# Tune Bigfoot



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

These just arrived - thanks Nino! I'll be using them for a 2 x 9 build. I'll post weights when I get them home on a scale.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Those are really nice.:thumbsup: I think they are just around 385g, slightly lighter then the Next Lp. I really like the Fastfoot crankset for the increased stiffness but the Sixpack BB is 270USD!


----------



## mpap89 (Mar 10, 2005)

what's the bcd?


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*Compact BCD*

I'll be using 42 and 29 tooth rings


----------



## joeadnan (Oct 21, 2003)

Nice! What length BB do the cranks take? Are they low profile?


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*They weigh*

392gms for the cranks, 175mm compact spider, and the alloy inner chainring bolts with alloy spacers (5 of them) are 8gms if you want to run a granny ring.


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*Tune recommends*

113mm for mtb, I'll measure up my chainline with my 108mm Phil Wood BB and see how that goes running a 2 x 9 setup. If I have a problem I'll order another spindle length.

I'm not sure what the Q-factor of these cranks are.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Strong Ti said:


> 392gms for the cranks, 175mm compact spider, and the alloy inner chainring bolts with alloy spacers (5 of them) are 8gms if you want to run a granny ring.


Any updates on these cranks? How do they ride with your 108 bb?


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*Still waiting for rings....*

from Boone Ti they should be here next week 

I'll update when I have them mounted.


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*With Boone rings...*

With 42T and 29T Boone rings, alloy ring bolts with steel backs and Ti crank bolts = 524gm. Add in Philwood Ti BB at 156gms and around 680gms for the crankset.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Strong Ti said:


> With 42T and 29T Boone rings, alloy ring bolts with steel backs and Ti crank bolts = 524gm. Add in Philwood Ti BB at 156gms and around 680gms for the crankset.


I think that's just about the most beatiful CS I have ever seen on this board.:thumbsup: Now you have me seriously considering a Fastfoot/Sixpack setup.....anyone need a spankin new RF Next LP?:madman:


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

I had a an old set of Top Lines back in my early days, they were about 380 grams for the crankarms, these look pretty much the same, boy did flex like a couple noodles under power, pa ting, pa ting, rubbing on the derailleur cage... Hopefully these have better stiffness, the weight is pretty nice.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> I had a an old set of Top Lines back in my early days, they were about 380 grams for the crankarms, these look pretty much the same, boy did flex like a couple noodles under power, pa ting, pa ting, rubbing on the derailleur cage... Hopefully these have better stiffness, the weight is pretty nice.


Yes, I have seen the toplines. There is actually a set on Ebay at the moment. The Tunes are supposed to have a reputation as a stiff crank, FWIW. I read in a review somewhere that Cipollini used them at one point in time? If this is true and they can stand up to his legs I will not have an issue, I think.


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*Thanks Axis*

The finish on the Tune's are very nice and the polished section on the Boone rings matches them very well.

A did an experimental mount on my 108mm BB and I think I do need to go with 110, on the 5th largest cog and the 29T the chain will run against the big ring and the pins start to pick up the chain, it need to go outboard a little more.

I'll have to wait a few weeks until I give the 2 x 9 a go and see how stiff the Tune's really are.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



Axis II said:


> Yes, I have seen the toplines. There is actually a set on Ebay at the moment. The Tunes are supposed to have a reputation as a stiff crank, FWIW. I read in a review somewhere that Cipollini used them at one point in time? If this is true and they can stand up to his legs I will not have an issue, I think.


well - that story with Cipo using Tunes is a nice marketing gag...

if Tune cranks have a reputation it's that the cranks are really soft!!! not that i care for these numbers too muchbut anyone saying these are stiff definitely has no idea. same with the newer Fastfoot/Sixpack generation Tune cranks: these are still VERY SOFT.

now if that's good or bad is on another sheet. i don't care too much for these absolute stiffness numbers anyway. but the Tunes are dewfiunitely not stiff.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

nino said:


> well - that story with Cipo using Tunes is a nice marketing gag...
> 
> if Tune cranks have a reputation it's that the cranks are really soft!!! not that i care for these numbers too muchbut anyone saying these are stiff definitely has no idea. same with the newer Fastfoot/Sixpack generation Tune cranks: these are still VERY SOFT.
> 
> now if that's good or bad is on another sheet. i don't care too much for these absolute stiffness numbers anyway. but the Tunes are dewfiunitely not stiff.


