Fox 38?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 129 of 129

Thread: Fox 38?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    585

    Fox 38?

    There's rumors and a potential spy shot of Richie Rude running a Fox 38 on his Yeti.
    Any info out there?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    49
    Yes, it's coming. At least based on the rumors I heard it would have 38mm stanchions and grip2 damper.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    44
    What's the reasoning? To much flex in the 36.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mullen119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by jvbutter View Post
    What's the reasoning? To much flex in the 36.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    Because they didn't want the 36 to be outdone by the superior Manitou Mezzer

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by jvbutter View Post
    What's the reasoning?
    38 is bigger than 36 so people will buy it.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,203
    A small increase in diameter makes a big diff in stiffness...but yeah, mainly people will buy it.
    Do the math.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by jvbutter View Post
    What's the reasoning? To much flex in the 36.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    To make people think they need it

  8. #8
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    This will help transfer more stress to the crown/steerer interface, loosening it over time and increasing creaking, which will help the industry introduce 1.8 headtubes and steerers, so everyone will have to buy new stuff.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  9. #9
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,693
    Because all of the dad bod Front Range bros will FINALLY be able to break into the top 25% of their favorite XC descent if they could just have 2mm more stanchion diameter.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Because all of the dad bod Front Range bros will FINALLY be able to break into the top 25% of their favorite XC descent if they could just have 2mm more stanchion diameter.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You know, it's amazing for all the XC guys are so much faster than enduro guys bashing you do that the EWS isn't dominated by Nino.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,693
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You know, it's amazing for all the XC guys are so much faster than enduro guys bashing you do that the EWS isn't dominated by Nino.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    I donít recall suggesting that Nino would dominate the EWS. Or anything of the sort. I didnít mention the EWS, or any form of racing at all.

    Iím suggesting that there are a lot of slow people whose solution to lack of skill/speed is to throw money at the problem. Hell, Iíve done it myself a time or three.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    This will help transfer more stress to the crown/steerer interface, loosening it over time and increasing creaking, which will help the industry introduce 1.8 headtubes and steerers, so everyone will have to buy new stuff.
    I sure as hell hope not.
    Intense 951 Evo and Santa Cruz Megatower

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I donít recall suggesting that Nino would dominate the EWS. Or anything of the sort. I didnít mention the EWS, or any form of racing at all.

    Iím suggesting that there are a lot of slow people whose solution to lack of skill/speed is to throw money at the problem. Hell, Iíve done it myself a time or three.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You consistently make snide comments disparaging people who ride longer travel bikes than you deem necessary to get down a trail. Trails in Moab being a favorite target.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Iím suggesting that there are a lot of slow people whose solution to lack of skill/speed is to throw money at the problem.
    Guilty. I'm not getting any younger and the trails aren't getting any smaller.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    49

  16. #16
    C__Corax
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    372
    I miss my totem!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,975
    I can guess at a couple of reasons. There would be more surface area at the tube/crown interface, so maybe fewer problems with creaking stanchions. The damper could be larger in diameter, which could make for a better performing unit, better heat dissipation, and longevity. Finally, maybe guys like Richie Rude push things a bit further than the rest of us internet wizards, and they could actually benefit from more stiffness?

    Didn't Martin Maes sew up the title on one of these yesterday? And Rude placed third? Race on Sunday (or Saturday), sell on Monday!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  18. #18
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I donít recall suggesting that Nino would dominate the EWS. Or anything of the sort. I didnít mention the EWS, or any form of racing at all.

    Iím suggesting that there are a lot of slow people whose solution to lack of skill/speed is to throw money at the problem. Hell, Iíve done it myself a time or three.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Donít judge me.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    739
    This is awesome, the existence of a 38 will let me run a 36 on my downcountry bike without any expectations of actually needing it. It's like when Giant sold a shitload of Anthem 27.5s with a 34 onthem except better because it's 2 more.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillipJ View Post
    This is awesome, the existence of a 38 will let me run a 36 on my downcountry bike with any expectations of actually needing it. It's like when Giant sold a shitload of Anthem 27.5s with a 34 onthem except better because it's 2 more.
    I don't know about that. I'm under 180lbs geared up but for the type of riding I predominantly do and enjoy the 32 feels like a wet noodle.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I don't know about that. I'm under 180lbs geared up but for the type of riding I predominantly do and enjoy the 32 feels like a wet noodle.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    That's because they whittled it down to wet noodle spec at the crown, brace and lower legs. Remember how many DH races were won on 32mm stanchions when paired with better crown/brace and lowers.

    Stanchions had to get bigger in the last 5 years to fit newer dampers inside. But that need has already been filled.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,362
    *blank expression*
    These go to eleven.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    118
    Hopefully Iíll be able to pick up a nice used 36 soon :-)

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillipJ View Post
    ...will let me run a 36 on my downcountry bike without any expectations...
    What's 'downcountry'????
    Intense 951 Evo and Santa Cruz Megatower

  25. #25
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Robin View Post
    What's 'downcountry'????
    Don't go there, ever!!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    *blank expression*
    These go to eleven.
    You can't read this thread and not do your best "but these go to eleven" impersonation.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Robin View Post
    What's 'downcountry'????
    Upduro's cooler cousin

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Robin View Post
    What's 'downcountry'????
    A carbon Epic with 2.5" tyres and a Lyric.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,190
    If Fox goes 38, they'll definitely need a 20mm axle to hold it all together.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    11
    Honestly, the biggest and best changes to the fork are finally a single crown getting a floating axle and bleeder valves! That part is actually so sweet.

  31. #31
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    IMO, these crazy long axle to crown lengths (29ers especially) are better dealt with by a dual crown fork. There is talk about going to 1.8 steerers now, trying to make ever bigger stanchions and steerers is just polishing a turd, when the crown/steerer interface is still going to be the weak point of the system.

    Ever put a 170 29er SC fork next to an 200mm 26 or 27.5 DC? The SC is insane for the axle-to-crown length and that's a lot of leverage to be imparting with no way to share the load (dual crown).

    It appears that it's been scrubbed from the internet, but there was a time when Marzocchi thought they'd be clever and design a single-crown motorcross fork with a giant beefy "M-crown". It snapped at the stanchions. You know why.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: R_Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by mullen119 View Post
    Because they didn't want the 36 to be outdone by the superior Manitou Mezzer
    This ^^^

  33. #33
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,422
    Stiffer is cool, but what we really need is improved air springs with better initial sensitivity.

