Why I Don't Like Telescopic Front Forks For Gravel Bikes

The Otso Waheela S

 Several years ago telescopic front forks for gravel bikes were introduced with the Fox AX model being the most prominent player. Although there were others in the niche as well, Fox, and now Rock Shox, with its limited travel Ruby fork, are now the main purveyors of this tech for gravel. 

I have tested and ridden the previous Fox AX model enough that I have a pretty good handle on what this idea can and cannot accomplish for the typical gravel rider. But first, let's get into why you might want this in the first place.

I'm going to summarize in the way I describe what is going on when you ride rougher roads and gravel, so I am not trying to dive into the science here too much.  Please forgive my broad brush strokes here, but I will try to give you enough to chew on that the rest will make sense. 

Gravel, unpaved roads, or even rough, broken up paved roads cause vibrations. While your tires can and do deal with some of that, some of the energy that is created by you to pedal gets transferred into energy that is known as vibrations and that has to be dissipated somehow. Most of the time this happens in your muscle tissue and that energy is turned into heat, which then has to be dealt with by other means in your body as well. You can see this happening when the muscles in your arms are shaking while riding rough grounds, and that is energy being transferred to you, which you damp out, and that is not an ideal way to handle this for the cyclist.  

So, maybe you can see how a telescopic suspension fork might prove to be an advantage here because it dissipates the energy, not you. Well, ideally it would do this. That is the goal, but these devices don't damp everything out. But you get the picture, hopefully. 

Okay, so back to these "gravel specific" telescopic fork devices. Almost universally they have been hamstrung by what is seen as the necessary geometry for gravel bicycles, which itself is derived from road cycling, and which is focused on aerodynamics and efficiency of the rider, primarily. This means, for this discussion, that a limitation on the axle to crown height of a fork, (acceptable for aero/geometry reasons) is imposed which in turn limits travel on a telescopic design to around 40-50mm of travel. Basic stuff and completely understandable for gravel bikes. 

Now, let's talk some history. Back in the early 1990's, suspension for MTB was in its infancy. The "standard" amount of travel was about 60-65mm, with Rock Shox settling in at 63mm for its famous Mag 21 model. I rode the equivalent Specialized Future Shock model, (a rebadged Mag 21, basically), and it was woefully over its head on "real" mountain bike terrain. The damping on my fork was modified to be such that it would not "blow through its travel" but still, it wasn't enough. Travel that is. This is why you cannot buy a 63mm travel MTB fork anymore. Many think 80mm is too little, and most "XC" forks now are at 100-120mm of travel. Why? Because to actually be effective, the telescopic design needs that much distance to travel to dissipate energy effectively instead of the rider doing that.

The Fox AX was overwhelmed easily by bigger hits if set up to deal effectively with normal gravel

 Okay, now back to my experience with the Waheela S and the Fox AX fork. This fork had tunability and in my experience, it could be set up in several ways. It made sense to me to have the fork working all the time to absorb as much of the vibrations as possible. This would make up for the added weight of the fork over that of a typical fork for gravel, which was anywhere from a pound to a pound and a half difference. (Depending on the rigid fork) Okay. That was great until you hit something bigger than crushed rock. Then the fork would bottom out violently with a loud "clunk" and forget about it being an advantage in Level B road ruts, pot holes, or washboard where the travel was completely overwhelmed. (Remember my MTB Future Shock here)

Now, I could have opted for the damping to only take effect on the bigger stuff and just lived with the buzz of normal gravel, but that sort of defeats the purpose of pushing around the extra weight on, what normally is, most of my rides. Notice; You may have a differing opinion here, but for me? The suspension fork is a no-go. Not as it is currently configured in 2023. 

From Rock Shox social media

Now let's talk about another issue that any suspension fork, (besides the Lauf leaf spring fork) brings to the table, and that is maintenance.

 The image to the left here is a Rock Shox posting on their social media describing what the foam rings do on their forks and how often you should service those. The foam rings help prevent dust from entering the fork's internals where dust would be detrimental to the inner workings. Now, you all know how much dust gravel riding generates, right? So, maintaining good foam rings would be even more challenging in a gravel riding scenario, one could assume. 

Rock Shox states that these foam rings need servicing after every 50 hours of riding. Now, I don't know about you, but that would be about twice a year, at least, for myself. Just roughly guessing here, but at least twice is a safe bet. 

Ever look up what suspension servicing costs at your local bike shop, (if they even do that at all)? It seems from a quick search on the internet that you could expect this to be a $75.00-$100.00 repair. That is a minimum of $150.00/yr for me, and how many days without the bike the fork is on? Maybe a couple weeks? Hard to say.

I don't know about you, but I can find better ways to spend $150.00+ bucks and however many days of downtime that it would incur to do fork maintenance. I just don't see the performance benefits of telescopic front forks for gravel bikes as being an advantage that is worth more than the initial costs, ($500.00 - $850.00) and the maintenance costs of those types of forks. Especially when I can get what I want in terms of vibration damping out of a Redshift or Cane Creek suspension stem, have no maintenance costs, and a lot less initial cash outlay. I also could opt for the venerable Lauf fork, have no maintenance costs, but yeah, it does cost $990.00! 

Verdict: For my money, the best solution here is a tire that works well and a suspension stem, like the Redshift ShockStop stem, which does a great job at the vibration reduction thing. It is also tunable for your ride style and weight. The ShockStop is also swappable from bike to bike in most cases as well, making it more versatile over the long haul for its owner. I do not need a specific "suspension compatible" gravel frame, nor are there any proprietary limitations. 

To make the telescopic fork actually work on a gravel bike, it would necessarily need to have more travel to work with to dissipate both high frequency, mid frequency, and big impact inputs. Only then would its weight penalty, cost penalty, and maintenance penalty over a suspension stem make it a consideration. However; to gain that function the fork would have to have an axle to crown height that would nullify any aerodynamic efficiencies that a gravel bike needs to have.  (Think about how a Fargo or Cutthroat with suspension would do in a headwind vs a typical gravel bike) Yes- you could do this and maybe be a happy rider, but there is no denying the physics here. And still you have all the economic and practical issues to deal with as well.

Why I Don't Like Telescopic Front Forks For Gravel Bikes

The Otso Waheela S

 Several years ago telescopic front forks for gravel bikes were introduced with the Fox AX model being the most prominent player. Although there were others in the niche as well, Fox, and now Rock Shox, with its limited travel Ruby fork, are now the main purveyors of this tech for gravel. 

