Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    155

    crankset opinions?

    Any opinions on the follow cranksets in 170mm - XT M760 versus Truvativ Stylo Team GXP versus the FSA V-Drive Mega Exo.

    The XT seems over priced while it looks like one can get the Truvativ or FSA for around $180 or less (for last year's Truvativ). The Truvativ seem to have the best looks of the three, but it seems like the design for attaching the non-drive crank might be a little more prone to loosening as the other two crank arms clamp on - I think I noted a few comments on this, although its a bit hard to tell which Stylo Team it was referring (Isis?). Ive also read that the FSA significantly underquotes it's weight and is the heaviest of the three, plus it looks like its got the most bargain bin look.

    The XT seems the best design and weight (?) of the three, but it seems to have chainrings prone to quick wear, plus the price is pretty jacked. And then some posts suggest the GPX BB has problems or more so than the Mega Exo.

    It's all a bit confusion actually.

    Plus, this all assumes I should go with outer bearing cranks....

    Anyone have opinions who have compared tow or three or been through the same process?

    thanks

    ben

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    665
    i have a set of FSA V-drive (and K-force) with MegaExo BB. i am very happy with these, fitted to a Giant XTC (HT). i think they are very good value. i haven't weighed them, but that wasn't the priority (compared with the mega$$ K-force); instead, i was after a good value crankset and have had good experience with FSA gear. shifting is excellent (SRAM X-Gen FD, shimano XTR chain, SRAM trigger shifters).

    the only experience of XT cranks (Octalink, not Hollowtech II) is with a mate's set on his Specialized Epic. no problems with it. i notice that the shape of the arms is such that his shoes rub against them, wearing off the paint/anodising. this may pose a cosmetic issue for you.

    i've no experience with Truvativ cranks (except on a roadbike). the other set i've used are RaceFace XC Evolve (i think), and are worth considering.

    i think unless you're really hard on components or weigh a lot, any of those being considered will be good. it may simply boil down to brand loyalty, availability and price - and looks! also, your style of riding may dictate how robust they need to be.

    Last edited by shiny_car; 01-08-2006 at 11:21 PM.
    [size=1]
    - Giant NRS Composite - Giant XTC2 - Giant TCRCzero - Giant OCR1 -
    [/size]
    [size=1]- nothing stock here - move right along now -
    - Geelong area, Australia -
    [/size]

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    155
    Thanks for the reponse - yeah, I think its the looks of the Truvativ that are pulling me a bit away from the FSA, even those look like they are a better design with a more durable bb and cranks that dont rely on press-fit, which seems to be a weakness. Im such a sucker for looks...

    b

  4. #4
    Space for rent...
    Reputation: SSteve F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,012
    I presently run Truvativ Stylo cranks, and see no difference in the performance when compared to my old XT's and XTR's. There is however, a difference in the rings. To be honest the Truvativ's suck. The Shimano last about 25% longer, and shift better.

    However, my current Blackspire chainrings outperform the Shimano's noticeably.
    It's only pain......

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    155
    Hey thanks for the input - the short-wearing Truvativ rings is news, glad you mention that - I will have to check out blackspires... I guess I just love the truvativ look, but I read a lot fewer complaints about the FSA cranks, except carbons.

    thanks
    b

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    665
    nothing wrong with the FSA K-force carbons if you look after them. they are marketed for XC race use more-so than all-mountain rock-bashing rides. probably more than you wish to spend though. plenty of people using them with no probs; so don't be biased by a handful of bad reviews.

    i've heard the XT chainrings are pretty good in terms of wear-rate, with comments they wear better than FSA as well. no doubt wear is related to distance, weight of rider, style of riding, and how clean the drivetrain is; so hard to know sometimes.

    Last edited by shiny_car; 01-10-2006 at 01:17 AM.
    [size=1]
    - Giant NRS Composite - Giant XTC2 - Giant TCRCzero - Giant OCR1 -
    [/size]
    [size=1]- nothing stock here - move right along now -
    - Geelong area, Australia -
    [/size]

  7. #7
    Weapon of Choice
    Reputation: Iceman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    738

    XT crank

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny_car
    nothing wrong with the FSA K-force carbons if you look after them. they are marketed for XC race use more-so than all-mountain rock-bashing rides. probably more than you wish to spend though. plenty of people using them with no probs; so don't be biased by a handful of bad reviews.

    i've heard the XT chainrings are pretty good in terms of wear-rate, with comments they wear better than FSA as well. no doubt wear is related to distance, weight of rider, style of riding, and how clean the drivetrain is; so hard to know sometimes.

    I had the Truvative stylo crank on my Stumpy HT which was ok, then upgraded to the new Shimano XT crank; much smoother shifting and very stiff, alot better than the stylo.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    155
    Thanks for the response. From what I am gathering the Truvativ is really not that great a product for a number of reasons (bad GPX BB, soft rings, dont shift that well, not the pinch design attachemnt). It seems to be the best functiong amdn most relaiable are the FSA V-drive and afterburner mega exos and the XT hollowtech tech II (which is unfortunate, as I seem ot have become an anti-shimanite.) The FSA chaing may be even more reliable and shift even better. The only problem is the afterburner appears to be about 100 gm over whats advertised when aftermarket (870mm) and I can't find anything about the real weight of a hollowtech II. But I think Im more interested in the FSA if there's no too much wieght penalty,

Posting Permissions

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