2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker

Related:
1/22/2026 12:05am

Come on folks, it literally has the same laser etching on the rocker hardware as the Chilcotin. 100% Knolly

9
AJW1
Posts
73
Joined
5/11/2023
Location
Bracknell GB
1/22/2026 3:17am
Barney wrote:
1000014951 2
cmaac wrote:
Rocker link could be a transition? Unlikely but those lines…Or a Kona? Seems like good alu mfg!But dang, I’m having doubts folks are going to want...

Rocker link could be a transition? Unlikely but those lines…

Or a Kona? Seems like good alu mfg!


But dang, I’m having doubts folks are going to want to pedal a 2 chain bike around! Seems like a bruiser. 

I think 2 Chainz might be more efficient than a high pivot idler setup. The small chain has excellent wrap and chain line so it really...

I think 2 Chainz might be more efficient than a high pivot idler setup. The small chain has excellent wrap and chain line so it really wouldn't be much efficiency loss, leaving you with a normal drive train (assuming the chain line isn't much worse because of it).

thats my (totally unsubstantiated) idea too.

compared to a normal bike, a bit of a loss, but compared to a "regular" high pivot where you have the 2 potential issues of 

-chain under max tension being dragged over the top idler

-terrible chain wrap on the bottom of the chain ring

plus sometimes the use of guides etc like on the first gen forbiddens.

the first chain - smaller one from bb to pivot - what are we calling this? - is about 20% of the length of a normal chain, and has a perfect chinline so you probably won't have issues with it stretching over the life of the bike.

the second/main chain is going to be under more tension than a regular bike due to smaller drive ring, but has good chain wrap over what looks like a very tall profile NW ring.

 

1
lewzz10
Posts
104
Joined
10/8/2015
Location
GB
1/22/2026 3:35am
If designed to the same max load, a 35 mm bar is approximately 10% stiffer. The required cross sectional area of the 35 mm bar is...

If designed to the same max load, a 35 mm bar is approximately 10% stiffer. The required cross sectional area of the 35 mm bar is also smaller, so it would be lighter. Below is an example where the bar is evaluated as a basic cantilevered beam where the length is 400 mm and the load is 450 N. r1 and r2 correspond to the 35 mm bar and r3 and r4 correspond to the 31.8 mm bar.

Bar stiffness

I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?

A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for mountain biking. There's plenty of headroom there to design with stiffness as your criteria rather than strength (or weight).

I'd assume designing blindly to strength is what made early (Easton I think?) 35mm bars so awful, and birthed the negative perception of them that's still going ~15 years later.

3
1/22/2026 6:23am
Spotted at Mt. Seymour
tempImageE7MoF5.jpg?VersionId=BeYuJMG40.lKpn2y.

Spotted at Mt. Seymour

Looks like the bike I saw at Highland in NH and posted in the 2025 thread a few months ago. I think somebody else also saw it elsewhere in that thread. 

1
Primoz
Posts
4552
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
SI
1/22/2026 6:26am
If designed to the same max load, a 35 mm bar is approximately 10% stiffer. The required cross sectional area of the 35 mm bar is...

If designed to the same max load, a 35 mm bar is approximately 10% stiffer. The required cross sectional area of the 35 mm bar is also smaller, so it would be lighter. Below is an example where the bar is evaluated as a basic cantilevered beam where the length is 400 mm and the load is 450 N. r1 and r2 correspond to the 35 mm bar and r3 and r4 correspond to the 31.8 mm bar.

Bar stiffness
lewzz10 wrote:
I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for...

I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?

A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for mountain biking. There's plenty of headroom there to design with stiffness as your criteria rather than strength (or weight).

I'd assume designing blindly to strength is what made early (Easton I think?) 35mm bars so awful, and birthed the negative perception of them that's still going ~15 years later.

What is excessive strength? 

1
1
1/22/2026 6:39am

Just ugly enough to be a privateer, good enough looking that it would be a nice upgrade for them!

Just a prototype so there's still time for them to make it real ugly.

7
saskskier
Posts
327
Joined
11/4/2017
Location
Calgary, AB CA
1/22/2026 7:01am

Atherton just announced pre-sale for their e-bike. Made around the s170 with an Avinox motor. 

