Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 317
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    959
    Your blurb has more info, some good like price and some not so good like OE only.

    Sometimes if a company helps with the development cost they get an exclusive for a pre determined period of time. Hopefully that is not the case here. It would be a bummer if three or four brands lock in and nobody else gets them for awhile.

    "Color: Black, White (OE only), Diffusion Black (OE only)"

    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  2. #52
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    I'm just glad that RockShox was the first to pull the trigger. My pike is so much better than any fox fork I have owned , in the last couple of years shimano and fox have been about as exciting as a gold buick.
    I am slow therefore I am

  3. #53
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    It would be a bummer if three or four brands lock in and nobody else gets them for awhile.

    "Color: Black, White (OE only), Diffusion Black (OE only)"
    I think that means the gloss black will be available for individual sale, but the "diffusion" black and white will be OE only.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  4. #54
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Burnt-Orange View Post
    I'm just glad that RockShox was the first to pull the trigger. My pike is so much better than any fox fork I have owned , in the last couple of years shimano and fox have been about as exciting as a gold buick.
    How about a pimpin gold Buick?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails New Bluto Thread!-30655730006_large.jpg  


  5. #55
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    thats just the overpriced Yumeya edition
    I am slow therefore I am

  6. #56
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,879

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    736
    MSRP $643 or $711 with remote lockout! Damn, for that price, I'm putting it on all my bikes, even the cyclocross.

    But seriously, that is cheaper than I expected and exactly in line with what I am willing to pay for a fat suspension fork.

  8. #58
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,850
    Tapered only?
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  9. #59
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    Yeah I noticed that too. It is tapered only everywhere I have seen it announced.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    959
    Ah yes. That makes sense. I did a quick read in between bites of my sandwich and overlooked the "diffusion" color distinction.

    Good eye, thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    I think that means the gloss black will be available for individual sale, but the "diffusion" black and white will be OE only.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    Tapered only?
    I've seen references to a 1 1/8" steerer option. I haven't confirmed that though. My gut feeling is they want to sell a bunch of these and not doing a 1 1/8" would cut out a big part of the fatbike legacy market so it wouldn't seem like a smart move.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  12. #62
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I've seen references to a 1 1/8" steerer option. I haven't confirmed that though. My gut feeling is they want to sell a bunch of these and not doing a 1 1/8" would cut out a big part of the fatbike legacy market so it wouldn't seem like a smart move.
    I've seen unconfirmed references, but the ones we're seeing today seem to come from official-ish sources. I agree, not having a 1-1/8 option cuts out a ton of the market, arguably a majority of the bikes out there, but it might also cut liabilities... I'm hoping that's not the case; I'm ready for a new fork, I'm not prepared to buy a new frame just yet.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    I've seen unconfirmed references, but the ones we're seeing today seem to come from official-ish sources. I agree, not having a 1-1/8 option cuts out a ton of the market, arguably a majority of the bikes out there, but it might also cut liabilities... I'm hoping that's not the case; I'm ready for a new fork, I'm not prepared to buy a new frame just yet.
    You can run a tapered steerer fork in a 1 1/8" HT, but it will jack up the front end even more as you'll need to run the lower bearing external to the HT. It will depend how long the rigid fork on your frame is to determine how slack that front end will be.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    I've seen unconfirmed references, but the ones we're seeing today seem to come from official-ish sources. I agree, not having a 1-1/8 option cuts out a ton of the market, arguably a majority of the bikes out there, but it might also cut liabilities... I'm hoping that's not the case; I'm ready for a new fork, I'm not prepared to buy a new frame just yet.
    Liability doesn't seem like a concern. There was never a problem with 1-1/8" street tubes failing.

    My guess is that it is dependent on projected sales volume and the cost to manufacture/inventory twice as many models of the fork. Given that geometry of the straight headtube frames is generally not suspension corrected, it wouldn't be a good match anyway. And then there is the issue of existing front wheels/hubs not working with the fork.

    Thus, if I were in charge of this at rockshox, I would choose to only manufacture tapered steer tubes blutos.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,856
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    You can run a tapered steerer fork in a 1 1/8" HT, but it will jack up the front end even more as you'll need to run the lower bearing external to the HT. It will depend how long the rigid fork on your frame is to determine how slack that front end will be.
    This is only partially true to my knowledge...the 1 1/8" headtube has to be a 44mm ID Zero Stack to make this work. I don't think there is any way to run a tapered steer tube in a "standard" 34mm ID 1 1/8" headtube.

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Nater View Post
    This is only partially true to my knowledge...the 1 1/8" headtube has to be a 44mm ID Zero Stack to make this work. I don't think there is any way to run a tapered steer tube in a "standard" 34mm ID 1 1/8" headtube.
    +1 - Good catch. Ya that would rule out most legacy fatbikes...definitely my Pugs.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,856
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    ...definitely my Pugs.
    As well as my 2012 Mukluk.

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    959
    Are those 4.8's on hundies?

    On a more serious note I heard 30 days for availability.

    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    How about a pimpin gold Buick?
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  19. #69
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Are those 4.8's on hundies?

    On a more serious note I heard 30 days for availability.
    Nope it's a new undisclosed standard that I can't talk about till next year.

  20. #70
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Now that all the excitement is over all I'm left with is some soiled undies and a handful of dreams.

  21. #71
    Clueless Bastard
    Reputation: WA-CO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    683
    Nice Job RS crew! On the BG it will go.

    Still waiting on affordable carbon tubeless rims. Come on, Nextie, round two, please.

    This looks cool too! Salsa Cycles

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,212
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Now that all the excitement is over all I'm left with is some soiled undies and a handful of dreams.
    Unhand your dreams, sir.

    No wonder your undies are soiled...
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  23. #73
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    The real question no one is asking is it fat tandem certified
    I am slow therefore I am

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    25
    The real question for me is when will it be available......

  25. #75
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Quote Originally Posted by mjb123 View Post
    The real question for me is when will it be available......
    I can't say due to the fact I want to make sure I get one.

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,723
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    +1 - Good catch. Ya that would rule out most legacy fatbikes...definitely my Pugs.
    I feel better knowing this, as I otherwise would have been tempted to buy this fork, which financially would be foolish since I have only had the Lefty on the Pugsley since like October.
    '15 Specialized Fatboy
    '14 Kona Zone Two
    '13 Surly Big Dummy

  27. #77
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    914
    My big question is: why the new standard? As if we didn't have enough already.

    If I'm going to have to build a new wheel to accommodate a fork, it is going to be with a lefty hub. Substantially lighter and with 32mm stanchions, quite a bit stiffer too I'm sure.

    I just think that RockShox made a major blunder in not offering a fork that would bolt right up to most fatties currently out there.

  28. #78
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    My big question is: why the new standard? As if we didn't have enough already.

    If I'm going to have to build a new wheel to accommodate a fork, it is going to be with a lefty hub. Substantially lighter and with 32mm stanchions, quite a bit stiffer too I'm sure.

    I just think that RockShox made a major blunder in not offering a fork that would bolt right up to most fatties currently out there.
    a wider hub is the only way to accommodate 5" tires with that type of architecture. Obviously, you can't please everyone.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  29. #79
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    a wider hub is the only way to accommodate 5" tires with that type of architecture. Obviously, you can't please everyone.
    Why do you mean by "that type of architecture"?

    Clearly a 5" tire fits with ease in a 135mm symmetric fork, ie Yampa, 9zero7, fatback.

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    466

    Re: New Bluto Thread!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    Why do you mean by "that type of architecture"?

    Clearly a 5" tire fits with ease in a 135mm symmetric fork, ie Yampa, 9zero7, fatback.
    I think someone else mentioned that those forks can curve inward to fit the tire and still meet the hub. Shock stantions obviously need to be parallel to work and are round instead of flat. So to get all that around a 5" tire and still meet a 135 hub the axle Mount would be way off center from the shock lowers.

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    27
    Don't know if it has been said yet or not, but will this fork work on the Fatboy Expert?

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    a wider hub is the only way to accommodate 5" tires with that type of architecture. Obviously, you can't please everyone.
    I do welcome new suspension forks even if I prefer Lefties. It will obviously fit a Bud but what rim? If it won't fit a Bud on a CS it has missed the mark. Definitely not trying to be argumentative, just think that all new frames and forks should fit the maximum width tire/rims so all can enjoy.

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: efuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    My big question is: why the new standard? As if we didn't have enough already.

    If I'm going to have to build a new wheel to accommodate a fork, it is going to be with a lefty hub. Substantially lighter and with 32mm stanchions, quite a bit stiffer too I'm sure.

    I just think that RockShox made a major blunder in not offering a fork that would bolt right up to most fatties currently out there.
    IMO, QR's on a Fatbike are way too flimsy, I have converted mine to solid axle. I have a QR Front wheel on my 29er Hard tail with RS Reba, and it is quite flexy. Multiply that by the increased mass of a fat wheel and tire, it becomes obvious that Thru axle is a necessity, so a wheel build is in order for anyone, irregardless of hub width.
    My big question, like most above, is will there be a straight steerer option?

  34. #84
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    533
    According to the data that I have seen, it will fit a Bud or Snowshoe XL on the C4 103mm rim, so should take a Bud on the narrower CS without problems, at least at sensible tire pressures.
    The Bud (at least the ones that I have tested) have such slack tire beads that the tire grows a lot at pressures over 20psi (the beads try to climb up and over the rim wall, expanding the tire.)
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  35. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    959
    It is obviously speculation on my part but I think that is why it has a 150mm front hub.

    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    I do welcome new suspension forks even if I prefer Lefties. It will obviously fit a Bud but what rim? If it won't fit a Bud on a CS it has missed the mark. Definitely not trying to be argumentative, just think that all new frames and forks should fit the maximum width tire/rims so all can enjoy.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  36. #86
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by Terp View Post
    I think someone else mentioned that those forks can curve inward to fit the tire and still meet the hub. Shock stantions obviously need to be parallel to work and are round instead of flat. So to get all that around a 5" tire and still meet a 135 hub the axle Mount would be way off center from the shock lowers.
    All that would be necessary would be dropouts that are 7.5 mm thicker on the medial side.