    Whether that's dual chambers from the factory, independently adjustable negative chambers, or just more negative chamber volume, I feel like its the only piece of the puzzle Fox and Rockshox are missing, well besides the whole creaking CSU thing.

    A wider range in compression/rebound damping would be cool too, especially for us bigger folks (whom I would hope a 38mm fork is more marketed to.)

    If the 38, Mezzer and potential return of a Totem ever get compared, I hope they are reviewed by people outside the "normal" weight ranges Fox/RS seems to tune for. I think the Mezzer will give the other two a run for their money if there aren't radical changes to the air springs.
    Work - Utility GIS Analyst
    Party - 2019 Guerrilla Gravity Revved Trail Pistol Sz 3

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,408
    would love to see an objective comparison of sliding friction compared to 35mm Lyrik. the great circumference of the 38 can't not be noticeable.

  35. #35
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post

    It appears that it's been scrubbed from the internet, but there was a time when Marzocchi thought they'd be clever and design a single-crown motorcross fork with a giant beefy "M-crown". It snapped at the stanchions. You know why.
    Fox 38?-3002d1075950170-best-single-crown-fork-ever-marzocchi-new-marzocchi.jpg
    Work - Utility GIS Analyst
    Party - 2019 Guerrilla Gravity Revved Trail Pistol Sz 3

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    71
    38mm because Ebikes. Have you seen how unbalanced and flimsy the Lyriks and 36īs look on the Kenevos/Levos?
    Nomad Al V4 180mm f 170mm coil r
    Bronson C V3
    24 street trial

  37. #37
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by PHeller View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3002d1075950170-best-single-crown-fork-ever-marzocchi-new-marzocchi.jpg 
Views:	125 
Size:	105.9 KB 
ID:	1282413
    Great find! There's also the picture of the snapped one Somewhere out there...
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  38. #38
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,693
    Quote Originally Posted by TrialsCartel View Post
    38mm because Ebikes. Have you seen how unbalanced and flimsy the Lyriks and 36īs look on the Kenevos/Levos?
    And fat people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    And fat people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm a skinny but pot bellied, hunch backed old man.
    Where do I fit in with dad bods and fat people matrix?
    I am hoping someone comes out with a 37.371 fork for my body style.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    And fat people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yep, Richie Rude is so fat...


    Frankly I'm glad that trickle down is a thing. In many other timed pursuits it's not.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  41. #41
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,693
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Yep, Richie Rude is so fat...


    Frankly I'm glad that trickle down is a thing. In many other timed pursuits it's not.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Did I call him fat?

    No? Ok.

    But, as I previously said: Fat people are more likely to benefit from a fork with bigger stanchions than skinnier people. A 130lb woman and a 260lb dude following her at the same speed are going to place very different demands on their bikes. The latter will have a lot more potential and kinetic energy.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here, or why you found my statement objectionable, but it's true all the same. Human beings well above average weight will do better with a bigger, stiffer fork.
    Death from Below.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Did I call him fat?

    No? Ok.

    But, as I previously said: Fat people are more likely to benefit from a fork with bigger stanchions than skinnier people. A 130lb woman and a 260lb dude following her at the same speed are going to place very different demands on their bikes. The latter will have a lot more potential and kinetic energy.

    I'm not sure where the disconnect is here, or why you found my statement objectionable, but it's true all the same.
    The disconnect is you not understanding the impetus/genisis of why this fork came to be.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  43. #43
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The disconnect is you not understanding the impetus/genisis of why this fork came to be.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    It's because we need dual crowns at these crazy axle to crown lengths, but people are stupid and don't want to look too "moto", so we have to increase the stanchions and steerer to gigantic sizes...
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    It's because we need dual crowns at these crazy axle to crown lengths, but people are stupid and don't want to look too "moto", so we have to increase the stanchions and steerer to gigantic sizes...
    That's part of it, that also plays into frame design. But the largest part of it are indivuals like Rude who do not fit the typical cycling mold, he's built like a linebacker. If I at 190ish lbs at the time and nowhere near as fast as him could tell a marked difference between a Pike and a 36 imagine what a 38 and 36 will feel like to him. A dual crown won't fix that issue by the way.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  45. #45
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,693
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The disconnect is you not understanding the impetus/genisis of why this fork came to be.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Matching the waist size (in inches) of the average Yeti owner?

    Stolen from the comments here:

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/spotte...matt-2019.html
    Death from Below.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Iím suggesting that there are a lot of slow people whose solution to lack of skill/speed is to throw money at the problem.
    What's wrong w/ that? They fund all the high dollar R&D for the parts and performance I WANT!

  47. #47
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Twilight70 View Post
    What's wrong w/ that? They fund all the high dollar R&D for the parts and performance I WANT!
    Nothing. They also provide those gently used parts to the used market, where I then purchase them at 1/4 MSRP.
    Death from Below.

  48. #48
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,826

    Fox 38?

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    And fat people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Donít judge me


    Yeah I can stand to lose 10lb or even 15 if I want to have sand kicked on me. And I struggle with double black.

    But, stiffer is better. Frame, wheels, forks. Why people want compliance designed into full suspension frames and wheels rather than proper suspension settings and appropriate tires, ie big reboundy or wallowly tires.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    A dual crown won't fix that issue by the way.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    What issue? Chassis flex? 35mm stanchioned DC fork can and should be much stiffer than 38mm SC fork if manufactured right in every single direction, offer you more space for better internals, bushes overlap etc. And I donīt doubt for a millisecond that fox wonīt do 38 right if their life depended on it and will use the same super short crowns as with all other forks. Because shorter AC lenght is the most important thing in the MTB industry, screw flex and creaking issues. Only issue DC fork doesnīt help with is weight reduction, is extra 500grams really issue that needs sorting these days when people are running stupid heavy ass 35mm rims with 1.3kg tires with inserts of all sorts or gigantic cassettes and derailleurs with cage so long that itīs almost dragging on the ground? I donīt think so.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostbiker View Post
    What issue? Chassis flex? 35mm stanchioned DC fork can and should be much stiffer than 38mm SC fork if manufactured right in every single direction, offer you more space for better internals, bushes overlap etc. And I donīt doubt for a millisecond that fox wonīt do 38 right if their life depended on it and will use the same super short crowns as with all other forks. Because shorter AC lenght is the most important thing in the MTB industry, screw flex and creaking issues. Only issue DC fork doesnīt help with is weight reduction, is extra 500grams really issue that needs sorting these days when people are running stupid heavy ass 35mm rims with 1.3kg tires with inserts of all sorts or gigantic cassettes and derailleurs with cage so long that itīs almost dragging on the ground? I donīt think so.
    A dual crown does nothing to reduce stanchion deflection. It does strengthen the CSU interface but the initial bracing of the stanchions is stil the same distance.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  51. #51
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Pretty sure a 2nd crown will significantly reduce deflection. With one crown the stanchion is the lever arm and can rotate about the crown, a second crown reduces the ability of the stanchion to rotate (deflect).
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    A dual crown does nothing to reduce stanchion deflection. It does strengthen the CSU interface but the initial bracing of the stanchions is stil the same distance.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    most of the chassis flex happens at CSU which DC eliminates, you you think stanchion itself is flexing significantly? Because it isnīt, so yes, DC holds stanchions much more rigidly parallel thus making it significantly stiffer if everything else stays the same. Much more than using 2mm bigger stanchions.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostbiker View Post
    most of the chassis flex happens at CSU which DC eliminates, you you think stanchion itself is flexing significantly? Because it isnīt, so yes, DC holds stanchions much more rigidly parallel thus making it significantly stiffer if everything else stays the same. Much more than using 2mm bigger stanchions.
    https://m.pinkbike.com/news/field-te...ow-motion.html

