MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation

az2au wrote:

Freaky Nuts also makes them.  I'm considering put a Fox 40 on my A.170 for park use this season and ordered one of these for the...

Freaky Nuts also makes them.  I'm considering put a Fox 40 on my A.170 for park use this season and ordered one of these for the conversion if I go that way.  The materials seem to be of high quality.  Compatible with Boxxer, Fox 40 and Rux38.

https://www.freakynuts.com

Faster Than U wrote:

I’m going the opposite direction and putting a 38 on my ebike which currently has a 40 on it. I have a lot of really tight...

I’m going the opposite direction and putting a 38 on my ebike which currently has a 40 on it. I have a lot of really tight 180 switchbacks on my local trails and it’s hard to make some of them with the limited turning radius of a dual crown. But I’d like to be able to use the same front wheel, it’s a Tune 20 x 110 hub. I checked Tune’s website but I can’t find any adapters for my application. Anyone know if anyone makes a conversion kit for 20 to 15?

veefour wrote:

There are loads of solutions such as this on eBay.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/306343963952?_skw=20x15mm+front+hub+adapter&it…

veefour wrote:

Aah, probably why it's best to leave it to others for these things, I didn't think about the end caps.

ebruner wrote:

I'm only 6'3", but I could easily see that a 32/29 mullet being a game changer for people 6'1" and above.  I find that most people...

I'm only 6'3", but I could easily see that a 32/29 mullet being a game changer for people 6'1" and above.  I find that most people my height have a bit more of a take-it or leave-it approach to a mixed wheel setup.  It has always made me wonder if really what is going on is that the additional leverage and inseam length means that tall people can man handle a 29r rear wheel the same way a shorter person can handle a 27.5.  If I assume that's true, it means to me, that the giant's amongst us, would be even happier with a larger front wheel then what is available now matched with a 29r rear wheel.  

On that subject, I feel like a 32/29 mullet xc bike might be an interesting proposition.  A heavier front tire/wheel isn't anywhere as impactful as a heavier drive tire/wheel.  

That being said, I want to go back into the wheelsize war era of mountain biking about as much as I desire going to the dentist.  What's old is new again, pick your favorite wheel/tire size and be a dick about it.  

Jakub_G wrote:

One has to wonder who they are making them for though 🤔🤷🏻

Jakub_G wrote:

One has to wonder who they are making them for though 🤔🤷🏻

TEAMROBOT wrote:

I think that adapter would work if you were installing a 20mm hub onto a 15mm Torque-cap compatible Rockshox fork, but I get that's a pretty...

I think that adapter would work if you were installing a 20mm hub onto a 15mm Torque-cap compatible Rockshox fork, but I get that's a pretty small slice of the pie.

ebruner wrote:

I'm only 6'3", but I could easily see that a 32/29 mullet being a game changer for people 6'1" and above.  I find that most people...

I'm only 6'3", but I could easily see that a 32/29 mullet being a game changer for people 6'1" and above.  I find that most people my height have a bit more of a take-it or leave-it approach to a mixed wheel setup.  It has always made me wonder if really what is going on is that the additional leverage and inseam length means that tall people can man handle a 29r rear wheel the same way a shorter person can handle a 27.5.  If I assume that's true, it means to me, that the giant's amongst us, would be even happier with a larger front wheel then what is available now matched with a 29r rear wheel.  

On that subject, I feel like a 32/29 mullet xc bike might be an interesting proposition.  A heavier front tire/wheel isn't anywhere as impactful as a heavier drive tire/wheel.  

That being said, I want to go back into the wheelsize war era of mountain biking about as much as I desire going to the dentist.  What's old is new again, pick your favorite wheel/tire size and be a dick about it.  

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and...

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and marathon folks. When you look at the bike fits that pro road and gravel athletes are running, modern XC bikes have extremely tall front ends and upright body positions by comparison.

All of the crazy negative rise stems we see on pro XC bikes are really just bandaid solutions to hide the fact that 29ers forks and front wheels are tall AF for most of the elite XC field. Take a look at these riders bikes, most of them with extremely low rise stems, and if you just look at contact points you'll they have almost no "bar drop" from the saddle to the handlebars.

Puck Piererse' winning bike from Leogang last weekend. No bar drop:

Jolanda Neff's bike from a couple years back. No bar drop, arguably bars that are higher than the saddle:

Victor Koretzy's bike from last season. Maybe 40 cm of bar drop:

Here's Nino's bike from the Cape Epic, which is a more extreme version of his normal XC fit, because the Cape Epic is really a glorified gravel race. Despite looking insane, if you actually focus your eyes on the contact points, it's still not that much bar drop, maybe 50mm, which is pretty tame.