    IMO, QR's on a Fatbike are way too flimsy, I have converted mine to solid axle. I have a QR Front wheel on my 29er Hard tail with RS Reba, and it is quite flexy. Multiply that by the increased mass of a fat wheel and tire, it becomes obvious that Thru axle is a necessity, so a wheel build is in order for anyone, irregardless of hub width.
    135 does not necessarily mean QR. The beargrease fork is 135 with a 15mm thru axle, as is the Yampa.

  37. #87
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Trivial matters but Yampa is actually a 142mm, they probably don't promote it as a 142 as not to alarm people to new standards.

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    450
    Maybe I missed it, but will this allow a 29+ on it?

  39. #89
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzwardo View Post
    Maybe I missed it, but will this allow a 29+ on it?
    Rumor has it yes one was spotted @ C Otter but....well like I said it was a rumor

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,611
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Trivial matters but Yampa is actually a 142mm, they probably don't promote it as a 142 as not to alarm people to new standards.
    Why does there website say it's a 135 then?
    "The 135mm front hub is designed around a 15mm thru-axle fork for added front end stiffness"

    I have a new Hope hubset 135 front/190 rear arriving next week to build up a 29+ wheelset for my Yampa, Am I screwed?
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  41. #91
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    Why does there website say it's a 135 then?
    "The 135mm front hub is designed around a 15mm thru-axle fork for added front end stiffness"

    I have a new Hope hubset 135 front/190 rear arriving next week to build up a 29+ wheelset for my Yampa, Am I screwed?
    Nope your good my 135mm thru axle Hope actually measures 142. I really have no idea why they list it at 135mm. I will post pic when I get home.

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    736
    Hope sells both 135x15mm and 142x15mm versions. I would assume that they're just different end caps.

  43. #93
    Clueless Bastard
    Reputation: WA-CO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzwardo View Post
    Maybe I missed it, but will this allow a 29+ on it?
    Salsa Cycles

    Kid Riemer | April 11th, 2014
    Lucas - Bucksaw 1 and the Frame Only option will be the Blue color. Bucksaw 2 will be the Gold color.

    Stefan - No, the bike is not 29+ compatible. The Bluto fork can fit it, but not the rear end of the Bluto. The difference in outer tire diameter from 3.8” fatbike tires to 29+ tires is too large.

  44. #94
    Rocking on a Rocky
    Reputation: RockyJo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by jeepnpr View Post
    Don't know if it has been said yet or not, but will this fork work on the Fatboy Expert?
    With the inward curve of the down tube it should.

  45. #95
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,297
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    I do welcome new suspension forks even if I prefer Lefties. It will obviously fit a Bud but what rim? If it won't fit a Bud on a CS it has missed the mark. Definitely not trying to be argumentative, just think that all new frames and forks should fit the maximum width tire/rims so all can enjoy.
    Fits Bud on a 100mm rim with plenty of room to spare.

  46. #96
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Fits Bud on a 100mm rim with plenty of room to spare.
    Mike do you happen to know if the hub is a true 150mm or actually a 157mm?

  47. #97
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,840
    If you didn't notice already, everything with fatbikes is going wider....every year. wider rims & bigger tires.

    RockShox was pretty smart to go with a nice wide hub, because they can actually fit the widest rim & tire currently made.
    Not only that but they didn't make an upside-down fork which so many folks are scared of.

    I think they knocked it out of the park on this one, great job!

    I agree with you on the lefty but that's not what this thread is about.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    My big question is: why the new standard? As if we didn't have enough already.

    If I'm going to have to build a new wheel to accommodate a fork, it is going to be with a lefty hub. Substantially lighter and with 32mm stanchions, quite a bit stiffer too I'm sure.

    I just think that RockShox made a major blunder in not offering a fork that would bolt right up to most fatties currently out there.

  48. #98
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    8,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    If you didn't notice already, everything with fatbikes is going wider....every year. wider rims & bigger tires.

    RockShox was pretty smart to go with a nice wide hub, because they can actually fit the widest rim & tire currently made.
    Not only that but they didn't make an upside-down fork which so many folks are scared of.

    I think they knocked it out of the park on this one, great job!
    about sums it up.

  49. #99
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,690
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    Why does there website say it's a 135 then?
    "The 135mm front hub is designed around a 15mm thru-axle fork for added front end stiffness"

    I have a new Hope hubset 135 front/190 rear arriving next week to build up a 29+ wheelset for my Yampa, Am I screwed?
    Sorry my bad I re measured and it is only 135mm for the Borealis fork.

  50. #100
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,297
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Mike do you happen to know if the hub is a true 150mm or actually a 157mm?
    one fitty thru axle.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bluto - Thread Deleted?
    By dfiler in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-09-2014, 09:28 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-02-2013, 06:48 PM
  3. Bullit photo thread (Merged thread)
    By Pete in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 295
    Last Post: 05-18-2012, 12:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •