Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    39

    Surly Mr. Whirly vs Profile Racing MTB

    Hi,

    I am thinking of getting either Mr. Whirly or Profile Racing crankset, but can't decide which one is better on the long term.

    It must be one of these two because of the crank length, 185mm (Surly) or 190mm (Profile).

    I've read few reviews about the Profiles, some say that it's easy to tear off some material of the cranks so that they become loose and slip off the axle. Well, i do believe that is because people installed the cranks with too little torque. Actually there are people reporting same stuff about Surlys. I did destroy some cranks in the past, so this time i will get a torque wrench.

    Don't know much about Mr. Whirly, there aren't too many reviews.

    Which cranks would you prefer?
    Also, both have outboard bearings but i am not sure which is better, any ideas?

  2. #2
    Cycle Psycho
    Reputation: Gritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    477
    I have both cranksets in 180mm. Mr. Whirly's are lighter, but the Profiles are guaranteed for life (if I fill out and return the warranty card that was missing from the box). The Surly Whirly's have a lot of bits and pieces, because you have to use a spider. You can forgo the spider on the Profiles if you want to run an Imperial chainwheel. You can choose internal or external bearing bottom bracket for the Profiles.

    Chromoly cranks feel better to me than aluminum, but it could all be in my head. The profiles look better to me, aesthetically, but that's subjective as well. The Profile set up is cheaper than Mr. Whirly if you opt for the chromoly axle and bolts.

    I prefer Profile, for the price, strength, stiffness, looks, and because you don't see that many BMX cranks on MTB's. Mr. Whirly can run stainless chainrings for longevity, but my Surly SS Chainring isn't as round and true as the Profile Imperial chainring.

    I would think the people who have issues with the Profiles are really thrashing their bikes with some sweet jumps.
    '10 Rocky Mountain Metropolis (rigid 2x10)
    '10 SURLY 1x1 (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Ogre (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Troll (rigid 2x10)

  3. #3
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,014
    Quote Originally Posted by mikhalit View Post
    Hi,

    I am thinking of getting either Mr. Whirly or Profile Racing crankset, but can't decide which one is better on the long term.

    It must be one of these two because of the crank length, 185mm (Surly) or 190mm (Profile).

    I've read few reviews about the Profiles, some say that it's easy to tear off some material of the cranks so that they become loose and slip off the axle. Well, i do believe that is because people installed the cranks with too little torque. Actually there are people reporting same stuff about Surlys. I did destroy some cranks in the past, so this time i will get a torque wrench.

    Don't know much about Mr. Whirly, there aren't too many reviews.

    Which cranks would you prefer?
    Also, both have outboard bearings but i am not sure which is better, any ideas?
    From the info you supplied, get the Surlys


    I use Profiles (182-185). Setup can be fussy. You do not understand how they work and would be unhappy.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  4. #4
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,330
    disciplesofdirt.org
    Remember who
    you wanted to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by riverrat
    Jaybo... quit *****ing and move to Texas

  5. #5
    Cycle Psycho
    Reputation: Gritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    From the info you supplied, get the Surlys


    I use Profiles (182-185). Setup can be fussy. You do not understand how they work and would be unhappy.
    I want to say the Whirlys were actually more of a headache to set-up. There were a lot of parts, and I totally had to read the directions.

    Profiles have more adjustable chainline. A few chainring bolts and a spider are more bolts to keep tight on the Whirlys.

    Profiles seem a lot heavier, but I really like the bearings, or something, they spin really well. Just slapped these on the ogre, and the way the crank arms match the tubes look very ogre'ish to me.



    Last edited by Gritter; 01-10-2013 at 05:39 PM.
    '10 Rocky Mountain Metropolis (rigid 2x10)
    '10 SURLY 1x1 (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Ogre (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Troll (rigid 2x10)

  6. #6
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Gritter View Post
    I want to say the Whirlys were actually more of a headache to set-up. There were a lot of parts, and I totally had to read the directions.

    Profiles have more adjustable chainline. A few chainring bolts and a spider are more bolts to keep tight on the Whirlys.

    Profiles seem a lot heavier, but I really like the bearings, or something, they spin really well. Just slapped these on the ogre, and the way the crank arms match the tubes look very ogre'ish to me.



    If the OP thinks he can prevent the Profile arms from coming off by just torquing down the fixing bolts he will be very disappointed. Binding and short bearing life will be the result.

    The Profile bearings are OK. The lack of an adjustable BB cup is just stupid. If your BB shell width is not EXACTLY on spec you can not crank down the fixing bolts without trashing the bearings. I have resorted to using red loctite to keep the arms in place.

    I have been using the Profiles for more than 10 years on almost all my bikes. Have at least 9 sets.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  7. #7
    Cycle Psycho
    Reputation: Gritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by CB2 View Post
    My Surly's in 175 mm weigh 890 grams complete w/ spindle and cups. That includes a 33t stainless steel ring. I love them.
    Stiff and spinny.






    I was wrong, I guess my Profiles are a 100g lighter than the Whirlys!
    '10 Rocky Mountain Metropolis (rigid 2x10)
    '10 SURLY 1x1 (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Ogre (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Troll (rigid 2x10)

  8. #8
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Gritter View Post






    I was wrong, I guess my Profiles are a 100g lighter than the Whirlys!
    You left out your BB cups/ spacer and chainring/spider/chainwheel weights.

    The ti upgrades also cost and extra $125.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #9
    Cycle Psycho
    Reputation: Gritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    You left out your BB cups/ spacer and chainring/spider/chainwheel
    I don't know what I was thinking You're totally right.
    '10 Rocky Mountain Metropolis (rigid 2x10)
    '10 SURLY 1x1 (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Ogre (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Troll (rigid 2x10)

  10. #10
    Bigger is better!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    679
    Regarding BB for Profile cranks:
    Check out Gusset IASC. Lets you torque the arms down all you want.
    Needs to be shimmed down from 22 to 19mm though.

