Lightweight cranks?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 59 of 59
  1. #1
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567

    Lightweight cranks?

    Wonder if anyone else can help with a decision process here...

    I've been running RF Atlas AM cranks alongside Saints for a while now (with Shimano BB as its significantly better than the X-Type junk), but n a new build am looking to go a bit further on the weight savings.

    I am looking to go with either RF Deus, or XTR M970. I know people are running XTR's on big bikes & having no problems, is this the case with RF as well? Taking the rings out of the equation, like for like they weigh almost the same, so its a case of what to go for...

  2. #2
    StraightOuttaCompton
    Reputation: Djponee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,145
    i like the hozfeller oct w/ howitzer bb, very light and strong
    HARDTAIL PRIDE- 09 Kona Five-0

  3. #3
    Bike Ninja |||
    Reputation: chooofoojoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Djponee
    i like the hozfeller oct w/ howitzer bb, very light and strong
    and very flexy i might add. friend's crankarm flexed so much it' dented his chainstay on his demo

    they are light tho.
    Proud to represent Mojo Wheels.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mikey_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    454
    970 xtr certainly very bling for dh 770 grams is pretty nuts. But of all places to save weight Imho the crankset is one of the last places to do so. road rear der, fine, 135gm saddle, um ok but cranks take a ton of abuse from rider and trail. there are alot better places to save 160 gms (hones are 928)

    thats being said FSA has some real light options for 08 in their gravity line up and fsa has a better bb than shimano(again imho)

    with the $200 you will have left over for weight savings in other places

  5. #5
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    I'm at one of the last places to save weight now though, so it has to be an option...

    I've seen a few bikes running them & no noticable flex talking to people, but i'm not sure of this would be the case with the equivalent RF offerings.

    The more I think about it, the more i'm talking myself into dropping some silly money into a set

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mikey_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    454
    whats your bike/build? sounds like its baller...whats the specs? pics?

    hey im all about silly light weight part i got juicy ultimates for a dj/park bike so im not attackin you. just giving my 2cents

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: El Gordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by chooofoojoo
    and very flexy i might add. friend's crankarm flexed so much it' dented his chainstay on his demo

    they are light tho.
    I am 240lb and been beating on my Holzfellers OCT w/ Howitzer Team BB and have had no problem not one sign of flex and I ride pretty hard .. Where they older model? How did they flex that much to screw with his chainstay. Thanks for the info
    _________________________________________
    TRANSITION!!!!!!
    08 Blindside - Zoke 66
    07 Preston - Zoke 55 R

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey_C
    But of all places to save weight Imho the crankset is one of the last places to do so

    How many cranks(not BB's) have you seen fail?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mikey_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by Rover Nick
    How many cranks(not BB's) have you seen fail?
    i never said anything about crank failure. im talking about reliability and stiffness.
    but to answer your question

    fail: only a profile arm
    become unridable, ie bent arm, broken pedal insert, etc....many

  10. #10
    moaaar shimz
    Reputation: tacubaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9,117
    Hones if your BB lenght is 73 mm or less and you are light
    Saints if you are heavier.

    Hollowtech II pwns

  11. #11
    Locs on Spokez
    Reputation: Iggz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,903
    Shimano Cranks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truvativ Cranks

    Get a XT crankset, light and stiff. Used to have some Stylo's but they flexed like **** and the nondrive side actually developed play forward and back which is a joke...
    Ground Steeze. @iggy_strbac

  12. #12
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by tacubaya
    Hones if your BB lenght is 73 mm or less and you are light
    Saints if you are heavier.

    Hollowtech II pwns
    Already have Saints, too heavy, as are Hones.

    I want light, seriously light. I expect to compromise an element on longevity, I am realisitic.

    The new XT crankset is possibly an option, but it would let down the rest of the build...

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,078
    Quote Originally Posted by chooofoojoo
    and very flexy i might add. friend's crankarm flexed so much it' dented his chainstay on his demo

    they are light tho.
    maybe the demo rear tringle is flexy!
    :thumbsup:
    ride.

  14. #14
    Bum Buzzer
    Reputation: Huck Banzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,988
    Im a 240lber looking to do some lightening too. Just came from the FSA Gravite Lite thread. I want to use them on a bike that will see decent drops and jumps, but 'known' lines and alot of smoothness... I like my burly saints, but Ive never been a part masher despite my size (the occasionaly rear wheel in 1 hit killer tho) so I want to be able to climb and get around more.

