Coil forks are they a cheap dodgy alternative

willmtb

Hi,
From what I've read in the majority of reviews and articles it seems like coil forks are a cheap and not so good type of fork in comparison to air.
The reason I ask is I'm looking to buy the new cannondale cujo 3 (link below) the bike seemed great and when I researched further I noticed it's actually a coil fork (according to cannondale website so correct). Basically what I want to know is will this coil fork hamper the performance of the bike? I intend to ride a mix of xc to some trail centre riding so a bit of everything. Will this coil for not perform well and should I look in other directions.
Thanks guys.
https://www.evanscycles.com/cannondale- ... e-EV280354
I know this is a + bike which I like about it- does this go well with the coil fork maybe?

cycleclinic

It is a 750 quid bike. Blantly there will be comprimises. It will do the job you want it to. If you start spending money where fo you stop. The first coin to spend is going tubeless.

willmtb

thecycleclinic wrote:

It is a 750 quid bike. Blantly there will be comprimises. It will do the job you want it to. If you start spending money where fo you stop. The first coin to spend is going tubeless.

Thanks for reply, how much approx will it cost to go tubeless?

cycleclinic

Cost of tape, valves, sealant and probably tyres. If the tyres fitted are wire bead they are not going to work tubeless. If the tyres are folders then they might be o.k tubeless. There are tubless specific tyres but these cost koney. Tubeless will tranform the bike and is worth the money spent.

willmtb

thecycleclinic wrote:

Cost of tape, valves, sealant and probably tyres. If the tyres fitted are wire bead they are not going to work tubeless. If the tyres are folders then they might be o.k tubeless. There are tubless specific tyres but these cost koney. Tubeless will tranform the bike and is worth the money spent.

Rims: Cannondale Beast, 27.5x40mm inner, tubeless ready
Does this tube less ready part mean it'll be cheaper?

rockmonkeysc

Purely from a performance point of view, coil is better than air. The down side is coils are less adjustable and heavier.
Coils are also cheaper than air springs which is why budget forks use them.
Performance is all about the damping, you want hydraulic damping with at least rebound, ideally compression as well.
Some of the top world cup downhill racers run forks which look like air forks but are running coil internals which don't suffer heat build up and are more sensitive and better controlled.

poah

thecycleclinic wrote:

Cost of tape, valves, sealant and probably tyres. If the tyres fitted are wire bead they are not going to work tubeless. If the tyres are folders then they might be o.k tubeless. There are tubless specific tyres but these cost koney. Tubeless will tranform the bike and is worth the money spent.

well thats bollox, most tyres go up tubless. the issue is the shape of the bead not what its made from. tubeless also doesn't transform the bike either

avalanche_expert

I've recently switched from a budget coil fork to a mid range air fork.

The reason for this was because the coil sprung fork was very limited in it's tuneability to suit my body weight (I'm not very heavy). What I needed was a softer coil spring, but the cost of the spring plus a service kit (the fork was well overdue a service) added up to a decent amount of cash which I considered to be better put towards upgrading to a more tuneable and lighter weight fork.

The result is I've shaved 600g from the weight of the bike and I now can achieve full travel from the fork. I've also gained the function of variable damping which is much more useful than the old forks lockout which was either fully open or fully locked.

In terms of outright performance and ride quality there really isn't a lot of difference. Both soak up bumps and give a compliant ride with good feel. The biggest thing that's made a differnce was that finer amount of tuning the air sprung fork has given me which has lead to a more comfortable ride over the really knarly stuff and of course the reduction in weight.

If the coil fork on the bike in question is within the correct rating for your body weight, I wouldn't be too concerned over it. Air isn't going to dramatically change the feel of the bike.

POAH wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Cost of tape, valves, sealant and probably tyres. If the tyres fitted are wire bead they are not going to work tubeless. If the tyres are folders then they might be o.k tubeless. There are tubless specific tyres but these cost koney. Tubeless will tranform the bike and is worth the money spent.

well thats bollox, most tyres go up tubless. the issue is the shape of the bead not what its made from. tubeless also doesn't transform the bike either

With regards to tubeless and bike feel I beg to differ personally. Tubeless is the single biggest improvement I've made to my MTB, it has completely changed the level of comfort and grip. Even the sound of the tyres rolling is totally different, plus no more snake bites when riding rocky stuff.

It's well worth putting the effort into converting and would be my priority should I ever buy another bike that comes with tubes in.

willmtb

Avalanche Expert wrote:

I've recently switched from a budget coil fork to a mid range air fork.

The reason for this was because the coil sprung fork was very limited in it's tuneability to suit my body weight (I'm not very heavy). What I needed was a softer coil spring, but the cost of the spring plus a service kit (the fork was well overdue a service) added up to a decent amount of cash which I considered to be better put towards upgrading to a more tuneable and lighter weight fork.

The result is I've shaved 600g from the weight of the bike and I now can achieve full travel from the fork. I've also gained the function of variable damping which is much more useful than the old forks lockout which was either fully open or fully locked.

In terms of outright performance and ride quality there really isn't a lot of difference. Both soak up bumps and give a compliant ride with good feel. The biggest thing that's made a differnce was that finer amount of tuning the air sprung fork has given me which has lead to a more comfortable ride over the really knarly stuff and of course the reduction in weight.

If the coil fork on the bike in question is within the correct rating for your body weight, I wouldn't be too concerned over it. Air isn't going to dramatically change the feel of the bike.

Cheers

POAH wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Cost of tape, valves, sealant and probably tyres. If the tyres fitted are wire bead they are not going to work tubeless. If the tyres are folders then they might be o.k tubeless. There are tubless specific tyres but these cost koney. Tubeless will tranform the bike and is worth the money spent.

well thats bollox, most tyres go up tubless. the issue is the shape of the bead not what its made from. tubeless also doesn't transform the bike either

With regards to tubeless and bike feel I beg to differ personally. Tubeless is the single biggest improvement I've made to my MTB, it has completely changed the level of comfort and grip. Even the sound of the tyres rolling is totally different, plus no more snake bites when riding rocky stuff.

It's well worth putting the effort into converting and would be my priority should I ever buy another bike that comes with tubes in.

poah

going tubeless does not affect anything to do with the bike handling. The only difference would be is if your tubes are stupidly heavy. You're deluding yourself if you can feel a difference.

avalanche_expert

POAH wrote:

going tubeless does not affect anything to do with the bike handling. The only difference would be is if your tubes are stupidly heavy. You're deluding yourself if you can feel a difference.

It does affect bike handling.

The reason being that I'm able to run a lower pressure than with tubes, therefore the tyre is more flexible partly due to lower pressure and partly due to no tube acting as a second/thicker sidewall, so the tyre now deforms more for rocks/roots etc. Also grip in slippery conditions is increased, not to mention cornering grip.

Like I said even the sound the tread makes over tarmac is completely different. The differences are very real. A simple squeeze test with my fingers is also an indicator of the differnce between the two, they don't feel the same.

poah

the change in bike handling is down to the air pressure not the lack of a tube in the tyre.

Herdwick

there is friction between tube and tire affecting how a tire adapts to the ground. running tubeless definently offers an improvement and overall performance is better, tire pressure has litle to do between the 2 set ups

rockmonkeysc

Herdwick wrote:

there is friction between tube and tire affecting how a tire adapts to the ground. running tubeless definently offers an improvement and overall performance is better, tire pressure has litle to do between the 2 set ups

That's absolute rubbish. There is no friction between tube and tyre, what could possibly cause it? The tube is static relative to the tyre. There is no force on the tube which could cause any friction.
The only improvement from running tubeless is the ability to run lower pressure without the risk of pinch flats.
I never agree with POAH but on this occasion I have to.

Herdwick

Yes there is, how the hell a tube pumped up with 30 psi against the inner wall of a tire wont cause friction? two bodies held together by pressure will have much less free movement than a single body under the same pressure. A tire and tube at 30 psi it's not the same as a tubeless tire at 30psi, nothing to do with low pressure, I personally run the same pressure as I used with tubes but get a better feeling, going lower the rim gets farked so there is no advantage over that.

avalanche_expert

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Herdwick wrote:

there is friction between tube and tire affecting how a tire adapts to the ground. running tubeless definently offers an improvement and overall performance is better, tire pressure has litle to do between the 2 set ups

That's absolute rubbish. There is no friction between tube and tyre, what could possibly cause it? The tube is static relative to the tyre. There is no force on the tube which could cause any friction.
The only improvement from running tubeless is the ability to run lower pressure without the risk of pinch flats.
I never agree with POAH but on this occasion I have to.

Of course there is friction, what do you think a pinch flat is?

avalanche_expert

Herdwick wrote:

Yes there is, how the hell a tube pumped up with 30 psi against the inner wall of a tire wont cause friction? two bodies held together by pressure will have much less free movement than a single body under the same pressure. A tire and tube at 30 psi it's not the same as a tubeless tire at 30psi, nothing to do with low pressure, I personally run the same pressure as I used with tubes but get a better feeling, going lower the rim gets farked so there is no advantage over that.

I agree with this.

rockmonkeysc

I'm afraid your understanding of mechanics is rather flawed.
There's very little I know about but mechanics and, in particular rubber and rubber air springs (effectively what a tyre is) is something I do understand well enough to make a living out of it.
A punch flat has nothing to do with friction. It's failure caused by high strain due to extreme compression.

avalanche_expert

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I'm afraid your understanding of mechanics is rather flawed.
There's very little I know about but mechanics and, in particular rubber and rubber air springs (effectively what a tyre is) is something I do understand well enough to make a living out of it.
A punch flat has nothing to do with friction. It's failure caused by high strain due to extreme compression.

You could compress the inner tube all you like without the tyre around it and it wouldn't fail. It's the tyre squashing/rubbing against the tube which causes a pinch flat. Yes compression or being 'pinched' by the tyre.

I'm not interested in being pedantic over this, compression/pinching/rubbing/friction. There is an element of each involved regarding a pinch flat.

The two rubbers will compress and retract at differing rates depending on the tyre/tube/pressure combination too. The benefits of tubeless are well known and easily researched. I see no point in nitpicking over technicalities which are variable between the individual rider/bike/wheels/tyres/pressures and terrain.

It's going off topic from the original post too. I've said all I'm saying on the subject and I've given my opinion based on my experience.

Maybe some disagree, but I stand by everything I've posted here.

rockmonkeysc

The tube won't Compress and retract at a different rate to the tyre. It's less than a millimeter thick when inflated with 25+ psi inside it pushing it in to the wall of the tyre, it will only move with the tyre, there is nothing which can cause any friction.
Pinch flats are caused when the tube is pinched between the rim and tyre as it's compressed with a big force against a rock or root, there's no friction involved.

larkim

Back onto the forks...

The Suntour XCR fork is the "best" of the Suntour XC-range, but it doesn't hold a candle to the air forks which some bikes in that range could come with. Though perhaps you're into "niche" territory if you're set on getting a 27.5+ bike, rather that a non-boost / plus one. There aren't too many comparatives.

My personal experience with the three Suntour XC-forks that I've had in the house - on all of them the "in shop" nice plush feel disappeared fairly quickly and they start to get worse and worse. Seals fail, stantions get marked / corrode (particularly if water ingress), they can only really be serviced to a basic level.

Personally, unless you really know why you want a + bike and are price limited, I'd be droppping £600 on the Rafal bike at Decathlon. Or even go for their 720S full suss bike which has decent front and rear suspension for £750. Both would be more than capable of taking up your intended use as XC / trail centre riding.

The Rookie

larkim wrote:

Back onto the forks...

The Suntour XCR fork is the "best" of the Suntour XC-range, but it doesn't hold a candle to the air forks which some bikes in that range could come with.

The latest XCR is pretty much the old Raidon, air is available and so is adjustable rebound, you're thinking of the old XCR which was the same basic chassis as the XCT/M.

As for tubeless, I have to agree with RMSC, the tube doesn't move relative to the tyre and pinch flats are nothing to do with friction.

The tube does add a small amount of hysteresis to the tyre/tube deflection as it rotates though, so losing the tube will improve rolling resistance buy a very small amount.

supersonic

A few months back I read a basic study into rolling resistance of tubeless vs tubed tyres, and it concluded that tubeless had a small advantage, around 5 watts compared to a butyl tube, and 1 watt compared to a latex tubes. I'll have to find it.

larkim

The Rookie wrote:

larkim wrote:

Back onto the forks...

The Suntour XCR fork is the "best" of the Suntour XC-range, but it doesn't hold a candle to the air forks which some bikes in that range could come with.

The latest XCR is pretty much the old Raidon, air is available and so is adjustable rebound, you're thinking of the old XCR which was the same basic chassis as the XCT/M.

Ah, OK - my bad. Having had two XCRs in the family and got rid of them to be replaced by something that works instead, I hadn't picked up on the improvement. A bit daft of Suntour not to rename it then as I'm sure there'll be plenty who would look at an entry level bike and assume that the XCR is just the same as the old XCR. Though I appreciate that its an entirely legitimate tactic to roll down development to lower ranks of the range like this.

The Rookie

supersonic wrote:

A few months back I read a basic study into rolling resistance of tubeless vs tubed tyres, and it concluded that tubeless had a small advantage, around 5 watts compared to a butyl tube, and 1 watt compared to a latex tubes. I'll have to find it.

http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com ... utyl-tubes

Weights are whacky though unless that's per pair.

For the neigh sayers its worth noting the change in rolling resistance with pressure on what equates to a smooth road.

razorjack

tubeless tires have better 'terrain compliance', than tire+tube with the same pressure, as Herdwick said.
maybe the difference is very small, maybe even it's very hard to spot it, but, there is one

The Rookie

Well as they have an empirically measured advantage on smooth terrain (as per that article) the bigger deformations seen on rough terrain will only increase that.

supersonic

Ah that's the article - at 25psi for the 1 and 5 watt differences I quoted, and less in it at higher pressures.

But as you say, some big old tubes there, and little sealant - would be interesting to see if more sealant made a noticable difference to rolling resistance. Often non tubeless ready tyres are a little lighter but do need more to get the sidewalls plugged, so there are a few variables.

The Rookie

I do wonder if the weight may be for a pair, though 112.5 is a bit light for a butyl tube, I have had them around the same weight stated for the latex tube!

Also the stans tape and valve come in nowhere near that weight while sealant is typically around 1g/cl, I use a stock Stans single tyre bottle to inject the sealant so circa 60ml or 60g.