Results 1 to 63 of 63
  1. #1
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961

    Seriously Shimano. Where are the cranks?

    Warning. Somewhat whiny rant below filled with first world problems.

    I'll admit it. I am a Shimano guy through and through. I love stuff that runs silky smooth. I love the common sense of Shimano stuff. I love inner steel chainrings that last and last. And I am not a SRAM hater. I have run full SRAM groups as well for years.

    But one thing that I really love about Shimano is their cranks. I love the interface. Set it. Forget it. Silent. Reliable. And the shifts. So damn good.

    I wanted a Shimano fatbike crank back in 2010 when I bought my first fatbike, but never saw it. I thought that it was only a matter of time.

    Then three years ago I saw this and had hope:
    Hack!? Shimano XT Crank on a Fatbike - Bikerumor

    And when M8000 was announced, I had hope. But here we are 6 years later and nothing. Where are you Shimano? Please let me build a full XT fatbike. XT and fatbikes go together like milk and cookies.

    And yes, I know we have great options. Raceface transformed the fatbike crank world with NEXT sl, but I just have not had years of bulletproof, headache free service from Raceface stuff like I have Shimano. I don't want any more wavy washers. I want pinch bolts.

    Please Shimano. Hear my plea. You are giving up an entire OEM market by not producing cranks. I cannot even remember the last fatbike I saw on the showroom floor with any Shimano anywhere on it. Just press some long spindles into those XT cranks. It won't be hard.

    Your friend,
    Ben

  2. #2
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,735
    I agree. We have a bunch of bikes at my house with XT and Deore cranksets.
    I'd step right up for an XT fat bike crankset.
    I like turtles

  3. #3
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,079
    Nothing to see here..............
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Seriously Shimano.  Where are the cranks?-907-crank.jpg  


  4. #4
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Nothing to see here..............
    I am intrigued. Don't leave us hanging!

    I remember a thread from years ago when a guy actually cut his XT spindle and had a pro micro weld an extension into the spindle. It did fail, in the end though.

  5. #5
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    I am intrigued. Don't leave us hanging!

    I remember a thread from years ago when a guy actually cut his XT spindle and had a pro micro weld an extension into the spindle. It did fail, in the end though.
    Yeah that was me and this was the crank

  6. #6
    Workin for the weekend!
    Reputation: -Todd-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,310
    Did you cut the SLX spindle and then stretch & sleeve it with an insert...?
    Todd

  7. #7
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by -Todd- View Post
    Did you cut the SLX spindle and then stretch & sleeve it with an insert...?
    Yeah but just an insert, can't really sleeve it on the outside and still get it through the bb. The insert or lack of sleeve wasn't the issue it seemed to be Shimano spindle didn't like the extra heat from the welding.

    The funny thing after this all happened I believe it was 38 Frame works started doing the same thing. I kinda put out the warning that his might not be the best idea but they continued on insisting that they where working. I came to the conclusion that maybe they had a better way to weld it. Then they seemed to give up on the idea anyways so I'm guessing they had a failure after some of use as well. Anyhoo I learned in a hurry a crank spindle is nothing to mess around with as one can seriously get hurt if they suddenly snap while just riding along

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    Idk I feel like shimano doesn't do anything cool anymore, it feels like they're content where they are. I guess DI2 is really the only new thing they're pushing forward. Bikerumor posts shimano patents once in a while but none of it really comes to light. It's like the engineers there make cool prototypes for themselves but don't release any of it.

    Don't get me wrong, I love my XT cassette, but that's pretty much the only Shimano part on my bikes now a days. I'd rather a solid affordable XT fat bike crank-set over my RaceFace Turbine any day, where I've already had to replace bearings, a spider, and two tension adjustment rings.

    How much can it cost to simply stick a longer spindle on there?

  9. #9
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,601
    Just get some old square taper Shimano arms and a Phil Wood bb.

  10. #10
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,695
    Shimano hasn't been trying on the MTB end for years. They should have had the 11 speed XT out, at most, 6 months after XX1 came out. We're just seeing it now. No fat bike stuff (and it's not just cranks - what about hubs/wheels?), no more US distributors other than QBP, and grey market stuff selling at half of wholesale cost at UK resellers? Not even a freaking narrow/wide chainring?!?

    They've managed to alienate the rest of the industry (what shop wants to stock Shimano stuff when everyone knows it's way cheaper from Chainreaction than QBP?) while simultaneously standing in place technologically.

    Now, it might just be that there's not enough money in mountain bike componentry to justify the time and effort. But really, SRAM has thoroughly beaten them at everything at this point. Hopefully they will mount a comeback (and take back control of their distribution - or just go consumer direct) because they used to make great stuff.

