I'm wondering if there is a 55mm chainline chainring that would work with Shimano XT cranks and SRAM Transmission.I would think someone in the aftermarket would make one.
Hurricane Jeff
I'm no chainline guru. So didn't do any maths before ordering. But these and a 104 ring may be able to get you what you need. 3 months out.
Wolf Tooth - although I'm only seeing 3mm offset options - I have no idea if that gets you a 55mm chainline with Shimano XT cranks.
Hey Jeff,
There is no advantage to running a 55 chainline if your frame will take a 52mm.. The only reason for the move to 55 is for frame clearance, if you don't need it, get a 52.
I have been in contact with a couple large OE suppliers, no, not SRAM and Shimano, less big than that, but they sell cranksets all day long to OE bike brands that don't want to pay stupid money for S or S branded cranks. they are selling 52mm chainline to any OE that wants it and that can fit their frames. No complaints with Ttype, and why would there be? Narrower means less chain angle in the top of the cassette, where the biggest loads are.
DT
There is no advantage to running a 55 chainline if your frame will take a 52mm.. The only reason for the move to 55 is for frame clearance, if you don't need it, get a 52.
I have been in contact with a couple large OE suppliers, no, not SRAM and Shimano, less big than that, but they sell cranksets all day long to OE bike brands that don't want to pay stupid money for S or S branded cranks. they are selling 52mm chainline to any OE that wants it and that can fit their frames. No complaints with Ttype, and why would there be? Narrower means less chain angle in the top of the cassette, where the biggest loads are.
DT
Am I wrong? Or are you laughing at the "need that extra 3mm" camp?
If the former, please do tell.
If the latter, I ain't in that camp, yo.
And my follow up stands.
Are there not XT cranks with different chainlines? Or am I misunderstanding?
The reason I'm not confident in my own knowledge on the subject?
I didn’t choose my setup because of numbers on a screen. I don't know what my chainline is. I'm doing my best to agree with you. With pics to prove it. And you're being a di*k about it. Kinda abnormal for you.
Conclusion:
Dave Turner has strong thoughts about narrower chainlines.
So even if DT is correct, knowing which Shimano cranks you have is still relevant to getting the proper offset to bring the chainline into accordance with his philosophy.
This is why I love the spindle options. It means we can do one spider design and people can axle length to get their chainlines where they "need" to be.
...which, again, I agree with DT.
I had the "chain drops when backpedaling in largest cog" issue that was all the rage a few years back. And I spend most of my pedaling time in the larger cogs. If I'm down rolling the floor, I move up into the 36t ring in the outer position, because I'll be in the smaller cogs.
Luckily, old 104 cranks give good chainline in middle ring (as well as the 64 inner, if really busting vert), as well as the outer ring option (requisite for a bash, which we view as aesthetically requisite).
But used 104 cranks are dwindling. Already, prices of anything worth getting are on the "vintage" rise.
Hence the spider order from #AxisDaddy.
Phwigh:
Qty: 26 in first batch. Our fleet is likely to get 3-4 of those.
This all has a big asterisk*
I don't run Sram, much less transmission.
...which, again, I agree with DT.
I had the "chain drops when backpedaling in largest cog" issue that was all the rage a few years back. And I spend most of my pedaling time in the larger cogs. If I'm down rolling the floor, I move up into the 36t ring in the outer position, because I'll be in the smaller cogs.
Luckily, old 104 cranks give good chainline in middle ring (as well as the 64 inner, if really busting vert), as well as the outer ring option (requisite for a bash, which we view as aesthetically requisite).
But used 104 cranks are dwindling. Already, prices of anything worth getting are on the "vintage" rise.
Hence the spider order from #AxisDaddy.
Phwigh:
Qty: 26 in first batch. Our fleet is likely to get 3-4 of those.
This all has a big asterisk*
I don't run Sram, much less transmission.
You need a 6120/7120/8120 crank for 55mm chain line (spingle length, not chain ring offset) and a direct mount chain ring that is transmission compatible. Not sure which XTR crank has the corresponding spingle. Wolftooth offer some compatible chain rings, other candidates are Alugear and Garbaruk. Might be difficult to source for you, though.
I have been running a standard SLX direct mount chain ring with an GX Transmission for over one year, but technically, they are not compatible with T-Type chains.
I have been running a standard SLX direct mount chain ring with an GX Transmission for over one year, but technically, they are not compatible with T-Type chains.
Not sure if what I’m adding here is pertinent but I’ve been using 11 speed xtr cranks for years. Have a few sets and used on different bikes. Pretty sure it’s no greater than a 52mm chainline. Matches well with SRAM Eagle 12 speed. I run pretty small chainrings and spend most time in the lower cogs climbing. Our downhills are almost chainless. Frame clearance is the only thing I’ve found is impacted by an “incorrect” chain line. Shifting has always been good. I figure the narrower line I can use the better as I’m grinding away in the lower gears most often.
I contacted Wolf Tooth and they said the only option they currently have is a Camo spider and a Dropstop B Camo chainring. I may go this way or just stick with my original idea and get a Sram XXsl crankset.
I would give the Shimano FC-M6120 a go. As I said, I have been running my Transmission with the original Shimano chain ring without an issue. But the spindle is much more suitable for PF41 and BSA bottom brackets, where there isn't much space for bearings. With T47 or BB30/PF30 I would consider running DUB/30mm spindles.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
