top Fuel. The regular FSA K-force is 730g for 2x9 with BB, and it is regular q-factor and proprietary rings - you also can't fit less than a 29 on.

I would say the XX is a really great RACE crankset......but this is the WW forum so they'll come in for a hammering here


----------



## hellocook (Nov 5, 2006)

the only difference of the bb90 is the lower q-factor. as long they fit into the frame (i expect many hardtails), nothing wrong with it.

regular cranks are set up to fit EVERY frame, though they waste q-factor and weight in many cases ...

in case of the superfly the bb90 crankset gives me a very light alternative (685g !), great 2x9 chainline and better q-factor. all over not bad. the 29 does not bother me, i don't need less.


----------



## AlexRandall (Apr 2, 2009)

There's certainly nothing _wrong_ with the cranks, apart from the fact that they are only available as part of a top-end bike. As far as I know that is the only way to buy them....so not really an option for people to consider as a purchase when going 2x9 or 2x10


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 25, 2009)

(somewhat) random question...

What's the big deal about a narrow Q-factor? I know that at the highest level of road racing, people like them for time trials because they reduce frontal area, but what would be the point on a MTB? Personally, I've got wide hips, and I'm uncomfortable on narrow Q-factor cranks. Men are typically narrower than women, but not all of them... and I'm not as wide as some of the women out there.

Edit: To be clear, from a bike-fitting perspective, you want a straight line from the hip through the knee to the ankle. If your hips are wide and you've got a narrow Q-factor crank, then that means at best, you're not getting optimal power transmission because the line of force isn't straight, and, at worst, you could be setting yourself up for chronic overuse injury as a result of mis-alignment.


----------



## gsomtb (Jul 18, 2007)

Andrea,
I have had the EXACT same toughts.
Interested in hearing the answers.....


----------



## COLINx86 (Apr 8, 2009)

For me, the q-factor of XT cranks is so wide it's uncomfortable, I've gotten kind of used to it now though. On my road bike the q-factor is small and my hips never hurt from it.


----------



## hellocook (Nov 5, 2006)

have a look how far are the feed separate when you are walking. That's pretty much the most comfortable position you also want for pedaling. 

Not much relation how wide your hips are ...

That's also why road bikes have very narrow q-factors. mountain bikes need more space to fit large tires and comply with various full suspension designs. however, the ergonomy suffers.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 25, 2009)

COLINx86 said:


> For me, the q-factor of XT cranks is so wide it's uncomfortable, I've gotten kind of used to it now though. On my road bike the q-factor is small and my hips never hurt from it.


Exactly my point- saying that a narrow Q-factor is "awesome" for everyone seems like saying that no one needs a saddle wider than 125mm.


----------



## hellocook (Nov 5, 2006)

Andrea138 said:


> Exactly my point- saying that a narrow Q-factor is "awesome" for everyone seems like saying that no one needs a saddle wider than 125mm.


correct as long your feed are directly connected to the hips. your logic does not apply to everybody with legs between the feed and the hips though.

the very most human beings will consider a reduction of the regular MTB q-factor to be more comfortable. sure, there will be a point where a further reduction does not make any sense anymore. but with mtb cranks there is little risk.


----------



## 88 rex (Aug 2, 2007)

Andrea138 said:


> (somewhat) random question...
> 
> What's the big deal about a narrow Q-factor? I know that at the highest level of road racing, people like them for time trials because they reduce frontal area, but what would be the point on a MTB? Personally, I've got wide hips, and I'm uncomfortable on narrow Q-factor cranks. Men are typically narrower than women, but not all of them... and I'm not as wide as some of the women out there.
> 
> Edit: To be clear, from a bike-fitting perspective, you want a straight line from the hip through the knee to the ankle. If your hips are wide and you've got a narrow Q-factor crank, then that means at best, you're not getting optimal power transmission because the line of force isn't straight, and, at worst, you could be setting yourself up for chronic overuse injury as a result of mis-alignment.


You'll be happy to know a 166mm Q factor version will also be coming out. 

And FWIW, as I already posted my XX cranks weighed 647g (BB30 minus bottom bracket).


----------



## Flying Wombat (May 14, 2004)

Well I ridden XX on a few different bikes and its the best front shifting I have tried, especially under load. The only thing I have tried that is better is the Dura Ace Di2, but thats road. Perhaps its blasphemy on this forum but I will trade a few grams for better shifting performance. I have tried the Lightning and KCNC cranks with extralight rings and IMO they are flexy and dont shift well under load.
If I had a BB30 frame I would consider the hollowgram crank, but dont want to go back to Cannondale bikes that break and with Leftys that wont work for more than two weeks at a time.


----------



## cale399 (Oct 18, 2008)

*my 2x9 XTR...*

my X-mas present looks good and shifts just fine! I used gear calculator and wanted to go w/11-34 well my XTR cassette was to worn and ( I have been told) N needed t get a new chain anyway with this new setup so I based on limited resources got an got a XT from a friend (in box) but it is a 11-32! No problems on the hills I went up and down and love the 2x9 setup, been out 3 days in a row and again no problems what-so-ever!!!


----------

