Race Face Announces New Aluminum Turbine Cranks

Sep 21, 2022
by Mike Kazimer  

Race Face first launched their Turbine cranks in 1993, back when three chainrings were the norm and 1x12 drivetrains weren't even a consideration. Times have obviously changed, but there's still a strong demand for aluminum cranks that can take a beating and aren't overly heavy. To meet that need, Race Face have introduced the latest iteration of the Turbine.

Forged and then machined from 7000 series aluminum, the crankarm shape has been changed slightly from the previous version, a move that shaved off 20 grams. That puts the total weight at 595 grams with a 32-tooth chainring and 170mm cranks. For comparison, SRAM's aluminum GX cranks in the same configuration weigh 619 grams.
Turbine Crank Details
• Cinch chainring mounting system
• 165, 170, or 175mm crank arm lengths
• Forged from 7000-series aluminum
• Weight: 595g (170mm Arms + 136 Spindle + 32t Chainring)
• Lifetime warranty
• MSRP: $179.99 USD / $219.99 CAD
raceface.com

The preload collar has also been updated – the tiny 2mm hex bolt has been replaced with one that should be less likely to round out if you look at it wrong, and the collar's outer profile has been revised to make it easier to turn.

The Turbine cranks get a new, more user-friendly pre-load adjusment collar...
...and an updated shape that saves 20 grams compared to the previous version.

The Turbine's Q-factor, the lateral distance between the crank arms, now measures 176mm, 4mm less than before, which Race Face says helps improve power output and pedaling ergonomics. That claim may be a bit of a stretch – there isn't any clear evidence that a narrower Q-factor is better, and in many cases adjusting cleat position is an easier way for a rider to adjust their stance. Plus, some riders prefer a wider position, while others would rather have their feet closer together. Either way, the new cranks are a little narrower than before.

The Turbine cranks are available in 165, 170, or 175mm lengths, and use RaceFace's Cinch system for chainring mounting. They're priced at $179.99 USD, without a chaining.







244 Comments

  • 130 20
 The crank most of us should be riding
  • 115 19
 my main gripe with this crank is, that due to the large axle (30mm diameter) the bearings are so notoriously small that you'll get about 3 months of life out of them if you're riding in anything but perfect weather
  • 31 6
 @waldo-jpg: Hope BB92, works great.
  • 37 2
 @waldo-jpg: not my experience. Although the installation instructions are terrible for both the BB and the crank, I think most people have too much pre-load. If you can't spin RF cranks easily backwards and let it go 3 revolutions, try a different spacer configuration. I have trouble finding fault with this particular RF product. East Coast US rider with no lack of wet conditions...
  • 89 0
 Idunno, at 2/3 the price the Aeffect R doesn't lose adjustment once set, is only 30g heavier, and uses a 24mm spindle for bigger bearings.

