As a short crank guy who likes affordable shimano cranks i hope the new saint has some shorter options.
I hope they get short down to at least Deore level. There is a need for good quality, afordable, short cranks. Sram has listed his SX chainset in 155mm but Im yet to find it for sale anywhere
it has been mentioned that those with the saint sticker are the team bikes of the factory riders, that‘s why they have the sticker on so...
it has been mentioned that those with the saint sticker are the team bikes of the factory riders, that‘s why they have the sticker on so that shimano doesn‘t crap their pants.
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy!
I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh bikes. It looks like none of the biggest players are really going that route and it's more of a boutique thing. Quite an investment to do at the scale that Shimano, SRAM, TRP work at.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Shimano to produce a Saint crank for the new Phoenix though. They'd sell hundreds at best? Not really worth the investment. Prove me wrong Shimano!
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy! I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh...
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy!
I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh bikes. It looks like none of the biggest players are really going that route and it's more of a boutique thing. Quite an investment to do at the scale that Shimano, SRAM, TRP work at.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Shimano to produce a Saint crank for the new Phoenix though. They'd sell hundreds at best? Not really worth the investment. Prove me wrong Shimano!
I predict the crank market will eventually land on 150 - 165 as the accepted range. I say this as a 6'2" guy (with shitty hips) happily running 165 trailduro cranks and 160's on DH and eeb. Even the roadies are heading this direction.
Skeptical? Go try and sell some used cranks in the longer lengths. Not much interest out there.
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy! I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh...
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy!
I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh bikes. It looks like none of the biggest players are really going that route and it's more of a boutique thing. Quite an investment to do at the scale that Shimano, SRAM, TRP work at.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Shimano to produce a Saint crank for the new Phoenix though. They'd sell hundreds at best? Not really worth the investment. Prove me wrong Shimano!
I predict the crank market will eventually land on 150 - 165 as the accepted range. I say this as a 6'2" guy (with shitty hips)...
I predict the crank market will eventually land on 150 - 165 as the accepted range. I say this as a 6'2" guy (with shitty hips) happily running 165 trailduro cranks and 160's on DH and eeb. Even the roadies are heading this direction.
Skeptical? Go try and sell some used cranks in the longer lengths. Not much interest out there.
I still like the feel of my 175s on my road and gravel bikes over something shorter, I might do 172.5s since it's not much different and it would reduce my hip impingement, but I can't imagine doing anything shorter than that for road and gravel/cyclocross. 170mm on mtb is great for me, enough pedal clearance to reduce strikes and enough leverage to make me feel like I'm actually using the power I put out, but I'm willing to try 165s. (6'1, 78cm bb to saddle height)
Built up my V10 for this season with 155 Hope cranks to try them out and man i love them! Even thinking about putting some on my enduro bike (I am 6', but ride smaller bikes as well)
Short cranks, high bars, mullet bike and shorter reach feels like I can just slam into every corner on any track and steer more with my feet. (sorry not tech rumors, but this thread, and Laurie and Jacksons cranks made me do it!)
I’ve been super interested to see the reach and stack on Bruni’s proto demo. I don’t know if it’s his unique style but to me it always looked shorter and perhaps maybe a bit taller than the rest of the similarly sized field.
I’ve been super interested to see the reach and stack on Bruni’s proto demo. I don’t know if it’s his unique style but to me it...
I’ve been super interested to see the reach and stack on Bruni’s proto demo. I don’t know if it’s his unique style but to me it always looked shorter and perhaps maybe a bit taller than the rest of the similarly sized field.
Was asking myself the same question, it does look like a smaller bike than other riders his size are using.
On another interesting thing regarding these bikes (at least to me
), they are running this proto 2+ years with the shock covered.
Isn't it enough time to get the bike right and maybe push the shock tech on there for sale ? seems kind of pointless just using them as proto bikes for so long.
I tried to find some more close-up pics for spotting e.g. a Serial Number (which, in case of Fox could tell us hell a lot of more info
) but haven't found anything yet. (Sorry, if this has been already posted, tried to double-check but I haven't found any info which were posted earlier here)
I’ve been super interested to see the reach and stack on Bruni’s proto demo. I don’t know if it’s his unique style but to me it...