2
thegromit
Posts
226
Joined
11/19/2015
Location
Durango, CO US
1/22/2026 7:10am
iceman2058 wrote:
RAAW just dropped updates to the Madonna and the Jibb LT with interchangeable dropouts for more adjustability: https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/raaw-updates-jibb-lt-and-madonna.

Wish they gave us a 10mm chip instead of just a 5mm chip. Can someone make one for us? Looking @CascadeComponents 

3
thegromit
Posts
226
Joined
11/19/2015
Location
Durango, CO US
1/22/2026 7:10am

Come on folks, it literally has the same laser etching on the rocker hardware as the Chilcotin. 100% Knolly

Knolly and DW both love short chainstays match made in heaven 

5
1
lewzz10
Posts
104
Joined
10/8/2015
Location
GB
1/22/2026 7:32am
Primoz wrote:

What is excessive strength? 

The part is stronger than it needs to be for the loads it sees in use. Whether that's yield or ultimate strength.

Not necessarily the same as excess fatigue life. Or crash durability.

3
1/22/2026 7:46am
Barney wrote:
its a 230x60/65 shock and im 100% certain its the firebird. just compare it to the phoenix side by side. nearly identical. in person it looks...

its a 230x60/65 shock and im 100% certain its the firebird. just compare it to the phoenix side by side. nearly identical. in person it looks basically production ready. all lugs, pivots, links and tubes are pretty smooth and polished. honestly you can just throw paint on it and sell

I’ve heard on good word that that’s not a pivot. Where did you hear that it was a pivot?  

2
1/22/2026 7:55am
lewzz10 wrote:
I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for...

I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?

A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for mountain biking. There's plenty of headroom there to design with stiffness as your criteria rather than strength (or weight).

I'd assume designing blindly to strength is what made early (Easton I think?) 35mm bars so awful, and birthed the negative perception of them that's still going ~15 years later.

If you want to maximize flexibility then you’ll be working to the maximum allowable stress. For a given use case that is the same regardless of bar diameter. You’d could decrease wall thickness of the 35 mm OD cross section to increase deflection but then you’d drop below that maximum allowable stress. Alternatively you could make the 31.8 mm bar thicker, but then you’ve arguably changed the use case for those bars and it’s no longer apples to apples. 

4
Evwan
Posts
116
Joined
11/18/2025
Location
Sunnyvale, CA US
1/22/2026 9:38am
saskskier wrote:

Atherton just announced pre-sale for their e-bike. Made around the s170 with an Avinox motor. 

"The battery is fully housed inside the downtube for protection and clean design."

Impressive that they managed to fit a battery inside of the downtube. I'm curious if it is a stock 600w/800w avinox battery or if they needed to design their own. 

image 565
5
doktor_jawn
Posts
24
Joined
10/9/2019
Location
State College, PA US
1/22/2026 9:49am

I think they just masked off the bottom part of the downtube in that teaser photo, so it looks smaller. 

Though the avinox Crestline I am looking at is pretty slender compared to the beluga downtube of the specialized levo. 

4
lewzz10
Posts
104
Joined
10/8/2015
Location
GB
1/22/2026 10:06am
lewzz10 wrote:
I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for...

I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?

A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for mountain biking. There's plenty of headroom there to design with stiffness as your criteria rather than strength (or weight).

I'd assume designing blindly to strength is what made early (Easton I think?) 35mm bars so awful, and birthed the negative perception of them that's still going ~15 years later.

If you want to maximize flexibility then you’ll be working to the maximum allowable stress. For a given use case that is the same regardless of...

If you want to maximize flexibility then you’ll be working to the maximum allowable stress. For a given use case that is the same regardless of bar diameter. You’d could decrease wall thickness of the 35 mm OD cross section to increase deflection but then you’d drop below that maximum allowable stress. Alternatively you could make the 31.8 mm bar thicker, but then you’ve arguably changed the use case for those bars and it’s no longer apples to apples. 

I agree with you there you could probably push flex further on 31.8 vs 35mm while retaining safety. 

Maybe this is for 'handlebar stiffness rumours & innovation', but my point was there headroom to play with in terms of strength (no brand is likely at the limit of stiffness you're describing). 

You could make a more flexible 31.8mm handlebar than what's on the market, which is still safe to ride if you wanted to. It'd ride like trash, but you could do it. The whole point of going to 35mm is to reduce the wall thickness anyway (aesthetics ignored) to save weight - you just get that benefit from the larger tubes' second moment of area.

