Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    164

    2010 Titus X Carbon - Would XT/XTR 2x10 work?

    I pulled the trigger and ordered one from On-One. Right now, I am thinking of how to spec the bike. I have always used Shimano and would like to stick to it. I really like the idea of 2x10 instead of the triple. Would this work with the X Carbon? Considering it would be narrow (I read?).

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,277
    Quote Originally Posted by fishy
    I pulled the trigger and ordered one from On-One. Right now, I am thinking of how to spec the bike. I have always used Shimano and would like to stick to it. I really like the idea of 2x10 instead of the triple. Would this work with the X Carbon? Considering it would be narrow (I read?).

    Thanks!
    We recommend using the version with at least 165mm Qfactor. Shimano offers several options.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    164
    Thanks Shiggy. I have posted in Shimano asking what the Q factors are. Have nagging feeling that the 2x10 is probably going to be less than 165mm....

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    54
    I have just built up my X-Carbon with 2x10 XTR and it seems just fine.

    Admittedly, I have only done an hours riding on the bike so far, but the 2x10 was fine for all of that hour.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    164
    Thnx. Would that be the trail or the race XTR 2x10? My frame is backordered (buying from On-One) so I am in no hurry to buy the components yet.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by fishy
    Thnx. Would that be the trail or the race XTR 2x10? My frame is backordered (buying from On-One) so I am in no hurry to buy the components yet.
    looking at robinfisk's bike (X-Carbon BIke Porn, it looks like the "trail" version on their bike. the "race" version has the chain ring bolts showing, but their crankset does not.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by sclyde2
    looking at robinfisk's bike (X-Carbon BIke Porn, it looks like the "trail" version on their bike. the "race" version has the chain ring bolts showing, but their crankset does not.
    I have the 38/26T cranks on the grounds that there is no way I would make it up the local hills without the 26/36 combination I get with an 11-36 cassette

    Regardless they are the trail cranks

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    I thought the trail was a triple and had a different BCD?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    Ah, its ok figured it out.

  10. #10
    The Cheater
    Reputation: Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    551
    You can use Aerozine X12-SL-A2D double 168mm....
    Titux X Carbon 2010 race 9.93kg
    Titux X 2009 "Deore 2012" training 11.55kg

  11. #11
    The Cheater
    Reputation: Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    551
    Do you guys know what clamp size is needed its front derailleur?
    Titux X Carbon 2010 race 9.93kg
    Titux X 2009 "Deore 2012" training 11.55kg

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Veda
    Do you guys know what clamp size is needed its front derailleur?
    34.9 down swing (ie. high clamp)

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    Shiggy

    What about the KCNC xc2 double with a q factor of 164mm? I ask as it's very light at 665g at 665g all in?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    So would the 164 q factor of the xtr race chain set 42/29 be a problem?

    I need to order a crank so could do with knowing before blowing the dosh.

    I don't really want to use the xx and I suspect that 26/38 might be a bit low, although I guess I could get new rings.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    164
    My frame arrived yesterday. Looks awesome!!!

    Am skint so waiting for 2012 XT. :-)

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    I'm going to use the m980 trail crankset 26/38 and the xtr bottom clamp double derailleur which will give me the ability to change the rings (TA specialities silver) to 28/40 or 42 if needs be but is 170 Q factor. I see new XT is coming out with similar tech so that mech and crank will have the same features in fact I think with a 28/40 option off the bat which is better. Just I need it now and I don't like the looks of old XT do the extra dollar will have to go on the CC. How I fell when I ride it makes a big difference to me, I'd only want the xtr later...
    Funny really, completely happy with XT everything else, just the look of the old crankset.

    The new one looks much better but...well y'know..

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    I am on the lookout for a new 2 ring crank for my '10 carbon X, probably one of these shimano cranks, as I've been quite happy with my trouble-free 8 year old 960s (which are currently on it). Previous to this bike, I have been switching between these cranks and an old RF ISIS turbine for the shorter flatter events, set up with 2x9 (40/29) with a slightly shorter BB (108mm). Those cranks fit fine on my old Titus X (lite rail). I measured the Q factor on the turbines at 161mm. I haven't put them on the new bike yet, but think it might be a pretty tight fit (if they fit). The 960s look to be pretty close to the stays on the carbon x - about 6-7mm to the chainstay protector, and look closer than on the old X (though I never measured on the old bike). When I finally get around to putting the turbine cranks (which will be closer) onto my bike, I'll let you know how i go.

    By the way, the crank arms on both my 960s and turbines are 13mm thick at the ends (turbines might be about 0.5mm thicker). How thick are the 980 arms?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    On the front mech front, I have bought the 34.9 M985 bottom clamp bottom pull xtr985 double, for the m985 trail crank.

    I see you guys have gone with the high clamp conventional, which does look close to the suspension pivot.

    On one quote bottom clamp /bottom pull and the xtr double derailleur has a wide 14t range so 26/40 or 28/42 can be used.

    Haven't got my frame yet so can't comment on suitability, I will do when I get it.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    On one quote bottom clamp /bottom pull ..
    That surprises me that on one quote low clamp for the x carbon. I haven't yet seen a photo of a low clamp f.der on the latest carbon X. I was going off the photos on the titus site and what retailers' web sites suggested (though I have been burnt following their advice before. eg. headset, seatpost size etc).