I’ve been super interested to see the reach and stack on Bruni’s proto demo. I don’t know if it’s his unique style but to me it always looked shorter and perhaps maybe a bit taller than the rest of the similarly sized field.
Was asking myself the same question, it does look like a smaller bike than other riders his size are using.On another interesting thing regarding these bikes...
Was asking myself the same question, it does look like a smaller bike than other riders his size are using.
On another interesting thing regarding these bikes (at least to me
), they are running this proto 2+ years with the shock covered.
Isn't it enough time to get the bike right and maybe push the shock tech on there for sale ? seems kind of pointless just using them as proto bikes for so long.
I would not be surprised if it never made public release - yes its supposed to, but what if its perpetually in prototype phase with their excuse being we're still developing it and its not ready yet?
Accidentally I've noticed a photo in this article where Dario Lillo is appararently racing on a prototype Fox 34 (?) fork with completely new lowers. Pinkbike...
I tried to find some more close-up pics for spotting e.g. a Serial Number (which, in case of Fox could tell us hell a lot of more info
) but haven't found anything yet. (Sorry, if this has been already posted, tried to double-check but I haven't found any info which were posted earlier here)
Here we are thinking that Shimano is releasing the new Saint cranks soon. But what they are actually going to sell us is a “Saint” sticker...
Here we are thinking that Shimano is releasing the new Saint cranks soon. But what they are actually going to sell us is a “Saint” sticker to slap on a crank of our choice for $300. Modern Problems. Modern Solutions.
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy! I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh...
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy!
I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh bikes. It looks like none of the biggest players are really going that route and it's more of a boutique thing. Quite an investment to do at the scale that Shimano, SRAM, TRP work at.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Shimano to produce a Saint crank for the new Phoenix though. They'd sell hundreds at best? Not really worth the investment. Prove me wrong Shimano!
I predict the crank market will eventually land on 150 - 165 as the accepted range. I say this as a 6'2" guy (with shitty hips)...
I predict the crank market will eventually land on 150 - 165 as the accepted range. I say this as a 6'2" guy (with shitty hips) happily running 165 trailduro cranks and 160's on DH and eeb. Even the roadies are heading this direction.
Skeptical? Go try and sell some used cranks in the longer lengths. Not much interest out there.
I still like the feel of my 175s on my road and gravel bikes over something shorter, I might do 172.5s since it's not much different...
I still like the feel of my 175s on my road and gravel bikes over something shorter, I might do 172.5s since it's not much different and it would reduce my hip impingement, but I can't imagine doing anything shorter than that for road and gravel/cyclocross. 170mm on mtb is great for me, enough pedal clearance to reduce strikes and enough leverage to make me feel like I'm actually using the power I put out, but I'm willing to try 165s. (6'1, 78cm bb to saddle height)
I tried 165 but they were too spinny for me and I didn't like how high and tippy seated pedaling felt. Ended up on 170 and found that to be the Goldilocks length for me. Cadence feels natural, seat height feels dialed, and ground clearance is good.
Accidentally I've noticed a photo in this article where Dario Lillo is appararently racing on a prototype Fox 34 (?) fork with completely new lowers. Pinkbike...
I tried to find some more close-up pics for spotting e.g. a Serial Number (which, in case of Fox could tell us hell a lot of more info
) but haven't found anything yet. (Sorry, if this has been already posted, tried to double-check but I haven't found any info which were posted earlier here)
Accidentally I've noticed a photo in this article where Dario Lillo is appararently racing on a prototype Fox 34 (?) fork with completely new lowers. Pinkbike...
I tried to find some more close-up pics for spotting e.g. a Serial Number (which, in case of Fox could tell us hell a lot of more info
) but haven't found anything yet. (Sorry, if this has been already posted, tried to double-check but I haven't found any info which were posted earlier here)
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork.
Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger and bigger stanchions. I'm guilty of it... Went from a 36 to a 38 when my favourite fork chassis is a 35mm lyrik... And my gravel/xc bike has a 35mm pike lol.
