LBS might do it.
.
What options would you prefer? 110/127/150?
As a side note, the switch from 110/137 to 117/137 came out of Cary Gray’s preference on his enormous 24,000 km+ uni tour across North and Central America (still going!). 117 was the shortest he felt comfortable with while carrying 75-80 lbs in the paniers on his KH36. He did not use a geared hub.
Kris
Personally, I would find that to be an attractive option.
I have drilled a set of Nimbus Venture 2 cranks and they look like they should stand up but I haven’t spent much time on them yet. 2 things are obvious: they will be stronger than the drilled SINZ cranks I have consistently wrecked, but won’t be nearly as bombproof as drilled spirits or moments. I made them for my Nightfox which is currently my 36er. The Mad4One cranks are zero-Q but I had the same $$$ reaction as you.
I was kind of curious about that.
I believe that before the original cranks were released I suggested 114/137, obviously I bought the 110/137s shortly after they came out and eventually really liked them. I mostly use the 137mm hole but wonder if I would use the short hole more if it were 117, it is quite a jump…
If you are taking requests I also like the idea of a 110/127/150 crank.
117/137/165 might not be a bad idea either but the 110/127/150 is the one I would buy and may be the only crank ever needed for a KH36…
110 / 127 / 150 of course !
Will think about it.
Personally I have to say though, I’m not a big fan of 3 hole cranks. In the shortest length option there is a lot of crank spinning around above the hole. I’d prefer to first pick the right crank for my riding style and terrain to the nearest two holes, and then pick from those.
110/127/150
Yes, 110/127/150 would be perfect or even a bit shorter 107/127/150.
I currently have 127/150, 137/165, 114, 100 (and 170s that I no longer need).
I’ve been switching out a lot in the last while on my 36:
Road Commute;
- 100s are pretty short but all right
- With the 114s I have great control for my commute and are pretty fast
- 165: more control for steeper downhills but mostly not needed as as it gets steeper I often loose traction with the no-nobby Nightrider tire (so 150s work just as well)
- 150: nice for XC
- 137: good for not-too-steep XC without big drops
- 125: sometimes scary on the 36 but crazy fun and fast
I’ve been using 150 the most for offroad and 114s the most for road. With the 114s I was able to make most of my static mounts today with 2-3cm of snow this morning and then packed/melted snow/ice this evening.
True, but without ever having had 3-hole cranks that stick up so far, I don’t see why that should be a problem. When the crank arm is up then the stub part is then in pretty much the same place relative to the foot as the regular part of the crank when the crank arm is down, with the only differences being that the stub this has a “point” (although rounded) and is at the top instead of the bottom. Is it so likely that in a crash one with hit the ankle or foot with the stub?
For a given type of terrain that totally makes sense. However, I use the same uni for commuting and offroad multiple times a week! I’ve been switching cranks on average close to twice a week for months now.
I’ve been riding my home made Spirit 110/127/150 over the last 3 years and a half on my ungeared 36 and they are just perfect as I don"t need to change cranks which is a little bit boring with disc on crank
This is a good point. When I rode my triple drilled SINZ cranks (do not attempt, they are not strong enough!) I had to be extra careful with my laces. There was enough of a stub sticking out that it could easily snag a loose shoelace loop with not-so-fun results.
So sure riding the inner hole of triple hole cranks is not as ideal as having regular short cranks, but is there a downside in having the 110mm hole on a crank that is otherwise a 127/150? I doubt strength would be a concern.
I would imagine 110/127/150 cranks would replace 127/150, but would there still be room in the market for 110/127 cranks? Is the market big enough to support the seemingly redundant smaller crank even though it is a better option for a large number of road riders who would only ride the inner two positions?
Assuming the 110/127 cranks remain on the market is there enough of an advantage over 127/150 cranks to justify the higher cost (both for manufacturer and consumer)? How many 3 hole cranks have Kooka and Mad4One sold? Is that market even significant?
Food for thought.
Love my versatile lightweight KH 36er! Love the 110s. Just shaved 2min31sec off my 145mm best time of 20min32sec. 110s are fast and have decent control on flat and slight inclines. I will make the third hole. 110/125/150s is the bomb!
Now that I have all the KH double hole cranks I probably wouldn’t buy triple hole cranks. If they were available when I started purchasing more cranks I probably would have gotten them to sort out what size I prefer.
I have the 110/127 cranks on my 29er for road riding. This winter I’m on 127 while the conditions are not so great. When the weather is better I’ll move back to 110.
Lately I’ve been thinking of picking up cranks with less Q factor. Aren’t they suppose to be better for riding pavement? KH cranks were design with muni in mind, correct?
I’d like to have cranks that work with quick release. That way I can change on the fly. When dry and sunny I’d be on 110. When windy and raining I’d be on 127.
It’s personal preference. A lot of people seem to prefer running zero-Q cranks on a 100mm hub, but I found that too narrow for me and prefer a little more Q, even for road riding. Definitely worth experimenting with a few pairs of cheap cranks.
If you’re talking about the Spirit cranks then one of the design criteria which drove the shape and width would have been clearing a brake caliper on an outboard disk setup.
And now cheap m4o 3 holes exist as well as the new Nimbus 3 holes