2017 (new version) Jet RDO crankset/chainstay clearance- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 41 of 41
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820

    2017 (new version) Jet RDO crankset/chainstay clearance

    Has anyone had any issues with crankset/chainstay clearance? I have a 168Q, 175mm XO1 and XX1 cranksets and both of them underload hit the chainstay on the upswing. I have installed the External SRAM GXP BB properly with no spacers (73mm BB shell width). When under load such as climbing, the driveside crank arm hits the chainstay on the upswing. I borrowed a friends SRAM X1 crank and it has a little more clearance and does not flex as much. It works fine. I have tried everything and have given up on the XO1 and XX1 crank. The clearance is not enough and they flex more than the Aluminum X1 crank. FWIW, I am 5'-9", weigh 195Lbs, and ride a Medium frame.
    Just curious if anyone else has had this issue?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    54
    I have the same bike, same size and am close to your size (5'10" 180). I purchased my bike in the box and assembled it myself. It came with Raceface Turbine cranks 175mm. To be honest, not sure what the Q is on them but they have plenty of clearance from the chain stays.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Quote Originally Posted by motox155 View Post
    I have the same bike, same size and am close to your size (5'10" 180). I purchased my bike in the box and assembled it myself. It came with Raceface Turbine cranks 175mm. To be honest, not sure what the Q is on them but they have plenty of clearance from the chain stays.
    Thanks for the reply. Those cranks have a greater Q factor than the carbon Sram cranks and they probably don't flex as much as well. Niner responded to my email and has acknowledged it is an issue with the Sram xx1/XO1 cranks for a "larger" rider. The AL cranks, XT, RF, and even Sram X1 are a wider q factor and probably don't flex as much and will work fine. I wish Niner would go ahead and acknowledge this issue on their website and save people the trouble, time, money and worries.
    Niner did send me a revised chainstay protector with the cutout window at the front versus the rear, apparently the older style. That was some consolation given the headaches it caused me. Took me a lot of various swap outs of various things, checking this checking that, etc., until I finally saw the crank hit the chainstay as I looked backwards while climbing and saw it. A real bummer I can't use my high end crank. And while we are at it, why no 30.9 x 400mm seatpost? Every other size, 27.2 and 31.6, but not the 30.9. Other than that, bike is phenomenal!
    Last edited by epiphreddy; 05-29-2018 at 06:56 PM.

  4. #4
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    Thanks for the reply. Those cranks have a greater Q factor than the carbon Sram cranks and they probably don't flex as much as well. Niner responded to my email and has acknowledged it is an issue with the Sram xx1/XO1 cranks for a "larger" rider. The AL cranks, XT, RF, and even Sram X1 are a wider q factory and probably don't flex as much and will work fine. I wish Niner would go ahead and acknowledge this issue on their website and save people the trouble, time, money and worries.
    Niner did send me a revised chainstay protector with the cutout window at the front versus the rear, apparently the older style. That was some consolation given the headaches it caused me. Took me a lot of various swap outs of various things, checking this checking that, etc., until I finally saw the crank hit the chainstay as I looked backwards while climbing and saw it. A real bummer I can't use my high end crank. And while we are at it, why no 30.9 x 400mm seatpost? Every other size, 27.2 and 31.6, but not the 30.9. Other than that, bike is phenomenal!
    I've just encountered this problem with my 2017 RIP 9 RDO on the first ride. Running X01 Eagle crankset with the supplied crankarm boots and the RIP has the older style chain stay protector.

    Iíve noted that there has been a revision to the chain stay protector on later RIP 9 RDOs and also that Niner is now specíing this bike with Truvativ Descendant Carbon Eagle cranks rather than X01. From SRAMs website I see that the Descendant driveside crank arm has 72mm offset from the bike centerline vs 70.5mm for the X01s so Iím guessing the combination of these two changes have solved this problem?

    For what its worth I'm 6' and about 195lbs riding a size large frame.

    I'm wondering how did you end up resolving this with your JET?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Quote Originally Posted by kwarwick View Post
    I've just encountered this problem with my 2017 RIP 9 RDO on the first ride. Running X01 Eagle crankset with the supplied crankarm boots and the RIP has the older style chain stay protector.

    Iíve noted that there has been a revision to the chain stay protector on later RIP 9 RDOs and also that Niner is now specíing this bike with Truvativ Descendant Carbon Eagle cranks rather than X01. From SRAMs website I see that the Descendant driveside crank arm has 72mm offset from the bike centerline vs 70.5mm for the X01s so Iím guessing the combination of these two changes have solved this problem?

    For what its worth I'm 6' and about 195lbs riding a size large frame.

    I'm wondering how did you end up resolving this with your JET?
    I'm using a lower end AL sram crank, that doesn't flex as much, and even though same Q factor, it has just enough clearance. Width of crank arm (at pedal spindle) is slightly narrower which helps too.

  6. #6
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Thanks for your response.

    The more I think about this, the more I think the flex is happening in the frame rather than the crank arms. Considering the crankarm is hitting on the upstroke it seems unlikely that it would be pushed inwards at that point. More likely the chain tension is causing the rear triangle to flex outwards... with so little clearance it wouldn't take much flex to cause a problem.

    I sent Niner an email so lets see if they have anything new to say about this since you chatted with them.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: In2falling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    619
    I am getting ready to build out a large here this week and hoping I will not have an issue with my older X0 cranks which appear to be 72mm on drive side.

    https://sram-cdn-pull-zone-gsdesign....etrain_ffs.pdf

    Looking at your X01 Eagles they are 70.5mm on drive side and the Non-Eagle X01/XX1's are 72mm. So your X01 Eagles might not work.

    https://sram-cdn-pull-zone-gsdesign...._mtb_ffs_0.pdf

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by kwarwick View Post
    Thanks for your response.

    The more I think about this, the more I think the flex is happening in the frame rather than the crank arms. Considering the crankarm is hitting on the upstroke it seems unlikely that it would be pushed inwards at that point. More likely the chain tension is causing the rear triangle to flex outwards... with so little clearance it wouldn't take much flex to cause a problem.

    I sent Niner an email so lets see if they have anything new to say about this since you chatted with them.
    It's not the upstroke on the drive side that's getting you, it's the down stroke on the non drive side. Stand on your pedals with the non drive pedal forward, hold the rear brake, push hard on the non drive pedal and watch the drive side get close to the chain stay. I had the same issue as everyone else here, even with the new chain stay cover I can still get contact if i run the sram crank boots.

    I thought about going back to the stock RF cranks but I don't care for the look or design of the cranks and BB.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  9. #9
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    It's not the upstroke on the drive side that's getting you, it's the down stroke on the non drive side. Stand on your pedals with the non drive pedal forward, hold the rear brake, push hard on the non drive pedal and watch the drive side get close to the chain stay.
    Right, but then I don't see how it could be the drive side crank arm flexing unless I'm missing something. My thoughts are it would have to be either the bottom bracket or BB shell flexing allowing the drive side crank to move inwards or the rear triangle/chainstay moving towards the drive side due to the tension from the chain. Or something else non-obvious??

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by kwarwick View Post
    Right, but then I don't see how it could be the drive side crank arm flexing unless I'm missing something. My thoughts are it would have to be either the bottom bracket or BB shell flexing allowing the drive side crank to move inwards or the rear triangle/chainstay moving towards the drive side due to the tension from the chain. Or something else non-obvious??
    I think it's the rear/front triangles flexing at the links. I don't consider it a huge deal but I do wish there was more clearance.

    I even bought the long spindle version of my pedals to make some more heal room.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    My drive side crank would hit on the upstroke. I have the older style chainstay protector on my Jet and had the plastic crank covers on the ends of my XO1 cranks. There wasn't much clearance between chainstay and the crank arm. So pushing down on non driveside and pulling up on driveside (under heavy load/torque) such as climbing would cause it. I think it is a combination of everything you guys have said coupled with a crank that the Q factor is too low, old style chainstay cover and crankarm cover.
    What was weird is that the SRAM X1 (AL crank) numerically has the same Q factor (168) as the carbon cranks, but it had more clearance and the crank arm was slightly narrower. Just enough to where it works fine. Luckily I had a friend willing to sell, so was able to try it out before buying.
    I find it FRUSTRATING that Niner (to my knowledge) does not mention this anywhere on their site, or literature and leaves it up to customer to figure this out by whatever means.

  12. #12
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    What was weird is that the SRAM X1 (AL crank) numerically has the same Q factor (168) as the carbon cranks, but it had more clearance and the crank arm was slightly narrower. Just enough to where it works fine. Luckily I had a friend willing to sell, so was able to try it out before buying.
    Q-factor is a measurement of the distance between the pedal attachment points on the crankarms. So actually it does make sense that the X1 crank with the same Q-factor has more clearance from the seat stays due to thinner aluminum arms.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: In2falling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    My drive side crank would hit on the upstroke. I have the older style chainstay protector on my Jet and had the plastic crank covers on the ends of my XO1 cranks. There wasn't much clearance between chainstay and the crank arm. So pushing down on non driveside and pulling up on driveside (under heavy load/torque) such as climbing would cause it. I think it is a combination of everything you guys have said coupled with a crank that the Q factor is too low, old style chainstay cover and crankarm cover.
    What was weird is that the SRAM X1 (AL crank) numerically has the same Q factor (168) as the carbon cranks, but it had more clearance and the crank arm was slightly narrower. Just enough to where it works fine. Luckily I had a friend willing to sell, so was able to try it out before buying.
    I find it FRUSTRATING that Niner (to my knowledge) does not mention this anywhere on their site, or literature and leaves it up to customer to figure this out by whatever means.
    info on this is on their site.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/ninerwebsit...+Clearence.pdf

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    That information was not on their website at the time I started this thread. I am glad they have acknowledged this. However, I tried the Sram 11 speed XX1 and XO1 cranks (shown to be compatible in their link) and they are NOT compatible at least with the older style chainstay protector. Those are the exact cranks I used and discussed in this thread. The Sram X1 (Al cranks) do work fine as mentioned.

  15. #15
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    That information was not on their website at the time I started this thread. I am glad they have acknowledged this. However, I tried the Sram 11 speed XX1 and XO1 cranks (shown to be compatible in their link) and they are NOT compatible. Those are the exact cranks I used and discussed in this thread. The Sram X1 (Al cranks) do work fine as mentioned. Maybe Niner will get this right eventually.
    That's bad news. According to SRAMs 2017 Frame Fit Specifications, the 11 speed X01 crank has 72mm of drive side clearance vs. 70.5 for the Eagle X01 cranks that I can definitely confirm are a problem with my frame. The difference is only 1.5mm and coincidentally that's also the amount crank boots decrease the clearance by. I'm almost wondering if they are quoting one with crank boots and the other without?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Where did you find the frame fit specifications you mention? Have a link? I edited my post to read "with the older style chainstay protector".

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Never mind, I found the info. I wonder if the newer chainstay protector makes enough of a difference. The older one certainly doesn't. Niner should perhaps mention this as well.

  18. #18
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    Where did you find the frame fit specifications you mention? Have a link? I edited my post to read "with the older style chainstay protector".
    Located here:
    https://www.sram.com/service/sram/437

    Specifically the 2017 one: https://sram-cdn-pull-zone-gsdesign....17_mtb_ffs.pdf

  19. #19
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    Never mind, I found the info. I wonder if the newer chainstay protector makes enough of a difference. The older one certainly doesn't. Niner should perhaps mention this as well.
    Yeah, I'm still waiting for Niner to respond to my email and help me make sense of all this.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    They will send you the new chainstay protector which has the "window" at the front (versus the rear) as we have discussed. That is what they did for me. I never used it since the Sram X1 crank worked fine. I'll be curious to see if you install the new chainstay protector and you can use your nice carbon crank.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    The more I think about this, the more I think that the Sram frame fit specifications shown are off by a few millimeters, just enough where the XO1 and XX1 cranks would not work. The Sram X1 cranks were just slightly wider than the XO1 and XX1 cranks and I measured all 3 without the crankarm end protectors. Even though their specifications state 72mm for all three. Couple this in with the XO1 and XX1 crankarm end protectors and slightly more flex, this caused the problem.
    Sounds crazy, I know, but the carbon cranks definitely flexed more than the AL cranks. It was noticeable, less clearance and more flex. I pulled my hair out for about 2 days discovering this.

    Kwarwick, I seriously doubt you will be able to use those cranks with this frame.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: In2falling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    619
    My plan is if my older X0 carbon cranks don't work is to switch over to aluminum Sram GX Eagle DUB cranks, they are 73.6mm on both sides.

    Only 100 grams heavier than the carbon X0's, the new DUB BB looks more robust than GPX and can pick up the cranks and BB for around $160.

  23. #23
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Just so other's here have some context on the degree of this problem here are some photos showing the clearances drive side vs. non drive side on my RIP 9 RDO with old style chainstay protector. Drive side has less than 2mm between crank arm boots and chain stay protector.

    2017 (new version) Jet RDO crankset/chainstay clearance-20180531_112909.jpg2017 (new version) Jet RDO crankset/chainstay clearance-20180531_112950.jpg

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Good info Kwarwick. I'll try to take a picture of my X1 crank this evening and post it.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Here is a shot of my SRAM X1 1400 Aluminum crank, just enough clearance to not hit the chainstay.

    2017 (new version) Jet RDO crankset/chainstay clearance-shot-looking-down.jpg

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: In2falling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    619
    Got my RDO built out and first ride in, and the carbon X0's seem to work fine. Probably have about maybe 4mm space with booty and old style CS protector.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    How much do you weigh?

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: In2falling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    How much do you weigh?
    I am about 200lbs and riding large Jet RDO. Only first easy ride on bike so we will see, probably have Niner send me update CS protector and put it on just incase.

  29. #29
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by In2falling View Post
    Got my RDO built out and first ride in, and the carbon X0's seem to work fine. Probably have about maybe 4mm space with booty and old style CS protector.
    Good to hear. 4mm sounds about right based on older non-Eagle X01 cranks. I wonder why SRAM felt the need to reduce the clearance on the Eagle version of the X01 cranks? If it wasn't for the design of GXP system fixing the cranks to the non-drive side bearing I think I could probably have done something to space out the drive side cup enough to solve this.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,265
    Even with the new CS cover my xo's still hit my chainstays with a crank boot on. Oh well, no boot for me.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    So with no crank boot it does not hit? I tried that too with my XO cranks and it didn't help, thus my move to the Sram X1 Al crank.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    "I think I could probably have done something to space out the drive side cup enough to solve this."

    I tried BB cup spacers on the drive side and could not get it to work. I tried small spacers on the crank too. Once you put so many on there you get BB drag/friction.

  33. #33
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    "I think I could probably have done something to space out the drive side cup enough to solve this."

    I tried BB cup spacers on the drive side and could not get it to work. I tried small spacers on the crank too. Once you put so many on there you get BB drag/friction.
    Because of how the GXP crank spindle is attached solidly to the non-drive side BB bearing and floats on the drive side adding spacers on the drive side does nothing other than reduce space between crank and BB cup and cause drag like you experienced. The only thing I could think of would be to add a spacer to the spindle where it steps down to 22mm but I don't know if that would cause problems with the non-drive side crank attachment.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Quote Originally Posted by kwarwick View Post
    Because of how the GXP crank spindle is attached solidly to the non-drive side BB bearing and floats on the drive side adding spacers on the drive side does nothing other than reduce space between crank and BB cup and cause drag like you experienced. The only thing I could think of would be to add a spacer to the spindle where it steps down to 22mm but I don't know if that would cause problems with the non-drive side crank attachment.
    So did Niner get back with you with any suggestions?

  35. #35
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    So did Niner get back with you with any suggestions?
    Other than confirming my Eagle X01 crankset is not compatible, no suggestions other than to contact my dealer (JensonUSA). They are sending me the revised chainstay protector.

  36. #36
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Just installed SRAM X1 Descendant (aluminum) crankset and now have 5mm of clearance with old style chainstay protector.

    2017 (new version) Jet RDO crankset/chainstay clearance-untitled.jpg

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    820
    Good deal. If you step on the pedal downward and sideways (inwards) does it flex as much as your XO Carbon cranks did? I am convinced that the SRAM Al cranks are stiffer.

  38. #38
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by epiphreddy View Post
    Good deal. If you step on the pedal downward and sideways (inwards) does it flex as much as your XO Carbon cranks did? I am convinced that the SRAM Al cranks are stiffer.
    No flex was obvious when I did so, but out on a ride today I felt there was some very slight contact happening on technical climbs in the lowest gear. If I grab the crank arm and seatstay and squeeze them together I can almost completely close up the gap. My observation is the rear triangle is moving towards the crank rather than the crank flexing. Perhaps if I put on the revised protector this won't happen, but I don't like the idea of there being nothing between the crankarm and the seatstay so I'm reluctant to do so.

  39. #39
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    You guys probably think I'm crazy, but I'm going to try swapping cranks one more time.

    Got a set of Eagle GX cranks coming, which according to SRAM's specifications, should give me another 1.6mm of clearance.

  40. #40
    Drinkin' the 29er KoolAid
    Reputation: kwarwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Eagle GX cranks installed and I now have approximately 7mm of drive side clearance (still using old style chainstay protector).

    Even with some RaceFace crank boots installed I didn't notice any contact on technical climbs.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: In2falling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by kwarwick View Post
    Eagle GX cranks installed and I now have approximately 7mm of drive side clearance (still using old style chainstay protector).

    Even with some RaceFace crank boots installed I didn't notice any contact on technical climbs.

    Good to hear the GX cranks clear with lots of space. My carbon XO's have slightly rubbed (barely feel it) a couple of times now on a dozen rides.

    Its not a big deal, so going to keep the old CS protector on also and and switch to Eagle 12 speed when my 11 speed wears out.

Similar Threads

  1. jet 9 rdo works angled headset?? 2014 jet 9 rdo
    By Juan Flores in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-04-2015, 10:18 PM
  2. Jet 9 RDO 2012 - Worth upgrading to latest Jet 9 RDO?
    By Kuttermax in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-31-2015, 09:32 AM
  3. Jet 9 RDO rear chainstay crack, warranty question
    By brightsky in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-19-2013, 09:54 PM
  4. Jet 9 RDO Too-long Chainstay?
    By fredbooxe in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-23-2012, 01:55 PM
  5. My NEW Niner Jet 9 RDO - Ladies version :) - PHOTO!
    By kellijayne in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-02-2012, 02:32 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.