Review: Outsider Bikes Adjustable Offset Crowns

Feb 7, 2019
by Paul Aston  
August Aston Product


'Fork-offset' or 'rake' is a complicated subject that involves many factors, including head angle, fork length, stem length, wheel size and the 'trail' number generated. If you don't understand offset, you can read more here about the basics.

Until fairly recently, the general trend was to make offsets longer to speed up steering response and reduce steering flop as head-angles get slacker and wheels get bigger. Murray Washburn was known to be a fan of increasing offset on bikes like Cannondale's FSi (the new Lefty has 55mm offset for 29", a long stem and a 69º HA) for this reason, but slack for XC is a different kettle of fish than slack for downhill.

Adjustable Crowns Details
• Available for Rockshox Boxxer up to 2018 and Fox 40/49
• Up to -10mm / +8mm of adjustment
• 4 different sets of inserts
• Stem length location holes: -8mm, 0mm, +8mm
• Weight: 526g (Fox 49 version, uncut steerer)
• MSRP: $235 USD Rockshox / $285 USD Fox
outsiderbikes.com

Whoever decided what number the offset would be for their brand's 29" XC fork generally copied and pasted it across to all the forks in the range, partly because it was easy, and partly to meet OEM supply demands from bike brands. As far as my research goes, this was always aimed towards bikes that might want increase agility around an XC race track (or bike shop car park) rather than modern bikes looking for stability, speed and being leaned into corners rather than steering around them.

There are several other things to consider, including the fact that bikes of the past had high bottom brackets, slack seat angles, steep head angles, narrow bars and long stems. There has been a lot of change over the last five years, not only with bikes, but the riders and what type of terrain they want to attack. Some of the things that offset may have been used to correct may have been improved in other ways. For example, steepening seat angles can massively improve your front wheel steering precision as your center of gravity is moved forwards between the axles.

A few years ago, experimenting with shortening fork offset to tune trail and handling was relatively unheard of outside the workshop of Chris Porter's Mojo Rising (formerly Mojo Suspension, UK Fox Distributor), but his work has since led to Whyte Bikes and Transition working on the shorter fork concept simultaneously, with Whyte releasing their S-150 and Transition's range-wide Speed Balanced Geometry shorter offset and geometry combination. Nowadays, talk of fork offset is commonplace, with most companies' enduro and trail bikes using shorter offset forks than a year ago.

This Outsider Bikes adjustable offset crown for the Rockshox Boxxer (up to 2018 model) and Fox 40 is one of the first methods for adjusting fork offset to hit the market, and it promises -10mm / +8mm of adjustment in 2mm increments, using 4 different sets of inserts, at a weight similar to the stock crowns. The top crown also gives -8mm, 0mm, +8mm adjustment in stem length thanks to extra direct mount holes.

They retail for $235 USD for the Boxxer and $285 for the Fox 40 version.

August Aston Product
August Aston Product



Installation

I don't want to give a full explanation of how to install this crown system, firstly because there is a great guide on the Outsider Bikes website and more importantly, reducing the offset too much can cause serious and dangerous problems like the fork's arch hitting the headtube of some bikes – this is explained on the frame compatibility guide here.

But to be brief, it is simple to change the original crowns and preload and torque the headset and bolts in the usual way. The only extra job is to choose the inserts and orientate them correctly, then make sure the steerer is clamped to the lower crown securely before preloading the headset top cap.
August Aston Product


Ride Impressions

Like mentioned above, offset and trail are part of a wide-ranging subject that has numerous factors that depend on head angle, wheel size, fork length, and the dynamic chassis angle of the bike. The test in this instance used a Saracen Myst 29" downhill bike, with a Fox 49 (standard offset = 58mm), and a head angle on paper of 63º, a 50mm stem, and 800m handlebar.

For the purposes of testing, we used the most extreme red inserts to test the outer limits, with the initial runs using the long position to give a 66mm offset. Secondly, we flipped these inserts to test with a 48mm offset, and then, for the sake of testing, rotated the crowns 180º and the inserts again, which reduced it to 28mm (interestingly, similar to an MX bike). The following are generalizations of what I found on the trail:

• The longest offset made the bike the most unstable and twitchy, and I could feel the contact patch moving forwards and backward along the tire when turning the handlebar. It was also harder to lean the bike over and keep it leaned over in the corners. In addition, the front wheel was easier to start understeering or washing out on flat corners.

