Next SL cranks on a Pugsly?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,589

    Next SL cranks on a Pugsly?

    Hey all. Has anyone mounted these cranks on a Pugsly? I have spent quite a bit of time on the raceface website, trying to figure out how the fit would be. It gets a little weird, as they offer a crankset for 170 and 190 rear hub spacing, and the difference between the two appears to be the length of the spindle. I would like to achieve a nice chain line for a two ring set-up; short of calling Raceface, I'm a bit confused.
    Have any of you done something similar?
    Thank you in advance.
    ****

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,873
    Use the 170mm spindle as that is what the 135mm hub + 17.5mm rear offset equates to.

  3. #3
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,589
    Thank you. I guessed that would be the choice. Have you personally fitted the crankset to a Pugsly, and if so, what was your experience with setting up a good chainline for a two ring set-up?
    ****

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    314
    Call them. I do not understand why you are hesitating. When I was building my Surly ICT and wanted to understand my crank options, I called them three or four times.

  5. #5
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,200
    I put a Turbine Cinch on my Moonlander. 170 spaced. Worked fine.
    You change your own flats? Support your LBS and pay them to instead.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,406
    ^The Moonlander is 22.5 offset while the Pugs is 17.5 (170 centered). Do you have any chainline issues or do you just run 1X?

    Just curious.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Thank you. I guessed that would be the choice. Have you personally fitted the crankset to a Pugsly, and if so, what was your experience with setting up a good chainline for a two ring set-up?
    Not a Pugsley but used 2 RF on 2 different 170mm bikes. Both 1x and now one 2x (manual shift type). In your case you can play with spacers behind the BB cups as well as on the spindle to achieve the chain line you want.

    Centered, biased in/out, towards one ring or the other? You pick.

  8. #8
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,589
    Quote Originally Posted by paxfobiscum View Post
    Call them. I do not understand why you are hesitating. When I was building my Surly ICT and wanted to understand my crank options, I called them three or four times.
    Well, I did just call them. From what they said, there is not a lot of room for adjusting chainline in the direction I want to. There are three, 2.5mm spacers that go between the BB shell and the BB cups. You can change the placement, but you cannot omit any, as you have to maintain an overall length that "matches" the spindle length.
    I would be looking to bias my chainline in-board. I think I can cheat that by using spacers on my chainring/spider interface.
    ****

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,873
    We were typing at the same time. See my #7 post above yours. They are technically correct in maintaining the spindle length with the BB/spacer sandwich. Where and what type of spacers is up to you. You could but don't have to do it with chainring spacers.

    The three 2.5mm's they talk about are in the diagram below inboard of the cups. You can also use spacers highlighted with the red arrows.

  10. #10
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,589
    Thank you for that diagram.
    My situation is: I currently have a Truvativ crankset and HowitzerBB. By chainline is very biased in-board. I have a two ring set up. My inner chainring has the optimal chainline. I ride in the inner chainring most of the time, and use the whole cassette range. I only use the middle chainring when riding on the road to and from trail heads. I do not have a front derailleur. Yes, I know, I could/should get a modern 1X system, but that would have to wait for another payday. Nice thing about the Next SL system is I can make the swith with little pain.
    ****

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,406
    That diagram is for the X-type Atlas or Turbine cranks with a 68/73mm bb, and I think it's the older version although it does show the spline interface of the ISIS standard. You want this one for the fatbikes which also lists some chainline and hub OLD numbers to help. On my Turbines for a 170 rear, there is an additional 1mm spindle spacer (red arrows in previous diagram) that goes to the drive side. There are 3 1mm spindle spacers and 3 2.5mm BB spacers, 1 of each for the ND side and 2 each for the D side. As long as you use them all, you can move them around to get the chainline you want unless you hit your chainstays. In addition, there is a thread here that talks about having all 2.5mm BB spacers on the drive side. If you were to try that, you may want to get the RF DH BB that has more threads.

    http://www.raceface.com/comp/pdf/FAT...CLEARANCES.pdf
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Thank you for that diagram.
    My situation is: I currently have a Truvativ crankset and HowitzerBB. By chainline is very biased in-board. I have a two ring set up. My inner chainring has the optimal chainline. I ride in the inner chainring most of the time, and use the whole cassette range. I only use the middle chainring when riding on the road to and from trail heads. I do not have a front derailleur. Yes, I know, I could/should get a modern 1X system, but that would have to wait for another payday. Nice thing about the Next SL system is I can make the swith with little pain.
    If I were to run 1x, the ring would be in the middle position of my 10spd turbine crankset. In part due to the fact that most rings of a certain size will fit 104bcd and not 64. I kind of agree with you that it appears the better chainline exists with the granny position visually. I think that by modern 1x you mean to say the cinch system, which can also be set up with a spider to run 2x or 1x with a 104bcd ring. In any case, I agree you should just get rid of the Truvativ. They're so blah
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

Similar Threads

  1. Pugsly For the Bear 100?
    By richie64 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-02-2014, 02:52 AM
  2. Red pugsly where?
    By winginit in forum Surly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2012, 03:01 PM
  3. Pugsly new front hub...
    By Slarti in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-09-2012, 05:53 PM
  4. Aerobars on a Pugsly
    By Slarti in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 05:44 PM
  5. Pugsly Seatpost Collar 30.0 or not?!
    By dustyduke22 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-03-2011, 05:44 AM

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.