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
Oh yeah I hadn't thought about that. I do remember that was a major complaint from people on trail. I personally didn't ride one on trail but I remember in feeling weird to have a pretty much rigid fork when landing a wheel or bunny hop. (Edit) on second thought do you think that could change if it's on the rear since there's more weight?
More of a merits thought but it about the 30mm at sag but it seems that DW had been more adverse to making a bike with a fully rearward axle path. Pivot Phenix and Atherton A200G because he wanted the most used part of travel to be upwards and not affect the bikes front to rear balance.
I forget the name but it's the home brewed bike similar to a Vessel that had 50mm at full bottom out which is already crazy. Couldn't imagine what a bike with 30mm at sag would be at full bottom out.
Idk, I think it would be easier to cut the arch off and bond on a taller one to fit that 32
Miss those days. Enduro was the hottest shit, clothes were semi baggy and not skin tight, no ebikes… ah yes, beautiful times.
updated full bike pic
What if it was commissioned at a price point that became entirely unviable in the USA due to tariffs and got remarketed as China only?
Regarding the RMU and the rearward axle path, it doesn't all need to be rearward, it could turn back forwards from sag onwards. That would make chain stretch and thus pedal kickback less of an issue. Remember, it's a mid pivot, not a high pivot. It still probably needs some antisquat from the chain to not bob too much as opposed to a properly high pivot bike.
Plus there's still the difference of "chainstay" length (BB to rear axle which I can easily imagine has a growth of 30 mm at sag with a mid pivot height) vs. rear axle moving rearwards 30 mm in the horizontal direction.
Then the tyre would hit the lower crown at full compression. Extending the lowers is the correct way to do it.
The difference in diameter would imply that just filing down the arch of the 40 wouldn't be enough to fit the 27" wheel...
Filing out a 27,5 inch fork requires, at most, with no clearance over a 27,5 tyre, removing 19 mm of material. With clearance being designed into it and if you're willing to fly close to the sun, removing 10 or even less mm is probably enough.
Fitting a 32" wheel in a 29er fork changes the number to 32 mm from the above 19 mm which is a completely different ball game.
Plus my comment applied to a 32 inch tyre hitting the crown in a 29er fork, not a 29 inch tyre in a 27,5 fork.
Looks like a race ready Conti Somethingtotal in 32”…
It‘s the officially released Dissector in 32“
Looks fast too. I'm frothing for my next trail bike with full 32.
The only 32" Dissector model that Maxxis offers to the public right now is an Exo+ Maxxterra tire. It's the same tire Matt Beer was riding at Cypress when he did the back to back 32"/29" test for the other site.
If that's the tire Neko's riding at Rock Creek, I'm actually more impressed with his ability to nurse an EXO+ casing through Mountain Creek than I'm worried about slightly "the wrong" tread or compound. I'm certain a 32" front tire takes a lot less beating than a 27.5" rear tire, but still, not exactly the ideal tire setup.
If he feels even remotely confident and fast on that glorified XC tire, that's a huge data point for the 32" DH concept. And I want to reiterate how impressed I was that he won Sea Otter with an Aspen ST. So I think (and I'm worried) there really is something to this concept. He also might be short-shocking the Frameworks again to try to keep the geometry normal-ish, like he did at Sea Otter.
Remember folks we don't have to stand for this. We can report this inappropriate content. 😆
Haha...
Holy seat tube angle Batman!
I can only imagine how good the grip is on the front in corners. I remember the first time hopping on a process 111 and being shocked what I could get away with when pushing through corners.
It is going to be interesting to see is how they sort out what goes on in the rear. This winter a bunch of us chimed in saying we really liked how easy it is to initiate a corner with a mullet setup. Does simply having the rear smaller then the front give that same feeling or are they going to have to make some radical changes to geo to make the bike work.
Geo changes are going to have to be made. That bike Nekos on looks purpose built for the 32 inch front wheel. Not only that, hub spacing is going to need to change, we're going to need wider spacing to keep the wheels from being too heavy, and too flexy.
Honest question, why pick 32" as the next size, why not 33", 33.25" 34"..? If bigger is better just keep going, right?
So, going to ask this question fully understanding the debates and tech here...
So everyone is saying 32" will NEED new/wider hub spacing, especially for DH. WHY? Most companies are designing asymetric rims. spoke tensions are even. now, on top of that, commencal is running 32h rear 28h front. so going down in spoke count. AND most teams are running LESS spoke tension to get better traction (and in turn INCREASE wheel flex). So.... if you take that into account, I see no need to run wider flanges on a 32h asymmetric rim at full tension. Also... most of us here have not actually run 32" and are talking from our comfy chairs
While I agree there is a possiblity of needing to work on wheel design... i think there are many tools still to be used in building a wheel that won't need a changed to standards, and that we won't need to go back to super boost. We have been working on flexier systems for more traction and taking stiffness out for years... now people are arguing we are making things too flexy....without riding them.
Exactly. If you look at the newmen wheels of Hartenstern that have adaptable spoke flange widths for example, he uses a smaller width than possible reducing the spoke angle and making the wheel flexier. Since we only speak about 32“ wheels in the front for gravity disciplines, I also do not think we need wider hub spacing. For the few people who want stiffer front wheels, just use 32 instead of 28 or thicker spokes
32" is a standard size that has existed for decades
I should have also mentioned, machine custom crowns that are inverted U shaped to increase the effective AtoC distance.
This is what pinkibike coulda/shoulda done with their test with the Manitou.
Speaking of pinkbike, it's been down all morning ON THE SAME morning as the Department of War starts releasing classified docs on aliens?? Coincidence??
Preliminary testing from here.
good to see, but unfortunately they say that increase to super boost incurs no cost.... that isn't specifically true as it is a redesign of the frame (though frame is already being redesigned). Also, yes we know there is a weight penalty, but they only went to a 1.65mm spoke and not a 1.8. but yes more weight.
also, not taken into consideration in the gravity game is that people are looking for flexier wheels in the current setup. They are comparing full stiffness to full stiffness.
Obviously the wheels are going to be flexier at a given build, the physics requires that. But, my point is... do we need wheels to be as stiff as they currently are... and from what I am seeing from the spikey end of things is no.
so, if people want a flexier wheel, and this provides a flexier wheel at stock setup...is that a bad thing?!
Berd's 32" standard boost wheelset claims to be fine for XC riding with 280lbs on 28 spokes, and it is like 1200g. I imagine with a beefier rim and 32 spokes, they'd be able to make a boost DH wheelset no problem. I think the talk around superboost is largely driven by people who don't want 32" to exist.
No cost for a new standard since super boost exists. Obviously you’re going to need a new frame if you’re going to a 32 inch wheel, so cost is assumed at this point no? If there’s a timeline where 32” rear wheels start appearing on a downhill bike, I will be really confused.
As far as flex dynamics go, I’m not on the knife edge of what elite level gravity racers are looking for. Since most people seem to be happy with a 27.5 rear wheel, I can’t say I know much more than that.
Too bad Levy is no longer there to inspect the new alien data from their server.
You mean filing a 23in fork to fit a 24.5in wheel. I was talking about filing a 24.5in fork to fit a 27in wheel. Which would only be possible if you remove the arch. I do agree that even with clearance the tyre would probably hit the bottom of the crown.
From Newman, b/c it would regain strength lost in the bigger wheels with the least compromise.
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker