Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    801

    E.13 Fatbike crankset

    I have a question about my crankset. My local bike shop installed the E.13 triple ring crankset with 145mm spindle and yesterday was my maiden voyage. about 4 miles into the ride the non-drive crank arm almost fell off. I was just about to the shop so I rode straight there and they tightened it back down for me. When I got back home I checked the torque setting and it had either loosened back up or they did not torque it to specs because when doing so it would basically freeze the crankset up and not spin freely.

    Here is what I found out from the shop. They used two 2.5mm spacers on the drive side. On the non-drive side they said they did not need to use any spacers between the bottom bracket and the frame. According to your website instructions I should have needed two spacers on the drive side and one on the non-drive side. If you do this the spindle is not long enough to get the proper torque without compressing it so tight that the cranks will not move. Even without the 2.5mm spacer on the non-drive side I cannot torque the crank arm bolt to the 40-47NM as it freezes up the crank (yes I am using the wavy washer). Interestingly if I torque it down without the washer it will torque properly and the crank spins freely but I know this is not the proper setup.

    My bike is a Salsa Mukluk 3 with a 100mm bottom bracket shell.

    Is it possible that the bottom bracket spindle may have been under sized and not be long enough?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    801
    Another question. Are there different versions of the E.13 external bottom brackets? Looking on their website the bottom bracket looks silver in color for the 3x9 XC crankset yet the bottom bracket that was installed is black.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    607
    It is possible. The bb shell is another possible culprit. Was the bb shell faced? If it was not faced I would have that done. How is your clearance on the drive side? If it has been faced and you have room you could try a 2.5 and a 2 mm (1.5mm) spacer on the drive side and nothing on the non drive side. As you said you can get the torque without the wavy washer so you are really close.

    Good luck,
    Steven

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Pride View Post

    My bike is a Salsa Mukluk 3 with a 100mm bottom bracket shell.

    Is it possible that the bottom bracket spindle may have been under sized and not be long enough?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    607
    There is another bb, it is a considered a downhill bottom bracket, I have not seen one in person so I cannot speak to the differences. That could be an issue.

    Cheers,
    Steven

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Pride View Post
    Another question. Are there different versions of the E.13 external bottom brackets? Looking on their website the bottom bracket looks silver in color for the 3x9 XC crankset yet the bottom bracket that was installed is black.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    There is another bb, it is a considered a downhill bottom bracket, I have not seen on in person so I cannot speak to the differences. That could be an issue.



    Cheers,
    Steven

    The bottom bracket they installed is definitely the downhill version. In looking online it sounds like the downhill bottom bracket cups are specifically designed for the downhill crank which leads me to believe they may be wider and this is why the shop ended up not using the non-drive bottom bracket spacer as shown in the E.13 directions. It caused damage to the crank spindle when it came loose so it's pretty disappointing all the way around.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    607
    Thats a total bummer. Hopefully it is not ruined, your shop should be able to get you sorted out.

    Let us know how it turns out.

    Cheers,
    Steven

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Pride View Post
    The bottom bracket they installed is definitely the downhill version. In looking online it sounds like the downhill bottom bracket cups are specifically designed for the downhill crank which leads me to believe they may be wider and this is why the shop ended up not using the non-drive bottom bracket spacer as shown in the E.13 directions. It caused damage to the crank spindle when it came loose so it's pretty disappointing all the way around.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,028
    Don't worry too much about having it set up exactly as the manual says- just arrange the spacers however it is necessary to achieve the proper bearing preload and keep the cranks centered relative to the chainstays.

  8. #8
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,762
    I can't remember if the muk uses a e type der. If so that takes the place of one spacer. Sooo the configuration would be 1 spacer on each side. Disregard this if I have no idea what I am talking about.
    And I love beer!!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    801
    It does not use an E type dérailleur.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Don't worry too much about having it set up exactly as the manual says- just arrange the spacers however it is necessary to achieve the proper bearing preload and keep the cranks centered relative to the chainstays.
    The bottom bracket should be properly installed per the manufacturers directions. I don't think they were able to install it using two spacers on the drive side and one on the non drive due to different overall spacing of the downhill bracket. Even with one 2.5mm spacing being left out the crank arm will not torque down properly with the wavy washer. I am sure the shop will properly take care of it. I think it was just a simple mistake of not realizing it was a downhill bracket.

    We will see.