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,014
    Quote Originally Posted by langen View Post
    Regarding BB for Profile cranks:
    Check out Gusset IASC. Lets you torque the arms down all you want.
    Needs to be shimmed down from 22 to 19mm though.
    Impossible to find in the US. I have tried.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    Cycle Psycho
    Reputation: Gritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    477
    Has anyone tried Profile's outboard bearings? I was hesitant, because I heard they push your chainline out further than their old-school bearings, and I didn't want to run the spider.
    '10 Rocky Mountain Metropolis (rigid 2x10)
    '10 SURLY 1x1 (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Ogre (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Troll (rigid 2x10)

  13. #13
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Gritter View Post
    Has anyone tried Profile's outboard bearings? I was hesitant, because I heard they push your chainline out further than their old-school bearings, and I didn't want to run the spider.
    I have avoided the outboard bearing BB because of chainline concerns. Spider or chainwheel makes no difference.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  14. #14
    Cycle Psycho
    Reputation: Gritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    I have avoided the outboard bearing BB because of chainline concerns. Spider or chainwheel makes no difference.
    Profile has a newer spider that does move the chainring inboard for chainline concerns: "The Spline Drive Spider for Outboard BB's is designed to improve your chainline. It places the chainring over the bearing and cup itself, so that the chainline is closer to the centerline of the bicycle.."

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    If the OP thinks he can prevent the Profile arms from coming off by just torquing down the fixing bolts he will be very disappointed. Binding and short bearing life will be the result.

    The Profile bearings are OK. The lack of an adjustable BB cup is just stupid. If your BB shell width is not EXACTLY on spec you can not crank down the fixing bolts without trashing the bearings. I have resorted to using red loctite to keep the arms in place.

    I have been using the Profiles for more than 10 years on almost all my bikes. Have at least 9 sets.
    They are designed to be tightened all the way down. All the woes you speak of could be avoided if you installed them correctly. The bearings will move a little as you crank the BB cups all the way down, and be pushed outwards so BB shell width doesn't have to be exactly on spec to use their spacers.

    From profileracing.com/tech/bmx-cranks/ "When the cup is almost tight, itís not unusual for the bearings to move outwards slightly- donít freak out here. Itís better to have a tube spacer thatís 1mm too long than it is to have one thatís too short- you might as well not have one there at all in that case."
    '10 Rocky Mountain Metropolis (rigid 2x10)
    '10 SURLY 1x1 (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Ogre (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Troll (rigid 2x10)

  15. #15
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Gritter View Post
    Profile has a newer spider that does move the chainring inboard for chainline concerns: "The Spline Drive Spider for Outboard BB's is designed to improve your chainline. It places the chainring over the bearing and cup itself, so that the chainline is closer to the centerline of the bicycle.."



    They are designed to be tightened all the way down. All the woes you speak of could be avoided if you installed them correctly. The bearings will move a little as you crank the BB cups all the way down, and be pushed outwards so BB shell width doesn't have to be exactly on spec to use their spacers.

    From profileracing.com/tech/bmx-cranks/ "When the cup is almost tight, itís not unusual for the bearings to move outwards slightly- donít freak out here. Itís better to have a tube spacer thatís 1mm too long than it is to have one thatís too short- you might as well not have one there at all in that case."
    I use chain wheels or 94/58 spiders and have 8-9 sets of arms. The splined spider is useless for me.

    I have tried that method of BB setup. The bearings rock in the cups, still bind and die a quick death. Floating bearings is not a proper setup.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  16. #16
    Cycle Psycho
    Reputation: Gritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Floating bearings is not a proper setup.
    I don't understand, but you seem to know your Profile Cranks.

    I was trying to get my chainline (narrower?) a little closer too the BB cups, and I'm at 51mm now. My issue is that the hub in the back can only get to 47.5mm maximum, and I can't seem to get any closer with my 73mm BB shell and Imperial Chainwheel, with that 19mm reducer bushing (which sort of acts like a spacer as well).

    Is there any way to get a narrower "Q-factor" with my Cranks? I don't really care about that, because I have 10mm clearance on the "fatties fit fine" chainstays and the Profile Crank arms as it is; I just want to get them down closer to the 47.5mm chainline.

    (If this is way too many numbers to bother with, please kindly disregard this post. I figured you were the one to ask, but I realize it's an arduous question.)
    '10 Rocky Mountain Metropolis (rigid 2x10)
    '10 SURLY 1x1 (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Ogre (rigid SS)
    '13 SURLY Troll (rigid 2x10)

  17. #17
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Gritter View Post
    I don't understand, but you seem to know your Profile Cranks.

    I was trying to get my chainline (narrower?) a little closer too the BB cups, and I'm at 51mm now. My issue is that the hub in the back can only get to 47.5mm maximum, and I can't seem to get any closer with my 73mm BB shell and Imperial Chainwheel, with that 19mm reducer bushing (which sort of acts like a spacer as well).

    Is there any way to get a narrower "Q-factor" with my Cranks? I don't really care about that, because I have 10mm clearance on the "fatties fit fine" chainstays and the Profile Crank arms as it is; I just want to get them down closer to the 47.5mm chainline.

    (If this is way too many numbers to bother with, please kindly disregard this post. I figured you were the one to ask, but I realize it's an arduous question.)
    The chainline is going to be frame dependent. Have to have clearance for the rings you are using.

    Fewer spacers between the arm and bearing = narrower chainline. Simple as that.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

Posting Permissions

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