• The medium 48mm offset was more stable, the contact patch of the tire seemed to stay in the same place and felt more 'normal'. I could lean the bike over more easily and keep it there, and while leaned over there was a smoother arc to the turn and less micro-adjusting of the steering. I could push harder into turns before starting to lose traction on the front wheel. This actually felt more similar to some of my enduro bikes with downhill angles (Nicolai Geometron / Pole / Raaw) with sub-50mm stems, and the 44mm / 46mm of offset that I find to offer a more confident front end than most of the current downhill bikes.

The following is not recommended: The silly reversed crown setup that gave a 28mm offset was interesting, but couldn't be tested to its full potential as my steering lock (the Myst has a chunky headtube area and frame bumpers to protect from the fork) was reduced to the point of danger and there was a risk of the crown hitting the headtube. We also had issues with the direct mount stem hitting the steerer tube spacers, and the bike was getting too short for me at this point, which made riding it more difficult. But, it was super stable at speed and seemed to deflect much less off angled wet rocks and roots; it also leaned into corners like a champion but slowed the steering response at lower speeds.

Running the crowns backward for a seriously short offset is not recommended, but, you can do some weird stuff with these crowns if you really want to...

Conclusion? Reducing the offset slightly on the current crop of 29" downhill forks seems to be good idea to increase stability, front wheel grip, and lean angle, and I think this is backed up by many manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon with plenty of aggressive trail bikes specced with a shorter offset for 2019. Going super short may not be a great idea either, as the bike starts to feel more sluggish – but I prefer my bikes to be more stable against incoming terrain, and if I want faster steering, I will just, err, turn the bars faster, or work on leaning into the corner instead of steering around it.

Do you need to get a set of offset adjusting crowns? Probably not, your bike will be great as normal, and adding this level of adjustment may not really make a difference to your ride. But, if you are a serial-fiddler who is in tune with your bike, then these are a great way to fine-tune your bike's handling. I'd also bet that Fox and RockShox will drop the 58/56mm offset 29" forks for something a little shorter very soon, I think we could start seeing 40-45mm offsets on downhill bikes with 29" wheels and matching stems soon, and probably a bit more added to the reach numbers of some brands to keep the sizing correct. 27.5" may go even shorter.


Pinkbike's Take
bigquotesDesperate to adjust your fork offset? You won't go wrong with these crowns from Outsider Bikes; they offer a level of fine tuning adjustment and some future-proofing protection against ever changing standards. Paul Aston



111 Comments

  • + 83
 I'm just here to read the comments about creaking.
  • + 52
 Perfect compliment to a Cane Creek Angleset.
  • + 18
 I ran em in whistler for a month of riding. surprisingly no creaks. just use a torque wrench.
  • + 16
 Its a well proven way of adjusting offset in motorcycle racing, if made to correct tolerances creaking shouldnt really be an issue, in theory...... ;-)
  • + 0
 I'm here to see who puts grease in his headset.
  • + 58
 I'm just here to see who is here, who is here to see who else is here.
  • + 13
 Where am I?
  • + 9
 @qreative-bicycle: You dont grease your headset?
  • + 4
 I can only imagine the pain in the ass this would be along with the Angleset haha. Getting the preload on the top cap right is key for the angleset, and I feel like this thing could make that tricky.

I’ve been running the same angleset for years tho and as long as you clean it once in a while and keep a good amount of preload on it the creaks will go away. @Flowcheckers:
  • + 3
 @Boardlife69: I'm just here so I don't get fined.
  • + 7
 @logcabm77: Do people still run anglesets? the fixed angle headsets are so much better.

I used a Cane Creak version for a while and couldnt ever get it right - I think headtube length plays a part in if you ever get one to be quiet - the Works one on the other hand has been trouble free.

