I can't figure out why anyone making an inverted fork in 2025, especially a single crown inverted fork, wouldn't use the Manitou hex axle to add...
I can't figure out why anyone making an inverted fork in 2025, especially a single crown inverted fork, wouldn't use the Manitou hex axle to add torsional stiffness. The patent is expired and it adds almost no weight. I imagine a 15mm hex axle is significantly stiffer in torsion than a round 20mm axle, and doesn't require a new front hub. Especially if you're already doing pinch bolts, you can do it the way the Dorado has been doing it since 2002? It's so simple!
We'd finally settled on Boost 15mm as a trail bike front hub, and now it's blowing up again. Sigh.
As somebody who's tested this variable back to back on the same chassis (not two totally different forks), the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Maybe we need...
As somebody who's tested this variable back to back on the same chassis (not two totally different forks), the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
Maybe we need to do a fork stiffness deep dive like the excellent frame compliance analysis Burney did. But in short, forks also have roll and wag. Everyone usually thinks of only wag and they test it with the wheel between the legs, but I'd argue this is only a valid indicator of stiffness during full braking on dry pavement. In this situation, the hex axle can offer a small benefit in reducing wag, but in actual on trail braking the wag isn't as severe and therefore the benefits didn't out weight the complexity of that design.
If we really want to have a conversation about on trail stiffness and compliance of modern USD forks, roll would really be the focus.
One of the things Push said that made sense to me when they launched their USD fork last year was that there isn't enough traction on the front wheel to significantly twist a fork during riding.
Most of their launch was too much marketing speak, but that statement made sense.
Of course hitting rocks and other obstacles likely exerts higher force than just turning, so who knows where the reality is.
not sure why I had the notion Banshee was cooking something and that would come up in SeaOtter ? Anybody in the know here ? I...
not sure why I had the notion Banshee was cooking something and that would come up in SeaOtter ? Anybody in the know here ? I may be interested in a Titan (well, always had, but stars did not align).. but I'll hold if v3.2 are on the way out
I believe in a interview a few months ago they said likely two Models coming out this spring….the new hardtail already released, and there was heavy hinting at a new dark side. But they said no other new releases imminent. Maybe things have changed.
Yeah - Some new Moto suspension from Intend. Sliding bushings in the front fork, and a newly developed air+coil rear shock. Shock only recommended for people above 85kg. Also modular shock mount, so you can swap between regular eyelet and trunnion mount, cool idea.
Limited to 10 pieces, seems like they are already sold out. But we can hope they start selling the rear shock in the future, but in their normal colors. Seems like a lot of work to develop a full cnc'd one piece shock housing, and having springs made+speced by Eibach for 10 shocks.
Yeah - Some new Moto suspension from Intend. Sliding bushings in the front fork, and a newly developed air+coil rear shock. Shock only recommended for people...
Yeah - Some new Moto suspension from Intend. Sliding bushings in the front fork, and a newly developed air+coil rear shock. Shock only recommended for people above 85kg. Also modular shock mount, so you can swap between regular eyelet and trunnion mount, cool idea.
Limited to 10 pieces, seems like they are already sold out. But we can hope they start selling the rear shock in the future, but in their normal colors. Seems like a lot of work to develop a full cnc'd one piece shock housing, and having springs made+speced by Eibach for 10 shocks.
Yeah - Some new Moto suspension from Intend. Sliding bushings in the front fork, and a newly developed air+coil rear shock. Shock only recommended for people...
Yeah - Some new Moto suspension from Intend. Sliding bushings in the front fork, and a newly developed air+coil rear shock. Shock only recommended for people above 85kg. Also modular shock mount, so you can swap between regular eyelet and trunnion mount, cool idea.
Limited to 10 pieces, seems like they are already sold out. But we can hope they start selling the rear shock in the future, but in their normal colors. Seems like a lot of work to develop a full cnc'd one piece shock housing, and having springs made+speced by Eibach for 10 shocks.
