Quantcast

got the new pike...

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
can you compare it to the X-Fusion forks? Those were getting pretty rave reviews too...
Not the same segment or dampers, but my friend has the Vengeance and the Lyrik RC2DH. He likes his Lyrik more than the Vengeance, better small bump sensitivity...
 

blindboxx2334

Turbo Monkey
Mar 19, 2013
1,340
101
Wets Coast
I would love to hear if the lyric lowers can be used on the new Pike. Both are 35mm stanchions and that way we could keep using our 20mm wheels since all my bikes that see dirt have that size. Seems like it should work unless they changed the footnuts/rods around and you would give up the custom wall thickness they did with the Pike but I bet that is minute weight savings at best. Somebody try it!!!

Also, looks like travel adjust via spacers is only for the dual air version, not solo air.
not really a RS dude, but i thought about that as well. as long as the dia for the footnuts is the same, i dont see why not!

it would make an already awesome fork even better :thumb:
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,573
24,191
media blackout
i was chatting about this w/ a friend... re 15 vs 20mm axle

new platform should be just as stiff. between the larger stanchions and the tapered steerer it should offset the lack of 20mm axle (compared to the old pike)
 
Last edited:

aenema

almost 100% positive
Sep 5, 2008
305
111
Stiffness is only part of wanting to go with 20mm but its more about 15mm being stoopid and I only want 1 sized front hub for all my bikes. Oh yeah, and 15mm is stoopid on top of that. I wonder how well my opinion is coming across on the internutz, should I use more emoticons? 15mm may be enough stiff but why not have 20mm and have penultimate stiffy?

Buddy of mine has one of these coming for his Bronson, I may ask him if I can try my Lyrik lowers on it.
 

time-bomb

Monkey
May 2, 2008
957
21
right here -> .
if you have a 20mm hadley you can get a 15mm conversion kit for it.
Oh snap! That's good to know for future reference. Like others, I don't have an issue w/15mm per say, it's just that I have all 20mm front wheels now so switching up forks is really expensive. I do have a set of Mavic Crossmax and I love that the rear can be converted from 140x12 to 135x12 to 135x9 and quite easily I might add. I've already used all three conversions between two different bikes.
 

in the trees

Turbo Monkey
May 19, 2003
1,210
1
NH
I think that your Crossmax wheels should be able to accommodate being converted from 20mm to 15mm as well.
 

HAB

Chelsea from Seattle
Apr 28, 2007
11,580
2,006
Seattle
not really a RS dude, but i thought about that as well. as long as the dia for the footnuts is the same, i dont see why not!

it would make an already awesome fork even better :thumb:
Stanchion spacing would have to be the same too.


Not saying it won't work, I have no idea.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,855
9,560
AK
Then you're not riding fast enough! Sorry, had to be said...
Doubt it, the 20mm axle makes fork wheel interface a little better, but it doesn't improve fore-aft at all or lateral flex much, all of which causes binding. All of the things that counter those (big crown/steerer, big stanchions, beefy arch, etc) help with countering the torsional flex, and while a QR axle is pretty sorry and leaves a big hole in the system, I don't think there's a big difference in the system between a 15 or 20mm axle as far as torsional flex/binding. It's not like the fork is that rigid that it's really making a difference.

I remember back when we had some QR double crown forks like the Xvert and Jr T, and those were miles stiffer than any 20mm single crown fork available at the time...possibly still (not counting the SID XL...that was just a disaster). This leads me to believe that a bigger axle does not reduce independent leg twisting all that much (duh). What really makes a difference IMO is tapered steerers with huge 1.5 lowers and big stanchions. I'd rather have a much more solid fork in this respect and the 15mm axle than a 34mm stanchioned 150mm travel fox with a 20mm axle, and the pike appears to deliver with a beefy lower crown, bigger stanchions, etc.

20mm would be nice, but I'm not complaining about 15mm. It's one area where I Think no one could tell if blindfolded and testing various axles on forks.
 
Last edited:

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
No need to guess with the last generation of AM forks. The results of the German BIKE magazine test compared a 15mm Fox 34 and 20mm Revelation (32mm), both in 29er format. The Fox was 15% stiffer for braking forces and Rockshox was 10% stiffer when torsion is applied (steering).

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/fox-34-vs-rock-shox-stiffness-tested-755047.html

After all specualtion about the stiifness of the 34 mm stanchions vs 32 opposed to 15 mm vs 20 TA there is finally some data.
From Bike Magazin (Germ) dec. 2011.

