Race Face's Atlas cranks have been the workhorse of the company's lineup since the glory days of the freeride movement, back when telephone pole-high skinnies and massive road gaps were all the rage. The spotlight may have shifted from hucking to racing over the last few years, but there's still a demand for cranks that can take a beating, which is just what the third generation of this venerable crankset is intended to do.
The crankarms now use Race Face's Cinch interface, a change that allows them to accept direct mount chainrings, or (with the addition of a removable spider) be set up for 104mm BCD 1x and 2x configurations. Cinch also allows for axles to be swapped out, which means that if you installed the Atlas cranks on a DH bike with 83mm bottom bracket spacing, and later decided to put them on an enduro rig with a 73mm BB, a new axle would be all that was required, rather than a complete crankset.
Race Face Atlas Cinch Details• Intended use: trail / enduro / DH / DJ
• Sizes: 165, 170, 175mm
• Forged 7050 aluminum arms
• 68/73mm and 83mm spindles available
• Weight: 170mm crankarms and 68/73mm spindle: 631 grams (700 grams with 32t direct mount ring).
• Colors: black, red, blue, green
• MSRP: $210 (arms only). $345 USD as tested - includes BB, 32 tooth ring.
•
www.raceface.com The backsides of the crankset's forged 7050 aluminum arms have had any excess material removed, leaving six deep indentations of various shapes and sizes, a technique first used on the more trail / all-mountain oriented
Turbine cranks that were released two seasons ago. The new construction technique results in a slight weight savings of 33 grams versus the previous version, and as far as stiffness goes, Race Face claim that the Atlas cranks are 12% stiffer than the Turbine crankset.
The crankarms are mounted to a 30mm, 7055 aluminum spindle that's available in 68/73mm and 83mm versions. Bottom brackets are available for all current 'standards'; threaded, BB92, BB107, PF30, and PF30-83. As tested, in a 170mm version with a threaded BB and a 32t direct mount ring, the total package weighed 792 grams and retails for $345 USD. Looking for a color other than basic black? The Atlas cranks are also available in blue, red, and green.
Installation / Issues Getting the Atlas cranks installed was a straightforward affair, and Race Face includes clearly illustrated directions for riders who need visual reference to make sure they're on the right track. I would recommend checking the 16mm cap on the drive side to be sure Loctite has been applied and that it's snugged down – I've had a couple Cinch equipped cranks arrive where this wasn't the case. Why does this matter? Well, if that cap isn't securely in place, unthreading the 8mm hex to remove the crankarm will end up removing the cap instead of the crank. The 16mm size seems to be the unicorn of the hex key world, but luckily a 5/8” hex wrench will work just fine, and it's massive enough that it can also be placed by your front door instead of a baseball bat to ward off intruders. Race Face also offers an
8mm to 16mm adaptor that's much smaller and more portable than a full size wrench.
I do have one other small gripe, and that's regarding the screw that's used to secure the crank's preload ring into place. That little screw uses a tiny 2mm hex head that can easily be rounded out - it's best to read the instructions, take your time during installation, and remember that the screw really only needs to be finger tight. All the same, a larger head, or even going with a torx screw instead of a hex, would be a welcome improvement.
On the Trail Once installed, the cranks were completely trouble free, and withstood all of the rough trails and hucks to flat that I subjected them to with zero issues. I wasn't sure if I'd be able to feel the claimed 12% stiffness increase over the Turbines out on the trail, especially since it'd take me a year's worth of eating bacon and drinking protein shakes to make my way into the Clydesdale category, but it turned out that the difference was noticeable, especially when standing up and stomping on the pedals.
Now, the Turbine cranks aren't flexy by any means – I have absolutely no complaints about them in that regard, but the Atlas cranks definitely take things up a notch, a fact that will be appreciated by bigger riders, or even smaller riders that like to go really big. No one wants to worry about their cranks shattering or bending after a rough landing, and with the Atlas cranks those type of thoughts never even crossed my mind. They're impressively stiff, with a very reasonable weight, especially considering how solid they feel underfoot.
What about mud collecting in the recesses on the back of each crank? I haven't had any issues with excessive build up, even in extremely sloppy conditions - I'd say this is a non-issue, and a quick blast with the hose is all it takes to clear out any stubborn dirt chunks that do manage to withstand all of the revolutions that happen during a ride. Regarding the bottom bracket, after a few months of use, months that happened to coincide with the wettest rides of the year, it's free of any play, but a rebuild and some fresh grease wouldn't hurt - it's not spinning quite as smoothly as it once was. That's a little quicker than I'd like, but then again, the conditions it was ridden in are about as nasty as it gets.