I have tested and ridden the previous Fox AX model enough that I have a pretty good handle on what this idea can and cannot accomplish for the typical gravel rider. But first, let's get into why you might want this in the first place.

I'm going to summarize in the way I describe what is going on when you ride rougher roads and gravel, so I am not trying to dive into the science here too much.  Please forgive my broad brush strokes here, but I will try to give you enough to chew on that the rest will make sense. 

Gravel, unpaved roads, or even rough, broken up paved roads cause vibrations. While your tires can and do deal with some of that, some of the energy that is created by you to pedal gets transferred into energy that is known as vibrations and that has to be dissipated somehow. Most of the time this happens in your muscle tissue and that energy is turned into heat, which then has to be dealt with by other means in your body as well. You can see this happening when the muscles in your arms are shaking while riding rough grounds, and that is energy being transferred to you, which you damp out, and that is not an ideal way to handle this for the cyclist.  

So, maybe you can see how a telescopic suspension fork might prove to be an advantage here because it dissipates the energy, not you. Well, ideally it would do this. That is the goal, but these devices don't damp everything out. But you get the picture, hopefully. 

Okay, so back to these "gravel specific" telescopic fork devices. Almost universally they have been hamstrung by what is seen as the necessary geometry for gravel bicycles, which itself is derived from road cycling, and which is focused on aerodynamics and efficiency of the rider, primarily. This means, for this discussion, that a limitation on the axle to crown height of a fork, (acceptable for aero/geometry reasons) is imposed which in turn limits travel on a telescopic design to around 40-50mm of travel. Basic stuff and completely understandable for gravel bikes. 

Now, let's talk some history. Back in the early 1990's, suspension for MTB was in its infancy. The "standard" amount of travel was about 60-65mm, with Rock Shox settling in at 63mm for its famous Mag 21 model. I rode the equivalent Specialized Future Shock model, (a rebadged Mag 21, basically), and it was woefully over its head on "real" mountain bike terrain. The damping on my fork was modified to be such that it would not "blow through its travel" but still, it wasn't enough. Travel that is. This is why you cannot buy a 63mm travel MTB fork anymore. Many think 80mm is too little, and most "XC" forks now are at 100-120mm of travel. Why? Because to actually be effective, the telescopic design needs that much distance to travel to dissipate energy effectively instead of the rider doing that.

The Fox AX was overwhelmed easily by bigger hits if set up to deal effectively with normal gravel

 Okay, now back to my experience with the Waheela S and the Fox AX fork. This fork had tunability and in my experience, it could be set up in several ways. It made sense to me to have the fork working all the time to absorb as much of the vibrations as possible. This would make up for the added weight of the fork over that of a typical fork for gravel, which was anywhere from a pound to a pound and a half difference. (Depending on the rigid fork) Okay. That was great until you hit something bigger than crushed rock. Then the fork would bottom out violently with a loud "clunk" and forget about it being an advantage in Level B road ruts, pot holes, or washboard where the travel was completely overwhelmed. (Remember my MTB Future Shock here)

Now, I could have opted for the damping to only take effect on the bigger stuff and just lived with the buzz of normal gravel, but that sort of defeats the purpose of pushing around the extra weight on, what normally is, most of my rides. Notice; You may have a differing opinion here, but for me? The suspension fork is a no-go. Not as it is currently configured in 2023. 

From Rock Shox social media

Now let's talk about another issue that any suspension fork, (besides the Lauf leaf spring fork) brings to the table, and that is maintenance.

 The image to the left here is a Rock Shox posting on their social media describing what the foam rings do on their forks and how often you should service those. The foam rings help prevent dust from entering the fork's internals where dust would be detrimental to the inner workings. Now, you all know how much dust gravel riding generates, right? So, maintaining good foam rings would be even more challenging in a gravel riding scenario, one could assume. 

Rock Shox states that these foam rings need servicing after every 50 hours of riding. Now, I don't know about you, but that would be about twice a year, at least, for myself. Just roughly guessing here, but at least twice is a safe bet. 

Ever look up what suspension servicing costs at your local bike shop, (if they even do that at all)? It seems from a quick search on the internet that you could expect this to be a $75.00-$100.00 repair. That is a minimum of $150.00/yr for me, and how many days without the bike the fork is on? Maybe a couple weeks? Hard to say.

I don't know about you, but I can find better ways to spend $150.00+ bucks and however many days of downtime that it would incur to do fork maintenance. I just don't see the performance benefits of telescopic front forks for gravel bikes as being an advantage that is worth more than the initial costs, ($500.00 - $850.00) and the maintenance costs of those types of forks. Especially when I can get what I want in terms of vibration damping out of a Redshift or Cane Creek suspension stem, have no maintenance costs, and a lot less initial cash outlay. I also could opt for the venerable Lauf fork, have no maintenance costs, but yeah, it does cost $990.00! 

Verdict: For my money, the best solution here is a tire that works well and a suspension stem, like the Redshift ShockStop stem, which does a great job at the vibration reduction thing. It is also tunable for your ride style and weight. The ShockStop is also swappable from bike to bike in most cases as well, making it more versatile over the long haul for its owner. I do not need a specific "suspension compatible" gravel frame, nor are there any proprietary limitations. 

To make the telescopic fork actually work on a gravel bike, it would necessarily need to have more travel to work with to dissipate both high frequency, mid frequency, and big impact inputs. Only then would its weight penalty, cost penalty, and maintenance penalty over a suspension stem make it a consideration. However; to gain that function the fork would have to have an axle to crown height that would nullify any aerodynamic efficiencies that a gravel bike needs to have.  (Think about how a Fargo or Cutthroat with suspension would do in a headwind vs a typical gravel bike) Yes- you could do this and maybe be a happy rider, but there is no denying the physics here. And still you have all the economic and practical issues to deal with as well.

Small Changes- Big Differences

The Sawyer with a shorter travel Reba G2 fork

Tuesday I had a gritchy throat which ended up becoming a full blown cold on Wednesday. so, any thoughts of long rides in the country on a chilly early Fall day were thrown out the window. I ended up nursing myself along at home and in the meantime I decided to monkey around with the Sawyer which I posted about yesterday.

Fork exchanges are no big deal, especially when the wheel standards and head set standards remain the same between parts. I just took about ten minutes to swap things around. That was the easy part.