By comparison, here are some old pics of Chris Froome and his bike, who always had a pretty middle of the road bike fit, arguably pretty upright in comparison to other riders at the time. Still had 100-120mm of bar drop, according to my eyeballs, and that's just to the top of the bars. When he goes into the drops it's more like 200+:

 

Back to 32" wheels. 32" rims have a 686mm bead seat diameter, which is 64mm larger than a 29" wheel's 622mm BSD. That means slapping a 32" fork and wheel onto a 29" bike will raise the vertical stack height on that bike by 62mm!!! (see math here). That means that every single rider who I've listed above would have their bars above their saddle, including Nino and Koretzy. Yeah, duh short riders wouldn't work well on 32" wheels, but my point is that tall XC riders still have less bar drop than you would expect because they're working around a very tall front end.

Juroslav Kulhavy was 6'2"/187 cm, and even he would have basically zero bar drop if he installed a 32" fork and front wheel on his old Cape Epic bike:

The only XC/marathon riders I can think of who wouldn't have a compromised bike fit from a 32" front wheel would be the old Kona XC and CX slayer Ryan Trebon. Trebon's old CX bike for reference:

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and...

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and marathon folks. When you look at the bike fits that pro road and gravel athletes are running, modern XC bikes have extremely tall front ends and upright body positions by comparison.

All of the crazy negative rise stems we see on pro XC bikes are really just bandaid solutions to hide the fact that 29ers forks and front wheels are tall AF for most of the elite XC field. Take a look at these riders bikes, most of them with extremely low rise stems, and if you just look at contact points you'll they have almost no "bar drop" from the saddle to the handlebars.

Puck Piererse' winning bike from Leogang last weekend. No bar drop:

Jolanda Neff's bike from a couple years back. No bar drop, arguably bars that are higher than the saddle:

Victor Koretzy's bike from last season. Maybe 40 cm of bar drop:

Here's Nino's bike from the Cape Epic, which is a more extreme version of his normal XC fit, because the Cape Epic is really a glorified gravel race. Despite looking insane, if you actually focus your eyes on the contact points, it's still not that much bar drop, maybe 50mm, which is pretty tame.

By comparison, here are some old pics of Chris Froome and his bike, who always had a pretty middle of the road bike fit, arguably pretty upright in comparison to other riders at the time. Still had 100-120mm of bar drop, according to my eyeballs, and that's just to the top of the bars. When he goes into the drops it's more like 200+:

 

Back to 32" wheels. 32" rims have a 686mm bead seat diameter, which is 64mm larger than a 29" wheel's 622mm BSD. That means slapping a 32" fork and wheel onto a 29" bike will raise the vertical stack height on that bike by 62mm!!! (see math here). That means that every single rider who I've listed above would have their bars above their saddle, including Nino and Koretzy. Yeah, duh short riders wouldn't work well on 32" wheels, but my point is that tall XC riders still have less bar drop than you would expect because they're working around a very tall front end.

Juroslav Kulhavy was 6'2"/187 cm, and even he would have basically zero bar drop if he installed a 32" fork and front wheel on his old Cape Epic bike:

The only XC/marathon riders I can think of who wouldn't have a compromised bike fit from a 32" front wheel would be the old Kona XC and CX slayer Ryan Trebon. Trebon's old CX bike for reference:

ebruner wrote:

I'm only 6'3", but I could easily see that a 32/29 mullet being a game changer for people 6'1" and above.  I find that most people...

I'm only 6'3", but I could easily see that a 32/29 mullet being a game changer for people 6'1" and above.  I find that most people my height have a bit more of a take-it or leave-it approach to a mixed wheel setup.  It has always made me wonder if really what is going on is that the additional leverage and inseam length means that tall people can man handle a 29r rear wheel the same way a shorter person can handle a 27.5.  If I assume that's true, it means to me, that the giant's amongst us, would be even happier with a larger front wheel then what is available now matched with a 29r rear wheel.  

On that subject, I feel like a 32/29 mullet xc bike might be an interesting proposition.  A heavier front tire/wheel isn't anywhere as impactful as a heavier drive tire/wheel.  

That being said, I want to go back into the wheelsize war era of mountain biking about as much as I desire going to the dentist.  What's old is new again, pick your favorite wheel/tire size and be a dick about it.  