    XT's, Hones, FSA Grav Lite, RF Atlas, are all considerations. Anyone want to try to make a scale of strength and weight on these puppies?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gremlyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by chooofoojoo
    and very flexy i might add. friend's crankarm flexed so much it' dented his chainstay on his demo

    they are light tho.
    I'm 190lb and there is no way that I can feel any flex on my OCT what ever I do to it. Maybe your freind had some old and/or defective cranks?


    btw, how in the hell did he manage to dent chainstays on demo?!
    I'm not a complete idiot, some pieces are missing.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mikey_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by -C-
    The new XT crankset is possibly an option, but it would let down the rest of the build...

    u tease...when are we goin to get pics of this bike! sounds like you are sold on xtr just do us a favor and get us some pics

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck Banzai
    XT's, Hones, FSA Grav Lite, RF Atlas, are all considerations. Anyone want to try to make a scale of strength and weight on these puppies?
    I'll try. IIRC, weight is as follows. FSA>Hone>Atlas>XT. Strength wise, FSA wins bonus points for the steel pedal insert, as does the 2 ring Hone. That said, the shop I work at has seen several f'ed up FSA road cranks recently. 1 with toasted pedal threads out of the box, 2 with mangled splines on the BB interface, and 1 bent arm. One guy I ride with has broken 2 Afterburners in as many months. This is the extent of my experience with FSA's cranks, and it's not good. IIRC the Hone has an aluminum spindle, whereas the XT is steel, so the XT might be a little better there, but I've never heard of anyone breaking the spindle on any external bearing crank, so it's probably not a big deal. I remember somthing about the Atlas had some issues with shatty machining on the arms, which, if bad enough, made them nearly impossible to take off. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I'd look into that.


    My verdict: XTs FTW. I love mine.

  18. #18
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey_C
    u tease...when are we goin to get pics of this bike! sounds like you are sold on xtr just do us a favor and get us some pics
    It's just a pile of bits at the moment, so nothing to take pictures of...

    When it's built though, i'm sure it will be nice

    Just trying to broker a deal on some arms & BB now, as I obviously don't need the stupidly expensive chainrings.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,844
    FSA Gravity Lites work for me

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueRidgeRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    148

    Cranksets

    Go with the new XTR's...I run RF Atlas on my Socom, they hold up pretty well to East Coast racing.
    I was thinking about XTR's myself, I only weight about 160 though and I'm easy on parts...most the time

  21. #21
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    I reckon i'm about 190 kitted up & i'm pretty a pretty smooth rider, so i'm hoping they should be more than able to cope...

    And i'm running out of areas to save weight now as I don't like the thought of carbon bars & seatposts on big bikes.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueRidgeRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    148

    bars and posts

    I run Easton carbon DH bars and the Easton carbon post...no worries. Having the carbon bar does bother me a bit, but I check it frequently.
    I'm switching to lighter wheels as well, I'm shooting for around 37 pounds. Right now, I'm just a bit over 38. My scale reads 38.16.

    https://i219.photobucket.com/albums/...v/DSC03107.jpg

    Here is the actual 38.16 setup, the photo above was without Acid 2 pedals and the Ti spring.

    https://i219.photobucket.com/albums/...v/DSC03274.jpg
    Last edited by BlueRidgeRider; 11-12-2007 at 01:55 PM.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,391
    middleburns are suppose to be pretty light
    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

  24. #24
    Broken and dizzy
    Reputation: Surfinguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    692
    Quote Originally Posted by chooofoojoo
    and very flexy i might add. friend's crankarm flexed so much it' dented his chainstay on his demo

    they are light tho.
    Um, Hussefelts maybe, but I'm not seeing that with a new pair of Holzfeller OCT's.



  25. #25
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    See, i'm hopefully shooting for 34.something with the complete spec.

    Ti Spring
    Burgtec hubs on Mavic XM819 rims DT DB Spokes
    Maxxis 2.3 UST High Rollers
    Totem Solo Air
    Thompson Elite X4 stem
    Easton EA70 bars
    Cane Creek Double X 1.5" Headset
    Full SRAM X0
    Dura Ace cassette
    SRAM hollow link chain
    XTR M970 cranks
    Easton Flatboy pedals
    E13 LG1
    E13 36T ring
    Shimano XTR M970 brakes, goodridge hoses, 203mm front 180mm rear, Aztec rotors
    Thompson Elite seatpost (cut down)
    SDG Ti-Fly seat

    Thats roughly the spec....

    Edited to say Middleburns are not an option, need to be external BB..

  26. #26
    Broken and dizzy
    Reputation: Surfinguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    692
    Nice ride man! Love the stealth black! Mine's right at 38lbs. Rim and tire changes should get me down to 36-1/2 to 37lbs.

    https://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a...f/IMG_0038.jpg



  27. #27
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by SJensen
    middleburns are suppose to be pretty light
    They are really nice if ISIS is your thang...

  28. #28
    moaaar shimz
    Reputation: tacubaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9,117
    XT's then..

  29. #29
    dontcha?
    Reputation: captain spaulding's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    Nice, the Atherons' run XTR cranks on their dh race bikes, so I can only assume they're holding up if they trust them enough to run them on their dh bikes.. but then again, if they break a set it's not coming outtta their pockets..
    "The future belongs to those that believe in the beauty of their dreams."

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueRidgeRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    148
    Look at WellGo MG1's if you're going to run flats...my son races with them, they usually last a season and weigh 378 grams. The Easton Flatboy's are better but heavy. I also switched out all my bolts to titanium except for the shock mount hardware and fork crown bolts.
    If you're looking for brakes, go with Formula...very very nice.

  31. #31
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    To be honest, the one thing I won't compromise on is the pedals, i've run Flatboys for 2 years now & they have been nothing short of superb, and they seem to be just the right size & shape for my feet.

    Formula brakes are heavier than the current XTR offereings (by quite a bit too).

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,844
    I just dont see how you guys get your bikes so light. My Socom is 39-41 depending on wheels/tires.

  33. #33
    Is that Bill rated?
    Reputation: Lord Humongous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    440

    External axles do break

    Look at my avatar, XTR 960 cranks - sheared on a trailride. Shimano took care of me and it was probably a one in a million defect, but it can happen. Just something to think about.
    Well, it was a good try.

  34. #34
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by kntr
    I just dont see how you guys get your bikes so light. My Socom is 39-41 depending on wheels/tires.
    It's quite easy to do when you sart thinking about it.

    Based on my spec earlier, Vs your lightweight spec I saw when you got your bike I have saved 5lbs...

    The forks & wheelset alone (incl tyres) is knocking on 2.5lbs...

    Start to get really expensive though if you take it to the extreme! I reckon I could get a Socom to low 34's if I tried. Obviously it wouldn't be bombproof, but I would still have faith in its ability to take some stick...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueRidgeRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    148

    Socom

    Here's my current build. I will eventually be running a new wheelset, the Boxxer Team fork with a Sunline direct mount stem and Sunline bars. Maxxis DHF/DHR 2.5 with Maxxis Welter Weight tubes. The current build is exactly 38.16 pounds.
    I hope with the new parts to be another pound less.

    Socom-med-black
    Fox DHX 5.0 w/RCS titanium spring
    2005 Marz 888 RC w/ti pinch bolts and Risse flat crowns
    Funn direct mount stem w/ti bolts
    Easton carbon DH bar and seatpost, cut down
    Sella Italia Flite TT saddle
    XO rear sfifter w/direct mount to Formula K-18's, all ti bolts, 7 inch rotors.
    XO rear der
    SRAM hollow-pin chain
    E13 LG1 with 36 tooth ring
    Syncros 1.5 reducer headset-HEAVY as hell!!!
    ODI Ruffian lock on's
    Mavic 729's-DB spokes-brass nips-WTB 20mm frnt/135mm-10mm rear hub w/DT Swiss ratchet quick release.
    Maxxis DHF 2.7 ST/DHR 2.5 3C with Maxxis freeride tubes
    Crank Bros Acid 2 pedals
    Dura Ace 12-25 cassette
    Race Face Atlas cranket 170mm
    Last edited by BlueRidgeRider; 11-13-2007 at 10:38 AM.

  36. #36
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueRidgeRider
    Here's my current build. I will eventually be running a new wheelset, the Boxxer Team fork with a Sunline direct mount stem and Sunline bars. Maxxis DHF/DHR 2.5 with Maxxis Welter Weight tubes. The current build is exactly 38.16 pounds.
    I hope with the new parts to be another pound less.

