Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
I can’t put my finger on it, but something about the tone of those pics makes me think they’re just a render.
That said have they just leaked the new 32” Fox 36/38?
Those are the new M9220 XTR wheels on that beautiful Baum, so 29''.
So I’ve noticed Fox mentions Podium e-bike+ on https://tech.ridefox.com/bike/owners-manuals/3108/fork--2026-podium-
Is that just to make sure we fatties on e-bikes set our sag and dampenerers correctly, or is that a different fork?
ebike has even thicker crown (ergo stiffer) AFAIK.
historically, "e-tuned" also gets a softer compression tune for whatever reason. Something about sitting down more or some baloni.
Yup, from the linked article "Found in the Shimano booth showcasing new XTR Di2, Baum has joined the list of custom frame makers to produce a full suspension mountain bike. " (emphasis is mine).
Definitely not a render, lots more pics if you click through 😀
What cannondale is this? It's on the PB Zeb shots, but they didn't mention it. Am I late to the party again? New Habit LT?
Edit: seems it was in the latest Ed bike check video as a new Enduro "Prototype" although it's looking pretty finished to me.
Yes, this should be new Habit. https://www.pinkbike.com/news/spotted-ella-connolly-is-on-a-new-cannond…
I think its just a arch cover if you dont want to use their integrated fender.
If it was for the fender why the one in last picture look to be still zip tied on?
Hopefully they use the Boxxer air spring theory on the new one and make it an upgrade. Then I can try coil and not have to worry about going back to air 😂
I wish they would make one, I would like to try it. Rulzeman has made a nice one.
Sure would be cool if tire companies did a run of tires like the racers are on (example- the super duper softs that the Conti peeps are racing on)! Dunlop released the Factory Spec tires in the moto world which has been awesome.
Id buy some some of these proper race spec tires in a heartbeat
Because that's an aftermarket fender and they don't want to reveal too much too soon.
Interesting article from The European Bike Project on the other site about the UNpaved cycles XP2 that uses the Rulezman stem. "By now we seem to discover that long and longer rear stays work everywhere and don't hold you back in cornering. But I could get to the correct balance of the front wheel without slackening the head angle too much. The "zero" stem (15 mm + backsweep of the handlebar: -15 mm = 0) was the solution!" and "And as a side remark: That "zero" stem thing is going to be huge in a couple of years."
Eurobike 2025 show coverage, this will go on the homepage tomorrow but the forum deserves to see it first!
https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/eurobike-2025-weird-and-wonderful
The tech they're hiding on the lower leg of the Zeb could be related to the ShockWiz being built into the Ultimate version of the fork. That said, it could also be something like the Vorsprung Seccus, as someone said earlier.
Holy kamokas that KS fork could be a real winner if it works well
My money is on a something like a built in Secus. Hump back at the bottom.
Didn’t mondraker go down this road years ago only to become more moderate? And if you look at race results of the most recent people using the super short stem theory - cough *gamux, you’ll see it’s not exactly the most successful thing in the pits.
Seems a strange design ethos.. to position myself further backwards to correct my weight bias that’s happened due to an extremely long chainstay I have designed; I then needed to utilise a novel stem to shorten everything up and position myself centrally!
Or am I reading it incorrectly?
Regarding the new Lowers for the ZEB, Rockshox seem to have ditched the bleeding ports.
If you want to use absolute terms, then yes, you are reading it wrong, because short chainstays were bad design decision for all the wrong reasons, just like long stems to compensate for minimal rider space on old school reach on outdated frames was a bandaid. Super short stems are nicer and natural to steer, but on bikes with short chainstays take away too much weight from the front wheel. You can compensate for that with A) longer chainstays (hard to do)
B ) firmer spring/compression damping on the rear (very easy to do)
...why link this? we all know those folks are super critical, this post is just labeling them as haters and to give the company selling you a $2k fork a break.
the air bleed buttons? IIRC fox has a patent on that.
I also remember Gee Atherton using an ultra short stem years ago, only to crash a lot and go back to normal stems short after.
Brian Cahal's vid of him using the raised reversed stem also featured him washing out the front and eating dirt.
You know it's something riders won't mess with when even the guy known for having a ridiculously high stack (Dak) runs a stem that roughly matches his offset.