The change to the Rock Shox Reba meant the same offset with a shorter axle to crown since the fork is set at 80mm of travel. That's positively unheard of these days, 80mm of travel, but that is what the Sawyer was developed around. By the way, I still have the original fork, but suspension for off roading sure is nice to have. The thought here was that maybe the fact that I'd been running a fork that was technically "too long" was causing my dislike of the bike's ride to some degree. Millimeters of difference, but sometimes small changes result in very different feelings and sensations while riding.

The game of millimeters and degrees of angle change are sometimes scoffed at by some cyclists. However; I would say that if I lowered your saddle by 5mm, or lengthened your stem by one centimeter, you'd notice a "big" difference. So, small changes really do matter. Even novice cyclists can tell these things. We see this all the time in the bike shop.

Te Reba has plenty of clearance with the 27.5+ tires as they are on Blunt 35 rims.

 Plunking around the neighborhood, (I was too ill to go for a full blown ride), I felt that the bike was "better". It didn't feel so up in the air, and the lowered front end made the top tube a touch more roomy. Definitely a move in the right direction. I'll have to actually get it out on a trail, obviously, but I think the slightly longer fork wasn't doing this bike any favors. Not for me, at any rate.

As a side note I also discovered I still have an 80mm travel Manitou Tower fork that would also work on this bike. It is not 51mm offset, but- and I may be wrong- I believe it is 46mm offset. Manitou liked that 46mm offset for 29"ers back then, as I recall. So, popping that one on the Sawyer would result in a different feel as well. More stability, and maybe not as eager to turn in. I may try it out as well. The axle to crown is similar to the Rock Shox, maybe a tick taller, I didn't take an exact measurement.

That all said, I probably will not be using any of the three forks. The thing I want to do here is get a 3.0" tire on an internal 40.mm wide rim and forks made the better part of a decade ago did not take such wheels in to account. I'll likely look for a newer, Boost spaced fork I can lower to 80mm of travel and that has through axles. The current, B plus wheels will likely be moved to gravel grinding duty.

The rear of the bike is a quick release, of course, but with aluminum sliding drop outs, well.......maybe I could get something made in through axle. It isn't imperative that I do so, but being that I am moving in to a modern front end at some point, it might prove to be nice to have the rear end match up.

All because the smallest differences seem to make all the difference in how much I like the bike.

Small Changes- Big Differences

The Sawyer with a shorter travel Reba G2 fork

Tuesday I had a gritchy throat which ended up becoming a full blown cold on Wednesday. so, any thoughts of long rides in the country on a chilly early Fall day were thrown out the window. I ended up nursing myself along at home and in the meantime I decided to monkey around with the Sawyer which I posted about yesterday.

Fork exchanges are no big deal, especially when the wheel standards and head set standards remain the same between parts. I just took about ten minutes to swap things around. That was the easy part.

The change to the Rock Shox Reba meant the same offset with a shorter axle to crown since the fork is set at 80mm of travel. That's positively unheard of these days, 80mm of travel, but that is what the Sawyer was developed around. By the way, I still have the original fork, but suspension for off roading sure is nice to have. The thought here was that maybe the fact that I'd been running a fork that was technically "too long" was causing my dislike of the bike's ride to some degree. Millimeters of difference, but sometimes small changes result in very different feelings and sensations while riding.

The game of millimeters and degrees of angle change are sometimes scoffed at by some cyclists. However; I would say that if I lowered your saddle by 5mm, or lengthened your stem by one centimeter, you'd notice a "big" difference. So, small changes really do matter. Even novice cyclists can tell these things. We see this all the time in the bike shop.

Te Reba has plenty of clearance with the 27.5+ tires as they are on Blunt 35 rims.

 Plunking around the neighborhood, (I was too ill to go for a full blown ride), I felt that the bike was "better". It didn't feel so up in the air, and the lowered front end made the top tube a touch more roomy. Definitely a move in the right direction. I'll have to actually get it out on a trail, obviously, but I think the slightly longer fork wasn't doing this bike any favors. Not for me, at any rate.

As a side note I also discovered I still have an 80mm travel Manitou Tower fork that would also work on this bike. It is not 51mm offset, but- and I may be wrong- I believe it is 46mm offset. Manitou liked that 46mm offset for 29"ers back then, as I recall. So, popping that one on the Sawyer would result in a different feel as well. More stability, and maybe not as eager to turn in. I may try it out as well. The axle to crown is similar to the Rock Shox, maybe a tick taller, I didn't take an exact measurement.

That all said, I probably will not be using any of the three forks. The thing I want to do here is get a 3.0" tire on an internal 40.mm wide rim and forks made the better part of a decade ago did not take such wheels in to account. I'll likely look for a newer, Boost spaced fork I can lower to 80mm of travel and that has through axles. The current, B plus wheels will likely be moved to gravel grinding duty.

The rear of the bike is a quick release, of course, but with aluminum sliding drop outs, well.......maybe I could get something made in through axle. It isn't imperative that I do so, but being that I am moving in to a modern front end at some point, it might prove to be nice to have the rear end match up.

All because the smallest differences seem to make all the difference in how much I like the bike.

They Said It Couldn't Be Done: Part Two

Santa Cruz Bikes' new V10. A 29"er DH bike? Yes!

Subtitled: I Also Said It Couldn't Be Done

All along the 29 inch wheels development, I said that the big wheel was best for a lot of things. I figured a lot of things would be possible to design around 29" wheels. One thing I have always said I thought wouldn't work was a 29 inch wheeled down hill racing bike. A serious effort at one would never happen, right? I mean, first of all, who would even think about doing a fork? There were a couple of things made- White Brothers and Manitou Dorado forks were efforts that pushed the envelope, but weren't going to be taken seriously by any Pro level rider. But a true, Pro-worthy DH fork? Yeah.......right! When pigs fly.

ATTENTION! Pig flying at 12:00 o'clock! 

Times have changed and things have developed to the point where riders seeking to roll faster down hill have discovered big wheels. 29 inch wheels, and the companies that support that size now include companies that are serious in the DH world. Fox, Enve, and Chris King. Santa Cruz, also a stalwart bike company in the DH scene, started the ball rolling with their team, but it has been hinted at by some that many other 29"er DH bikes are in the wings waiting to be revealed. That Fox made a special fork for this is a huge clue. As I have said before, companies like Fox won't do tooling and manufacturing set ups for small production runs and one-offs. No, there are other companies involved and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Rock Shox also debuting a big, 29"er DH fork.

Yep. I never thought I'd see the day when 29 inch wheels were a thing in every form of mountain biking. But they are now.

They Said It Couldn't Be Done: Part Two

Santa Cruz Bikes' new V10. A 29"er DH bike? Yes!

Subtitled: I Also Said It Couldn't Be Done

All along the 29 inch wheels development, I said that the big wheel was best for a lot of things. I figured a lot of things would be possible to design around 29" wheels. One thing I have always said I thought wouldn't work was a 29 inch wheeled down hill racing bike. A serious effort at one would never happen, right? I mean, first of all, who would even think about doing a fork? There were a couple of things made- White Brothers and Manitou Dorado forks were efforts that pushed the envelope, but weren't going to be taken seriously by any Pro level rider. But a true, Pro-worthy DH fork? Yeah.......right! When pigs fly.

ATTENTION! Pig flying at 12:00 o'clock! 

Times have changed and things have developed to the point where riders seeking to roll faster down hill have discovered big wheels. 29 inch wheels, and the companies that support that size now include companies that are serious in the DH world. Fox, Enve, and Chris King. Santa Cruz, also a stalwart bike company in the DH scene, started the ball rolling with their team, but it has been hinted at by some that many other 29"er DH bikes are in the wings waiting to be revealed. That Fox made a special fork for this is a huge clue. As I have said before, companies like Fox won't do tooling and manufacturing set ups for small production runs and one-offs. No, there are other companies involved and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Rock Shox also debuting a big, 29"er DH fork.

Yep. I never thought I'd see the day when 29 inch wheels were a thing in every form of mountain biking. But they are now.

Friday News And Views

Wait! 180mm of travel?!! In a 29"er fork?!!

From The "They Said It Couldn't Be Done" File:

29"ers were slagged off ten years ago as being only worth it if you were in to XC, single speeding, or short travel full suspension bikes, and let's face it, who wants anything to do with those things? If you were a dreamer back then, you wanted to see the day when a long travel big wheeler was made for big trail days. But, you know, they all said "No way!".

Well, then you had all that business with "enduro", which by the way, is that even a thing now? Anyway, there was that distraction for a few years. Then 29"ers sort of had a renaissance of sorts when the engineering finally caught up and big wheeled, longer travel rigs began to appear at enduro events and started winning them. Now it would appear that the unthinkable has been achieved- that being a super long travel 29"er fork.

Rock Shox just announced some big trail forks ahead of Sea Otter and one of those is a Lyric fork that has a maximum travel of 180mm in 29"er form. (According to a site I read the news on) That's crazy. If you would have suggested such a fork for 29"ers even five years ago, you'd have been laughed off the face of the earth.

So, if you've been listening and reading what I have said about product intros here, you know that things like a Rock Shox Lyric fork for 29"ers is not being made as just an aftermarket option. No, these are going to show up somewhere on someone's production bike with big hoops. So, apparently saying "it will never happen" means that, "hold on, sooner or later you'll see it" in "bike speak", because there it is. The thing they said couldn't be done.

Shape My Grips bar grips are.........interesting.

Shape My Grip Update:

Well, after a few hundred miles of Shape My Grip usage, I can say that I feel I know these as well as I am going to. I ran them at the Renegade Gent's Race and afterward on gravel and commutes.

Shape My Grips says that these are vibration damping add-ons. Hmm......... I don't know about that. Maybe they are, but I cannot say I can tell any differences. I can say that they do offer more control and that they do make for a unique gripping experience that might be right up some folks alleys.

I could totally see how they might be a great thing on wet, muddy rides and especially for cyclo cross where a bit of control added with a secure grip might  be a good thing. People with larger hands might really like something like this to fill up their big paws more than a puny, round tube might otherwise.

One thing that I noted which seemed counter-intuitive was that the part that fitted into the curved part of the drops, the grip oddly enough dubbed "CURVE", was all forward of the bar. In other words, any part of the grip that might enhance comfort was all concentrated in your finger side of the grip and not on the load bearing, vibration absorbing palm side. That seems like a missed feature opportunity.

So, these might be cool for some of you out there for more control, or maybe for a secure grip enhancement, but I have to question any benefit due to a vibration reduction that these are said to provide. I think you'd be better served by dropping your air pressures a bit in your tires to get a noticeable gain there.

Banjo Brothers bags- Top Tube Bag on Left, XL Saddle Trunk on Right

Bag It:

Banjo Brothers is an outfit based out of the Twin Cities that does value packed, bang for your buck bags that happen to work really well. I know, because I have used Banjo Brothers bags for years. They sponsored a couple of Trans Iowas, back in the day, and most recently, I used one of their seat packs on my Fat Bike Century. That trunk bag is very similar to the XL Saddle Trunk they sent over for test and review recently, and I have beaten that thing to death over the Winter, but you'd hardly know it. Well, that is, if I cleaned it up! It's rather dirty right now.

Anyway, this new XL sized behemoth bag is 800 cubic inches of seat bag packing possibilities, and I aim to find out how much stuff it can handle and how well it handles it. That will require me doing a sub 24hr overnighter or two, I suppose.

Oh darn!

The top tube bag is a much larger, more spacious, and easier to use top tube bag than their previous version which was barely big enough for my old point and shoot Fuji x-7 camera.This one should work out fine. I'll have more details on the bags and a review later. I will say that the bag comes equipped with enough strapping that you should have no issues strapping it to even the widest top tube/down tube junctions. I don't really have bikes like that, so I'll likely shorten mine up. You can always cut off what you don't need, but adding on is something else altogether.

Disclaimer: Shape My Grip sent over the SMG BAR TOP and CURVE grips at no charge for test and review. Banjo Brothers sent over the Top Tube Bag and XL Seat Trunk at no charge for test and review. I am not being paid nor bribed to write these reviews and I strive to give my honest thoughts and opinions throughout. 

Have a great Easter Weekend!

Friday News And Views

Wait! 180mm of travel?!! In a 29"er fork?!!

From The "They Said It Couldn't Be Done" File:

29"ers were slagged off ten years ago as being only worth it if you were in to XC, single speeding, or short travel full suspension bikes, and let's face it, who wants anything to do with those things? If you were a dreamer back then, you wanted to see the day when a long travel big wheeler was made for big trail days. But, you know, they all said "No way!".

Well, then you had all that business with "enduro", which by the way, is that even a thing now? Anyway, there was that distraction for a few years. Then 29"ers sort of had a renaissance of sorts when the engineering finally caught up and big wheeled, longer travel rigs began to appear at enduro events and started winning them. Now it would appear that the unthinkable has been achieved- that being a super long travel 29"er fork.

Rock Shox just announced some big trail forks ahead of Sea Otter and one of those is a Lyric fork that has a maximum travel of 180mm in 29"er form. (According to a site I read the news on) That's crazy. If you would have suggested such a fork for 29"ers even five years ago, you'd have been laughed off the face of the earth.

So, if you've been listening and reading what I have said about product intros here, you know that things like a Rock Shox Lyric fork for 29"ers is not being made as just an aftermarket option. No, these are going to show up somewhere on someone's production bike with big hoops. So, apparently saying "it will never happen" means that, "hold on, sooner or later you'll see it" in "bike speak", because there it is. The thing they said couldn't be done.

Shape My Grips bar grips are.........interesting.

Shape My Grip Update:

Well, after a few hundred miles of Shape My Grip usage, I can say that I feel I know these as well as I am going to. I ran them at the Renegade Gent's Race and afterward on gravel and commutes.

Shape My Grips says that these are vibration damping add-ons. Hmm......... I don't know about that. Maybe they are, but I cannot say I can tell any differences. I can say that they do offer more control and that they do make for a unique gripping experience that might be right up some folks alleys.

I could totally see how they might be a great thing on wet, muddy rides and especially for cyclo cross where a bit of control added with a secure grip might  be a good thing. People with larger hands might really like something like this to fill up their big paws more than a puny, round tube might otherwise.

One thing that I noted which seemed counter-intuitive was that the part that fitted into the curved part of the drops, the grip oddly enough dubbed "CURVE", was all forward of the bar. In other words, any part of the grip that might enhance comfort was all concentrated in your finger side of the grip and not on the load bearing, vibration absorbing palm side. That seems like a missed feature opportunity.

So, these might be cool for some of you out there for more control, or maybe for a secure grip enhancement, but I have to question any benefit due to a vibration reduction that these are said to provide. I think you'd be better served by dropping your air pressures a bit in your tires to get a noticeable gain there.

Banjo Brothers bags- Top Tube Bag on Left, XL Saddle Trunk on Right

Bag It:

Banjo Brothers is an outfit based out of the Twin Cities that does value packed, bang for your buck bags that happen to work really well. I know, because I have used Banjo Brothers bags for years. They sponsored a couple of Trans Iowas, back in the day, and most recently, I used one of their seat packs on my Fat Bike Century. That trunk bag is very similar to the XL Saddle Trunk they sent over for test and review recently, and I have beaten that thing to death over the Winter, but you'd hardly know it. Well, that is, if I cleaned it up! It's rather dirty right now.

Anyway, this new XL sized behemoth bag is 800 cubic inches of seat bag packing possibilities, and I aim to find out how much stuff it can handle and how well it handles it. That will require me doing a sub 24hr overnighter or two, I suppose.

Oh darn!

The top tube bag is a much larger, more spacious, and easier to use top tube bag than their previous version which was barely big enough for my old point and shoot Fuji x-7 camera.This one should work out fine. I'll have more details on the bags and a review later. I will say that the bag comes equipped with enough strapping that you should have no issues strapping it to even the widest top tube/down tube junctions. I don't really have bikes like that, so I'll likely shorten mine up. You can always cut off what you don't need, but adding on is something else altogether.

Disclaimer: Shape My Grip sent over the SMG BAR TOP and CURVE grips at no charge for test and review. Banjo Brothers sent over the Top Tube Bag and XL Seat Trunk at no charge for test and review. I am not being paid nor bribed to write these reviews and I strive to give my honest thoughts and opinions throughout. 

Have a great Easter Weekend!

Shocking News And Husky Rubber

A Rock Shox Judy?! Yes, a new Judy is coming soon.

Blast From The Past- Only New!

 What better way to kick off a "Throwback Thursday" than to talk about yesterday's news that a new Rock Shox Judy will become available as an aftermarket and OEM suspension fork for 27.5" and 29" bikes. SRAM marketing mentions something about "entry level" bikes getting this nicer fork, so take that under advisement. It seems that it has decent features, and with the 29" Boost version, you can go with 27.5+ tires.

Of course, all of this Judy gab is really a distraction since Rock Shox also announced several updates throughout their fork line up. You can catch up, if you care to, by checking in with our UK based dirt heads here.

There is an irony here since the Judy is not being offered in its original 26" wheel format. Of course, the 26"er forks have been relegated to sub-standard status by most of the industry and it has been that way for a few years now. You could say that 27.5 is the new twentysix. I've held that theory for several years now. It worked to drop 26" and make everyone that wanted/needed an upgrade to go to 27.5", but now that ruse is over, and it seems that the industry is fishing around for other ways to get your dollars sucked out of your bank accounts. 27.5+ seems to be where that wagon is hitched right now because there was zero mentions of 29+ in the article I saw. Maybe that's an announcement for Sea Otter......

29 X Husky. (Image courtesy of Team Dicky's Facebook page)

Call it Husky:

 First there were 29"er tires, then this whole thing went nuts with fat bikes, "Plus" sized 29"er tires, and 27.5+ stuff. I'd heard rumors that a category of 29"er rubber was going to be made in that empty space between current 2.5" tires and 3.0", "plus" sized 29"er tires. Well, it seems that 2.6" is the size we will see first and Maxxis is showing a tire at the current Tapei Bike Show happening now. There will be a lot more of this sort of thing, so that begs the question: "What bikes will they fit and when will we be seeing them?".

Obviously there are already a few rigs out that are 29+ that this would work in, but I figure we will start seeing some real burly, front and full suspension bikes that utilize this size tire and will not be full on 29+ bikes. After having spent a lot of time looking into and riding on various 29"er tires over the years, it is plain to me that to make a tough tire that has decent knobs that won't wilt at the sight of rocks and what not, you are talking about adding a not insignificant amount of weight. This means that those flimsy Surly Knard 29 X 3.0's folks often slag on because they cannot handle rocks and things of that nature would weigh far over 1000 grams each if they did have a tougher casing. And that is without adding rubber tread blocks. This is why the Dirt Wizard is "undersized", because if it were a big casing with all that rubber on it the tire would weigh as much as many fat bike tires do.