    I've just offloaded a alloy X, and that one wouldn't fit the high clamp (the weld halfway up the seat-tube was too low), so it needed a low clamp. The high clamp fits fine (using last-gen xtr) on the x carbon. Dunno if the low clamp would fit on the x carbon, I haven't tried it. The bottom of the seat tube starts flaring out as it meets the BB shell, so I doubt you could get the low clamp f.der down low enough. if you do, post pics. The low clamp f.ders are arguably a better design, so i'll put my spare one on if it fits.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    Your worrying me now, I think I'll give them a call.

    The mech looks like the clamp on this design is inline with the middle of the cage so at the level of the big ring just below the teeth. The cage only moves horizontally.

    It looks like the seat tube is constant diameter until just before the BB interface?

    Like you I've only seen pictures with high clamp conventional f mech.

    But the low clamp kinda makes sense.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    Your worrying me now, I think I'll give them a call.

    The mech looks like the clamp on this design is inline with the middle of the cage so at the level of the big ring just below the teeth. The cage only moves horizontally.

    It looks like the seat tube is constant diameter until just before the BB interface?

    Like you I've only seen pictures with high clamp conventional f mech.

    But the low clamp kinda makes sense.
    i had a closer look at the frame and my low clamp front (xtr 970) front derailleur (not on the frame).

    the seat tube does start flaring out around about level with the top of the teeth on the big (44T) ring. it is very very gradual at that spot though, and doesn't really start flaring out significantly until it gets down near level with the top of the middle (32t) ring. looking at the xtr 970 (low clamp) derailluer i have, the bottom of the clamp is just on 3cm below the outer cage (the cage edge that is supposed to be about 3mm above the teeth on the big ring). so, the clamp is about 2.7cm (maybe 2.8) too low - if i put it on the bike at the "correct" height, the clamp would be around the slightly flared bit of the seat tube.

    it isn't really that angled/flared at that spot, so it might just work. your low clamp f.der might have a slightly higher clamp too.

    i have convinced myself that my 970 low clamp f.der won't fit though.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    Hmmm, the bottom of my clamp is 1.7cm below the top of the outside cage, I would say the centre is essentially in line with the solid body, not the teeth, of the outer ring, which on mine will be 38T, that is just over the 104mm from the centre of the BB up the seatpost.

    I'll have to wait and see, if it doesn't fit I'll have to change it!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by sclyde2 View Post
    I measured the Q factor on the turbines at 161mm. I haven't put them on the new bike yet, but think it might be a pretty tight fit (if they fit). The 960s look to be pretty close to the stays on the carbon x - about 6-7mm to the chainstay protector, and look closer than on the old X (though I never measured on the old bike). When I finally get around to putting the turbine cranks (which will be closer) onto my bike, I'll let you know how i go.
    I've gotten around to installing those old ISIS turbine cranks. About 6.5-7mm clearance on the non-drive side, and only 2-3mm to the chainstay wrap on the drive side (almost too close to allow for frame/crank flex).

    What's the q facotr on those xtr 'race' cranks?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2010 Titus X Carbon - Would XT/XTR 2x10 work?-img_3451.jpg  

    2010 Titus X Carbon - Would XT/XTR 2x10 work?-img_3448.jpg  


  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    796
    164mm, too tight, not recommended.

    The xtr 'trail' double is 170mm and no Problem. weight diff is negligible.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by the_pilot View Post
    164mm, too tight, not recommended.

    The xtr 'trail' double is 170mm and no Problem. weight diff is negligible.
    I did a bit of research and found a range of q-factors for that 985 crank, anything from 158 to 164. I think the 164 looks most likely. The only concrete info I found is that the 985 is 132mm between the insides of the crank arms. The 980 cranks are 6mm wider (3mm each side).

    I keep forgetting that I have a 980 crank sitting in a box, waiting to be installed on my yet-to-be-built EG. There's nothing stopping me measuring the arm thickness on those (dunno if they are the same thickness of the 985 cranks though) or actually installing them on the X and assessing if the gaps were 3mm narrower would make the clearance too tight to fit a 985 crank. I'll get around to it some time.

    If the 985 fits, the gear ratios and chainline make it more appropriate for a xc race bike than the 980 double. After lots of experimentation over the years, I've settled on 40/29 rings, and go the traditional 3 ring setup for enduros that have lots of steep long climbs in them. I figure that a 40/28 with a 11-36 cassette would pretty much do everything I need.

    My 161 Q-factor ISIS cranks seems to fit. Obviously I need to ride it to see if there is any frame contact - caused by either crank/bb flex, or frame flex. If there's no contact, and the measurement between the insides of the crank arms is less than 132mm (I'll measure it tonight), there's no reason why the 985 crank wouldn't fit. I suppose I'm not 100kg though - a big guy might be able to put a bit more bend into the frame/bb/crank than I could, but at least the xtr cranks should still be pretty stiff, and still have the steel spindle.

    Also, check out the clearance of the 166 q factor XX cranks on the FTM carbon porn thread. Unless the XTR cranks are way thicker, I can't imagine that 2mm less clearance (that's only 1mm a side) would cause contact issues. Or are we about to find out that the carbon BB & chainstays are noodly?

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
  •