There is no reason for every brand who makes 31.8 & 35mm bars to not match their stiffness across both sizes, at least within a ballpark while still meeting strength/fatigue testing targets.

The ability to reverse engineer a 35mm bar to perform as well as a good 31.8 bar doesn't justify doing it in the first place however 🙂

2
1/22/2026 10:27am
Barney wrote:
its a 230x60/65 shock and im 100% certain its the firebird. just compare it to the phoenix side by side. nearly identical. in person it looks...

its a 230x60/65 shock and im 100% certain its the firebird. just compare it to the phoenix side by side. nearly identical. in person it looks basically production ready. all lugs, pivots, links and tubes are pretty smooth and polished. honestly you can just throw paint on it and sell

I’ve heard on good word that that’s not a pivot. Where did you hear that it was a pivot?  

Yea, not a Pivot.

34
1/22/2026 10:48am
lewzz10 wrote:
I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for...

I don't disagree with your maths, but what makes you think they're being designed to the same maximum strength?

A quality 31.8mm bar has excessive strength for mountain biking. There's plenty of headroom there to design with stiffness as your criteria rather than strength (or weight).

I'd assume designing blindly to strength is what made early (Easton I think?) 35mm bars so awful, and birthed the negative perception of them that's still going ~15 years later.

If you want to maximize flexibility then you’ll be working to the maximum allowable stress. For a given use case that is the same regardless of...

If you want to maximize flexibility then you’ll be working to the maximum allowable stress. For a given use case that is the same regardless of bar diameter. You’d could decrease wall thickness of the 35 mm OD cross section to increase deflection but then you’d drop below that maximum allowable stress. Alternatively you could make the 31.8 mm bar thicker, but then you’ve arguably changed the use case for those bars and it’s no longer apples to apples. 

lewzz10 wrote:
I agree with you there you could probably push flex further on 31.8 vs 35mm while retaining safety. Maybe this is for 'handlebar stiffness rumours & innovation'...

I agree with you there you could probably push flex further on 31.8 vs 35mm while retaining safety. 

Maybe this is for 'handlebar stiffness rumours & innovation', but my point was there headroom to play with in terms of strength (no brand is likely at the limit of stiffness you're describing). 

You could make a more flexible 31.8mm handlebar than what's on the market, which is still safe to ride if you wanted to. It'd ride like trash, but you could do it. The whole point of going to 35mm is to reduce the wall thickness anyway (aesthetics ignored) to save weight - you just get that benefit from the larger tubes' second moment of area.

There is no reason for every brand who makes 31.8 & 35mm bars to not match their stiffness across both sizes, at least within a ballpark while still meeting strength/fatigue testing targets.

The ability to reverse engineer a 35mm bar to perform as well as a good 31.8 bar doesn't justify doing it in the first place however 🙂

IIRC there are iso standards for handlebar strength, but I'm too lazy to go digging them up. 

2
lewzz10
Posts
104
Joined
10/8/2015
Location
GB
1/22/2026 10:53am Edited Date/Time 1/22/2026 10:54am
If you want to maximize flexibility then you’ll be working to the maximum allowable stress. For a given use case that is the same regardless of...

If you want to maximize flexibility then you’ll be working to the maximum allowable stress. For a given use case that is the same regardless of bar diameter. You’d could decrease wall thickness of the 35 mm OD cross section to increase deflection but then you’d drop below that maximum allowable stress. Alternatively you could make the 31.8 mm bar thicker, but then you’ve arguably changed the use case for those bars and it’s no longer apples to apples. 

lewzz10 wrote:
I agree with you there you could probably push flex further on 31.8 vs 35mm while retaining safety. Maybe this is for 'handlebar stiffness rumours & innovation'...

I agree with you there you could probably push flex further on 31.8 vs 35mm while retaining safety. 

Maybe this is for 'handlebar stiffness rumours & innovation', but my point was there headroom to play with in terms of strength (no brand is likely at the limit of stiffness you're describing). 

You could make a more flexible 31.8mm handlebar than what's on the market, which is still safe to ride if you wanted to. It'd ride like trash, but you could do it. The whole point of going to 35mm is to reduce the wall thickness anyway (aesthetics ignored) to save weight - you just get that benefit from the larger tubes' second moment of area.

There is no reason for every brand who makes 31.8 & 35mm bars to not match their stiffness across both sizes, at least within a ballpark while still meeting strength/fatigue testing targets.