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and...

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and marathon folks. When you look at the bike fits that pro road and gravel athletes are running, modern XC bikes have extremely tall front ends and upright body positions by comparison.

All of the crazy negative rise stems we see on pro XC bikes are really just bandaid solutions to hide the fact that 29ers forks and front wheels are tall AF for most of the elite XC field. Take a look at these riders bikes, most of them with extremely low rise stems, and if you just look at contact points you'll they have almost no "bar drop" from the saddle to the handlebars.

Puck Piererse' winning bike from Leogang last weekend. No bar drop:

Jolanda Neff's bike from a couple years back. No bar drop, arguably bars that are higher than the saddle:

Victor Koretzy's bike from last season. Maybe 40 cm of bar drop:

Here's Nino's bike from the Cape Epic, which is a more extreme version of his normal XC fit, because the Cape Epic is really a glorified gravel race. Despite looking insane, if you actually focus your eyes on the contact points, it's still not that much bar drop, maybe 50mm, which is pretty tame.

By comparison, here are some old pics of Chris Froome and his bike, who always had a pretty middle of the road bike fit, arguably pretty upright in comparison to other riders at the time. Still had 100-120mm of bar drop, according to my eyeballs, and that's just to the top of the bars. When he goes into the drops it's more like 200+:

 

Back to 32" wheels. 32" rims have a 686mm bead seat diameter, which is 64mm larger than a 29" wheel's 622mm BSD. That means slapping a 32" fork and wheel onto a 29" bike will raise the vertical stack height on that bike by 62mm!!! (see math here). That means that every single rider who I've listed above would have their bars above their saddle, including Nino and Koretzy. Yeah, duh short riders wouldn't work well on 32" wheels, but my point is that tall XC riders still have less bar drop than you would expect because they're working around a very tall front end.

Juroslav Kulhavy was 6'2"/187 cm, and even he would have basically zero bar drop if he installed a 32" fork and front wheel on his old Cape Epic bike:

The only XC/marathon riders I can think of who wouldn't have a compromised bike fit from a 32" front wheel would be the old Kona XC and CX slayer Ryan Trebon. Trebon's old CX bike for reference:

seanfisseli wrote:

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and...

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and bike setup are all based on available tech and components. 

Once we add a new tool to the arsenal the landscape shifts around it. Riding styles will change and bikes will be designed with different parameters and the whole sport will evolve. 

The early 29ers weren’t great! But the concept was sound and eventually we figured out how to make great 29ers and riding styles adapted to the new strengths and weaknesses of the wheel size. 

I would bet that seat tube angles steepen with proportional increase in reach. Shorter stems with a negative rise will maybe get us back to similar handling characteristics and a similar saddle to bar drop. What do you think?

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and...

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and marathon folks. When you look at the bike fits that pro road and gravel athletes are running, modern XC bikes have extremely tall front ends and upright body positions by comparison.

All of the crazy negative rise stems we see on pro XC bikes are really just bandaid solutions to hide the fact that 29ers forks and front wheels are tall AF for most of the elite XC field. Take a look at these riders bikes, most of them with extremely low rise stems, and if you just look at contact points you'll they have almost no "bar drop" from the saddle to the handlebars.

Puck Piererse' winning bike from Leogang last weekend. No bar drop:

Jolanda Neff's bike from a couple years back. No bar drop, arguably bars that are higher than the saddle:

Victor Koretzy's bike from last season. Maybe 40 cm of bar drop:

Here's Nino's bike from the Cape Epic, which is a more extreme version of his normal XC fit, because the Cape Epic is really a glorified gravel race. Despite looking insane, if you actually focus your eyes on the contact points, it's still not that much bar drop, maybe 50mm, which is pretty tame.

By comparison, here are some old pics of Chris Froome and his bike, who always had a pretty middle of the road bike fit, arguably pretty upright in comparison to other riders at the time. Still had 100-120mm of bar drop, according to my eyeballs, and that's just to the top of the bars. When he goes into the drops it's more like 200+:

 

Back to 32" wheels. 32" rims have a 686mm bead seat diameter, which is 64mm larger than a 29" wheel's 622mm BSD. That means slapping a 32" fork and wheel onto a 29" bike will raise the vertical stack height on that bike by 62mm!!! (see math here). That means that every single rider who I've listed above would have their bars above their saddle, including Nino and Koretzy. Yeah, duh short riders wouldn't work well on 32" wheels, but my point is that tall XC riders still have less bar drop than you would expect because they're working around a very tall front end.