Just sharing my two cents on the Intend Edge, since I've been riding one for a while. TLDR - I don't like it. Long version - I have the Edge, which I ride at 170mm travel. The fork is incredibly smooth on initial stroke, which actually leads to some sensation lost/vagueness on contact, not sure if I can covey that feeling correctly. There's almost a "are my front wheels on the ground?" feeling. I don't believe it's a bad thing, but I could never get used to it. Separate issue is there's not enough damping for me, but that's can be fixed with a new shim stack so nothing on Intend. I've gone to an dual crown EXT Vaia set at 180mm, pretty interested to see how that will fare in the downhill season.
Well, I guess I was right based on these comments - gotta love the internet. - I never swung my opinion in that post, I just pointed out people get in the comments and rage about it being to short. 🤷♂️
Damn it, I thought it was going to be my turn post the link to the tech rumours derailment of the day thread elsewhere on vital, but it doesn't look like there's a chain stay/rear center length fight topic. How is there no "fight about chain stay length here" thread already??
I think a lot of the roll in the rear wheel is generated by the way the frame is designed and I would not be surprised...
I think a lot of the roll in the rear wheel is generated by the way the frame is designed and I would not be surprised there is fairly little (compared to the rear) roll going on with the front wheel. You would be twisting the wheel basically towards the stanchion where the fork is the strongest. I'd guess most of the loading generated in this direction would be deflected to a different axis/plane just due to the structure of the fork, it buckling out of axis, etc.
If we are talking about roll specifically, I would not be surprised if roll was a much bigger factor with USD forks (no bridge) than with rsu forks (I also tested a bridge less RSU fork in that analysis and it's a noodle) but at the same time I would be surprised if the main factor generating roll was rider's inputs vs. The fork itself - the forces generated by the spring are not the same as the forces generated by the damper, on the return stroke they are not only not the same scale, they are even working one against the other so actually working really strongly to generate roll. With an USD fork the stanchion-interface-to-dropout, dropout itself, the axle (diameter and thickness) and it being clamped into the dropout and the hub assembly is the only thing preventing roll generated by the stanchions moving unsynchronised.
True, there is fairly little roll in the front compared to the rear, but I'd contend that perception in the front is much greater. Case in point, differences in casings between tires is so nuanced yet people have very firm opinions on front tires and are relatively laxed about casing stiffness in the rear.
The point I was really trying to articulate is the general perception of torsional flex/stiffness of inverted forks has been incorrectly focused on the wag. When somebody says the USD "is too flexy" or "has better compliance", I would say they are most likely characterizing the roll of the fork.
Yes, in heavy braking the USD has no doubt more wag than a RSD, and it can cause the handle bars to be misaligned with the tire in certain stimulations. Although, I'd argue your brain is so used to making micro steering adjustments that additional wag is just automatically compensated and therefore bends to the background of riding. However, with roll just a very small amount can change the perception of support or grip when leaned over in a corner or on an off-chamber, much like the small differences in tire casings.
Damn it, I thought it was going to be my turn post the link to the tech rumours derailment of the day thread elsewhere on vital...
Damn it, I thought it was going to be my turn post the link to the tech rumours derailment of the day thread elsewhere on vital, but it doesn't look like there's a chain stay/rear center length fight topic. How is there no "fight about chain stay length here" thread already??
5'9", 485mm reach, 32mm stem, 437mm CS. Rides great for me, I feel like I'm in the bike and not ass over rear axle like I was with the bikes of only a few years ago.
CS/ rear center that grows/shrinks with bike sizes though is ideal. Always thought it'd be nice to offer a front triangle and an option of rear triangle in various sizes so riders could mix and match. I know that's not feasible from an inventory/investment standpoint but its a dream and it'd satisfy the tens of us that care.
Back when I was young and much faster, in 2011 when short chainstays were all the rage, I had the gen 2 Coilair Magic link. It had like 470mm chainstays or something (thats really long for a 26" bike from 15 years ago). I was faster on it for my local DH track that had lots of steep, loose shale where the 3 min DH segment had average speeds above 25 mph. It was faster for me than my DH bike at the time, despite the Kona having some really crappy tires on it. However, that same Kona was noticeably slower on other non-DH trails, especially flow trails. I struggled to keep up with guys I'd smoke on the DH trail(s).
