Powered by Outside

E*Thirteen Release Helix Race Aluminum Cranks

Mar 29, 2023 at 10:33
by e*thirteen  
photo


PRESS RELEASE: e*thirteen

With the Helix Race Aluminum 30MM Cranks, we strive to give a solution for Gravity riders that need the high performance cranks but favor the impact resistance of aluminum. Our newest cranks are our high performance alternative to carbon cranks. Fully CNC optimized for weight, the Helix Race Aluminum crank is our top-of-the-line alloy crank that bring Enduro strength at a Down Country worthy weight.


photo
photo
The Helix 30MM Race Aluminum Cranks are available in 3 sizes: 165mm, 170mm, 175mm, and offered in two machined and anodized finishes - Bronze or Black .

Weight optimized, almost every visible crank surface is CNC machined for the ultimate dream build. Available in Black or Bronze options and compatible with Helix Race Direct Mount Chainring for Boost/Super Chainline.

PRODUCT INFORMATION


• Forged AL-6066-T6 arms and 30MM spindle
• Flip-flop ring for Boost/Superboost Chainline compatible
• Self extracting bolt system
• Quick Connect ring interface
• SRAMTM and ShimanoTM 12-Speed compatible narrow/wide
• Extensive CNC machining for lighter weight
• Molded crank strike boots
• Weight (165mm) 556g

photo

PRODUCT INFORMATION
For more information click here.

Author Info:
ethirteen avatar

Member since Apr 9, 2015
50 articles

148 Comments
  • 113 5
 These are pretty. Also very surprised all these new cranks are coming out and no one is offering 155 or 160 options.
  • 17 27
flag DirtyHal (Mar 29, 2023 at 12:38) (Below Threshold)
 These were probably designed, engineered and released into production before Hope re-started the short crank trend.
  • 31 5
 @DirtyHal: Hope had nothing to do with the short crank "trend".
  • 3 0
 @simcik: yea. Been waiting on mine for months now, but just saying I’m surprised more companies aren’t making it an option.
  • 11 0
 It says right there in the release that they are available in 160mm, but not on their website...hmmmm?
  • 12 3
 @MOBrules: Hey sorry about that! 160mm length is not currently available and was a typo. We currently have these available in 165mm, 170mm, and 175mm lengths
  • 11 6
 Was gunna say at least they got rid of 175, but nevermind
  • 3 19
flag mininhi (Mar 29, 2023 at 14:30) (Below Threshold)
 I think everyone knows by now that every major "standard" is nothing more than a trojan horse for some Company's own "standard. sram UDH for example. My theory is why the crankarms are getting shorter is because druvetrain ranges are getting bigger to compensate. wont be surprised if a 13 speed is coming out soon
  • 10 0
 5DEV makes them from 135 to 175 in 5mm increments if you like bling.
  • 3 0
 @DirtyHal: canfield
  • 4 9
flag DirtyHal (Mar 29, 2023 at 16:13) (Below Threshold)
 @basalt: I said RE-started.
  • 5 0
 used the Miranda 150mm cranks before, that's too short! felt like I was riding my daughters kiddy bike. But I could literally pedal while bombing a DH track, was insane!
  • 3 0
 @DirtyHal: they've been on an E13 distributors site for pre order (with photos!) for almost two years now so I beleive you are correct.
  • 3 1
 160mm steel cranks are all I want in this world.
  • 4 1
 @sanchofula: Hope is to short cranks as Absolute Black is to oval chainrings
  • 1 0
 @chrsei:

Just picked a set of their 145’s. Just the ticket for my 28” inseam. Nice product
  • 20 1
 @simcik:

Trailcraft

127, 140, 152, 160mm

5Dev

135, 145, 155, 160, 165, 170, 175

Spawn Cycles

89, 102, 127mm

Brood Styx Cranks

130, 145, 160mm

Prevelo Heir Cranks

120, 140mm

Suntour
XCT Jr

152, 160mm

Zeron 1-X

152, 160, 170mm

Canfield AM/DH Cranks

150, 155, 160, 165, 170mm

SRAM NX 1x Cranks

155, 160, 175mm

Appleman Bicycles

100, 135, 145, 155, 165, 175
  • 11 3
 @mchenrya: what is wrong with 175? Always used those, never had any issues?
  • 8 5
 @saladdodger: Unless you're over 6'2" you'll be more comfortable and make better power on shorter. Regardless of height, shorter cranks feel nicer jumping, spin smoother over rough ground, and have more clearance.
  • 7 13
flag capoeirabg (Mar 29, 2023 at 23:44) (Below Threshold)
 @lelandjt: Cranks length is also defining your feet' position when not pedaling so the short crank length limits your stability because you are stepping at a smaller distance, this gives you less leverage over your bike control from the feet. So not everything is just pedaling
  • 18 2
 @capoeirabg: yeah, I don't know how those poor MX riders do with having both footpegs inline, them riding as hard as they do must be some sort of magic considering how little stability their pegs are giving ... Or you can consider that lunging while going down is just making it harder both physically and technically. Try to move up and down in a lunge position and in both feet parallel, usually called a squat position, in which do you get more range or movement, and strength ? Yeah ...
  • 7 7
 been riding 170/175 mm my entire life. 6 foot , 32 inseam. When I see so many of these 160 necesities down here I'm wondering if biking is happening only in Hobbiton and some small other areas.
  • 2 0
 @capoeirabg: no think dirt bike, way more stable with both feet under you
  • 1 0
 @Balgaroth: just what i replied to him
  • 2 0
 @mininhi: The resurgence of short cranks started with ebikes, where you have to imitate a pedaling motion to engage the throttle, no need for long levers there. And then people liked the elevated clearance.
  • 1 3
 @saladdodger: people are on a trend now where they enjoy pedaling at twice the normal speed and and enjoy not having the power/ torque you can put down with longer cranks. People think having 15mm shorter cranks are gonna magically stop pedal strikes but from what Ive seen its just a myth!! When I go through rough shit i usually have my crank parallel to the ground but apparantly most poeple ride one pedal down now lol.
  • 2 0
 @mhoshal: Actually, I want 160s because my calculated ideal crank length is right around there based on 5'8" height and a 28" inseam. Having proportionally sized cranks should make me more torque/power and be more efficient.

In combustion engine terms, having 170 cranks on legs this short is akin to having a long stroke but short connecting rods that can't take advantage of it.

It's something the roadies have actually invested a lot of research into.
  • 1 4
 I don’t think anyone sells a 155 option. Why would you ever need that?
  • 1 0
 @HycGpmx1: hope makes a really nice 155mm aluminum crank
  • 60 4
 S L X
  • 5 2
 Y E S
  • 16 3
 6 sets of SLX over 10 years on 6 bikes. one set Saint none of them have ever given me trouble
  • 25 2
 502 grams, so lighter, and about 50% the cost, probably more rigid, look great. Very few reasons to not buy SLX.
  • 13 0
 @madmon: Sure, sure.. but do those have "looks to kill"?
  • 8 0
 @bishopsmike: no but they can kill
  • 7 5
 @madmon: hollowtech interface is basically foolproof, everyone should be doing it
  • 11 4
 @baca262: False, lots of fools don't properly torque their pinch bolts and have their non-drive crank arm come loose or even fall off.
  • 24 1
 @baxterbike: and 24mm spindle for bigger bearings.
  • 5 5
 @baca262: I've had hollowtech crank arm fall off after proper torquing never had that happen with SRAM cranks. Might have been that particular pair that I had but it happened over and over. For reference I was a bike/ski tech at a shop for years and had installed/setup 100's of shimano cranks at the time.
  • 4 1
 @baxterbike: Where are you getting the 502g weight for the SLX? Shimano claims 634g for the lightest variant on their own website.
  • 6 1
 @genericmk: the 634g weight includes chainring.
  • 10 6
 @chugachjed: sounds like it's good you're not wrenching on other people's bikes anymore!
  • 6 0
 @chugachjed: that's weird, you lost the safety pin?
  • 3 0
 @edthesled: true, but: I didn't torque a ZEE crank properly and when landing a 2m drop both sides were parallel. It feels a bit weird to ride with both pedals down, i can tell you. After some love with a hammer and a large screwdriver i got it off and after some cleaning it went back on and was bombproof for some more years and big impacts. That's a good MTB product.
  • 3 0
 @edthesled: oh and I've also had bolts on Sram and RF cranks come loose several times, so no real advantage there.
  • 2 1
 @Muckal: RF cranks are notorious for the bolt coming loose. Despite being over torqued and glued in with threadlock mine backed itself out, cranks came loose mid berm and I cracked ribs when I hit the deck.
Bike got quarantined till I replaced the entire drivetrain for a Shimano SLX (mostly) set
  • 1 0
 @edthesled: i was referring to how the design when used properly basically has nothing to work itself loose, raceface's interface on atlas cranks i have reminds me of square taper shitshow. one ride with the crank screw loose while it's not that easy to notice it's loose and you can toss it into trash while it wouldn't happen with hollowtech II interface, you'd really have to be an ass to ride it while you know it's loose to ruin it.

you can break even an anvil if you use a tank gun on it.
  • 2 0
 @baca262: Yeah I was just joking around because you used the term "foolproof". I have no issue with the design.

