Thinking of fitting a new 160mm crank to my bike. It's running Turbine right now and they will move onto a different bike (165mm)
So I could just swap like for like or do I spoil myself and spec the Era?
Bike is 160mm both ends, somewhat overbuilt, ridden in rocky locations and used for foreign holidays and not chasing grams.
Been bitten by Race face SixC cranks before, but RaceFace to claim the Era is different, but they would say that. "Lifetime" warranty is offered but when you read the small print, a lifetime is 10 years.
Shimano are great and a comparable weight to the Turbine but I don't want that 55mm chainline.
Shimano xt 8100 is a 52mm chain line if that would suit, Merlin have them for 75 quid. If you’re not chasing absolutely the lowest weight then I think Shimano make the best cranks
From the research I've done, Shimano only offer 160mm in 55mm chain line. The shortest they do in 52mm is 165, in which case, I should just stick with my Turbines
XT M8200 come in 160mm and 165mm - with the new one piece chainring (SMCRM86) it has a 55mm chainline, but pair it with the older (SMCRM85) chainring, or presumably aftermarket options, and it gives a 52mm chainline.
I didn't know that about the chainring. I always thought Shimano altered chainline with axle length and spacers on the axle
However, the Turbines are similar money to XT and similar weight to XTR. Plus I have a really nice BSA30 bottom.bracket and a stock of Cinch chainrings so looking to stay in that ecosystem making the original question a simple dilemma
Quite like the look of the Era's and the scuff plate.
Thinking of carbon cranks for my next build, but liking the look of Hopes over RF tbh - of no use to you whatsoever though as they don't do 160's 😂
Made by RaceFace, distributed by Silverfish, made of carbon - wouldn't touch Eras
Yeah, I did stumble across an old thread on here of people saying RaceFace is great stuff so long as it's all one material and no moving parts.
Id get the raceface eras, ive used the warrenty for a couple of crash damaged era products and it is a genuine no quibble replacement. Ive had my fair share of issues with previous racface carbon cranks to the point I just binned a set rather than warrenty them again. 2 years on the eras and no issues just crash damage, which was sorted within a couple of days with a brand new retail set.
Good to hear from an owner of the kit in question. Cheers
“I didn't know that about the chainring. I always thought Shimano altered chainline with axle length and spacers on the axle.”
That was the case with last generation XT and XTR, but there’re all now 55mm which can be brought inward to 52mm with the old, more dished chainring.
Your stash of spares does make it sensible to stock with RF.
Made by RaceFace, distributed by Silverfish, made of carbon - wouldn't touch Eras
Its the holy trinity of things not to touch with a sh*tty stick 😆
I was about to say that I've never had an issue with Turbine cranks but thinking back, I has a set with the ISIS interface that were out of tolerance on the splines. However, all of my 30mm Cinch Turbine cranks have been fine as have the stems, although they are re-badged Easton stems
So, I've still not made my choice but the shout of "SHIMANO" early on in this thread got me doing some digging.
I'm looking for 160mm so in Shimano, that's the FC-M9220 or the FC-M8200.
FC-M9220 528 grams, £211
FC-M8200 525 grams, £100
Turbine 531 grams, £175
The weight saving on the XTR comes from the chainring being 64g rather than 116g for the XT. However, the XT ring has steel teeth and lives for ever. Fit a £40 Works components ring and XT is the same weight as XTR and the Turbine/Cinch setup I'm running right now. The £75 saving over RaceFace is enough to buy a chainring and the TL-FC41 tool to fit said ring.
I've got a Hope BSA24 bottom bracket in the spares box so that's now an option.
Decisions, decisions.
If I only end up with one Shimano part on my bike it will be the crankset, and probably with their £8 bottom bracket (Merlin). I do have he Works Comp chainring that I fitted for SRAM chain compatibility reasons but it's light too and looks expensive.
So, I've still not made my choice but the shout of "SHIMANO" early on in this thread got me doing some digging.
I'm looking for 160mm so in Shimano, that's the FC-M9220 or the FC-M8200.
FC-M9220 528 grams, £211
FC-M8200 525 grams, £100
Turbine 531 grams, £175
The weight saving on the XTR comes from the chainring being 64g rather than 116g for the XT. However, the XT ring has steel teeth and lives for ever. Fit a £40 Works components ring and XT is the same weight as XTR and the Turbine/Cinch setup I'm running right now. The £75 saving over RaceFace is enough to buy a chainring and the TL-FC41 tool to fit said ring.
I've got a Hope BSA24 bottom bracket in the spares box so that's now an option.
Decisions, decisions.
Is it just me that finds the latest Shimano XTR/XTR chainsets ugly AF? And I'm a Shimano Vs SRAM fan
Yeah, the XTR is far from subtle
Is it just me that finds the latest Shimano XTR/XTR chainsets ugly AF? And I'm a Shimano Vs SRAM fan
The XTs are fine, the XTRs, 100% agree!
I read that as the XTR group set, XTR cranks are aesthetically challenged . Was it supposed to say XT/XTR?
I think XT looks fine
I read that as the XTR group set, XTR cranks are aesthetically challenged . Was it supposed to say XT/XTR?
I think XT looks fine
Yeah it was
Just looked again and yeah XT is ok, nothing special though. Had it in my head they had similar graphics and chainring to the fugly XTR
The chainrings aren't pretty but fitting an aluminium aftermarket ring is cheaper, lighter and prettier. All the extra weight in XT and SLX is the steel toothed chainring.
Xt and SLX are inoffensive and unremarkable in their looks.