Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

XX crankset on a 2010 superfly

1380 Views 11 Replies 6 Participants Last post by  fleanutz
i thought i would pass on a little experience with you fine people. i looked a bit on the forum and didn't see it discussed, but if it has and you already know, carry on.

i finally got a truvativ xx 2x9 crankset and installed it on my 2010 fisher superfly. the cranks are very narrow, and they advertise them as such. i used the standard gxp bottom bracket rather than the ceramic version.

the cranks are quite close on both sides. the right arm has 5-6mm, while the left arm has literally 2mm of clearance. i was pretty demoralized, thinking that there was no way this would work. i wrapped the left side stay with a few rounds of electrical tape and cruised around the house for a few minutes...i figured if i took it easy, the crank might not damage the paint or chainstay with the tape in place, and i could see the extent of the contact.

but there was no sign of contact, so i suited up yesterday for a full-on ride. i hammered in the big chainring, the small chainring, did some sprints...nothing. the tape, which probably takes up another 0.5mm, was untouched.

so, while i'm still a little freaked out about how close the arm is, i'm super-impressed that neither the arms nor the frame flex enough for contact.

on the subject, i'm using a 9 speed sram chain, and an x-9 front derailleur, with standard xo shifters. it shifts very well with very little tuning necessary. i had intended to use a 10 speed chain, but i will wait until after i ride it in the mud and slop and see if the shifting is still spot-on.

carry on!
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
I sem to remember pics of JHK or Sam's Superfly with XX on it, and the caption noting the tight clearance of the crank to chainstay. Bottom line is that it works for them.
it works. it left me wondering about manufacturing tolerances, both from fisher and from truvativ. there might be a frame with ever so slightly wider stays (.5mm is certainly within most frame mfg. tolerances) and a crank that's ever so slightly narrower and it wouldn't work. over the years, i've seen frames and parts that worked together and frames and parts that didn't simply because of tolerances.

it might not be a combination that works for each and every example. i'm pretty happy that it works on mine!
did the same on my Scott scale, same problem, I had to put a diffent chain stay protector because the old one was too thick. ~1.5 mm cleareance without guard :eek:
agreed. if i was installing those cranks on a customer's bike, i would have said no way. on my own bike, i was willing to take the chance. it worked, but i guess the moral of the story is: no matter how well they shift, no matter how stiff they are, you'd better check them out first before you buy or you could end up with great shifting, stiff paperweights!
Diffenatly test fit before you buy if at all possible. I didn't know they would be that close, but I got lucky.

Now I have a few friends who want to test fit it on their bikes, but I really dont want to take it apart. :madman:

First real mountain ride on them yesterday, It rained for a week straight. They performed amazingly, despite the massive quantities of mud. They were stiff and shifted well. My only complaint is they are too pretty, I dont want to crash on them. Even though I did yesterday, but it was okay, as arse took all the force :p
Multiple Q-Factors

I'm not sure if you guys are aware but these cranks are available in multiple Q-Factors including 156, 164, and 166. Choose wisely to fit your frame. Here's a link to the frame fitment guide as well. See pg. 7.
true, although qbp has yet to stock the 166's. i would say that extra 10mm is the way to go unless you are extremely sensitive to q-factor. that is a good bit of insurance against problems.
What chainring sizes are you using? I assume 39/26...

I'd like to use these sizes on my '10 Superfly. My measurements have the 39t ring pretty darn close to the chainstay though.
i have the 28/42. the rings are not that close. it's the left arm. if you have the choice, certainly buy the 166 q factor versions. that said, i still haven't had any contact.
tskdmz said:
i have the 28/42. the rings are not that close. it's the left arm. if you have the choice, certainly buy the 166 q factor versions. that said, i still haven't had any contact.
I hear (and read) what you're sayin' about the arms, but that 156mm q-factor is so tempting. I really do notice the difference between mtb and road in terms of q-factor. A narrow distance would be quite measurements don't seem to show the actual q-factor as the issue (rings as I mentioned before).

However you've actually put them on the same frame, which makes me wonder...
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.