The answer is... both.
The bigger stanchions do give the Fox an edge in braking stiffness, the bigger axle on the Rock Shox nudges out the smaller one in torsion:

Fox 34 float 140 mm travel :
2006 g
torsion 24.8 Nm/degr
brake stiffness 232.2 Nm/Degr
Revelation XX 137 mm travel
1885 g
torsion: 27.5 Nm/degr
brake stiffn.: 204.7 Nm/degr
 
Last edited:

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,031
5,921
borcester rhymes
Maybe I missed the latest memo, but hating 15mm was not necessarily about having a flexy fork, but having manufacturers foist another standard on us that doesn't improve anything but does force us into buying another wheel/hub/setup. The 15mm axle is also narrower by 10mm, almost specifically to reduce compatibility between already existing setups. Anything that reduces compatibility without improving performance is a step backwards....a step that a company that also makes hubs would profit off of.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,855
9,560
AK
Maybe I missed the latest memo, but hating 15mm was not necessarily about having a flexy fork, but having manufacturers foist another standard on us that doesn't improve anything but does force us into buying another wheel/hub/setup. The 15mm axle is also narrower by 10mm, almost specifically to reduce compatibility between already existing setups. Anything that reduces compatibility without improving performance is a step backwards....a step that a company that also makes hubs would profit off of.
Or maybe it's to make it stiffer! j/k

There were already 150mm bolt-through 12mm rear hubs, but did everybody get their panties in a bind about 142mm?
 
Last edited:

Beef Supreme

Turbo Monkey
Oct 29, 2010
1,434
73
Hiding from the stupid
Or maybe it's to make it stiffer! j/k

There were already 150mm bolt-through 12mm rear hubs, but did everybody get their panties in a bind about 142mm?
142 is pretty slick and is stiffer than a 10mm axle. That is why there isn't the same backlash. 15mm is like coming out with a new 8x130 standard for the rear.
 

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
Yes, actually people did complain about 142. I know I did.

its another "standard" thats completely unnecessary. It just added tabs so muppets could slide their wheels back in easier. Great thats nice and all, but it also a) cost more to buy adaptors, or a new hub if your hub didn't have adaptors and b) reduced the ability to swap wheels between multiple bikes. FOR NO REASON.

15mm is horse**** designed to appease riders that are too stupid to recognize the benefits of 20mm over QR. Its for riders who won't leave QR for 20mm because of the weight benefits, but will jump to 15mm for the same benefits and this misguided belief that they are saving a whole bunch of weight over 20mm.

It makes me sad that so many riders can't see how stupid this kind of crap is. Instead, they gobble it up with both hands.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,031
5,921
borcester rhymes
Or maybe it's to make it stiffer! j/k

There were already 150mm bolt-through 12mm rear hubs, but did everybody get their panties in a bind about 142mm?
isn't 157 the special needs version of the 150mm hub? 142 was just a 135 with a shoulder, because trek needed to make it easier to get hubs in their ABP rear ends. 150 is completely different spacing than 142.

but that's all besides the point. 15mm does nothing that 20mm couldn't do with good design work.
 

mattmatt86

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2005
5,347
10
Bleedmore, Murderland
I'll be the first to admit that I love 142x12. I've had it on two bikes and had a standard QR dropout bike in between the two and I'll never go back to QR. I'm not throwing a fit over 15mm anymore because I exhausted that bitchfest 4-5 years ago when 15mm debuted. My current bike is my first 15mm and that's only because it came stock that way. I really love the look of the new Pike and seeing as my wheel is already 15mm it's a non-issue. Gonna wait a little longer to hear some durability reviews before I jump on it, I've been burned by being an early adopter more than once.
 

slyfink

Turbo Monkey
Sep 16, 2008
9,289
5,029
Ottawa, Canada
I had a CK hub on a 2005 Enduro with the "fun bolts". Picked up a Mojo HD last year that's 142x12. Maybe it's a bike thing, but I found the Enduro to be marginally stiffer with the fun bolts. Though I have to say 135x12 was stupid and 142x12 is just fine. Certainly easier to remove than the fun bolts.

I agree with Dropmachine about 15mm, but what are you gonna do?! The future is here and 20mm is being abandoned from trail forks. It sucks, but it's here and I gotta deal with it.

btw, Dropmachine, are you still lovin your Vengeance?
 

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
I actually just got the new 2013 Vengeance, and so far Im super happy. Bit of teething pains to start, but I am getting it all dialed in slowly. Its nice and smooth, and feels a bit more progressive than the older model i had. The DLA feature is neat too.

Hell of a fork for the money thats for sure.
 

sethimus

neu bizutch
Feb 5, 2006
4,882
2,133
not in Whistler anymore :/
isn't 157 the special needs version of the 150mm hub? 142 was just a 135 with a shoulder, because trek needed to make it easier to get hubs in their ABP rear ends. 150 is completely different spacing than 142.

but that's all besides the point. 15mm does nothing that 20mm couldn't do with good design work.
wasn't it syntace with their x-12 axle system that introduced it?
 

dump

Turbo Monkey
Oct 12, 2001
8,195
4,419
you have king hubs and you're complaining about price??
Yeah, all the money is now gone :D

Actually, I bought this as a used wheel that was in need of service.... rebuilt it and serviced the hub. Running good as new again. I just refuse to pay as much for a new axle as I paid for the hub – thankfully there's no substantive reason to do so.
 

slimshady

¡Mira, una ardilla!
Yes, actually people did complain about 142. I know I did.

its another "standard" thats completely unnecessary. It just added tabs so muppets could slide their wheels back in easier. Great thats nice and all, but it also a) cost more to buy adaptors, or a new hub if your hub didn't have adaptors and b) reduced the ability to swap wheels between multiple bikes. FOR NO REASON.

15mm is horse**** designed to appease riders that are too stupid to recognize the benefits of 20mm over QR. Its for riders who won't leave QR for 20mm because of the weight benefits, but will jump to 15mm for the same benefits and this misguided belief that they are saving a whole bunch of weight over 20mm.

It makes me sad that so many riders can't see how stupid this kind of crap is. Instead, they gobble it up with both hands.
Well, you're kinda answering yourself here mate. Although I believe you made a honest mistake. When you said the industry changed the standard for no reason. The industry has their reasons for doing so, with the one you exposed being the most obvious: force a market segmentation. Then as you said you won't be able to swap components between the actual bikes in your quiver. This tendency is being enforced by every bit of the bike industry, with the actual wheel diameter trends as its workhorse. As I said before, remember those days when you could have a pretty decent do-it-all bike, that one you'd just swap wheels and maybe the stem for lighter ones when you felt like XCing, and for burlier ones when you felt more DH oriented? Well, sadly those days are over. Now your XC rig will come with 29" wheels, your AM/Enduro one with 27.5 and the DH one will be sporting your old 26-inch hoops. Add to that mix the different axle/hub standards and you'll be forced to run a bike shop just to maintain your own bikes...
 

dump

Turbo Monkey
Oct 12, 2001
8,195
4,419
Well, you're kinda answering yourself here mate. Although I believe you made a honest mistake. When you said the industry changed the standard for no reason. The industry has their reasons for doing so, with the one you exposed being the most obvious: force a market segmentation. Then as you said you won't be able to swap components between the actual bikes in your quiver. This tendency is being enforced by every bit of the bike industry, with the actual wheel diameter trends as its workhorse. As I said before, remember those days when you could have a pretty decent do-it-all bike, that one you'd just swap wheels and maybe the stem for lighter ones when you felt like XCing, and for burlier ones when you felt more DH oriented? Well, sadly those days are over. Now your XC rig will come with 29" wheels, your AM/Enduro one with 27.5 and the DH one will be sporting your old 26-inch hoops. Add to that mix the different axle/hub standards and you'll be forced to run a bike shop just to maintain your own bikes...
If you're not a lemming you won't be forced to do any of that.
 

Dogboy

Turbo Monkey
Apr 12, 2004
3,208
581
Durham, NC
As I said before, remember those days when you could have a pretty decent do-it-all bike, that one you'd just swap wheels and maybe the stem for lighter ones when you felt like XCing, and for burlier ones when you felt more DH oriented? Well, sadly those days are over. Now your XC rig will come with 29" wheels, your AM/Enduro one with 27.5 and the DH one will be sporting your old 26-inch hoops. Add to that mix the different axle/hub standards and you'll be forced to run a bike shop just to maintain your own bikes...
Remember those days? You mean like today? My bike is exactly what you describe and you can go out and buy one right now. Funny how this thread about a cool new fork turned into a tinfoil hat, chicken little, new standards suck moan-fest. Way to go people :thumb:
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,573
24,191
media blackout
Well, you're kinda answering yourself here mate. Although I believe you made a honest mistake. When you said the industry changed the standard for no reason. The industry has their reasons for doing so, with the one you exposed being the most obvious: force a market segmentation. Then as you said you won't be able to swap components between the actual bikes in your quiver. This tendency is being enforced by every bit of the bike industry, with the actual wheel diameter trends as its workhorse. As I said before, remember those days when you could have a pretty decent do-it-all bike, that one you'd just swap wheels and maybe the stem for lighter ones when you felt like XCing, and for burlier ones when you felt more DH oriented? Well, sadly those days are over. Now your XC rig will come with 29" wheels, your AM/Enduro one with 27.5 and the DH one will be sporting your old 26-inch hoops. Add to that mix the different axle/hub standards and you'll be forced to run a bike shop just to maintain your own bikes...
my xc bike, trail bike, and dh bike are all still 26".
 

time-bomb

Monkey
May 2, 2008
957
21
right here -> .
Maybe I missed the latest memo, but hating 15mm was not necessarily about having a flexy fork, but having manufacturers foist another standard on us that doesn't improve anything but does force us into buying another wheel/hub/setup. The 15mm axle is also narrower by 10mm, almost specifically to reduce compatibility between already existing setups. Anything that reduces compatibility without improving performance is a step backwards....a step that a company that also makes hubs would profit off of.
this^^ there is no value add. luckily there are still a small handful of forks that are trail worthy that still use a 20mm....for now. i have several quality 20mm front wheels that will last me a while that will be worthless when I can't run a 20mm for trail and they are too light for DH.

