Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
RS Domain
Honest question: Assuming this characteristic improves steering feel (it might not). Could you get past the bent/broken look and run it on your bike?
As for bent forks...
https://www.mtbr.com/attachments/forcella-20air-way-2085ssv-20tricarbon…
But you as you go through travel, the trail shortens because of the steeper head angle, so making the offset shorter throughout the travel will make the negative effects of steeper (instant) head angle a bit less negative.
New Shimano rotors on the Syndicate bikes or are my eyes playing a trick on me?
A CL rotor (without an adapter) is then a lot more complicated, which doesn't make as much sense since it's a wear item, compared to standard, steel, one-piece 6-bolt rotors. But maybe using the CL interface we can have a rethink on the rotors? Use an aluminium carrier and have the steel braking surface screwed onto it, maybe even in a floating fashion? So we keep the complicated aluminium carrier and just replace the steel strip that is the actual braking surface? That would also add quite a bit of stiffness to the currently massive (200 and 220 rotors are becoming the norm) rotors and thus possibly more precision to the positioning while not costing a lot weight-wise. And designed properly, a 220, 180 and a 140 mm rotor might be possible to be cut from the same piece of steel with the 200 and the 160 doing the same, so less material would be used as well.
As for the sandwich construction, I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utMchnpW1vo
Sure, it's road specific where it appears the braking requirements actually are quite a bit different to MTB, but yeah, I've seen some chewed up Shimano sandwich rotors before, which must be fun to ride on (it was in a multi-day enduro race, luckily the rotor gave up the ghost on the last day).
You can get around that with adapters, but there are some cautions going against that and it's possible to have issues with thicker (aluminium carrier) rotors as the CL nut is designed to clamp down on the 2 mm stainless steel flange of a 6 bolt rotor. Etc.
Like I said, do a CL spider carrier with say 6 to 10 bolt holes and sell it in 3 or 4 different sizes (maybe even less?) and then just offer braking surface swappers for when it gets worn out. If you're doing the complicated CL rotor interface, might as well complicate it a bit further, make it thick an AL to be stiff and then do the minimum in stainless steel.
As for my experiences, no issues, but as I haven't run Shimano brakes since 2007, I have little desire to go CL on the hubs, if I don't REALLY need to, as I'll very likely be running 6 bolt rotors (or rotors predominantly available in 6 bolt variants) anyway. Free reign, I'd go with the "Intend" multi-little-hole rotors in any case, regardless of the brake caliper. So I see little logic in running CL hubs if I don't need to.
Do we need a new standard? Don't want to say that, but with the rotor sizes we're getting to, I think it might make sense to do things a bit differently (larger BCD maybe?) or at least revisit what we have currently (so bolts vs. CL, evaluate manufacturing issues and benefits, costs, what it means for the rotors, etc.) and try to rally the industry behind a common goal. WHich will happen never of course.