I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I have done countless Google searches and I just cant seem to find a definitive answer as to whether the newer SiSl2 crankarms will work on a Carbon Scalpel 29. Are there any alignment issues?

I just bought a 2013 Carbon Scalpel 29 frame. I am going to run Sram XX1 on it. I recently ordered a Leonardi Racing XX1 Spider for Hollowgram Cranks. I have the Pressfit 30 Sram Bottom Bracket with 132mm Spindle.

Will there be any problem using SiSL2 Crankarms? Will the standard Pressfit 30 Spider Lockring work with the Leonardi Spider or do I need the Leonardi one?

I want to use the latest SiSL2 Crankarms instead of the regular SiSl Crankarms.

Thanks-

They will work the same way as the SL and the SI cranks did. They all are cross compactible.

N.T. is right. The only difference is in the road line, you need to run the new SISL2 spindle with the new arms and the spider ring. the dimensions of the arms have not changed, so as long as you run the appropriate mountain spindle, it should be fine.

The SISL standard axle was 132mm I think... I don't think there is an SISL2 mountain axle, so I think you'd just want that regular 132mm one.

_________________
Enjoying my Funk

I also emailed this same question to the guys at R2 Bike, which is who I ordered the Leonardi Spider from. I got an email back from them stating that the Q-Factor was 5mm less on the SiSL2 Crankarms. This would mean that each Crankarm is going to be about 2.5mm closer to the Chainstays.

I am currently still collecting parts for this build and have not begun assembling it yet, so I am not sure if that 2.5mm on each side is going to be a big deal or not. I want to use the SiSL2 Crankarms, because I believe I will save an additional 35grams or so over the SiSL Crankarms. I have yet to see a picture of a Carbon Scalpel 29 with SiSL2 Cranks on it.

I have a brand new set of SiSL Cranks already and the SiSl2 Crankarms should be here this week, so I will have all options available to me to try and see what fits.

Hopefully the reduced Q-Factor of the SiSL2's will not be an issue and will clear the Chainstays enough. I guess we will see.

i have a carbon scalpel 29 and a set of SiSl2 arms sitting next to me. unfortunately for you, i have not swapped the SL arms out in favor of the SiSL2s yet.

don't think i'll get to actual installation in the next day or so--but for sure I will in the next 2 weeks if you can wait.

i do measure ~11mm of clearance between a large scalpel frame's chainstays and 175mm SL crank arms on each side (a bit less on the DS if you choose to run the fabric chainstay protector). clearance would be GREATER than 11mm with arms shorter than 175. also, just by rough eyeball measures, the SiSL2 cranks *appear* to have the same Q factor.

if you're worried about 2.5mm per side, i'd say you will be fine. i do not anticipate any problems on my own installation.

the arms are cross-compatible with the spindles.

on a related note, since i answered the OP's question above, may i thread-hijack a bit?

technically there's no cyclocross forum...

i have a raleigh RXC pro 'cross frame with pf30 bottom bracket. i was contemplating running my hollowgram SiSL2 arms on this frame -- along with a MTB SRM. i would run it as a 1x10 setup with single ring up front -- a 42T 120BCD ring in the outer ring position, which chain guide.

bb width is ~73mm.

would i need the cannondale 132mm MTB spindle to make this work? i can't imagine there would be any clearance issue with the MTB SRM -- the 42T ring is in the outer position, after all. however, the MTB SRM is a bit smaller/chunkier.

my other option is to run a specialized MTB crankset (they are not so easy to come by). i have a specialized road crankset with an SRM. last year, i used this with a 1x10 setup (42T/130 ring in the inner position). the specialized road crank is designed for a 68mm wide bb, so i had to do some weird things with the spacers to offset it a bit to the drive side. i'd rather not do this, but i'd like to use one of the two power meter options i have.

thank you!

Sweet. Thank You "tetonrider". That puts my mind at ease. I was a bit worried about the fit, and considering what these parts cost, I hate blindly ordering stuff just to see if it fits. There is just about no info on the internet about running the SiSL2 cranks on mountain bikes. There was an older thread here on Weight Weenies that kind of added to my confusion about potential differences between the SiSLs and the SiSL2s.

Here is the thread: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=106934&hilit=sisl2#p914721

I am super excited about running XX1 on this bike. My frame is also a large and the cranks are 175mm. The 11mm you mention on your SLs is nearly a half inch (I can better visualize a half inch..lol), so you're probably correct, even if the SiSl2s are 2.5mm closer, it shouldn't be a problem.

No worries from me on the thread-hijack. Maybe someone else will chime in about you're question. I'm of no help, I know almost nothing about Cyclocross or Power Metering. Cyclocross looks fun though, maybe someday I will give it a go.

Just for the record, I wanted to add a bit of additional information for anyone who might be interested in using the SiSL2 Crankarms. I received my SiSL2 Crankarms and was able to compare them side by side with the older SiSL Crankarms. When placing the Non-Drive Side (NDS) arms on a flat surface, the SiSL2 arm appears to indeed have a 2.5mm lower Q-factor. I was unable to accurately compare the Drive Side (DS) arms, because the SiSL set still had a spider and rings attached. So a 5mm lower Q-Factor overall seems to be accurate, just like the guys at R2 Bike stated.

I did a dry fit on my frame (it will be a while before I do the final assembly of this bike) using the 132mm Spindle and it appears that the arms will clear the chainstays easily on the Carbon Scalpel 29.

Any truth to this quote from this BikeRumor article?

"To possibly confuse matters more, you can also install older HollowGram crankarms on the new spindle, just not the other way around."

http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/03/01/cannondale-bringing-sisl2-cranks-to-mountain-bikes-w-xx1/

Other people seem to be using the old spindle with the newer SiSL2 Crankarms, correct? So what is this article saying then?

I do wonder what the spindle length will be if they offer a mountain version of the SiSL2 spindle. Right now I have the older 132mm spindle and plan to use it. I hope the chainline is OK.

I have still not built my new bike. I've been waiting since mid January for Cannondale to ship my Carbon Lefty XLR 29er fork and Mavic to ship my Crossmax SLR 29 wheels (Lefty front/12 x142 rear). I'm guessing the XD Driver Freehub Body for Sram XX1 is still not available.

I installed a SISL2 crank with Leonardi spider and a 132 axle on my new Funk La Ruta. That frame actually has a BSA BB, so I used a special spindle from R2-bike with no ND side shoulder, and Rotor/Zipp style 30mm outboard BB cups. The clearance to the chainstays is good (9.5mm), and the chainline is ~49mm (eyeballing seat tube center) which I think should be pretty good (for the sram XX crank they publish that the inner ring is at 44.5mm, outer at 52.5... so my chainline is dead center of those which seems like it ought to be ideal). Anyone know the intended / published chainline for XX1?

Anyway Singletrackmind, I definitely don't get that Bikeradar quote either; it makes no sense to me. Only thing I can think of is that there's something funny with the new XX1 spider they're making that requires the wave washer on the non-drive side (they said that's part of the new design) and that's definitely not possible with the older spindle because of the shoulder that fixes its position (adding a wave washer would then move the drive side arm and chainring too close to the frame). But that doesn't make a lot of sense either (and couldn't you turn the spindle around if that were true?). A lot in that article doesn't make sense if you ask me: they also said they moved the wave washer to the Non-drive side so that it "keeps the spacing between the chainrings and the frame constant, an improvement over previous designs"... but if the wave washer compresses everything moves anyway, so which side its on doesn't matter at all. Unless they mean the old method of adding those small delrin spacers to account for slight BB width variation then doesn't alter the spacing between the chainring and the frame... but how do they know those variations aren't on the drive side of the frame (and thus accounting for them on that side is better)? Seems like a whole bunch of pretty pictures and useless information.

_________________
Enjoying my Funk

What about the Cyclocross/Touring forum?

Kind of late to the party but kind of curious about your BB shell dimension? I have an RXC Pro Disc frame and I am pretty sure my bb was ~68mm wide as I used an SRM Hollogram, Cannondale's SRM specific PF30 bottom bracket, the new 109mm road spindle, and SISL2 arms which would not have worked if the shell was 73mm wide.

_________________
Michael - The Anaerobic Threshold is neither...