I have wondered the same thing.23mjm said: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.
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.dan0 said: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 $$
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: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.
That point was reached about 15 years ago.23mjm said:On the tangent of stiffness--at what point does more stiffness become marketing hype and of no practical use??
not necessarily, theres also different grades of aluminum, look at the xt and xtr granny23mjm 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.
Yep Shayne I don't disagree with you:thumbsup:Shayne said:That point was reached about 15 years ago.
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:In my opinion it's not confirmed until all 3 are weighed on the same scale, is your calibrated? how do you know the other one isn't off?
Either way, I wouldn't use slx just because, in my opinion, it's the ugliest crank I've seen.
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:I wonder why the 'need' for a pedal insert for the slx but not the XT.