Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I noticed Fox has E variants of their 34 and 36 series forks. For the life of me I can't understand why.
I mean the fork doesn't give two sh!ts about what bike it's on. System weight is system weight. A 70kg rider on an ebike will be the same system weight as far as the fork is concerned as a 90kg rider on a regular bike. Am I missing something here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
I noticed Fox has E variants of their 34 and 36 series forks. For the life of me I can't understand why.
I mean the fork doesn't give two sh!ts about what bike it's on. System weight is system weight. A 70kg rider on an ebike will be the same system weight as far as the fork is concerned as a 90kg rider on a regular bike. Am I missing something here?
No your not.
 

·
Elitest thrill junkie
Joined
·
41,049 Posts
Long travel single crown forks already suck, they are trying to make them suck less, the problem is crown creaking, the excuse is e-bikes. The solution is dual crowns. I mean yeah, you can make a giant 40mm single crown fork with a massive crown and 1.8 steerer, OR you can make a DC fork that is stiffer and lighter...I don't hate SC forks, but axle-to-crown lengths got WAY bigger with long-travel 29er stuff, way more leverage, steep STAs and decent anti-squat let us ride longer travel stuff uphill (and still bomb down on it).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Long travel single crown forks already suck, they are trying to make them suck less, the problem is crown creaking, the excuse is e-bikes. The solution is dual crowns. I mean yeah, you can make a giant 40mm single crown fork with a massive crown and 1.8 steerer, OR you can make a DC fork that is stiffer and lighter...I don't hate SC forks, but axle-to-crown lengths got WAY bigger with long-travel 29er stuff, way more leverage, steep STAs and decent anti-squat let us ride longer travel stuff uphill (and still bomb down on it).
Do they make a dual crown fork for my 685 stack bike w 190mm headtube?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
I noticed Fox has E variants of their 34 and 36 series forks. For the life of me I can't understand why.
I mean the fork doesn't give two sh!ts about what bike it's on. System weight is system weight. A 70kg rider on an ebike will be the same system weight as far as the fork is concerned as a 90kg rider on a regular bike. Am I missing something here?
no.... its not the same its like a fat(yes that's me) mofo on a normal bike, so they have changed the "spring" rates and perhaps the damper to deal with more weight which is something a fat mofo has to do on just about any new bike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,930 Posts
If (when) I get a ebike, I'm not going to worry about weight! I'll be looking at comfort on the downhills. I'm guessing that some of the design constraints for bikes that are only human powered will be OBE for ebikes. Maybe some of the ebike specific forks take this into account?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
no.... its not the same its like a fat(yes that's me) mofo on a normal bike, so they have changed the "spring" rates and perhaps the damper to deal with more weight which is something a fat mofo has to do on just about any new bike
Isn't changing spring rates basically adding more air? I'm not convinced there's anything different going on with the actual damper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
It's thicker wall stanchions. Now you can ask why the normal forks didn't meet the E bike standards?

Damper tunes have sometimes been different but mostly exactly the same.
That's what's got me confused. Either the 'normal' forks don't meet standards (interestingly rockshox haven't got this issue) or the e-specific fork are snakeoil/Fox offloading lower grade products at 'e' prices.

Oh don't get me started about e-bike specific saddles 🤦
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,546 Posts
That's what's got me confused. Either the 'normal' forks don't meet standards (interestingly rockshox haven't got this issue) or the e-specific fork are snakeoil/Fox offloading lower grade products at 'e' prices.

Oh don't get me started about e-bike specific saddles 🤦
Trying to stop the creaking IMO. Rockshox with the Lyrik have creaking pretty much eliminated. I don't think I've seen any post 2018 in for silent treatment.
DVO put bigger bushings in for E bikes. IMO it was a needed upgrade for all their users. Not sure if they ran it across the whole range.

Not lining up for E-bike specific grips then?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Isn't changing spring rates basically adding more air? I'm not convinced there's anything different going on with the actual damper.
yes and no, depends on the fork
the thicker stanchions(as mentioned by others) is another and "normal" forks are often not rated for fat bastards like me (108kg):D

My 2016 Reign was unrideable from new, I had to fill the shock with volume spacers to get it even remotely ridable, changed the shock for a CC coil....just had to buy the heaviest spring lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
or the e-specific fork are snakeoil/Fox offloading lower grade products at 'e' prices.

Oh don't get me started about e-bike specific saddles 🤦
I think you are spot on right.
A lot of those heavy ass E-parts seems to be just cheap and heavy lower grade products.
Normal lighter better quality parts hold up much better. My super heavy Giant E-wheels are already out of true after half a year. And I didn't even ride this hard on my e-bike. I replaced them with a lighter DT Swiss set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
My 2016 Reign was unrideable from new, I had to fill the shock with volume spacers to get it even remotely ridable, changed the shock for a CC coil....just had to buy the heaviest spring lol
That's not your weight, nor the shocks fault, but a non progressive/linear rear suspension.
Try riding a bike with 50% to 75% progression rate. Huge difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
That's not your weight, nor the shocks fault, but a non progressive/linear rear suspension.
Try riding a bike with 50% to 75% progression rate. Huge difference.
I know its the bike design nothing new to me but there's no real try before you buy here...car park spin if your lucky or a demo bike day which are rare
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,731 Posts
That's not your weight, nor the shocks fault, but a non progressive/linear rear suspension.
Try riding a bike with 50% to 75% progression rate. Huge difference.
The 2016 Reign is progressive with a progression of 21% (3.3-2.6), which is right in the middle of the progressive range for bikes of that travel. It is compatible with coil or air. The problem wasn't an air shock, but either setup, or a defective shock. A bike with 50-75% progression will never see full travel, there Is a reason you don't see more than 35%. A coil shock would make things worse on a linear rear suspension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jayem

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
The 2016 Reign is progressive with a progression of 21% (3.3-2.6), which is right in the middle of the progressive range for bikes of that travel. It is compatible with coil or air. The problem wasn't an air shock, but either setup, or a defective shock. A bike with 50-75% progression will never see full travel, there Is a reason you don't see more than 35%. A coil shock would make things worse on a linear rear suspension.
But there are many bikes with more than 35%.
YT bikes for example.
Jeffsy 49%, or Capra 75%.
And yes I have used full travel on the Capra while riding bike park multiple times.
The Intense Uzzi 2016 has over 200%
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,731 Posts
But there are many bikes with more than 35%.
YT bikes for example.
Jeffsy 49%, or Capra 75%.
And yes I have used full travel on the Capra while riding bike park multiple times.
The Intense Uzzi 2016 has over 200%
Your numbers are not even close:

2021 Capra 29"- 3.2-2.15 = 32.8%
2019 Jeffsey 29"- 3.5-2.3 = 34.2%

Even if you go back to their older bikes which were super progressive you don't see those numbers:

2015 Tues- 3.1-1.85 = 40.3%
2015 Capra- 3.3-2 = 39.3%

2016 Intense Uzzi in its short travel mode, which is most progressive (linear-progressive in that mode) is 3.45-1.45 = 57.9%. In that mode, with sag set properly, it takes 5800N to bottom compared to the 2015 YT Capra's already high 2700N, which rendered the last 20mm of the Uzzi useless unless you just wanted to use the bike for rampage type hucks.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top