I've had RF Aeffect cranks on 4 bikes now and never had any issues. They're like $150 CAD. Got a set of Turbines now. We'll see how they go.
  • 53 10
 my 3 year old XX1 cranks look like Danny Trejo's face, and still run perfect. you don't need AL to be impact resistant. lol
  • 6 8
 I just spit up my lunch!!! Best quote of the day.
  • 20 4
 I am going to say this as a word of caution: I have personally known 2 people to suffer gnarly leg/ankle injuries from broken carbon cranks.... The failure typically occurs at the worst possible moment because of the force being put into the crank arm.
  • 37 2
 @KJP1230: I am going to say this as a word of caution: I have personally seen people to suffer gnarly injuries from Danny Trejo .... in movies that was.
  • 5 0
 Danny catching strays
  • 5 2
 Carbon cranks are great until they are not, and the potential for a serious injury when they let go is high. hence why I avoid them.
  • 3 1
 I’ve seen more than 3 X01/XX1 carbon cranks broken online. That’s simply too many.
  • 4 1
 ticking time bomb. they will snap trust me
  • 4 2
 @zyoungson: I tend to agree. I don't love the way that carbon fails (abruptly and completely), so I avoid it for my cranks and handlebars. The benefits (few grams, some degree of "compliance") don't outweigh the potential costs (complete failure, more $$).
  • 2 1
 @KJP1230: everything fails at the worst(highest load) possible time. lol. its like when people say, "my keys were in the last place I looked!" yeah, I f*cking hope so.....cuz if you kept looking after you found them....Big Grin
  • 3 1
 @KJP1230: your understanding of Modern carbon fiber failure is a bit behind the times. from a guy that has broken more bike parts, frames, wheels, bars, etc than I care to admit......Carbon doesn't fail any more spectacularly than AL does really. I have cracked carbon wheels and finished races with multiple more stages to go, and I have dinged AL wheels that would no longer hold a tire on the bead....day over!

so there are anicdotal examples of failure to confirm your opinion anywhere you want to look. I will say though, I break a lot less wheels, cranks and bars now that they are all carbon from a reputable brand(just say no to Race face and E13).
  • 2 1
 @Mtbdialed: Notice, I did not say that I am personally opposed to carbon rims, frames, etc. Rather, I am concerned about crank arms and handlebars in particular. Because the rim itself is formed in a circle, when it cracks, it will likely stay round in shape. I also know of folks who have cracked rims and managed to finish their ride or otherwise limp down the mountain.

On the other hand, when a carbon crank arm or handlebar fails it may break clean or sheer. Because this is where my body and limbs attach to the bike itself, I prefer to avoid carbon on those particular parts.

I believe there was a case reported on this very site of a broken carbon handlebar under a semi-pro rider just last year - my understanding is fully modern.
  • 2 1
 @KJP1230: you are discounting bars and cranks being made of AL and also failing in similar manners. would like to see my photo gallery of AL bars sheared in half? lol
  • 2 0
 @Mtbdialed: I'm not saying it doesn't happen - but metal is much more likley to bend than sheer.

I'd love to see a personal photo gallery of one, much less multiple, AL bars that sheered.
  • 2 2
 @Mtbdialed: aluminum does not fail as often as carbon does. Aluminum parts are much more popular because they're better. They do not fail in a similar manner to carbon, the materials are way to different for that to be the case, and you have no evidence of this.

I'm sorry you wasted so much money on bad parts
  • 2 2
 @wburnes: LOL. ok, bud......


whatever you do, don't get on a modern aircraft....way too much carbon fiber to be safe! flying deathtraps!
  • 2 0
 @Mtbdialed: nobody is talking about aircraft
  • 2 2
 @wburnes: I am. to point out the absurdity of your blanket waterboy-esque statement, "aluminium is much bettah than carbon fibaah!!!"

you have literally no real world, nor engineering, nor material science grasp on what you are pontificating on.
  • 1 0
 @Mtbdialed: You think I don't have real world experience with carbon and aluminum bike parts?
  • 1 3
 @wburnes: your previous ignorant statements, strongly suggest it, yes.
  • 1 0
 @Mtbdialed: ignorant?
  • 2 3
 @wburnes:

ig·no·rant
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
  • 25 3
 Gwin's ankle died for this
  • 18 0
 I clicked through ready to be outraged by the price and.... ... Im okay with this.
  • 9 1
 Beware the price. It’s a razor/razor blade scheme with overpriced chainrings and bb.
  • 4 1
 @borisimobike: I've been conditioned to expect that when I click over the manufacturer website that I will be greeted by 5DEV prices every single time so this was a welcome change.