Or just buy SLX for $100ish (the arms are ever-so-slightly lighter than XTs). If you can find them.
  • 5 0
 @waldo-jpg: I've been using the Cane Creek Hellbender 30mm BSA without issue. I use Atlas cranks on both of my bikes.
  • 54 6
 Really, how is it better than a Shimano crank?
  • 10 0
 @plume: agree. I’ve also lightly packed the outer rim of the bearing with marine grease, a sandwich between the bearing and the plastic bb cover. Keeps most of the slop from even getting to the bearing seal. Sealing this area and setting just-snug preload has kept my bearing trouble free for a long time.
  • 12 1
 @lkubica: It's available. Try finding a 165mm XT.
  • 27 16
 @drapeau: Shimano's stuff is just so much better than competitor's products lately it's not even close, especially so when you factor price into things as well. Shimano's SLX and Deore for the money CANNOT be beat. Microshift and Box haven't been factored into my response FYI.
  • 32 9
 @gb8561: 165 IS THE WAY AND THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE!!!
  • 20 2
 @reesty: Wheels Munufacturing thread-in press fit - Boom! Butter smooth bomb proof BB.
  • 4 0
 @lkubica: It's got speed holes to make it lighter & faster
  • 10 1
 @waldo-jpg: race face BB is terrible, true. But I have used other brands with great success in the PNW. I have been running my current wheels mfg BB for like 2-3 years with zero issues.
  • 4 0
 @plume: my experience has been the same. Durable cranks and the bb has been fine also.
  • 2 1
 @lkubica: It's in stock
  • 4 2
 @reesty: can confirm, with Hope cranks. Hope's BB is bulletproof, but correct preload is essential and cranks that have adjustable preload are the only ones that should be used with Hope's BB.
  • 5 0
 @reesty: agreed..using this hope BB on my bike with raceface carbon cranks for 2 years without any issue
  • 5 1
 Can confirm, Hope BB and the other is Wheels Manufacturing. Bomb proof, can handle lots of slop even with 30mm BB's. I am currently running a CC Hellbender. So far so good after a year
  • 4 30
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 21, 2022 at 12:02) (Below Threshold)
 @psyfi: Deore and SLX is absolute junk. Even worse when you factor in cost. It’s not even cheap anymore, fair enough if you could still get say £30 rear deore mechs but you can’t they’re like £80 these days. Might be cheap for mtb components but expensive and overpriced when you consider what your getting for your money like the poor cheap materials and how often you’ll need to replace parts to keep things running.
  • 6 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Could be a UK thing regarding cost, I can buy full Deore new 10 speed group for $150. Mine's held up really well in southwest Utah.
  • 2 1
 @plume: Thanks for the recommendation, i have broken my turbines and switched to sram this year Smile
  • 1 0
 @reesty: i switched to using Rotor's 30mm bbs at some point and they worked great. i ran those for 1+ year until i broke the crank
  • 5 12
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 21, 2022 at 12:52) (Below Threshold)
 @psyfi: £300 upwards for full deore groupset and around £400 / $450 for SLX not including brakes. I’ve got four friends that have come over from bmx in the last year all on entry level deore / slx builds and everything on all four builds needs replacing or has been replaced with something better. I fix their bikes for them and the quality of the components especially the rear mechs are a joke. I have a broken deore 12 speed mech on my bench that I like to fiddle with when I’m bored and the metal they use on the cages are laughably soft I’m not sure if it’s even actually metal.
  • 5 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Bummer about the cost, you're paying 3x more than I am. At that price XT 11 speed is easily attainable. Bummer too about your experience with it, been running it for years on a hardtail with no problems...
  • 2 0
 @plume: Yep, learning how to setup spacers so there is no excessive preload squeeze with no slop goes a long way. Its not hard, just takes paying attention and a few extra minutes. A layer of grease between BB bearings and cover to keep moisture out will keep a BB running for a while. Buying a nice hope or wheels mfg BB on top of this is a "for years" setup.
  • 2 6
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 21, 2022 at 13:44) (Below Threshold)
 @psyfi: Exactly at your prices I wouldn’t complain really. I’m just gutted for my friends, they spent 3X the amount they would have spent on a top of the range bmx for a mtb that’s not fit for purpose and basically losing interest after really enjoying riding mountain bikes while their bikes still worked.
  • 1 3
 If it had a 24mm steel axle, allowed the use of decent sized bb bearings, had a decent preloaded system that didn't strip out and collect mud......looks cool though so I guess it'll sell
  • 18 2
 EeWings or bust. Anyone riding these hippie budget cranks are dead to me.
  • 2 0
 @drapeau: Surprising isn't it. I did the same math on cranks, checked the mass and realised SLX were lighter! Pretty amazing bang for buck cranks, hidden gem for sure as most people probably go to XT thinking they are lighted. Unsure of any stiffness differences (because they don't publish that data) - but when is the last time we all noticed a 'flexy' crank?
  • 3 1
 @lkubica: agreed. Nothing is better that a shimano crank. If it’s not 24mm, it doesn’t go on my bike. I just wish I bought more 11s cranksets when they were still available.
  • 1 0
 Nah... I’ll stick with my eeWings.
  • 7 1
 Meh. SLX is what most of us should be riding. Hollow construction and a much, much more durable chainring.
  • 1 0
 @waldo-jpg: Are you refering to the old BB? The newer one is better, but i can vouch the old one was TRASH!
  • 4 1
 @waldo-jpg: T47 bottom brackets are a solution to this problem. 30mm diameter crank spindles leave insufficient room for bearings in regular BSA bottom brackets but not T47 bottom brackets. This is part of why I chose T47 for the Supre Drive (it also works well with the tensioner arm).
  • 2 0
 @reesty: I’ve got close to four years on my hope 30mm bb (enduro bearing I believe) and it still spins smoothly / has no play
  • 1 0
 @waldo-jpg: I got 4.5 years out of my hope bb. That’s more due to the quality of the hope bearings and the ability to take up play with the bevelled bearing
  • 2 0
 @lkubica: chainring isn't made out of 8 separate parts which then come undone as well as cranks themselves getting loose and rounding off the spindle for the starters.
  • 2 0
 Don't agree entirely. The Aeffect costs less and has the better spindle standard.
  • 2 0
 @waldo-jpg: yeah, I never had a problem with stiffness/durability with the smaller Shimano axles and I weigh over 100kg.
  • 1 3
 @drapeau: Where'd you pluck that imaginary bullshit from? XT are lighter than SLX. That's the whole point of moving up a groupset, weight saving and performance increase.
  • 3 2
 @thenotoriousmic: it's 12 speed that's the problem. Too many gears in too little space. And the derailluer has to move over such a large range that it can't be presice enough. Sram and Shimano both shite, try 11 speed for trouble free mountain cycling..
  • 1 0
 @drapeau: That's my move....with an XTR ring and chain
  • 1 0
 @txcx166: I picked up a pair from a friend of mine who runs a shop and a decent discount.. although still expensive as hell, they're now five and a half years old and I'll not go back to anything else anytime soon.
  • 3 0
 @littleskull99: xtr 10 speed was so nice
  • 2 1
 @J3cc: Easy, just look at the Shimano web site. SLX 1x12 speed with 30 chainring 622g and XT 634g. Bot have 172 mm Q-Factor
  • 1 0
 I had some next sl cranks in 2016 and it broke not even 2months after the warranty! No more carbon cranks for me. I was back with Shimano XT but on my last bike I just went with SLX as I find it prettier and being a lot cheapier is a good extra. Turbine 695g, XT about 720g and SLX about 730g so nothing you will feel haha I thought about buying one as I have a 35% off right now but don't want to go back to a 30mm BB plus that fragile preload collar thing, no thanks! Shimano 24mm ftw, so simple, cheap and good looking. It would have been for my fatbike but they don't make the 190mm version anymore anyway so I'll keep my 24mm Ride crank. Smile
  • 1 0
 @Timo82: spindle for 190mm rear end is still available but needs to be purchased separate from the crank so an added cost.
  • 1 0
 @OTBSteve: Yeah I know but like you said, added cost and they are not cheap. Not like if I could use the smaller one after as I have 24mm shimano cranks. I just bought my Ride crank like 2 weeks ago, still in the box but with a 35% off the new turbine would be the same price so I could have made the switch but I would have to buy the spindle AND a new hope 30mm BB so no thanks. Wink
  • 1 0
 @drapeau:
6806 bearing for 30mm axle: 42 OD 30 ID --> (42-30)/2 = 6mm between races (same bearing as BB30/PF30)
2437 bearing for 24mm axle: 37 OD 24 ID --> (37-24)/2 = 6.5mm between races
--> the difference in ball size is pretty damn small
there's no reason you can't get the same durability from BSA30/BB92/etc that you can from BSA24/Shimano
  • 2 0
 @Jshemuel: Ball size is not the only thing that affects bearing durability. The thickness of the races and the room for good seals also matters.
  • 1 0
 @psyfi: except that the models besides XTR have the non-drive side falling off. It's a bad design.
  • 1 0
 @Gregstinson: I've only seen that when the axle nut fails, I've seen it just once when a buddy of mine smacked his on a rock at Rockstacker in Moab...
  • 1 0
 @mcharza: I don't know what you're reading but the Shimano website literally states XT FC-M8100-1 Crankset 30T 622g, SLX FC-M7100-1 Crankset 30T 634g. I have both the windows open right now, the same as I did yesterday whilst making the original statement.
  • 1 0
 @psyfi: i've seen a few failures & there were a lot online with the same issue.

Just looking at it after it happened to mine.. i can't trust it. Two tiny bolt only torqued to around 14nm (and if one ever loosens they both fail), on an arm that doesn't fully seat onto the splined spindle (there is a several mm gap), and the other 2 parts are both plastic. The cranks, especially with wide flats can see way too much force for this design. Maybe it is ok for light riding, but i wouldn't take it into jumplines or steep rock gardens.
  • 1 0
 @Gregstinson: I hear you, my all time favorite crankset albeit super heavy are the Truvativ Holzfeller OCT with Howitzer bottom bracket. Genuinely bombproof.
  • 3 0
 @psyfi: Had the surveyor around a few months ago, nobody could understand why the garage was subsiding. Had the foundation’s checked and everything. Turn out it was the set of Howitzer cranks I had stored in the attic that was making the garage sink.
  • 2 0
 @drapeau: Aeffect FTW
  • 1 0
 @J3cc: They're not. The XT chainrings are around 30g lighter but depending on the spacer configuration the SLX tie or win by a hair
XT @ 534
SLX @ 528g
  • 1 0
 @drapeau: Look mate you're wrong. I've done my research and provided you with several sources of evidence, yet you continue.

R2 Bike weights (WITH PHOTOGRAPHS) - SLX without Chainring 523g, XT without Chainring - 516g.

Shimano Website - SLX with 30T Chainring - 634g. XT with 30T Chainring - 622g.

And yes it may only be a couple of grams, but you're still wrong and telling people false information.
  • 36 1
 I liked my Turbine cranks. However, when your left crank arm gets loose in the middle of Alps, I challenge you to find the right hex to tighten the godamn thing! So, thanks but no thanks. Shimano will do just fine. In 20 years it never came loose..
  • 8 0
 The NDS bolt was changed to a 8mm so you should be able to find a tool now, you can also get that NDS bolt for your existing cranks as it's backwards compatible.
  • 21 0
 Shimano definitely still has the best and most simple crankset design, imo. Though I've been riding RF cranks the past year or so....I give Shimano props for their engineering, price, quality, ease of install. I've owned eewings, RF, and Shimano and still would say Shimano is the overall best all things considered.
  • 6 36
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 21, 2022 at 12:58) (Below Threshold)
 @foggnm: honestly starting to think I’m living in an alternative universe where everything that sucks in real life is incredible on pinkbike. Do you even know how shimano makes their cranks? They’re just forged out of cheap soft aluminium with a nice facia glued over the top to hide how cheap they are. That’s why they’re the only cranks that need pinch bolts to prevent the axel drilling the crank splines out. 2022 and they can’t produce a crank strong enough not to need pinch bolts and the only manufacturer with its own instagram account dedicated to posting pictures of its broken shitty cranks.

instagram.com/thanksshimano?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y
  • 4 0
 @thenotoriousmic: did not know of this account till now, so thanks! That said, it likes the vast majority of those broken cranks are ultegra and dura-ace. Just the same, not reassuring.
  • 22 0
 @thenotoriousmic: if you’re running Shimano road doubles on your mountain bike that’s your problem right there!
  • 3 27
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 21, 2022 at 13:25) (Below Threshold)
 @dirt-mcgirt: they’re exactly the same as their mountain bike cranks. Cheap soft forged crank with a nice facia glued over the top. I’ve broken every shimano crank I’ve ever owned usually by ripping the soft pedal threads out and I’ve yet to bend or break a crank from any other manufacturer not a single one.
  • 1 13
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 21, 2022 at 13:28) (Below Threshold)
 @VtVolk: absolute state of that. There’s no excuse for that crank to break like that. Hardly light weight.

www.instagram.com/reel/CgKiyiCFVXm/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y
  • 7 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Aluminium cranks and steel axle will produce a ton of galvanic current. Especially in humid areas. That will eat up the lesser material (aluminium) in contact.

Known design fail for their road cranks but not that often in mtb world
  • 5 17
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 21, 2022 at 13:38) (Below Threshold)
 @pakleni: as per usual not only are shimano refusing to fix it just like clutches that disintegrate after a few months or the random bite point issue or the leaky piston issue or all the other issues we’ve been complaining about for about ten years now but they’re denying there’s even an issue at all. Typical shimano.

road.cc/content/tech-news/shimano-claims-no-design-problem-hollowtech-cranks-287827?amp
  • 1 0
 Mine was assembled with no grease & I had to track down a giant allen key bit to take it apart & grease to stop the creaking.
  • 9 0
 @thenotoriousmic: i get the feeling you don't like Shimano products?
  • 19 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Having pedal threads fail is definitely user error, you must be a hamfisted mechanic. I don't know a single person that's destroyed the pedal threads in a shimano crank, and aside from the guy who bent a pair of SLX by casing a big dirt jump, and the other guy that didn't tighten his pinchbolts, I don't really know of anyone that's had problems with shimano cranks at all.

You seem unable to show us any actual problems with Shimano mtb cranks. Maybe that's why people like them.

The two-piece forged hollow design is unique to shimano, and lowers the stress in the crank by a lot compared to open section cranks while hugely increasing stiffness. I definitely wouldn't call it a "cheap soft forged crank with a nice facia", I'd probably call it the best way to make a mtb crank arm personally. Their road cranks are failing mainly due to an issue with the bonding process, it is not a case of cheap materials. Though with the lighter road cranks, riders are more likely to approach a fatigue limit.

You mentioned pinchbolts being bad earlier. Why? It's a reliable interface that doesn't wear out and can be installed/removed with small tools and low torques, ie multitools. As someone who has to swap cranks a lot, it's a huge positive for me. I think you've decided that they're bad because shimano use them, and no other reason. I also like how it means that the preload is easily adjustable and doesn't need any fiddly hardware. Be nice if the preload caps used a hex though...

I like how you're now picking on shimano's clutches. About half the people I know that have had a sram derailleur have warrantied it due to a non-functional clutch. I don't know of many that have problems with the shimano ones. And brake piston issues? Sram brakes have their problems too and the sticky pistons when they get hot was a good one.

I've got 8 year old XT cranks and brake levers on my enduro bike. 6 year old zee calipers. Still working as well as a new set.
  • 4 0
 @AgrAde: Hot tip: Burgtec make preload caps with a hex interface - they work a treat, and make life alot easier!
  • 2 0
 @JimmyGrand: Chur. I ended up buying a little adapter that I carry instead, but it might be nice not having it floating around in my frame bag/fanny pack.
  • 5 0
 @thenotoriousmic:
have you actually seen an MTB version of a crankset with this failure all the ones that seem to fail are Ultegra or Dura ace ROAD cranks some are even 10 years old not current gen and shimano have warrantied some of those,
  • 3 0
 @thenotoriousmic: XTR left arms are hollow bonded. The right arm, and both arms of their lower cranks, are one piece hollow forged. In general, these don't have problems.
Pinch bolts work very very well, as long as they're properly tightened. Despite every single Shimano left crank coming with a little sticker listing required torque, and despite finding ten year old bikes that still have that sticker attached, I see insufficiently tightened and downright loose crank pinch bolts all the time. The fact that there aren't more user error failures is really a testament to the robustness of the system.
  • 2 0
 @AgrAde: "I don't know a single person that's destroyed the pedal threads in a shimano crank"

I ripped the thread out of the '93 LX crank after my VP101 pedal seized; does that count? Smile
  • 2 0
 @AgrAde: Was about to say the same thing about pedal threads. The amount of times we got customers with new-ish bikes saying "the pedal threads just came off" and would then swear blind their pedals were tight was unreal.

If they're tight, it just doesn't happen.
  • 4 0
 @CleanZine: oh hi Mark
  • 1 9
flag thenotoriousmic (Sep 22, 2022 at 7:00) (Below Threshold)
 @AgrAde: I literally just posted a clip of a broken deore crank where the axel has twisted to failure. Name a single other crank that’s ever broken like that. And how is it rider error that I’ve landed a drop and the pedals ripped straight out of the cheap, soft casted aluminium crank? Saint cranks have steel inserts to prevent this. The pinch bolts are there to prevent the axel drilling out the splines on the soft casted crank arm every other manufacturer uses aluminium that’s hard and strong enough not to need pinch bolts obviously this costs a lot more money to manufacture which is why shimano doesn’t do it. And who mentioned SRAM? You delusional fanboys are hilarious. Sram and shimano doesn’t care about you, they’re faceless corporations that only care about profits. Fanboying won’t improve the quality of your cranks only calling them out on their bullshit and hitting them in the pocket will.

This is your shimano crank. A cheap casted crank with a nice facia stuck over the top to hide how cheap and nasty it is.

www.instagram.com/p/ChQorA4OJAz/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY
  • 1 1
 @Muckal: I’ve always historically used shimano in my 30+ years mountain biking. I still have an XT groupset on my hardtail. I just wouldn’t waste my money on SX, Deore, SLX (mostly) or NX.
  • 1 0
 @thenotoriousmic: ok SRAM bot account
  • 2 0
 @rideordie35: I hate sram cranks as much if not even more but nice try though.
  • 2 0
 @dirt-mcgirt: being fair theres 400 odd posts on that page how many cranks do shimano make 400 an hour 400 a day I bet in terms of failure rate if you look at units out there to units failed it’s 0. Insert however many 0s percent and thats before to start looking into how each failed
  • 2 1
 @thenotoriousmic: The spines are definitely a weak point. People equate easiest to install and uninstall with best.

But not worth pointing out all of the problems with current Shimano products on here. Too much group think. Opinions solidify and then perpetuate themselves almost indefinitely in this echo chamber until long, long after they are no longer true.
  • 1 1
 @dancingwithmyself: Sram and shimano fanboys are hilarious they treat faceless corporations like religions or sports teams where they blindly support them not matter what they do. I know I’m wasting my time, it’s for all the people scrolling who might listen to that nonsense and maybe even sram or shimano themselves and hopefully do something about all the issues we’ve been complaining about for decades like creaky crowns and brakes with random bite points.
  • 26 2
 So once you factor in the BB, you only save ~10g vs GX cranks. And by the time you add on a chainring (which is included with the GX cranks) and BB, you're looking at $310 USD for Race Face vs $187 USD for SRAM.

If I were looking to beat up a pair of cranks, I'd save the money and go SRAM. If I'm looking to save a few grams, I'd just go to Truvativ carbon (same as GX carbon) for roughly the same total cost as Race Face Turbine, but ~50g lighter when you factor in the BB.

Is there a reason other than aesthetics to buy these?
  • 13 30
flag hypermoto (Sep 21, 2022 at 9:27) (Below Threshold)
 I've had two customers bend GX cranks in the last 3 months. Never seen a bent Turbine. They're forged from 7000 alloy, which is significantly stiffer than most of the 6000 alloy commonly used.
  • 24 1
 @hypermoto: All aluminums have the same stiffness, but different strengths. Also, 7000 series doesn't mean much, other than its high-level composition. You can get 7000 alloy that is weaker than the common 6061-T6.
  • 7 0
 @hypermoto: As Loche pointed out, going from a 6000 series alloy to a 7000 series isn't going to have much of an effect on stiffness (look up Young's modulus). In reality, going to a 7000 series is likely for higher strength, which would allow you to cut out more material, leaving you with a less stiff crank.

Regardless, GX cranks are also 7000 series, so without having more information on the exact material spec, you can't really say which has a higher strength.

Personally, I've never seen bent GX cranks, but I've seen a few bent Race Face cranks. Not sure what model they were, though (possibly Aeffect).
  • 5 0
 Save some cash and buy RF's steel chain ring. It'll last longer too. Just weighs quite a bit more.
  • 3 0
 And yes aesthetics is really the only reason to buy RF...well their cinch mount is widely available as chainring options go. But if I was being practical....I'd just buy Shimano cranks. But sometimes I just buy stuff that looks good and I end up with RF Atlas cranks!
  • 1 0
 @foggnm: Same here. I love the Atlas's topographic design, and it is available in colors.
  • 1 0
 @Canadmos:
Save up $20?
  • 1 1
 No other reason besides turbine stuff is HOTTTTT.
  • 1 0
 @J26z: more like $50. The steel ring is $20.
  • 3 2
 carbon cranks scare me.
  • 1 0
 @DaneL: I just bent the hell out of my GX cranks on a pedal strike.
  • 2 0
 I bent a month old set of GX cranks, somehow. I don't even know what caused it, but I dropped into a trail with a straight set of cranks and arrived at the fireroad at the end of it with a left crank that was visibly twisted. No pedal strikes, no contact, they looked brand new. They were replacing an ancient set of Aeffect cranks that were almost completely bombproof, and have been replaced by a set of new Aeffect cranks. The additional bonus of the RF cranks is the shorter sizes actually have a shorter crank arm length. On SRAM cranks, the physical crank length is the same, but they move the broaching for the pedal threads. RF remove the excess material. Don't miss those bendy cranks, and don't miss the faff of those plastic preload collars either...
  • 1 0
 @ScottGoodelldog : Good to know. It would be interesting to figure out why random people have bent them while most haven't. I personally beat the hell out of a 175mm pair (which should be the least durable), and never had any issues. I had some pretty intense high speed pedal strikes, too.

@CleanZine : It's crazy to hear that you could bend a pair without even knowing how. That has to be some kind of quality control issue (something that SRAM knows all too much about).
You're correct in that SRAM uses the same forging for all crank lengths. It's only the 170mm length that ends up with excess material at the end, though; the 165mm cranks are machined down so they don't have 10mm of excess material hanging off of the end. With that said, I only run 170mm at this point, and if I were to ever get another pair of GX cranks, I'd machine them down.
  • 1 0
 @DaneL: Fair enough about the SRAM 165s - I went from SRAM 170s to the RF 165s so didn't get to like-for-like compare.

I bent the previous Aeffect cranks, but I don't think any crank would have survived what happened to them! In contrast, I genuinely don't know what happened to my GXs. It wasn't a trail with big features, and I'm fairly average size/weight so nothing really stood out as a reason for them twisting.

With the RF cranks I bent it was clear how and why they'd bent, and the bend itself made sense. The GX cranks seemed to do a weird inward twist that isn't really in the angle I would expect a crank to ever bend/twist in.
  • 2 0
 @CleanZine: It wouldn't surprise me if you got a pair of cranks from a batch of forgings that were improperly heat treated. SRAM's QC process seems to be pretty nonexistent.

Part of the reason people are so divided on whether they like or hate SRAM is because they (for the most part) design awesome products that are great as long as you get one that was manufactured properly, but the manufacturing issues they miss in QC are typically big enough to make their products work like garbage. Cranks shouldn't bend, fork bushings shouldn't have huge amounts of play, shocks shouldn't leak out all of their air can fluid in a few rides, compression dampers shouldn't stick open, brake lever pistons shouldn't seize, brake rotors shouldn't have huge amounts of thickness variance, droppers shouldn't sag, and derailleur clutches should actually work.

Drivetrains are actually the only components from SRAM that I've personally had no issues with. I know those issues exist, though, and I have full faith in SRAM's ability to not only build some improperly functioning parts but also allow them to get past QC and into the consumer's hands.

With all that said, what major bike parts manufacturers consistently put out components without major design or manufacturing flaws? If you say Fox, Shimano, DT Swiss, Maxxis, Race Face, E*thirteen, BikeYoke, or Crank Brothers you're lying to yourself, and I'm sure there's plenty of other brands that I just don't have enough experience with to know of all of the issues.
  • 1 1
 @DaneL: pick a brand and be a dick about it. SRAM does make it the easiest out of anybody to work on their stuff by far. Their attention to detail to the guy servicing the stuff is a big win for me.
  • 1 0
 @CFR94: I would have to agree with you in general. There are certain components that are a bit of a pain to work on, but certain details like the derailleur cage lock, fork and shock sag markings, and ability to rebuild brakes sure are nice.
  • 18 2
 Loved the previous version, but disappointed with this iteration they haven't added shorter cranks sizes like 160mm and 155mm in today's day an age. I also find it odd we're seeing shorter cranks with road and e-bike cranksets, but not normal MTB cranks.
  • 3 0
 Hear, Hear. Recent convert to shorties and picked up a set of Canfield 160s and wish I woulda gone 155. Pedal strikes are near eliminated from the 170s the bike came stock with, and far less severe when they do happen.
  • 12 8
 Pro tip: turn your cranks 1/4 ,far less pedalstrikes
  • 3 0
 @lenniDK: Ha! If it was only so simple at all times.
  • 2 0
 Can someone please buy the 145mm 5DEV cranks and report back??? They're significantly cheaper than the 155's and I would love if they were a viable crank to use. but 145 just seems really short.
  • 1 0
 I feel like there's a point where going to smaller cranks isn't really saving you much. Once your BB is low enough that you need 165mm cranks to limit pedal strikes, you're probably going to be bashing your chainring / bash guard frequently (assuming it's not just a riding technique problem).

I do agree that 160mm would make sense for really short riders, but as you go to shorter cranks you also push the saddle up, leaving you in a less stable position on the bike while climbing. Offering more crank lengths would either mean having a second forging (lots of extra $$) or making all of the cranks heavier by leaving enough material for the pedal spindle hole to be drilled in the additional locations.

FWIW my partner is 5'0" and said she couldn't tell a significant difference between her old 170mm cranks and new 165mm cranks aside from the slight reduction in pedal strikes (her technical climbing skills aren't the best). If that's true, I can't imagine going to 160mm would provide enough benefit to outweigh the impact of raising her saddle another 5mm.

The one thing that would change this is how far the chainring protrudes away from the rear tire. If you either had a really small chainring or really short chainstays, you could definitely get away with a lower BB, at which point there would be a benefit to going to even shorter cranks.
  • 1 0
 @DaneL: at 5'0" she probably would enjoy 150mm cranks. Going from 170mm to 165 is like way too big to too big. Reducing the stance separation is major benefit.
  • 13 0
 You can certainly see the different camps in the comments:

Shimano vs. Sram vs. Race Face

I have all three on my bikes. I personally like the Race Face the most. I have had a set of Turbines with the 30mm axle for 9 years. I've been able to put the same cranks on a 83mm bb DH bike and then a 68/73 trail bike and then a hardtail just by changing the axle.

I usually get a year out of the BB and change the chainring every two chains.

The cranks are light, strong and reasonably priced. The bonus is the future proofing. Between my current bikes I have 2 sets of Turbines, one sixc and a set of Shimano XT from 2004.

Both Shimano and RaceFace stick to their BB standards. Unlike Sram with multiple axle diameters over the past few years requiring completely new cranks and BBs. DUB 28.99mm......really? 1.01mm forces a completely new set up due to lack of compatibility.

To me the updates are welcomed small incremental improvements of something that already works really well.
  • 4 1
 Me too. I like Shimano just fine but the smaller axle is annoying from an interchangeability perspective (for me already having lots of 30mm stuff). There's no good reason to go out of my way to buy SRAM aftermarket. No good reason to buy carbon cranks generally. For me it's Turbines or eeWings: all or nothing.
  • 8 1
 The only reason to buy sram cranks is because shimano has been sold out since the start of covid. I have two sets of GX cranks. They are fine so far.
  • 6 0
 There’s some cranky people indeed
  • 1 0
 I also have cranks from all three and Shimanos habe been the only ones that never came loose. They even worked after i forgot to tighten the bolts properly and sheered the interface on the left arm a bit by rotating it down so both arms were parallel. Got it off with a large flat screwdriver. Remounted, tightenend the bolts properly and it works to this day. To me, that's a proper MTB product.
  • 2 0
 @deanw Either you're running the world's longest wearing chainrings or you need to switch to a different chain. I finally swapped out an XX1 eagle chain after 5000 miles that wasn't even close to .5% elongation. The X01 chains seem to be doing just as well, but I haven't gotten more than ~2000 miles on one yet. Comparatively, a GX chain was toast after ~700 miles. I haven't tested Shimano 12 speed chains, but the only Shimano 11 speed chain that I tested (XTR) only lasted ~350 miles before it reached .5% elongation. I've found KMC to be pretty good, but nothing seems to come close to SRAM X01 and XX1 eagle chains when it comes to wear life.
  • 2 0
 @alexsin: I ran eewings for a few months but came to the conclusion they didn't offer me anything that a standard crank didn't. So I sold them and put the money toward another bike (; Honestly I like the look of my RF cranks much better and don't care that they are heavier.
  • 1 0
 @DaneL: XT12 chain on new XT/R12 32t drivetrain .25 at 250hrs. SLX12 chain on same drivetrain, now not new, .7 at 120hrs. Do I blame the chain or the ring and cassette? I'll put the old chain back on and see how quickly it wears. Surprising how little effort SRAM and SH- put into describing their chains
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: I'm not familiar enough with Shimano's chain offerings, but I'm guessing the XT chain has a better wear resistant coating (like chrome plating) which would increase life significantly.
  • 11 0
 I love RF cranks and use them on my bikes, but the plastic preloader and 16mm allen key are definite downsides. If you're stuck looking for a 16mm allen key, I discovered that you can just use an air compressor hose end. The male end of a quick detach end actually even fits right inside the crank. Then you can just use a wrench.