    -Walt

  11. #11
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Shimano hasn't been trying on the MTB end for years.

    But really, SRAM has thoroughly beaten them at everything at this point.
    -Walt
    I don't know, Walt. I think that there are some good counterexamples.

    Shimano definitely beat SRAM to the punch on the clutched derailleur front, and I still prefer the Shadow plus system to SRAM's roller clutch. As you mention above, SRAM came to market with their version of the roller clutch in a damn hurry after shadow plus. So, props to SRAM for that.

    As far as I am concerned, Shimano has absolutely crushed SRAM on the brake front. Like held them down by their neck and beaten them to the point of airway occlusion. Yeah, yeah...but the Guides you say! Well personally, I can never forgive Avid for the Juicy. And the Elixir was straight up dangerous. I have never seen a set of properly functioning Elixir's in person. My girlfriend rode her new bike with Elixirs one time and said, "Take those off. I want cable brakes." My XT brakes have been dead-ass reliable, stupid-easy to bleed, and are way powerful. Point is...SRAM is definitely just playing catch up to Shimano on the brake front.

    I think that the SRAM brake issues are prime examples of the difference between SRAM and Shimano stuff. SRAM stuff can be great. In fact, most of the time, it is great. But I cannot even recall the last time Shimano had a major debacle. Remember the great SRAM force hydro recall? Remember the Elixir abomination?

    Idk I feel like shimano doesn't do anything cool anymore, it feels like they're content where they are. I guess DI2 is really the only new thing they're pushing forward.
    The counterexample to this is the 1x. SRAM is pushing 1x for everyone and everything. They have everyone and their cousin convinced that anything but 1x sucks. XC, enduro, cyclocross, and now road. But the bottom line is that 1x just is not going to work for everyone. I am pretty dang fit, but there are climbs here that are over 2-3 hours. Even with a 22-36, I am damn near dead by the top. You would have to use a 26-42 to get that same ratio, and it doesn't leave much for the top end.

    Just saying. Its not that clear cut. I can see it from a dealer perspective. SRAM is definitely the way to go for margins, but my local shop got so fed up of warranty claims on SRAM brakes that they recommend Shimano for almost everything.

    Bottom line: I want some damn XT fatbike cranks. More choices equals more better. For everyone.

  12. #12
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,284
    Shimano is too huge. The $$ simply isn't there for fat specific stuff. Same with grip shift

  13. #13
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,556
    Shimano doesn't do anything without fully researching it and making sure it will perform. Take their hubs for example, no-frills, but cup and cone are angular contact that deal with side loads extremely well, have low rolling resistance and can be easily serviced. That and they only used steel or titanium freehub bodies, because they knew soft aluminum just gets chewed up. They have these standards that they usually will not compromise on, so when they come up with a new product, they make sure it can meet all of those requirements, rather than just throw some **** out there and hope it sticks to the wall, like many of the 'chi chi' parts makers did. Sure, you could get some super-aggressive CNCed cranks back in the day that were lighter, but they were noodly pieces of ****. Hydro discs were out for a few years before shimano got into it, for the same reason. Their crank interface was better than RF/Sram for years. Most of what they do tends to be pretty calculated. That doesn't mean every one of their products is a home-run, but it does mean it usually functions as intended.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    I don't know, Walt. I think that there are some good counterexamples. Shimano definitely beat SRAM to the punch on the clutched derailleur front, and I still prefer the Shadow plus system to SRAM's roller clutch. As you mention above, SRAM came to market with their version of the roller clutch in a damn hurry after shadow plus. So, props to SRAM for that. As far as I am concerned, Shimano has absolutely crushed SRAM on the brake front. Like held them down by their neck and beaten them to the point of airway occlusion. Yeah, yeah...but the Guides you say! Well personally, I can never forgive Avid for the Juicy. And the Elixir was straight up dangerous. I have never seen a set of properly functioning Elixir's in person. My girlfriend rode her new bike with Elixirs one time and said, "Take those off. I want cable brakes." My XT brakes have been dead-ass reliable, stupid-easy to bleed, and are way powerful. Point is...SRAM is definitely just playing catch up to Shimano on the brake front. I think that the SRAM brake issues are prime examples of the difference between SRAM and Shimano stuff. SRAM stuff can be great. In fact, most of the time, it is great. But I cannot even recall the last time Shimano had a major debacle. Remember the great SRAM force hydro recall? Remember the Elixir abomination? The counterexample to this is the 1x. SRAM is pushing 1x for everyone and everything. They have everyone and their cousin convinced that anything but 1x sucks. XC, enduro, cyclocross, and now road. But the bottom line is that 1x just is not going to work for everyone. I am pretty dang fit, but there are climbs here that are over 2-3 hours. Even with a 22-36, I am damn near dead by the top. You would have to use a 26-42 to get that same ratio, and it doesn't leave much for the top end. Just saying. Its not that clear cut. I can see it from a dealer perspective. SRAM is definitely the way to go for margins, but my local shop got so fed up of warranty claims on SRAM brakes that they recommend Shimano for almost everything. Bottom line: I want some damn XT fatbike cranks. More choices equals more better. For everyone.
    I think a lot of what you say is down to personal preference and experience. For me personally I find that Sram derailleurs with Gripshift out perform Shimano's offerings when the situations get wet, muddy, or snow covered/icy. My X9 derailleur has always been crisp and bullet proof, while the smallest amount of Mud would turn my Shimano's into nightmares. I also prefer the feel of Sram brakes, although yes the XT's have great stopping power for the price, they feel like heavy foot bricks in regards to modulation. Sram offerings have always felt more expensive modulations wise. The Zee's fix a lot of that, but at that point the Guides are even better. I have no real opinions about 1x11, I ride a 1x9 and it suits me fine. But I definitely think the Sram GXP BB's are trash. Shimano has always had better cranks.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    129
    Yeah some Shimano cranks would be great. Not too fussed about hubs but who doesn't like Shimano cranks