I'd look at a set of these for my Slayer.
  • 2 1
 Until you try to take them off and realize the P3 interface has permenantly seized and the ethirteen crank removal tool now becomes a hacksaw and you'll have to pay $280 for another set every time you need to service your bottom bracket.
  • 1 0
 @chriskneeland: Yeesh. That bad, eh?
  • 1 0
 @gilpinmtbq: Yup. I've had to cut two off. e13 sent me a replacement and swore they fixed the issue with their extraction nut. Loaded the thing with anti-seize. Still seized. So when I sell the frame they're getting e13 cranks too.
  • 14 1
 There is no 160mm, but a 175mm.
  • 6 0
 Good catch. I was kind of excited to see a 160mm option, unfortunately not according to their website. Love a low bb, hate smashing pedals.
  • 15 1
 Those are gorgeous.
  • 10 1
 Make 2023 the year of the 160mm crank!
  • 8 3
 Why is the back side not shown at all?
Is it because they're just a bog standard copy of old turbines?
Extensively CNC machined, but they couldn't be bothered to use a radius tool...

Heavier, probably flexier, much more expensive than slx. Why would you bother?
  • 3 0
 The website shows the backside. There's some careful language here about almost every 'visible' surface being machines. So, the backside isn't machined (not does it need to be). These are forged aluminium cranks, with CNC finishing on the front face. That in itself isn't a bad thing (forged will be better than billet or cast). They would want to add some sort of advantage in stiffness over SLX to bother though, and it's not like too many people are complaining of flexxy SLX cranks.
  • 5 0
 Wow, so the same weight compared to my 6 years old, über flashy, super exclusive, cheap af descendant gxp alu cranks. Expensive cranks are defo the most worthy upgrade of them all, soo much gaaaiin.
  • 3 3
 These cranks support the weight and force of and adult rider, but only weigh as much as set of cheap children's cranks.