Turns out, "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs". Different length chainstays will have advantages on different types of trails.
So, clearly the solution is that you have to own multiple bikes. I think the industry will agree with me here.
No one cares... but I'm going to post it anyway. I'm 6'2", I like a 490-500mm reach and I like a 445-450 chainstay to pair with that reach. That range depends on the HTA and front center, but I can be happy with a bit shorter CS with a bit less reach or a bit steeper head tube angle.
The Vala's (and the bullit) look pretty close to spot on for me, I quite like those geo figures on my XL v6 nomad. That's not to say that I don't also enjoy a short chainstay on the right bike... but I don't think I need something much longer (if at all) for my riding then SC is making.
If I were to be specializing in specific terrain, or doing more horses for courses... but I tend to ride mixed speeds from bumbling to a bit too fast for my own comfort zone. So, pretty much dad bike and dad riding style levels of send.
I used to be short chain stays. I have the, not bragging, but, let's just say my background includes a little bit of...BMX. loved my Canfield RIOT at 414mm on a 29, pre boost.
Now I ride a rigid bike with a 455 rear end on the same trails, faster than I did on the Riot 10 years ago
One isn't better than the other, but tastes, preferences, trends, styles change. Not looking to go shorter anytime soon.
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring. "Proportional chainstays" are a marketing gimmick the way that the brands are currently using the term, with the exception of maybe forbidden. How proportional the rear center length is to the front center is 100% relative and not defined. What most people seem to talk about when it comes to "proportional chainstays" is the ballance between front wheel grip and rear wheel grip, or more accurately the weight distribution between the front wheel and the rear wheel. On level ground, a 100 kg rider on a bike with a 440 mm rear center and a 800 mm front center would have about 64.5 kg on the rear wheel and 35.5 kg on the front, or 64.5% of their weight on the rear and 35.5% on the front (assuming the load is at the bb) . To keep that weight distribution approximately the same with a 20mm increase in reach/front center you would need to lengthen the rear center by 10mm every time. An 800mm front center is pretty common for most medium (460 mm reach) all mountain and trail bikes. Those are pretty close to the current Hightowers numbers, and if it grew proportionally, a bike with reach numbers I like (500mm) would have 460 mm stays, which would be too long for me. So there are a large group of riders where the idea of "proportional stays" doesn't actually get them what they want. Not only that, they don't actually guarantee the same ride experience between all riders. There are way too many variables, weight proportions, strength, to control for. Not to mention that we aren't static on flat ground when riding, we're on variable terrain and slopes, shifting our bodies so that weight distribution is constantly changing.
Rambling aside, I want all of us, all mountain bikers, to be able to find a bike that they love to ride. One that fits how they ride and the type of riding that they enjoy. We can't treat bike geo like it's a solved problem, or even like it is a problem to solve. Like others said above, there are jibby riders who can throw a bike around with long stays, and there are riders who can bomb hills and rip corners like no other on a bike with short stays. If people push and push for this idea of "proportional stays" we're just going to create a pendulum swing, where everything gets long, and then it gets short again, and then long again, and so on as people feel "left out" or "ignored". Buy a bike and support companies that give you the geo you want to ride, there are bikes for everyone out there.
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring. "Proportional chainstays" are a marketing gimmick the way that the brands are currently using the term, with...
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring. "Proportional chainstays" are a marketing gimmick the way that the brands are currently using the term, with the exception of maybe forbidden. How proportional the rear center length is to the front center is 100% relative and not defined. What most people seem to talk about when it comes to "proportional chainstays" is the ballance between front wheel grip and rear wheel grip, or more accurately the weight distribution between the front wheel and the rear wheel. On level ground, a 100 kg rider on a bike with a 440 mm rear center and a 800 mm front center would have about 64.5 kg on the rear wheel and 35.5 kg on the front, or 64.5% of their weight on the rear and 35.5% on the front (assuming the load is at the bb) . To keep that weight distribution approximately the same with a 20mm increase in reach/front center you would need to lengthen the rear center by 10mm every time. An 800mm front center is pretty common for most medium (460 mm reach) all mountain and trail bikes. Those are pretty close to the current Hightowers numbers, and if it grew proportionally, a bike with reach numbers I like (500mm) would have 460 mm stays, which would be too long for me. So there are a large group of riders where the idea of "proportional stays" doesn't actually get them what they want. Not only that, they don't actually guarantee the same ride experience between all riders. There are way too many variables, weight proportions, strength, to control for. Not to mention that we aren't static on flat ground when riding, we're on variable terrain and slopes, shifting our bodies so that weight distribution is constantly changing.
Rambling aside, I want all of us, all mountain bikers, to be able to find a bike that they love to ride. One that fits how they ride and the type of riding that they enjoy. We can't treat bike geo like it's a solved problem, or even like it is a problem to solve. Like others said above, there are jibby riders who can throw a bike around with long stays, and there are riders who can bomb hills and rip corners like no other on a bike with short stays. If people push and push for this idea of "proportional stays" we're just going to create a pendulum swing, where everything gets long, and then it gets short again, and then long again, and so on as people feel "left out" or "ignored". Buy a bike and support companies that give you the geo you want to ride, there are bikes for everyone out there.
Ride height(compression etc) upsets that Weight measurement though, Stem & bar length etc all comes into weight balance. Ride height is frustrating as SAG doesnt defy it and is often relative to speed and conditions. Like where does the BB height sit when you are blasting through rocks, is it low or high?, despite the suspension working(assuming perfectly) - what about suspension such as forks, it was common for RS stuff to sit into the travel more changing weight. Rebound, how high is the rebound pushing you back and raising CG etc
Weight balance will always be a 'never perfect' as we as MTB'ers ride so dynamically, we move about and can influence the suspension via loading the bike(pushing into it) - I remember a Video talking about clips vs flats and how much difference it makes, clips you ride much further forward and naturally weight the front as you dont think as much about 'dropping the heels' - which is something I tested alot as I can swap back and forth run by run.
All geo these days is personal preference and its a never ending argument. pick a length and be a dick about it I say. 🤣
Ride height(compression etc) upsets that Weight measurement though, Stem & bar length etc all comes into weight balance.Ride height is frustrating as SAG doesnt defy it...
Ride height(compression etc) upsets that Weight measurement though, Stem & bar length etc all comes into weight balance. Ride height is frustrating as SAG doesnt defy it and is often relative to speed and conditions. Like where does the BB height sit when you are blasting through rocks, is it low or high?, despite the suspension working(assuming perfectly) - what about suspension such as forks, it was common for RS stuff to sit into the travel more changing weight. Rebound, how high is the rebound pushing you back and raising CG etc
Weight balance will always be a 'never perfect' as we as MTB'ers ride so dynamically, we move about and can influence the suspension via loading the bike(pushing into it) - I remember a Video talking about clips vs flats and how much difference it makes, clips you ride much further forward and naturally weight the front as you dont think as much about 'dropping the heels' - which is something I tested alot as I can swap back and forth run by run.
All geo these days is personal preference and its a never ending argument. pick a length and be a dick about it I say. 🤣
You're absolutely right about that, which is why "proportional chainstays" are an extremely flawed concept. Even the 440 rc 800 FC isn't "balanced". 64.5% 35.5% is far from a balanced weight distribution on flat ground everything else ignored. Even if you take a rider and put them on a bike with a longer reach and the same stays, that longer reach will still shift their weight forward, though probably not enough to offset the FC growth. And if we are mostly concerned with front wheel grip, your tires, wheels, and suspension all play a huge part in that.
I'm kind of sick of the be a dick about it part. That's the part that the industry people are listening too.
Damn it, I thought it was going to be my turn post the link to the tech rumours derailment of the day thread elsewhere on vital...
Damn it, I thought it was going to be my turn post the link to the tech rumours derailment of the day thread elsewhere on vital, but it doesn't look like there's a chain stay/rear center length fight topic. How is there no "fight about chain stay length here" thread already??
As someone who frequently lurks in this thread, I would love to see more moderation of the off-topic replies. I know threads are frequently spun off this one (like tires), but some of the frequent posters in the last month have never contributed to the topic at hand, other than to share their opinions and anecdotes. LAME!