This hose has been used on many turbines: www.pinkbike.com/photo/23406094
  • 5 0
 A 5/8" allen key is nearly the same as a 16mm, and waay easier to find at a hardware store.

The Turbine cranks also come with a 16mm bit that'll slide over the end of an 8mm allen key: www.pinkbike.com/photo/23406444
  • 10 0
 @mikekazimer: In the US it might.....
  • 5 0
 @mikekazimer: a shallow aluminum bolt is not a great fit for the wrong tool imo
  • 8 0
 @mikekazimer: The rest of the world uses metric Allen keys
  • 4 1
 @CM999, right, but 16mm doesn't seem to be a commonly available size anywhere, no matter what country you're in.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: you can also use a M10 hexagon nut and a 16mm wrench
  • 11 0
 can we please get some raw aluminum cranks that dont cost a fortune?
  • 2 0
 Agreed - it's nice to have cranks that don't look bad after a couple rides. And there's no reason why that should have to cost more.
Not sure of the pricing but DMR Axe might qualify?
  • 5 1
 Yes they say Shimano on them
  • 2 0
 Just ride them, the paint will wear off eventually. I love that well used look.
  • 1 0
 Was thinking of 'rawing' my Saint cranks actually. Anyone tried it?
  • 10 4
 @mikekazimer "there isn't any clear evidence that a narrower Q-factor is better" Really? That's surprising. It's something the bike fit gurus and road/track world have been pursuing forever. It'd be reasonable to think that the biomechanics of the most efficient pedalling stance would relate to those of walking; and a walking gait has a much narrower stance than even the narrowest Q factor (e.g. as reported here: www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/stride-width ). So getting as close to a natural gait whilst working around the constraints of chainstays/tyres/clearance would seem a reasonable approach. Anecdotally I find a narrower Q factor more comfortable and less fatiguing than a wide one on longer rides.
  • 11 3
 It really comes down to personal preference, and the pedals you choose will also have an influence. Some riders like a wider stance (that's why Crankbrothers, for example, offers longer spindles), others prefer narrower, and still others don't think about it at all.
  • 6 0
 Walking and running gaits involve balancing along the centre line of a person, so the “Q factor” is made narrower to stop us toppling sideways, especially at lower cadences. We could also look at foot width for rowing, weightlifting, powerlifting, two footed jumps, etc.

I personally have found wider Q factor (within reason) to be better ergonomically.
  • 2 1
 @mikekazimer: it’s not just personal preference either but related bike for bike and setup for setup. Starting at the most critical which is crank length. One will find that with less total crank length the movement at the knee becomes smaller and smaller and allows for a wider gate till the point where you reach a motorcycle which is around ideal when legs are able to be apart but not splayed and the full movement of the knee is accessible at the same angle as each other and as cranks get shorter it moves them closer and closer to this ideal position. This in turn moves them wider whereas in the road world with a high mast and being almost limited at the maximum stretch a lot of riders need the Narrow Q to ride with the foot moving forward and down in the power stroke of the foot cycle. Merckx would almost have his foot vertical with the ground in his pedaling styling increasing his total length and gaining biomechanical advantage at a loss of flexibility. No one would ride a track bike off-road because it allows no knee free space of motion and the cranks are made for free unabated speed chugging.
I think the best advice I give is to analyze the persons pedal stroke based on motion at the pedal itself. When someone is too high they tend to point toe and their feet will scrub the crank arm, a slightly lower saddle height helps correct this till it goes too far because the knee free space is cramped now during power stroke. It’s incredibly confusing to me though that they measure Q factor without also adding the crank length in to give a realistic width with the splay introduced if we are to give honest biometric analysis crank for crank. And when it comes to fat bikes this was their ultimate demise and where they feel adjunct to normal bikes because the splay is so far it’s unnatural to only the tallest and most purpose needed niche.
  • 2 0
 @tprojosh: Thank you for laying this out there. Q-factor is just one dimension of measurement where there are several that impact the overall movement on the bike. All other things equal, sure, it is important, but once you start changing other variables at the same time, it's much harder to pinpoint cause/effect.

Also, this is why it is really frustrating that there aren't any 165mm (or shorter) cranks for fat bikes except SRAM GX. On the other hand, it made my decision really easy. That, and no one makes a -4mm offset oval chainring, so that's also a bummer, just not as big of a deal as crank length.
  • 2 0
 count me among those that never saw the benefit of lower q factor. On an mtb, cadence and leg kinematics are less important when you're standing and moving all over the bike, which is what I care about (vs seated pedaling.) I think the better comparison is to a typical "athletic stance" in all sports, where your feet end up about shoulder width. Obviously that's kinda wide for a bike but still a better reference for me than walking.
  • 1 0
 @gtill9000: I’d agree with that for descending. A wider stance probably gives more leverage and control. Where I live, though, there’s a lot of pedalling… and the climbing tires me out long before the downhill does! So I tend to optimise for that, on the basis that it keeps me fresher for the fun stuff.
  • 1 0
 @threehats: sure; and I guess this speaks to the point below about descending stance, but pedalling (which, like it or not, is the vast majority of most peoples riding) has a lot more in common with walking, biomechanically, than it would with weightlifting, rowing etc. Perhaps a narrower stance which applies forces closer to the centre line also means that you have to perform fewer subtle upper body shifts, or slight steering corrections, to compensate for off-plane movement.
  • 1 0
 @dominic54: I think if you look at joint angles and muscle activation when walking it’ll be far less like pedalling than rowing is. Rowing is both legs at once which makes it seem more different than it actually is. Pedalling steep hills standing up, especially on a singlespeed is remarkably similar to rowing with alternate legs.
  • 7 0
 The strengths are commonly compositioned in the 6000 for weakness whereas the 7000 is wayward biased to erect the forgivenesses of the most elemental complexity in molecular nanoviscosities.
  • 9 0
 You sound like a guy who knows his way around a turbo encabulator.
  • 36 28
 Why the fug does anyone make 175mm cranks? Whos seriously uses them?
  • 8 5
 And why don't the more mainstream manufacturers make shorter cranks. I am on 152mm with no real downside other than having to raise my seat height. You gain more ground clearance and greater mobility since your stance is closer.
  • 24 0
 I do, but I'm tall
  • 13 0
 175mm turbines arrived on my 2015 TR Scout as standard and I've never felt the need to change them.
  • 5 0
 XC folk? Still a lot of carry over from road there. Plus you could easily use this crank for a gravel or road 1X setup. Roadies love 175.
  • 21 0
 Me and my 34" inseam use them.
  • 15 0
 Haha I love my lengthy bois
  • 1 2
 My Polygon T7 Large came with 175mm. My inseam is 89cm at 183cm. Should I install something shorter than 175mm, I will have to buy 60mm rise bar to replace already aftermarket Deity HIGHSIDE 760 50mm Handlebar (to keep saddle level in line with the bar).
  • 3 0
 I'll take them off your hands.
  • 9 0
 I would bet that a large majority of mtb have 175 on them. I've never felt the need for shorter cranks.
  • 1 1
 People with longer legs. I did for 20+ years up until last year. Now I ride 170s. But I totally get why they are still needed.
  • 3 0
 As a taller rider who went down to 165s, I can't imagine going back BUT it's highly terrain and bike dependent. If you don't need the extra pedal clearance then it doesn't really matter.
  • 3 1
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: even roadies have started to move away from 175mm cranks almost a decade ago. Aero is all the rage and you need the shortest crank arms that fit to have a torso as parallel as possible to the ground without smacking your knees on your stomach while pedaling :-)
  • 2 0
 @ThermalAttorney: I am 6'1 (185cm) and I cannot go back to 175mm cranks anymore. I ride 165's on my bikes the last couple years and I just hopped on a bike with 175's and it felt so awkward and uncomfortable.