Yes, actually people did complain about 142. I know I did.

its another "standard" thats completely unnecessary. It just added tabs so muppets could slide their wheels back in easier. Great thats nice and all, but it also a) cost more to buy adaptors, or a new hub if your hub didn't have adaptors and b) reduced the ability to swap wheels between multiple bikes. FOR NO REASON.

15mm is horse**** designed to appease riders that are too stupid to recognize the benefits of 20mm over QR. Its for riders who won't leave QR for 20mm because of the weight benefits, but will jump to 15mm for the same benefits and this misguided belief that they are saving a whole bunch of weight over 20mm.

It makes me sad that so many riders can't see how stupid this kind of crap is. Instead, they gobble it up with both hands.
same as above, just more attitude :thumb:

Remember those days? You mean like today? My bike is exactly what you describe and you can go out and buy one right now. Funny how this thread about a cool new fork turned into a tinfoil hat, chicken little, new standards suck moan-fest. Way to go people :thumb:
oh snap, my bad for contributing to that. to bring it full circle, RS lost my money since the Pike (the fork this thread is about) is in that stupid-a$$ 15mm format. this fork would be perfect for my V2 spitty if it had 20mm.
 
Last edited:

slimshady

¡Mira, una ardilla!
If you're not a lemming you won't be forced to do any of that.
I'm not saying I'm going to simply apply this policy. I'm saying the bike industry is taking these decisions not in the name of progress and improvement, but in the name of a bigger income. Right now I'm more concerned about not being able to buy a decent 26-inch 150mm travel frame before they completely vanish from the face of the world, but maybe I'm being too paranoid. What I'm saying is market segmentation is here, and maybe not today, or not tomorrow, but some day near the big names in the game are preparing to ditch 26 inches into the FR/DH/DJ niches.

Getting somewhat back on topic, I used to ride a 20mm Marzocchi, and a couple of Rock Shox with the same axle diameter in several trail and DJ bikes. When I jumped to an AM rig I got out of 20mm options, at least in my limited financial ballpark, so I had to switch to 15QR-equipped forks. So far I have been on a Marz 44 and lately on a RS Revelation, and I couldn't agree more with Jm when he says a bigger axle doesn't compensate a flexy crown, spaghetti stanchions or a twisty arch. The Revelation feels WAY stiffer than the 44, and both of them use some sort of 15QR axle.

That said, does the new Pike have asymmetrical lowers? Or was it the new revelation the one with that feature? Also, I like the concept of the Charger damper, and how it's supposed to be retrofittable.
 
Last edited:

manhattanprjkt83

Rusty Trombone
Jul 10, 2003
9,644
1,214
Nilbog
So since my fork is the solo air version, looks like there may be a chance to place a spacer in there...yes no? Buddy and I were looking at some diagrams and it appears so. could be wrong though.
 

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,698
1,053
behind you with a snap pop
So anyway, about the new Pike... anybody know the a-c? Is it a lot more than a 150mm Revelation?
Nobody will answer a normal genuine question here like that as I have already posted the same question. They are too busy building a fort to protect themselves from NEW INDUSTRY STANDARDS while hoarding 26 inch wheels and reading anal probing prevention pamphlets.
 

William42

fork ways
Jul 31, 2007
3,908
634
so guys, this may sound far fetched, but do you think this forced market segmentation is a government plot to distract us from the real problem, which is that LBJ had JFK assassinated and then through a series of mishaps and coverups by proceeding presidents, it eventually got to the point that GWB had to order 911 because we were about to expose the biggest coverup in history, and then as that got more out of control maybe obama ordered the bike industry to do this so that we'd change our focus?

I'm pretty sure that's a much more likely reason then because they think it'll make our lives more convenient in the long run, or that they can convince a group that would have resisted change to make a change for the improvement of their bicycles without too much fuss. And no, I'm not talking about the 1% tiny DH market guys, I'm referring to the XC/trail bike guys that make up the majority of MTB sales that were previously riding QR, and resisted the switch to 20mm because that was for DH bikes. I'm glad I can visit ridemonkey and meet all these people who share a similarly minded view Big Bike Industry (BBI&#8482;) plots.