# New version of Sweet Wings cranks....



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Worth checking out the successor to one of the coolest cranks ever made....

https://www.eecycleworks.com/index.html



















*READ THIS LINK:*

https://fairwheelbikes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5991

I was just thinking, hey, it would be sick of they re-released the cranks an updated dual-outboard bearing setup.

Personally, I'd be interested in a steel version that looked like the original arms, but had dual outboard bearing and was rated for AM/FR use.....


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

250 views but no comments? Eh?


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

Sorry it just looks like yet another CNC crank. I thought the original design was great.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

And just a roadie crank


----------



## scooter916 (Jan 2, 2006)

They are working on a MTN version, hopefully they will have a prototype at Interbike this year


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

*Sweet Wings Crankset*

Something raw, handcrafted, and especially "prone to failure", about the original sweet wings that added allure and appeal. The gold version posted by OP looks like "just another cnc crank," as turbodog said. Thanks for the update though. P.S. Bikeman has a good article on the Sweet Wings: http://www.bikeman.com/content/view/1885/47/

































Looks like the final outcome of a welding project in the garage after a session of that Kush. Nothing wrong with that at all. :thumbsup:


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

SweetWings cranks weren't prone to failure... it was the bearings that were the problem. They had terrible seals for what were basically an external bearing setup, as they were trying to get by with off-the-shelf cartridge bearings for the things. So the ball sizes were smaller because of the oversized spindle (same problem as with ISIS BBs) as well as having only a single rubber seal of the bearing to keep out water and mud/dirt that everyone knows gets trapped around the BB of a bike in use.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Actually I'm guessing there's some welding involved in these making the arms hollow.....based on the stiffness and weight.

http://fairwheelbikes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5991


----------



## mattkock (Mar 19, 2009)

If you check my threads you'll see that I still ride two sets on a regular basis. I replaced my bearings with ceramic out of the QBP catalog, they're standard sizes, I believe 6804 and 6806. Don't quote me on that but they are standard sizes available at any bearing shop and they pop right out. Even after 15 years I still covet my own cranks, YES!


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

*Son of Sweet?*

I also still ride Sweets I've had since '95 and I regularly rebuild them due to "The Issue" that I perceive, which is the fact that mine used loctite and a press-fit to retain the drive-side bearing. That photo posted above from Bikeman's museum is the first I'd seen an OEM sleeve like that, which presumably engages the outer race on that pesky bearing. Without it, it works loose and the cranks develop lateral play. I have two drive side cups and can swap one for the other in about ten minutes, soup to nuts, before cleaning, rebuilding and reGLUING the bearing into the cup I swap out...

The EECranks look interesting and strong! I found this picture on the review site they link to, and think it's useful:










The phone number listed on the site is disconnected, however...


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

Just an update regarding these cranks. I emailed yesterday, and received this response:
_
Hi Erik,
Yes the eecrank project is full speed ahead. We are on track to release the eecrank at the end of this year. If all continues to go well, we will.

Regards,

Craig_


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

Looks like some sweet engineering went into those (no pun intended), I read through the full road crank test they posted up on their sight. I would love to see an in depth test like that for mountain cranks. I wonder just how stiff is a set of shimano saint cranks :smilewinkgrin: .

Anyway the sooner they come out for road bikes the sooner we get a mountain version.


----------



## congopowers (Apr 23, 2010)

*Sweet wings parts*

I need the drive side bearing cup for a set of sweet wings. Does anyone out there have parts for these?Thanks!


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

Any update on the cranks?


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

jbsteven said:


> Any update on the cranks?


I think we'd all like to know. Go to the site, email them a question about it and report back, Iike I did last year.


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

EBasil said:


> I think we'd all like to know. Go to the site, email them a question about it and report back, Iike I did last year.


Iwouldhaveneverthoughtofthat. kthanks


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

jbsteven said:


> Iwouldhaveneverthoughtofthat. kthanks


Well, that's apparent. :thumbsup: Let us know what you find out.


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

EBasil said:


> Well, that's apparent. :thumbsup: Let us know what you find out.


response....



> No MTB stuff planned so far. Sorry, I with I had more capacity.


----------



## aromero (Dec 2, 2010)

Need to sell my sweet wings mtb cranks because the new bike uses pressed in bearings and the wings will not work. let me know if you are interested. 175mm for $350


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

*2018 Cane Creek eeWings titanium crankset*

2009 to 2018: Only took 10 years to get out there to the public via Cane Creek eeWings titanium crankset for road gravel and mountain bikes use full titanium construction
Cane Creek 400g titanium crankset


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

Hey, show us more. Link us in and tell us what's going on with those cranks.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

EBasil said:


> Hey, show us more. Link us in and tell us what's going on with those cranks.


It was announced a while ago. You can order some off Jenson or whatever.


----------



## Velocyraptor (Mar 10, 2018)

Ooh, just what everyone wanted: a set of cranks that cost as much as an entire drivetrain!


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 17, 2009)

Ugh...


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

If they are at least as stiff as X01, and are yet lighter and more reliable than XX1, I'd be a buyer for my next bike.

Any real world reviews yet?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> If they are at least as stiff as X01, and are yet lighter and more reliable than XX1, I'd be a buyer for my next bike.
> 
> Any real world reviews yet?


Aren't X01 and XX1 virtually identical?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I spoke to SRAM at length about this when I snapped my old XX1s. I explained that the money wasn't the issue, I wanted to buy the best.

They told me (and their website reflects this) that the the X01 is more rigid, and an overall stronger product, and for Enduro style riding is the correct crank from their portfolio, cost be damned. The XX1 is strictly XC.

The X01 basically has a cork like stiff internal material that no doubt makes them easier to manufacturer. The XX! does not have this.


----------



## root (Jan 24, 2006)

Friend is running those eeWings. Pimp as heck. Theyre working so far!


And heck, if you can afford it, why not? He's on a Ibis Ripmo with Eagle drivetrain, I think he can afford it, lol.


----------



## metrotuned (Dec 29, 2006)

Tom from Frame Up Bikes had a set on his old SS. Mated to an Absolute Black chainring, looks pretty pimp... for the full ti setup, I'm sure ballers will go to it and the fact that they have such limited availability. Mentioning SRAM in the same sentence with their plastic toy cranks is a disgrace.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 17, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> I spoke to SRAM at length about this when I snapped my old XX1s. I explained that the money wasn't the issue, I wanted to buy the best.
> 
> They told me (and their website reflects this) that the the X01 is more rigid, and an overall stronger product, and for Enduro style riding is the correct crank from their portfolio, cost be damned. The XX1 is strictly XC.
> 
> The X01 basically has a *cork like stiff* internal material that no doubt makes them easier to manufacturer. The XX! does not have this.


Geeze... they should really be using Nomex honeycomb!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> I spoke to SRAM at length about this when I snapped my old XX1s. I explained that the money wasn't the issue, I wanted to buy the best.
> 
> They told me (and their website reflects this) that the the X01 is more rigid, and an overall stronger product, and for Enduro style riding is the correct crank from their portfolio, cost be damned. The XX1 is strictly XC.
> 
> The X01 basically has a cork like stiff internal material that no doubt makes them easier to manufacturer. The XX! does not have this.


Haha, I can guarantee you that the XX1 has a cork-like material inside of them. Feast your eyes on this:

















Sorry, but that "they told me" sounds like corporate MTB company BS. I run X01 cassettes because the only difference between this and XX1 is the anno finish. They weigh exactly the same amount. I had the XX1 cranks and after a long life of repeated hits, DHing, races, etc., they finally died. I doubt the foam/cork core is really adding much rigidity here, the carbon overlayed on the metal skeleton is probably the majority of the rigidity. The general design of these (XX1) is a foam-filled metal skeleton overlayed with carbon. The pedal inserts are part of the metal skeleton, which is probably why it's so dramatically stronger than Next SL. I'd expect the difference to be in the material used for things like the chain-ring mounts, screws/bolts, axle, etc.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

So I broke my old XX1s in a similar manner, and they had an aluminum inner. That picture is of several year old product. 
However, I don't know if that applies to new Dub xx1 cranks.
Take care. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> So I broke my old XX1s in a similar manner, and they had an aluminum inner. That picture is of several year old product.
> However, I don't know if that applies to new Dub xx1 cranks.
> Take care.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


I'd be highly skeptical of this. The above cranks were highly durable, maybe construction has changed. These cranks made me think that it's not carbon cranks that are bad, it's Next SL, because those had problems with a fraction of the use (time) and abuse.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 17, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> So I broke my old XX1s in a similar manner, and they had an aluminum inner. That picture is of several year old product.
> However, I don't know if that applies to new Dub xx1 cranks.
> Take care.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk





Jayem said:


> I'd be highly skeptical of this. The above cranks were highly durable, maybe construction has changed. These cranks made me think that it's not carbon cranks that are bad, it's Next SL, because those had problems with a fraction of the use (time) and abuse.


Yep, concur with Suns, current Sram carbon cranks are still the same, DUB included. XX1 are for XC and save 30grams by not using a foam core. X01 are for AM, use foam core for impact resistance, etc. That said, I'd opt for the X0 for the added durability.
















https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/X01-Eagle-vs-XX1-Eagle,9960


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Is that not just that they did not dissolve the foam inner core after laying up and curing the carbon? I know most high end foam core carbon fiber fabrication involves using a solvent to dissolve the foam core to reduce weight. I'm not sure it has anything to do with strength. Just weight and fabrication costs.


----------