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    https://m.pinkbike.com/news/field-te...ow-motion.html

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Seen it before, so?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostbiker View Post
    Seen it before, so?
    A flexy CSU is not deforming those lowers.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    A flexy CSU is not deforming those lowers.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    That actually IS exactly what is causing most of deflection here, are you aware that stanchion is fully inserted into lowers here so to see it actually flexing magnesium lowers would have to flex the same amount?

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostbiker View Post
    That actually IS exactly what is causing most of deflection here, are you aware that stanchion is fully inserted into lowers here so to see it actually flexing magnesium lowers would have to flex the same amount?
    That is NOT what is causing that deflection. A flexy CSU would not result in stanchions flexing. A CSU flexing would result in the stanchions and lowers being displaced but would still be in a straight line not curving.

    The comment on the magnesium lowers is a bit disingenuous. Luckily for us the manufacturers know that if the stanchions can deflect the lowers must be engineered to deflect the same or things with would go boom. Funny how that works.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  58. #58
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostbiker View Post
    most of the chassis flex happens at CSU which DC eliminates, you you think stanchion itself is flexing significantly? Because it isnīt, so yes, DC holds stanchions much more rigidly parallel thus making it significantly stiffer if everything else stays the same. Much more than using 2mm bigger stanchions.
    What people may be missing is that the bigger stanchions necessitate a bigger crown, also necessitating a bigger steerer, less that become the "weak spot".

    I would argue that it's not the stanchion flex that the bigger stanchions are trying to solve here with something like a Fox 38, it's the crown steerer stanchion interface and the extreme forces that are being seen on long-travel 29ers. As pointed out above, most of the flex seen is at the crown/steerer, seeing crazy bending forces, a significant "weak spot" that ends up creaking like crazy on many forks.

    If I was rocking a long travel 29er again, I'd want 38mm stanchions if offered...but if there was a decent dual crown available, that would be even better. Structurally, it's a better unit and possibly with no weight penalty as the reinforcement necessary to make a long-travel single crown work is not necessary on the DC.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  59. #59
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostbiker View Post
    Only issue DC fork doesnīt help with is weight reduction, is extra 500grams really issue that needs sorting these days when people are running stupid heavy ass 35mm rims with 1.3kg tires with inserts of all sorts or gigantic cassettes and derailleurs with cage so long that itīs almost dragging on the ground? I donīt think so.
    At some point, it's the same weight or lighter, to make a dual crown structure that is at least as strong/stiff. As you get a longer and longer axle to crown, you have to beef up the crown-steerer interface more and more, that includes the stanchion interface, which is helped by being larger and having more surface area. Remember the marzocchi's with the nearly-solid steerer tube? The massive M-crown (flat, so it wouldn't flex as easily in the fore-aft direction)? All of this stuff adds weight. While increasing the stanchions can get you increased stiffness without a huge weight penalty, it adds up, the weight of the lowers, the crown, etc. At some point, say 7lbs, a non-inverted DC fork far exceeds the single crown fork in all parameters.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    What people may be missing is that the bigger stanchions necessitate a bigger crown, also necessitating a bigger steerer, less that become the "weak spot".

    I would argue that it's not the stanchion flex that the bigger stanchions are trying to solve here with something like a Fox 38, it's the crown steerer stanchion interface and the extreme forces that are being seen on long-travel 29ers. As pointed out above, most of the flex seen is at the crown/steerer, seeing crazy bending forces, a significant "weak spot" that ends up creaking like crazy on many forks.

    If I was rocking a long travel 29er again, I'd want 38mm stanchions if offered...but if there was a decent dual crown available, that would be even better. Structurally, it's a better unit and possibly with no weight penalty as the reinforcement necessary to make a long-travel single crown work is not necessary on the DC.
    I would rather have 35/6 mm with larger contact area between crown/stanchion and crown/steerer just like mezzer or durolux forks have. Or pretty much every other fork that is not fox tbh.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    A flexy CSU is not deforming those lowers.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    optical illusion

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    optical illusion
    Not at all, quite a few bikes in the video have major fore-aft flex in the stanchions/lowers. That was the entire point of the article actually.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Not at all, quite a few bikes in the video have major fore-aft flex in the stanchions/lowers. That was the entire point of the article actually.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    actually, "at all." black out the fork logos and the spokes and the forward leaning arch. those things are all throwing off our eyes. now draw a straight line up to the interface. the lowers are perfectly straight. the travel indicator is perpendicular to the lowers, as is the fork top cap.

    to be clear, i am not saying that flex isnt present. i am saying that an optical illusions is creating the appearance of severe distortion, which is not present.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    actually, "at all." black out the fork logos and the spokes and the forward leaning arch. those things are all throwing off our eyes. now draw a straight line up to the interface. the lowers are perfectly straight. the travel indicator is perpendicular to the lowers, as is the fork top cap.

    to be clear, i am not saying that flex isnt present. i am saying that an optical illusions is creating the appearance of severe distortion, which is not present.
    To be clear, if you are saying that flex is present there is no significant portion of stanchion showing, they are almost completely in the lowers, that leaves only one visible place for flex to manifest itself. My eyes are not being thrown off. So as I said "not at all".

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    To be clear, if you are saying that flex is present there is no stanchion showing, they are completely in the lowers, that leaves only one place for flex to manifest itself. My eyes are not being thrown off. So as I said "not at all".

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    see that spot in between the fork seal and the o ring? if that is not lowers and its not crown, and it is above the fork seal but below the o ring travel indicator, what part of the fork is that? must be....crank spindle? i'm sorry alex, the correct answer is "what is stanchion."

    all things flex. that photo is fake news. it gives the appearance of sever deflection, which is not present.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    see that spot in between the fork seal and the o ring? if that is not lowers and its not crown, and it is above the fork seal but below the o ring travel indicator, what part of the fork is that? must be....crank spindle? i'm sorry alex, the correct answer is "what is stanchion."

    all things flex. that photo is fake news. it gives the appearance of sever deflection, which is not present.
    See the edits I made in my post before you posted? What do they say? Oops fake news

    Maybe take some typing classes to get your speed up?

    Also, if you think that's "severe deflection" I'm not sure what to tell you. It certainly doesn't meet my definition of that.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Queue angry response directed at me to cover up the embarrassment of trying to embarrass someone and failing at it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    See the edits I made in my post before you posted? What do they say? Oops fake news

    Maybe take some typing classes to get your speed up?

    Also, if you think that's "severe deflection" I'm not sure what to tell you. It certainly doesn't meet my definition of that.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Queue angry response directed at me to cover up the embarrassment of trying to embarrass someone and failing at it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Not angry at all princess. you can go back days later and modify a post and accuse somebody of needing to take typing speed class, yet it is no measure of anything. seems you needed to correct your message with faster typing so i couldn't quote it. i quoted what was there. that's what we call irony. but i digress.


    all i did was erase the spokes, erase the arch, and draw a line down through the center of the fork cap, through the crown, through the [non existent according to you] stanchion, through the lowers, and through the center of the lower fork cap. does the flex, or lack thereof, appear any more or less severe? if you think it looks the same, then its a moot point...our eyes see what they see.

    Fox 38?-flexyflexy-1-.jpg

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    Not angry at all princess. you can go back days later and modify a post and accuse somebody of needing to take typing speed class, yet it is no measure of anything. seems you needed to correct your message with faster typing so i couldn't quote it. i quoted what was there. but i digress.


    all i did was erase the spokes, erase the arch, and draw a line down through the center of the fork cap, through the crown, through the [non existent according to you] stanchion, through the lowers, and through the center of the lower fork cap. does the flex, or lack thereof, appear any more or less severe?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	flexyflexy (1).jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	350.3 KB 
ID:	1282963
    Uh huh, hence the princess comment and the need to erroneously assert I said there was a non-existent stanchion. Yep, hallmarks of a perfectly calm non-angry person.

    Perhaps someone was in their garage, watching football, working on a bike and was slightly distracted.

    It would help if your image wasn't busted.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Uh huh, hence the princess comment and the need to erroneously assert I said there was a non-existent stanchion. Yep, hallmarks of a perfectly calm non-angry person.

    Perhaps someone was in their garage, watching football, working on a bike and was slightly distracted.

    It would help if your image wasn't busted.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    my image shows up in your reply. perhaps your phone doesnt like it?

    stand by...i'm going to go kick my dog and subrscribe to cable so i can watch team sports in an effort to fit your profile of me....

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    my image shows up in your reply. perhaps your phone doesnt like it?

    stand by...i'm going to go kick my dog and subrscribe to cable so i can watch team sports in an effort to fit your profile of me....
    Where did I profile you?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Also, for those saying stanchions and lowers, ie legs, don't flex Dave Weagle, and all of his testing, would disagree with you.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Where did I profile you?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Uh huh, hence the princess comment and the need to erroneously assert I said there was a non-existent stanchion. Yep, hallmarks of a perfectly calm perfectly calm non-angry person.

    Perhaps someone was in their garage, watching football, working on a bike and was slightly distracted.

    It would help if your image wasn't busted.
    the bold is where you painted a profile of me: angry, football watching, distracted.

    whether you like it or not, there is optical illusion going on in that photo. it doesnt make me angry, sad, or happy. i saw the raw photo, just like you did. initial reactions were:
    1) wtf? that is unacceptable.
    2) have i ever felt it.

    then i started to think about it. and here is what i thought:

    as the fork compresses, you have a doubling of material as the lowers overlap the stanchions. of course you are going to have flex in the bushings and seals, but as overlap continues, the combo of the stanchions and the lowers WILL BECOME MORE ROBUST...they have to, there is more material to support the force that is overlapping. they will each lose their leverage over the other....

    so then i got to asking myself, what is going on there....is it a fish eye lense? perhaps an optical illusion?

    either way, your premise that its the lowers flexing is inherently flawed. if they are going to flex, they would be more prone to flex in the fully extended position, not when they are fully supported and have another 36 mm tube in them.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    the bold is where you painted a profile of me: angry, football watching, distracted.

    whether you like it or not, there is optical illusion going on in that photo. it doesnt make me angry, sad, or happy. i saw the raw photo, just like you did. initial reactions were:
    1) wtf? that is unacceptable.
    2) have i ever felt it.

    then i started to think about it. and here is what i thought:

    as the fork compresses, you have a doubling of material as the lowers overlap the stanchions. of course you are going to have flex in the bushings and seals, but as overlap continues, the combo of the stanchions and the lowers WILL BECOME MORE ROBUST...they have to, there is more material to support the force that is overlapping.

    so then i got to asking myself, what is going on there....is it a fish eye lense? perhaps an optical illusion?

    either way, your premise that its the lowers flexing is inherently flawed. if they are going to flex, they would be more prone to flex in the fully extended position, not when they are fully supported and have another 36 mm tube in them.
    First, I was talking about myself so I don't know why, other than you are still smarting about your failed attempt you would think it was directed at you. Unlike yourself I feel no need to go out of my way to attempt to make you look foolish.

    Second, you thought about it incorrectly. The lowers and stanchions do not touch except at the bushings and seals, this is imperative for reduced friction, ie increased sensitivity. Thus there is no doubling of material. Also, stanchion flex is a known issue. With this known if you are designing a system the encasing sleeve, whether it touches or not, must also deflect. If it did not the system would eventually encounter binding and failure.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  75. #75
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    First, I was talking about myself so I don't know why, other than you are still smarting about your failed attempt you would think it was directed at you. Unlike yourself I feel no need to go out of my way to attempt to make you look foolish.

    Second, you thought about it incorrectly. The lowers and stanchions do not touch except at the bushings and seals, this is imperative for reduced friction, ie increased sensitivity. Thus there is no doubling of material. Also, stanchion flex is a known issue. With this known if you are designing a system the encasing sleeve, whether it touches or not, must also deflect. If it did not the system would eventually encounter binding and failure.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Material wise, it's going to be VERY hard to flex a cylinder. That's why they are used.

    It's going to be relatively easy, from a materials perspective, to flex an entire fork fore/aft, as you are relying on the solid material of the crown. Mainly, that chunk in between the steerer interface and the stanchions. The entire wheel, fork, etc., is acting like a giant lever on that piece.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Material wise, it's going to be VERY hard to flex a cylinder. That's why they are used.
    That's not exactly correct. A cylindrical tube will have more torsional rigidity than a square or rectangular tube but the latter will be stronger against a known direction of force. The main reason to use a cylindrical tube in this application is its strength to weight ratio advantage. Also, as I'm sure you know resistance to rotation has almost nothing to do with flexing over a span.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    First, I was talking about myself so I don't know why, other than you are still smarting about your failed attempt you would think it was directed at you. Unlike yourself I feel no need to go out of my way to attempt to make you look foolish.

    Second, you thought about it incorrectly. The lowers and stanchions do not touch except at the bushings and seals, this is imperative for reduced friction, ie increased sensitivity. Thus there is no doubling of material. Also, stanchion flex is a known issue. With this known if you are designing a system the encasing sleeve, whether it touches or not, must also deflect. If it did not the system would eventually encounter binding and failure.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    oh. my reading comprehension fails me again. "Yep, hallmarks of a perfectly calm perfectly calm non-angry person" referred to you. my bad. glad your sarcasm showed through.

    no i did not think about it incorrectly. the bushings and seals will ultimately reach their limits of circumferential compression. at that point, the uppers and lowers, not being able to compress the bushings and seals any farther, will begin to exert force on one another. that's not opinion. from full extension to the half travel point, the crown will have leverage over the stanchions and vice versa. that continues and leverage is gradually lost.

    obviously, metal on metal is bad and causes friction. when there is greatest overlap, the fork will always be at its most robust.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    oh. my reading comprehension fails me again. "Yep, hallmarks of a perfectly calm perfectly calm non-angry person" referred to you. my bad. glad your sarcasm showed through.

    no i did not think about it incorrectly. the bushings and seals will ultimately reach their limits of circumferential compression. at that point, the uppers and lowers, not being able to compress the bushings and seals any farther, will begin to exert force on one another. that's not opinion. from full extension to the half travel point, the crown will have leverage over the stanchions and vice versa. that continues and leverage is gradually lost.

    obviously, metal on metal is bad and causes friction. when there is greatest overlap, the fork will always be at its most robust.
    Well I mean you did try to read two different paragraphs as if they were a single sentence so...

    No, you're still thinking about it incorrectly. Look at a fox fork. There is a reason that worn Kashima coats are generally called bushing wear if the wear is uniform. If the lowers and stanchions were allowed to touch repeatedly and often that process would be greatly accelerated.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    That's not exactly correct.
    actually, its 100% correct, and its why cylindrical (or boxed) structures are used for compression applications and not tension applications.

  80. #80
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    That's not exactly correct. A cylindrical tube will have more torsional rigidity than a square or rectangular tube but the latter will be stronger against a known direction of force. The main reason to use a cylindrical tube in this application is its strength to weight ratio advantage. Also, as I'm sure you know resistance to rotation has almost nothing to do with flexing over a span.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Well, given the other limitations, sure, and an oval tube would be stronger if it was aligned with the direction of force, but as far as being able to remain very rigid in all directions, a cylinder is still very strong.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    actually, its 100% correct, and its why cylindrical (or boxed) structures are used for compression applications and not tension applications.
    No, it's not. It's actually harder to flex a properly oriented square tube in a known direction than a cylinder. Ultimately they are used because of the strength to weight ratio.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Well I mean you did try to read two different paragraphs as if they were a single sentence so...

    No, you're still thinking about it incorrectly. Look at a fox fork. There is a reason that worn Kashima coats are generally called bushing wear if the wear is uniform. If the lowers and stanchions were allowed to touch repeatedly and often that process would be greatly accelerated.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    i agree that the metal should not touch metal. the leverage still has to be exerted somewhere. that is through the bushings and seals. the leverage is lost as the fork compresses. the fulcrum moves closer to the point of leverage (axle or head tube), decreasing leverage.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    i agree that the metal should not touch metal. the leverage still has to be exerted somewhere. that is through the bushings and seals. the leverage is lost as the fork compresses. the fulcrum moves closer to the point of leverage (axle or head tube), decreasing leverage.
    Which flies in the face of your assertion that the material doubles. The only strengthening overlap is a tiny fraction of the overall system's length at the bushing. Since the fork flexes fore and aft the ability to accommodate that has to be built into both the uppers and lowers otherwise you do get metal on metal.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Well, given the other limitations, sure, and an oval tube would be stronger if it was aligned with the direction of force, but as far as being able to remain very rigid in all directions, a cylinder is still very strong.
    A cylinder is strong, hence its strength to weight ratio. However to assert that it is more difficult, or even difficult, to flex over a span is incorrect. It's ability to be directionally agnostic and flex a limited amount in a given direction is a great property though.


    Now, if you were trying to twist it that's a completely different story.
    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Which flies in the face of your assertion that the material doubles. The only strengthening overlap is a tiny fraction of the overall system's length at the bushing. Since the fork flexes fore and aft the ability to accommodate that has to be built into both the uppers and lowers otherwise you do get metal on metal.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    the material does "double" when the polymers reach their limits of compression. at that point the alloys share the load.

    edited to put double in quotes. was a short way of saying load is shared across more material.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    the material does double when the polymers reach their limits of compression. at that point the alloys share the load.
    Ok, let's just look at this as it is stated with no thought to its accuracy one way or another. If one part of the system is flexing how do they ever "reach their limits of compression" without encountering metal on metal, or at the least suffer massive binding, if one is flexing and the other is not?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Ok, let's just look at this as it is stated with no thought to its accuracy one way or another. If one part of the system is flexing how do they ever "reach their limits of compression" without encountering metal on metal if one is flexing and the other is not?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    good question. can a polymer ever reach a point of resilience where it is able to deflect the force introduced by an alloy in the system?