    They are probably looking at it right now with the lawyers. We see it as XT cranks with a longer spindle they see it as a whole new area of public liability.

    I predict 2018 c/w a new BB standard

  16. #16
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,735
    The only Shimano parts I use on a bike build are cranks, brakes, front derailleur and XT cassette.

    On fat bikes, it's that minus cranks.
    I like turtles

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,819
    i prefer SRAM drivetrain, Shimano brakes and cranks.
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6 with Lauf
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo Trail Carbon
    2016 Scott Solace 10 Disc

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,091
    Directly from the Shimano rep at lbs..."we don't make anything with production numbers less than 5,000 units". That is a huge minimum order quantity...but their manufacturing and rnd costs must be very high.

    But I don't know that their fat bike cranks would be cheap. They always come out with xtr stuff first then trickle that technology down the product line. My guess would be xtr level pricing.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: River19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    756
    It's funny how people have different reactions and experiences with these things......

    My wife has been riding Elixir CRs since they came out without one issue and she loves them.

    I have Juicy 7s on 3 bikes and never an issue since 2008. Replace pads as needed and the occasional bleed.

    I have X9 drivetrains on every bike up until my Pivot which has the XTR 11sp rear and XT shifter.....XT brakes as well....which I am looking forward to trying based on the hype. They felt squishy and shitty on the test ride but I assumed there was no break-in on the pads and rotors. Time will tell.

    Right now I think there are decent crank options for fat bikes.....I'm not sweating it out waiting for Shimano. Race Face and E-Thirteen seem pretty solid choices.
    2016 Pivot Mach 429er Pro 1X
    2008 Cannondale Rush
    2001 Ibis Ripley Soft Tail
    1997 Ibis Alibi HT
    Motobecane Lurch Fat Bike

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    283
    On top of being a behemoth that doesn't want to sell tiny quantities of niche product, Shimano is conservative and very reluctant to quickly embrace new trends. Witness that they don't make a carbon cranks, all of their hubs are cup and cone and they only very recently started offering press fit bottom brackets. I'm not surprised that they don't sell fat cranks, after all they were very late in even offering 1X.

    I'm as big a Shimano fan boy as anyone. I will say that I'm very happy with the 2X Race Face Turbine I have on my bike: it's beautifully machined, seems very tough and the rings shift very well. I'm not exactly pining for a Shimano crank.

  21. #21
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    Directly from the Shimano rep at lbs..."we don't make anything with production numbers less than 5,000 units". That is a huge minimum order quantity...but their manufacturing and rnd costs must be very high.
    I am not a business person, so don't have a great sense for these things. Still, I would estimate that there are at least 5000 fatbikes sitting on showroom floors right now. Almost every bike shop that I have been in within the last year had at least 3 fatbikes sitting there. Basically zero of them have any Shimano on them as they come from the manufacturer.

    Yes, I want Shimano cranks, but I think they are losing an entire market.