I absolutely hate creaking noises, like Cane Creeks standard headsets though.
  • + 1
 @justanotherusername: you got it the wrong way, it creaks if you don't.
  • + 1
 I’m here to post about creaking crowns.
  • + 1
 @qreative-bicycle: Ah, I got you wrong, thought you were taking the piss out of people that didnt grease their headset....
  • + 1
 Yea I still run an angleset in my dh bike to this day. I’ve had the same one in for 5 or 6 years and have only ever replaced the bearings once. It took me about half a season to figure out the little tricks to getting rid of the creaks, but it’s been smooth ever since. @justanotherusername:
  • + 1
 @justanotherusername: I had (well, it's in the Buy/Sell section now) the Angleset and it was absolutely creak-free in the 3-4 years I used it. Would have still continued using it but switched to a tapered fork and now have the Works. I get your point... it could be a matter of how long the head tube is. I suppose shorter head tube set ups impart more load to the gimbals.
  • + 2
 I've been running them since the end of August in all weather conditions with no creaking. I was pretty concerned about that before I bought them, but doesn't seem to be an issue at all.
  • + 7
 This is Aaron from Outsider Bikes. Regarding concerns about creaking, the tolerances, surface finish, and surface area of the crowns and inserts is critical to prevent creaking. While we've never had the issue, we iterated a couple times on early prototypes to achieve the best possible fit for the lower and upper crown. Like any close tolerance fit on a bicycle, it is important to clean the components prior to assembly to keep debris out of the interfaces. Feel free to email support@outsiderbikes.com with any questions you might have.

PS: Thanks Paul for the review!
  • + 2
 @Flowcheckers: Cane Creak?
  • + 1
 had Faux and RS not completely botched their 29er DC fork offset I would’ve been all over this product.

Thanks Jason and Greg... ????
  • + 1
 @Boardlife69: we’re all here because we’re not all there
  • + 1
 I've got an angleset in a bike thats showing its age a bit. Angleset brought it back in line with current geo trends so I'm super happy with it. It does creak like an absolute bastard though. Fine for light use, but as soon as you point it down something steep and dusty it starts making noises. My solution? Araldite the bevelled cups into their seats. No more noises until your next harsh front end impact.
  • + 25
 Here we go again with the mad adjustments, reminds me of DH and freeride bikes from back in the day that had about 10 different holes for the shock mount, was just manufactures saying 'we dont really know so have a go yourself'. At least it means mtb is changing and evolving again, now there are so many options aside from the usual fox/shimano, sram/rockshox it almost feels like the old days.
  • + 17
 Except that the bikes actually hold together for more than a day.
  • + 60
 Aint nothing wrong with having a go at 10 different holes.
  • + 5
 @Boardlife69: thats what he said
  • + 6
 I loved the old bikes with 18 million pivot mounting locations and shock locations haha. When I first got into dh I actually thought it was important to get a bike with as many adjustments as possible.
  • + 6
 Sell'em frames that are waay too long on Monday Sell'em fixes for it on Tuesday lol
  • + 2
 Instead of all these holes, they now just use flip chips. Rocky Mountain has their Ride9, Rose has something on the Pikes Peak (forgot what it was called) where you adjust it with an allen key. It never really went away, did it?
  • + 17
 Offset is Ok, but I do prefer Quavo.
  • + 15
 Thank you for the test, I found this interesting.
  • + 10
 That Saracen Myst with the negative offset looks like something built at halfords.
  • + 5
 I’ve run these crowns on a Rockshox boxxer 27.5” fork on a bike with a 65 degree headtube angle. All else being equal: tire model and pressure, sag, bike set up, body stance—-What I found was that increasing offset from stock made the steering feel lighter with less input required to initiate a corner versus stock. Good for medium speeds on less steep twisty trails. But, also less stable at speed. When I ran them in the reduced offset from stock it made the bike noticeably more stable at speed especially in steep rough terrain. Cornering at speed was solid and planted. However, on flatter ground the bike felt a bit more sluggish to initiate a corner and had a “heavier” steering feel. In the middle/stock setting it was always an average of the extremes. Never quite as stable in the super fast stuff and never as light feeling in the flatter slower stuff.

My take away from my experience with them was that there is no “one” offset that is always perfect. If you ride different DH tracks with really different characteristics like Sea Otter “DH” vs something more like a WC DH track then these let you optimize for the extremes. Or, if you always ride the exact same stuff these let you experiment to find optimal, then stick with it. Oh, and they never creaked.
  • + 5
 I've got a set of these on my bike, I actually prefer it with more offset. It's turns better and it feels like the front tyre cuts harder giving more traction. I feel like I can push harder in to a turn with more offset. The short offset feels too lazy and like you need to put in too much effort to get it turned. It also feels like it lacks traction on initial turn in to a corner, like the fronts about to wash out.
  • + 1
 Thats what this is all about, getting it where you like it for how you turn in, lean, correct, weight, basically how you ride and which feedback your feeling for. Im waiting for him to make a flat upper crown.... He said he will soon, I told him id buy it right away.
  • + 2
 @englertracing: this inspired me to try dropping my lowers and spinning the crown around to see what the fuss is about.
I have 64 degree head angle this made the contact patch feel like it was under my hands. I have constant traction on my front it almost feels auto steery at first because the traction.

