Hope Carbon Cranks
Intended Use: Trail / All Mountain
Lengths Available: 155, 165, and 170 mm
Chainring Mount Standard: Hope Direct Mount
Spindle Diameter: 30 mm
MSRP:
- Crank arms & spindle: $752
- Chainring: $78
Blister’s Measured Weights:
- Crank arms & spindle: 425 g (165 mm length, w/ hardware)
- R22 chainring: 65 g (32 tooth)
Reviewer: 6′, 160 lb / 183 cm, 72.6 kg
Bolted To: Geometron G1, BTR Ranger, We Are One Arrival
Test Duration: 8 months
Test Locations: Washington, British Columbia, & California
Intro
Hope is probably best known for making a range of nicely finished aluminum parts (including their forged and machined Evo cranks), but they’ve also been making a number of carbon fiber parts in their Barnoldswick, UK facility for a while now.
Their Carbon Cranks are the latest addition to their lineup, and I’ve been riding them since last fall to see how they perform and hold up in the long run.
[For more on the design of the Carbon Cranks, check out our First Look.]
Installation
The installation process for the Carbon Cranks is the same as the one for Hope’s Evo aluminum cranks. It’s very similar to a lot of other designs (e.g., Race Face Cinch & SRAM DUB) that fix the spindle to the non-driveside arm, with a self-extracting interface on the drive side arm and a threaded preload collar at the NDS arm.
The crank-arm fixing bolt uses a 10 mm Allen wrench, which is arguably a little less convenient than a more common 8 mm one. But you’re unlikely to be able to achieve adequate torque to remove or reinstall it with a multi-tool anyway, so I don’t see it as a big deal. The preload collar is aluminum and uses a larger-than-average M3 bolt that takes a 2.5 mm Allen wrench, with a reassuringly deep hex.
I did, unfortunately, run into an issue installing my first pair of Carbon Cranks. The crank-arm fixing bolt on the Carbon Cranks is recessed slightly deeper into the arm (when looking from the inside w/ the crank removed from the spindle) than it is on Hope’s Evo cranks (which use the same spindle), and I couldn’t quite push the arm onto the spindle far enough to get the threads started. It appeared to likely be a tolerance-stackup issue, or maybe a slight burr on the inside of the crank arm splines that I couldn’t see. In any case, Hope promptly sent a replacement out, which works as expected. They said it wasn’t an issue they’d seen before, and quickly sorted me out.
On-Trail Performance
I’ve, frankly, had mixed results with carbon cranks in general. I’ve broken a fair few, usually by way of the pedal or spindle inserts coming loose in the arms. I’ve also found some (e.g., Race Face Era) to be stiffer than I’d like, transmitting some extra feedback that can lead to foot fatigue on longer descents (especially on shorter-travel bikes and hardtails).
However, Hope caught my attention when they launched their Carbon Cranks for two reasons:
(1) A novel and promising-sounding solution to insert issues
(2) Claims that they aren’t massively stiff
Now, after eight months with them, I’m happy to report that the Carbon Cranks have just disappeared under me and I haven’t thought about them at all while riding — which is really all you can ask for from a crank.
They’ve stayed tight, haven’t creaked or otherwise presented issues, and I haven’t thought about their stiffness one way or the other. They’re not notably flexy, nor are they stiff to the point of feeling harsh (including when used on my hardtail).
I can notice them feeling a little stiffer than Hope’s aluminum Evo cranks under really hard sprinting efforts if I really focus, but it’s subtle; the Carbon Cranks transmit noticeably less feedback to my feet than Race Face Era or SRAM XX T-Type cranks. At least for my preferences, the Hope Carbon Cranks’ ride feel is nicely balanced.
I’m also a fan of the fact that the Carbon Cranks have a relatively narrow Q-factor. I’m not that fussy about Q-factor in general, but narrower ones tend to be a touch easier on my knees (particularly the knee with a ton of hardware in it) over the course of longer days in the saddle. That point is purely personal preference, but especially in a world where a lot of cranks optimized for a 55 mm chainline are getting fractionally wider, I’m glad to have the option of running a narrower spindle (with a 52 mm chainline) and getting a narrow 168 mm Q-factor along with it.
Durability
I’ve, happily, got nothing to report here. As I noted above, I’ve broken quite a few carbon cranks over the years — mostly by having the pedal and/or spindle inserts come loose within the arms — but Hope’s Carbon Cranks are going strong after eight months of use.
Their approach of using two-piece inserts that thread together and clamp around the arm, rather than relying solely on a bonded interface, seems like a promising one, and the results have been good so far. I’ll report back if any issues come up down the line.
Who’s It For?
The Hope Carbon Cranks are a very good option for folks who want a lightweight, strong carbon crank and are willing to pay a bit of a premium for something made in the UK (and that looks particularly good, in my opinion). They’ve also got a narrower Q-factor than a lot of modern carbon cranks and don’t feel as punishingly stiff as some, both of which are nice bonuses in my book.
Bottom Line
Hope’s Carbon Cranks are light, ride nicely, and have held up great — despite me pushing them beyond their intended Trail / All-Mountain use case for a good chunk of my time on them.
They’re also made in the UK, look great, and feature a Q-factor that’s a bit narrower than average, especially for modern carbon cranks at 168 mm (when set up for a 52 mm chainline). If that combination of features sounds appealing and you’re willing to pay for it, they’re a great option.