The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated...
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated than a few graphs, there are a few more integrative rider-focused parameters that I don’t usually see people talk about on message boards he likes to use to relate feel and function. Dave will tell you those unspoken variables are actually the things to look at to compare bikes.
Dave’s customer service Special Sauce, if you will…
This, it's part of the deal with a DW. And while an opinionated engineer, he's right about the other inputs, or at least convincing...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this information but it's not like you can't measure a frame and plug the numbers into Linkage.
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this...
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this information but it's not like you can't measure a frame and plug the numbers into Linkage.
I mapped out the AM200 in SynBike. The biggest issue without having exact lengths and locations is the short link off the frame. 1mm is a giant change.
My average guesswork, the bike would pedal well, rear shock would be free feeling while using the rear brake. The leverage I don’t think was correct, but it was slightly progressive then linear towards the end. But I can’t confirm or deny until I ride the bike, but I put money on it being wrong. Axle path was slight rearward then forward.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride...
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
More progressive bikes provide more mid stroke support IF they are sagged the same. What’s often overlooked is the fact that sag at the wheel is increasingly greater than the sag at the shock as a bike gets more progressive. This gives the perception of less mid stroke and riding deep in travel, but is usually just the result of having more sag at the wheel than expected. The other nuance is how damping is affected. You have to run a stiffer tune. In the end if you aren’t hammering on the bike none of this is ideal, but it’s also not a massive downside.
Personally I don’t get why companies would be guarded when it comes to their curves from the standpoint of them being copied. I doubt Norco is trying to copy Ibis or the other way around. But even if they were, replicating the geo is easy when you have the time and resources.
In regards to unspoken metrics, you can come up with a billion different things if you really want. Curvature, derivatives of things, integrals of things and such. One of the more interesting ones to me is percent increase in damping force for a given wheel speed input as a function of shock stroke. Makes it easy to visualize how a certain impact might feel starting from different points in travel.
Edited to add: you can also create leverage curves in different directions. Differences in shock speeds for high pivots make sense when looking at it from literally different angles. Leverage ratio might be the same for a vertical impact, but is much different the closer it gets to horizontal.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
Totally with you on the anti rise. I came of a 21’ sight onto a current range and the difference in control trying to approach a steep chute is enormous. Granted the range is lauded for particularly good braking but the sight just wanted to hit that eject button. I know that behaviour is similar to many other Horst bikes but doesn’t have to be, I believe the current strive is quite high in this respect.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride...
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
Air VS Coil makes a big difference too. High progression with a linear rate coil spring works really good. Just need enough LSC so the bike doesn't feel lethargic with the softer initial travel.
Going to assume im dumb but this looks like a new TRP lever??? looks like a EVO capiler with R1 rotors. **edit, confirmed they are TRP EVO calipers with Saint hoses
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame...
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
could be, i might've heard that something new is coming out in that regard, and it should as the current rail is very "meh"
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame...
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame...
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
Would be quite bice if the high-pivot e-bike market moves a lil bit! The 2 neutralize each other’s cons - high-pivot is heavy and pedals bad, e-bike doesn’t care about weight because it’s 20+kg anyway, doesn’t care about pedaling efficiency because, duuhh, motor! In the same time e-bikes are beasts downhill, so a high-pivot will only make it even more beastly! A win-win! They just need to make it dc-fork compatible!
Wow, struggled to make it through that.
This is my first DS video, and seems like internet clickbait to me.
My thoughts
-Obviously SRAM doesnt want...
Wow, struggled to make it through that.
This is my first DS video, and seems like internet clickbait to me.
My thoughts
-Obviously SRAM doesnt want you using Shimano rotors, does this need any further explanation other than this appeared to be a prevailing attitude throughout the video.
-These arent designed for intermediate or beginner riders, full stop. Its a peak performance product, designed with heavy use gravity riders in mind. As noted by the Extreme Duty++++ designation, so lets assume that Dale at 110lbs isnt the target market
-Why wouldnt you test all the options made available, or even follow the recommendations by SRAM in the Expert kit, no sense in doing that to provide an unbiased review.
-Brakes that require high effort both help to change the way you brake (late and hard) and allow for more precise modulation of the brake than light action brakes. Again, meant as a high performance product, for those that perform at that level.