For me I won't be flipping it back. I have a 160mm 27.5 Ribbon air BTW.
  • + 3
 I had a bike with Lefty supermax, 60mm of offset on that. I frequently had the front end push in corners as described above. I always attributed it to my riding, then I put a Pike with 51mm offset on the same frame and didn't experience that problem any longer. I also found that running a stem shorter than the offset of the fork made for drastic changes in steering feel.
  • + 5
 That Cannondale trigger 29" with SuperMax 60mm offset was a terrible idea. The bike was kinda ahead of its time with 29" wheels and 130mm suspension, but that front end made it dangerous on the jumps, due to a lack of stability from both the head angle and the offset. I put on a 140mm 46mm offset pike instead, this bike was now very very different, definetly more rideable.

Sold it not so long after. Had it for year, only 3 warrenty frames.
  • + 1
 @FabianJ: I had the original alloy frame for a couple seasons. I sold it with the dyad shock and transferred the parts including the lefty onto a Chromag Rootdown. It worked well on the hardtail for the most part, other than the cornering issue. Switching to a Pike made me realize a lot about the handling of that thing with the Lefty. I've sworn off Cannondale, too much weird proprietary stuff going on.
  • + 2
 I had many strange crashes with the supermax, damn thing has zero stability, you steer too much in a corner the front wheel just folds in, bike's beautiful though, just too many weird features for the sake of being different
  • + 4
 I dont need them but from a manufacturing point of view they are a great price for the work involved. I know Mojo are mid way through making some of their own but imagine they will be at least double the price.
  • + 1
 Works components might be making them for mojo
  • + 2
 Just yesterday I made simple experiment. On my Nukeproof Snap with some 100mm travel RS Argyle 26" fork with some 40mm offset, I simply turned my handlebars by 180° and rode short distance. The steering felt weirdly distant, not sluggish, or irresponsibly, but I'd say distant. I roughly measured original and twisted ground trail values. Originally there is some 90mm of ground trail, with turned around offset it has some 160mm of ground trail.
By my calculations, the Pole Machine with 51mm offset fork has 156mm ground trail...

If you only sketch it, you immediately see that doubling the ground trail implies doubling the turning radius of bicycle. From there comes my feeling of distant steering, in my opinion. I'm going to test this on Banshee Rune with stem correctly oriented forward.
  • + 4
 Well, if we sketch it correctly we'll see that doubling the trail doesn't double the turning radius :-). It actually makes turning radius shorter.
  • + 1
 you forgot about increased wheel flop with more trail 0 trail does not change wheelbase with turning but more trail, then more wheelbase change with turning
  • + 0
 You lost me at 26”. Isn’t that a kid’s bike fork? How did you put it on your real mtb?
  • + 3
 @nuttypoolog: Nukeproof Snap is a 4X bike, what's strange about 26" wheels at 4X? :-) My "real" MTB uses another set of 26" wheels.
  • + 2
 I remember my old Stratos S6 and S8 had a massive offset with the stanchions right out in front of the headtube. They had more than 180 degrees of steering lock with that design. I don't remember any kind of steering issues from them. Plenty of other problems mind.
  • + 2
 You might notice it if you rose that bike today?
  • + 2
 I rode the Stratos S7 for many years. Was heavy as hell, but user serviceable with ATF. Dented one of the lowers once in a crash, replacement was easy peasy and not all that expensive. Too bad the crowns developed cracks in them way too often. I think I had 4 sets.
  • + 1
 The offset was huge, the the dropouts were almost directly under the legs I think, so it all balanced itself out? My mk1 monsters were the same, 90deg lock both ways, dunno why they don't do it these days, must build into a stiffer, more evenly loaded and lighter fork?
  • + 1
 @pbuser2299: That's true actually, the axle was right under the end of the legs on all stratos forks. Only 8 bolts to undo to get the axle out...
  • + 1
 @pbuser2299: I believe putting the axle directly under the stanchion will cause more deflection and friction than having it leading a little. Hence mx bikes running offset dropouts instead of putting all the offset in the crowns like a sport bike does.
  • + 1
 @game: I was thinking more in terms of material to flex and simplicity of design really, it may be that the reality of geometry is more complex than I've taken account for....
  • + 2
 I know in the world of superbikes, the offset that is run is carefully tuned to the overall fork length, steering angle and wheel diameter and it's a big deal to get this right. So the fact mtn bikes run 1 offset distance for a variety of fork lengths and head angles would certainly leave room for refinement.
  • + 1
 Interesting experimentation, still haven't tried shorter offset on the trail so I'm undecided.
If the longer offset is that much worse its surprising the new Fox 49 has 58 mm offset and nobody really complained about it. Could the increased offset be an advantage on some of the straighter world cup tracks?
  • + 1
 No, just the opposite. It's like fox wanted to do everything possible to help 29ers handle better, but in reality wheel size doesn't actually make that much difference to agility, it's more down to geometry.
  • + 2
 I suppose its upto the user to describe what they think is better or worse though - Is a 58mm offset 'worse' than a 48mm offset? Being realistic you would probably only notice if you tried them back to back and would likely get used to and be perfectly happy with either situation.
  • + 2
 @inked-up-metalhead: Traditionally less trail means more stability, the guy interviewed in the article Aston links to near the top implies that more offset is necessary and better:

"If you look at the SuperMax axle, you can see that there is a big offset of the dropout there. What that does is allows us to kick the head angle back to a relatively slack, 69 degrees, which if you kept that with a 45-50mmmm rake on a 29er, you would have the most sluggish handling bike in the world. It would be great at high speed, but the second it slowed down it would just be a pig. By kicking the head-angle out and kicking the fork rake out, it does the counter-intuitive thing of reducing the trail."

"Why don't you just eliminate the trail then to make slack bikes that handle incredibly quickly?"

"You need trail to offer some stability to the bike. Without it, the front wheel would behave like the wheels on a shopping cart. It is the balance of these subtle ingredients that separates great handling bikes from the rest."

Lots of different opinions out there, here is the most interesting article I've read about it:
nsmb.com/articles/short-fork-offset-whats-it-good
  • - 4
flag inked-up-metalhead (Feb 7, 2019 at 3:12) (Below Threshold)
 @Flowcheckers: what? Did you even read the article? Maybe when your talking about xc bikes that all applies like that, but clearly Paul Aston found less offset that the standard is more stable, I.e. Fox went with the offset they did to offset the inherent stability of 29ers. Your original post was suggesting you thought it was for stability, it's clearly not.
  • + 3
 @inked-up-metalhead: Your last two sentences seem to completely disagree with each other? I'm still not very clear on the point of your first post either.
  • - 4
flag inked-up-metalhead (Feb 7, 2019 at 4:29) (Below Threshold)
 @Flowcheckers: can you even English? I'm saying your wrong saying the increased offset could be an advantage on straighter world Cup tracks, as discussed in this article its less stable than a 48mm offset, so if anything fox's higher offset would make a 29er more agile so better for technical tracks. I don't get how you can't understand what I'm saying, there is literally nothing contradictory in what I've said.
  • + 1
 @inked-up-metalhead: ". Fox went with the offset they did to offset the inherent stability of 29ers"

This isnt true, there is no 'inherant stability' from any given wheel-size, a combination of factors give a bikes apparent straight line stability - think about how stable a motorcycle is at much greater speeds and the size of the wheels.

If you want to understand trail, fork offset, head angles etc take a quick look at this yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php

Essentially differnt wheel size = different trail figure and because of this the forks offset is altered to 'compensate' in an attempt to bring trail back to around the figure that we were all used to with smaller wheels.

The point here is that as head angles have got slacker, reach longer etc etc that we may need to re-think the point at which this lies and therefore you see this kind of crown - allowing reduced (or even increased) offset and therefore trail adjustment.
  • + 0
 @justanotherusername:
From my first comment, where I state wheelsize doesn't make much difference:
It's like fox wanted to do everything possible to help 29ers handle better, but in reality wheel size doesn't actually make that much difference to agility, it's more down to geometry.

