Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,475

    XT-M760 HT or RF X-Type Deus Crankset, which would you use?

    I'm looking for a new crankset and have come to the conclusion that going full XTR isn't worth the price compared to the XT. So in making that decisssion and looking at cranksets in this price range I was just wondering if you would definitely go with the XT or maybe the RF Deus X-type crankset (roughly same price). Any other suggestions would be welcome, these are what brands I know and have used.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    I'm looking for a new crankset and have come to the conclusion that going full XTR isn't worth the price compared to the XT. So in making that decisssion and looking at cranksets in this price range I was just wondering if you would definitely go with the XT or maybe the RF Deus X-type crankset (roughly same price). Any other suggestions would be welcome, these are what brands I know and have used.
    Bought the RF Deus because i liked the cnc look of the crank but prefer the XT mounting system over the "shim-and-guess the amount of endplay" of the RF system. The best bargain of the outbound bearing cranks are the M580 Lx cranks

  3. #3
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    The hollow XT cranks will be stiffer, more surface area than RF can get using their I-beam.

    Apart from that, I think the biggest difference is the mounting. To take off the XTs you just loosen the two little pinch bolts and the cranks slide off and out.

    To take off the RF cranks you must use a huge self-extracting bolt and the crank is basically "pressed on" just like older octalink/isis cranks. This means every time you take them on and off you are wearing out the interface. This won't wear them out or anything with normal use, but with the XT you can easily take them off frequently to clean them or whatever. Less steps and effort invloved with the XTs.
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2X2MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! FSA Crankset Opinion

    Hey there, I also was recently in your same shoes... deciding between the XT or Deus Crank and I got neither one. I came across the new FSA V-Power MegaExo and checked it out before purchasing. Found out it's a stiffer crank, lightweight and made to last longer than XT or Deus. Like ISIS design which make the lower end of the bike feel really stiff, no play at all, there's no Bottom Bracket, just a hollow solid thru axle with oversized bearings. I came out of an older XT Hollowtech crank to this and in my opinion, for the price, you can't beat this crankset. Make sure you look at the MegaExo and not the standard V-Power, big difference, most of the reviews on MTBR are from the lower end version. Hope this helps.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    381
    I'd go with the Shimano Deore XT cranks, a solid crank. Shimano makes things to last, I know somebody that is still using 3 year old Shimano Deore XT octalink cranks, and they're still good. If this is any testament to the strength and durability of these cranks.
    Anything worth doing is worth overdoing...

    -Ricko, mtbr member

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,116
    The Deus cranks look to be between the XT and the XTR in weight. How do the FSA cranks mentioned here compare? They are almost half the price, so I'm on the line.

    EDIT

    I can answer this now. According to this page

    http://www.weightweenies.starbike.co...type=cranksets

    The FSA V-drive megaexo (who remembers Voltron?) cranks, at about 986 grams are about 167 grams heavier than the RF Deus and about 100 heavier than the XT cranks. Actually, now that I look, they are 51 grams heavier than the LX cranks.

    Somebody had to get obsessive/compulsive about this. I broke the seal, now have at it.
    Last edited by GrantB; 05-02-2005 at 07:33 PM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2X2MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50

    Good job! Personal Experience

    I went with the FSA because it's a solid design, no BB, lightweight (even though not as light as other more expensive cranks, but what's 100-200grams when they're more durable) and the price was just right, the look sweet too. You'll feel the difference the minute you start crankin', I've included a couple of pics of mine. I hope this helps.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    517

    M580 vs M760

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratt
    Bought the RF Deus because i liked the cnc look of the crank but prefer the XT mounting system over the "shim-and-guess the amount of endplay" of the RF system. The best bargain of the outbound bearing cranks are the M580 Lx cranks
    Can anyone explain the large price difference (about $100) between the LX and XT. Only difference appears to be the steel inner ring...this is easily replaced for <$20. Are the bearings identical???
    Romani ite domum

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by 2X2MTB
    I went with the FSA because it's a solid design, no BB, lightweight (even though not as light as other more expensive cranks, but what's 100-200grams when they're more durable) and the price was just right, the look sweet too. You'll feel the difference the minute you start crankin', I've included a couple of pics of mine. I hope this helps.
    Looks like FSA styled there crank after Shimano's.
    Anything worth doing is worth overdoing...