  11. #11
    Karma Vampire
    Reputation: 29Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    243
    I had something similar happen to me. 2 hrs into my first ride. I caught it before it became a big issue. I should have known better than to ride so long w/o checking.

    You or better still, your shop should reach out to the "by the Hive" guys. Charlie was a big help, in fact I need to send him a reply to let him know.

    Read below with a grain of salt, really, call the Hive guys.

    I am not sure what my ultimate fix was. I may have torqued to the "number" on the crank, only "ft-lbs", not "N-m"! My money is on that for my case. Either way, I should have checked the torque after 15 minutes of riding.

    Or it was the "white" spacers. Not the 2.5mm black spacers that go under the BB cups, but the ones that go on with the wavy washer. I think they serve to set the pre-load. Depending on your particular actual BB shell width, you might need more or less of the "white" 0.5mm spacers (washers?). I had "movement" with the two that came from Salsa build-up. How much movement is OK, can't say, I am not qualified to say. But that hasn't stopped me before :-)

    The guys at the Pedal Power Shop in Lexington, KY,http://pedalpowerbikeshop.com/ helped me out like champs and gave me a bunch of spare BB30 0.5mm spacers. It only took one additional spacer to stop the movement. That said, maybe my bearing preload force is now too high. Time will tell on that.

    To summarize, call the Hive guys for your particular situation.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Pride View Post
    The bottom bracket should be properly installed per the manufacturers directions.
    What I meant was that you don't need to worry about where the spacers end up being needed to align the crankset properly. For instance, when I set mine up, I had to use all three under the drive side cup to allow the crank to clear the chainstay on that side.

    The number of spacers needed shouldn't change, though, so if you can't fit three in and have it work something is definitely wrong. The shop should cover it. On these cranks it's pretty obvious whether you have the arm torqued properly or not, even if you don't use a torque wrench (though of course you should).

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,166
    I just installed mine (set up as SS), and even after checking the spacers (2x2.5 on the drive side, 1x2.5 on non-drive side) and torque settings several times, the crank takes effort to spin- way to much. Very disappointing, considering the price. Hopefully they read this thread like the chain suck one and give some answers.

  14. #14
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,762
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    I just installed mine (set up as SS), and even after checking the spacers (2x2.5 on the drive side, 1x2.5 on non-drive side) and torque settings several times, the crank takes effort to spin- way to much. Very disappointing, considering the price. Hopefully they read this thread like the chain suck one and give some answers.
    As long as you installed the correct amount of the thin .5mm washers between the left crank arm and the bearing plus wavy washer you should be fine as they do take a little time for the BB to break in to spin free.
    Last edited by bdundee; 02-09-2012 at 06:48 PM.
    And I love beer!!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    I just installed mine (set up as SS), and even after checking the spacers (2x2.5 on the drive side, 1x2.5 on non-drive side) and torque settings several times, the crank takes effort to spin- way to much. Very disappointing, considering the price. Hopefully they read this thread like the chain suck one and give some answers.
    The bearing preload is adjusted with the 0.5mm spacers, not with the cup (2.5mm spacers). Remove one 0.5mm spacer and see what you get.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: atom29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    318
    In my experience, the directions suggested too many spacers. This resulted in the left crank arm falling off within 10 miles. It was a ti frame made to proper spec. I now feel these are excessively finicky cranks and don't go out of my way to suggest them.

  17. #17
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,822
    The manufacturers instructions assume a 100mm bb shell. No more, no less. Check the width of the shell. If it's wider than 100, either have it faced or remove the difference in spacers. If it's narrower add the difference in spacers.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: atom29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    The manufacturers instructions assume a 100mm bb shell. No more, no less. Check the width of the shell. If it's wider than 100, either have it faced or remove the difference in spacers. If it's narrower add the difference in spacers.
    Yes, but what if the bb shell is right on? Any system that is that picky is junk in my book. But they are junk in my book anyway, proprietary bottom bracket and skinny little arms do nothing for me. Why are these considered high end? Just because they are expensive? Sorry, I've got no faith after seeing a friends arm fall off at the start of our ride. An $8K fat bike shouldn't have those kind of problems.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by atom29 View Post
    Why are these considered high end?
    I would guess that it's because they are the lightest fatbike triple crankset available.