I'm usually one to argue that 95% of people won't notice a few millimeters here or there, but cranks is one spot where I proved myself quite wrong. I am very average (or below) and that 1cm difference is jarring (+2cm in total foot separation).
  • 2 0
 I use 175mm/34t not following the mtb trend right now, I prefer more leverage on the climbs, I barely notice cranking out of turns also 6'3" with a longer inseam so I'm sure that plays into factor. As far as the "instability" on the downs I barley notice it as long as you're riding correctly (knees and elbows out, in a hinge position etc)
  • 2 0
 XC riders. Tall riders. BMX racing cranks go all the way to 190mm.
  • 4 0
 I prefer 175 cranks. I've tried 170s multiple times and they never feel right.
  • 2 1
 Nobody who put a coil shock on a frame that came with an air shock, that's for sure.
  • 12 0
 Hey look everyone I found the guy who thinks everything that doesn't suit him is crap.
  • 3 2
 Anything smaller than a 28t chainring can cause chain drag and other clearance issues on a lot of frames including mine. If you run shorter cranks you need to gear down to compensate which is a problem if you are already running 28t. That's why I run 175mm.

Also physics may disagree but I feel like there are situations where regardless of gearing the longer crank arm gives you some leverage at critical points in the rotation when you are bound up in an obstacle and really need that power. Something about the angles and position of you legs and the crank that doesn't show up on a math equation of crank arm length vs gearing.

I actually have 165 on my DH bike. I pedal it a fair bit because of shuttling or the inevitable little climbs at the bike park, even has a dropper post on it, and every time I have to pedal it for very long I remember I hate those tiny little kid cranks (but not enough to change them out). I am 5'11" with a 32" inseam too, so shorter rather than longer legs
  • 4 0
 Me.
  • 1 1
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: nah. Those of us that care about power have sized based body geaometry and ideal hip and knee angles for a long time. 5'10" and 33.5 inseam here. Ideal crank length is around 165mm for me. My average cadence is a bit higher than 170s and power is up a few%, but mainly I just have less hip and knee pain. Also, spinning through chunk and corners is awesome
  • 1 0
 @warmerdamj: 37.5'' inseam. I use them.
  • 3 0
 @tpfenning: I'm 5'10" (178 cm) and even 170 mm vs 175 mm is a huge difference to me. With 175 mm cranks, my seat *always* feels both too low and two high at the same time.

I'm sure I'd get used to that, but yeesh it feels weird while I'm not.
  • 1 0
 I do, 36" inseam.
  • 2 0
 My E29 came with 165's. When I ruined them in a wreck, my LBS accidentally ordered 175 to replace them (Turbines). I was instantly more comfortable, and had no idea why. After a week of riding, I finally looked at the crank arms and saw the "175" and found out why.

A gravel bike I bought came with 165's. I had constant discomfort with it. After about a month I took a look at saw the "165" on the crank arms. As I didn't like the bike in general, I didn't do anything to it and ended up selling it and replacing it with another gravel bike that came with 170's and I am much more comfortable (that bike has 8000 miles now).

Roadie came with 172.5, XC bike came with 170. I haven't experimented with going longer, but I have learned that even with my not so tall body, I am okay as long as I stay OVER 170mm.

5'8" (172cm)
  • 1 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: Not quite anymore. More roadies are also moving to shorter cranks. The newish SRAM Rival 1 AXS comes in 160mm.
  • 1 0
 Me and my long ass legs use 175's. I had 180s on a bike up until a few years ago.
  • 1 0
 @JefWachowchow: 2022 scout plus 170s here. So good, I will never run 175s again except on the dirt jumper.
  • 1 0
 @getschwifty: I have 170mm on my Stanton Switch9er, mostly because I snapped the top of my shin bone off win the time I was spec'ing the parts and thought they would be better for re-hab. I do notice the difference going from one to the other but only for about 5 minutes into the ride. The 2015 Scout has a (for its day) a low BB and it taught me to avoid pedal strikes. The Stanton is my first MTB since 1988 to have a crank length shorter than 175mm. I guess they're old school now but then, so am I.
  • 6 1
 Aeffect R for the win...similar looks, similar weight (would you notice 40g?), better axle (well no, better frame + bearing clearance rather) and cheaper.
  • 3 0
 160 mm to 170mm is a bit of a jump. 165 mm cranks are sold out almost everywhere... why not serve that market? Or is there still a passion to try and force everyone over 5 foot 2 onto 170mm cranks?
  • 17 0
 That was a typo - the available lengths are 165, 170, and 175mm.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: Hah, thanks! I thought it was a pretty odd length combo.

I do hope that they start increasing production volume on the shorter lengths rather than assuming it is just XS frames that use that length.
  • 5 0
 A new crank and it didn't come with a new spindle size standard? Hardly even worth reading the comments Frown
  • 2 0
 What's with running cranks as close as possible to BB ? Q factor . Quite frankly I'm looking for pedals with longer axles because if this . I never had issues with my 83 mm spacing bb and cranks . Unfortunately my latest frame uses 74 mm.
My shoes puncture marks from my pedals traction pins tell me my feet don't want to be as close as possible to the BB.
BTW absolutely love my RF Chester pedals for grip and reliability.
  • 1 0
 I was expecting the new release of turbine to be in 30 and 24mm spindles.I'm surprised they didn't. I know the aeffect can be 24mm, but I'd rather have the 7000 series alum (and look) of the turbine. Some bikes still have pf92 bottom brackets you know!
  • 5 0
 AEFFECT R are 7000 series alloy and 24mm.
  • 1 0
 @OTBSteve: That's right! Oops! Now I can't remember why I wasn't impressed with the aeffect.
  • 6 0
 We want 155mm!
  • 1 0
 I wish RF would bring back the Cinch power meter. I like to do workouts on my enduro bike (why ride an XC bike when I can ride my E29?) and this is still my favorite PM (I have Stages, 4iiii, and Garmin).

My broken Cinch PM is on my E29 now, temporarily a regular spindle.
  • 1 0
 I've read through the comments and no-one has mentioned the "Lifetime Warranty" statement!?

More proof that the world, as we know it, is changing in ways we cannot even imagine.

I half-expected 'sabres at dawn' over this...
  • 1 0
 eeWings cranks for me. Yeah, price is stupid but they are absolutely bulletproof, never loosen up, don't require crank boots, and Cane Creek's bottom bracket (Hellbender) is also bulletproof, after two seasons! You absolutely get what you pay for. And for something as important as cranks, its somewhere on the bike I simply will not compromise.
  • 1 0
 How am I supposed to setup preload on my 137mm axle Affect R which does not have a preload collar like this one? On a standard man BB shell the thing ends up binding on a default no axle spacer, only under BB cup spacer, Also the torque requirement is insane. Seems inferior to the simple and reliable preload approach of a Shimano crank.
  • 1 0
 I started using these cranks a few years ago on my XC bike... I must say though, they are bound to start producing some odd noises.. usually, it is a clicking or creaking sound... I just cannot figure out where it comes from.. drives me mad... Never had that issue with Shimano gear... I am trying to ignore it, but it is tough...
  • 7 2
 24mm axle is better tho
  • 1 0
 'Bigger is better' doesn't apply to bearings, silly!
  • 4 0
 This is a great looking crank, on my short list for sure.
  • 2 0
 Ugh. We all hate the pre-load adjustment collar. Do engineers not ride bikes? Their 24mm spindle version doesn't have a pre-load collar, why do these need one?
  • 1 1
 Their chain rings are very very good ,used them in the 11 speed ,and not even a complain,trouble free ,and fugido wear(6500km),then they just get a “litle”noise makers ,but for the price ,very well balance ,congratulations
  • 1 1
 Their chainrings are made of a soft cheese.

Burned one up in half a season. Wolf Tooth (or Shimano or SRAM) rings last waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer.
  • 2 2
 Let me tell you something,
I happen to have sum cranks. I even have a pair of Turbine cranks somewhere that were really good too. Id even go as far as to say these cranks are probably pretty darn good as well. Some cranks however, aren’t so good while some cranks are kinda in between. Some cranks kinda suck and some crank’s will even break during a huk to flat (ask Jason if ya can find em) hell sum cranks don’t even crank at all, but these cranks, are most likely just fine soo.
Take it from me, a random guy on PB
Cranks are awesome!!
  • 1 0
 Classic meh component. As in if it came on a bike I bought-meh, good enough to keep. But would never buy as a stand alone component because meh-SLX cranks are better in every way.
  • 3 0
 SLX cranks for the win. Cheaper, better locking interface and bracket. Actual cranks without chainring are arriving 530g
  • 2 0
 Yep. SLX are the best cranks for the cost out there.
  • 1 0
 Imo SLX is the best for Shimano, it’s even a tad lighter than XT.

For SRAM the best ones are GX Eagle/Descendant 7K cranks.
  • 3 1
 Did they fix the cinch chainring system? Have had to tighten it 3 times this year....
  • 7 0
 I bought one of these to not have to deal with the plastic anymore:

canecreek.com/product/crank-preloader
  • 3 0
 Just realized you are also not talking about the preloader. My bad
  • 1 0
 the year is almost over, so thats not bad idk
  • 2 0
 I had a loosening issue until I used a torque wrench on my cinch cranks.
  • 2 0
 @TET1: That’s not going to do much to help the cinch chainring system. It does make preloading the BB a lot nicer though.
  • 2 0
 I think I have had to tighten mine once, other than replacing the chainring, in the past 10,000 miles or so.
  • 3 0
 Does it require a 16million mm allen
  • 1 0
 Cranks would be low on my list of areas to save weight - they're rotating, but down low on the bike and 100g (random # pulled out of my ....) for each arm is minuscule.
  • 1 0
 Had three of the old cranks, on all three, one of arms came loose no matter what i or my michanic did. Got them all warrentied. But hope they fixed that issue.
  • 2 0
 I had some Turbines once and they were nice. Because eBay is my best friend l scored a new pair of Next SLs for cheap!
  • 2 0
 Good stuff RF. Don't know if there's any reason to run a more expensive crank than this
  • 1 0
 I tried165mm cranks this year on my large frame, the difference is subtle but works better for my configuration.
  • 1 0
 Have used a Hope evo crankset for nearly 3 years without a single issue fitted to a Hope bb30 , again no issues ….
  • 2 1
 For comparison my Shimano SLX 7100 170mm cranks & a Unite 32t chainring weigh in at 569g.
  • 2 1
 Or you can get SLX cranks with a wolftooth chain ring for about the same price and for 30g less...
  • 1 0
 So far I have had 2 bikes come with Descendant cranks and have not had a single issue. Never even thought of upgrading
  • 2 0
 Always shocks me to see a reasonably priced product I'd buy on Pinkbike.
  • 1 0
 Did the quality change when fox purchased RF. We seem to replace BB every 2 months. Great warranty, return 1 for 1 new one.
  • 1 0
 Just like your ex Pretty on the outside, ugly on the inside
  • 1 0
 All these new cranks and my Canfield AM/DH is still kicking.
  • 1 1
 Last pair of Raceface I had creaked like mad, spindle/arm press fit became loose. Will stick with Shimano
  • 1 2
 30mm is wrong, if you need to buy and fit an expensive BB in order to use a crank, and based on personal experience- you do, the crank is crap. Will never own 30mm again.
  • 1 0
 Canfield cranks, easy fit, durable, 150-175mm.
  • 1 1
 Steel spindles only club.
  • 1 0
 streets needed these
  • 1 1
 Where is it made?
Below threshold threads are hidden





Copyright © 2000 - 2022. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.027855
Mobile Version of Website