As someone who frequently lurks in this thread, I would love to see more moderation of the off-topic replies. I know threads are frequently spun off...
As someone who frequently lurks in this thread, I would love to see more moderation of the off-topic replies. I know threads are frequently spun off this one (like tires), but some of the frequent posters in the last month have never contributed to the topic at hand, other than to share their opinions and anecdotes. LAME!
As someone who has been on this thread a while I'll say:
Leave the banter
I feel like this thread does a good job of balancing Tech rumors and general Tech discussion that may seem off topic, of which Crab link is our proudest moment. The banter around the tech is just as important as the tech. If you just want a hot-list of rumors about stuff coming out, then well look elsewhere.
Hi! This is my first post on this thread, but I have been reading for 2 years now.
I talked with Sam pilgrim and a few other canyon guys at Tennessee Nationals, and also got to swing a leg over the Production New canyon sender. Supposedly the bike was supposed to release April 12 (that’s what Sam said, he also verified that it was the production version he was riding) so there’s a chance maybe it is releasing this month still? His bike had a baby blue color with white canyon letters. The (production?) bike also was equipped with the KIS system. looked identical to the proto. You could see Sam riding it in his Tennessee race vlog from a few weeks ago.
Take this information lightly since I have essentially no proof of this conversation with me and Sam lol, but he seems like a down to earth guy and I doubt he would just lie out of his ass. Unsure if this info has been covered or not.
One of the things Push said that made sense to me when they launched their USD fork last year was that there isn't enough traction on the front wheel to significantly twist a fork during riding.
Most of their launch was too much marketing speak, but that statement made sense.
Of course hitting rocks and other obstacles likely exerts higher force than just turning, so who knows where the reality is.
I believe in a interview a few months ago they said likely two Models coming out this spring….the new hardtail already released, and there was heavy hinting at a new dark side. But they said no other new releases imminent. Maybe things have changed.
Yeah - Some new Moto suspension from Intend. Sliding bushings in the front fork, and a newly developed air+coil rear shock. Shock only recommended for people above 85kg. Also modular shock mount, so you can swap between regular eyelet and trunnion mount, cool idea.
Limited to 10 pieces, seems like they are already sold out. But we can hope they start selling the rear shock in the future, but in their normal colors. Seems like a lot of work to develop a full cnc'd one piece shock housing, and having springs made+speced by Eibach for 10 shocks.
https://www.intend-bc.com/shop/moto/?v=efad7abb323e
How much were they selling for? I can't find it on their website (can't watch the video right now)
Here is link to the product page: https://www.intend-bc.com/shop/moto/?v=efad7abb323e
Just sharing my two cents on the Intend Edge, since I've been riding one for a while. TLDR - I don't like it. Long version - I have the Edge, which I ride at 170mm travel. The fork is incredibly smooth on initial stroke, which actually leads to some sensation lost/vagueness on contact, not sure if I can covey that feeling correctly. There's almost a "are my front wheels on the ground?" feeling. I don't believe it's a bad thing, but I could never get used to it. Separate issue is there's not enough damping for me, but that's can be fixed with a new shim stack so nothing on Intend. I've gone to an dual crown EXT Vaia set at 180mm, pretty interested to see how that will fare in the downhill season.
Well, I guess I was right based on these comments - gotta love the internet. - I never swung my opinion in that post, I just pointed out people get in the comments and rage about it being to short. 🤷♂️
Damn it, I thought it was going to be my turn post the link to the tech rumours derailment of the day thread elsewhere on vital, but it doesn't look like there's a chain stay/rear center length fight topic. How is there no "fight about chain stay length here" thread already??
True, there is fairly little roll in the front compared to the rear, but I'd contend that perception in the front is much greater. Case in point, differences in casings between tires is so nuanced yet people have very firm opinions on front tires and are relatively laxed about casing stiffness in the rear.
The point I was really trying to articulate is the general perception of torsional flex/stiffness of inverted forks has been incorrectly focused on the wag. When somebody says the USD "is too flexy" or "has better compliance", I would say they are most likely characterizing the roll of the fork.
Yes, in heavy braking the USD has no doubt more wag than a RSD, and it can cause the handle bars to be misaligned with the tire in certain stimulations. Although, I'd argue your brain is so used to making micro steering adjustments that additional wag is just automatically compensated and therefore bends to the background of riding. However, with roll just a very small amount can change the perception of support or grip when leaned over in a corner or on an off-chamber, much like the small differences in tire casings.
https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/The-Internet-Was-Wrong-Short-Chainstays-Suck,9344
There is a forum for everything.
5'9", 485mm reach, 32mm stem, 437mm CS. Rides great for me, I feel like I'm in the bike and not ass over rear axle like I was with the bikes of only a few years ago.
CS/ rear center that grows/shrinks with bike sizes though is ideal. Always thought it'd be nice to offer a front triangle and an option of rear triangle in various sizes so riders could mix and match. I know that's not feasible from an inventory/investment standpoint but its a dream and it'd satisfy the tens of us that care.
Back when I was young and much faster, in 2011 when short chainstays were all the rage, I had the gen 2 Coilair Magic link. It had like 470mm chainstays or something (thats really long for a 26" bike from 15 years ago). I was faster on it for my local DH track that had lots of steep, loose shale where the 3 min DH segment had average speeds above 25 mph. It was faster for me than my DH bike at the time, despite the Kona having some really crappy tires on it. However, that same Kona was noticeably slower on other non-DH trails, especially flow trails. I struggled to keep up with guys I'd smoke on the DH trail(s).
Turns out, "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs". Different length chainstays will have advantages on different types of trails.
So, clearly the solution is that you have to own multiple bikes. I think the industry will agree with me here.
No one cares... but I'm going to post it anyway. I'm 6'2", I like a 490-500mm reach and I like a 445-450 chainstay to pair with that reach. That range depends on the HTA and front center, but I can be happy with a bit shorter CS with a bit less reach or a bit steeper head tube angle.
The Vala's (and the bullit) look pretty close to spot on for me, I quite like those geo figures on my XL v6 nomad. That's not to say that I don't also enjoy a short chainstay on the right bike... but I don't think I need something much longer (if at all) for my riding then SC is making.
If I were to be specializing in specific terrain, or doing more horses for courses... but I tend to ride mixed speeds from bumbling to a bit too fast for my own comfort zone. So, pretty much dad bike and dad riding style levels of send.
Came here to see some new tech news but all i got was a bunch of opinons about chainstay length no one really cares about.
What about chainstay girth?
Too far?
Snow crab vs stone crab
My chain stays might be short, but at least they’re skinny.
I used to be short chain stays. I have the, not bragging, but, let's just say my background includes a little bit of...BMX. loved my Canfield RIOT at 414mm on a 29, pre boost.
Now I ride a rigid bike with a 455 rear end on the same trails, faster than I did on the Riot 10 years ago
One isn't better than the other, but tastes, preferences, trends, styles change. Not looking to go shorter anytime soon.
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring. "Proportional chainstays" are a marketing gimmick the way that the brands are currently using the term, with the exception of maybe forbidden. How proportional the rear center length is to the front center is 100% relative and not defined. What most people seem to talk about when it comes to "proportional chainstays" is the ballance between front wheel grip and rear wheel grip, or more accurately the weight distribution between the front wheel and the rear wheel. On level ground, a 100 kg rider on a bike with a 440 mm rear center and a 800 mm front center would have about 64.5 kg on the rear wheel and 35.5 kg on the front, or 64.5% of their weight on the rear and 35.5% on the front (assuming the load is at the bb) . To keep that weight distribution approximately the same with a 20mm increase in reach/front center you would need to lengthen the rear center by 10mm every time. An 800mm front center is pretty common for most medium (460 mm reach) all mountain and trail bikes. Those are pretty close to the current Hightowers numbers, and if it grew proportionally, a bike with reach numbers I like (500mm) would have 460 mm stays, which would be too long for me. So there are a large group of riders where the idea of "proportional stays" doesn't actually get them what they want. Not only that, they don't actually guarantee the same ride experience between all riders. There are way too many variables, weight proportions, strength, to control for. Not to mention that we aren't static on flat ground when riding, we're on variable terrain and slopes, shifting our bodies so that weight distribution is constantly changing.
