That would help it for sure
anyone switched from a 174 to a 168 T-Type crankset? Iāve been riding a lot more my gravel bike with sram wide road cranks and every time I switch to my xc bike with 174 qfactor vs the wide road 150 qfactor it just doesnāt feel natural anymore, I even used to ride with long spindle eggbeaters switched back to short spindle and now Iām considering switching to 168 qfactor cranks, but wanted to hear some feedback because it wonāt be cheap to make that change
Iām finicky about my Q-factor, so Iām running narrow cranks all around, including āgravel cranksā on my hardtailā¦ But depending on your pedal system, you could simply swap to the Narrow version of the XTR pedals and get that same 6mm reduction for $140 versus $500ā¦
I ride both, but prefer 168. My trail bike has 174 and I can deal with it for that type of riding (typically not more than a couple hours at a time and not that often). But for my XC bike, I need 168 or it bothers my knees when doing big volume (I also do road training on my XC bike, so can hit 15-20+ hours per week). The pedals with short spindles sounds like a reasonable solution for some, but Iām already someone who is rubbing my shoe/ankle on the drive side crank at times.
the -3mm XTR has the same spindle as the eggbeater unfortunately 52mm, which seems to be the shortest around most are 52, 53, 54ā¦ so seems like Iām already. running shortest available unfortunately :S
Got yaā¦ That makes senseā¦ I suppose its worth mentioning that it is possible to run a Force Wide crankset if youāre not opposed to the extra 70g or so over the XX crankarms. Iām using that on my Epic Hardtail, and ran one on my Epic Evo for a while as wellā¦ You can adjust your chainline via chainring offset(6mm, 3mm, 0r 0mm), although in my experience a few mmās here or there doesnāt make a massive difference out back.
each way I go I hope so because I have 3 threaded quarq chainrings that are 3mm offset a 32, 34 and 36 
not wanting to drop another bunch of money on more chainrings to run t-type at 55mm vs 52mm
I just went through a bunch of back and forth on chainring offsets for my new bike. Iām running the XXSL 168 Q factor crank with zero offset rings to give a 55mm chainline. But in my research, I found several folks who are running transmission with a 52mm chainline and it is supported by SRAM (so I assume it would work fine with the 3mm offset rings).
Just ordered my upgrade kit - excited for it! Would have liked to have it at Nationals over the weekend.
Anyone in the 140 lb range riding 2.4ās want to share their tire pressure? Most online calculators put me in the mid 20ās PSI, Iāve been running 20/21, but reading this thread there are much heavier riders than me running high teens/low 20s!!
That seems very high. Iām 150lbs running 19/20 on 2.35. Just experiment with tire pressure and see what works for you
check out the Silca tire pressure. Iām 160 and run 15/16 (with inserts)
2 Likes
Iām in Switzerland ordered from r2
which makes me wonder, since Silca doesnāt call out inserts to they even factor into their calculations?
Probably not. Most of the XC inserts arenāt doing anything (much?) to change Rolling Resistance or sidewall support that would change the characteristic of the tire. Really just there for pinch flat protection which allows you do run the pressures that give you the best traction / RR.
4 Likes
Ok thanks, I didnāt realize the silca calculator worked on MTB, this gives me 12.5/13.5. Seems like Iāve got quite a bit of room to experiment downward.
1 Like
Iām in the US was promissed the shock this month but fork only in July