Well thanks for the heads up. I was hoping these might be a good weight compromise between the RF Next LP and the Extralite crank and I really like the asthetics of the Tune. The EL definitely has a rep as a not so stiff CS. So these have been tested and found not as stiff as some others? Do you have any test info. you could share?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Axis II said:


> Well thanks for the heads up. I was hoping these might be a good weight compromise between the RF Next LP and the Extralite crank and I really like the asthetics of the Tune. The EL definitely has a rep as a not so stiff CS. So these have been tested and found not as stiff as some others? Do you have any test info. you could share?


here you go...

different BBs mated to different cranks.

ISIS
octalink
square

i think you can clearly see the numbers that the different combinations have.
S = stiffness N/mm
G = weight g
SGI = stiffness to weight

as mentioned above th Storck powerarms have about the same low level of stiffness. i used Tune cranks myslef before my current powerarms and while riding these definitely felt softer than the powerarms.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

nino said:


> here you go...
> 
> different BBs mated to different cranks.
> 
> ...


Ya but I wouldn't go with a square taper Tune CS I would do the Sixpack BB which should make a big difference. Much of the CS flex appears to be in the BB spindle with the square tapers. I would think your Power Arms would be much stiffer with an ISIS BB, etc., etc.....????? The stiffness to weight measurement we can ignore because as we all know we can save lots of weight in the rings. I wish they would have measured the Ebones.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no difference...*



Axis II said:


> Ya but I wouldn't go with a square taper Tune CS I would do the Sixpack BB which should make a big difference. Much of the CS flex appears to be in the BB spindle with the square tapers. I would think your Power Arms would be much stiffer with an ISIS BB, etc., etc.....????? The stiffness to weight measurement we can ignore because as we all know we can save lots of weight in the rings. I wish they would have measured the Ebones.


the sixpack is no different! i have an actual test of about 15 different compact ROAD cranksets and the Tune Bigfoot/Sixpack combo is still the flexiest by far.

i will try to post those scans but they are still too big in size. will try again...

meanwhile here is the final verdict of that mentioned test:
"low weight, nice optics and very good craftmanship don't make up for the downsides. because of a real awkward chainline they shift pretty bad. even though it has an oversized titanium axle and six-angled interface they are still the softest cranks in this test. nice colours available"


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*It looks like all square taper*

cranks test pretty poorly.

I weigh 62kgs ( and develop HUGE power  ), and these Tunes are replacing some 1996 Syncros forged alloy ones, I wonder if I'll notice a difference. I didn't notice much difference between my Syncros crankset and RaceFace Next LPs.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

I spent a good half hour riding through Berlin forrest to retrieve the Tune crankarm a rider had lost from his jersey pocket after putting it there to limp to the trailhead. It was a very mild trail. He needed the arm to ask for warranty. Not sure he kept the replacement... 
No Tune cranks for me 

Is saving weight on cranks really worth it? The cheapest and stiffest in that test was just 120g heavier with stock rings?? What a way to save $75% and have a superior product...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*stiffness numbers...*



Strong Ti said:


> cranks test pretty poorly.
> 
> I weigh 62kgs ( and develop HUGE power  ), and these Tunes are replacing some 1996 Syncros forged alloy ones, I wonder if I'll notice a difference. I didn't notice much difference between my Syncros crankset and RaceFace Next LPs.


as mentioned several times already:
i'm no fan of those absolute stiffness readings. they sure reflect if a product is stiff or not but if that has any real world effect is on another sheet.

square is definitely weaker regarding stiffness. and outboard BB designs that are so common these days are even stiffer than ISIS...but who really cares? if you are a heavyweight with monster power in your legs this is sure something you might want to check but most mortals won't have any benefit at all. nice to have but nothing that affects your riding or power output.

just remind that half the Pro peloton was using square taper Campagnolo BBs and none complained about any loss of power...those guys have monster power and some also aren't that light (sprinters, track racers etc...). if square would hinder them from going fast you wouldn't see them using it - period.

stiffness can be a problem if your chainrings rub on the derailleur under load. that's for sure a sign of flex in your crank/BB combination. but other than that i doubt you will notice a difference in stiffness.

that said: square ist still the most durable as far as BBs are concerned.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Cloxxki said:


> I spent a good half hour riding through Berlin forrest to retrieve the Tune crankarm a rider had lost from his jersey pocket after putting it there to limp to the trailhead. It was a very mild trail. He needed the arm to ask for warranty. Not sure he kept the replacement...
> No Tune cranks for me
> 
> Is saving weight on cranks really worth it? The cheapest and stiffest in that test was just 120g heavier with stock rings?? What a way to save $75% and have a superior product...


If it's heavier then it's obviosly *not* superior. Maybe you thought you were on the 29er forum?