    Also, as we have discussed above, it does not involve a new product. It just involves pressing a new spindle into an existing product.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    I am not a business person, so don't have a great sense for these things. Still, I would estimate that there are at least 5000 fatbikes sitting on showroom floors right now.
    You are right, you aren't a business person.
    Even if there is 5000 fatbikes sitting in showrooms ( which there isn't )....they already have cranks on them. Why would people change them? ( look at the threads here...the majority are looking for cheap parts)
    Add in the pool is full with a few manufacturers making cranks in a small niche market.
    Add in that "5000" number would mean 5000 of each length crank arm/spindle length.
    Add in a few more details.....but that's enough for the basics

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dietz31684's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by the mayor View Post
    You are right, you aren't a business person.
    Even if there is 5000 fatbikes sitting in showrooms ( which there isn't )....they already have cranks on them. Why would people change them? ( look at the threads here...the majority are looking for cheap parts)
    Add in the pool is full with a few manufacturers making cranks in a small niche market.
    Add in that "5000" number would mean 5000 of each length crank arm/spindle length.
    Add in a few more details.....but that's enough for the basics
    I don't think Dogdude was suggesting that everyone would swap their cranks to shimano on the existing showroom bikes. Just that the demand is there and a run of 5k doesn't sound unreasonable.

  24. #24
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Flucod View Post
    If there was 5000 bikes on the floor, almost all of them would have to have a Shimano to break even (not including all costs, just development). They would need to sell roughly 50,000 cranks to make money, just sayin'.


    Financial results[12][13]
    Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    Revenue (in $ billion) 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.8 -
    Operating Margin (%) 15 12.3 14.8 15 11 - - - - -
    Free Cash Flow (in $ million) 200 98 252 109 373 - - - - -

    Operating at 11% margin, you cannot afford to screw up.
    You my friend have way to many brain cells left

  25. #25
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,893
    I really like my RF Turbine CINCH cranks. RF may not have bottom brackets nailed, but I think the CINCH interface is a winner. RF figured out how to make something that works for pretty much any rider's preference and that's killer. That modularity has got to bring manufacturing costs down. One set of arms, spindles for any spacing, pretty much any chainring arrangement.

    That said, I also really like what Shimano has done with its brakes. I just like 'em. I don't have much time on Guides, but they seem like a winner, with a slightly different feel. I could go either way, honestly, as long as they work. The Juicys were irritating, but I agree that the Elixirs are a disaster. Sure, I know people who have had good results with them, but working at a shop, I haven't seen any part that's been replaced by the manufacturer more frequently in recent years.

    I'm not entirely convinced by 11spd yet. Sure, I like a reliable 1x drivetrain on my mtb. It suits the way I ride. But it really seems like 12spd is coming pretty soon, and 11spd seems like it's been just an incremental change.

    It is frustrating that Shimano is so big and unwieldy that they're unwilling to enter the fatbike market. They do make good cranks, and their hubs may not be flashy, but they're quite reliable. My commuter has some midlevel non-series Shimano hubs that I don't even have to think about most of the time. I suspect that if Shimano DID get into fatbike specific parts, that they'd have fewer hub failures because they're not using that pull-off freehub design that everybody else uses.

    Tooling up for the hubs would be a bigger investment for them than doing cranks, though. Arms for fatbikes are no different. They'd just need to produce longer spindles, and have separate assembly lines for them. Shimano jumped on Boost spacing pretty quickly, though. Fat spacing wouldn't be any more difficult.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I really like my RF Turbine CINCH cranks.

    .
    Neither the spindle interface or or the Chainring cinch are RaceFace's ideas.
    Nor are they the first to bring it to market.
    They are the first to successfully bring it to market, though. So that's their win.

    Bottom line...the fatbike proprietary market...no matter how big
    we think it is....is a niche market that Shimano wants no part of.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    857
    Shimano brakes still rule and will forever be on all of my bikes, and if Shimano doesn't want the rest of my money that's fine. I have another mistress anyway, and her name is Sramita.

  28. #28
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961
    I don't think Dogdude was suggesting that everyone would swap their cranks to shimano on the existing showroom bikes. Just that the demand is there and a run of 5k doesn't sound unreasonable.
    Exactly. That's what I'm saying. And that is just the bikes sitting there right now. I am sure that there are far more sitting in people's garages. One must wonder what the total number of fatbikes sold is now.

    Quote Originally Posted by the mayor View Post
    You are right, you aren't a business person.
    Even if there is 5000 fatbikes sitting in showrooms ( which there isn't )....they already have cranks on them. Why would people change them? ( look at the threads here...the majority are looking for cheap parts)
    Add in the pool is full with a few manufacturers making cranks in a small niche market.
    Add in that "5000" number would mean 5000 of each length crank arm/spindle length.
    Add in a few more details.....but that's enough for the basics
    Wow...harsh. I'll remember that the next time you might need my area of expertise.

    Your point about the crankarm length does not seem valid given that they are already making every crankarm length and we are just talking about the production of one longer spindle for 100mm BB's. At the same time, you are right that they would have to press that one spindle into different length arms.

    If there was 5000 bikes on the floor, almost all of them would have to have a Shimano to break even (not including all costs, just development). They would need to sell roughly 50,000 cranks to make money, just sayin'.


