Race Face Announces New Aluminum Turbine Cranks
Race Face first launched their Turbine cranks in 1993, back when three chainrings were the norm and 1x12 drivetrains weren't even a consideration. Times have obviously changed, but there's still a strong demand for aluminum cranks that can take a beating and aren't overly heavy. To meet that need, Race Face have introduced the latest iteration of the Turbine.
Forged and then machined from 7000 series aluminum, the crankarm shape has been changed slightly from the previous version, a move that shaved off 20 grams. That puts the total weight at 595 grams with a 32-tooth chainring and 170mm cranks. For comparison, SRAM's aluminum GX cranks in the same configuration weigh 619 grams.
Forged and then machined from 7000 series aluminum, the crankarm shape has been changed slightly from the previous version, a move that shaved off 20 grams. That puts the total weight at 595 grams with a 32-tooth chainring and 170mm cranks. For comparison, SRAM's aluminum GX cranks in the same configuration weigh 619 grams.
Turbine Crank Details
• Cinch chainring mounting system
• 165, 170, or 175mm crank arm lengths
• Forged from 7000-series aluminum
• Weight: 595g (170mm Arms + 136 Spindle + 32t Chainring)
• Lifetime warranty
• MSRP: $179.99 USD / $219.99 CAD
• raceface.com
• Cinch chainring mounting system
• 165, 170, or 175mm crank arm lengths
• Forged from 7000-series aluminum
• Weight: 595g (170mm Arms + 136 Spindle + 32t Chainring)
• Lifetime warranty
• MSRP: $179.99 USD / $219.99 CAD
• raceface.com
The preload collar has also been updated – the tiny 2mm hex bolt has been replaced with one that should be less likely to round out if you look at it wrong, and the collar's outer profile has been revised to make it easier to turn.
The Turbine cranks get a new, more user-friendly pre-load adjusment collar...
...and an updated shape that saves 20 grams compared to the previous version.
The Turbine's Q-factor, the lateral distance between the crank arms, now measures 176mm, 4mm less than before, which Race Face says helps improve power output and pedaling ergonomics. That claim may be a bit of a stretch – there isn't any clear evidence that a narrower Q-factor is better, and in many cases adjusting cleat position is an easier way for a rider to adjust their stance. Plus, some riders prefer a wider position, while others would rather have their feet closer together. Either way, the new cranks are a little narrower than before.
The Turbine cranks are available in 165, 170, or 175mm lengths, and use RaceFace's Cinch system for chainring mounting. They're priced at $179.99 USD, without a chaining.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Or just buy SLX for $100ish (the arms are ever-so-slightly lighter than XTs). If you can find them.
6806 bearing for 30mm axle: 42 OD 30 ID --> (42-30)/2 = 6mm between races (same bearing as BB30/PF30)
2437 bearing for 24mm axle: 37 OD 24 ID --> (37-24)/2 = 6.5mm between races
--> the difference in ball size is pretty damn small
there's no reason you can't get the same durability from BSA30/BB92/etc that you can from BSA24/Shimano
Just looking at it after it happened to mine.. i can't trust it. Two tiny bolt only torqued to around 14nm (and if one ever loosens they both fail), on an arm that doesn't fully seat onto the splined spindle (there is a several mm gap), and the other 2 parts are both plastic. The cranks, especially with wide flats can see way too much force for this design. Maybe it is ok for light riding, but i wouldn't take it into jumplines or steep rock gardens.
XT @ 534
SLX @ 528g
R2 Bike weights (WITH PHOTOGRAPHS) - SLX without Chainring 523g, XT without Chainring - 516g.
Shimano Website - SLX with 30T Chainring - 634g. XT with 30T Chainring - 622g.
And yes it may only be a couple of grams, but you're still wrong and telling people false information.
instagram.com/thanksshimano?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y
www.instagram.com/reel/CgKiyiCFVXm/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y
Known design fail for their road cranks but not that often in mtb world
road.cc/content/tech-news/shimano-claims-no-design-problem-hollowtech-cranks-287827?amp
You seem unable to show us any actual problems with Shimano mtb cranks. Maybe that's why people like them.
The two-piece forged hollow design is unique to shimano, and lowers the stress in the crank by a lot compared to open section cranks while hugely increasing stiffness. I definitely wouldn't call it a "cheap soft forged crank with a nice facia", I'd probably call it the best way to make a mtb crank arm personally. Their road cranks are failing mainly due to an issue with the bonding process, it is not a case of cheap materials. Though with the lighter road cranks, riders are more likely to approach a fatigue limit.
You mentioned pinchbolts being bad earlier. Why? It's a reliable interface that doesn't wear out and can be installed/removed with small tools and low torques, ie multitools. As someone who has to swap cranks a lot, it's a huge positive for me. I think you've decided that they're bad because shimano use them, and no other reason. I also like how it means that the preload is easily adjustable and doesn't need any fiddly hardware. Be nice if the preload caps used a hex though...
I like how you're now picking on shimano's clutches. About half the people I know that have had a sram derailleur have warrantied it due to a non-functional clutch. I don't know of many that have problems with the shimano ones. And brake piston issues? Sram brakes have their problems too and the sticky pistons when they get hot was a good one.
I've got 8 year old XT cranks and brake levers on my enduro bike. 6 year old zee calipers. Still working as well as a new set.
have you actually seen an MTB version of a crankset with this failure all the ones that seem to fail are Ultegra or Dura ace ROAD cranks some are even 10 years old not current gen and shimano have warrantied some of those,
Pinch bolts work very very well, as long as they're properly tightened. Despite every single Shimano left crank coming with a little sticker listing required torque, and despite finding ten year old bikes that still have that sticker attached, I see insufficiently tightened and downright loose crank pinch bolts all the time. The fact that there aren't more user error failures is really a testament to the robustness of the system.
I ripped the thread out of the '93 LX crank after my VP101 pedal seized; does that count?
If they're tight, it just doesn't happen.
This is your shimano crank. A cheap casted crank with a nice facia stuck over the top to hide how cheap and nasty it is.
www.instagram.com/p/ChQorA4OJAz/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY
But not worth pointing out all of the problems with current Shimano products on here. Too much group think. Opinions solidify and then perpetuate themselves almost indefinitely in this echo chamber until long, long after they are no longer true.
If I were looking to beat up a pair of cranks, I'd save the money and go SRAM. If I'm looking to save a few grams, I'd just go to Truvativ carbon (same as GX carbon) for roughly the same total cost as Race Face Turbine, but ~50g lighter when you factor in the BB.
Is there a reason other than aesthetics to buy these?
Regardless, GX cranks are also 7000 series, so without having more information on the exact material spec, you can't really say which has a higher strength.
Personally, I've never seen bent GX cranks, but I've seen a few bent Race Face cranks. Not sure what model they were, though (possibly Aeffect).
Save up $20?
@CleanZine : It's crazy to hear that you could bend a pair without even knowing how. That has to be some kind of quality control issue (something that SRAM knows all too much about).
You're correct in that SRAM uses the same forging for all crank lengths. It's only the 170mm length that ends up with excess material at the end, though; the 165mm cranks are machined down so they don't have 10mm of excess material hanging off of the end. With that said, I only run 170mm at this point, and if I were to ever get another pair of GX cranks, I'd machine them down.
I bent the previous Aeffect cranks, but I don't think any crank would have survived what happened to them! In contrast, I genuinely don't know what happened to my GXs. It wasn't a trail with big features, and I'm fairly average size/weight so nothing really stood out as a reason for them twisting.
With the RF cranks I bent it was clear how and why they'd bent, and the bend itself made sense. The GX cranks seemed to do a weird inward twist that isn't really in the angle I would expect a crank to ever bend/twist in.
Part of the reason people are so divided on whether they like or hate SRAM is because they (for the most part) design awesome products that are great as long as you get one that was manufactured properly, but the manufacturing issues they miss in QC are typically big enough to make their products work like garbage. Cranks shouldn't bend, fork bushings shouldn't have huge amounts of play, shocks shouldn't leak out all of their air can fluid in a few rides, compression dampers shouldn't stick open, brake lever pistons shouldn't seize, brake rotors shouldn't have huge amounts of thickness variance, droppers shouldn't sag, and derailleur clutches should actually work.
Drivetrains are actually the only components from SRAM that I've personally had no issues with. I know those issues exist, though, and I have full faith in SRAM's ability to not only build some improperly functioning parts but also allow them to get past QC and into the consumer's hands.
With all that said, what major bike parts manufacturers consistently put out components without major design or manufacturing flaws? If you say Fox, Shimano, DT Swiss, Maxxis, Race Face, E*thirteen, BikeYoke, or Crank Brothers you're lying to yourself, and I'm sure there's plenty of other brands that I just don't have enough experience with to know of all of the issues.
I do agree that 160mm would make sense for really short riders, but as you go to shorter cranks you also push the saddle up, leaving you in a less stable position on the bike while climbing. Offering more crank lengths would either mean having a second forging (lots of extra $$) or making all of the cranks heavier by leaving enough material for the pedal spindle hole to be drilled in the additional locations.
FWIW my partner is 5'0" and said she couldn't tell a significant difference between her old 170mm cranks and new 165mm cranks aside from the slight reduction in pedal strikes (her technical climbing skills aren't the best). If that's true, I can't imagine going to 160mm would provide enough benefit to outweigh the impact of raising her saddle another 5mm.
The one thing that would change this is how far the chainring protrudes away from the rear tire. If you either had a really small chainring or really short chainstays, you could definitely get away with a lower BB, at which point there would be a benefit to going to even shorter cranks.
Shimano vs. Sram vs. Race Face
I have all three on my bikes. I personally like the Race Face the most. I have had a set of Turbines with the 30mm axle for 9 years. I've been able to put the same cranks on a 83mm bb DH bike and then a 68/73 trail bike and then a hardtail just by changing the axle.
I usually get a year out of the BB and change the chainring every two chains.
The cranks are light, strong and reasonably priced. The bonus is the future proofing. Between my current bikes I have 2 sets of Turbines, one sixc and a set of Shimano XT from 2004.
Both Shimano and RaceFace stick to their BB standards. Unlike Sram with multiple axle diameters over the past few years requiring completely new cranks and BBs. DUB 28.99mm......really? 1.01mm forces a completely new set up due to lack of compatibility.
To me the updates are welcomed small incremental improvements of something that already works really well.
This hose has been used on many turbines: www.pinkbike.com/photo/23406094
The Turbine cranks also come with a 16mm bit that'll slide over the end of an 8mm allen key: www.pinkbike.com/photo/23406444
Not sure of the pricing but DMR Axe might qualify?
I personally have found wider Q factor (within reason) to be better ergonomically.
I think the best advice I give is to analyze the persons pedal stroke based on motion at the pedal itself. When someone is too high they tend to point toe and their feet will scrub the crank arm, a slightly lower saddle height helps correct this till it goes too far because the knee free space is cramped now during power stroke. It’s incredibly confusing to me though that they measure Q factor without also adding the crank length in to give a realistic width with the splay introduced if we are to give honest biometric analysis crank for crank. And when it comes to fat bikes this was their ultimate demise and where they feel adjunct to normal bikes because the splay is so far it’s unnatural to only the tallest and most purpose needed niche.
Also, this is why it is really frustrating that there aren't any 165mm (or shorter) cranks for fat bikes except SRAM GX. On the other hand, it made my decision really easy. That, and no one makes a -4mm offset oval chainring, so that's also a bummer, just not as big of a deal as crank length.
I'm usually one to argue that 95% of people won't notice a few millimeters here or there, but cranks is one spot where I proved myself quite wrong. I am very average (or below) and that 1cm difference is jarring (+2cm in total foot separation).
Also physics may disagree but I feel like there are situations where regardless of gearing the longer crank arm gives you some leverage at critical points in the rotation when you are bound up in an obstacle and really need that power. Something about the angles and position of you legs and the crank that doesn't show up on a math equation of crank arm length vs gearing.
I actually have 165 on my DH bike. I pedal it a fair bit because of shuttling or the inevitable little climbs at the bike park, even has a dropper post on it, and every time I have to pedal it for very long I remember I hate those tiny little kid cranks (but not enough to change them out). I am 5'11" with a 32" inseam too, so shorter rather than longer legs
I'm sure I'd get used to that, but yeesh it feels weird while I'm not.
A gravel bike I bought came with 165's. I had constant discomfort with it. After about a month I took a look at saw the "165" on the crank arms. As I didn't like the bike in general, I didn't do anything to it and ended up selling it and replacing it with another gravel bike that came with 170's and I am much more comfortable (that bike has 8000 miles now).
Roadie came with 172.5, XC bike came with 170. I haven't experimented with going longer, but I have learned that even with my not so tall body, I am okay as long as I stay OVER 170mm.
5'8" (172cm)
I do hope that they start increasing production volume on the shorter lengths rather than assuming it is just XS frames that use that length.
My shoes puncture marks from my pedals traction pins tell me my feet don't want to be as close as possible to the BB.
BTW absolutely love my RF Chester pedals for grip and reliability.
My broken Cinch PM is on my E29 now, temporarily a regular spindle.
More proof that the world, as we know it, is changing in ways we cannot even imagine.
I half-expected 'sabres at dawn' over this...
Burned one up in half a season. Wolf Tooth (or Shimano or SRAM) rings last waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer.
I happen to have sum cranks. I even have a pair of Turbine cranks somewhere that were really good too. Id even go as far as to say these cranks are probably pretty darn good as well. Some cranks however, aren’t so good while some cranks are kinda in between. Some cranks kinda suck and some crank’s will even break during a huk to flat (ask Jason if ya can find em) hell sum cranks don’t even crank at all, but these cranks, are most likely just fine soo.
Take it from me, a random guy on PB
Cranks are awesome!!
For SRAM the best ones are GX Eagle/Descendant 7K cranks.
canecreek.com/product/crank-preloader
If you want a the best cranks for the price, SLX. If you want the best cranks at any price, Cane Creeks-with a Stages power meter.