Cinfirmed...SLX arms lighter than xt
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
401 Posts
Your hanging your hat on 8 grams??? Hell that is could be manufacturing tolerances. The next pair you weigh the XT may be 8 grams lighter. But the SLX being cheaper an IMHO better looking there is the "no brainer". But all that said you still need chainrings and the XT come with Alloy rings--STX are steel--there is your weight difference in the complete setup. STX+Alloy Rings probably more expensive than XT.
Joined
·
401 Posts
On the tangent of stiffness--at what point does more stiffness become marketing hype and of no practical use?? Every generation of parts is said to be better than the last. But does it really make any difference? I have a bike with 960XTR cranks and one with the 970XTR cranks--I weigh 165+/- and truth be told I can't tell the difference, hell your wheels are flexing, your tires are flexing, your frame is flexing-----at what point does a stiffer crank just cause other parts to flex more? Just food for thought--because I have no idea.
Joined
·
10,033 Posts
ive never had a problem with the "less stiff" cranks. i actually loved my octalink xt crank!
it wouldnt make sense if slx was more expensive than xt, trying to be sold on the merit of stiffness. its cheaper though, weighs the same, and even if you dont notice any stiffness difference, its a hell of a deal.
it wouldnt make sense if slx was more expensive than xt, trying to be sold on the merit of stiffness. its cheaper though, weighs the same, and even if you dont notice any stiffness difference, its a hell of a deal.
as mentioned above the rings are a major part of the total weight and price
xt has steel/carbon middle and XTR Ti/carbon I cant vouch for the xtr but the newer xt middle lasts at least twice as long as aluminum
not knocking slx, good and tough. xt and xtr are just a bit better manufactured and a bit less weight. As we all know as the weight goes down the price goes up You have to decide if the couple of grams is worth the $$
xt has steel/carbon middle and XTR Ti/carbon I cant vouch for the xtr but the newer xt middle lasts at least twice as long as aluminum
not knocking slx, good and tough. xt and xtr are just a bit better manufactured and a bit less weight. As we all know as the weight goes down the price goes up You have to decide if the couple of grams is worth the $$
Joined
·
401 Posts
dan0 said:
I was looking at Shimano's website and it appears that XT and SLX have the same middle and large chainring (steel+composite and aluminum) and the only ring difference is the small which is aluminum for XT and steel for SLX. This is for the triple the double SLX uses a aluminum 36tooth. Learn something new all the time--who would have thunk it.
SLX and XT are practically the same until you have to lay down the coin to take it home, then SLX will leave your wallet fatter.
Keep in mind there are some differences betweeen the 2 and three ring versions of the slx. Pedal inserts and possibly a different spindle (certainly was on the LX that the slx replaces) as well. There could also be a difference in aluminum alloy that could make a strength (and $$) difference.I wonder why the 'need' for a pedal insert for the slx but not the XT.
Also, I question the 2X stiffer quote. Is that an off the cuff response from a rep at a trade show....or a documented statement from engineering (as it would be if they had any proof.
beyond all that, 8g is well within variance and is not statistically significant.
Also, I question the 2X stiffer quote. Is that an off the cuff response from a rep at a trade show....or a documented statement from engineering (as it would be if they had any proof.
beyond all that, 8g is well within variance and is not statistically significant.
Joined
·
5,662 Posts
Not so. I've recently installed both SLX and XT cranksets as 1x9s and sold the rings on eBay. They are visually different, made from different materials and the XT's are lighter. The most obvious difference is in the large (44T) ring. The composite on the SLX's middle ring is different to the XT. I should have taken pictures of the weights, but my interest in such things is fairly loose. Here are the two sets of rings, XT on top...23mjm said:
not necessarily, theres also different grades of aluminum, look at the xt and xtr granny23mjm said:
and the fit and finish of the derailliers seems way better on the xt than the slx. Im sure if you took it all apart piece by piece you wold see other differences (bearings, bushings, etc.)
I went the xtr route years ago and unless you're racing and counting every gram or have enough money so that it doesnt matter. xt, slx or even lx work just fine , and in some situations better.
for instance I weigh 220lbs and allot of the light weight products will break for me, I've bent cassettes (sram990, xtr ) broken frames GF Sugar, pedals etc. nothing wrong with the items, just too light weight for a heavy guy pounding over rocks and roots. Besides, what difference would 10-20 grams make for me?
Joined
·
401 Posts
Shayne said:
Yep Shayne I don't disagree with you:thumbsup:
As for the SLX/XT chainring difference yes I know there are different grades of aluminum. I was surprised that they used a comp+alloy middle on the SLX, From the picture above the middle rings look the same, I would like to see if that weigh the same. Yes as you move up the food chain Shimano uses better grade of materials and do more intricate machining to reduce weight and is evidence in the large ring of the SLX an XT. But anyway I am/was surprised in the quality Shimano is putting in their lower end stuff, the quality gap is closing.
I have ridden Dura-Ace for years on the road, last year I got a CX bike with 105 10 speed and was amazed at the quality of shifting on the 105. It was/is the same as the Dura-Ace. Not many years ago there was a palpable difference in the shifting, even between Ultegra and Dura-Ace. I am glad to see that Shimano is making their lower end stuff so nice.
Joined
·
12,395 Posts
Taking one of each isn't very meaningful. Manufacturing differences can easily account for a few grams, let alone the scale. It's not like Shimano weighs each crank to make sure they all go out the door at the same weight. Think I saw someone mention they had the same Shimano crankset in two different lengths, 170 and 175 and the 170 was heavier...of those two he had in hand to weigh. Statistically, you'd have to measure a whole bunch to see what the average is before it's very meaningful.COLINx86 said:
Joined
·
121 Posts
I thought the pedal inserts were only on the 2ring+BG model (665) along w/ reinforced spindle. IIRC these 2 features are not part of the 3ring SLX crankset (660). It would seem that the 665 leans toward Saint and the 660 toward XT. I don't think either set "needs" the pedal insert, but when you look at the intended use it makes sense. At least it does to me.:thumbsup:davep said:
Joined
·
4,343 Posts
Reason for the pedal insert is that the SLX is aimed at the all-mountain/free ride crowd. More metal for better pedal retention. I would certainly hate to do a big drop and pull the pedal threads out of a crank arm.
I bought an SLX over the XT because it looks better. And I can get the XT stuff at a pro deal price. Weight isn't really an issue for me because I'm 185 lbs. I can loose more body weight than what I can save on components.
I bought an SLX over the XT because it looks better. And I can get the XT stuff at a pro deal price. Weight isn't really an issue for me because I'm 185 lbs. I can loose more body weight than what I can save on components.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!