I've believed all along that 29+ was just a bit "too much" in terms of dimensions and weight to become a very widely acceptable wheel/tire format. The numbers there will always be small. This new aim at making a tire with a 700c bead seat diameter and a 2.6" width has some legs, I think. It keeps all that weight and diameter in check, to a degree, and I think it is just enough to make it more appealing than full-on 29+ (three inches or larger) wheels and tires. I don't think 29 X 2.6 is "plus"sized, but maybe it is "husky"? Well, whatever it is, I like it. Eventually my Singular Buzzard will see that size tire on it.

Shocking News And Husky Rubber

A Rock Shox Judy?! Yes, a new Judy is coming soon.

Blast From The Past- Only New!

 What better way to kick off a "Throwback Thursday" than to talk about yesterday's news that a new Rock Shox Judy will become available as an aftermarket and OEM suspension fork for 27.5" and 29" bikes. SRAM marketing mentions something about "entry level" bikes getting this nicer fork, so take that under advisement. It seems that it has decent features, and with the 29" Boost version, you can go with 27.5+ tires.

Of course, all of this Judy gab is really a distraction since Rock Shox also announced several updates throughout their fork line up. You can catch up, if you care to, by checking in with our UK based dirt heads here.

There is an irony here since the Judy is not being offered in its original 26" wheel format. Of course, the 26"er forks have been relegated to sub-standard status by most of the industry and it has been that way for a few years now. You could say that 27.5 is the new twentysix. I've held that theory for several years now. It worked to drop 26" and make everyone that wanted/needed an upgrade to go to 27.5", but now that ruse is over, and it seems that the industry is fishing around for other ways to get your dollars sucked out of your bank accounts. 27.5+ seems to be where that wagon is hitched right now because there was zero mentions of 29+ in the article I saw. Maybe that's an announcement for Sea Otter......

29 X Husky. (Image courtesy of Team Dicky's Facebook page)

Call it Husky:

 First there were 29"er tires, then this whole thing went nuts with fat bikes, "Plus" sized 29"er tires, and 27.5+ stuff. I'd heard rumors that a category of 29"er rubber was going to be made in that empty space between current 2.5" tires and 3.0", "plus" sized 29"er tires. Well, it seems that 2.6" is the size we will see first and Maxxis is showing a tire at the current Tapei Bike Show happening now. There will be a lot more of this sort of thing, so that begs the question: "What bikes will they fit and when will we be seeing them?".

Obviously there are already a few rigs out that are 29+ that this would work in, but I figure we will start seeing some real burly, front and full suspension bikes that utilize this size tire and will not be full on 29+ bikes. After having spent a lot of time looking into and riding on various 29"er tires over the years, it is plain to me that to make a tough tire that has decent knobs that won't wilt at the sight of rocks and what not, you are talking about adding a not insignificant amount of weight. This means that those flimsy Surly Knard 29 X 3.0's folks often slag on because they cannot handle rocks and things of that nature would weigh far over 1000 grams each if they did have a tougher casing. And that is without adding rubber tread blocks. This is why the Dirt Wizard is "undersized", because if it were a big casing with all that rubber on it the tire would weigh as much as many fat bike tires do.

I've believed all along that 29+ was just a bit "too much" in terms of dimensions and weight to become a very widely acceptable wheel/tire format. The numbers there will always be small. This new aim at making a tire with a 700c bead seat diameter and a 2.6" width has some legs, I think. It keeps all that weight and diameter in check, to a degree, and I think it is just enough to make it more appealing than full-on 29+ (three inches or larger) wheels and tires. I don't think 29 X 2.6 is "plus"sized, but maybe it is "husky"? Well, whatever it is, I like it. Eventually my Singular Buzzard will see that size tire on it.

Salsa Cycles Blackborow And Bluto Fork

The Bluto dealt with mud better than I thought it would

It was Wednesday and the mighty RAGBY was coming into town. I worked till about noon, bugged out, and got on my Blackborow to see how the Green Belt was doing. I had heard rumors that it had been mowed and was clear enough to ride through.

I had just installed a Rock Shox Bluto fork on the front of the Blackborow recently. My intentions were not to be running these wheels or the dinglespeed drive train on it, but the rest of my parts have not been procured as of yet, so I have to hold off riding, or decide just to go with it as is, and of course, that is what I did.

I had no idea what to expect other than what I had heard from a few trusted folks I know that were pretty positive that it would make my Blackborow better. One of those folks, MG, had plenty of time with one and had lots of good things to say, so I was positive about trying it out, but I didn't really think it would make that much difference. You see, the Green Belt is not necessarily known for it's elevation changes, nor for lots of rough trail features. I already had 4.8" fat bike tires at low pressures, what else could I need? Well, not a lot for the Green Belt, is what I was thinking. I took off on a sunny, pleasant afternoon and headed over to give it a go and see what all the fuss was about. I didn't even check the fork's air spring pressure, which was set by the previous owner and felt plenty stiff to me.

The beast emerges from the jungle!

The Bluto looks nice with the graphics on my Blackborow DS and compliments the bike nicely. 

The initial ride over and whatnot was nothing different than usual. Which is a positive thing, I think. Of course, the bike gained a bit of weight in the exchange, but as I pedaled it along, I didn't feel anything dragging me down. The Green Belt was mowed, as reported, so I dove in and cruised the mostly smooth trail for the first sector.

A lot of the trail was like this- no big deal.

I was going along and feeling good about the bike, but as I have said, the trail wasn't really all that demanding. In fact, at first I thought is was uncommonly dry for having had rain a day before. Much of the initial parts were so dry the earth was cracked.

Then I came across some sand, and I didn't catch this at first, but later on into the trail, I realized that instead of washing out the front wheel, I was able to correct the way the front end was headed, and avert any crashes or stops to catch myself from going down. I feel it was due to the suspension fork being able to absorb my initial corrections which gave me time to get the bike back underneath me and carry on. That was a good thing.

Then I started coming up on some blow downs that had trail work-arounds so you could get by the limbs and what not. This coincided with the occurrence of muddy spots and then out and out mud pits where the big 4.8's showed their worth. I was able to pretty much motor right through without too much trouble at all. All of that done in the "high" range on the dinglespeed drive train. That made me happy, because when I got the bike, using the "high" range wasn't working for me. Now I was pushing that gear with no real problem at all, and even climbing the dikes in it. Guess I must be in better shape than I thought.