And motorbikes wheels and tyres weigh more than an entire mountain bike, of course they'll be more stable, but it's gyroscopic stability, a bigger diameter or heavier flywheel is more stable, so 29 will be more stable, its just not noticeable to the average rider.
  • + 0
 @inked-up-metalhead: Fox did not attempt to improve the handling of the 29 inch wheel size, they simply calculated the difference in offset required to allow for a similar trail figure that would have been seen with 27.5 or 26 inch wheels - As I say, take a look at the link above and change wheel size and notice how trail changes, then adjust fork offset until you get to the previous trail figure - That was the goal.

My point about motorcycles and yours about gyroscopic effects are irrelevant to my point about 'stability' of the bicycle - If the trail figure of a motorcycle is miles away from where it should be the bike could be unrideable, regardless of wheel weight or dynamic stability - This is also relative to the entire bikes weight, of course motorcycle wheels and tyres weigh more, so does the bike itself.

This discussion is about geometry changes from fork offset and therefore resultant trail, not gyroscopic aspects of wheel size, wheel weight etc.
  • + 1
 Cool review. I like the way all the extremes were tested, with an outline of the ride feel each created. I'd be interested in hearing how long it takes for creaks to develop, but all in all I wish more reviews read like this one.
  • + 1
 I'm curious now. When will a company develop an external head similar to reach extending/reducing headset but where the steerer tube rotates along with the offset inset which in turn rotates inside the headset bearings. This would allow both single crown as well as dual crown forks to be tuned to different offsets. Of course I realize it will be horror to set up properly as the steerer is round so if it for some reason spins in the insert it won't be easy to set it straight again. And obviously if someone has cut the fork steerer with zero stack headsets in mind it won't fit (or you'll need the DMR Defy stem) and if the frame has been designed around a zero stack lower bearing it is going to affect the geometry. But if someone could make it work it could appeal to many more riders.
  • + 1
 Not sure if I follow you there, but how does moving the steerer tubes position In the frame adjust for offset, you need to adjust the steerer tube position relative to the axle, unless I am missing something?
  • + 1
 @justanotherusername: Alright, let me put it like this. A regular reach adjust headset still allows the fork to rotate around the center of the steerer but shifts that axis away from the center of the headtube (fore or aft). This idea actually still has the fork rotate around the center of the headtube but shifts the fork steerer away from that center of the headtube (so that it no longer rotates around the center of the steerer). I expect it to require larger diameter bearings as there is a larger inner part rotating (larger than the steerer diameter). If that doesn't fit in a zero stack cup, the external lower cup will slacken the head angle and external cups require a longer steerer than zero stack cups.
  • + 1
 @vinay: I just can’t visualise how that works, sorry.
  • + 1
 @vinay: what are you gonna do, predator the steer tube Into this rotating eccentric? I'd say the solution is right here in this article
  • + 1
 @vinay: by predator, I mean pressfit, dang auto correct
  • + 1
 @game: Yeah, that's the biggest issue indeed as I mentioned about the "horror" in my first post. Maybe the best way would then be to drill the steerer and bolt it to that rotating eccentric. Ideally you don't want to do that but then again if OneUp can tap into the clamped part of the steerer, this wouldn't be any worse.

That said, this isn't even a concept, just a rough idea. Not meant to replace the dual crown fork solution here but simply thinking of a way of how to realize this with a single crown fork as well.
  • + 4
 Is it wireless adjustable??
  • + 2
 They already made the frame longer, slacker, the wheels bigger, the forks longer, the hubs wider, added more gears for your legs, but still no satisfied?
  • + 2
 “... and there was a risk of the crown hitting the headtube.”

Toptube or downtube I can understand, but I’m struggling with how the headtube can be contacted.
  • + 1
 He means the fork arch/brace - not the crown. Unless i missed the memo about calling the fork brace the crown now?

You can see what he means in the picture with the crowns reversed.
  • + 2
 Probably a great tool for an r&d rider to find what works best, but not for an end users imho
  • + 3
 Sweet! Now I can ride my DH bike to the corner store.
  • - 1
 WTF, are you guys caring so much about steer offset sitting upright and riding your bike like a Ford model T?

Small differences in crown offset is irrelevant in the real world of «modern» bike geometry where you are «lying» between the wheels and weighting/unweighting the front and throwing the whole bike around. The relation between front wheel contact point and bike contact point (handlebar position) is much more relevant for steering feel. That is, unless you are sitting upright turning circle on you 73 degree head angle yo eddy.
  • + 1
 But if the holes for the stanchions are milled out vertically then offsetting them puts the tubes at an angle to the edges, surely?
  • + 1
 Did someone say future proofing in a bicycle part article?? Nice to have some billet crowns over forged if you are hard charging for any length of ownership.
  • + 0
 I recently swapped from 51 to 42 offset on my Evil Wrecking, and the shorter offset climbs noticably better (less front wheel wander), but I don't feel any noticable difference on the descents or with cornering.
  • + 1
 That offset crown is literally the worst idea ever. 
New bike technology continuously solving problems that don’t /shouldnt exist..
  • + 2
 my KTM has adjustable offset crowns as stock equipment and it's from 2006
  • + 1
 King Trail Machine!
  • + 2
 Told you..... I said fork offset would be the new thing 2 years ago
  • + 2
 tell that to gary fisher
  • + 1
 Nice thing! But to racey for me.....I'm just thinking on creaking noises on the long term....
  • + 2
 Water bottle mount for your pike.
  • + 2
 Hold this W
  • + 1
 and fox is more expensive... because... just because... says fox so put an extra 50 on top please...
  • + 8
 Stanchions further apart and larger diameter = more material and machining time?
  • + 10
 @kornbrot: You've just used sense and reasoning on Pinkbike! Whatever next, a $2000 wireless drivetrain...
  • + 0
 "boys we forgot the european.. give them a shaft and make it 350quid over there... that'll show them how further stanchions and diameter apart larger equate on machining time price !"
  • + 3
 @kornbrot: What it they made them for FOX first and then had to manufacture them for RS? That would also translate in extra machining time. Also, it is not necessary to start with a hole in the middle and widdle a way toward the final diameter. 50$ ist still quite a substantial sum of money for a product that costs 235$ for its cheaper/other verison. Not looking for a row or anything, just find it funny. In addition to my awkward statement, I have a friend who rides a Mondraker with absolutely everything adjustable on it and hee cannot ride at all. He has measured his handlebar degrees and width, has had tried numerous stems, tires, offsets, etc. Contrary to him, another friend rode a hardtail with 170mm forks down a downhill track and was 4rh in the overall standings. He had bent cranks, an old helmet and part of his fork crown was missing. Just ride, have fun and have your mates cheer you on Smile
  • + 1
 @kornbrot: this, they gotta use a bigger chunk of aluminum to carve that thing out
  • + 1
 @game: I guess you do have a point, that 5mm of extra material is murder on the wallet! Also, I highly doubt that would be such a big issue, seeing how such a huge amount of material needs to be milled in the first place, for either of the products. I'm just rambling on again Big Grin
  • + 1
 @FrEeZa: you gotta remember,that negative space where there is no material, costs money in machining time and to a smaller degree tool wear.
  • + 1
 @FrEeZa: may also be a smaller production run for the fox as rockshox are more common.
  • + 1
 @game: But would it result in such a substantial jump in cost? I doubt designs would differ so much from each other so that a 20% increase could be justified. Other than the clamping diameter, there should not really be that much differentiation between the two. If anything, they could have settled on a common price, for instance 260$, although not doing so might exaclty suggest that you are correct, as it would indeed require more material to be used and the product to first be ordered in order to be put into production?
  • + 2
 This is Aaron from Outsider Bikes. The "old" Boxxer kits have a reduced cost because they fit "older" forks. RS released the 2019 fork after the product was launched, so I had to knock down the cost a bit. The cost to make the crowns does not vary much. In either case, the margins are pretty slim. ;-). 2019 Boxxer kits are on the way.
  • + 1
 This is why I'm riding moto instead. In the last years MTB has become a sport for pussies.
  • + 1
 see my comment below
  • + 2
 The best show on earth (pinkbike) I love it.
  • + 1
 Who here is a 'serial-fiddler '?
Well ... I like tinkering... with bikes
  • + 0
 Single crown version of this would be the old Marzocchi Bombers.
  • + 1
 Orientate Ha
  • - 1
 this will void any warranty for a frame
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.060219
Mobile Version of Website