Middleburn cranks are prettier.

Hope cranks too industrial looking and hugely over branded for my taste.

Each to their own of course.

Any idea of the price?

Its really hard to see past Shimano cranks for MTB unless you are a tart!

This is a great idea though

I like the shape of Hope products, but as others have said, I’d much prefer a small hope logo and none of the lines.

Their allen bolt seat clamps in years gone by were really neat, can’t say the same of the new ones, and yes, the lines look daft!

As a bit of a Hope tart I really like these.

I have to agree with common consensus on the graphics though, they’re a tad too busy for me.

richmtb – Member

Any idea of the price?

Its really hard to see past Shimano cranks for MTB unless you are a tart!

Dear Hope,

if you are looking for a usp for your cranks, make properly-short options available.

shimano only go down to 165, which isn’t short at all.

140mm cranks please.

Purple!

(via Drit Magazine)

I like them but not a fan of the logo.

Wish I hadn’t seen those purple ones now 😆 ! They suit my Stooge perfectly.

Gutted, i just bought brand new XT cranks because i had waited for the hope ones for so bloody long! Guess i will have to wait and see how much they are going to be! Any guesses on price? will they do 165mm arms?

I like the way the website works. Quite an overhaul from the old one.

Why does only Shimano make hollow cranks? And are hollow cranks better than non-hollow ones?

IIRC Shimano have a very clever patent coveing the hollow forgeing process.

Cannondale and Crank brothers both made CNC’d cranks which are/were glued together and incedibly light. Rotor do it by drilling down the center of the crank. The important bit with Shimano though is they’re forged hollow, not CNC’d, which makes them much tougher, which is why DH’ers will happily use XTR cranks which only weigh a smidgen more than some silly light XC offerings with weight and usage limiets.

I remember a story that even NASA went to Shimano to see how they do it and it’s a very closely guarded patent, think about stuff like the suspension arms in your car (or at least sports/super cars), they’d be an ideal application, or even the con-rods in the engine.

based on experience from car suspension parts then closed hollow section parts like shimano cranks are more optimised in terms of stiffness to weight but end up with thinner walls so can dent or buckle in a knock easier than C/H section parts with thicker walls. Obviously the latter are heavier for the same stiffness.

make properly-short options available

Canfield go down to 155mm, and are quite nice. I must admit, I found that rather too short for a trail bike. Are you DH’ing?

Cannondale and Crank brothers both made CNC’d cranks which are/were glued together and incedibly light.

Wasn’t the issue with the CB ones (and the reason they stopped making them) that they didn’t stay glued together for long?

Did look nice though.

BigDummy – Member

Canfield go down to 155mm, and are quite nice. I must admit, I found that rather too short for a trail bike. Are you DH’ing?

nope, my wife is 5’1″ – she’s got 165’s. Which doesn’t sound long, but it’s the same leg/crank ratio as me running 220’s. No wonder her knees hurt.

165 isn’t short. The world needs nice 130/140mm cranks.

Nice. But £245 puts them into very nice territory and some strong competition.

Hope you don’t have to separate the hose and thread it through the seat clamp….

(see what I did there … )

^This^

Will get one if it means no hose faffing. My Liteville 301 has a channel under the toptube and a hole which ze Germans call an ‘ashtray’ directly in front of seat tube where the cable comes out. Because if the position of the hose insert on the reverb it puts a bit of strain on the hose due to the extreme angle.

Anyway.. I’ll get one if it means i don’t have to install a new cable, If i do then I can just re route not using the ashtray as i’ve seen others do.

The gap in the ball insert would suggest that you could just fit it on right?

Is that hose clip seat clamp a good idea, won’t it just rub against the top tube?

140 cranks would mean her saddle would have to be 30mm higher.

Was just about to post that about the split but beaten to it.

Also shows you can mount it on either side.

Do Hope do a PF30 version of their pressfit/screw (twatting PF/BB30!!) BB? Can’t see it on their site.

140 cranks would mean her saddle would have to be 30mm higher.

In an ideal world you’d pick the crank length first and design the frame around it. (lower bb, smaller front-centre, no need for steep seat tube compromised steering geometry etc…)

nasa went to Shimano? Sounds a bit iffy

They could have just gone and asked a chap in California I lived with a chap called george in the USA he was later the head of crank design at SRAM he knew how but there was nothing they could do about it

Back in late 90’s when Shimano first announced hollow forged cranks, middleburn asked the their forgers (apparently an industry leader) they had no idea how Shimano were doing it. Speaking to middleburn recently, it sounds like they have come up with a process. Saying that, the RS7 and RS8 have an extremely good record. I guess the big gain will be weight savings.
don’t much like the look of the cranks, especially the graphics. I will be interested to hear about longevity of the bearings. Will not trust magazine reviews because, well, how much do you trust them? The spline thing allowing multiple spiders/rings…sounds like a rip off of the middleburn design.
hope have got the skils, tools, in house. Why not come with something that stands out rather than copying what’s already out there?

The spline thing allowing multiple spiders/rings…sounds like a rip off of the middleburn design.

It’s effectively what SRAM/RF/e13 have been doing too. It’d be too much to hope that they’d all agree on a common interface, of course.

ac282 – Member

140 cranks would mean her saddle would have to be 30mm higher.

i know, another plus point for shorter cranks!

it’s tricky to explain, but 140 cranks would mean she could go ‘up’ a frame size – which at the very least would mean she had more choice.

(44cm frames are not common)

Nice idea on the clamp but to be the ultimate for me I’d like them to nick the idea of the cover for the frame slot off of Crank Bros (and lose the gopping graphics natch).

It’s effectively what SRAM/RF/e13 have been doing too. It’d be too much to hope that they’d all agree on a common interface, of course.

And Cannondale, THM, Rotor, Lightning etc. Allows for modular crank systems, makes absolute sense. Agree that a common standard would be nice.