Or I just suck at the internet. It took a while to find one and even longer to for it to be made and shipped.
Rare?
- Thread starter justsomeguy
- Start date
thats pretty cool!
J
JRB
Guest
Anthony Sloan could hook you up with a guy that makes them in Austin. Not as pretty as that, but as functional. Not black, but good. That is fairly interesting. Kind of like how the new XTR will rock the XT bolt pattern.
Yeah that is pretty cool. That's not ring, just a bash guard right? If so I think you end up with a bash guard that is much bigger than necessary, and personally I would be worried about crushing the bolts and bolt holes. I guess there's no other way to do it with XTR but it's one reason I went with XT on my latest rig.
It's stronger than the big ring that's been chewed up nicely and it won't hang up as much as the big ring. I'm not worried about crushing the bolts.OGRipper said:
Nice... never seen anything like that before. Why did you go with that over a more traditional bash guard/ring?
It's a non-standard bolt pattern so you can't find them very easily...that was kinda his point/question I think.
oh, ok... cool. Didn't know XTR was a non-stardard pattern. Though I guess that doesn't surprise me, coming from Shimano and all.OGRipper said:
Yeah bending the spider would be a bigger concern to me...though I've not read one account or talked to anyone that has bent the current XTR spider.justsomeguy said:
That's a good lookin' guard.
Looks interesting.
justsomeguy said:
Ascentrek said:justsomeguy said:, I wanted/want the xtr sooo bad, but they are just dumb with this bolt pattern crap. They would look perfect on my bike...What was the talk above regarding the new xtr's having the same bolt pattern as the xt's? If that is the case, im in.
Really? That doesn't make sense.Ascentrek said:
Some quick Googling and a brief, although very spiritually painful, visit to a weight weenie site shows that XT is heavier.
I don't want to risk the spiritual pain you mentioned, but it sorta kinda makes sense that the XT arms might be lighter, even if a complete XT set with three rings is heavier. The XTR rings make a difference but there is a little extra material on the drive-side XTR arm no?
Meh, it's gotta be pretty close either way.
Meh, it's gotta be pretty close either way.
I don't know. The weight weiner site compared cranksets (cranks, rings and BB) and the difference was less than 100 grams.OGRipper said:
Now I'm going to erase that page/site from my browsing history and cache. I might even reformat my drive.
justsomeguy said:
Hahahaha, yeah no kidding that is a scary place.
I don't get it.
You guys are saying that the XT crankset (760) is about 100g heavier than the XTR (960), which it looks to be, yet you're also saying that the XTR cranks are heavier? That makes no sense. Assuming the same weight for the BB cups, say, 100g, that means that the cranks, spindle and rings weigh 700g (XTR) and 800g (XT). You're telling me that the rings and spindle on the XTR are more than 100g heavier than the rings and spindle on the XT? I find it much more likely that the XTR rings are lighter, but most likely that the spindles are the same and the rings are similar in weight, meaning that the XTR arms are indeed roughly 100g lighter than the XTs. anyone care to comment?
You guys are saying that the XT crankset (760) is about 100g heavier than the XTR (960), which it looks to be, yet you're also saying that the XTR cranks are heavier? That makes no sense. Assuming the same weight for the BB cups, say, 100g, that means that the cranks, spindle and rings weigh 700g (XTR) and 800g (XT). You're telling me that the rings and spindle on the XTR are more than 100g heavier than the rings and spindle on the XT? I find it much more likely that the XTR rings are lighter, but most likely that the spindles are the same and the rings are similar in weight, meaning that the XTR arms are indeed roughly 100g lighter than the XTs. anyone care to comment?
I see banned people.
Yes....Dredging up 6 month old threads about 100g of no consequence makes my head hurt. Specially form JSG and JRB....Ow.
Hey guys, if it's the only relevant thread on the subject, would you rather me dredge up an old thread that already has lots of relevan information on it, contributed by active members, or would you rather I clutter things up with a new post?
Quit your whining about posting to old threads. That's what this forum is for, information.
If you have nothing better to do than contribute in a useless way to threads that don't mean anything to you, then you have too much time on your hands, and I feel bad for you (I was there once).
Quit your whining about posting to old threads. That's what this forum is for, information.
If you have nothing better to do than contribute in a useless way to threads that don't mean anything to you, then you have too much time on your hands, and I feel bad for you (I was there once).
What are you whining about? Start a new thread. And since when does a new thread clutter this place up anymore than it already is?
Sorry, just trying to keep things concise, and keep the old threads informative so that when someone searches for information, it isn't such a chore to find it all. From now on, I'll make new posts though. Don't want to piss the regulars off 
Fine...since this thread was already a convoluted mess, here ya go.
I found this:
- 2007 XTR (960): 797g w/BB @ 175mm
- 2007 XT (760): 860g (BB?? dunno, never specified...) @ 175mm
- 2007 XT w/o rings 829g (at least that's how I take the * weight figure on this site)
So, to summarize, I have no idea where the previous guys got their info or what the hell they're talking about in reference to the actual XTR cranks being heavier than XT's....Hope that helps.
Not pissing us off....I just found it slightly amusing that a JSG thread was revived...and it's about weight...cause he was always, "It's about the ride, not the ride...." Oh the irony....
It's a chore to find info on those cranks anyway...none of the sets of sh*t are ever weighed the same....some are with BB, some are with chainrings, some aren't with any of it....it's whacky....
I found this:
- 2007 XTR (960): 797g w/BB @ 175mm
- 2007 XT (760): 860g (BB?? dunno, never specified...) @ 175mm
- 2007 XT w/o rings 829g (at least that's how I take the * weight figure on this site)
So, to summarize, I have no idea where the previous guys got their info or what the hell they're talking about in reference to the actual XTR cranks being heavier than XT's....Hope that helps.
Not pissing us off....I just found it slightly amusing that a JSG thread was revived...and it's about weight...cause he was always, "It's about the ride, not the ride...." Oh the irony....
It's a chore to find info on those cranks anyway...none of the sets of sh*t are ever weighed the same....some are with BB, some are with chainrings, some aren't with any of it....it's whacky....
I was only e-speculating about crank arm weight. Chainrings mount differently on the XTR, and there is more spider material than on XT. (On XTR the big ring bolts to it's own bolt holes/spider whereas on XT it bolts to the middle ring like just about every other crankset.) So it makes sense that the XTR arms themselves could be heavier even if the crankset as a whole (i.e., with rings) is lighter.
But I kinda miss JSG and his excitability/fireworks. (sniff, sniff)
But I kinda miss JSG and his excitability/fireworks. (sniff, sniff)
Ahhh...gotcha. Hadn't thought about that. It's just kinda whacky that no website (not even Sh*tmano's!!) has the same measurements for each...sigh....ah well.