    It seems like a lot of folks don't understand how to set up and adjust these cranks properly. The left side arm bolt must always be torqued to what is listed in the directions, so that it seats completely on its interface. If it isn't, the arm will be loose on the interface and will fall off. You can't use the bolt to adjust bearing preload like you would with a Shimano or Mr. Whirly crank. That is what the wavy washer and the 0.5mm spacers are for. If the cranks don't turn freely when assembled as per the instructions, you need to remove one or more 0.5mm spacers, no matter how many the instructions recommend.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    387
    I have seen an E13 non drive side crank arm come loose. It turned out to be too many washers. I could not comment on which washers they were, as it was not my bike and I did not do the work on it. Make sure that the crank is set up correctly and double check the BB shell.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,166
    I finally got it all squared away. 2 x 2.5 mm on the drive side, 1 x 2.5 mm on the non drive side, plus a 1 mm cassette spacer, and then one of the plastic shims- no spring washer. torqued down perfectly, no slop or wobble, and spins with very little drag.

  22. #22
    Plays nice with others
    Reputation: Shep Huntwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    83
    Ranger Pride, how did you end up getting this resolved? I'm having a baically identical problem. The BB on my Mukluk seized up and was replaced by my shop, but the BB they gave me looks like the black downhill version and not the silver version that was originally on the bike. I installed it, and the cranks don't spin. Fiddling with the wavy washer and 0.5mm washers gets me nowhere. Without any washers it spins fine, but there is play. With one or more washers, it's too tight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Pride View Post
    I have a question about my crankset. My local bike shop installed the E.13 triple ring crankset with 145mm spindle and yesterday was my maiden voyage. about 4 miles into the ride the non-drive crank arm almost fell off. I was just about to the shop so I rode straight there and they tightened it back down for me. When I got back home I checked the torque setting and it had either loosened back up or they did not torque it to specs because when doing so it would basically freeze the crankset up and not spin freely.

    Here is what I found out from the shop. They used two 2.5mm spacers on the drive side. On the non-drive side they said they did not need to use any spacers between the bottom bracket and the frame. According to your website instructions I should have needed two spacers on the drive side and one on the non-drive side. If you do this the spindle is not long enough to get the proper torque without compressing it so tight that the cranks will not move. Even without the 2.5mm spacer on the non-drive side I cannot torque the crank arm bolt to the 40-47NM as it freezes up the crank (yes I am using the wavy washer). Interestingly if I torque it down without the washer it will torque properly and the crank spins freely but I know this is not the proper setup.

    My bike is a Salsa Mukluk 3 with a 100mm bottom bracket shell.

    Is it possible that the bottom bracket spindle may have been under sized and not be long enough?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    607
    The Black BB is wider, depending on your bike you may be able to make it work with one of the spacers between the cups and the frame. You certainly will not be able to use all three. What is your spacer set up now?

    Steven

    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Huntwood View Post
    Ranger Pride, how did you end up getting this resolved? I'm having a baically identical problem. The BB on my Mukluk seized up and was replaced by my shop, but the BB they gave me looks like the black downhill version and not the silver version that was originally on the bike. I installed it, and the cranks don't spin. Fiddling with the wavy washer and 0.5mm washers gets me nowhere. Without any washers it spins fine, but there is play. With one or more washers, it's too tight.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Shep Huntwood View Post
    Ranger Pride, how did you end up getting this resolved? I'm having a baically identical problem. The BB on my Mukluk seized up and was replaced by my shop, but the BB they gave me looks like the black downhill version and not the silver version that was originally on the bike. I installed it, and the cranks don't spin. Fiddling with the wavy washer and 0.5mm washers gets me nowhere. Without any washers it spins fine, but there is play. With one or more washers, it's too tight.
    They ordered me the correct bottom bracket and all was fine. Ended up selling that Mukluk and now have the 2013 Mukluk 2 with the E13 double crankset.

  25. #25
    ent
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by atom29 View Post
    Yes, but what if the bb shell is right on? Any system that is that picky is junk in my book. But they are junk in my book anyway, proprietary bottom bracket and skinny little arms do nothing for me. Why are these considered high end? Just because they are expensive? Sorry, I've got no faith after seeing a friends arm fall off at the start of our ride. An $8K fat bike shouldn't have those kind of problems.
    Wow $8k on a fat bike? What all is in the build? Good god


    As far as the quality if e13... I've been using mine since the day they came out and have easily over 1500 miles. Never a problem--I'm surprised reading about the crank arms falling off and so many issues with chain suck and surprised to hear the the set up is working so poorly for others. For those of you who have had multiple cranks What do you guys think is better about the other leading models? (Race face etc).

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •