Rockshox RS-1

Dick Scruttock

Stanchions must be about 60mm if RevellRider's friends, aunties, dog groomers, pizza delivery boy is right with the 28mm axle.....

njee20

Yeah but if they are going for a small market it seems wierd that they would kind of repeat the whole "RS1 - a revelation for the mtb world" when really its a revelation for a very small part of the mtb world

Yeah, but it would be a bit weird to have all this fanfare for a basic undamped, steel steerer equipped 80mm fork for a BSO, which is where the volume is going to be!

It's a top end product, it's no different to what any other brand would do, you think XX1 and Enve wheels are aimed at the mass market?

They might make a fork that already uses carbon, but whether they actually sell any is a different matter. I don't think it's an aversion with carbon, but the cost associated. Rumours are this fork is gonna be between $1000-1500, which is a whole chunk of change.

See my point above on Enve rims, XX1, I'll add SC carbon frames in there too, or CCDB shocks, of course they sell, a Fox CTD Evo Kashima 3058 blah blah blah is £900, as is a Rev WC. Of course people buy this stuff, naive to think otherwise.

lawman

Good point! I guess I'm more confused by who the fork is aimed at, is it an XC or trail fork?

rockmonkeysc

lawman wrote:

Good point! I guess I'm more confused by who the fork is aimed at, is it an XC or trail fork?

What's the difference?

pesky_jones

There's a video of it in use on pinkbikes instagram, don't know how to link it though

Dick Scruttock

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/desert-dreaming.html

lawman

RockmonkeySC wrote:

lawman wrote:

Good point! I guess I'm more confused by who the fork is aimed at, is it an XC or trail fork?

What's the difference?

Well I'd say an XC fork is like a Sid, less than 120mm travel, as light as possible. A trail fork would be anything from 120mm-140/150mm with weight being less of a performance criteria, instead focussing on suspension performance. Of course there will be some overlap between the two, which judging from what we've seen so far of the new RS1 I'd say it could possibly do, though how they've made it stiff enough for trail and light enough for XC racing is anyones guess.

RevellRider

Rick Draper wrote:

Stanchions must be about 60mm if RevellRider's friends, aunties, dog groomers, pizza delivery boy is right with the 28mm axle.....

I did question it with him in work today, he still insists that it's a 28mm through axle. I'll wait until I next see the rep and ask him

bennett_346

I've read through this entire thread and i'm pleased to be reminded that you guys still absolutely jizzum over categorisation of bikes, kit and riding styles.

It's a bloody fork! It is what it is, why does it need to be categorised for a certain type of riding?

lawman

bennett_346 wrote:

I've read through this entire thread and i'm pleased to be reminded that you guys still absolutely jizzum over categorisation of bikes, kit and riding styles.

It's a bloody fork! It is what it is, why does it need to be categorised for a certain type of riding?

Because we all live in a world where everything is given a socially constructed tag? :? Categorization at it's most basic level helps to differentiate between products, sure the bike industry takes it to extremes, but helps the consumer nonetheless.

cooldad

bennett_346 wrote:

I've read through this entire thread and i'm pleased to be reminded that you guys still absolutely jizzum over categorisation of bikes, kit and riding styles.

It's a bloody fork! It is what it is, why does it need to be categorised for a certain type of riding?

You are obviously a none serious, seriously amateur rider. I bet you don’t even have different shoes for trail riding and AM riding.

Thewaylander

http://www.bikemag.com/videos/video-desert-dreaming/

some people riding them on 29ers not sure what spesh model that is off the top of my head but im thinking 120mm trail fork looking at it?

bennett_346

cooldad wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

I've read through this entire thread and i'm pleased to be reminded that you guys still absolutely jizzum over categorisation of bikes, kit and riding styles.

It's a bloody fork! It is what it is, why does it need to be categorised for a certain type of riding?

You are obviously a none serious, seriously amateur rider. I bet you don’t even have different shoes for trail riding and AM riding.

I don't have different shoes for trail and AM riding but I do have some for afternoon riding.

pesky_jones

bennett_346 wrote:

I've read through this entire thread and i'm pleased to be reminded that you guys still absolutely jizzum over categorisation of bikes, kit and riding styles.

It's a bloody fork! It is what it is, why does it need to be categorised for a certain type of riding?

Meh. + 1, but its not just a new shape or an updated fork, It's something they've never done before and is completely new. It

Its like if Ford bring out a new three wheeled car, you dont need to be a stupidly enthusiastic petrol head to want to know why they've done it and what's it for.

lawman

Pesky Jones wrote:

You dont need to be a stupidly enthusiastic to want to know why they've done it and what's it for.

This. When they already have the Sid covering the 80-120mm travel bracket, what exactly does this bring to the table and why have they done it?

Ferrals

lawman wrote:

Pesky Jones wrote:

You dont need to be a stupidly enthusiastic to want to know why they've done it and what's it for.

This. When they already have the Sid covering the 80-120mm travel bracket, what exactly does this bring to the table and why have they done it?

A cynic would say for marketing

If it ain't broke don't fix it.. unless you want to shift more product!

njee20

If pushed to say I'd say he's on a Trek Rumblefish and she's on a Spesh Rumour, so yes, trail type bikes.

rockmonkeysc

lawman wrote:

Pesky Jones wrote:

You dont need to be a stupidly enthusiastic to want to know why they've done it and what's it for.

This. When they already have the Sid covering the 80-120mm travel bracket, what exactly does this bring to the table and why have they done it?

With a carbon one piece upper it could potentially be lighter and/or stiffer than a Sid. Possibly (probably) stiffer than a Reba as well.
To me this looks like it could (if it works well) be a real move forwards in fork design.

bennett_346

njee20 wrote:

If pushed to say I'd say he's on a Trek Rumblefish and she's on a Spesh Rumour, so yes, trail type bikes.

What's a trail bike, by definition?

njee20

Not an XC race bike, nor a DH bike, the bit in the middle. What most people have.

rockmonkeysc

njee20 wrote:

Not an XC race bike, nor a DH bike, the bit in the middle. What most people have.

Where do trail bikes fit in with all mountain, enduro, freeride and marathon bikes?

JMcP92

RockmonkeySC wrote:

njee20 wrote:

Not an XC race bike, nor a DH bike, the bit in the middle. What most people have.

Where do trail bikes fit in with all mountain, enduro, freeride and marathon bikes?

This is entirely my opinion, so feel free to question or adapt it as you see fit, but as I regard it:

<120mm - XC
120mm - 140mm - Trail
140mm - 160mm - Enduro
160mm - 180mm - Freeride
>180mm - DH

bennett_346

JMcP92 wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

njee20 wrote:

Not an XC race bike, nor a DH bike, the bit in the middle. What most people have.

Where do trail bikes fit in with all mountain, enduro, freeride and marathon bikes?

This is entirely my opinion, so feel free to question or adapt it as you see fit, but as I regard it:

<120mm - XC
120mm - 140mm - Trail
140mm - 160mm - Enduro
160mm - 180mm - Freeride
>180mm - DH

But I have used a stumpjumper on DH trails and entered XC races on a "trail" bike. So that makes no sense.

pesky_jones

Were you not just mocking others for attempting to classify forks? Now your actively disagreeing with someones classification. If you consider classification trivial - why bother?

bennett_346

Pesky Jones wrote:

Were you not just mocking others for attempting to classify forks? Now your actively disagreeing with someones classification. If you consider classification trivial - why bother?

I don't disagree with his categorisation, i'm showing how categorisation is meaningless. Someone said it aids consumers - i find it's quite the opposite, what use is labelling a bike for one purpose when it's quite capable of doing much more varied riding than that? Trail is an abomination of a term, as 95% of what we ride on any bike is a trail. Enduro is a largely meaningless term as it's generally a type of race of which most owners of that kind of bike will never enter - and they can't even decide what constitutes an enduro race. All mountain is another one of my favourites, since it's patently obvious that no bike can ride every part of a mountain but most bikes can ride most of it.

How does labelling something as a "trail" or "enduro" bike aid the consumer in choosing a bike when the detailed specifications are right in front of them and tell more of a story about how the bike will perform under different scenarios than a single word?

pesky_jones

Oh I see, fair enough.

JBA

It's an early April Fool!

rockmonkeysc

JMcP92 wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

njee20 wrote:

Not an XC race bike, nor a DH bike, the bit in the middle. What most people have.

Where do trail bikes fit in with all mountain, enduro, freeride and marathon bikes?

This is entirely my opinion, so feel free to question or adapt it as you see fit, but as I regard it:

<120mm - XC
120mm - 140mm - Trail
140mm - 160mm - Enduro
160mm - 180mm - Freeride
>180mm - DH

What about all mountain and marathon? Do those classifications work for 29ers as well?

JMcP92

RockmonkeySC wrote:

JMcP92 wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

njee20 wrote:

Not an XC race bike, nor a DH bike, the bit in the middle. What most people have.

Where do trail bikes fit in with all mountain, enduro, freeride and marathon bikes?

This is entirely my opinion, so feel free to question or adapt it as you see fit, but as I regard it:

<120mm - XC
120mm - 140mm - Trail
140mm - 160mm - Enduro
160mm - 180mm - Freeride
>180mm - DH

What about all mountain and marathon? Do those classifications work for 29ers as well?

Very true, AM fits the same as Enduro, Marathon, well, it can easy be slotted in Again, my opinion :P

As for 29ers, 650b etc. etc. it can all change, more wheel means less travel for the same thing.

Also, to the above post about classifications being meaningless. Indeed, in some ways they are, but at no point did I say you couldn't ride an XC bike down a DH course, got the ability to do it, nobody stopping you. It's a classification, more often than not used for ease-of-definition by people, or regularly used for marketing bikes, doesn't stop you doing anything you please with your bike.

The Northern Monkey

I ride a bike.