.............. at .............. in Cockermouth, United Kingdom - photo by walker13

View Who Faved this

49 Comments

Score Time

edd-stevens (Nov 29, 2009 at 6:47)

thats so wrong! swap them round boy!

walker13 (Dec 1, 2009 at 8:41)

no im sure its right

edd-stevens (Dec 1, 2009 at 9:10)

yes .it definatly is wrong.

walker13 (Dec 1, 2009 at 9:22)

what is better about 40's than boxxers?

edd-stevens (Dec 1, 2009 at 9:25)

if you read abouve, im not saying there better, im saying they are less prone to snapping.

bbrraappss (Dec 1, 2009 at 9:31)

u neva said anything about that , an u see more snapped boxxers coz theres alot more arund Wink

edd-stevens (Dec 1, 2009 at 9:42)

think before you post! the image is 5 2010 boxxer forks, and a broken fox 40 fork. so when i say its the wrong way round its clear im refering to the strength of the forks, not the performance.there a more 40's around than boxxers. and more pro's ride 40's on the wc curcuit at the moment. the 2010 boxxers have carved themself a bad reputation , with the internals issue, and the arguably weak lowers.

images like this counteract your argument.http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/3914698/

bbrraappss (Dec 1, 2009 at 10:42)

hahah theres loads more boxxers on the wc circuit than 40s , an boxxers are lighter but 40s are stronger , depends wat u want , sam hills an agressive rider an he hasnt snapped any ?

deserteagle (Dec 1, 2009 at 10:46)

ye but 40s snap as well, the ones in this pic have snapped in like exactly the same place,

http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/966644/

the bottom line is that all forks can be snapped

edd-stevens (Dec 1, 2009 at 10:55)

the weight difference is marginal , but is there i will admit. (6.6lb for the boxxer team, and 7.1lb for the fox 40) i rather come out of a race with a 0.5 lb heavier fork than a snapped one put it that way.

also you cant compare a 2006 fox 40 to a 2010 boxxer, technolagy has improved massivley since then. so it would have to be 2 2010 fors for it to be accurate.

also if the bottom line is "all forks snap" then this picture is incorrect, as i say, so i have been proved correct.

before i get lots of stick , im not putting down 2010 boxxer forks, im saying i dont agree with this image.

also note* i am exiting this disscusion here. i have made my points, and its your choice to agree or dissagree.i will respect opinions.

edd

deserteagle (Dec 1, 2009 at 11:03)

Just because "the picture is incorrect" according to you doesn't mean the statement is incorrect. I think you will find that most people are intelligent enough to figure out that every forks has limits and will snap at some point, wether you are one of these people is a different matter entirely

Haarlem (Dec 8, 2009 at 20:10)

sam hill aint aggressive at all, hes one of the most flowy riders on the DH circuit... sooo....

Haarlem (Dec 8, 2009 at 20:12)

and desert eagle... there 06 40's./... find me some snapped 2010/2009 40's Wink

you'll have a hard time

edd-stevens (Dec 9, 2009 at 6:44)

my point exactly, you cant compare a 06 fork to a 2010. technolagy has vastly improved since.if you find me several broken 2010 fox 40's i will start to belive the statement. as it stands the fox is a stronger fork. still, i would have a 2010 boxxer happily.if my 09 40 doesent feel right on the sunday (when it returns from MOJO tuning) i will buy a 2010 boxxer.

bbrraappss (Dec 9, 2009 at 8:12)

eleiot 40s are stronger than boxxers

deserteagle (Dec 9, 2009 at 8:23)

ye i know, i'm just saying that all forks can snap if they are abused

rsransom (Dec 9, 2009 at 13:44)

"my point exactly, you cant compare a 06 fork to a 2010. technolagy has vastly improved since.if you find me several broken 2010 fox 40's i will start to belive the statement. as it stands the fox is a stronger fork. still, i would have a 2010 boxxer happily.if my 09 40 doesent feel right on the sunday (when it returns from MOJO tuning) i will buy a 2010 boxxer."

Technology has, but your spelling certainly hasn't.
Also, talk about contradiction - "also note* i am exiting this disscusion here." And 8 days later, you comment again. I think you should quit now before your deep hole gets even deeper.

Haarlem (Dec 9, 2009 at 14:47)

pitch don't be a smart arse.. shut up, i don't recall you being part of the debate at all, only to tell someone his spelling is crap and he is contradicting himself? nothing related to the conversation... so get a life son!

deserteagle (Dec 9, 2009 at 15:02)

you can't really call this a debate, its just a laugh which is why it has been posted in dumb internet pics

gary1 (Dec 10, 2009 at 8:52)

Its the internet.

He can post where ever he wants, when he wants.

Also, he is right, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

rsransom (Dec 10, 2009 at 8:55)

I have a life, but I also have a brain which is why I can spell correctly.
It might interest you to know my name isn't "pitch" so get it right or don't say anything.
And no, up until now I haven't had any involvement in this so called "debate" but that doesn't mean I can't join in and tell you that you are WRONG.
I would say more people would like the new BoXXers over 40's by far, and I agree with everyone else saying the reason that you see more broken BoXXers is because more people have them, therefore there is a greater chance of seeing a broken BoXXer than a 40.
Gary - Here here! Wink

Shove that 'lemmy' Smile

bbrraappss (Dec 10, 2009 at 9:33)

exactly

[Reply]

Nazarr (Nov 29, 2009 at 6:44)

deffo's got that the wrong way round lad.

Haarlem (Dec 8, 2009 at 20:09)

ya right there nazzaarrr.. other way round lad! 40's ftw

demo8pomaz (Dec 12, 2009 at 12:50)

i agree

[Reply]

AidanW1 (Dec 9, 2009 at 12:52)

i prefer boxxers coz i think they have a much smoother and nicer feel but i must say that they are not as strong as 40s and they are quite well known for snapping lol

[Reply]

cronin91 (Nov 29, 2009 at 9:15)

Im geting some 2010 Boxxer Teams soon, anyone intrested in some 40s?

dec-dh (Nov 29, 2009 at 9:23)

iv got my 2010 teamss, yeah!!!

cronin91 (Nov 29, 2009 at 9:25)

They mint like? better than them shitty wc's?

walker13 (Nov 29, 2009 at 9:25)

yes matt, boxxers are the way forwards!

dec-dh (Nov 29, 2009 at 9:56)

well, they feel mint and there not even on my bike yet!! so id say there like freakin sweet

[Reply]

whitetux (Nov 29, 2009 at 7:30)

so true, but i think this flooding must be getting pretty boring now Razz

[Reply]

Ddevil (Nov 29, 2009 at 11:43)

That looks about right, I reckon it would take at least 5 pairs of boxxers to take out one pair of 40's :-P

walker13 (Nov 29, 2009 at 11:45)

no only one pair of boxxers did that to the 40's, the other 4 were just watching and laughing.

bbrraappss (Nov 29, 2009 at 11:47)

just lafffing at ther xc damper

walker13 (Nov 29, 2009 at 11:48)

thats right lad

[Reply]

melonhead1145 (Nov 29, 2009 at 14:07)

you could compare it to eh 40s being a sumo wrestler and the boxxers being boxers Wink

[Reply]

GJM661 (Nov 29, 2009 at 12:48)

hahahaha

[Reply]

ej2fast (Nov 29, 2009 at 2:53)

haha

johnlovesjumping (Nov 29, 2009 at 13:01) (Below Threshold) show comment

i got the new 2010 boxxers, they are amazing http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/4318715/

[Reply]

johnysss (Nov 30, 2009 at 0:29)

bastard boxxers hit the poor 40s.lol Big Grin

[Reply]

Below threshold threads are hidden

LondonCowan (Nov 29, 2009 at 8:07)

cock shox is so gay

bbrraappss (Nov 29, 2009 at 8:37)

well ya deffo see alot more boxxers than 40s

walker13 (Nov 29, 2009 at 11:48)

yep, thats because boxxers are better than 40's. tup

bbrraappss (Nov 29, 2009 at 11:55)

indeed they are Razz

YukonFXrider (Nov 29, 2009 at 16:18)

Fox is good, but rly overated

bbrraappss (Nov 29, 2009 at 16:23)

heres a man hu nows wat hes talking about

lucky-7 (Nov 29, 2009 at 17:12)

Not stronger then 888's though.

bbrraappss (Dec 1, 2009 at 8:56)

yehh but 888s are for huckers

[Reply]