    -Ricko, mtbr member

  10. #10
    mmm, carbon
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by WeylessXPRider
    Looks like FSA styled there crank after Shimano's.
    Looks like Shimano have a fanboy.

  11. #11
    Chrome Toaster
    Reputation: Hecubus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbo
    Looks like Shimano have a fanboy.
    Well I think its time for a reality ckeck but the outboard bearing system those FSA cranks are using is the same one used by Race Face, FSA, Truvativ. Take a wild guess who designed it. That particular standard was designed by Shimano and introduced with the 2003 XTR cranks. The particular design used by FSA is virtually a direct knock off from the Shimano design down to the pinch bolt and lock ring.

  12. #12
    Chrome Toaster
    Reputation: Hecubus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by 2X2MTB
    I went with the FSA because it's a solid design, no BB, lightweight (even though not as light as other more expensive cranks, but what's 100-200grams when they're more durable) and the price was just right, the look sweet too. You'll feel the difference the minute you start crankin', I've included a couple of pics of mine. I hope this helps.
    You seem to not be aware that not only do the 760 XT and Deus cranks use the same integrated spindle design and outboard bottom braket but that Shimano designed and Race Face was the first other to adopt it. The BB is compatible among all brands.
    BTW I'm not sure if you're aware or you did it to change the chainline but your spacers are wrong. The two spacers go on the drive side. You can put them like that to reduce the chainline inwards by 2.5mm but the cranks will be off center.

  13. #13
    mmm, carbon
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Hecubus
    Well I think its time for a reality ckeck but the outboard bearing system those FSA cranks are using is the same one used by Race Face, FSA, Truvativ. Take a wild guess who designed it. That particular standard was designed by Shimano and introduced with the 2003 XTR cranks. The particular design used by FSA is virtually a direct knock off from the Shimano design down to the pinch bolt and lock ring.
    I don't dispute that, but the FSA design is an improvement on Shimano's. My point was more that it is silly arguing about where a particular design came from and who "stole" what etc etc. At the end of the day, as consumers, we're better off buying the best solution available, which is currently the FSA Megaexos

  14. #14
    Chrome Toaster
    Reputation: Hecubus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,850
    How is it improved? Its the same.

  15. #15
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by WeylessXPRider
    Looks like FSA styled there crank after Shimano's.
    Except the V-drives are not hollow, so they don't have near the surface area that the shimanos do, so not as stiff.
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  16. #16
    Chrome Toaster
    Reputation: Hecubus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    Except the V-drives are not hollow, so they don't have near the surface area that the shimanos do, so not as stiff.
    Not particularly light either. 986 grams? Geez! Thats almost Saint territory. I've been looking at the new FSA external BB cranks and can honestly find little redeeming qualities in them. The only thing I can see saving the V-drives is they are cheap. But compared to LX they cost about the same and the LX is still stiffer, have better chainrings and are lighter. The K force carbon models are heavier than the XTR's, more expensive, and not likely to last as long. I find absolutely no point in using carbon on a crankset. It has absolutely no advantage and is just a matter of time before the metal pedal thread insert comes loose. Anyway, I'm getting carried away. I still think Race Face or Shimano are the only way to go when it comes to integrated cranks.

  17. #17
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Hecubus
    I still think Race Face or Shimano are the only way to go when it comes to integrated cranks.
    Yeah, I don't quite give them their due most of the time. I've used em and worked on em. The difference between the race face and the shimano ones is not huge, little easier to work on the shimanos, and a little stiffer, but it's not a huge difference and the race face models are very nice, there's no doubt.
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  18. #18
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,475
    OK, I was figuring the Shimano's are the better/stiffer bet and was maybe considering the LX version even for the almost 2lb weight.

    Question for you guys - Would you buy a set of the older style XT cranks and BB used for $125 US? Does anyone know the weight of the old XT cranksets. The BB is sposed to have only been used for a couple rides (not sure about this) but the crankset has definitely seen some good use.
    Last edited by LyNx; 05-04-2005 at 05:13 AM.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by Hecubus
    You seem to not be aware that not only do the 760 XT and Deus cranks use the same integrated spindle design and outboard bottom braket but that Shimano designed and Race Face was the first other to adopt it. The BB is compatible among all brands.
    BTW I'm not sure if you're aware or you did it to change the chainline but your spacers are wrong. The two spacers go on the drive side. You can put them like that to reduce the chainline inwards by 2.5mm but the cranks will be off center.
    Saying that RF and Shimano Integrated Systems have the same integrated spindle system would be incorrect. The RF use splines and an oversized bolt to put the cranks together. Shimano uses Pinch bolts to put the system together.
    Anything worth doing is worth overdoing...

    -Ricko, mtbr member

  20. #20
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Question for you guys - Would you buy a set of the older style XT cranks and BB used for $125 US? Does anyone know the weight of the old XT cranksets. .

    No, I would not. That's a pretty big chunk of money, and for $200 or less, you can get the new LX cranks with the integrated bottom bracket. Even though they are a little heavier, they are much stiffer (so better power transmission) and you could save your pennies and get lighter rings later on perhaps.

    The old XT cranksets+bottom bracket weigh almost exactly the same as the new ones, there isn't much difference there. The new crankarms weigh more than the old ones, but then the old bottom bracket weighs more than the new one.


    Weights here; http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings.php
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,896

    No

    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    OK, I was figuring the Shimano's are the better/stiffer bet and was maybe considering the LX version even for the almost 2lb weight.

    Question for you guys - Would you buy a set of the older style XT cranks and BB used for $125 US? Does anyone know the weight of the old XT cranksets. The BB is sposed to have only been used for a couple rides (not sure about this) but the crankset has definitely seen some good use.
    Octolink/Isis bottom brackets are about to superceded by newer technology and for good reason, the smaller bearings do not last as long as a Square taper or external bearing BB.

    $125 sounds a little steep and if you factor in the worn out chainrings, it sounds very steep.

  22. #22
    Chrome Toaster
    Reputation: Hecubus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by WeylessXPRider
    Saying that RF and Shimano Integrated Systems have the same integrated spindle system would be incorrect. The RF use splines and an oversized bolt to put the cranks together. Shimano uses Pinch bolts to put the system together.
    They use the same spindle system as in the interface with the bottom bracket. I'm not talking about the spindle to arm interface. You can mix the Race Face or Shimano BB cups with either of the two crankset systems. I should have been a bit more clear on that. I have a set of Deus and XTR cranks. Currently the XTR's are running on the Race face BB cups.

  23. #23
    hands up who wants to die
    Reputation: rpet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,390

    weights - arms only

    Hi there. the Weight Weenies site isn't helping me with this...

    Does anyone have listing for some of these external bearing cranks for the arms, spindle and cups only?

    I'm trying to figure out the real weight diff between LX, XT, the FSAs and the Race Faces, separate from rings and chainring bolts.

    My reasoning here is twofold:
    1) I don't run a standard gearing set-up, so I'll be replacing the chainrings pretty much no matter what I buy. (22/36/bash)
    2) I'm attempting to avoid purchasing Shimano products.

    thanks guys.

    -r

  24. #24
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jm.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by rpet
    Hi there. the Weight Weenies site isn't helping me with this...

    Does anyone have listing for some of these external bearing cranks for the arms, spindle and cups only?


    2) I'm attempting to avoid purchasing Shimano products.



    -r
    That's too bad, because of the huge hollow surface area you won't find a stiffer crank than the shimano XTs for a comperable weight, and stiffness (power transmission) should be pretty important...
    I know in my heart that Ellsworth bikes are more durable by as much as double. AND they are all lighter...Tony Ellsworth

  25. #25
    hands up who wants to die
    Reputation: rpet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,390
    So - what are the weight #s that you are comparing to base your statement on? Please don't say complete crankset weight, because that is irrelevant to me, as I originally stated.

    thanks

    -rob in NY

  26. #26
    Mantis, Paramount, Campy
    Reputation: Shayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,670

    Not Really Irrelevant

    With the exception of Race Face who's rings may be made of lead, all the other companies rings are of comperable weight.
    A comparison of a complete Shimano setup to complete FSA, or Truvative, or etc setup will yield a pretty close % weight difference.
    *** --- *** --- ***

  27. #27
    Chrome Toaster
    Reputation: Hecubus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by rpet
    So - what are the weight #s that you are comparing to base your statement on? Please don't say complete crankset weight, because that is irrelevant to me, as I originally stated.

    thanks

    -rob in NY
    Check the save some weight board. A few people there are running custom chainring setups on those cranks and should have some idea.

  28. #28
    mmm, carbon
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    138
    Why is it that so much is said for a crank's perceived "stiffness"? A crank would need to flex several millimeters before even approaching 1% of power loss. It seems to me that those that hark on about this crank being stiffer than that crank have fallen squarely into the marketeer's trap -- it really is a non-issue.

    A much larger (but still insignificant) source of power loss is in the rubber/metal springs used to tension the bearings in the RF and Truvativ outboard bearing models; but nothing is ever said of this.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,071
    I had a pair of the new XT cranks on my trailbike. The right-side pedal threads were problematic from the start, and one day they completely sheared out. These are the only cranks I've ever had a problem with in 20 years of mtn biking. Shimano is not going to warranty these $300 cranks, despite the fact that the left crankarm is fine. That is unacceptable, and has soured me to any future Shimano purchases.

    RaceFace cranks come with a lifetime warrantee. I have a pair of Atlas cranks on the way, and I love the Diabolus cranks on my DH bike. Support the companies that stand behind their products.

    As for crank weights, Deus was a bit lighter than Atlas or XT, with the weight differences being pretty evenly distributed. If you don't plan on doing big drops, the Deus are plenty strong - stronger than the old Turbines that people hammered on.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6

    x-type crank stiffness

    [QUOTE=Timbo]Why is it that so much is said for a crank's perceived "stiffness"? A crank would need to flex several millimeters before even approaching 1% of power loss. It seems to me that those that hark on about this crank being stiffer than that crank have fallen squarely into the marketeer's trap -- it really is a non-issue.

    This is not my experience. I just replaced my LX/square taper cranks with XT X-type, and the increase in perceived stiffness is incredible - feels like a completely different bike. It's hard to describe how it feels, but clearly much more efficient pedalling.

  31. #31
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,033

    just wondering

    Quote Originally Posted by 2X2MTB
    FSA V-Power MegaExo Found out it's a stiffer crank, lightweight and made to last longer than XT or Deus
    What's your basis for saying the FSA is stiffer than the XT or Deus? And "made to last longer?"
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    ....for $200 or less, you can get the new LX cranks with the integrated bottom bracket. Even though they are a little heavier, they are much stiffer (so better power transmission) and you could save your pennies and get lighter rings later on perhaps.

    When you look at the rings as speced on the Shimano website, only the 22 tooth ring is steel on the LX. The difference in weight is around 64 grams between the XT and LX cranksets. Is switching that steel ring for an aluminum one all that it takes to bring the LX down to XT weight?

  33. #33
    sadly, like the element
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    401
    Ring change would save maybe 15-20grams. The real weight in the system is the thicker bottom bracket spindle and thicker arms (smaller hollowspace). Someone modified the M580 (2005 LX) down to XTR weight but he had to machine some off of the arms, and cut the spindle down a cm ot two.

  34. #34
    Chrome Toaster
    Reputation: Hecubus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by GrantB
    When you look at the rings as speced on the Shimano website, only the 22 tooth ring is steel on the LX. The difference in weight is around 64 grams between the XT and LX cranksets. Is switching that steel ring for an aluminum one all that it takes to bring the LX down to XT weight?
    No the granny alone wouldn't account for so much weight. The arms themselves are probably less hollowed out or have less refined material removal on the outside

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    129
    What custom setup to bring the XT crankset weight down? Chainring? BB?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    That's too bad, because of the huge hollow surface area you won't find a stiffer crank than the shimano XTs for a comperable weight, and stiffness (power transmission) should be pretty important...
    Can you explain your claim that a huge hollow surface area equates to more stiffness? I am not able to follow the logic of this statement.
    The bending and torsional stiffness of the crank arms is not a function of the surface area, if this was the case then you could drill many holes in them and the stiffness would increase, because the surface area would increase due to the holes. And I think that everyone can visualize that if I filled the crank arms with many holes they would lose structural integrity.

Similar Threads

  1. What special tools required to install XT (M760) crankset?
    By gregk in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 06:58 PM
  2. XT M760 crankset/ middle chainring
    By greenfin_demon in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-18-2005, 09:30 AM
  3. M760 XT crankset with 47.5mm chainline
    By WOY in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-2004, 09:42 PM
  4. RF deus or the shimano 04 XT crankset
    By opticals in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-15-2004, 06:29 PM
  5. RF Atlas vs. Deus crankset
    By Monte in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-21-2004, 08:41 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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