[slimshady]

Sure @Udi . I actually had a friend -the guy who guided me and my crew up and down the Cerro Negro trail in Salta- who switched his last gen Mojo for a newer one. He got the GRIP 2 damper with the new bike, tinkered with it for over four months until he gave up and got a NOS RC damper off eBay. He was running the RC2 in his previous bike, and believe me, he's very competent when it comes to suspension tuning and a hell of a rider. Plus he rides a lot more demanding trails than I do, and he does it daily.

The same happened to some other two guys I know, from different parts of Argentina with a lot more mountain time than I do.

And finally, I did a quick back to back test with the 26" 36 RC2 of a close friend and the brand new GRIP 2 one from a different one, on my local trails. I know those trails like the back of my hand and since me and my friends are pretty well used to bike swinging -we use to have a bike exchanging day every now and then, where we grab other one's bikes, set them up to our measurements/likes and ride them for a few hours to compare and learn- I must say I never felt like the transition from low to high speed compression on the GRIP 2 was as smooth as in the RC2. There was some spiking where the RC2 felt much more linear.

 

[englertracing]

EVERY moto manufacturers factory team is playing games with frame stiffness and engine mount/swingarm torques. Even the satellite teams are. Hell, even I do before a race. I tighten everything down on the chassis to the nominal torque minus 5% or 10% depending on what speed race I'm doing, and it will be a more radical difference than a fresh suspension servicing. You'll see teams machining off 1/8" sections from the rear side of their upper triple clamps as well. Again, a difference in feel that isn't trivial.

I believe the engine mount, torques, triple clamp stuff.
but the AMA rules say something about not adding or removing any material from the frames...
maybe the FIM is different.

 

[englertracing]

Cornering hundreds of horsepower on pavement is pretty much a direct parallel to smashing off camber rocks and irregular dirt at 23mph.

DUH

 

[Kanye West]

I believe the engine mount, torques, triple clamp stuff.
but the AMA rules say something about not adding or removing any material from the frames...
maybe the FIM is different.

Yup - frames, swingarms, cases, and cylinders (I believe) have to be that of a production bike that is sold within the next year. Maybe some other things too. But there's a defined line for what can be modified and what can't.

 

[englertracing]

I'm not sure of the exact reason/s myself (curious) but Ryan @ Vorsprung commented a while ago that the damper actually had more friction than the last RC2 (though Fox claim less), and a few quicker riders I know have switched back to the RC2 also.
@slimshady could you elaborate?
@buckoW agrees but I doubt he'll post his reasons, for fear of getting devoured by the enduro punter nation.

I thought it was dubious when they first stated the GRIP 2 had lower friction, typically a an IFP system will always have more friction than a similar bladder system, I chalked it up to maybe they were comparing the latest RC2 monster sealhead that i believe is a dual seal.

Sure Udi. I actually had a friend -the guy who guided me and my crew up and down the Cerro Negro trail in Salta- who switched his last gen Mojo for a newer one. He got the GRIP 2 damper with the new bike, tinkered with it for over four months until he gave up and got a NOS RC damper off eBay. He was running the RC2 in his previous bike, and believe me, he's very competent when it comes to suspension tuning and a hell of a rider. Plus he rides a lot more demanding trails than I do, and he does it daily.

The same happened to some other two guys I know, from different parts of Argentina with a lot more mountain time than I do.

And finally, I did a quick back to back test with the 26" 36 RC2 of a close friend and the brand new GRIP 2 one from a different one, on my local trails. I know those trails like the back of my hand and since me and my friends are pretty well used to bike swinging -we use to have a bike exchanging day every now and then, where we grab other one's bikes, set them up to our measurements/likes and ride them for a few hours to compare and learn- I must say I never felt like the transition from low to high speed compression on the GRIP 2 was as smooth as in the RC2. There was some spiking where the RC2 felt much more linear.

I have a collection of fox dampers, I used to have a larger collection.
I have 3 FIT RC2, and 1RC2 for 40s
I have 1 FIT RC2, 1RC2, and 1 grip for 36

I have added MOAR Shimz to the RC2 cartridges, needed more compression.
Comparing the GRIP to the RC2
Friction Im not sure you can really tell.
the Grip has good support, but, I feel like it has too much High speed compression.