    Socom-med-black
    Fox DHX 5.0 w/RCS titanium spring
    2005 Marz 888 RC w/ti pinch bolts and Risse flat crowns
    Funn direct mount stem w/ti bolts
    Easton carbon DH bar and seatpost, cut down
    Sella Italia Flite TT saddle
    XO rear sfifter w/direct mount to Formula K-18's, all ti bolts, 7 inch rotors.
    XO rear der
    SRAM hollow-pin chain
    E13 LG1 with 36 tooth ring
    Syncros 1.5 reducer headset-HEAVY as hell!!!
    ODI Ruffian lock on's
    Mavic 729's-DB spokes-brass nips-WTB 20mm frnt/135mm-10mm rear hub w/DT Swiss ratchet quick release.
    Maxxis DHF 2.7 ST/DHR 2.5 3C with Maxxis freeride tubes
    Crank Bros Acid 2 pedals
    Dura Ace 12-25 cassette
    I can see immediately the forks will be nearly a pound alone in saving.

    I dread to think what that wheelset weighs, ditch the 729's for 721's, ditch the silly big tyres, and ditch the Maxxis heavy inner tubes & go stans no tubes. You have instantly saved yourself in the region of 1kg plus & it will completely transform the way the bike rides...

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueRidgeRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by -C-
    I can see immediately the forks will be nearly a pound alone in saving.

    I dread to think what that wheelset weighs, ditch the 729's for 721's, ditch the silly big tyres, and ditch the Maxxis heavy inner tubes & go stans no tubes. You have instantly saved yourself in the region of 1kg plus & it will completely transform the way the bike rides...
    I may give the no tubes a shot but I really think I'm at my limit on weight after these changes.
    I spend most of my summer racing and taking trips to Snowshoe WV...all we really do is bomb the downhill runs hour after hour.
    We don't really ride the skinnies or dirt jumps, so my bike has to be a bit more solid. I'd start to worry a bit If my ride was 35 pounds...parts might start to fly off!!!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by SJensen
    middleburns are suppose to be pretty light
    Middleburns are the best cranks ever, I've been running them for 2 years now. They are stupid light. Pretty damn stiff (I will adsmit that they arent as stiff as OCTs or saints but still) and a LIFETIME warentee against DH racing (exept the threads and splines but you are a retard if you mess thoes up)
    Pump Tracks Are Rad!!!!

  39. #39
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,204
    -C-
    Why not i-beam post/ seat?
    A teammate of mine has a 35 lb socom (no pedals) w/ a pretty standard build...
    Golden Bike Park

    Golden Connector Trails need your support!

  40. #40
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    No IBeam seat/post because a cut down Thompson & Ti-Fly is lighter! (Just)

    I do think you could have a genuine 34lb Socom, and if you tried a bit harder, even sneak it into the 33lbs zone. That would be nice!

  41. #41
    Capricious youth...
    Reputation: Prettym1k3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,814
    New Gravity Lights.
    Meh.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11
    The Athertons use the Shimano cranks, because they are sponsored by Madison (UK Shimano distributors) They seem to have no problems with them.

    XT cranks are good, if your a Very light/smooth rider, ie around 160lbs or less.Anything over I wouldnt use them.

    I use OCTs, Super light, Super strong, and No flex at all. My bike is around 39lbs or less.

    https://www.photosled.com/data/1392/100.jpg - Thats with Michelins, probably heaviest tyres around, at 3lbs a pop.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by -C-
    See, i'm hopefully shooting for 34.something with the complete spec.

    Ti Spring
    Burgtec hubs on Mavic XM819 rims DT DB Spokes
    Maxxis 2.3 UST High Rollers
    Totem Solo Air
    Thompson Elite X4 stem
    Easton EA70 bars
    Cane Creek Double X 1.5" Headset
    Full SRAM X0
    Dura Ace cassette
    SRAM hollow link chain
    XTR M970 cranks
    Easton Flatboy pedals
    E13 LG1
    E13 36T ring
    Shimano XTR M970 brakes, goodridge hoses, 203mm front 180mm rear, Aztec rotors
    Thompson Elite seatpost (cut down)
    SDG Ti-Fly seat

    Thats roughly the spec....