The ability to reverse engineer a 35mm bar to perform as well as a good 31.8 bar doesn't justify doing it in the first place however 🙂

IIRC there are iso standards for handlebar strength, but I'm too lazy to go digging them up. 

ISO 4210, yes - this covers the whole bike but has a dedicated section for cockpit stuff.

4
1/22/2026 11:10am

Yea, not a Pivot.

JM cycles, a retirement project?

4
1/22/2026 11:15am

Yea, not a Pivot.

Are you friends with Dave Weagle now or are you testing a bike for a different friend?

3
bkent136
Posts
7
Joined
1/19/2026
Location
Melbourne, FL, FL US
1/22/2026 11:38am
saskskier wrote:

Atherton just announced pre-sale for their e-bike. Made around the s170 with an Avinox motor. 

Sizing in 10mm reach increments, spanning 110mm of reach, yet the chainstays only grow 10mm...

F/C from 1.74 to 1.98... "perfect fit" Atherton, never change

15
O1D4
Posts
91
Joined
10/20/2018
Location
Vancouver CA
1/22/2026 11:40am
I think they just masked off the bottom part of the downtube in that teaser photo, so it looks smaller. Though the avinox Crestline I am looking...

I think they just masked off the bottom part of the downtube in that teaser photo, so it looks smaller. 

Though the avinox Crestline I am looking at is pretty slender compared to the beluga downtube of the specialized levo. 

ENHANCE!

image 566.png?VersionId=2ZBHJsYFEdk
20
O1D4
Posts
91
Joined
10/20/2018
Location
Vancouver CA
1/22/2026 11:47am
I think they just masked off the bottom part of the downtube in that teaser photo, so it looks smaller. Though the avinox Crestline I am looking...

I think they just masked off the bottom part of the downtube in that teaser photo, so it looks smaller. 

Though the avinox Crestline I am looking at is pretty slender compared to the beluga downtube of the specialized levo. 

O1D4 wrote:
ENHANCE!

ENHANCE!

image 566.png?VersionId=2ZBHJsYFEdk
image 570image 569
17
doktor_jawn
Posts
24
Joined
10/9/2019
Location
State College, PA US
1/22/2026 11:56am

Fair, I didn't see other photos or feel like firing up Lightroom. Just saw the slight fade at the bottom, so figured it could be a bit bigger than what was teased. 

1
bnsleit
Posts
119
Joined
9/27/2021
Location
Missoula, MT US
1/22/2026 1:37pm Edited Date/Time 1/22/2026 1:38pm
Barney wrote:
its a 230x60/65 shock and im 100% certain its the firebird. just compare it to the phoenix side by side. nearly identical. in person it looks...

its a 230x60/65 shock and im 100% certain its the firebird. just compare it to the phoenix side by side. nearly identical. in person it looks basically production ready. all lugs, pivots, links and tubes are pretty smooth and polished. honestly you can just throw paint on it and sell

I’ve heard on good word that that’s not a pivot. Where did you hear that it was a pivot?  

Yea, not a Pivot.

oh shit is it the new Slayer????????? RM comeback?

 

edit: I know JM isn't on Rocky but a boy can dream

10
joshmtb
Posts
56
Joined
4/17/2025
Location
Haslemere GB
1/22/2026 1:38pm

As pictured that looks impressively slender

2
1/22/2026 2:11pm Edited Date/Time 1/22/2026 2:12pm
saskskier wrote:

Atherton just announced pre-sale for their e-bike. Made around the s170 with an Avinox motor. 

bkent136 wrote:

Sizing in 10mm reach increments, spanning 110mm of reach, yet the chainstays only grow 10mm...

F/C from 1.74 to 1.98... "perfect fit" Atherton, never change

theres a funny quote just posted today on the red site: "it has size growing chainstays, so that means if you ONLY stand with all your weight on your feet, the balance is XX%"(not fully word for word but close enough) 

This reminded me of below, which i got told at a WC last year by a team manager.

'riders who swing off the back because they are scared will end up with understeer' - will love long rear centres
'riders who attack the Front, Usally better riders who want to go really fast/racers'  - will love short rear centres.

As someone who loves both... different riding styles get the most from either setup one isnt "better than the other" 

anyway back to rumor's before the long centre cowboys get upset again.
 

9
2

Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker

The Latest