The RC2 has no MV just a check plate with a ton of float, It has the feel of a base valve only cartridge
The grip has a MV, and you can tell it has a lot more damping at higher shaft speeds.
I am probably going to be opening the float a little as an experiment.

 

[englertracing]

But we are primary talking about lateral stiffness. To not get sucked downhill in off-camber situations, you need as much as you can get IME. My foes was ultiamtely stiff in all directions, but because of the dumbass curnut it always felt like it was about to snap in half, so damn harsh, but that was 100% the shock and bizarro single-pivot.

I have fond memories of my 2-1,
I didnt find the curnutt that bad,
just had to run minimum pressure and deal with the fact it didn't have much lsc.

 

[englertracing]

Someone always brings this up. I think it's absolute BS for MTB. No one is ever saying "oh, I can't ride this hardtail, it's too laterally stiff!". Literally every FS bike is trying to be as stiff as possible in that direction and it's hard with pivots and the inherent flex they create. Laterally stiff rides off-camber better, holds lines better, delivers your pedaling power better, etc. Although there are certainly small areas on a car chassis where they try to design in some compliance/flex, the big improvements are always when they increase the chassis rigidity, boosting another 30% or whatever to make it more rigid and it will hold the road better. Not to be confused with suspension too stiff without enough wheel travel that may skip and slide on normal streets vs. smooth tracks.

There are areas that simply can't be too-stiff on a bike. Fore-aft on the fork is one of them, lateral on the FS frame is another. I think we have a little more of a sweet-spot for torsion on the fork. Maybe there's some ultra-apex of frame stiffness that we will eventually achieve that is "too much", but until then, I need something that can ride those off-camber lines as well as my rigid bikes, or at least as well as possible.

I go back and fourth on chassis stiffness.
Its preached in the auto world,
My race car vehicle dynamics book talks about when they fixtured up the gt40 prototypes and it took something like 80,000lbs per degree to flex the chassis.
"you want the car to be stiff so the suspension and damper does the work"
then you go sprint car racing......

when attempting to apply 850-950hp to clay through a gigantic tire with only 8psi, drivers prefer torsion bars instead of coil springs, citing that they react slower. and I can only think its because the torsion bars attach at extreme ends of the chassis allowing more chassis flex, People talk about chassis flex, Now I don't think anyone is fixture chassis and doing any real testing but all the car owners "know" or pretend to know about it.
I know this is all super parallel to riding a MTB in the woods........
but flexy chassis go against what we are supposed to believe.
I think its more complicated than everything should be infinitely stiff in every plane.
Perhaps infinitely stiff is good in some cases like fore and aft on the fork and frame as well,
maybe the frame should be pretty darn stiff laterally
maybe it should be just a little stiff torsionally.
maybe the material properties are important
whats so bad about flex anyways?
to me the problem isn't the initial flex, its the rebounding action.


also on wheels,
I found this neat toy

bicyclewheel.info

bicyclewheel.info

bicyclewheel.info

I find it odd that carbon wheels are "too stiff to ride"

Radial stiffness	4947 N/mm	(28251 lbs/in)
Lateral stiffness	87.4 N/mm	(499 lbs/in)
Torsional stiffness	2731 N/deg	(614 lbs/deg)

if you play around with this simulator,
well just run it with the defaults,
we can pretend what it spits out is an aluminum mtb wheel
it is saying that the wheel takes 28251lbs to deflect the rim 1"
or every lb deflects the rim 0.00003539697"
or three and a half tenths of one thoulsandth of one inch,
or just under 0.01mm
when you get on your bike say you have 125lbs on the front wheel your rim deflects 0.00442462213
four thoulsandths
just over 0.11mm
say you hit something and you have 400lbs of load on the wheel, it deflects 0.01415879083
or 0.35mm
guess what, at 425lbs its going to "buckle" spokes
so its total radial deflection before things go badly is 0.01504371526
for the fractional type, the rim deflects less than 1/64"
must be real compliant!

lets see how unforgiving a carbon rim will be
i just doubled the default settings for rimstiffness in all directions everything else the same