Look at the Mattoc down there at 34mm that is as stiff as a 36 and plenty burly enough for more than just down country.
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork. Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger...
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork.
Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger and bigger stanchions. I'm guilty of it... Went from a 36 to a 38 when my favourite fork chassis is a 35mm lyrik... And my gravel/xc bike has a 35mm pike lol.
Look at the Mattoc down there at 34mm that is as stiff as a 36 and plenty burly enough for more than just down country.
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are forks by increasing stanchion size? Or is it placebo? Going for a well built 34mm to a 35mm to a 36. Should the focus be on the stanchion size or the actual construction of the lowers to make the most difference?
The bending stiffness of a tube increases to the fourth power with respect to diameter... Ie bigger tubes are way fucking stiffer than smaller tubes.
But steerers are flexy, crowns are flexy, and axle interfaces are flexy. If you put some effort into locking the two tubes together then they work together and will flex together, and this also massively increases stiffness. The keyed axle of the Mattoc or a 20mm axle with four pinchbolts like the old 36, the bulky crown like a lyrik, all help to make the most of their tube stiffness. The flexy modern 36 with its slim crown and arch and shitty little axle make for a comparative noodle.
It would be cool to see tests. Both for bending stiffness and torsional stiffness. Torsional stiffness affects the feel the most in my opinion, and that's where you get the most advantage from the crown/axle/arch rather than the stanchions.
Can add 14psi in a km (deflation much quicker) into a gravel tyre, would be slower for an xc tyre.
At that rate, probably only plausible for xc marathon/stage racing which can have sustained road or fire road sections interspersed with difficult-for-an-xc-bike singletrack.
The bending stiffness of a tube increases to the fourth power with respect to diameter... Ie bigger tubes are way fucking stiffer than smaller tubes.But steerers...
The bending stiffness of a tube increases to the fourth power with respect to diameter... Ie bigger tubes are way fucking stiffer than smaller tubes.
But steerers are flexy, crowns are flexy, and axle interfaces are flexy. If you put some effort into locking the two tubes together then they work together and will flex together, and this also massively increases stiffness. The keyed axle of the Mattoc or a 20mm axle with four pinchbolts like the old 36, the bulky crown like a lyrik, all help to make the most of their tube stiffness. The flexy modern 36 with its slim crown and arch and shitty little axle make for a comparative noodle.
It would be cool to see tests. Both for bending stiffness and torsional stiffness. Torsional stiffness affects the feel the most in my opinion, and that's where you get the most advantage from the crown/axle/arch rather than the stanchions.
I read all of that and came to conclusion that the Lefty SuperMax is the superior fork.
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork. Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger...
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork.
Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger and bigger stanchions. I'm guilty of it... Went from a 36 to a 38 when my favourite fork chassis is a 35mm lyrik... And my gravel/xc bike has a 35mm pike lol.
Look at the Mattoc down there at 34mm that is as stiff as a 36 and plenty burly enough for more than just down country.
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are...
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are forks by increasing stanchion size? Or is it placebo? Going for a well built 34mm to a 35mm to a 36. Should the focus be on the stanchion size or the actual construction of the lowers to make the most difference?
It’s been nearly 10 years since I covered it in school, but IIRC the bending stiffness of a tube is
Stiffness = E*(pi/64)*(OD^4 - ID^4).
Because the diameters are scaled to the 4th power, small increases in stanchion size can yield huge stiffness increases.
Crown stiffness quickly becomes a limiting factor though. That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork.
There are some other things that affect fork performance too. For example, a less stiff fork will be more susceptible to bushing bind when ridden in rough terrain.
I hope they get short down to at least Deore level. There is a need for good quality, afordable, short cranks. Sram has listed his SX...
I hope they get short down to at least Deore level. There is a need for good quality, afordable, short cranks. Sram has listed his SX chainset in 155mm but Im yet to find it for sale anywhere
Echoing this in case Raceface is looking. Love my Aeffect R's in 165 and since they're strong 7050 al and lifetime warranty pretty much the only thing that would get me to buy more would be a 150 or 155 option 😉
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork. Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger...