Rambling aside, I want all of us, all mountain bikers, to be able to find a bike that they love to ride. One that fits how they ride and the type of riding that they enjoy. We can't treat bike geo like it's a solved problem, or even like it is a problem to solve. Like others said above, there are jibby riders who can throw a bike around with long stays, and there are riders who can bomb hills and rip corners like no other on a bike with short stays. If people push and push for this idea of "proportional stays" we're just going to create a pendulum swing, where everything gets long, and then it gets short again, and then long again, and so on as people feel "left out" or "ignored". Buy a bike and support companies that give you the geo you want to ride, there are bikes for everyone out there.
Ride height(compression etc) upsets that Weight measurement though, Stem & bar length etc all comes into weight balance.
Ride height is frustrating as SAG doesnt defy it and is often relative to speed and conditions.
Like where does the BB height sit when you are blasting through rocks, is it low or high?, despite the suspension working(assuming perfectly) - what about suspension such as forks, it was common for RS stuff to sit into the travel more changing weight.
Rebound, how high is the rebound pushing you back and raising CG etc
Weight balance will always be a 'never perfect' as we as MTB'ers ride so dynamically, we move about and can influence the suspension via loading the bike(pushing into it) - I remember a Video talking about clips vs flats and how much difference it makes, clips you ride much further forward and naturally weight the front as you dont think as much about 'dropping the heels' - which is something I tested alot as I can swap back and forth run by run.
All geo these days is personal preference and its a never ending argument. pick a length and be a dick about it I say. 🤣
You're absolutely right about that, which is why "proportional chainstays" are an extremely flawed concept. Even the 440 rc 800 FC isn't "balanced". 64.5% 35.5% is far from a balanced weight distribution on flat ground everything else ignored. Even if you take a rider and put them on a bike with a longer reach and the same stays, that longer reach will still shift their weight forward, though probably not enough to offset the FC growth. And if we are mostly concerned with front wheel grip, your tires, wheels, and suspension all play a huge part in that.
I'm kind of sick of the be a dick about it part. That's the part that the industry people are listening too.
Tech Rumors and Innovation
For rumors of tech.
No one cares what chain stays you prefer take it somewhere else.
2020 Tech Rumors :
Scroll 1 page and find 10 pictures of new tech
2025 Tech Rumors :
Search 3 pages to find 1 potato pic and a bunch of lines giving a headache
This 👆
New Santa Cruz Bullit is out https://www.mbr.co.uk/reviews/electric-bikes/santa-cruz-bullit-axs-rsv-2025-e-bike-review
Santa Bullit or the New UNNO with the DJI motor… the UNNO seems like a better deal.
As someone who frequently lurks in this thread, I would love to see more moderation of the off-topic replies. I know threads are frequently spun off this one (like tires), but some of the frequent posters in the last month have never contributed to the topic at hand, other than to share their opinions and anecdotes. LAME!
As someone who has been on this thread a while I'll say:
Leave the banter
I feel like this thread does a good job of balancing Tech rumors and general Tech discussion that may seem off topic, of which Crab link is our proudest moment. The banter around the tech is just as important as the tech. If you just want a hot-list of rumors about stuff coming out, then well look elsewhere.
Hi! This is my first post on this thread, but I have been reading for 2 years now.
I talked with Sam pilgrim and a few other canyon guys at Tennessee Nationals, and also got to swing a leg over the Production New canyon sender. Supposedly the bike was supposed to release April 12 (that’s what Sam said, he also verified that it was the production version he was riding) so there’s a chance maybe it is releasing this month still? His bike had a baby blue color with white canyon letters. The (production?) bike also was equipped with the KIS system. looked identical to the proto. You could see Sam riding it in his Tennessee race vlog from a few weeks ago.
Take this information lightly since I have essentially no proof of this conversation with me and Sam lol, but he seems like a down to earth guy and I doubt he would just lie out of his ass. Unsure if this info has been covered or not.