To me it seems like there's absolutely nothing to be gained from really short stems.
What does running a stem that 'matches the fork offset' have anything to do with anything? This is one of the most WTF claims I have heard regarding bikes and bike fits.
Where in relation to this offset is the tyre to ground contact patch? How does the handlebar to patch relation change relative to wheel size? Fork axle to crown? Dynamic sag? Travel position? Head angle?!
Most importantly, what does the position you attach your handlebars to have anything to do with riding dynamics when you can have multiples of 10 mm difference in handlebar setback (effective reach or whatever you want to call it) depending on handlebar geometry.
To get into a similar position running a 55 mm rise handlebar that I had only in 12/8° sweep resulted in me having to run a 70 mm stem to be in roughly the same position fore-aft as I was with a more normal 8/5° sweep handlebar on a 40 mm stem. Because the bars are made by having the backsweep swept BACK, they do not come forward and then back to have the same relative clamping to hand position.
Commenting on stem lengths should REALLY include handlebar geometry and also roll to have even a smidge of comparability between setups.
We’re all confused by mention of short stems, zero stems, and reverse stems. These should be treated as very different components, not just “short stems.” There are great reasons to run these stems but there are also drawbacks, just like there are drawbacks to longer stems.
Regarding chainstay length, there are great reasons to run longer chainstays, and a big one is to balance out rider position. A lot of folks enjoy bikes that put them in an upright position with a shorter stem (for quicker steering) and taller stack (for more leverage.) there are other benefits to this position on the bike, but a major drawback is that when we ride more upright, with less weight falling naturally on the front, we lose front end grip. Long chainstays are the way to balance the design considerations on the front of the bike, not the other way around.
If you are a skeptic of the long cs discussion just think of it that way, coming from a ride position/ride style standpoint first, with geo and setup following suit.
I think that the deeper you dive into this stuff, and the more opportunities you have to meet the people designing these mtb things, the more sympathy you develop and the more understanding you have over the flaws in the products. You lose the “everything sucks, the brands are selfish assholes who never give me the stuff I want for the price I deserve to pay” and gain a perspective like “damn it takes a lot of work to make bikes that ride this sick, and there is a ton of money that goes into this damn sport to fuel that work and innovation, so of course it will cost me to reap the benefits.”
On the flip side, working in a grocery store in a HCOL area and not getting free or even discounted product anymore, I have a very different view of pricing in the bike industry than when I was working in the industry. I can see why so many people are pissed at how expensive bikes are, or why someone might get butthurt if their $2k inverted fork isn’t perfect out of the box. I can also see that I might have been a little out of touch when I was in the industry. But here’s where I have come to:
Nothing is perfect, even the bikes you can’t afford. And if you can’t afford a particular imperfect product, buy the imperfect product you can afford to tweak. Commenters on all the sites are pissed that bikes cost $15k, as if the $5k bikes we are riding aren’t better than the $15k bike from ten years ago. Fox mass produces forks that enable us to have sick times on our bikes. Of course there are machinists who can improve those forks, or boutique brands that can build better forks, but those are completely different issues and again, there will be drawbacks to those avenues as well.
My opinion is that several people, including racers have tried it, and it led to crashes. I don't know the engineering or numbers behind it, and I don't need to, riders seem to crash more on shorter stems, I personally feel more comfortable on a 42.5mm stem than a 35mm stem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
FWIW, front wheel loading and more upright positions or higher bars, I'm pretty sure there can be situations where higher bars will enable a rider to generate MORE front end grip (loading) than lower bars.
I've mentioned the skiing analogy - if you can't load the fronts of the skis, where do you need to raise the boot - at the rear or at the back? Common logic would say at the rear, to rotate you forwards. But in actuality it's the other way around. Raising the toes requires the skier to lean forwards to be balanced, loading up the fronts. Proof of this is standing on a 2x4 piece of wood with either toes or heels - standing on it with your heels will make you lean back, standing on it with your toes will cause you to lean forward.
Based on this analogy bars that are too low or too far forward will make the rider too outstreched with not enough support under the hands and cause the rider to pull back even further. Having the bars closer/higher will enable a more attacking position on a given bike.