Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: ASR-C question

  1. #1
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    984

    ASR-C question

    Does anyone know if the ASR-C is compatible with the XTR Race 40-28 crankset. I know some builds are available with the 38x26, but the 40x28 versions have a narrower Q-factor, and with the bigger chainrings in a 2x10 configuration, I guess some frames (other manufacturers) had clearance issues. Anyone running these?

    Thanks.
    "Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion."-Jack Kerouac

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Phatpants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    87
    I dont run the XTR crankset, but I do have the narrowest q-factor XX crank (q-156, 28/42) on my ASR-C. Not sure if that helps you out.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    27
    I run a XT 40-28 crankset and the shifting is flawless. I did have a XTR 40-28 that kept getting caught up or pinching the chain as you shifted up to the 40 tooth ring. Wasn't a fan at all of the XTR in a 40-28 tooth setup on the ASR-C.

  4. #4
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by tmtpleasant View Post
    I run a XT 40-28 crankset and the shifting is flawless. I did have a XTR 40-28 that kept getting caught up or pinching the chain as you shifted up to the 40 tooth ring. Wasn't a fan at all of the XTR in a 40-28 tooth setup on the ASR-C.
    Hmmm, that seems odd, I wonder what was going on. Did it look like the XTR had clearance from the chainstay?
    "Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion."-Jack Kerouac

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    27
    The XTR was definitely narrow but did have room away from the chainstay. The issue wasn't really chain suck, just the ramping motion up to the big ring. The chain wanted to get jammed between the derailieur and inside of the ring. I used a XT 2x front derailieur. I have heard the XTR 2x crankset runs a more narrow Q-Factor than the XT version and with the ASR-C's pressfit bottom bracket I wasn't able to add spacers. (Though it still didn't seem to be the problem to begin with.)

  6. #6
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by tmtpleasant View Post
    The XTR was definitely narrow but did have room away from the chainstay. The issue wasn't really chain suck, just the ramping motion up to the big ring. The chain wanted to get jammed between the derailieur and inside of the ring. I used a XT 2x front derailieur. I have heard the XTR 2x crankset runs a more narrow Q-Factor than the XT version and with the ASR-C's pressfit bottom bracket I wasn't able to add spacers. (Though it still didn't seem to be the problem to begin with.)
    Well, I answered the question myself by putting them on. While comparing them to the 38x26 XTR Trail variety, I noticed that the spider and arm design is different, and it appears that is where the narrower q-factor comes from rather than a narrower chainline. Anyway, no issues, plenty of clearance and shifting is spot-on. I'm using an XTR derailleur though. I would have to think your issues were either due to the XT derailleur itself (although I would think the shift path is the same) or just improper setup. FD's can be tricky sometimes. Loving this bike so far.
    "Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion."-Jack Kerouac

Posting Permissions

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