    Edited to say Middleburns are not an option, need to be external BB..
    You are asking for trouble with thoes wheels and then some, as well they arent as light as they look. There are brass eyelits that add right around 125 grams, go with some 5.1Ds. Sapim spokes will also drop a bunch of weight in the wheels. I would also run a wider tire up front maxxis tend to run pretty narrow. A masterpeace post will save some weight as well as a tioga spyder or some other light weight saddle (the Ti fly is not the lightest)
    Pump Tracks Are Rad!!!!

  44. #44
    run, hide, it's a bike!
    Reputation: vexhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    342
    ditch that heavy ass fork and you'd loose much weight - boxxer or 40 i lighter
    xpedo pedals are the lightest i've found - they work pretty well too
    a cut down i-beam is still lighter than anything else.

    nice bike - don't forget to run xc tubes if you can, or mid weight - that helps a lot
    **! I'd rather sh!t out Mark Weir than watch him pedal up a hill !**

  45. #45
    mud slinger
    Reputation: kona4lyf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    234

    Good job! .

    fsa quad b/b and fsa gravity"s here,had no hassle,no flex,with decent pedal inserts,
    "do the things you fear and the death of fear is certain"

  46. #46
    banned
    Reputation: The Tod Says What?!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    917
    Middleburn?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by vexhex
    ditch that heavy ass fork and you'd loose much weight - boxxer or 40 i lighter
    xpedo pedals are the lightest i've found - they work pretty well too
    a cut down i-beam is still lighter than anything else.

    nice bike - don't forget to run xc tubes if you can, or mid weight - that helps a lot
    ummmm, you are flat out wrong
    The Ifly is 145 grams The Ifly post is at 230
    A sella SLR carbon is 125 grams, or something like a spider are 140 grams, With a masterpiece you are looking at 192 grams for the same claimed length and diameter.

    The totem solo air is 5.89 pounds the Boxxer WC is 6.2 pounds, I didn't check the 40 on line but I think its like 6.8. The 40 and Boxxer also use a 1 1/8 steer tube forcing you to use a heavy reducer.
    Pump Tracks Are Rad!!!!

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,029
    Wow the reading comprehension in this thread is up to the mtbr standard...

    The o.p is trying to build a 35# dh bike and says that atlas and xt are too ho hum and/or heavy, yet.....................

    many suggest OCTs or gravitys (light or not), or hones......
    come on people at least look up the mfg claimed weights (99% of the time lighter than actual) on these products before you post this crap.

    So...

    If you want lighter than XT (578 g for arms and spindle), XTR is about your only option. New gravity lights are close at 692 for arms and spindle....but that is about it.

    the OCT arms are not bad (550g arms only) (definately heavier than XTs) but the bb is a TANK...and ther are no other options. A complete holzfeller with bb is comparable to saints in weight.

    Only other option would be some road crank, or middleburns with a light bb (a heavy DH bb could push the total weight over that of XTs).

  49. #49
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by themontashu
    You are asking for trouble with thoes wheels and then some, as well they arent as light as they look. There are brass eyelits that add right around 125 grams, go with some 5.1Ds. Sapim spokes will also drop a bunch of weight in the wheels. I would also run a wider tire up front maxxis tend to run pretty narrow. A masterpeace post will save some weight as well as a tioga spyder or some other light weight saddle (the Ti fly is not the lightest)
    Trouble in terms of strength? There are plenty of people who run them & get a seasons use out of it. I don't expect them to last forever...

    Although this actually raises an interesting question, I have been thinking over going UST, or going XM719 rims.

    The DT rims look nice & light @ 500g, but they have a reputation of being made of cheese. Is this still the case?

    Don't want any bigger tyres, have never felt the need for tractor tyres - they just create too much drag. 2.35's survived 2 weeks of Alpine riding with no issues & thats enough for me as a test...

    Saddle - yes there are a few lighter, but the Ti-Fly has a element of (albeit small) comfort still...

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by -C-
    Trouble in terms of strength? There are plenty of people who run them & get a seasons use out of it. I don't expect them to last forever...

    Although this actually raises an interesting question, I have been thinking over going UST, or going XM719 rims.

    The DT rims look nice & light @ 500g, but they have a reputation of being made of cheese. Is this still the case?

    Don't want any bigger tyres, have never felt the need for tractor tyres - they just create too much drag. 2.35's survived 2 weeks of Alpine riding with no issues & thats enough for me as a test...

    Saddle - yes there are a few lighter, but the Ti-Fly has a element of (albeit small) comfort still...
    The newer 5.1s are harder, and suprisingly the spider is mad comfy
    Pump Tracks Are Rad!!!!

