[forward]

Anyone ever tried Easton ea90 crank with rf189 shaft on 190/197 rear fatbike?

In theory, if my calculations are right, with rf189 shaft q-factor would be 209mm and chainline 77mm with 3mm offset cinch chainring.

Just a thing to think about, cause ea90 arms are much cheaper than rf turbine and propably strong enough for snow fatbiking. Dunno if crank arms are shaped too straight, so there could be issue with frame clearance?

 

[fortnern]

I haven't tried this, but I wanted to mention for anyone tempted to run these with a 169 spindle and a flipped chainring: this setup may not work. At least the wolf tooth positive offset camo spider and ring combo doesn't clear the EA90 (I had the crank waiting around to go on my gravel bike and the spider/ring for when my fat bike chain wears out, so I test fitted them together out of curiosity). I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work with the 189 spindle though, as long as the arms clear the frame. The EA90 feels plenty stiff on my gravel bike.

 

[Jayem]

IME, 190 spindles do not have frame clearance issues, because they were initially designed for 2-ring setups. IMO, they could move in 10mm and still be plenty wide for a good chainline. You also tend to spend more time in the lower gears, so if anything, you want the chainline closer in.

 

[fortnern]

It sounds like an interesting way to get a narrowish q factor on a frame that requires the 189 spindle (120mm threaded BB).

 

[bcriverjunky]

You could also go with the Cannondale Hollowgram 160 or 166 spindle if you got the clearance.