Juroslav Kulhavy was 6'2"/187 cm, and even he would have basically zero bar drop if he installed a 32" fork and front wheel on his old Cape Epic bike:

The only XC/marathon riders I can think of who wouldn't have a compromised bike fit from a 32" front wheel would be the old Kona XC and CX slayer Ryan Trebon. Trebon's old CX bike for reference:

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and...

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and marathon folks. When you look at the bike fits that pro road and gravel athletes are running, modern XC bikes have extremely tall front ends and upright body positions by comparison.

All of the crazy negative rise stems we see on pro XC bikes are really just bandaid solutions to hide the fact that 29ers forks and front wheels are tall AF for most of the elite XC field. Take a look at these riders bikes, most of them with extremely low rise stems, and if you just look at contact points you'll they have almost no "bar drop" from the saddle to the handlebars.

Puck Piererse' winning bike from Leogang last weekend. No bar drop:

Jolanda Neff's bike from a couple years back. No bar drop, arguably bars that are higher than the saddle:

Victor Koretzy's bike from last season. Maybe 40 cm of bar drop:

Here's Nino's bike from the Cape Epic, which is a more extreme version of his normal XC fit, because the Cape Epic is really a glorified gravel race. Despite looking insane, if you actually focus your eyes on the contact points, it's still not that much bar drop, maybe 50mm, which is pretty tame.

By comparison, here are some old pics of Chris Froome and his bike, who always had a pretty middle of the road bike fit, arguably pretty upright in comparison to other riders at the time. Still had 100-120mm of bar drop, according to my eyeballs, and that's just to the top of the bars. When he goes into the drops it's more like 200+:

 

Back to 32" wheels. 32" rims have a 686mm bead seat diameter, which is 64mm larger than a 29" wheel's 622mm BSD. That means slapping a 32" fork and wheel onto a 29" bike will raise the vertical stack height on that bike by 62mm!!! (see math here). That means that every single rider who I've listed above would have their bars above their saddle, including Nino and Koretzy. Yeah, duh short riders wouldn't work well on 32" wheels, but my point is that tall XC riders still have less bar drop than you would expect because they're working around a very tall front end.

Juroslav Kulhavy was 6'2"/187 cm, and even he would have basically zero bar drop if he installed a 32" fork and front wheel on his old Cape Epic bike:

The only XC/marathon riders I can think of who wouldn't have a compromised bike fit from a 32" front wheel would be the old Kona XC and CX slayer Ryan Trebon. Trebon's old CX bike for reference:

seanfisseli wrote:

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and...

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and bike setup are all based on available tech and components. 

Once we add a new tool to the arsenal the landscape shifts around it. Riding styles will change and bikes will be designed with different parameters and the whole sport will evolve. 

The early 29ers weren’t great! But the concept was sound and eventually we figured out how to make great 29ers and riding styles adapted to the new strengths and weaknesses of the wheel size. 

I would bet that seat tube angles steepen with proportional increase in reach. Shorter stems with a negative rise will maybe get us back to similar handling characteristics and a similar saddle to bar drop. What do you think?

dantecusolito wrote:

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for...

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for 32" bikes, the head tube was split, in which case it only needs to house a bearing on each end, and the stem attached in between? Scott does so much integration hell already that I'd bet they'd be into this.

dantecusolito wrote:

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for...

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for 32" bikes, the head tube was split, in which case it only needs to house a bearing on each end, and the stem attached in between? Scott does so much integration hell already that I'd bet they'd be into this.

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and...

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and marathon folks. When you look at the bike fits that pro road and gravel athletes are running, modern XC bikes have extremely tall front ends and upright body positions by comparison.

All of the crazy negative rise stems we see on pro XC bikes are really just bandaid solutions to hide the fact that 29ers forks and front wheels are tall AF for most of the elite XC field. Take a look at these riders bikes, most of them with extremely low rise stems, and if you just look at contact points you'll they have almost no "bar drop" from the saddle to the handlebars.

Puck Piererse' winning bike from Leogang last weekend. No bar drop:

Jolanda Neff's bike from a couple years back. No bar drop, arguably bars that are higher than the saddle:

Victor Koretzy's bike from last season. Maybe 40 cm of bar drop:

Here's Nino's bike from the Cape Epic, which is a more extreme version of his normal XC fit, because the Cape Epic is really a glorified gravel race. Despite looking insane, if you actually focus your eyes on the contact points, it's still not that much bar drop, maybe 50mm, which is pretty tame.

