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
To elaborate, the mass difference at rear axle is only maybe 1/2 or 1 lbs, but you gotta factor in acceleration when the rear wheel hits something. Suddenly that mass difference get's multiplied by g forces and the heavier wheel won't move out of way as fast
I could ride my road bike for a 100k miles i I wouldn’t have to service it’s suspension either
Brakes were a done deal more then a decade ago, Shimano clan knows this fact.
Scott Gambler was better a decade ago.
Coils are better.
I don't think we're done but certain parts are just companies trying to overtake one another, while fighting dirrty.
QC is the place where things can get way better.
The number of failed products, warranty claims and waste is to high.
If the products where made better, prices "should" go down, less time of the bike, and mother earth would be happy.
But how will SRAM hit its sales numbers?
The sales would likely be the same, or actually higher. Bevause when people have good experiences with brands/products they will recommend them and use it again.
And when increasing the QC, and therefore less warranty claims, they would make more money per product, and could potentially reduce the cost of the existing product. I can just talk for my self. But in my last 4 bikes, i have got a new frame (paint just fell of the carbon), new dropper post, 2 fork CSUs, new brakes, a new rear wheel x 2, and some small other parts.
So everything on the list is lost money for everyone involved, and with better QC and some adjustments to production/specs, the cost would be much much lower in total.
All products solve a problem... some time that problem is "how do we sell more bikes", lol.
Let's consider the Trial bike, probably the most ridden mountain bike. People are looking for something that is going to allow them to pedal up technical trails and not feel like they are risking their life on the way down. This category presents the challenge of what makes things better on the way down makes things more difficult on the way up. Some bikes try to do both equally well, some favor the uphill efficiency, and others favor the downhill fun factor. How do we make a bike with a raked out front end and small bump compliance that doesn't sponge up every pedal watt and wheelie out when things get steep on the up road?I think this is where on the fly suspension tuning will pay huge dividends. It will take time for the technology to become accepted and available enough for frame builders to design their products around this feature. If you've already sacrificed small bump compliance by designing for a pedal platform, then a electronic shock isn't going to make a difference.
The improvements in suspension damping that remain are marginal. The real room for suspension performance is in weight, friction, reliability, cost, etc, all things that have more to do with the chassis rather than shim stacks and electronically controlled orifices.
In an ideal world, I would think something like a Lefty would be ideal for front shocks. Thats the best chassis out there- inverted, dual crown, torsionally stiffer than any traditional two-legged fork, lighter, etc. The downfall of the lefty was its proprietary nature, terrible QC, and mediocre damping.
For rear shocks, a reduction in stiction in air cans would go a long way to improving performance. Related, and perhaps even more beneficial, would be a better way to equalize negative air pressure. The current port at the sag point makes a notch in the compression curve that can be felt, and many of us have had that dreaded rockshox sucked-down rear shock, where grit, rubber shreds, or just grease clogs the equalizing port.
Post a reply to: how close are we to peak mountain bike??