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork.
Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger and bigger stanchions. I'm guilty of it... Went from a 36 to a 38 when my favourite fork chassis is a 35mm lyrik... And my gravel/xc bike has a 35mm pike lol.
Look at the Mattoc down there at 34mm that is as stiff as a 36 and plenty burly enough for more than just down country.
100%. I just got a mattoc for my new “XC” bike (last gen stumpy short travel… quotes around XC because I’m 6’6” 225lbs so it’s XC for me). I was super worried it would be a noodle, but I’m blown away by how stiff it feels and how well it works. I honestly don’t think I could tell a difference between it and a 36 blindfolded. Might even work better. And I thought the fox 34 was a wet noodle. Flex alone doesn’t bother me that much, but I’ve found flexy forks tend to bind up and feel harsh, which does bother me. This has none of that. Not sure what magic they used but it is a great reminder that the whole system matters, not just stanchion diameter.
Can add 14psi in a km (deflation much quicker) into a gravel tyre, would be slower for an xc tyre.
At that rate, probably only plausible for xc marathon/stage racing which can have sustained road or fire road sections interspersed with difficult-for-an-xc-bike singletrack.
i remember seeing something like that years ago for fatbikes, maybe a decade ago? don't know if it ever went anywhere production wise.
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork. Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger...
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork.
Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger and bigger stanchions. I'm guilty of it... Went from a 36 to a 38 when my favourite fork chassis is a 35mm lyrik... And my gravel/xc bike has a 35mm pike lol.
Look at the Mattoc down there at 34mm that is as stiff as a 36 and plenty burly enough for more than just down country.
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are...
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are forks by increasing stanchion size? Or is it placebo? Going for a well built 34mm to a 35mm to a 36. Should the focus be on the stanchion size or the actual construction of the lowers to make the most difference?
It’s been nearly 10 years since I covered it in school, but IIRC the bending stiffness of a tube is Stiffness = E*(pi/64)*(OD^4 - ID^4).Because the diameters...
It’s been nearly 10 years since I covered it in school, but IIRC the bending stiffness of a tube is
Stiffness = E*(pi/64)*(OD^4 - ID^4).
Because the diameters are scaled to the 4th power, small increases in stanchion size can yield huge stiffness increases.
Crown stiffness quickly becomes a limiting factor though. That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork.
There are some other things that affect fork performance too. For example, a less stiff fork will be more susceptible to bushing bind when ridden in rough terrain.
"That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork."
35mm dual crown fork 🤮 I always casually browse the used bike listings for DH bikes I don't really need.. After seeing this pic in the G Out Project, anything with an oldschool boxxer is immediatley ruled out unless the bike is a screaming deal.
Hey all, just got this shiny new thing in the mail to test. Rimpact's press release is linked here, along with some of my first impressions before bolting it on the old bike. Obviously it looks a lot like an Ochain, but Rimpact says their device is designed to address a different mechanism of suspension interference. Innovation! Let me know what you think: https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/rimpact-chain-damper
The bending stiffness of a tube increases to the fourth power with respect to diameter... Ie bigger tubes are way fucking stiffer than smaller tubes.But steerers...
The bending stiffness of a tube increases to the fourth power with respect to diameter... Ie bigger tubes are way fucking stiffer than smaller tubes.
But steerers are flexy, crowns are flexy, and axle interfaces are flexy. If you put some effort into locking the two tubes together then they work together and will flex together, and this also massively increases stiffness. The keyed axle of the Mattoc or a 20mm axle with four pinchbolts like the old 36, the bulky crown like a lyrik, all help to make the most of their tube stiffness. The flexy modern 36 with its slim crown and arch and shitty little axle make for a comparative noodle.
It would be cool to see tests. Both for bending stiffness and torsional stiffness. Torsional stiffness affects the feel the most in my opinion, and that's where you get the most advantage from the crown/axle/arch rather than the stanchions.
Was thinking the same thing. Go to your local hardware store and start picking up different sizes of PVC pipe and try to bend them. Skinny PVC will bend like licorice, whereas the big pipes will break before they bend. Diameter makes a really, really big difference.