Pinkbike's Take: | For riders looking for a stiff, strong, DH-worthy crankset that's light enough to be installed aboard an all-mountain rig, the Atlas cranks should be near the top of the list. The addition of the Cinch interface makes these cranks more versatile than ever, and they're still tough as nails. - Mike Kazimer |
Visit the feature gallery for high resolution and additional images
And what does "12% stiffer" actually mean?
I mean, I guess it's deflection under load, but what load? And what type of deflection? My point is that giving figures purely in % and with no reference to quantity or value is meaningless.
My bike is 17% better than yours
(but only when the performance dial is turned to the maximum)
And "what load" : if 100kg gives a 3mm deflection at the pedal axle then 200kg gives 6, so you can have that 12℅ difference between 2 cranksets whatever the load is.
I agree we don't have enough information, but when I talk about those things with others it seems like I'm the only nerd interested. So maybe companies are doing us a favor... Or not
But I agree they should describe the testing procedure, and all companies should have the same tests in order to compare all the products.
youtu.be/tNI4gs6sB7o
Saying something is stiffer without saying how it's measured is so ambiguous it's meaningless.
A Shimano XT or XTR is 60% stiffer than it (and significantly stiffer than a vast majority of others, including carbon ones), according to this test.
At first the stiffness depends on the material parameters, e.g. carbon has a much higher e-modulus and g-modulus than aluminium. That means that a carbon crankarm in general tends to bend a lot less than the alu one. To visualize it you can imagine a crankarm made of rubber or made of steel.
Second point is how the crankarm is manufactured or reinforced. A alu crankarm that is forged is much stronger than a casted one. But i dont think that it is possible still to buy a casted crankarm these days . And for carbon you can use many different layer structers and molding procedures...
The most obvious influence on the stiffness of a crankarm is its geometric parameters. How Big is the spindle ? How long is the spindle ? How is are the arms constructed ? And of course how long are the arms? I think it would be exaggerated to present you an example of a calculation, because you have to consider the torsional forces of the crankarms, the torsional forces on the spindle and the normal bending forces on the arms ( in the spindle wont be much bending because the bearings are very close to its end). But i would claim that the main inluence on the stiffness is the length of the arms plus its geometric parameters. And the torsion of the spindle, the bigger the diameter, the less torsion in the spindle.
Thats also the reason for the different stiffnesses of the drive side and the nondrive side: On the nondrive side you have to add the torsion of the spindle to your resulting deflection. Btw the chainring has nearly nothing to do with your feeling of stiffness.
I hope every question is answered theoreticly. For the results we have the tests .
In addition to that, i changed my crankset on my hardtail from an old shimano one , deore or whatever, to a sram gx and it is noticably stiffer. But i think on my Dh rig i wouldnt have recognised it
I spoke too quickly in my first post, I didn't mention the twisting we can see in zalgrath's video (arm torsion).
And what gives you the most the spaghetti feeling between that torsion and the vertical bending? So what's the most relevant figure they speak about with the 12%?
Haha would need some drawing to answer that. Maybe we can get help from @WAKIdesigns or @Protour
And because i was curious either i calculated a bit. On the geometric bases of the truvativ descendant and i used steel as the material for the spindle and aluminium for the crankarm. But the numbers are not absolutly precise :
in total, the point shown in the test in the video, which should be end of the pedal under normal circumstances, bends down 6,3 mm under a load of 200 kg on the nondrive side and 4,1 mm on the driveside.
The torsion of the spindle has an effect of circa 2,2 mm.
The torsion of the crankarm has an effect of circa 3,2 mm.
And the bending of the crankarm has an effect of circa 0,9 mm.
Numbers will differ a bit from pedal to pedal. For the calculation i took my nukeproof flats. I hope this schows a bit the relation of the different effects from torsion and bending.
"All the same, a larger head, or even going with a torx screw instead of a hex, would be a welcome improvement."
True dat!
Or if you compare it to the Zee, same things except then the Zee is like 50g heavier, but still at less than half price.
Don't get me wrong, the cranks look nice and I'm sure they are good, but what makes these cranks so great they are worth twice as much as other great cranks?
For that money I can go to Germany to shred a bike park there for a weekend. So what makes it worth the extra money?
Even if lets say the Zee and Cinch were the same price, I would go for the Zee because I would be afraid the 2mm hex bolt would get rounded and stuck in there. That's why I'm wondering if there's anything more behind it than just "it's a good crank" like the review says.
Atlas (cranks + chainring + bb)= 200e + 45e + 63e
internet prices from bike-components.de
For all those stripping it: Stop using ball end tools in shallow bolts, that is your problem. Also, it only needs to be snug. Any more is overtorquing the bolt. This is explained in the documentation.
Shimano Saint is the comparable crank to RF Atlas. Both use higher end aluminum and are considerably stronger/stiffer than SLX or Zee
SLX cranks (XC/Trail/AM level) can be compared to RF Aeffect (which doesn't have a preload adjuster with 2mm hex), and Zee cranks can be compared to RF Chester or Respond.
Don't compare apples to oranges. It doesn't make sense.
Atlas-$209.99 US MSRP-698 grams
Saint-$399.99 US MSRP-813 grams
Turbine-$199.99 US MSRP- 619 grams
SLX-$259.99 US MSRP-598 grams
"SLX is Lighter than Atlas" is like saying "a Prius gets better gas mileage than a Ford F-150"
Atlas = Saint, Turbine = XT, SLX = Aeffect, and Ride = Deore.
RF aluminum cranks with the cinch system are light, stiff, and extremely modular. No other company is innovating in aluminum cranks more than RF IMO which is probably why they are getting so much OEM spec lately. Shimano hasn't added any tech or improvements in ages. Their stuff is nice for sure but hardly the end all be all.
This is exactly what I like so much about Pinkbike. People with different opinions can share theirs, which will give you new perspectives of things. Without this comment section, purely based on what one person wrote about it, I would have said its a waste of money. But if it's rather comparable to Saint then Zee, it changes my persective for sure. If it really is as strong and stiff as Saints, but lighter than Zee, then you know it is a killer crank. But until no independent third party has tested the exact maximum forces it will always be speculations though.
I have owned SLX, old turbines, new aeffect, I can barely say there is differences between them when riding. Ah yes I can make one: aeffect use 175mm long crank casting differently drilled for 170mm, a pity.
Now if Shimano want to make a direct mount SLX version, be my guest, it is really needed for 28t and oval 30t rings. Oh and get rid of BB86 with its silly 41mm diameter, 42mm is the diameter to go as it match most of 42mm OD bearings...
www.murray-white.net/cycling/Cranksets_2-piece_road_triples.jpg
www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/what-is-q-factor-and-does-it-make-a-difference-187403
What specialized say on 1 website about pedalling a fat bike compared to what is said on pinkbike is just amusing.
Atlas-$209.99 US MSRP-698 grams
Saint-$399.99 US MSRP-813 grams
Atlas cranks are lighter and less expensive, and on top of that they have the ability to run a direct mount chain ring.
Atlas crank w/ BB and chain rings - $345 US MSRP
That's still 50$ less that the saints
I could also compare Saints to RF chester wich are heavier for sure but way cheaper
TL;DR you'll notice your wheels' rotational weight long before you'll notice any significant rotational weight from the cranks, unless you're the Flash (in which case, why ride a bike?).
@norcal77 No problem. You've got an awesome crankset on your hands. I wouldn't mind having one myself but they're mucho expensive and my Respond cranks do the job pretty nicely right now.
The bearings in RF BBs are garbage. Once the new one I installed this week goes, I'll either replace the bearings with Enduro's or try an Enduro or Hope BB next time. At least there are some options now.
kogelbearings.mysimplestore.com/products/bsa-30-mtb-for-rotor-race-face-cinch-cranks
Cheers!!
@SteveDekker - I would be all over a King bb if they made a threaded 30mm
@gooutsidetoday - good to know that Praxis is working for you since they recommend it only be used with Praxis cranks. Nice to have another option.
@mhoshal I am meticulous with my bikes! lol
But no one really seems to use carbon to make things stronger without having the weight penalty. Let's say average weight bike that would last for 50 years of decent usage. I think it has two reasons, first of all because no one would spend 3 times as much on for example a carbon frame when it is at the same weight as much cheaper alu frames. Second of all because cycling companies wouldn't want us to ride the same bike for the next 50 years because they would have no income after that one bike they sold us. Same from the buyers perspective though, we always want better and newer parts and bikes. I don't think any of us would still ride a bike from 1990 if we'd still have it and it would be in decent shape. Okay maybe as a nice vintage commuter, but not for serious and hard trail shredding.
A relatively small crash at the beginning of the video reveals a pedal ripped out of a the cranks. And supposedly raceface make the strongest carbon cranks. I don't know what the same crash with aluminum cranks would show, but I put money that they wouldnt fail, maybe bend a bit, but not fail.