What's your point?
  • 9 2
 Expensive, not light, 30mm which will result in shitty bearings - what not to like?
  • 2 0
 Also they have nice ribs to collect dirt.
  • 5 2
 I had dubb stuff. I ate bearings pretty fast on them and that stupid plastic preload thing is a joke. I have slx now. The pinch bolt and preload are the simplest things. The chain ring retaining setup is nice too.. smaller spindle! Best value out there and so simple to use. I like the bronze,
  • 4 3
 Totally agree Dub is rubbish. That plastic preload thing is terrible. BBs also seem to last a fifth of the time of Shimano.
  • 2 0
 Had a set of E-13 cranks in one form or other going on 13 years now love the interface for the cami arms onto the spindle based off of the DIN Standard for tiger tank drive shaft solid and light nice bits of kit great CNC work!
  • 3 1
 I had a set of expensive carbon E13 cranks, they failed because of a defect and customer service refused to even look at them for warranty, despite a report from the LBS. Over priced and made of cheese. Everything Ive had from them (chain devices, cranks etc) has failed early and warranty and customer service is non-existent. Wont touch them with a bargepole.
  • 8 3
 Awfully nice of Raceface to share the old Turbine design with them.
  • 1 0
 Yes, after the crater a flying rock just created on my LG1 crank, by the axle at the opposite end of the left crank, I'd say carbon cranks can be a scary thing to live with because you don't know how those large chips will affect the strength. The location I mentioned is the most exposed one as most people ride with the right foot forwards. Something similar to a downtube protector is a must there.
  • 1 0
 SRAMTM and ShimanoTM 12-Speed compatible narrow/wide -> what is the warranty process if there is damage to the shimano / sram chainring which might be caused by the E13 crank or vice versa? I have experience being rejected by shimano / sram and also E13, so in my opinion it's better if you sell it in the form of a complete chainwheel instead of a separate crank / chanring only
  • 5 0
 Starting at $279.95 (you're welcome for saving you the click)
  • 2 1
 way oveprriced
  • 3 1
 RaceFakes. I'm sure they'll work okay, colors and finish are great, but these aren't bringing anything new to the table. And SLX arms are hollow....
  • 5 0
 Name a crank that is brining anything new to the table. All they have to do is not break and hold your pedal. Can’t really improve upon core functionality.
  • 1 0
 @taquitos: but yet those things often don't happen...
  • 1 1
 @Tambo: so a crank is novel if it functions as a crank?
  • 1 0
 @taquitos: Weight, price, length options. Most cranks bring at least 2 to the table, this one barely brings 1 lol
  • 1 0
 @taquitos: seemingly, yes. For me, no. I've never had one fail.
  • 2 0
 @taquitos: Shimano-SLX on up is hollow construction. Ditto for Cannondale Hollowgrams. And if you’re feeling flush, Cane Creeks are hollow, and titanium. If you’re a bruiser, Profiles are cromoly…..and hollow.
  • 2 1
 @wyorider: there are a lot of hollow cranks out there so it’s not exactly bringing something new anymore. If I’m not mistaken SLX cranks are similar in weight to these so it’s not like it’s doing any good there. Cane creek cranks arguably are sweet because weight and durability, but at what cost? There are $500 cranks that are in the same weight range. These are pushing for that aesthetic driven market. If the cranks look decent, which they do, and the weight is reasonable, which it is, then it’s a decent offering in the subcategory of bling cranks.
  • 3 1
 Anybody that wants super short cranks just wait a few years until all the trendsetters realize how much they suck to pedal and secretly off load them on ebay.
  • 5 1
 They are gorgeous!
  • 10 7
 Looks nice! But please, let's not make boots on aluminum cranks a thing
  • 1 0
 The ends of my cranks are really gouged from rock strikes so after market boots were considered but now idgaf.
  • 4 1
 The engraving is like having the tag on the outside of a t-shirt.
  • 4 2
 They look real pretty, but the bronze also has a hint of "cheap black parts left in sun" colour that I can't unsee.
  • 1 0
 They look like raceface aeffect cranks with some light machining and are 6000 series aluminium. 'High end' should be 7000, Im not convinced.
  • 4 0
 Material only makes something high end if it’s used advantageously. Look at 5dev cranks. They are very similar in weight but 7075. That is not using the material advantageously at all.
  • 1 0
 @taquitos: not if theyre stronger or something. Weight is not the only concern
  • 1 0
 @wburnes: extra strength doesn’t matter if something is already strong enough. 7075 is 3x the cost of 6061. If you were to have a component that works in 6061, all using 7075 would achieve is a higher price for no reason. If you make use of the fact that yield strength of 7075 is 1.82 times higher than that of 6061 and gain significant weight savings that cost is justified.
  • 1 0
 @taquitos: I didn't say that it did.
  • 5 3
 Always glad to see high end metal, but wow those crank booties look awful
  • 6 5
 "rock smashing confidence of aluminum" b..b...but wasn't Carbon meant to be the dream material?
  • 1 0
 I want to see the backside machining
  • 2 0
 Puurdy!
  • 1 0
 I thought this was an early April fools and the cranks were 30mm long....
  • 2 0
 What is the weight limit on these- I thought these were for kids bikes. Would be nice to have a size between 152 and 165mm.
  • 1 0
 @chrsei: check out Canfield then...
  • 4 0
 spammy spam face.
  • 1 0
 @chrsei: Canfield, SRAM NX, Hope, and 5Dev have 155 and 160
  • 1 0
 *Hope does not have 160mm
  • 1 0
 they cost less than $500? absolute garbage, NEXT!
  • 1 2
 These are sexy AF, but you could only justify purchasing these for vanity. Race Face turbines are 7000 series and 100USD cheaper. It
  • 1 0
 Missing photo of the inner side of crank arm...
  • 1 1
 These do look good for sure, but I wish they didn't use a 30 mm spindle and made 160 mm versions.
  • 1 0
 Ok that gold is nice I'll be havin some of those some day I bet.
  • 1 2
 6000 series? Pass
  • 4 0
 Have you actually looked up the performance of 6066, or are you just not impressed because it doesn't start with a 7 or a 2?
  • 2 0
 @Tambo: looking up the metal properties is about as useful as his comment, to be fair
  • 2 0
 @Tambo: I posted quick thinking it was 6061. Not too familiar with 6066. Used 2024 for some applications in the past. My personal preference is forged.

Cross section and spindle-to-arm interface are probably more important that the alloy.
  • 1 0
 @rpl3000: these are forged! 6066 is somewhere in the region of 25% stronger than 6061; it's pretty handy stuff, though not at the same level as 7075. Not sure how it performs with forging compared with others.
  • 1 0
 Local man doesn't understand what different series Alloys are supposed to do
  • 1 0
 @noodlewitnosteeze: you aren’t wrong. I’ll get back in my lane now…
  • 1 2
 Need e- bike version.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.043242
Mobile Version of Website