-You ever hear F! drivers talk about the effort required to brake, or Indy, stock car, etc.....
-inevitably itll find its way on to every enduro bike on the market, and be lamented for its fatigue inducing lever pull, when its meant for a market segment that is in need of something more powerful and precise.
-Can confirm the Martha Creek DH is a wild ride of non-stop good times. If youve never ridden it, put it on your bucket list!
lots of points are good, but some are just invalid.
While every rider is going after lighter and lighter lever action, even some swearing by the latest hayes levers. We are already being shaken by everything tumbling down the trail, we don't need to unnecesserily spend more energy than the bare minimun to stop.
I did a full rebuild of my shimano levers, with a polishing step inside the barrel, and the braking action did improved, for the better.
F1 drivers do oppose their weight while braking hard. They don't have servo brakes because the feeling of the brake is more important than the total force. But you need a certain leverage and movement to actuate the brakes, you can't have it super powerfull and light brake without free stroke while the pads are away. You need this movement of the pads, and thats why every brake has a limited amount of force and movement, thanks to phisics.
With a 9mm main piston and mavens calipers, you'll have gigantic power, but equally gigantic free stroke because youll need to move the lever a lot to get the pads to bite. If you want instant engagement and high power, you'll need a swing link or servowave.
Formula Cura's had the same power, 2 or 4 piston, because the 2 piston had gigantc pistons, equaling the force. The pads were the same too.
My bet is that sram ducked up the seal, because Formula cura has 4 18mm pistons, and the mavens have 2 18mm, and 2 19,5mm.
We gotta stop bringing up f1 all the time. Those guys have ruined their own sport with nerdy data farming and it is boring as fuck to watch. Keep DH DH.
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi...
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi is just a marketing scheme to sell older products. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means that it’s old
I get what you say and i agree some sort. But as a bomber coil user i would say that this is probably the best product...
I get what you say and i agree some sort. But as a bomber coil user i would say that this is probably the best product for the best price from all of fox/marzoo products ever.
You were riding a shock that basically came out over 15 years ago at this point. I actually think the shock is totally fine, but it...
You were riding a shock that basically came out over 15 years ago at this point. I actually think the shock is totally fine, but it has a weird dead spot in the beginning that I felt on a few different frames. Keep in mind that for the price of a bomber coil, you could could get a used DHX to that is far superior and every single way get it rebuilt and basically have a brand new shock that is much better than whatever you’re going to get out of the box of the bomber coil. I love that there is pretty decent suspension from Marzocchi for relatively cheap but I’m not sure why you would buy that other than trying to fit into the niche cool guy free ride group that they’re trying to use a brand when you can buy used fox suspension and rebuild it exactly how you want for cheaper.
PS if you can’t tell by my username I’m a huge fanboy of their stuff
I don't claim to be an expert, but when I was buying a new shock for the sole purpose of getting it tuned by Avalanche Downhill Racing; I came across a great deal on a '23 take off unused DHX in the size I needed as well as even having the exact spring rate I needed, and it was cheaper than ordering a new Bomber.
I was told to provide the shock myself so there wasn't anything in the shock price for Avy.
Anyways, I called Craig (owner of Avy) to get his opinion on this great deal I had found and he told me the Bomber uses shim stacks, ya know like every single high end MX shock uses, where-as the DHX uses poppet valves, which really don't perform as intended and aren't known for providing top tier performance in any application. So to stick with the Bomber.
BTW, that Avy suspension on my Relay turned out AMAZING!
The 2025 Fox GripX2 got wiped but I’m surprised it didn’t make a bigger splash.
My bet is that the GripX2 will be more heavily...
The 2025 Fox GripX2 got wiped but I’m surprised it didn’t make a bigger splash.
My bet is that the GripX2 will be more heavily damped and the GripX which is positioned as all mountain/trail will be a lighter damping tune.
Really hoping they bring back a longer travel 36 fork.
Aren't air shafts available up to 160 or 170mm? Rockshox is the same with no overlapping travel on different models, but you can still buy longer air shafts.
I wonder if the reduced chain wrap with a high pivot e-bike will cause wear issues? Also 90nm going through the idler.
While I haven't seen anything in person or on paper, the rumors I've heard is that if there's a Slash-e, it'll be a TQ motor like the EX-e and the Rail will get a revamp to become a real bike at some point after they get rid of all the duds they have now. Allegedly, the HP infrastructure wouldn't be able to handle a full power motor without a ton of weight added, but we'll see.
Aren't air shafts available up to 160 or 170mm? Rockshox is the same with no overlapping travel on different models, but you can still buy longer...
Aren't air shafts available up to 160 or 170mm? Rockshox is the same with no overlapping travel on different models, but you can still buy longer air shafts.
I don't think you can for RS' newer air shafts, there's no 170mm DebonAir+ for the Lyrik. Only the Zeb can do 170mm now, unless using an older air shaft and I think also can't use the new Pike and Lyrik chassis with older air shafts either.
This, it's part of the deal with a DW. And while an opinionated engineer, he's right about the other inputs, or at least convincing...
Iirc Weagles patents for his suspension systems are not based on their layout but specific anti-squat curves. It makes sense why they want to protect this information but it's not like you can't measure a frame and plug the numbers into Linkage.
I mapped out the AM200 in SynBike. The biggest issue without having exact lengths and locations is the short link off the frame. 1mm is a giant change.
My average guesswork, the bike would pedal well, rear shock would be free feeling while using the rear brake. The leverage I don’t think was correct, but it was slightly progressive then linear towards the end. But I can’t confirm or deny until I ride the bike, but I put money on it being wrong. Axle path was slight rearward then forward.
Looks like new bikes from Specialized on Tuesday. Assuming this is the new Epic/Epic Evo.
I, personally, am not a fan of high progression. You can't use all of the travel and you get terrible mid stroke support. My current ride is a Nicolai G1 and I wish it was less progressive because I actually like the geo.
More progressive bikes provide more mid stroke support IF they are sagged the same. What’s often overlooked is the fact that sag at the wheel is increasingly greater than the sag at the shock as a bike gets more progressive. This gives the perception of less mid stroke and riding deep in travel, but is usually just the result of having more sag at the wheel than expected. The other nuance is how damping is affected. You have to run a stiffer tune. In the end if you aren’t hammering on the bike none of this is ideal, but it’s also not a massive downside.
Personally I don’t get why companies would be guarded when it comes to their curves from the standpoint of them being copied. I doubt Norco is trying to copy Ibis or the other way around. But even if they were, replicating the geo is easy when you have the time and resources.
In regards to unspoken metrics, you can come up with a billion different things if you really want. Curvature, derivatives of things, integrals of things and such. One of the more interesting ones to me is percent increase in damping force for a given wheel speed input as a function of shock stroke. Makes it easy to visualize how a certain impact might feel starting from different points in travel.
Edited to add: you can also create leverage curves in different directions. Differences in shock speeds for high pivots make sense when looking at it from literally different angles. Leverage ratio might be the same for a vertical impact, but is much different the closer it gets to horizontal.
Totally with you on the anti rise. I came of a 21’ sight onto a current range and the difference in control trying to approach a steep chute is enormous. Granted the range is lauded for particularly good braking but the sight just wanted to hit that eject button. I know that behaviour is similar to many other Horst bikes but doesn’t have to be, I believe the current strive is quite high in this respect.
Air VS Coil makes a big difference too. High progression with a linear rate coil spring works really good. Just need enough LSC so the bike doesn't feel lethargic with the softer initial travel.
I wonder if Fox, with the new GX2 Damper have fixed the damper knocking sound often found in their forks...
GripX will 100% be more than enough for 99.9% of forum riders(just as GRIP currently is)
Going to assume im dumb but this looks like a new TRP lever??? looks like a EVO capiler with R1 rotors. **edit, confirmed they are TRP EVO calipers with Saint hoses
Saw an e-bike on the trail yesterday that looked like the new Trek Slash with a motor. Didn’t get to snap any pictures. Completely white frame, same lower roller and chainstay protection as the Slash. New Rail probably?
could be, i might've heard that something new is coming out in that regard, and it should as the current rail is very "meh"
Titanium hardtail ebike anyone? This is a prototype from Nordest Cycles
https://www.instagram.com/p/C4OcWWovQ9q/?igsh=Y3BqcWVqajY3aHM1
tq or bosch motor?
is the white frame the new Enduro?