Radial stiffness	5870 N/mm	(33521 lbs/in)
Lateral stiffness	107.0 N/mm	(611 lbs/in)
Torsional stiffness	2732 N/deg	(614 lbs/deg)

Spoke tension
so now the wheel is 33521lbs per inch
now it deflects 0.00002983204" per lb
so when you put 125lbs on it you deflect 0.00372900569 "WOW" it deflects 0.0005" less than the aluminum wheel "THAT MUST REALLY REALLY HELP IT ROLL FASTER BEING SOOOO much rounder"
400lbs it deflects 0.01193281823" OMG a full 0.002" literally 1 human hair, that aluminum rim must be so much comfortable.......................................................

but wait, a 2.5" tire can literally deflect like 2 inches or, 1000 times more..............................................

the real change to the carbon lies in the lateral stiffness.
at 50lbs load the "aluminum rim" would flex 0.119"
at 50lbs load the "carbon rim" would flex 0.084

Im not sure how accurate the simulator is, so it could all be bullshit

man, theres wet dirt outside and im stuck at work for 12 hours on a sunday

 

[iRider]

Having actually ridden/owned plenty of Boxxers and 40s (including current), I reckon those test results are about as accurate as Enduro MTB's "brake dyno" results test. Writing some numbers down and making a pretty graph doesn't actually mean the data is correct.

Just FYI: they have one of the most respected testing labs of any magazines (they are a sister publication of the german "Bike" and "Tour" mags). Usually their data is pretty much spot on. Only criticism is that they only test one fork, so no replication. Keep in mind this is only torsional stiffness, not fore-aft.
BTW: they agree with you regarding handlebars that are more prone to failure.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

Having actually ridden/owned plenty of Boxxers and 40s (including current), I reckon those test results are about as accurate as Enduro MTB's "brake dyno" results test. Writing some numbers down and making a pretty graph doesn't actually mean the data is correct.

I haven't ridden the latest 40, just the latest Boxxer on a rental bike nevertheless I would tend to say the measurements of frontal and torsional stiffness are not the whole truth: I rode the same bike and swap just the fork between a 36 and a Yari, both through axle, the perceived stiffness was very similar with maybe the 36 feeling a tad stiffer while the numbers shows that the 36 is less stiff...
The perceived stiffness is most probably influenced/blurred by the spring curve, damping curve and the friction.
My guess is that the fork will feel enough torsionally stiff when it is stiffer than the wheel and/or the handlebars in the corresponding direction.

 

[jonKranked]

But it does make it more rigid.
I've owned 3 different forks and ridden them with 15mm and 20mm axles. Same lowers, same CSU, same wheels. It makes a difference, along with every other component. They lightened these things in 2015 trimming material off everything else which made them noodles compared to the old ones. Anything you can gain back is good.


I'm not the only one, just in the minority. But don't confuse 'popular' with 'what's available'. I had to go out of my way to get 20mm axles. Most people are like you and 'DFAF.' That doesn't mean they're doing it deliberately or for a reason however, they're just grabbing what's by far the most prevalent system.

Bingo. Just because the "average rider" doesn't notice the difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

 

[Jm_]

I go back and fourth on chassis stiffness.
Its preached in the auto world,
My race car vehicle dynamics book talks about when they fixtured up the gt40 prototypes and it took something like 80,000lbs per degree to flex the chassis.
"you want the car to be stiff so the suspension and damper does the work"
then you go sprint car racing......

when attempting to apply 850-950hp to clay through a gigantic tire with only 8psi, drivers prefer torsion bars instead of coil springs, citing that they react slower. and I can only think its because the torsion bars attach at extreme ends of the chassis allowing more chassis flex, People talk about chassis flex, Now I don't think anyone is fixture chassis and doing any real testing but all the car owners "know" or pretend to know about it.
I know this is all super parallel to riding a MTB in the woods........
but flexy chassis go against what we are supposed to believe.
I think its more complicated than everything should be infinitely stiff in every plane.
Perhaps infinitely stiff is good in some cases like fore and aft on the fork and frame as well,
maybe the frame should be pretty darn stiff laterally
maybe it should be just a little stiff torsionally.
maybe the material properties are important
whats so bad about flex anyways?
to me the problem isn't the initial flex, its the rebounding action.


also on wheels,
I found this neat toy

bicyclewheel.info

bicyclewheel.info

bicyclewheel.info

I find it odd that carbon wheels are "too stiff to ride"

Radial stiffness	4947 N/mm	(28251 lbs/in)
Lateral stiffness	87.4 N/mm	(499 lbs/in)
Torsional stiffness	2731 N/deg	(614 lbs/deg)

if you play around with this simulator,
well just run it with the defaults,
we can pretend what it spits out is an aluminum mtb wheel
it is saying that the wheel takes 28251lbs to deflect the rim 1"
or every lb deflects the rim 0.00003539697"
or three and a half tenths of one thoulsandth of one inch,
or just under 0.01mm
when you get on your bike say you have 125lbs on the front wheel your rim deflects 0.00442462213
four thoulsandths
just over 0.11mm
say you hit something and you have 400lbs of load on the wheel, it deflects 0.01415879083
or 0.35mm
guess what, at 425lbs its going to "buckle" spokes
so its total radial deflection before things go badly is 0.01504371526
for the fractional type, the rim deflects less than 1/64"
must be real compliant!

lets see how unforgiving a carbon rim will be
i just doubled the default settings for rimstiffness in all directions everything else the same

Radial stiffness	5870 N/mm	(33521 lbs/in)
Lateral stiffness	107.0 N/mm	(611 lbs/in)
Torsional stiffness	2732 N/deg	(614 lbs/deg)

Spoke tension
so now the wheel is 33521lbs per inch
now it deflects 0.00002983204" per lb
so when you put 125lbs on it you deflect 0.00372900569 "WOW" it deflects 0.0005" less than the aluminum wheel "THAT MUST REALLY REALLY HELP IT ROLL FASTER BEING SOOOO much rounder"
400lbs it deflects 0.01193281823" OMG a full 0.002" literally 1 human hair, that aluminum rim must be so much comfortable.......................................................

but wait, a 2.5" tire can literally deflect like 2 inches or, 1000 times more..............................................

the real change to the carbon lies in the lateral stiffness.
at 50lbs load the "aluminum rim" would flex 0.119"
at 50lbs load the "carbon rim" would flex 0.084

Im not sure how accurate the simulator is, so it could all be bullshit

man, theres wet dirt outside and im stuck at work for 12 hours on a sunday

Good post, thanks.

 

[jstuhlman]

Bingo. Just because the "average rider" doesn't notice the difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

but to the "average rider" (me) - it doesn't matter then.

 

[Udi]

He got the GRIP 2 damper with the new bike, tinkered with it for over four months until he gave up and got a NOS RC damper off eBay. He was running the RC2 in his previous bike, and believe me, he's very competent when it comes to suspension tuning and a hell of a rider. Plus he rides a lot more demanding trails than I do, and he does it daily.

I must say I never felt like the transition from low to high speed compression on the GRIP 2 was as smooth as in the RC2. There was some spiking where the RC2 felt much more linear.

Appreciate the commentary, sounds honest to me.
I'm always wary when manufacturers update a (rare) product which I think works exceptionally well, and I've been through the horrid circle of buying a more expensive / newer / fancier product and then tinkering before realising it's junk and I need to re-find the old product. That's actually why i asked you, and haven't bought a GRIP2 myself yet.

I really like the old RC2's transitions between low/mid speed compression, particularly its ability to provide stronger than average mid-speed support, while being more compliant than average for that higher level of support. All I do from stock is increase the compression stack stiffness slightly, probably similar to @englertracing. With the right tune and settings (ideally not paired with an air spring), it's a timelessly beautiful damper.

to me the problem isn't the initial flex, its the rebounding action.

Agree, I can deal with it on a frame but at least for me it sucks on a fork.
Nothing worse than mistimed deflection responses on the parts definining your direction.

I feel MTB is different to motocross on two counts, one is that MX events are much longer than DH runs, and two is that there's much more width freedom in line choice, both for performance/times and for fatigue/comfort. This requires a more holistic view with regard to things like flex.