A deep, sloppy mud hole that the Blackborow just floated right through.

Old school single track in Marky-Mark

I decided to try and take as much of the Green Belt in as possible, so I took several of the spur trails and they were all pretty clear, for the most part. I got into the Robinson Bird Sanctuary portion of the trails and things were still fine with the exception of about three or four blow downs that mostly had ride-able work-arounds already burned in. The sandy stuff way out by Shaulis Road was no big deal for the fat bike. In fact, with all the muddy spots and with the sand, a fat bike is the recommended bike to use out there, I would say.

On the way back I rode Marky-Mark, and much to my surprise it was clear and open to ride. That was nice to see. I blazed that trail, (mostly), myself back in 1997, so it is nice to find that, not only that it still exists at all, but that folks seem to care about that connector enough that they keep it clear to ride.

So- is the Bluto worth the trouble? That's a great question that I am inclined to say "yes" to right now. It handled all the gooey mud I threw at it without getting the front wheel bogged down. I used almost all the travel, (see image above for where the orange "O" ring is), and for the most part, I didn't notice any big differences in handling. The ride was definitely smoother, and big jolts were absorbed well so I didn't have numb hands or more fatigue than necessary. I felt cornering was enhanced a bit.

But let's not be hasty. I want to ride this some more on different trails before I get too excited about it. Stay tuned.....

Salsa Cycles Blackborow And Bluto Fork

The Bluto dealt with mud better than I thought it would

It was Wednesday and the mighty RAGBY was coming into town. I worked till about noon, bugged out, and got on my Blackborow to see how the Green Belt was doing. I had heard rumors that it had been mowed and was clear enough to ride through.

I had just installed a Rock Shox Bluto fork on the front of the Blackborow recently. My intentions were not to be running these wheels or the dinglespeed drive train on it, but the rest of my parts have not been procured as of yet, so I have to hold off riding, or decide just to go with it as is, and of course, that is what I did.

I had no idea what to expect other than what I had heard from a few trusted folks I know that were pretty positive that it would make my Blackborow better. One of those folks, MG, had plenty of time with one and had lots of good things to say, so I was positive about trying it out, but I didn't really think it would make that much difference. You see, the Green Belt is not necessarily known for it's elevation changes, nor for lots of rough trail features. I already had 4.8" fat bike tires at low pressures, what else could I need? Well, not a lot for the Green Belt, is what I was thinking. I took off on a sunny, pleasant afternoon and headed over to give it a go and see what all the fuss was about. I didn't even check the fork's air spring pressure, which was set by the previous owner and felt plenty stiff to me.

The beast emerges from the jungle!

The Bluto looks nice with the graphics on my Blackborow DS and compliments the bike nicely. 

The initial ride over and whatnot was nothing different than usual. Which is a positive thing, I think. Of course, the bike gained a bit of weight in the exchange, but as I pedaled it along, I didn't feel anything dragging me down. The Green Belt was mowed, as reported, so I dove in and cruised the mostly smooth trail for the first sector.

A lot of the trail was like this- no big deal.

I was going along and feeling good about the bike, but as I have said, the trail wasn't really all that demanding. In fact, at first I thought is was uncommonly dry for having had rain a day before. Much of the initial parts were so dry the earth was cracked.

Then I came across some sand, and I didn't catch this at first, but later on into the trail, I realized that instead of washing out the front wheel, I was able to correct the way the front end was headed, and avert any crashes or stops to catch myself from going down. I feel it was due to the suspension fork being able to absorb my initial corrections which gave me time to get the bike back underneath me and carry on. That was a good thing.

Then I started coming up on some blow downs that had trail work-arounds so you could get by the limbs and what not. This coincided with the occurrence of muddy spots and then out and out mud pits where the big 4.8's showed their worth. I was able to pretty much motor right through without too much trouble at all. All of that done in the "high" range on the dinglespeed drive train. That made me happy, because when I got the bike, using the "high" range wasn't working for me. Now I was pushing that gear with no real problem at all, and even climbing the dikes in it. Guess I must be in better shape than I thought.

A deep, sloppy mud hole that the Blackborow just floated right through.

Old school single track in Marky-Mark

I decided to try and take as much of the Green Belt in as possible, so I took several of the spur trails and they were all pretty clear, for the most part. I got into the Robinson Bird Sanctuary portion of the trails and things were still fine with the exception of about three or four blow downs that mostly had ride-able work-arounds already burned in. The sandy stuff way out by Shaulis Road was no big deal for the fat bike. In fact, with all the muddy spots and with the sand, a fat bike is the recommended bike to use out there, I would say.

On the way back I rode Marky-Mark, and much to my surprise it was clear and open to ride. That was nice to see. I blazed that trail, (mostly), myself back in 1997, so it is nice to find that, not only that it still exists at all, but that folks seem to care about that connector enough that they keep it clear to ride.

So- is the Bluto worth the trouble? That's a great question that I am inclined to say "yes" to right now. It handled all the gooey mud I threw at it without getting the front wheel bogged down. I used almost all the travel, (see image above for where the orange "O" ring is), and for the most part, I didn't notice any big differences in handling. The ride was definitely smoother, and big jolts were absorbed well so I didn't have numb hands or more fatigue than necessary. I felt cornering was enhanced a bit.

But let's not be hasty. I want to ride this some more on different trails before I get too excited about it. Stay tuned.....

They Killed It In 2016

Model Year 2016 "Yari" fork in 27.5 flavor

Yesterday a press release from SRAM/Rock Shox was published that detailed the firms plans for the 2016 long travel single crown forks. This is the product category that drives the bulk of the high performance mountain bike suspension market. Everything from the "weekend warrior" trail riders to the enduro racing scene and the more extreme, outback riding styles are represented here. Without a doubt, this is the category of fork that marketing managers and brands push as the "core mountain biking" category.

These forks will find there way to full suspension trail bikes, enduro racing rigs, and longer travel hard tail bikes. They will end up on ads, videos, and be prominently displayed in most shops carrying mtb product, much like high end road racing bikes are. XC and entry level forks are where most riders will end up buying in at, but these beastly forks are what we all would really want to have to justify. They scream "mountain bike!"

And........so what? Well, here's the deal. Rock Shox, who will pump thousands of these forks out to factories for Original Equipment spec, are not making these available in 26 inch wheel compatible models. In other words, the 26 inch mountain bike wheel is dead as far as performance mountain biking is concerned. 2016 will pretty much be that time marker we will all look back to and say, "Well.....that was the day the ol' 26"er went down."

Up until now, most fork and wheel manufacturers quietly carried top end 26"er product along with the burgeoning 27.5" and now well entrenched 29"er product. However; that day is over now with this announcement yesterday. SRAM holds sway in terms of front suspension spec over many companies and brands and the other fork manufacturers will, if they have not already, make high performance 26 inch product extinct in their line ups. It's all over now but the crying.

B+ has forced the front axle spacing to "BOOST" mode.

Boost Mode: The next thing I noted was that all newer options are being offered in the new 110mm front axle spacing dubbed "Boost" by the industry. Quick release front axles are quickly becoming relegated to XC or even entry level forks. So, if I were building new mountain bike wheels, I would insist on Boost spacing and 15mm through axle compatibility, or just a dedicated 15mm through axle. In a few years, 100mm spaced  front suspension forks and quick release compatible drop outs will be gone. You may as well get on this train now, 'cause it is leaving the station, and it ain't coming back. Oh, and through axle, 148mm, "Boost" spaced rear ends will also be more common, if not the defacto new standard.

This new axle spacing has been driven by the desire to stiffen bigger hoops by pushing out the hub flanges to a slightly wider stance, and to accommodate these new, plus sized wheels and drive train clearance issues that come with that. It is also why SRAM is really heavily investing in 1X drivetrains, which they believe will become the standard in the future. So, if SRAM gets their way, you can kiss those front derailleurs goodbye as well.

My take is that I was pretty sure once 27.5" was adopted by the industry a few years ago to pump up flagging long travel mtb sales, the 26"er didn't have long on this planet as a performance mountain biking platform. Sure, there were hold outs and places where 26 inch product was still offered. That isn't going to last though after this announcement. The Boost thing is long overdue. We've been playing within the same overlock dimensions since the late 80's when 8 speed stuff was unheard of. This isn't a new idea, not by any stretch, but it is a long overdue change. I've been saying quick release wheel attachment was something that has needed to go away for years now, and this looks like it will finally happen as well. Moving to the Boost standards will hasten that change. Finally, the only thing I see here that I don't believe will happen is SRAM's wish to kill the front derailleur and multiple speed crank off. With electronic shifting now starting to work its way into mountain biking, the front shift will no longer be an issue. It will shift, and heck, Shimano even figured out a program that will shift the front changer for you when you need it. It is clear that Shimano believes that front derailleurs are here to stay.  I also feel that trying to give riders a wide range of gearing with close ratio jumps between gears is going to be impossible with 1X systems.

It certainly is an interesting time for mountain bikes.

They Killed It In 2016

Model Year 2016 "Yari" fork in 27.5 flavor

Yesterday a press release from SRAM/Rock Shox was published that detailed the firms plans for the 2016 long travel single crown forks. This is the product category that drives the bulk of the high performance mountain bike suspension market. Everything from the "weekend warrior" trail riders to the enduro racing scene and the more extreme, outback riding styles are represented here. Without a doubt, this is the category of fork that marketing managers and brands push as the "core mountain biking" category.

These forks will find there way to full suspension trail bikes, enduro racing rigs, and longer travel hard tail bikes. They will end up on ads, videos, and be prominently displayed in most shops carrying mtb product, much like high end road racing bikes are. XC and entry level forks are where most riders will end up buying in at, but these beastly forks are what we all would really want to have to justify. They scream "mountain bike!"

And........so what? Well, here's the deal. Rock Shox, who will pump thousands of these forks out to factories for Original Equipment spec, are not making these available in 26 inch wheel compatible models. In other words, the 26 inch mountain bike wheel is dead as far as performance mountain biking is concerned. 2016 will pretty much be that time marker we will all look back to and say, "Well.....that was the day the ol' 26"er went down."

Up until now, most fork and wheel manufacturers quietly carried top end 26"er product along with the burgeoning 27.5" and now well entrenched 29"er product. However; that day is over now with this announcement yesterday. SRAM holds sway in terms of front suspension spec over many companies and brands and the other fork manufacturers will, if they have not already, make high performance 26 inch product extinct in their line ups. It's all over now but the crying.

B+ has forced the front axle spacing to "BOOST" mode.

Boost Mode: The next thing I noted was that all newer options are being offered in the new 110mm front axle spacing dubbed "Boost" by the industry. Quick release front axles are quickly becoming relegated to XC or even entry level forks. So, if I were building new mountain bike wheels, I would insist on Boost spacing and 15mm through axle compatibility, or just a dedicated 15mm through axle. In a few years, 100mm spaced  front suspension forks and quick release compatible drop outs will be gone. You may as well get on this train now, 'cause it is leaving the station, and it ain't coming back. Oh, and through axle, 148mm, "Boost" spaced rear ends will also be more common, if not the defacto new standard.

This new axle spacing has been driven by the desire to stiffen bigger hoops by pushing out the hub flanges to a slightly wider stance, and to accommodate these new, plus sized wheels and drive train clearance issues that come with that. It is also why SRAM is really heavily investing in 1X drivetrains, which they believe will become the standard in the future. So, if SRAM gets their way, you can kiss those front derailleurs goodbye as well.

My take is that I was pretty sure once 27.5" was adopted by the industry a few years ago to pump up flagging long travel mtb sales, the 26"er didn't have long on this planet as a performance mountain biking platform. Sure, there were hold outs and places where 26 inch product was still offered. That isn't going to last though after this announcement. The Boost thing is long overdue. We've been playing within the same overlock dimensions since the late 80's when 8 speed stuff was unheard of. This isn't a new idea, not by any stretch, but it is a long overdue change. I've been saying quick release wheel attachment was something that has needed to go away for years now, and this looks like it will finally happen as well. Moving to the Boost standards will hasten that change. Finally, the only thing I see here that I don't believe will happen is SRAM's wish to kill the front derailleur and multiple speed crank off. With electronic shifting now starting to work its way into mountain biking, the front shift will no longer be an issue. It will shift, and heck, Shimano even figured out a program that will shift the front changer for you when you need it. It is clear that Shimano believes that front derailleurs are here to stay.  I also feel that trying to give riders a wide range of gearing with close ratio jumps between gears is going to be impossible with 1X systems.

It certainly is an interesting time for mountain bikes.