  51. #51
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    The 5.1's could be an option then, but the 719's are still lighter....

    Decisions decisions!

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    There never was a problem with the 5.1Ds. The first batch of 6.1s were sort on purpose, so that DH racers wouldn't get as many pinch flats- the rim would dent instead. DT realized how dumb that was, and hardened them up.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    680
    they are going to be within about 20 grams or so of each other, there are EYELITS that are used to hold the nipples in that are BRASS and HEAVY, mavic also happens to list the rim weight WITHOUT the eyelits.
    Pump Tracks Are Rad!!!!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by themontashu
    they are going to be within about 20 grams or so of each other, there are EYELITS that are used to hold the nipples in that are BRASS and HEAVY, mavic also happens to list the rim weight WITHOUT the eyelits.
    Help me understand this one: you say Mavicís stated weight on there rims are before eyelets are installed? For instance, Mavic states there new EN521 weight @ 540 g. Are you saying this is the rim weight before the eyelets were pressed into the rim

    Or perhaps you are referring to the special inserts that you have to add if you purchase the EN321. The EN 321 is listed as 570 gÖ however this rim is UST which forces you to use the special cups where the spoke nipple attaches. Maybe the rim weight is before the special hardware is installed?

  55. #55
    -> SickLines.com <-
    Reputation: mtb_biker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,196
    Quote Originally Posted by flyag1
    Help me understand this one: you say Mavic’s stated weight on there rims are before eyelets are installed? For instance, Mavic states there new EN521 weight @ 540 g. Are you saying this is the rim weight before the eyelets were pressed into the rim

    Or perhaps you are referring to the special inserts that you have to add if you purchase the EN321. The EN 321 is listed as 570 g… however this rim is UST which forces you to use the special cups where the spoke nipple attaches. Maybe the rim weight is before the special hardware is installed?
    Its just UST rims that need the special eyelet that isn't included in their weights. The EN 321 is not UST.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    746
    Do you know if the EN 521 is UST? I want to buy one or the other, but don't the weight of the UST build... I can run rim tape from Stans which will decrease total build weight. I think?

  57. #57
    -C-
    -C- is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    567
    Having done some investigations and, weighing of bits, I have worked out the following.

    Mavic UST rims are weighed minus the eyelets. So I weighed an 819 & an 823 bare rim which were 455g & 570g respectively. The eyelets weighed 45g, in the bag, with 33 (always incl a spare). So, you would need to add circa 42g to the weight of the wheel.

    When comparing an 823 to the DT 5.1, at 500g, then adding a tube (Maxxis welterweight) is circa 150g actual weight, it becomes comparable to an 823 built up

    Maxxis 2.35" ST dual ply DH tyres weigh the same as an identical model UST tyre, the Maxxis LUST are slightly lighter, which balances out using a sealant when running tubeless.

    So all in, I wouldn't save anything going for a 5.1, the only way I could save some weight is going to 819's & I would save a max of 100g per build. Not exactly the best $ per g saved

    So i'll stick with my 823's & be comfortable in the knowledge they are light & strong

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by -C-
    Having done some investigations and, weighing of bits, I have worked out the following.

    Mavic UST rims are weighed minus the eyelets. So I weighed an 819 & an 823 bare rim which were 455g & 570g respectively. The eyelets weighed 45g, in the bag, with 33 (always incl a spare). So, you would need to add circa 42g to the weight of the wheel.

    When comparing an 823 to the DT 5.1, at 500g, then adding a tube (Maxxis welterweight) is circa 150g actual weight, it becomes comparable to an 823 built up

    Maxxis 2.35" ST dual ply DH tyres weigh the same as an identical model UST tyre, the Maxxis LUST are slightly lighter, which balances out using a sealant when running tubeless.

    So all in, I wouldn't save anything going for a 5.1, the only way I could save some weight is going to 819's & I would save a max of 100g per build. Not exactly the best $ per g saved

    So i'll stick with my 823's & be comfortable in the knowledge they are light & strong
    the stans yellow tape works on 5.1Ds to convert them to tubeless, its like 20 grams
    Pump Tracks Are Rad!!!!

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thegromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    398
    I would go with the 5.1 and stans for sure or the dt swiss tubeless kit

Members who have read this thread: 0

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

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.