Would be quite bice if the high-pivot e-bike market moves a lil bit! The 2 neutralize each other’s cons - high-pivot is heavy and pedals bad, e-bike doesn’t care about weight because it’s 20+kg anyway, doesn’t care about pedaling efficiency because, duuhh, motor! In the same time e-bikes are beasts downhill, so a high-pivot will only make it even more beastly! A win-win! They just need to make it dc-fork compatible!
If that is the new Enduro they were definitely yanking our chains with this photo.
It’s the current one with a custom paint job and polished links.
I wonder if the reduced chain wrap with a high pivot e-bike will cause wear issues? Also 90nm going through the idler.
lots of points are good, but some are just invalid.
While every rider is going after lighter and lighter lever action, even some swearing by the latest hayes levers. We are already being shaken by everything tumbling down the trail, we don't need to unnecesserily spend more energy than the bare minimun to stop.
I did a full rebuild of my shimano levers, with a polishing step inside the barrel, and the braking action did improved, for the better.
F1 drivers do oppose their weight while braking hard. They don't have servo brakes because the feeling of the brake is more important than the total force. But you need a certain leverage and movement to actuate the brakes, you can't have it super powerfull and light brake without free stroke while the pads are away. You need this movement of the pads, and thats why every brake has a limited amount of force and movement, thanks to phisics.
With a 9mm main piston and mavens calipers, you'll have gigantic power, but equally gigantic free stroke because youll need to move the lever a lot to get the pads to bite. If you want instant engagement and high power, you'll need a swing link or servowave.
Formula Cura's had the same power, 2 or 4 piston, because the 2 piston had gigantc pistons, equaling the force. The pads were the same too.
My bet is that sram ducked up the seal, because Formula cura has 4 18mm pistons, and the mavens have 2 18mm, and 2 19,5mm.
We gotta stop bringing up f1 all the time. Those guys have ruined their own sport with nerdy data farming and it is boring as fuck to watch. Keep DH DH.
The 2025 Fox GripX2 got wiped but I’m surprised it didn’t make a bigger splash.
My bet is that the GripX2 will be more heavily damped and the GripX which is positioned as all mountain/trail will be a lighter damping tune.
Really hoping they bring back a longer travel 36 fork.
I don't claim to be an expert, but when I was buying a new shock for the sole purpose of getting it tuned by Avalanche Downhill Racing; I came across a great deal on a '23 take off unused DHX in the size I needed as well as even having the exact spring rate I needed, and it was cheaper than ordering a new Bomber.
I was told to provide the shock myself so there wasn't anything in the shock price for Avy.
Anyways, I called Craig (owner of Avy) to get his opinion on this great deal I had found and he told me the Bomber uses shim stacks, ya know like every single high end MX shock uses, where-as the DHX uses poppet valves, which really don't perform as intended and aren't known for providing top tier performance in any application. So to stick with the Bomber.
BTW, that Avy suspension on my Relay turned out AMAZING!
Aren't air shafts available up to 160 or 170mm? Rockshox is the same with no overlapping travel on different models, but you can still buy longer air shafts.
You can learn a lot just by looking at the assembly diagrams for Fox/Marzocchi.
Bomber CR diagrams can be found here. Note, it shares certain parts/drawings as what is called the "2011 Van RC"
Float X here...can't find the Bomber Air, but those two shocks share a lot of parts as well.
And, DHX here. Which shares a lot of parts with the Float X. Looks like shims in the base valve and piston to me...but maybe I'm missing something.
While I haven't seen anything in person or on paper, the rumors I've heard is that if there's a Slash-e, it'll be a TQ motor like the EX-e and the Rail will get a revamp to become a real bike at some point after they get rid of all the duds they have now. Allegedly, the HP infrastructure wouldn't be able to handle a full power motor without a ton of weight added, but we'll see.
I don't think you can for RS' newer air shafts, there's no 170mm DebonAir+ for the Lyrik. Only the Zeb can do 170mm now, unless using an older air shaft and I think also can't use the new Pike and Lyrik chassis with older air shafts either.
Mountain bikers seem to have the weakest fingers ever out of any group I've been a part of. The Maven's feel fine.