My first mental example was the difference between a 2x4 and a 2x6 when used in a floor or wall (huge, immediately noticeable difference), and that difference is amplified when we're talking about a hollow circular tube instead of a solid piece of lumber. TLDR: stanchion size matters, especially for simple fore/aft braking and bump flex.
Also, shoutout to the Manitou Hexbolt axle patent. Must be expired by now, and if Fox is making a 36mm stanchion XC fork with crazy 3D-printed Ai-powered crowns and arches, they could save a whole bunch of weight and gain a whole bunch of stiffness by putting a Hexlock axle on there. They just have to admit that Manitou had a good idea some 20-odd years ago.
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are...
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are forks by increasing stanchion size? Or is it placebo? Going for a well built 34mm to a 35mm to a 36. Should the focus be on the stanchion size or the actual construction of the lowers to make the most difference?
It’s been nearly 10 years since I covered it in school, but IIRC the bending stiffness of a tube is Stiffness = E*(pi/64)*(OD^4 - ID^4).Because the diameters...
It’s been nearly 10 years since I covered it in school, but IIRC the bending stiffness of a tube is
Stiffness = E*(pi/64)*(OD^4 - ID^4).
Because the diameters are scaled to the 4th power, small increases in stanchion size can yield huge stiffness increases.
Crown stiffness quickly becomes a limiting factor though. That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork.
There are some other things that affect fork performance too. For example, a less stiff fork will be more susceptible to bushing bind when ridden in rough terrain.
"That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork." 35mm dual crown fork 🤮 I always casually browse the used...
"That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork."
35mm dual crown fork 🤮 I always casually browse the used bike listings for DH bikes I don't really need.. After seeing this pic in the G Out Project, anything with an oldschool boxxer is immediatley ruled out unless the bike is a screaming deal.
Agree, everything goes out the window when talking DH forks. The torsional stiffness of the 35mm boxxer feels great due to the double crown and 20mm axle and wider set stanchions, but the bending stiffness is arse and it really affects the plushness and steering. They feel a bit shit compared to 38s or 40s when you've put a big old curve in the stanchions in a g-out and totally misaligned the sliding surfaces in the bushings, and wildly fucked with your offset.
I had some old boxxers on my Tues and being very long travel and very progressive in the rear it was happy to get right through the first half of its stroke, if you landed rear wheel first or just happened to load up the rear while the front was still near full extension, the fork would just refuse to move. I would have killed for a 40 on that bike.
Other than the cable ports the front triangle looks literally identical. Credit to taprider on the NSMB forums. Apparently my LBS has them in stock, built, and hidden in the back, but I haven't been down to look.
I hope they get short down to at least Deore level. There is a need for good quality, afordable, short cranks. Sram has listed his SX chainset in 155mm but Im yet to find it for sale anywhere
Yes, well-known decal work out there. Just jokes buddy!
I'm curious as to what the actual global demand is for sub-165mm cranks outside of E-bikes and dh bikes. It looks like none of the biggest players are really going that route and it's more of a boutique thing. Quite an investment to do at the scale that Shimano, SRAM, TRP work at.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Shimano to produce a Saint crank for the new Phoenix though. They'd sell hundreds at best? Not really worth the investment. Prove me wrong Shimano!
I predict the crank market will eventually land on 150 - 165 as the accepted range. I say this as a 6'2" guy (with shitty hips) happily running 165 trailduro cranks and 160's on DH and eeb. Even the roadies are heading this direction.
Skeptical? Go try and sell some used cranks in the longer lengths. Not much interest out there.
I still like the feel of my 175s on my road and gravel bikes over something shorter, I might do 172.5s since it's not much different and it would reduce my hip impingement, but I can't imagine doing anything shorter than that for road and gravel/cyclocross. 170mm on mtb is great for me, enough pedal clearance to reduce strikes and enough leverage to make me feel like I'm actually using the power I put out, but I'm willing to try 165s. (6'1, 78cm bb to saddle height)
Maybe you could call yourself the winner of Giro d'Italia, Tour de France, the world championsips and a bunch more races if you ran shorter cranks
(Pogačar runs 165 mm cranks.)