With DH tracks there are many instances where your wheel being a couple of feet further from ideal can end your face and body in a tree. While MX is a more relevant comparison than road cars or road motos, the fact remains that it should be considered independently. By the same token I think WC DH is very different to EWS, which is (again) quite different from most people's local enduro / trail riding. Horses for courses.

I haven't ridden the latest 40, just the latest Boxxer on a rental bike nevertheless I would tend to say the measurements of frontal and torsional stiffness are not the whole truth: I rode the same bike and swap just the fork between a 36 and a Yari, both through axle, the perceived stiffness was very similar with maybe the 36 feeling a tad stiffer while the numbers shows that the 36 is less stiff...

That's my exact point - it's actually VERY difficult to conduct a test of adequate magnitude (i.e. consistent with reality) on most MTB components. Not to say it shouldn't be done, but as per the brake thread very recently, even a "decent" test (like the enduro mag one: they had a fair go, they didn't intend to deceive) can have incorrect results. This runs the added risk of being even more misleading than the average pinkbike review, because the average punter still knows those are opinions, whereas there's a far greater risk of assuming numerical values as fact.

Anyway, the other important thing is if you actually own said products for a period of time, you have the opportunity to equalise damping/spring curves, normalise other relevant variables (wheels/bars/etc) and form an objective view. Having done this I've found the 40 unquestionably stiffer than the 35 boxxer, but as I said, even I don't notice it so much going from 35 -> 40, but much more from 40 -> 35. My experience with the 15mm axle Lyrik/Yari and 15mm axle 36 is the same as you, they're close to the same. I find the 20mm axle 36 a little stiffer than both, but either way, all these singlecrowns have too much lateral flex in hard use. They're all so far from ideal (obviously for mass and climbing reasons) that it's a waste of time to get hung up on minor differences.

Long story short, don't blindly trust data, don't blindly trust yourself, and most importantly - don't trust anyone here.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

Long story short, don't blindly trust data, don't blindly trust yourself, and most importantly - don't trust anyone here.

Interesting discussion anyhow!

The rebound phase of the flex is something I never really considered. It makes sense!

 

[kidwoo]

The rebound phase of the flex is something I never really considered. It makes sense!

That's the whole reason people bitch about flexy anything. It's not the intial flex, it's the undamped rebound.

Unless we're talking about inverted mtb forks. Most of those are so bad that the inital flex causes you to steer right or left with your bars pointed straight.

 

[iRider]

That's my exact point - it's actually VERY difficult to conduct a test of adequate magnitude (i.e. consistent with reality) on most MTB components. Not to say it shouldn't be done, but as per the brake thread very recently, even a "decent" test (like the enduro mag one: they had a fair go, they didn't intend to deceive) can have incorrect results. This runs the added risk of being even more misleading than the average pinkbike review, because the average punter still knows those are opinions, whereas there's a far greater risk of assuming numerical values as fact.

Numerical values are facts! They have been measured and if all test subjects have been measured with the same method it is fair to compare them. If these facts are not reflecting reality then this indicates that your test was badly designed. So instead of arguing against the values you should make an argument as to why the test method is not reflecting real world conditions. And ideally you would suggest a reproducible test that is more in line with the real world. Not everybody has a calibrated Udi at his disposal.

Long story short, don't blindly trust data, don't blindly trust yourself, and most importantly - don't trust anyone here.

 

[iRider]

That's the whole reason people bitch about flexy anything. It's not the intial flex, it's the undamped rebound.

Maybe time for these Axxios stickers!

 

[toodles]

Anyway, the other important thing is if you actually own said products for a period of time, you have the opportunity to equalise damping/spring curves, normalise other relevant variables (wheels/bars/etc) and form an objective view. Having done this I've found the 40 unquestionably stiffer than the 35 boxxer, but as I said, even I don't notice it so much going from 35 -> 40, but much more from 40 -> 35. My experience with the 15mm axle Lyrik/Yari and 15mm axle 36 is the same as you, they're close to the same. I find the 20mm axle 36 a little stiffer than both, but either way, all these singlecrowns have too much lateral flex in hard use. They're all so far from ideal (obviously for mass and climbing reasons) that it's a waste of time to get hung up on minor differences.

I went one step more stupid and jumped from a 5 year old 32mm Boxxer chassis to a 40mm Kash 40. The stiffness difference was so pronounced that I nearly crashed first ride out because I guess I'd adapted to the Boxxer after riding it so long. Landed in a rut and instead of the wheel nicely tracking along the inside of the rut and the Boxxer would noodle its way through, the fork was so direct it tried to climb the side and nearly flipped me.

On the stiffness debate, I haven't heard of any of the pros wanted more fork flex, but on other components there have been plenty of articles and comments where some of the fastest riders opt for more compliance from wheels and rims. I don't think many MTB frames or forks are "too stiff" yet, but I'm not Amaury Pierron or Loic Bruni either.

 

[HAB]

That's the whole reason people bitch about flexy anything. It's not the intial flex, it's the undamped rebound.

Unless we're talking about inverted mtb forks. Most of those are so bad that the inital flex causes you to steer right or left with your bars pointed straight.

I ran a Dorado for a while (the current one) and while they're definitely complete noodles torsionally, I still find that way less objectionable than excessive fore/aft flex (where the Dorado was pretty good).


An actual stiff fork is for sure better, but I'd take inverted DC over a long single crown for proper smashing.

 

[toodles]

I say ignore all the lab tests and just do this to everything and judge them on that.

 

[kidwoo]

I say ignore all the lab tests and just do this to everything and judge them on that.

For sale: fox 36 fork. 160mm talas 27.5" non-boost


get this fucking thing away from me, imma die
(still better than dvo or rockshox at least)

 

[toodles]

For sale: fox 36 fork. 160mm talas 27.5" non-boost


get this fucking thing away from me, imma die
(still better than dvo or rockshox at least)

Nah a 20mm axle will fix that hey

 

[kidwoo]

Nah a 20mm axle will fix that hey

Imma go wrap some teflon tape around it so it's 21mm. Just to be sure.

And to have a patent idea to sell to sram.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

I found a little gem from empty beer this morning: https://forums.mtbr.com/ibis/forks-qr-vs-qr-15-measurements-bike-magazine-481960.html

The measurements were taken on a 2009 Fox 36 Talas RC2 fork. The results are in a following order for different steer tube sizes 1 1/8" / 1 1/8 to 1 1/5" / 1 1/5".
Torsional: 31.9/33.8/-
Frontal: 236.1/262.8/284.8

This strengthens my theory that we don't need double crown fork for DH, all we need is a bigger steered tube (just teasing @Udi )

As a reference a 2016 Fox 36 with 170mm of travel for 27.5 and with pinched bolt yields:
torsional 22.8 Nm / °
Front stiffness 209.5 Nm / °

12 Federgabeln für All Mountain und Enduro im BIKE-Test - Test 2016: MTB-Federgabeln bis 180 Millimeter

Kiesel, Wurzelfelder oder Geländestufen, moderne Federgabeln haben viele Gegner. Vor allem im All-Mountain- und Enduro-Bereich. Wir sagen, welche Gabeln Hindernisse am besten schlucken.

www.bike-magazin.de

Also check the empty beer link above, there are measurements for plenty of older forks lower in the thread. I still have a 36 from 2009-2010 which feels quite stiff. I also remember a 26" RS Rev with 32mm stanchion being flexy, not so strange when looking at the numbers: 21.9/164.6

 

[Sandwich]

I always considered where flex occurred to be as important as how much there is. I don't want any flex between my feet and bars, but the back end of the bike is arguably less important.

Also, the flex that Nico and others were hoping to acheive back in the 90s might be encompassed by tubeless tires and inserts now....or even suspension that actually works and takes some of the pain out of going fast.

 

[Jm_]

I found a little gem from empty beer this morning: https://forums.mtbr.com/ibis/forks-qr-vs-qr-15-measurements-bike-magazine-481960.html

The measurements were taken on a 2009 Fox 36 Talas RC2 fork. The results are in a following order for different steer tube sizes 1 1/8" / 1 1/8 to 1 1/5" / 1 1/5".
Torsional: 31.9/33.8/-
Frontal: 236.1/262.8/284.8

This strengthens my theory that we don't need double crown fork for DH, all we need is a bigger steered tube (just teasing @Udi )

As a reference a 2016 Fox 36 with 170mm of travel for 27.5 and with pinched bolt yields:
torsional 22.8 Nm / °
Front stiffness 209.5 Nm / °

12 Federgabeln für All Mountain und Enduro im BIKE-Test - Test 2016: MTB-Federgabeln bis 180 Millimeter

Kiesel, Wurzelfelder oder Geländestufen, moderne Federgabeln haben viele Gegner. Vor allem im All-Mountain- und Enduro-Bereich. Wir sagen, welche Gabeln Hindernisse am besten schlucken.

www.bike-magazin.de

Also check the empty beer link above, there are measurements for plenty of older forks lower in the thread. I still have a 36 from 2009-2010 which feels quite stiff. I also remember a 26" RS Rev with 32mm stanchion being flexy, not so strange when looking at the numbers: 21.9/164.6

That's not surprising. I took a quick look at that and I assume 10 years ago it was a 26" fork. The 27.5 is less stiff in front stiffness, as you'd expect, but not much of a difference from 26" in length. I'd love to see a 29er 170mm version tested, as I think the stiffness would be way down. The axle to crown on those is massive and I'd expect to see some significantly lower numbers. Therein lies one of the problems, using the same chassis for say a 130mm 26 or 27.5 fork and a 170-180mm version on a 29er, with the same crown, stanchions, steerer, etc. I'd much rather see that 170mm 29er fork to be a DC. The industry thought they would "solve" the issues by going to 1.5 tapered steerers. Now that we are 10 years into that, there is talk about solving it with 1.8. I'm not convinced anymore, rather than chase the front stiffness and increasing the crown/steerer weight, just go DC and get "on top" of the problem.

 

[6thElement]

Didn't everyone mock SpecialEd's DC trail fork from ~10 years ago?

And if we're trying to put DC forks onto ENDURO!!!! bikes, will that make them a DH bike that can hold a waterbottle?

 

[jonKranked]

there is talk about solving it with 1.8.

no there isn't. the whole 1.8 thing was an OEM request from some euro e-bike company, and it was actually specified that it was for aesthetics on their frames.

 

[jonKranked]

Didn't everyone mock SpecialEd's DC trail fork from ~10 years ago?

yes, but because the damper was hot garbage. it would need a rebuild after a parking lot test.

 

[djjohnr]

Didn't everyone mock SpecialEd's DC trail fork from ~10 years ago?

And if we're trying to put DC forks onto ENDURO!!!! bikes, will that make them a DH bike that can hold a waterbottle?

 

[jonKranked]

downtube protector and bike wash in one.

 

[6thElement]

Watercooling for his Rux on big impacts.

 

[kidwoo]

Didn't everyone mock SpecialEd's DC trail fork from ~10 years ago?

The damping on them was for people who don't really like suspension.

It was kinda sorta fixable if you're cool drilling into your expensive bike parts. Plus the air spring was wonky because of the travel adjust. I'd totally buy another chassis design like that though.

 

[Happymtb.fr]

I'd love to see a 29er 170mm version tested

In the 2019 edition of the enduro forks review, 27.5 forks are still tested by Bike Magazin...

 

[slyfink]

The damping on them was for people who don't really like suspension.

It was kinda sorta fixable if you're cool drilling into your expensive bike parts. Plus the air spring was wonky because of the travel adjust. I'd totally buy another chassis design like that though.

but what about bar spins and tail whips?

 

[kidwoo]

but what about bar spins and tail whips?

While certainly a regular part of my trail rides, the 800mm bars, 49" wheelbase and 29" wheels kind of negate it these days.

 

[Nick]

any of you 20mm holdouts have use for this? I 'think' it's an old 20mm Fox 36 axle, has a flip out lever for installifying, and may have come from the old lowers that had q/r style clamps.

 

[Jm_]

but what about bar spins and tail whips?

 

[kidwoo]

any of you 20mm holdouts have use for this? I 'think' it's an old 20mm Fox 36 axle, has a flip out lever for installifying, and may have come from the old lowers that had q/r style clamps.
View attachment 137472

 

[Nick]

boom. coming your way....