By comparison, here are some old pics of Chris Froome and his bike, who always had a pretty middle of the road bike fit, arguably pretty upright in comparison to other riders at the time. Still had 100-120mm of bar drop, according to my eyeballs, and that's just to the top of the bars. When he goes into the drops it's more like 200+:

 

Back to 32" wheels. 32" rims have a 686mm bead seat diameter, which is 64mm larger than a 29" wheel's 622mm BSD. That means slapping a 32" fork and wheel onto a 29" bike will raise the vertical stack height on that bike by 62mm!!! (see math here). That means that every single rider who I've listed above would have their bars above their saddle, including Nino and Koretzy. Yeah, duh short riders wouldn't work well on 32" wheels, but my point is that tall XC riders still have less bar drop than you would expect because they're working around a very tall front end.

Juroslav Kulhavy was 6'2"/187 cm, and even he would have basically zero bar drop if he installed a 32" fork and front wheel on his old Cape Epic bike:

The only XC/marathon riders I can think of who wouldn't have a compromised bike fit from a 32" front wheel would be the old Kona XC and CX slayer Ryan Trebon. Trebon's old CX bike for reference:

seanfisseli wrote:

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and...

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and bike setup are all based on available tech and components. 

Once we add a new tool to the arsenal the landscape shifts around it. Riding styles will change and bikes will be designed with different parameters and the whole sport will evolve. 

The early 29ers weren’t great! But the concept was sound and eventually we figured out how to make great 29ers and riding styles adapted to the new strengths and weaknesses of the wheel size. 

I would bet that seat tube angles steepen with proportional increase in reach. Shorter stems with a negative rise will maybe get us back to similar handling characteristics and a similar saddle to bar drop. What do you think?

dantecusolito wrote:

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for...

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for 32" bikes, the head tube was split, in which case it only needs to house a bearing on each end, and the stem attached in between? Scott does so much integration hell already that I'd bet they'd be into this.

seanfisseli wrote:

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and...

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and bike setup are all based on available tech and components. 

Once we add a new tool to the arsenal the landscape shifts around it. Riding styles will change and bikes will be designed with different parameters and the whole sport will evolve. 

The early 29ers weren’t great! But the concept was sound and eventually we figured out how to make great 29ers and riding styles adapted to the new strengths and weaknesses of the wheel size. 

I would bet that seat tube angles steepen with proportional increase in reach. Shorter stems with a negative rise will maybe get us back to similar handling characteristics and a similar saddle to bar drop. What do you think?

seanfisseli wrote:

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and...

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and bike setup are all based on available tech and components. 

Once we add a new tool to the arsenal the landscape shifts around it. Riding styles will change and bikes will be designed with different parameters and the whole sport will evolve. 

The early 29ers weren’t great! But the concept was sound and eventually we figured out how to make great 29ers and riding styles adapted to the new strengths and weaknesses of the wheel size. 

I would bet that seat tube angles steepen with proportional increase in reach. Shorter stems with a negative rise will maybe get us back to similar handling characteristics and a similar saddle to bar drop. What do you think?

dantecusolito wrote:

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for...

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for 32" bikes, the head tube was split, in which case it only needs to house a bearing on each end, and the stem attached in between? Scott does so much integration hell already that I'd bet they'd be into this.

seanfisseli wrote:

Unironically love this and could see it working great. 

seanfisseli wrote:

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and...

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and bike setup are all based on available tech and components. 

Once we add a new tool to the arsenal the landscape shifts around it. Riding styles will change and bikes will be designed with different parameters and the whole sport will evolve. 

The early 29ers weren’t great! But the concept was sound and eventually we figured out how to make great 29ers and riding styles adapted to the new strengths and weaknesses of the wheel size. 

I would bet that seat tube angles steepen with proportional increase in reach. Shorter stems with a negative rise will maybe get us back to similar handling characteristics and a similar saddle to bar drop. What do you think?

kperras wrote:

I don't look forward to 5-7 years of riding shitty tires until Maxxis releases a MaxxGrip Assegai in 32" sizing haha. I still have PTSD from...

I don't look forward to 5-7 years of riding shitty tires until Maxxis releases a MaxxGrip Assegai in 32" sizing haha. I still have PTSD from the early 29er days.