Built up my V10 for this season with 155 Hope cranks to try them out and man i love them! Even thinking about putting some on my enduro bike (I am 6', but ride smaller bikes as well)
Short cranks, high bars, mullet bike and shorter reach feels like I can just slam into every corner on any track and steer more with my feet. (sorry not tech rumors, but this thread, and Laurie and Jacksons cranks made me do it!)
I’ve been super interested to see the reach and stack on Bruni’s proto demo. I don’t know if it’s his unique style but to me it always looked shorter and perhaps maybe a bit taller than the rest of the similarly sized field.
Was asking myself the same question, it does look like a smaller bike than other riders his size are using.
On another interesting thing regarding these bikes (at least to me
), they are running this proto 2+ years with the shock covered.
Isn't it enough time to get the bike right and maybe push the shock tech on there for sale ? seems kind of pointless just using them as proto bikes for so long.
Accidentally I've noticed a photo in this article where Dario Lillo is appararently racing on a prototype Fox 34 (?) fork with completely new lowers. Pinkbike article: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/xco-photo-epic-mont-sainte-anne-xc-world-cup-2024.html
...after some research, turned out, BrujulaBike guys also noticed it and posted some more close-up photos - the crown is very likely also new:
Source: https://en.brujulabike.com/new-fox-fork-spotted-xco-world-cup-lake-placid-2024/
I tried to find some more close-up pics for spotting e.g. a Serial Number (which, in case of Fox could tell us hell a lot of more info
) but haven't found anything yet. (Sorry, if this has been already posted, tried to double-check but I haven't found any info which were posted earlier here)
I would not be surprised if it never made public release - yes its supposed to, but what if its perpetually in prototype phase with their excuse being we're still developing it and its not ready yet?
It is actually a 36. A much lighter 36.
i will put my Saint stickers on a crab.
I tried 165 but they were too spinny for me and I didn't like how high and tippy seated pedaling felt. Ended up on 170 and found that to be the Goldilocks length for me. Cadence feels natural, seat height feels dialed, and ground clearance is good.
"36 SL" a-la SID being a 'lightweight' Pike (vs. a 32 mm SID)?
Doesnt even look like there is any of that stepcast nonsense anymore right?
35-36mm forks are probably a pretty sweet spot for "downcountry". I got a 35mm sid and would not want to go back to something more noodly.
There's nothing wrong with 34mm, stanchion diameter isn't everything when building a stiff fork.
Feels like we're in a bit of an arms race to use bigger and bigger stanchions. I'm guilty of it... Went from a 36 to a 38 when my favourite fork chassis is a 35mm lyrik... And my gravel/xc bike has a 35mm pike lol.
Look at the Mattoc down there at 34mm that is as stiff as a 36 and plenty burly enough for more than just down country.
You know Ive always been curious about this. Unsure how it could be tested in a controlled way, but Ive always wondered how much stiffer are forks by increasing stanchion size? Or is it placebo? Going for a well built 34mm to a 35mm to a 36. Should the focus be on the stanchion size or the actual construction of the lowers to make the most difference?
The bending stiffness of a tube increases to the fourth power with respect to diameter... Ie bigger tubes are way fucking stiffer than smaller tubes.
But steerers are flexy, crowns are flexy, and axle interfaces are flexy. If you put some effort into locking the two tubes together then they work together and will flex together, and this also massively increases stiffness. The keyed axle of the Mattoc or a 20mm axle with four pinchbolts like the old 36, the bulky crown like a lyrik, all help to make the most of their tube stiffness. The flexy modern 36 with its slim crown and arch and shitty little axle make for a comparative noodle.
It would be cool to see tests. Both for bending stiffness and torsional stiffness. Torsional stiffness affects the feel the most in my opinion, and that's where you get the most advantage from the crown/axle/arch rather than the stanchions.
