[Closed] Middleburns, why..?

I like mine; it comes with a unconditional guarantee, it 'just works', it looks good and it has never let me down...

Rachel

bet they last longer though

They are individually hand-carved.

never seen the appeal either. especially the mantra "i have a singlespeed therefore i must have square taper middleburns"
there are so many good external BB cranks out there that are cheaper,stiffer,stronger.

a vanity purchase for bedwetters and anal-retentives.

I have a set so I can run a clean looking spiderless single ring setup.
So yes, vanity!

I prefer WI myself...

there are so many good external BB cranks out there that are cheaper,stiffer,stronger.

but none that will last years with the same BB under heavy abuse. Decent Square taper BB's are still the best for longevity. 😀

oh and on the stronger bit I've broken two different hollowtech style cranks on a single speed but the middleburns just keep going.

I've bought and sold a fair few bits in my time but the only things i regret selling are the RS7's beautiful engineering, just wish I'd polished a set and kept 'em, Ah well 🙁

I like square taper BBs as I've always found them very reliable. Can't say the stiffness reason...or the claimed lack of it compared with external BB chainsets...has ever overly bothered me or been truly noticeable when i have tried external BB chainsets and nor has the additional weight penalty so I've stuck with ST. There aren't many companies making ST crank arms now so Middleburn suit. Sod all to do with vanity or anal-retentiveness 🙄

How good they are depends if you were mountain biking in 1995 or not 😀

They work and they last. I'm hard on kit but my Middleburns and square taper bbs are still going after many years of use. I've never noticed any practical difference in stiffness and weight compared to external bb set ups. Probably the best value cranks I've ever had. That they can still run 5 bolts and a 20t inner makes them a no brainer for me. I tend to break frames before I wear out Middleburn cranks. I have a set that have seen off two Hecklers, a Superlight, a Five Spot and a Hummer - all broke. Nuff said.

so there we have it. Middleburns last for ever therefore negating the need to manufacture more bottom brackets and cranksets and saving the planet from ecological and environmental meltdown. Just remember anyone you see without middleburns is obviously a crass consuming planet killer and should be beaten to with an inch of their lives with their nasty made of cheese external bb filth and ****y flexy cranks. 😀

what about octalink?

nasty made of cheese external bb filth

I agree with such vehement sentiment.

[i]Filth.[/i]

what about octalink?

OK users of octalink can join the planet saving gang as that lasts for ever as well. Boooooooooooo to the non-renewable resource abusing enviromurderer's

[img] [/img]

a typical middleburn user

He looks like he's setting up to poke someones eyes out. Non-middleburn users possibly...?

When I bought my first mtb I wore out several set s of LX chainrings and then XT chainrings plus suffered from chainsuck. Then I changed to Middleburn and they lasted years of riding through heavy muddy winters.

Now I bought middleburn for their duo setup and to run a phil wood square taper BB 'cos I want it to last.

Given a level playing field I think it is sensible to support a british company.

we used to have a decent hifi industry as well but the ignorant public decided to buy inferior japanese stuff, and now it is nearly gone.

The internal BB ones I can understand but then lots of Middleburn fans still got excited about the external version, that I don't understand at all.

OK users of octalink can join the planet saving gang as that lasts for ever as well. Boooooooooooo to the non-renewable resource abusing enviromurderer's

Whoever decided that HT2 would ever be superior to the brilliant properly sealed internal bearing BB's?

I've just bought some external BB Middleburns because I like the non anodised finish that will not rub off, the Uno ring for a 1x10 and they are made down the road. If the are not square taper, does that make me a planet killer?

If the are not square taper, does that make me a planet killer?

In engineering terms they are rubbish. But the bearings last.

HT2 types aren't that mich stiffer, someone tested em once.

In engineering terms they are rubbish. But the bearings last.

Pourquoi?

Their rings are streets ahead of others, and cheaper with it.

The bearings last because they're bigger

Never had a problem with square tapers and agree that HT2 was the answer to an unasked question. Bought external bb because I thought there would eventually be supply problems for square tape. Probably wrong of course but I had a spare bb knocking about as well

In engineering terms they are rubbish.

do explain dear chap, the world according to cynic-al is always an amusing and fluffy place.

b r - Member

Their rings are streets ahead of others, and cheaper with it.

Uh. Not so much, no. £26 for a slickshift middle ring vs £27 for an XT middle ring which shifts better from new and lasts longer. Bargain. Hardcoat that they sell as an upgrade is just a hard anodising much like every quality manufacturer uses as standard.

The chain rings are awesome, especially the teflon coated slick shift, hard as nails.
And as someone has already said they are British, hurrah!

Let's congratulate Shimano for finally producing some decent chainrings then, after years of crap which forced us to use middleburn.

middleburn might as well shut up shop now as we can clearly now trust the future to shimano, and there is no point in anyone providing any competition.

lets forget all those junk shimano BB standards forced on us and those junk BB standards like ISIS produced by everyone else because of shimanos lock down on their designs.

oh, and someone tell Royce and Phil Wood that they might as well shut shop as their stuff is clearly worthless as well.

turnerguy- chill out man, you make middleburn users sound like some sort of nutty zealots.

EDIT: from looking back through the thread it would appear that I agree with junkyard on something, I'm sorry that's not allowed so disregard all my previous statements, middleburns are now flexy unreliable pap and raceface external bottom brackets and cranks are much betterer.

I thought we were...

I thought we were...

yeh, you lot are all weird

no, raceface have seen how good XT chainrings are now and that is the real reason they have packed up...

middleburn might as well shut up shop now as we can clearly now trust the future to shimano, and there is no point in anyone providing any competition.
oh, and someone tell Royce and Phil Wood that they might as well shut shop as their stuff is clearly worthless as well.

why? there are so many doe-eyed sycophants willing to splash the cash

why? there are so many doe-eyed sycophants willing to splash the cash

... on an overpriced steel road frame because it has some italian's name on the downtube?

MrSmith - Member
...why? there are so many [s]doe-eyed sycophants[/s] [b]people who actually use their bikes[/b] willing to splash the cash

TFIFY 🙂

I had some older middleburns (RS3?) on square taper and the way the crankarm was shaped rubbed the inside of my foot which was very annoying. I also thought it flexier than the XT Octalink I had on another bike at the time, and the crank eventually cracked at the taper. The XT Octalink bottom bracket I had snapped, whereas the XTR one I have on yet another bike is worn but okay as long as I seriously overtighten the cranks… and I kill ISIS increadably quickly. Me breaking stuff is killing the planet…
I'd like to try the Middleburn HS2 as I love the single ring version - reminds me of my Jericho suffering on my ancient but everlasting and seriously overtightened 950 XTR.

I ran a set of RS7's for both duo and uno set ups last year (9-speed) and race on them all season. nice and light, clean lines and they're back on the 9'er for this season. The only reason I didn't use them on the race bike again is down to BB30 on the new frame, although my X9 cranks are horrid looking things (stiff though).

RS8 externals with a king BB on the Yeti and so far I've had no issues, bar the black paint rubbing off due to running flat pedals. Plenty of sessions down the quarry, a DH race and a fairly heavy trail centre session and no grumbles yet.

Not as stiff as Saints, but look nice, are light and UK made (for what thats worth).

I had a set in 2001, they were stiffer than the XTR at the time, noticeably. However they don't appear to have changed in the last decade...

"However they don't appear to have changed in the last decade... "

Because they are not broken!! If a product works its fine.

If people don't like Middleburns then fine buy something else, you don't have to justify your mistakes to the reast of us:-)

In engineering terms they are rubbish. But the bearings last.

In “engineering terms” if the bearings last then they are perfect for the task, I have several HT2 cranks at the minute, for all the advantages HT2 supposedly delivers they are still shite for bearings placing the bearings outboard was all about increasing Bearing size and axle diameter to extend their life… pretty much a total failure in that respect…

Less weigh and more stiffness are great but I’d rather have a marginally less stiff, heavier set of cranks with BB bearings can be reasonably expected to last couple of years…

Is a “normal” RS7 setup that much heavier?

How does Say RS7s with a UN72 and 3 rings/spider compare to a current XT triple in terms of weight?

Anyone got comparative figures? To my mind a 50% heavier crankset would still be worth it for improved reliability and reduced maintenance…

For SS use where reduced maintenance is one of the major USPs the same argument applies; UN52 lasts a comfortable 2 years for most people, XT HT2 BB gives what 8-12 months for about the same money…

My Royce Ti / RS7 triple was only a few grams heavier than XTR when I bought it in 2009.