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

If your chainrings are deflecting off your derailleur cage, and robbing you of power, lighter is not better. I know the Topelines were the culprit, when I switched to turbines the flex
was a non issue.

I'm a total mashing beast though, the noodle cranks may work for a flyweight spinner.:skep:


----------



## Indiefab (Feb 5, 2005)

Its nice to see the super-cheapo Truvativ SL BB I got off JensonUSA for $19 ranks highest in stiffness. After 16 months, its spinning smooth, too.


----------



## Strong Ti (Jun 1, 2005)

*Installed*

My 2 x 9 converstion is done. I had to change to a 111mm BB spindle to get the chainline ring and also had to install some 1.2mm ring spacers to get all the gears on the 29T.

As for stiffness, I don't notice any difference from what I was running, old Syncros alloy cranks but that could be due to new BB bearings.

2x9 impressions so far, I seem to want to push a slightly higher gear than my previous 3x9 42/30/20 and 12-27 set up. A lot less front shifting which is nice, but I kind of miss finding that 'exact' spinning gear on flater sections.


----------



## Ninko (Jul 19, 2006)

i'm running the Tune with a square bracket for a few weeks right now. I also don't really notice the difference in stiffness, I've had square Kooka before (very very stiff, this was noticeable), and xtr. But I would mention the New Tunes (the wider ones with those long holes in the back), stiff enough! Though I'm 65 kilo's, so not really heavy.
I will mount a ac38 (it's waiting in the garage), soon and hope it won't flex to much.
Also I have it mounted 2x9. First I was trying with a 107mm axle. But this just didn't work, chainline was good enough to make it work, but chainring would rub the frame. Now I'm using a 113mm axle and that just works a little bit better... Q-factor isn't really great


----------



## (807) Recordings (Sep 19, 2009)

The Cranks look Awesome.
I am wondering how they will work if I run them on my Cannondale Bad Boy 700?
All black would match better. Also considering either 2X9 or 2X 10 as I never use the grannies. 

I see they are about to release a new series of cranks that will allow other BB's.


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

Diffidently wait for the new crank..
The Tune FastFoot and BigFoot both use an Internal bearing bottom bracket and the drive and the interface between the crankarms can get annoying because they have to be greased more often. 
The newer Tune will offer more stiffness, weight, performance, maintenance and reliability.


----------



## (807) Recordings (Sep 19, 2009)

facelessfools said:


> Diffidently wait for the new crank..
> The Tune FastFoot and BigFoot both use an Internal bearing bottom bracket and the drive and the interface between the crankarms can get annoying because they have to be greased more often.
> The newer Tune will offer more stiffness, weight, performance, maintenance and reliability.


But External does not mean better for BB as you can get a SKF or Chris Woods BB that may be just as good. ?
From rumor mill the new set might be a lot more expensive.


----------



## Trevorken (Jul 2, 2007)

On the German site bike-components.de, they will cost 499 euro.


----------



## (807) Recordings (Sep 19, 2009)

I don't know, I think the new crank is not as nice looking as the old one. Looses that classic uniqueness. For straight performance I would just go XX or XO SRAM.


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

(807) Recordings said:


> But External does not mean better for BB as you can get a SKF or Chris Woods BB that may be just as good. ?
> From rumor mill the new set might be a lot more expensive.


I ran a crank brothers cobalt ti isis BB and yes the bearings lasted but i had to grease the interface from arm to BB more then monthly. I dished out for a nice middleburn duo set up and ended up unhappy with it because of the BB. Look up some threads, there are tons of people who invested into the middleburn but ditched it because running the isis BB didn't make it worth it. 
External BB's can make a lighter crank stiffer, less maintenance, better larger bearings and most of the time cheaper.. 
Why not get an extralite? lighter and it has a similar look!
http://www.extralite.com/index_euro.htm


----------



## (807) Recordings (Sep 19, 2009)

extra lights look pretty decent to, but these cranks are starting to get into serious price ranges. Tuff call as I still may want another proper mountain bike down the road. However I tend to hit about 800-100K a month so good parts do help.

BTW I meant Phil Woods not Chris,  I am bad with names.


----------



## (807) Recordings (Sep 19, 2009)

So after much a wait I finally went with the X0 2X10 all black crank. Its amazing how much stiffer the GXP system is, and it is one of those things if you never tried it you may never have known. By far the stiffest crank I have used to date.

With my Bad Boy it looks good, and to be honest IMHO only the Big foot looked sexy enough for the compromises. I will say new Smart Foot pics look tasty though but I guess its only BB30?

Tune Speed needle is enroute soon though. 
For hubs still in the air of CK or Tune.


----------