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    good question. can a polymer ever reach a point of resilience where it is able to deflect the fore introduced by an alloy in the system?
    What does a polymer have to do with it?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    What does a polymer have to do with it?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    what are seals and bushings made of?

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    what are seals and bushings made of?
    Seals are non-structural and are made of flexible polymers. Bushings are generally Teflon, or like material, coated alloys hence why I'm questioning why you think a polymer would provide any support or deflection in this system.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Seals are non-structural and are made of flexible polymers. Bushings are generally Teflon, or like material, coated alloys hence why I'm questioning why you think a polymer would provide any support or deflection in this system.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Sure. Outside of the up down linear motion, something had to apply fore/aft force to the stanchions/lowers for them to flex in either direction. If it is not metal on metal of the stanching on the lowers, then where is the force coming from?

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    Sure. Outside of the up down linear motion, something had to apply fore/aft force to the stanchions/lowers for them to flex in either direction. If it is not metal on metal of the stanching on the lowers, then where is the force coming from?
    That would be the bushings.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    That would be the bushings.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    I think you are right. They'll give to some degree in the system. Then the metal starts to pick up the load.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    I think you are right. They'll give to some degree in the system. Then the metal starts to pick up the load.
    Kinda...

    The lowers actually have to flex to allow the bushing to remain perpendicular to the stanchion. Otherwise massive binding issues would be encountered. So yes the bushing moves in relation to the stanchion but its movement is a byproduct of the lower flexing.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Kinda...

    The lowers actually have to flex to allow the bushing to remain perpendicular to the stanchion. Otherwise massive binding issues would be encountered. So yes the bushing moves in relation to the stanchion but its movement is a byproduct of the lower flexing.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Agreed. But there has to be a limit to the deflection.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    Agreed. But there has to be a limit to the deflection.
    Does there? Ultimately you have a given amount of material, with a specific chemical make up, shaped a specific way to reliably handle x amount of force. As you exceed x you encounter more premature wear and ultimately failure if the exceeding force is great enough.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,716
    I never really noticed flex in my 36, nor did I notice flex with a Lyric ... but the Pike in comparison was a touch flexy.

    Flex is in part a function of travel, more exposed stanchion leads to more flex. I also think part of the flex is due to the stanchion movement in the lowers; two tubes, one sliding into the other with nothing more than a bushing at one end to control movement.

    Bigger stanchions wonít do much if the crown canít control stanchion flex, so Iíd vote for a dual crown ... but weight and frame contact are issues outstanding.

    The Trust fork is a good answer, esp as we build bigger and burlier forks, it makes sense to re-examine the problem and come up with a novel solution that addresses axle path, stiction, and flex.

    So yeah, Trust or dual crown.

    Just a side note: for those of your who are already running a 36, Iíd encourage you to try a coil, Smashpot or ACS3, itíll change the way you feel about your fork. My Z1 is so incredibly supple and stiction free that I sometimes think itís too plush 😊
    Guerilla Gravity Shred Dogg
    Fezzari Signal Peak (For Sale)
    Pivot Shuttle (wife's)

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,703
    People get so funny about flex.

    My old 409 pike turn was 2500g. It wasn't too flexy, but it wasn't all that stiff either. The fancy 454 air was a svelt 2200g.

    My 20mm longer, stiffer, fatter stanchioned and better damped forks are 1800-1900g.

    I dunno, seems like it worked out for all of us. Skinny guys, fat guys, everyone. Just plain better stuff.

    What's the problem? If fox can do a 38 that makes sense, cool. Someone has to chase the way better mezzer after all!

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    ...Bigger stanchions wonít do much if the crown canít control stanchion flex, so Iíd vote for a dual crown .....
    IMO, if a dual crown makes a difference it's because it's fixing flex in the single crown, not in the stanchion.
    Do the math.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    IMO, if a dual crown makes a difference it's because it's fixing flex in the single crown, not in the stanchion.
    It holds stanchions a lot more rigidly parallel, yes. And that is something SC forks are struggling to do, switch to boost and 15mm axles with no pinch bolts is not helping either.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,408
    fore aft flex under braking is the biggest issue. dual crown helps here. i'd take a 35mm DC over a 40mm SC any day.

    there is such thing as too much rigidity, in general.

    supercross bikes run bigger forks than outdoor motocross bikes.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by mullen119 View Post
    Because they didn't want the 36 to be outdone by the superior Manitou Mezzer
    Known manitou-stooge slags off Fox.....shock (no pun intended &#128518

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,408
    this is the bike industry, we're not curing cancer here, was probably meant tongue in cheek. and he works for them. despite that he's actually pretty candid about what he likes and dislikes outside of manitou products.

    stanchion diameter is a marketing tool. if you want to make fun of someone, make fun of the gullible average joe rider.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by FactoryMatt View Post
    ...stanchion diameter is a marketing tool...
    Yep. Fox wants to sell more forks and make more profit, so they do things they think will work toward the end. Marketing guys say brands B and C are doing that. If we do this, we'll sell more forks. Engineering goes, OK we can design that. Manufacturing goes, OK we can produce that for this cost. Bam! 38mm stanchions and bleed valves.

    I'm not being cynical. That's really what business is about.
    Do the math.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    726

    Fox 38?

    Agreed! And thatís also why we struggle to make real improvements ... because most of the new stuff is BS or just a small gain of perf/weight/rigidity/whatever.

    It's almost 2020, we could be flying right now ... but nope ... still getting punctures and breaking chains! Donít get me wrong itís much better than 10 years ago but the pace is very slow ...

    We need the "Steve Jobs" of mountain biking! Most of the tangible improvements have been made by guys with a vision ... in their garage, not giving a F*ck about what was going on.

    Itís getting more and more painful to read/watch reviews of "so called" tech revolutions or evolutions when honestly they absolutely donít deserve all that attention.

    That Fox 38 is just another example of something we donít care about. Somebody asked for it? Thatís what I thought...

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by cws196 View Post
    Known manitou-stooge slags off Fox.....shock (no pun intended &#128518
    #1 Manitou Stooge here.

    I laughed pretty hard the first time I heard the new manitou fork (now Mezzer) was going to have 37mm stanchions. We all knew it was only a short space of time before the competitors would be going bigger.

    I am almost surprised Fox didn't jump straight to a single crown 40 though. Just in-case Rockshox go there again!

    There are costs and tradeoffs involved with making stanchions bigger, it all depends where you want to be with weight/stiffness. You can only go so thin in the walls before localised damage becomes a real problem. Also more seal length means more friction to carefully manage.

    Who else remember ZZYZX?
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    141
    Makes me wonder what an enduro DC fork would be like right now if designed from the ground up for that purpose.

    Triple air chamber
    <180mm travel
    203mm rotor
    Good damping

    35mm DC would probably still be stiffer than a 38mm SC and you might get weight within 200g of the SC forks?

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kwapik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    366
    I too was surprised Fox didn't go straight to 40mm since they already produce that diameter stanchion.

    Good idea there mike156. Fox should have just produced a 36mm dual crown fork.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by mike156 View Post
    Makes me wonder what an enduro DC fork would be like right now if designed from the ground up for that purpose.

    Triple air chamber
    <180mm travel
    203mm rotor
    Good damping

    35mm DC would probably still be stiffer than a 38mm SC and you might get weight within 200g of the SC forks?
    It already exists w/35mm stanchions:

    https://mrpbike.com/products/bartlett

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by mike156 View Post
    Makes me wonder what an enduro DC fork would be like right now if designed from the ground up for that purpose.

    Triple air chamber
    <180mm travel
    203mm rotor
    Good damping

    35mm DC would probably still be stiffer than a 38mm SC and you might get weight within 200g of the SC forks?
    I knew I was 15 years too early trail riding with my 180mm Manitou Xvert Carbon.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by FactoryMatt View Post
    fore aft flex under braking is the biggest issue. dual crown helps here. i'd take a 35mm DC over a 40mm SC any day.

    there is such thing as too much rigidity, in general.

    supercross bikes run bigger forks than outdoor motocross bikes.
    Yeah fore/aft rigidity is the one you want to keep to a minimum, you can have too much lateral and torsional stiffness for sure.

    Turning circle is the main thing holding back dual crowns on an enduro bike. 35mm+ stanchions combined with beefy frames and headtubes means you run out of steering lock pretty quick and thatís crucial for those tight switchbacks

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    Turning circle is the main thing holding back dual crowns on an enduro bike. 35mm+ stanchions combined with beefy frames and headtubes means you run out of steering lock pretty quick and thatís crucial for those tight switchbacks
    just took a peak at my 2020 Enduro w/ 37mm stanchion Mezzer and 44mm offset. Just from the eyeball test, the bars will turn well beyond 45* (i'd say closer to 60*) before the 37mm stanchions will contact the HT/DT/TT junction if it were in a DC configuration. Maybe 60* still isnt enough?

    either way, if turning circle is the issue, the solution is easy:
    #1---push the stanchions farther out
    #2---depend more on the triple clamps for accomplishing offset (like moto) and less on the fork lugs or lowers. there is space to push the stanchions forward and bring the axle back to accomplish the same offset.

    all of that conjecture is moot if somebody decides we need a new steerer tube standard. the same test on my Evil (62mm lower headset bearing) would be lucky to get to 45*.

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,203
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    ...Turning circle is the main thing holding back dual crowns on an enduro bike...
    Unless you have a Trek. Knockblock reduces turning circle on all their single crown bikes including XC bikes as well.
    Do the math.

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,408
    was just about to say this lol. trek is so weird.

  115. #115
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    Yeah fore/aft rigidity is the one you want to keep to a minimum, you can have too much lateral and torsional stiffness for sure.

    Turning circle is the main thing holding back dual crowns on an enduro bike. 35mm+ stanchions combined with beefy frames and headtubes means you run out of steering lock pretty quick and thatís crucial for those tight switchbacks
    And to that, I say BS. Itís not like people arenít riding DH bikes down tight stuff including switchbacks. If that were true, we couldnít ride DH bikes either. I ran DCs for trail and DH for years and this was just never an issue. You donít turn your wheel that far 99.999% of the time, even to make switchbacks. Maybe on the old RS DHO and skinny-leg super/jr Ts, but on anything modern, no, and you donít use 90 of steering. I think itís more of a mental perception issue, where people will think it will limit their riding, like steep drop offs on the side when there is plenty of safe tread, trees when your bars are in no real danger of contacting, etc.

    I donít know of any bike park that doesnít have some tight switchbacks, not to mention the thousands of miles of DHs people shuttle outside of parks. If the DC was that limiting, Iíd be winning every DH race on my lyric when the DC guys reach lock and have to walk the switchbacks!
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    DH track switchbacks are nowhere near as tight as switchbacks can be on an "enduro" trail where they can be narrower with less gradient to help get through the corner. You don't see the more awkward slow speed sections in DH trails. Sure its not all the time but they are definitely there on more natural techy terrain. And why so many people nowadays shuttle with single crown forked bikes instead of dual. I'm all for the benefits of a DC fork but they don't suit slower terrain

    It does come down to the combination of bike and fork, some are passable.....but others are lucky if they get 45* which is nowhere near enough

    I can think of several occasions a top rider has brought a bike with single crowns to a World Cup/Champs by choice, can anyone remember a time a top rider chose a dual crown for an EWS? I would be interested to know
    www.thesuspensionlab.nz
    Servicing in Rotorua, NZ/Vorsprung Elite Tuning Centre/DVO service centre/Insta @thesuspensionlab

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    I can think of several occasions a top rider has brought a bike with single crowns to a World Cup/Champs by choice, can anyone remember a time a top rider chose a dual crown for an EWS? I would be interested to know
    Gareth Brewin did trans provence on DC forks and finished in top 15 on bike with geometry most big companies called unridable only few years ago. Not too shabby I guess. Anyway, if corner is so tight that DC gets in the way itīs typically too tight to get through without sliding/endoing and DC is not a problem for those. Why top riders donīt run DC forks? Maybe because they believe 1-2 pounds of weight saved on forks is going to get them better result? Or maybe because the other guy isnīt running one? If Sam Hill used one I would bet million dollars that in next 1 or 2 races there would be a lot of riders doing the same.

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jbadger1977's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    314
    All of this over a fork that hasn't even been officially announced yet. Awesome.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    I can think of several occasions a top rider has brought a bike with single crowns to a World Cup/Champs by choice, can anyone remember a time a top rider chose a dual crown for an EWS? I would be interested to know
    wait. let me think this through:

    can a Fox 40 or a Boxxer be de stroked to 160mm?
    Do pinch bolts vs quick release axles make sense in a multi stage race where you can recover from a flat?

    correlation does not imply causation.

    there is no such thing as an enduro trail. 4 out of 5 stops at the BME this year were at anchored at ski resorts that include some portion of their lift served trails for DH duty.

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by jbadger1977 View Post
    All of this over a fork that hasn't even been officially announced yet. Awesome.
    You must be new here, welcome to the internet!

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by tdc_worm View Post
    wait. let me think this through:

    can a Fox 40 or a Boxxer be de stroked to 160mm?
    Do pinch bolts vs quick release axles make sense in a multi stage race where you can recover from a flat?

    correlation does not imply causation.

    there is no such thing as an enduro trail. 4 out of 5 stops at the BME this year were at anchored at ski resorts that include some portion of their lift served trails for DH duty.
    Hence the quote marks, I donít even like word. I simply mean any mountain bike trail not intended for DH bikes and better suited to 6Ē travel bikes

    Anyone running DC forks at BME? Itís not like there isnít appropriate travel forks available already

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    You must be new here, welcome to the internet!
    hahaha. well played!

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    Anyone running DC forks at BME? Itís not like there isnít appropriate travel forks available already
    hold on....let me walk over the MRP support tent and ask them....couldn't find it, so let me go ask Fox an RS...they dont have a DC appropriate travel fork that is available.

    with MRP as the only option available, is it any wonder the entire BME wasn't equipped with them? even for single crown forks, i suspect MRP was less than 10% representation.
    (btw....not a slam on MRP, just a guess that they don't have the support staff of the 600lb gorillas). incedentally, i did see two Pivot FB29ers there with fox 40s.

    i'll do the same thing you did:

    the reason they don't run DC forks in Enduro format is that DC forks have pinch bolts and take longer to change a front tube, and that makes you slower. as compared to:
    the reason they don't run DC forks in Enduro format is that DC forks have crowns and dont allow you to turn as sharply, and that makes you slower.

    both of them have correlation, but neither of them has evidence of proof. sure there is truth to both statements, but that doesnt mean either are the reason.

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    470
    on another note....this whole flex argument is out of control. sure, there is flex. sure, some forks flex more than others. so do the frames they are mounted to. so what? i am sure we can measure flex difference between like RS and Fox products. If the degree of difference in stiffness was really a thing, why did Sam Hill (Lyrik, which is supposedly stiffer) not dominate Richie Rude and Martin Maes (F36) at ALL EWS stops? And vice versa.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mullen119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    #1 Manitou Stooge here.

    I laughed pretty hard the first time I heard the new manitou fork (now Mezzer) was going to have 37mm stanchions. We all knew it was only a short space of time before the competitors would be going bigger.

    I am almost surprised Fox didn't jump straight to a single crown 40 though. Just in-case Rockshox go there again!

    There are costs and tradeoffs involved with making stanchions bigger, it all depends where you want to be with weight/stiffness. You can only go so thin in the walls before localised damage becomes a real problem. Also more seal length means more friction to carefully manage.

    Who else remember ZZYZX?
    Funny that we are stooges now.

    For what's its worth, Manitou tested 37mm and 38mm stanchion diameters and decided on 37 for performance reasons instead of marketing reasons. If they went 38, do you think we would be talking about the fox 39?

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by mullen119 View Post
    Funny that we are stooges now.

    For what's its worth, Manitou tested 37mm and 38mm stanchion diameters and decided on 37 for performance reasons instead of marketing reasons. If they went 38, do you think we would be talking about the fox 39?
    I think they're silly to not just go 40!
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mullen119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    I think they're silly to not just go 40!
    Would RS bring back the totem at 41 or 42 to win the stanchion wars then?

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,377
    Quote Originally Posted by mullen119 View Post
    Would RS bring back the totem at 41 or 42 to win the stanchion wars then?
    Lets see who is first to touch the 203mm single crown fork market again! I don't believe anyone has done it since the 2006-8 Manitou Travis SC.

    BTW all this talk of DC forks not working for enduro is silly and always by people who've never ridden them.

    I rode dual crown forks for trail 2000-2005 and never got close to running out of steering. I still test dual crown forks on my Bergamont (1.5T head-tube) and still never get close. The amount of steering you actually use on switchbacks is a lot less than people think it is.

    The only time I ever run out of steerage is turning a bike around in the workshop. The Trek knock-block feels worse there!
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  128. #128
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,264
    Fwiw dual crown forks have very different turning circles.

    My old '03 would cause problems.

    The legs on the' 15 are further apart and I have a wider turning circle than I need. I'm on an XL Pole evolink and rarely have trouble on alpine single-track.

    I quite like the DC on Uber tight switchbacks. When I do reach the limit of steering the bumper against the frame makes a nice stable platform. It allows me to comfortably lean the frame to silly angles with bumper movement for fine tuning of steering.

    Hard to explain but it works

  129. #129
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,239
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyC7 View Post
    DH track switchbacks are nowhere near as tight as switchbacks can be on an "enduro" trail

    Oh bloody hell, now there are "enduro" switchbacks too? They just use regular DH trails at our local park for enduro races and the other enduro races I've done have just used DH trails (not at a park). There weren't any special enduroô switchbacks. I used to ride my 8" "freeride" rig with Monster T and later Avy 888 up the 50 or so switchbacks of Benham Trail in Williams to bomb down the Bill Williams descent. Going down with a DC fork...yeah, you simply don't turn the fork *that* far.

    I rode with multiple boxxers, Shiver, multiple Monster Ts, S8 Ultra, MX6, handbuilt Super T, Jr T, Xvert R, 888 extensively and probably one or two I'm forgetting, this just isn't a "thing". It's a perception issue, not a real-world issue.

    If you can't make a switchback, the real reason is probably related more to the HA (you don't always want super slack) and fork height. Higher AS designs these days help a lot on the uphills, but on real tight ones I occasionally have to lower my seat to get low enough while pedaling uphill to keep weight and traction where they need to be. On the DH, it was never because I "ran out of steering".
    Last edited by Jayem; 10-05-2019 at 09:43 AM.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

Similar Threads

  1. change 38/26 to 38/24 using the same 38T chain ring
    By 156flash in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-08-2017, 06:11 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-26-2013, 01:15 AM
  3. XTR M980 38/26: new chain rings and 38/24 combo
    By Hawgzilla in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 12:29 PM
  4. Shimano XT 2x10 - Does it matter if a 38 AM chainring is used instead of a 38 AK?
    By skyno in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-13-2013, 04:16 PM
  5. Convert Shimano XT 785 38-26 to 38-24
    By Danish Dynamite in forum Shimano
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2012, 02:32 PM

Members who have read this thread: 310

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.