Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Good 29-44 cranks ?

1K views 17 replies 11 participants last post by  2:1 
#1 · (Edited)
Good 29-42 cranks ? *FOUND* Need bb + chainrings

I am searching for a 29-42 crankset but i don't find anything else than the middleburn. Does 29-42 cranks is a common bcd ?
 
#2 ·
Megaclocker said:
I am searching for a 29-44 crankset but i don't find anything else than the middleburn. Does 29-44 cranks is a common bcd ?
29-44 is not a bolt circle diameter. It is a chain ring tooth count.

Tough to find a new crank with a BCD that will except a 29t ring in a "middle" position. Even tougher to find 29t rings.

In the past I have used the old "standard" mtb BCD cranks (110/74, the "new" road compact) with a 45t middle ring (110mm) and a 28t inner ring (74mm).
 
#4 ·
Most MTB cranks these days use a 4 bolt 104/64 bcd which won't allow for a 29 tooth middle chainring. The old compact 5 bolt 94/58 bcd would allow for the smaller 29t chainring in the middle position. As far as I know, only Middleburn still offers a spider in the old compact 5 bolt pattern. I'm sure there are some 5 bolt Race Face Turbine cranksets still floating around on E-Bay if you want something other than Middleburn.
 
#5 ·
Megaclocker said:
I am searching for a 29-44 crankset but i don't find anything else than the middleburn. Does 29-44 cranks is a common bcd ?
Blackspire offers a 94/58 5-bolt BCD crank in Octalink form that can take a 29t middle, but you'll have to track down the 29t middle ring elsewhere (they do offer an unramped 30t 94bcd ring though, which would work in a 44/30 combo as you only really want the pins & ramps on the bigger ring)

Personally, I think a 38/24 or 36/22 combo makes much more sense for general riding. 44t is too big for most riding (unless you race XC and your local races don't throw in any really tough climbs)
 
#8 ·
I see Nashbar has an Ultegra Triple Octolink on sale for $75. It's a 30-42-52. Remove the big ring and replace with a cyclocross bash ring / chain retainer and you are good to go. I agree that 2x9 doesn't make much sense for weight savings, but if you can go with a road crank, then you can get a better Q-factor.
 
#9 ·
thecrazyfinn said:
Personally, I think a 38/24 or 36/22 combo makes much more sense for general riding. 44t is too big for most riding (unless you race XC and your local races don't throw in any really tough climbs)
I am in this camp. You will only lose the 44 x 11, and 12 using a 38 "big ring" (also the 13 with a 36 which gets gained back a bit on my 29er.) I would guess that even strong riders end up with more of a need for a small ring with the 26-34 range of the cassette much more than a 44 with the 11 and 12.

Another option would be a 28 granny (truvativ makes them) and a 42 big in the middle position.

All these choices would end up easy to do with readily available current cranksets. Good Luck!

G
 
#10 ·
G-Live said:
I am in this camp. You will only lose the 44 x 11, and 12 using a 38 "big ring" (also the 13 with a 36 which gets gained back a bit on my 29er.) I would guess that even strong riders end up with more of a need for a small ring with the 26-34 range of the cassette much more than a 44 with the 11 and 12.

Another option would be a 28 granny (truvativ makes them) and a 42 big in the middle position.

All these choices would end up easy to do with readily available current cranksets. Good Luck!

G
Depends of the bike, it's intended use and where you ride. A very light racing bike and a strong rider don't use a 22 front x 34 rear combo much. On my old hardtail, 23.5lbs, my lowest gearing was 24 x 27, never had the need for easier gears and it's not because I don't climb steep climbs... It has a lot to do with your pedalling style too. If you like to spin fast, 29/44 might not be for you, if you like powering taller gears though, no problems.

I had my All-Mountain FS bike setup with a 22/36/bash ring and I often missed the 44 ring, I broke the bash ring, put back the 32 and 44 rings and I'm happy again...

As for the 28 granny and a big ring in the middle position, that's a great idea. You must first check that your frame has enough clearance at the chainstay though.
 
#11 ·
For XC, I'm running a RF Next LP with 29/42 (FRM 29) and 11-34 rear in Marin, where there are plenty of long FR climbs. Like the smaller Q factor better. Not really much lighter or more clearance, but it's simple: climb = 29t (20-34 cogs), flat/descent = 42 ring (11-20 cogs). Not much overlap on gears.

Also, would probably prefer 12-34 as the 12-14-16-18 seem preferable to 11-13-15-17 on the smaller cogs (20-23-26-30-34 same on both).

N.B. - you may want to run a big ring without pins & a SRAM twister on the front to trim to avoid hitting the pins with this set up. Others have had success with spacers. Search prior posts.
 
#13 ·
29t not too common, but l found some FRMs.
I have a Phil BB and like it. If you can find a UN72 (or, a UN 73 in a pinch) those are fine. The Phil is way more expensive, but it's got a somewhat adjustable chainline. I have a 108mm length spindle.
I don't use a special front der; just an XT. That said, a twister for the front is nice because you can trim it.
 
#14 ·
The Don said:
29t not too common, but l found some FRMs.
I have a Phil BB and like it. If you can find a UN72 (or, a UN 73 in a pinch) those are fine. The Phil is way more expensive, but it's got a somewhat adjustable chainline. I have a 108mm length spindle.
I don't use a special front der; just an XT. That said, a twister for the front is nice because you can trim it.
I have a un72 lying arround. I just wanted something lighter (WW here lol)
I think that i will order a 32t monoveloce blackspire ring also !:thumbsup:
 
#16 ·
Dan Gerous said:
Depends of the bike, it's intended use and where you ride. A very light racing bike and a strong rider don't use a 22 front x 34 rear combo much. On my old hardtail, 23.5lbs, my lowest gearing was 24 x 27, never had the need for easier gears and it's not because I don't climb steep climbs... It has a lot to do with your pedalling style too. If you like to spin fast, 29/44 might not be for you, if you like powering taller gears though, no problems.

I had my All-Mountain FS bike setup with a 22/36/bash ring and I often missed the 44 ring, I broke the bash ring, put back the 32 and 44 rings and I'm happy again...

As for the 28 granny and a big ring in the middle position, that's a great idea. You must first check that your frame has enough clearance at the chainstay though.
I am running a 24/36 right now and do not miss the 44 big ring at all on my 29ers. I suppose my gearing is similar to a 26/40 on a 26" bike which I wish I would have tried when I was riding my Sugar. I really like the 2x set up for mtbing now and always ran the standard triple on my Sugars.

There are 2 reasons I like a little smaller 24-26 small and 36-40 big ring than the std 29 or 30/44 2x set up . 1. Better gear selection in the small ring for tight techncal ST. In these types of trails my observations are that most riders are in too big of a gear to quickly get through those sections. They would benefit by having a gear allowing them to spin a bit more. 2. Very seldom are the 44 x 11,12,13 are used. I'd bet that a bigger end of the cassette is used much more even for strong riders.

#1 is the biggie for me it is not so much the climbing part that determines what is needed.

disclaimer: my observations are from riding just a bit better than mid-pack in sport series racing. Of course everyone elsed MMV.

G
 
#18 ·
middleburn duo

I debated between the road-triple-with-the-outer-taken-off and the Middleburn Duo. Installed the Duo (29x44) a couple of weeks ago, and it's been all good thus far.

FSA is going to have a 2x9 version of their new top-end MTB crank; it'll have a 29t inner and, like the Duo, its own bolt pattern and spacing. It will be made of carbon, and it'll have outboard bearings.

The Duo uses a square-taper BB, and I'm very stoked to be back on a nice UN-72 again. It's smoother and less draggy-feeling than either of my modern, external-cup BBs.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top