    Financial results[12][13]
    Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    Revenue (in $ billion) 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.8 -
    Operating Margin (%) 15 12.3 14.8 15 11 - - - - -
    Free Cash Flow (in $ million) 200 98 252 109 373 - - - - -

    Operating at 11% margin, you cannot afford to screw up.
    I am not reading you here. It seems more like you are just putting up random numbers than anything else.

    All that being said, clearly I am in the wrong. I am sure that Shimano has run the numbers, and they just don't think that it could be lucrative. I have to wonder, though, if they have actually considered that this would open an entire market of other component sales.

    It is frustrating that Shimano is so big and unwieldy that they're unwilling to enter the fatbike market. They do make good cranks, and their hubs may not be flashy, but they're quite reliable. My commuter has some midlevel non-series Shimano hubs that I don't even have to think about most of the time. I suspect that if Shimano DID get into fatbike specific parts, that they'd have fewer hub failures because they're not using that pull-off freehub design that everybody else uses.
    Interestingly, the one part from Shimano that has consistently given me trouble in recent years is their hubs. Since they switched to the larger aluminum axle (thus decreasing the size of the bearings in the freehub body) I have had at least two failures on an XT freehub and another on an XTR. One of those damn near stranded me in the middle of the desert on a 100+ degree day.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    162
    'Big and unwieldy' is a good way to describe Shimano. They make good stuff and in specific component areas still make the undisputed best. But it takes a lot to get them to move, they'e put in the R&D and mfg investment and now they want to take a nap and let the money roll in through supply contracts and aftermarket sales. That's not a knock, just an observation. In fact, the only reason we have such notable advances from them in the derailleur and cassette department over the last decade is because SRAM was about ready to throw them off the top of the mountain and it put them on notice. It wasn't until then that they got serious about the competition. Without SRAM things would be plugging along per usual. On the other side of the fence, Shimano was very serious indeed about their discs, and SRAM had to play catch-up with the Guide (I have both and like them both). Either way, this competition is good for the consumer and I'm glad SRAM came along and started poking them with a stick.

    As for cranks, the cinch system is one of those brilliantly simple and cost effective solutions to differing standards. As usual, the other guys missed the boat and Shimano probably doesn't feel that they need this part of the market to survive. The additional spindle and BB tooling to be competitive probably doesn't make any sense to them.

    Of course, if the OP wants pinch bolts and steel rings...I have a used Samox crank and BB for you. Pinch bolts, steel rings and all. It's even a triple so it comes with a *free* extra chainring. All three are made of steel! Even with the extra chainring I still clear 4.8s with a 100mm BB and 190mm rear end. Yours for the bargain price of $200.

  30. #30
    Distributor
    Reputation: carbonLORD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    Warning. Somewhat whiny rant below filled with first world problems.

    I don't want any more wavy washers. I want pinch bolts.
    The RaceFace Next SL doesn't use wavy washers. It's a far better design than anything Shimano produces.

    You should try one. The simplicity of the Cinch system and interchangeable spindles as well as the lightest fat crank on the market. And most run a 1x so who really cares about shifting performance of a front derailleur?

    Don't get me wrong. I love my XT M8000 brakes, Ice Tech rotors and my 1 x XTR Di2 set up, but the right tools for the job which is why I run a RF crank/BB, a KMC X11SL chain and a SRAM X 1195 dome.
    carbonLORD /// KILOMETER

  31. #31
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by carbonLORD View Post
    The RaceFace Next SL doesn't use wavy washers. It's a far better design than anything Shimano produces.

    You should try one. The simplicity of the Cinch system and interchangeable spindles as well as the lightest fat crank on the market. And most run a 1x so who really cares about shifting performance of a front derailleur?

    Don't get me wrong. I love my XT M8000 brakes, Ice Tech rotors and my 1 x XTR Di2 set up, but the right tools for the job which is why I run a RF crank/BB, a KMC X11SL chain and a SRAM X 1195 dome.
    One concern I have about the NEXT SL for my particular application is bearing quality and longevity. In the BB92 shell on the beargrease, that 30mm spindle does not leave much room for reasonable size ball bearings. Same issue that ISIS BB's had.

  32. #32
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,893
    Quote Originally Posted by the mayor View Post
    Neither the spindle interface or or the Chainring cinch are RaceFace's ideas.
    Nor are they the first to bring it to market.
    They are the first to successfully bring it to market, though. So that's their win.
    No, they weren't the first to make spindles entirely removable, or to have removable spiders. But putting both features into a single crankset, and then ACTUALLY producing a full range of spindle lengths and chainring/spider options sets RF apart here. Other companies introduced the idea. RF applied the ideas better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    One concern I have about the NEXT SL for my particular application is bearing quality and longevity. In the BB92 shell on the beargrease, that 30mm spindle does not leave much room for reasonable size ball bearings. Same issue that ISIS BB's had.
    You're right, it doesn't leave a lot of room. But you have options. The Aeffect crankset uses a 24mm spindle (not removable), but uses the CINCH spider interface. Your other option would be to use a BB made to work with a BB92 shell AND a 30mm spindle. I'm using an Enduro BB right now (double row of bigger bearings) on my Bucksaw (same BB as the Beargrease) and Turbine CINCH cranks, and it's been solid. My RF BB didn't last so long, but that had an awful lot to do with the fact that I rode the bike with the cranks installed incorrectly for about 50mi before doing it right.

  33. #33
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    One concern I have about the NEXT SL for my particular application is bearing quality and longevity. In the BB92 shell on the beargrease, that 30mm spindle does not leave much room for reasonable size ball bearings. Same issue that ISIS BB's had.
    And a valid concern, I use a Real World Cycling BB that incorporates the bearing with the cup that gives is a little bigger bearing. BB92 TO BB30 BOTTOM BRACKET KIT

  34. #34
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    And a valid concern, I use a Real World Cycling BB that incorporates the bearing with the cup that gives is a little bigger bearing. BB92 TO BB30 BOTTOM BRACKET KIT
    Cool. I had not seen that. Difficult to find the beargrease specific BB from Raceface anyway.

  35. #35
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    Cool. I had not seen that. Difficult to find the beargrease specific BB from Raceface anyway.
    Beargrease doesn't use a strange standard or anything.

    It's just a BB92 with a wider plastic sleeve, which you don't have to use, anyway.

    Race Face

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,630
    From my perspective, the crank is the least important part of the drivetrain. It holds up the chainring, and that's about it. Everything else, from the shifters, bottom bracket, derailliers and the chain and cassette, are more noticeable than the crank. I am not a Shimano fan by any means, but it seems pretty smart that they are sitting this one out.
    "Wait- I am confused" - SDMTB'er

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    647
    Shimano could at least make a Octalink BB for 100mm shells so we can use cranks from our spare parts bin.

  38. #38
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,556
    Quote Originally Posted by BadgerOne View Post
    As for cranks, the cinch system is one of those brilliantly simple and cost effective solutions to differing standards. As usual, the other guys missed the boat and Shimano probably doesn't feel that they need this part of the market to survive. The additional spindle and BB tooling to be competitive probably doesn't make any sense to them.
    Lets not forget, cinch is pretty new still and Shimano handed their **** to them for years with the hollowtech II, which was a far better interface than the SRAM/RF/FSA splined taper-lock (GxP). The "other guy's" system required significant torque and wore down the interface every time you put it on and took it off, while the shimano system didn't rely not massive torque and just used the pinch bolts with a preload system. For years, this was a far better system and it was much easier to get the hollowtech crank off quickly for cleaning or any other purpose. They also still score higher than many carbon cranks (like my XX1s) for stiffness.

    Now cinch finally solves this issue, but I remember the years of the poor-interface that was used by these companies. It wasn't long ago.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  39. #39
    Proud lame eBiker
    Reputation: Internal14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,660
    Until the grey market UK distributors start putting in their orders for Fat Bike Shimano cranks, they ain't gonna make them. That's all who Shimano care about these days. It's not consumers or shops in the US that's for sure.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    www.velocitybicycles.comWhere customers become friends, not simply a dollar sign.

  40. #40
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Internal14 View Post
    Until the grey market UK distributors start putting in their orders for Fat Bike Shimano cranks, they ain't gonna make them. That's all who Shimano care about these days. It's not consumers or shops in the US that's for sure.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Seriously Shimano.  Where are the cranks?-image.jpeg
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Flamingtaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,258
    The 5,000 minimum would be for a single part run. I doubt they will jump in until the market can support at least SLX and XT, so it's a 10,000 piece risk in an unstable niche. Maybe in a few more years, if the market continues to grow.
    I will suffer no butt-hurt fools!

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingtaco View Post
    The 5,000 minimum would be for a single part run. I doubt they will jump in until the market can support at least SLX and XT, so it's a 10,000 piece risk in an unstable niche. Maybe in a few more years, if the market continues to grow.
    Then there's also crank length to consider, doubles, triples, spindle lengths. I bet it would have to be more than that even.

  43. #43
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,735
    I just remembered, they changed the bolt circle for the chainrings. It's no longer 104-64.
    It's that offset, proprietary crap.
    I'll stick with Surly and Raceface.
    I like turtles

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Flamingtaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,258
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    Then there's also crank length to consider, doubles, triples, spindle lengths. I bet it would have to be more than that even.
    Good point. They have, in the past, done an initial year run of a single part, but Shimano is as concerned about perception of their product as they are about actual sales, and won't enter into most things if they feel they are going to be perceived as having missed the boat.

    I said 'if they feel', not 'if they will'. What Shimano thinks will work doesn't always. If they FEEL it won't work well, it will never happen.
    I will suffer no butt-hurt fools!

  45. #45
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,772
    Quote Originally Posted by slowride454 View Post
    Shimano could at least make a Octalink BB for 100mm shells so we can use cranks from our spare parts bin.
    Why bother when they already make good quality square taper cranksets still and lots of companies produce cartridge BBs in square taper spindles that fit 100mm shells.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  46. #46
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,556
    Square taper cranks come in two varieties:

    Heavy

    Noodle

    Both suffer from the under-sized spindle issues of square-taper.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Square taper cranks come in two varieties:

    Heavy

    Noodle

    Both suffer from the under-sized spindle issues of square-taper.
    Yeah, if I had the choice to use shimano octalink or a modern external cup bb and crank... I'd just stick with the external

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    Yeah, if I had the choice to use shimano octalink or a modern external cup bb and crank... I'd just stick with the external
    However, External BB's seem to fail after a very short period of time whereas the old cartridge square taper BB's seemed to last forever - in fact the cranks would crack across the square hole before the BB gave up the ghost. And if you can get a square taper axle to flex and notice it your either Chris Hoy or kidding yourself....

    Back on topic Shimano have missed the boat but don't care as everyone buys there stuff. Plus there latest 1x effort crank only allows a minimum ring size of 30T where as SRAM, RF, Hope all go down to 26 which is a must have on a fat bike

  49. #49
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,556
    Quote Originally Posted by HT5rider View Post
    However, External BB's seem to fail after a very short period of time whereas the old cartridge square taper BB's seemed to last forever - in fact the cranks would crack across the square hole before the BB gave up the ghost. And if you can get a square taper axle to flex and notice it your either Chris Hoy or kidding yourself....

    Back on topic Shimano have missed the boat but don't care as everyone buys there stuff. Plus there latest 1x effort crank only allows a minimum ring size of 30T where as SRAM, RF, Hope all go down to 26 which is a must have on a fat bike
    I remember replacing plenty of cartridge square-spindle BBs. The reason we moved away was the spindles started breaking during riding, but the bearing life was nothing to write home about.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    Just get some old square taper Shimano arms and a Phil Wood bb.

    Yep!, i got an 8 year old Phil Wood BB on only it`s third set of SKF bearings (£15 a pair) in approx 12,000 miles of fatbiking and spinning on a lovely old pair of Middleburn RS7s cranks
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,114
    Can't really get excited about Shimano. I've been a Gripshift guy for at least 15 years and still like it better. I've had a bunch of their stuff over the years and most of it has been good if not remarkable. SPD pedals have been super reliable for me. Petty grievance: their cranks are fugly. Road, MTB, all of them. The last ones I liked were the dull gray anodized XTR's circa mid to late '90s. I kind of feel punitive towards Shimano for their lack of support for fatbikes. Even if the numbers don't add up for them, they're missing out on all the fatbike stoke, man.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,041
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post
    Yep!, i got an 8 year old Phil Wood BB on only it`s third set of SKF bearings (£15 a pair) in approx 12,000 miles of fatbiking and spinning on a lovely old pair of Middleburn RS7s cranks
    Nothing quite like the look of Middleburns on a bike with straight frame tubes. They just look right!
    Latitude 61

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by HT5rider View Post
    However, External BB's seem to fail after a very short period of time whereas the old cartridge square taper BB's seemed to last forever - in fact the cranks would crack across the square hole before the BB gave up the ghost. And if you can get a square taper axle to flex and notice it your either Chris Hoy or kidding yourself....

    Back on topic Shimano have missed the boat but don't care as everyone buys there stuff. Plus there latest 1x effort crank only allows a minimum ring size of 30T where as SRAM, RF, Hope all go down to 26 which is a must have on a fat bike
    I'm calling shenanigans on you claiming external BB s fail after a very short period of time.

    I currently have 4, each with thousands upon thousands of miles and have never been replaced.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    I'm calling shenanigans on you claiming external BB s fail after a very short period of time.

    I currently have 4, each with thousands upon thousands of miles and have never been replaced.
    Not my experience at all - 6 months is about the longest I've had out of an XT external BB and thats when I have set the prelocad correctly. A bit of hamfistedness and that can drop to less than 2. ICT just lunched second press fit BB. On the other hand and contrary to what another person worte here, UN52 cartridge BB's went for years. Even when the bearings got a bit loose they could still be used for a good while. Plus no fannying around setting bearing preload you just boshed it in and tightened everything up. As for breaking axles - never happened to me or anyone I know despite lots of bad landings.... The downside was weight

    Anyway back on topic....

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by HT5rider View Post
    Not my experience at all - 6 months is about the longest I've had out of an XT external BB and thats when I have set the prelocad correctly. A bit of hamfistedness and that can drop to less than 2. ICT just lunched second press fit BB. On the other hand and contrary to what another person worte here, UN52 cartridge BB's went for years. Even when the bearings got a bit loose they could still be used for a good while. Plus no fannying around setting bearing preload you just boshed it in and tightened everything up. As for breaking axles - never happened to me or anyone I know despite lots of bad landings.... The downside was weight

    Anyway back on topic....
    Sounds like you need a new mechanic

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    456
    I've been whining about my Surly OD pinchbolt cranks since I got 'em in late 2012. I just installed the 3rd set of bearings and continually retighten and loctite the pinchbolt.

    But I remember the raceface troubles everyone experienced about that time.

    Dimly, I think I can recognize the increased loads involved with the longer shaft; diagonal loading, bending moments, etc: so I imagine Shimano is watching and working out solutions designed to address just these issues.

    I think a lot of us have just drank the Kool-aid, and bought the idea that fatbikes are hard on stuff. In my case, the riding is different; I'm a masher more than a spinner, but I'm even worse on a fatbike. I'm also a pretty big guy...grunting with all my might in the wrong gear is obviously hard on stuff, so I just grit my teeth and pay the price.

    I'm pretty sure this is the last winter on those Surly cranks; they are now "glued" on with red loctite; it will take heat (Or another failure) to remove them. Since I have gotten 4 years and however many miles it takes to use up a set of Larrys and a good start on wearing the knobs off a set of Nates (I ride summer too), I'm not all that hurt.

    What hurts more was the resale market dropping into the toilet for that Pugsley. I feel like I have no choice but to keep riding it forever. Or until used Wednesdays start showing up for around a grand.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    304
    I really despise the proprietary hardware my Surly Mr Whirly cranks use. £60 for the outer chainring is ridiculous. I would get the spider but there have been too many reports of them breaking to even consider it!

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Flamingtaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,258
    Not all external bearing are created equal. Ex. I get about 2000 miles out of the Shimano bearings my shop keeps in stock for my modern MTB. They cost $30.

    I got 20,000 miles out of each of the Shimano BB's that went into my 1990 road bike. Those were also $30 each. Two decades ago.

    If I purchase a much more expensive external bearing set, say $60-80, I'd expect to get a lot more than 2000 miles out of them, and I'm sure that some will. If just the seals are better, most of the battle is right there, and regularly forcing those seals out for a good clean/grease should accomplish the latter.

    Alas, in these modern times, I'd be pretty hard pressed to bother with cleaning even a $60-80 bearing set if I could get 3-4 years out of them.
    I will suffer no butt-hurt fools!

  59. #59
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingtaco View Post
    Not all external bearing are created equal. Ex. I get about 2000 miles out of the Shimano bearings my shop keeps in stock for my modern MTB. They cost $30.

    I got 20,000 miles out of each of the Shimano BB's that went into my 1990 road bike. Those were also $30 each. Two decades ago.

    If I purchase a much more expensive external bearing set, say $60-80, I'd expect to get a lot more than 2000 miles out of them, and I'm sure that some will. If just the seals are better, most of the battle is right there, and regularly forcing those seals out for a good clean/grease should accomplish the latter.

    Alas, in these modern times, I'd be pretty hard pressed to bother with cleaning even a $60-80 bearing set if I could get 3-4 years out of them.
    Better external BB bearings from realwordcycling are like $30 bucks.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Better external BB bearings from realwordcycling are like $30 bucks.
    Not if you buy the Enduro Super Max Ceramic Chrome Plate Pro with Square Balls technology.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by cadoretteboat View Post
    Not if you buy the Enduro Super Max Ceramic Chrome Plate Pro with Square Balls technology.
    Square balls you say?

    I'm intrigued...

Similar Threads

  1. Want Shimano 950 or 750 Cranks
    By UnoPete in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2013, 11:38 PM
  2. Truvative XX cranks and Shimano XT cranks- Chainguide?
    By hiawatha-de in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-24-2012, 09:31 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-01-2012, 10:01 AM
  4. Shimano cranks with FSA BB??
    By Jazn_84 in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-19-2012, 07:00 PM
  5. Shimano M737 cranks vs M950 cranks!
    By cyberbackpacker in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-15-2011, 12:23 PM

Members who have read this thread: 17

Posting Permissions

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