AvgMTBEnjoyer wrote:

Moto Max is teasing a new bike on his insta. Can we rub our brain cells together to figure out what it could be?https://www.instagram.com/p/DK7ODT0Rr3n/?img_index=1&igsh=MW13MDRtZWpyNzIyaQ==

Moto Max is teasing a new bike on his insta. 

Can we rub our brain cells together to figure out what it could be?

https://www.instagram.com/p/DK7ODT0Rr3n/?img_index=1&igsh=MW13MDRtZWpyN…

ewebster wrote:

My money's for sure on Chromag

My money's for sure on Chromag

jazza_wil wrote:

Looks like the same frame he was on earlier this year when he did his Achilles.

Looks like the same frame he was on earlier this year when he did his Achilles.

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and...

Stack height is my number one concern/doubt/hesitation about the adoption of 32" wheels, because stack height on 29" wheels is already REALLY tall for XC and marathon folks. When you look at the bike fits that pro road and gravel athletes are running, modern XC bikes have extremely tall front ends and upright body positions by comparison.

All of the crazy negative rise stems we see on pro XC bikes are really just bandaid solutions to hide the fact that 29ers forks and front wheels are tall AF for most of the elite XC field. Take a look at these riders bikes, most of them with extremely low rise stems, and if you just look at contact points you'll they have almost no "bar drop" from the saddle to the handlebars.

Puck Piererse' winning bike from Leogang last weekend. No bar drop:

Jolanda Neff's bike from a couple years back. No bar drop, arguably bars that are higher than the saddle:

Victor Koretzy's bike from last season. Maybe 40 cm of bar drop:

Here's Nino's bike from the Cape Epic, which is a more extreme version of his normal XC fit, because the Cape Epic is really a glorified gravel race. Despite looking insane, if you actually focus your eyes on the contact points, it's still not that much bar drop, maybe 50mm, which is pretty tame.

By comparison, here are some old pics of Chris Froome and his bike, who always had a pretty middle of the road bike fit, arguably pretty upright in comparison to other riders at the time. Still had 100-120mm of bar drop, according to my eyeballs, and that's just to the top of the bars. When he goes into the drops it's more like 200+:

 

Back to 32" wheels. 32" rims have a 686mm bead seat diameter, which is 64mm larger than a 29" wheel's 622mm BSD. That means slapping a 32" fork and wheel onto a 29" bike will raise the vertical stack height on that bike by 62mm!!! (see math here). That means that every single rider who I've listed above would have their bars above their saddle, including Nino and Koretzy. Yeah, duh short riders wouldn't work well on 32" wheels, but my point is that tall XC riders still have less bar drop than you would expect because they're working around a very tall front end.

Juroslav Kulhavy was 6'2"/187 cm, and even he would have basically zero bar drop if he installed a 32" fork and front wheel on his old Cape Epic bike:

The only XC/marathon riders I can think of who wouldn't have a compromised bike fit from a 32" front wheel would be the old Kona XC and CX slayer Ryan Trebon. Trebon's old CX bike for reference:

seanfisseli wrote:

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and...

Really good post but I still think we are suffering from the same problem that we had 10-15 years ago: bike design, geo, riding style, and bike setup are all based on available tech and components. 

Once we add a new tool to the arsenal the landscape shifts around it. Riding styles will change and bikes will be designed with different parameters and the whole sport will evolve. 

The early 29ers weren’t great! But the concept was sound and eventually we figured out how to make great 29ers and riding styles adapted to the new strengths and weaknesses of the wheel size. 

I would bet that seat tube angles steepen with proportional increase in reach. Shorter stems with a negative rise will maybe get us back to similar handling characteristics and a similar saddle to bar drop. What do you think?

dantecusolito wrote:

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for...

I'm just spitballing here, but one of the limiting dimensions that does not help gain wheel size or suspension travel is headtube length. What if for 32" bikes, the head tube was split, in which case it only needs to house a bearing on each end, and the stem attached in between? Scott does so much integration hell already that I'd bet they'd be into this.

trytochaseme wrote:

Brembo brakes official 

Brembo brakes official

 

trytochaseme wrote:

Brembo brakes official 

Brembo brakes official

 

trytochaseme wrote:

Brembo brakes official 

Brembo brakes official

 

Jakub_G wrote:

Until they get the rotor arms orientation right they cannot be expecting to be taken seriously. And red paint? Seriously? What is this fast and furious...

Until they get the rotor arms orientation right they cannot be expecting to be taken seriously. And red paint? Seriously? What is this fast and furious vol.I? Oh, grimeca wants to have a word with you about that too lol. Gosh I'm so negative.