Been talked about before but now almost available to buy
https://road.cc/content/tech-news/wheels-self-inflating-deflating-tyre-system-available-pre-order-3200-310669
From the world of gravel…
Can add 14psi in a km (deflation much quicker) into a gravel tyre, would be slower for an xc tyre.
At that rate, probably only plausible for xc marathon/stage racing which can have sustained road or fire road sections interspersed with difficult-for-an-xc-bike singletrack.
I read all of that and came to conclusion that the Lefty SuperMax is the superior fork.
That was sarcasm…. Sort of…
It’s been nearly 10 years since I covered it in school, but IIRC the bending stiffness of a tube is
Stiffness = E*(pi/64)*(OD^4 - ID^4).
Because the diameters are scaled to the 4th power, small increases in stanchion size can yield huge stiffness increases.
Crown stiffness quickly becomes a limiting factor though. That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork.
There are some other things that affect fork performance too. For example, a less stiff fork will be more susceptible to bushing bind when ridden in rough terrain.
Echoing this in case Raceface is looking. Love my Aeffect R's in 165 and since they're strong 7050 al and lifetime warranty pretty much the only thing that would get me to buy more would be a 150 or 155 option 😉
100%. I just got a mattoc for my new “XC” bike (last gen stumpy short travel… quotes around XC because I’m 6’6” 225lbs so it’s XC for me). I was super worried it would be a noodle, but I’m blown away by how stiff it feels and how well it works. I honestly don’t think I could tell a difference between it and a 36 blindfolded. Might even work better. And I thought the fox 34 was a wet noodle. Flex alone doesn’t bother me that much, but I’ve found flexy forks tend to bind up and feel harsh, which does bother me. This has none of that. Not sure what magic they used but it is a great reminder that the whole system matters, not just stanchion diameter.
i remember seeing something like that years ago for fatbikes, maybe a decade ago? don't know if it ever went anywhere production wise.
"That’s why a 38mm single crown works like crap compared to a 35mm dual crown fork."
35mm dual crown fork 🤮 I always casually browse the used bike listings for DH bikes I don't really need.. After seeing this pic in the G Out Project, anything with an oldschool boxxer is immediatley ruled out unless the bike is a screaming deal.
Hey all, just got this shiny new thing in the mail to test. Rimpact's press release is linked here, along with some of my first impressions before bolting it on the old bike. Obviously it looks a lot like an Ochain, but Rimpact says their device is designed to address a different mechanism of suspension interference. Innovation! Let me know what you think: https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/rimpact-chain-damper
Was thinking the same thing. Go to your local hardware store and start picking up different sizes of PVC pipe and try to bend them. Skinny PVC will bend like licorice, whereas the big pipes will break before they bend. Diameter makes a really, really big difference.
My first mental example was the difference between a 2x4 and a 2x6 when used in a floor or wall (huge, immediately noticeable difference), and that difference is amplified when we're talking about a hollow circular tube instead of a solid piece of lumber. TLDR: stanchion size matters, especially for simple fore/aft braking and bump flex.
Also, shoutout to the Manitou Hexbolt axle patent. Must be expired by now, and if Fox is making a 36mm stanchion XC fork with crazy 3D-printed Ai-powered crowns and arches, they could save a whole bunch of weight and gain a whole bunch of stiffness by putting a Hexlock axle on there. They just have to admit that Manitou had a good idea some 20-odd years ago.
Agree, everything goes out the window when talking DH forks. The torsional stiffness of the 35mm boxxer feels great due to the double crown and 20mm axle and wider set stanchions, but the bending stiffness is arse and it really affects the plushness and steering. They feel a bit shit compared to 38s or 40s when you've put a big old curve in the stanchions in a g-out and totally misaligned the sliding surfaces in the bushings, and wildly fucked with your offset.
I had some old boxxers on my Tues and being very long travel and very progressive in the rear it was happy to get right through the first half of its stroke, if you landed rear wheel first or just happened to load up the rear while the front was still near full extension, the fork would just refuse to move. I would have killed for a 40 on that bike.
Other than the cable ports the front triangle looks literally identical. Credit to taprider on the NSMB forums. Apparently my LBS has them in stock, built, and hidden in the back, but I haven't been down to look.