Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 93
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nick_M2R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,610

    Move over Saint, there's a new player in town!

    Check Out the New 2009 Raceface Atlas FR cranks

    They look freaking awesome!

    Makes my Blue steel ones look quite dull now....

    "Tired of hollow promises? Light but strong, Atlas FR cranks weigh 40g less than Shimano Saint, while maintaining equal strength and stiffness. Engineered for riders wanting a lightweight FR/DH crank. These cranks are manufactured in Canada using OPTIM-AL, an alloy 20% stronger than 7050 alloy, so no need for pedal inserts.

    Whether dropping in big or vying for a spot on the podium, your prayers have been answered. Atlas FR is the new standard."
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    wait...what?
    Reputation: CaliforniaNicco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    716
    sweet stuff

  3. #3
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,450
    Sounds like they're just sore that they can't make hollow-forged cranks. Hope the new RF "x-type" cranks have a better interface than the old taper-lock ones. Stiffer than hollow saint cranks? I find it hard to believe they can approach the stiffness to weight ratio of a hollow-forged design. RF (and truvativ) cranks aren't "bad" (the RF interface leaves a lot to be desired IMO), but you'll never get the same stiffness to weight ratio as a hollow design. Making hollow forged cranks takes some serious machinery though.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sim2u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,339
    Aaaaaannnnndddd...and, I hope that they are FAR less flexible than the previous iterations of their stuff. Yeah the color is cool, but only for the bling factor crowd. Me, I want function as well as some small bling factor because my bike is not entering a fashion comp lol.

  5. #5
    Premium Member
    Reputation: Ojai Bicyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,843
    The BB interface still probably sucks though...

  6. #6
    N* Bomber Crew
    Reputation: Raptordude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,273
    Is that Brett Tippie?

    If so...sold.
    [size=3]Northstar 2008 Riding Crew[/size]

  7. #7
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,503
    I talked to the RF guy at Interbike about these. I told him about my DH team and he said that's exactly what they're designed for. Never heard back from him. Honestly if we had gotten an offer I would definitely give them a try. But in the mean time I'm not sponsored by Shimano, but that's still what I'm using.
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LarryFahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Sounds like they're just sore that they can't make hollow-forged cranks. Hope the new RF "x-type" cranks have a better interface than the old taper-lock ones. Stiffer than hollow saint cranks? I find it hard to believe they can approach the stiffness to weight ratio of a hollow-forged design. RF (and truvativ) cranks aren't "bad" (the RF interface leaves a lot to be desired IMO), but you'll never get the same stiffness to weight ratio as a hollow design. Making hollow forged cranks takes some serious machinery though.
    WTF does it matter if they're hollow on the inside, or "hollow" on the outside? It's missing material that makes it lighter. That's it! Did anyone ever see the inside of a hollowtech crankarm? Not Shimanos pics either. Just wondering? I haven't.

    These are DH cranks that go on bikes with 8" of softness front and back. If you can jump on your bike and tell me you can feel the "flex" in the crankarms then you're full of $#!+. How do you know it's not the BB spindle, the suspension, flex in the frame? You're riding a frame made of weaker aluminum (6061) that's less than .050" in the thinnest area of a double or triple butted tube than what the cranks are made of. And they're SOLID aluminum! To say that you feel the cranks flexing is you're imagination being sold to advertising.

    There's some science behind bike components and there's a lot of advertising too. Everything in the bike industry is followed by the "Stronger-and-lighter" quote.
    Is it a coincidence it's in this ad? Nope! FWIW, I looked to see if they used that line after typing it.

    Don't take it personally. I'm *****ing to everyone, but quoting you cause of some of the points you listed.

    Fahn

  9. #9
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,503
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFahn
    WTF does it matter if they're hollow on the inside, or "hollow" on the outside? It's missing material that makes it lighter.
    Larger diameter = larger moment reaction arm. With a constant moment your reaction force is smaller. So you get less stress on your bottom bracket and your frame.

    Which again is why I think Shimano is better. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't give these cranks a try (but I ain't payin' retail bub!). All the theory in the world can't do crap against testing.
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nick_M2R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,610
    [QUOTE=Ithnu]Larger diameter = larger moment reaction arm. With a constant moment your reaction force is smaller. So you get less stress on your bottom bracket and your frame.

    QUOTE]

    True , very true

    However i think we need to look at this in a real world situation. People will say that the hollow forged saint is stiffer than the non hollow atlas. Maybe this is true, when the force is in the region of 3500-4500 psi. Subject that kinda force to your body and your dead. I have the atlas FR, my mate has the Saints, and honestly there is no noticable difference in flex or stiffness due to the force on the cranks that a human can generate. I prefer the Atlas FR because im fan of Raceface Products, espically their cranks. never have i had a problem with busted Crank axle interfaces or loosening issues. Muscle them on the first time and ive never needed to touch them again

  11. #11
    Locs on Spokez
    Reputation: Iggz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,909


    It's just better in so many ways.
    Ground Steeze. @iggy_strbac

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nick_M2R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,610
    Quote Originally Posted by ilikemybike011


    It's just better in so many ways.
    How bout giving us a real world reason? Not lab condition reason

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Uh oh, Larry Fahn is grumpy again. Sure he'll soon be blowing up on the people in the Pa forum too.

    As far as the RF cranks go, unless they do something about the interface, it will be a no-go. Plenty of dealers and users alike got it about them, that they are not a superior or lateral move from Shimano's cranks. Hell, even Truvativ has a better interface.

  14. #14
    ≈ > ♥
    Reputation: zahgurim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    918
    They could have all the pretty colours in the world, and I still won't run them.

    Why?

    RaceFace's crank/axle/bearing interface system is crap.
    Using that one bolt to both mount the crankarm and preload the bearing is a bunk design, and they are just using pretty colours to cover it up...

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nick_M2R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,610
    hmm.. i just dont understand why everyone has it in for the RF C/A/B interface, i just dont see whats so bad about it. Ive installed multiple RF cranks for my mates, Run 2 pairs meself, and have NEVER had problems with stripped threads, ruined splines or loosening cranks, neither have my buddies cranks. Sure you need a breaker bar to install them the first time but after that, they NEVER give me problems. A bit of extreme pressure grease on the axle taper, loctite on the crankbolt, and bobs your uncle and fannies your aunt, they sit quietly and do their job perfectly. In no way am i panning saints, theyre great cranks, but IMO are more of a pain to set up than RF cranks. Well each to his/her own i spose, i personally will always be running RF stuff caus it never gives me problems, if only they offered the atlas FR in a Straitline blue, id snatch a pair ASAP

    Even still, John Cown, Darren Berrecloth, Paul Bass, lacondeguys and nathan rennie never seem to have a problem with them, and lets face it, they ride harder than most people, myself included.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Raptordude
    Is that Brett Tippie?

    If so...sold.
    I think that is Tippie! Woo-hoo!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dowst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,707
    I had RF cranks once and they were always coming loose and making noise.

  18. #18
    Nucking Futs
    Reputation: Sneeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    353
    The only thing really wrong is the bottom bracket bearings. I've replaced mine with some cheapo enduro forkseals and they are ****in'. No problem what so ever with tighting/ loosening crap ever, it's a solid design. Sometimes less is better. I ride a 2006 Atlas btw.
    Amplify your Žide

    Spitfire Amp Scythe

  19. #19
    sympathy for society
    Reputation: sodak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,365
    I also used to run a set of Race Face. Personally, I did not like them. Yes, they came loose often. There is nothing worse than a loose RF crankset on the trail. I don't always carry a 10mm and 8 mm tool with me. Shamino does it right and they always have. It is going to take more than some early 90's color scheme to make me convert. for sure...
    "We can always find excuses if we want to find them, but if we really want to do something, we have to just go."

  20. #20
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFahn
    WTF does it matter if they're hollow on the inside, or "hollow" on the outside?

    Fahn
    Makes a BIG difference. Here's why:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_moment_of_area

    Notice units are length to the 4th power, so distance from the axis of bending makes a very large difference in stiffness.

    Also, RF thinks they don't need a pedal insert because their aluminum is %20 stronger? Still nowhere close to crmo steel. I bet people riding flat pedals will rip them out of these cranks.

    I'd far prefer Saint cranks.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedal Shop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,132
    Same here (l'm with Sodak).

    Used RF for a really long time back when they made square taper and were good stuff...

    When they moved over to the ISIS design, things started going down hill for me as well as the customers who bought it from us. The list of problems is as long as my arm. Not saying Shimano is trouble free but with Shimano, there's been far few problems, not even close compared to RF.

    The most common problem with Shimano is that little plastic sleeve popping out when doing general maint or swapping parts. Once that sleeve pops out, it's nearly impossible to get it back in without mashing it a little.

    For me, as a dealer, dealing with RF's warranty is just painful... they worse than MarzJokie's warranty dept (oops, can of worms opened).
    Pedalshop.com also on Facebook
    Marin - Transition - Santa Cruz - Cove...

  22. #22
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,450
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFahn
    WTF does it matter if they're hollow on the inside, or "hollow" on the outside?
    Like I said, strength and stiffness to weight ratio.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  23. #23
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_M2R
    hmm.. i just dont understand why everyone has it in for the RF C/A/B interface, i just dont see whats so bad about it.
    The shimano (and other similer interfaces) are better. Just because you have no problems with the race-face doesn't discount that. The race-face system is a taper-fit and the interface will wear every time you take them on and off, not to mention it takes pretty extreme force to install/remove the cranks. To remove the saints or any other shimano crank is a fast job requiring a minimum of effort due to how they "pinch" the axle. There are basically no bolts that you have to crank down like crazy. The race face system also "preloads" the bearings, which introduces a lot of variability into the system that is just not necessary (loose, too tight, etc). I've ran race-face cranks in the past, and there was nothing "wrong" with them, but the shimano stuff was better, moreso now. The hollow-design is just a more efficient structure (stiffness and strength to weight). Kind of like how a dual-crown fork is a more efficient structure for long travel than a single crown. To provide an equal amount of stiffness and strength, the SC will always be heavier (huge reinforced crown and steerer, etc).
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedal Shop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,132
    chase in point: a couple seasons ago we were building a Transition Bottle Roacket, installing a brand new crankset. Joe Wrench was trying to install the BB but, one side just wouldn't roll in. he tap'd the threads which were fine to begin with, tinker'd a for long time before he noticed the threads were wrong: or incorrectly marked. as if we had two left side cups.

    as you can see in the photo, the right side shell thread are going in the wrong direction.

    It took FOR EVER to get RF to resolve the matter -- even with the photos we sent, they were questioning whether we trying to install it correctly.

    actually, l don't recall if we ever actually got the replacement after we were required to return the messed up unit.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Pedalshop.com also on Facebook
    Marin - Transition - Santa Cruz - Cove...

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stylie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    555
    First Sunline and now Raceface. I guess powdercoating parts is out for the next couple of years and being replace by the good ol' anodizing. At least Raceface dosen't have the ugly 80 colors going on.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •