Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    455

    SRAM vs. RF Crank for 2017 Mukluk?

    I'm going to be getting a 2017 Salsa Mukluk which has a 100mm threaded bottom bracket and is designed around a 75mm chainline. I'm trying to decide on a crankset and I've been running through some ideas, so I wanted to see what you all think.

    Stock bike build kit option seems to be either a RaceFace Turbine or Aeffect crank with a direct mount ring (flipped). Per this document that gives a 75mm (Turbine) or 73.5-74.5mm (Aeffect) chainline.

    Thus I believe there are two cost-effective options for me:

    Option 1)
    - Aeffect Crank Arms
    - Stock DM ring, flipped.
    - Shimano XT BB-MT800 Bottom Bracket

    With this setup I'll have to leave out the bottom bracket tube, but I think that'll be okay. Result will be a 73.5 - 74.5mm chainline, same as the stock NX bike.

    Option 2)
    - SRAM GX S-1400 Fat Bike Crankset
    - SRAM Direct Mount 0mm Offset Chainring
    - SRAM GXP Fat Bottom Bracket

    This SRAM frame fit document shows the fat bike cranks as having a 66.5mm chainline. Photos appear to show the crank coming with a 6mm offset ring. I believe that by switching to a 0mm offset ring the chainline will move to 72.5mm. This is 2.5mm shy of the frame design, but I believe this'd be okay?

    Either of these options could be replaced with either their respective higher-end cranks, such as a Race Face Turbine or Next, or a SRAM XX1.

    What do you all think of the SRAM idea? I've had great luck with the SRAM cranksets and they are super widely available... It's the direction I'd prefer to go, personally, so long as all the chainline stuff works.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    9
    Raceface turbine cinch, gave up with sram xx1 always coming loose.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by Martyj77 View Post
    Raceface turbine cinch, gave up with sram xx1 always coming loose.
    On the flipside, I've had repeated problems with the NDS (factory tightened) arm on my Turbine Cinch coming loose on my Blackborow. Repeated tightening to torque spec wouldn't hold until I Loctited it.

    I'm a bit leery of the RF stuff because of that, but I want to be sure I've got a good handle on chainline stuff first before I choose in any direction.

    What bike were you using the SRAM XX1 on?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    331
    I am using the Aeffect Crank on a Beargrease. It takes a little time to get the spacing correct because that determines both the chainline and the preload on the bearings. However, it has been flawless! Also, it is very lightweight for an aluminum crank. If you go that direction, you will need a crank puller to remove it.

    I have had SRAM X01 and X5 cranks and never had an issue with either of those!

  5. #5
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Martyj77 View Post
    Raceface turbine cinch, gave up with sram xx1 always coming loose.
    User error most likely. There's nothing about the XX1 cranks that "comes loose" if torqued correctly. I've been beating them for 3+ years on an AM/park/everything bike. I thought I'd be lucky if the cranks lasted a season, but they've been impeccable. If you ride it loose and mess up the spindle though, that will make it impossible to keep tight, I've experienced this a few times in the past with old square taper and Isis splines, current sram/RF still uses these splines. The "cinch" has nothing to do with how the crank tightens to the spindle, it's the same, so the onl other thing that could have been happening was the chainring bolts were loosening? Which again most likely would be user error. Although I don't like SRAM/RFs crank interface nearly as much as shimano, it works just fine, provided you have a big enough lever to torque it down and loosen it. Nothing about RF would be "less likely to loosen" though. I have both.

    Now ISIS, there was a crappy standard. We'll make the axle bigger and hollow to compete with Shimano's octalink, but we'll make the bearings tiny with no chance of holding up, but we'll still include a taper-lock just to force you to have to crank these and wear down the interface, just because we know you love it when you have to replace the BB that will fail.
    Name:  isisBB.jpg
Views: 907
Size:  55.7 KB
    "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.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by mohrgan View Post
    I am using the Aeffect Crank on a Beargrease. It takes a little time to get the spacing correct because that determines both the chainline and the preload on the bearings. However, it has been flawless! Also, it is very lightweight for an aluminum crank. If you go that direction, you will need a crank puller to remove it.
    Thanks for the info, this is good to hear. The installation PDF from RF made it look a little simpler than what you describe. What spacers need to get played with? The BB spacers, or...?

    After looking more, I think I am going to go with a SRAM, though, as it'd let me keep one spare BB around the house for four of my bikes, etc.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    455
    FYI to all, my LBS (Tree Fort Bikes) confirmed that a SRAM GX S-1400 crankset with a 0mm offset DM ring will have a 72.5mm chainline. Coupling that with this document from Wolftooth which claims that +/- 3mm from optimal is fine, and that they find 70-72mm chainline is optimal, this is what I'm going with.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    158
    So what's the narrowest q-factor we can get on this badboy? Impressed with the new mukluk, but I'd want a narrow q-factor to go with a summer 27.5+ wheeleset. I'd like it to end up at the q-factor I have on my old muk...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    455
    I think it'd be the SRAM XX1 which lists as having a 201mm Q factor.

    The GX S-1400 is 203.5mm, so not much more.

  10. #10
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,082
    I've got about 1500mi on a RaceFace Turbine CINCH crankset. I'm a big fan of the system. Both the chainring system as well as the spindle system. I'm not thrilled that so many bikes use a PF41/BB92 type bb shell, which forces me to use a compromise bb on the bike to work with a 30mm spindle (I'm on a Salsa Bucksaw and am doing pretty well so far with an Enduro BB that fits the application).

    I've got all the 1500mi so far on the RaceFace DM ring, which has a wider chainline than is recommended by most of the aftermarket chainring companies. Performance has been reasonably good, albeit with a bit of noise in the lowest gears, which I use a fair bit. I'll be installing an Absolute Black oval ring soon that will bring the chainline in by what looks to be about 2-3mm, which brings me within the +/-3mm of the ideal chainline that both companies recommend for this particular application.

    My first go at installing the crank didn't go well. My poor comprehension of the instructions being to blame. Couldn't keep it tight. Did about 50mi before I got it right. Ever since then, not a single complaint.

    The Aeffect crank is very nearly as good (can't swap the spindle for different lengths is all), and I'd install it no questions on a bike with a PF41/BB92 shell for the improved bb selection.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    My first go at installing the crank didn't go well. My poor comprehension of the instructions being to blame. Couldn't keep it tight. Did about 50mi before I got it right. Ever since then, not a single complaint.

    The Aeffect crank is very nearly as good (can't swap the spindle for different lengths is all), and I'd install it no questions on a bike with a PF41/BB92 shell for the improved bb selection.
    I ended up getting a line on a new/take-off XO1 fat bike crankset (from a Bucksaw Carbon XO1) that I'm hoping to use with a SRAM 0mm offset ring. Should give me a 72.5mm chainline... Word from Salsa is that it might not clear the chainstays, but... that wasn't solid info at all. (Also, try finding public info on THAT crankset... I find nothing. best I can tell it'll be the same dimensions as the XX1 set.)

    The problem I had with my Turbine Cinch I just don't get. Everything was fine and quiet until I went to Ray's MTB Park, then it started ticking a bit. On my next trail ride the NDS arm suddenly became loose enough that I could slide the crank back and forth. The factory-tightened fastener came loose! The DS -- which I'd tightened -- was fine.

    So, I found a 16mm hex, torqued it to spec, and the same thing happened again about a week later while riding trails... Through my LBS Race Face said that it should never happen and asked for the whole crank to be sent to them for investigation. Thinking this silly I applied a generous amount of blue Loctite to the NDS bolt and it held for ~10 months. (Note: The shop was going to set me up with a swap, but I figured I'd give Loctite a go first. It's not like it's a weird thing to use on fasteners...)

    It started ticking again late summer, but only under power, and the NDS arm stayed tight and there was no play in the arms, so I just kept riding it... I didn't rule out the Alternator plates has being the source of noise, but it seemed to be coming from the crank.

    A week ago when I pulled it all apart to check the bearings and everything seemed good and tight. Even after removing the NDS bolt I wasn't able to get the spindle out of the arm, but I didn't try particularly hard... Just a few raps with a deadblow hammer to see if I could wobble it loose.

    Long story short, I simply find the Turbine-type setup a bit overcomplicated. Cinch itself seems fine, but I'm completely happy with a non-swappable, pressed-in spindle. I usually buy a crankset for a frame and leave the two paired for as long as I own the bike, thus the swappable spindle isn't a big selling point to me. I've been really happy with XO cranksets on other bikes and I hope the same follows with this. (Also, SRAM Fat Bike 100mm bottom brackets are super-cheap, and seem to only vary from the regular ones in the center tube, meaning extremely wide availability.)

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99

    Q factor

    I want to reduce the Q factor on my 2017 mukluk. It came with the stock aeffect cranks. If I go with a sram crank , it looks like I can get the Q factor down from 223 to 203.

    Do I need a new bottom bracket?
    What's the value in the awffect cranks for resale?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaker View Post
    I want to reduce the Q factor on my 2017 mukluk. It came with the stock aeffect cranks. If I go with a sram crank , it looks like I can get the Q factor down from 223 to 203.

    Do I need a new bottom bracket?
    What's the value in the awffect cranks for resale?
    Do you have more than 10mm of clearance between the existing crank arms and your chainstays?
    Latitude 61

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Do you have more than 10mm of clearance between the existing crank arms and your chainstays?
    Yes. By my measurements my current crank has a conservative 16 mm between chainstays on both sides.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    574
    I'm fairly certain that SRAM cranks need a SRAM BB. I installed one on my kids bike and one side of the spindle is 24mm OD and the other side was stepped down to 22mm.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Would this work?
    Raceface sells a 170mm crank and then the chainline can be achieved by flipping the chainring. This puts the Q factor at 205 mm and I can re-use my bottom bracket.
    Are there other cinch rings that have more of an offset to help get the chain line back to 74mm?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Just to follow up on this. The 170mm rear end race face aeffect clears the chainstays just fine on my 2017 mukluk aluminum.

    Anyone in need of a 190 mm raceface aeffect crank fer cheap?

Similar Threads

  1. 2017 Comp6fattie and Sram
    By 2old in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-05-2016, 10:52 AM
  2. Any thoughts on the 2017 Specialized Camber (the SRAM NX)?
    By adnan76 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2016, 10:00 AM
  3. 2013 mukluk 3 crank arm
    By ridehard84 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-24-2015, 06:58 AM
  4. XX1 Crank on my Mukluk
    By larres in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-12-2014, 04:59 AM
  5. Mukluk Crank Options
    By Sasquatch1413 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 07:49 AM

Members who have read this thread: 83

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.