Rockshox RS-1
Comments
-
Can see both sides of it, you do need some classification - if they're all just 'mountain bikes' why don't we see SIDs at WC DH races, and folk using SC V10s for towpath riding.
Corporate marketing has a lot to answer for though. Cannondale actually trademarked the term "freeride" in the 90s. That's stupid.0 -
Because people aren't stupid. It's easy to pick an appropriate bike for the job based on its spec, I still fail to see what it adds giving it a term for the amount of travel and what angles it has.njee20 wrote:Can see both sides of it, you do need some classification - if they're all just 'mountain bikes' why don't we see SIDs at WC DH races, and folk using SC V10s for towpath riding.
Corporate marketing has a lot to answer for though. Cannondale actually trademarked the term "freeride" in the 90s. That's stupid.0 -
Is it? Or is that because you know about components?
At the end of the day (bringing this back OT), I'll decide if I'm interested in the RS-1 based on it's weight and travel, but those factors do pigeon hole it somewhat. Whether you want to put names on it or not.0 -
JMcP92 wrote:
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[/quote]
What is Freeride?
DH can have way less than 180 but rarely more than 200.
Freeride often has over 200.
Travel is a very poor way of defining use. Build has more to do with it.
A 100mm HT can be a fine Freeride bike. As can a 160 HT and yes even a 200mm HT."Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0 -
DH bikes often have 10" of rear suspension. It's rare for a DH race bike to have less than 8"Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350
-
Until we see DH1 this year - I reckon we'll see a lot of 160mm bikes.
Anyway... I still reckon this RS1 is going to be stiffer and lighter than anything we have seen before.0 -
bennett_346 wrote:
But I have used a stumpjumper on DH trails and entered XC races on a "trail" bike. So that makes no sense.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
You can't really base a bike on it's travel, as they vary so much, the overall spec will give a better idea of a bikes capabilities. At the end of the day, not everyone is exactly clued up on bike specs, we live in a society where everything is given a classification, bikes are a little like cars in that we have a stereotypical view of certain market segments, you could say your trail bike is your hatchback for example, but obviously they all differ greatly between models so while they all do the same thing, they all do it differently. Giving it a tag is just a way to ease the classification and fit in with what has become the widely accepted way of doing things from a brand point of view. I agree that judging a category by travel isn't always true though and there will always be little niches or some models that break convention.
You can't really class a bike by what you've done on it either, many of us have ridden DH trails on trail bikes, or done xc races on them, but that doesn't mean they're ideal for it and as such their "trail" bike tag doesn't become redundant. They're optimised for a certain kind of riding, and the tag reflects that. You could do the weekly shop in a Ferrari, in the same way you could take your people carrier on a track day, but it's not really the same is it? Sure they'll do it, but they won't do it as well as the right tool for the job.
Things are always gonna be given tags, it's just the way it is.0 -
0
-
http://singletrackworld.com/2014/04/at- ... shox-rs-1/
15mm maxle as predicted. RevellRider if I was you I would ask your mate what course he went on....0 -
Rick Draper wrote:http://singletrackworld.com/2014/04/at-last-heres-the-news-about-rockshox-rs-1/
15mm maxle as predicted. RevellRider if I was you I would ask your mate what course he went on....
Tbf he could have been referring to the 27mm torque tube that the axle clamps down, in which case he damn close to the money.
Sure it might be very stiff, pretty light and good over small bumps, but the US RRP is near as makes no difference $1900... that's pretty insane!0 -
But it's being marketed as an XC race fork, and it's both heavier and more expensive than the SID WC. Don't get it. Stiffness isn't that high up the agenda for XC racers, we've only just got thru-axles. I've also never seen it on an XC race bike, always longer travel stuff. Seems an odd product.0
-
njee20 wrote:But it's being marketed as an XC race fork, and it's both heavier and more expensive than the SID WC. Don't get it. Stiffness isn't that high up the agenda for XC racers, we've only just got thru-axles. I've also never seen it on an XC race bike, always longer travel stuff. Seems an odd product.
I guess it's more of a super high-end fork that can cross the line between trail and XC, I've read it's only 55g heavier than a Sid WC as well. 29er only seems odd though. No doubt it'll divide opinion.0 -
Claimed weight for a SID WC is 1572g, so it's near as dammit 100g heavier, plus that hub's going to be heavier than many alternatives.
They're blurb states "XC race fork", it doesn't seem to tickle that target market!0 -
lawman wrote:Rick Draper wrote:http://singletrackworld.com/2014/04/at-last-heres-the-news-about-rockshox-rs-1/
15mm maxle as predicted. RevellRider if I was you I would ask your mate what course he went on....
Tbf he could have been referring to the 27mm torque tube that the axle clamps down, in which case he damn close to the money.
Sure it might be very stiff, pretty light and good over small bumps, but the US RRP is near as makes no difference $1900... that's pretty insane!
Well he'd be fitting the wrong size one then for someone who went on a course about it
0 -
Seriously? Splitting hairs aren't you?!0
-
-
It does more read like it has a 15mm Qr with a 27mm axel that is built into the hub."Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0 -
0
-
I can certainly see a use for it as a very light trail fork with reasonable stiffness.
It is very expensive but I have seen quite a few trail bike builds which must have cost £6k+ so I think there's a market.
In a couple years there will probably be a lower spec version with more basic damping for a more reasonable price.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
I don't really get it. Sure we hear year on year how forks are getting smoother/stiffer, but this seems to contradict what RS have just released. Look at the Pike - the supposed perfect blend of stiffness/weight (as is the new Boxxer - the bumph says there is flex engineered into it to smooth tracking), a bladder damper (with the low speed adjustment). Then we get this. Only 150g lighter than the pike, which has far more travel. An IFP damper, which harks back to the Pure damper they years ago. No low speed adjustment. Massive price.
It's not what is best - it is what they can make different. Choice is good, bit not when it costs 3x as much as looks worse.0 -
Surprised its so heavy when its got so much carbon in it. Wonder what a version with magnesium loʍǝɹs would weigh.Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap0
