Review: RockShox's SID Ultimate Carbon Fork Delivers Superb Performance

Nov 11, 2019 at 12:47
by David Arthur  
rockshox sid

Hands up if you're old enough to remember the original blue RockShox SID. It launched in 1998, when XC racing was arguably at its peak, two years after the first time it was included in the Summer Olympics. The fork might have only had 63mm of travel, but it had a huge impact on the XC scene and has gone on to carve quite a legacy as the benchmark XC race fork, racking up countless race wins from local league to World Cup level.

This latest SID was launched as part of RockShox’s Signature Series line, which also includes the Pike and Lyrik. The fundamental chassis design for the SID hasn’t changed, but the foil graphics are new and there’s now new Maxima Plush damping fluid which is aimed at reducing friction and noise. The air-sprung fork uses a Charger 2 damper with an XC-oriented tune for more support during those out-of-the-saddle uphill sprints.
RockShox SID Ultimate Carbon Details

• Intended use: XC / marathon
• Wheel size: 27.5'' or 29''
• Travel: 100mm only
• Carbon fiber crown and steerer
• 2-position compression adjustment
• Boost thru-axle
• Offset: 42mm (27.5"), 42mm (29"), 51mm (29")
• Weight: 29" - 1,477g (3.18lb) actual weight (uncut steerer)
• Price: $999 USD

rockshox sid
Bling carbon crown and steerer tube

Chassis Details

SID, by the way, stands for Superlight Integrated Design and this top-level Ultimate Carbon model is a superb expression of that tagline. It’s a 100mm travel fork, no more or less than XC racers really need, with a carbon fiber crown integrated into the carbon steerer tube. More modestly priced versions with aluminum steerers are available, including the SID Ultimate which uses an aluminum steerer tube and crown to save money, and is offered in a 120mm version for riders who want more confidence and comfort on rough tracks. All forks have Boost spacing and a choice of 29 or 27.5" wheel sizes, and 42mm offset on both and an extra 51mm offset option on the 29" version.

The Ultimate Carbon combines the aforementioned carbon fiber steerer tube, tapered from 1.5” to 1 1/8” with an integrated bearing race. The lower legs are made from magnesium with as much material removed as possible to save weight, especially around machined dropouts compatible with SRAM's Torque Cap. I tested the 29" and 42mm offset version, and all forks have 15x110mm Boost width axle spacing. The 32mm diameter stanchions have sag markings neatly printed on them for easier setup.

Weight is critical for XC racers. Less weight obviously means you’ll get to the top of the climb quicker and with less energy expended, but it’s a fine line between being light and stiff, durable and reliable. On the scales, the 29” Boost fork with an uncut steerer tube is 1,477g.

rockshox sid
Iconic blue with new foil graphics
rockshox sid
Two-position Charger damper adjustment

rockshox sid
Sag markings for easy setup
rockshox sid
Choice of 42 or 51mm offset on the 29" fork


Installing the fork was a breeze. I used a carbon-specific hacksaw to trim the carbon steerer tube to the desired length. A supplied headset compression bung cinches the stem and spacers down onto the frame, and I had no problems getting it all straight and tight.

Setting the air pressure is made easy with sag markings on the legs, plus a recommended air pressure chart on the back of the leg. There's even a handy app so getting up and running with a good setup is made as easy as having a mechanic do the job for you. Further tuning is available with Bottomless Tokens; two are fitted as standard and you get a small bag of spares so you can add more if you need. Adding or indeed removing tokens is simply a case of removing the top cap with a cassette lockring tool. I settled on 70 psi with two tokens.


When you’re racing or riding on the limit you want your XC suspension fork to get on with the business of smoothing the rough while going largely unnoticed, with no excessive bob impacting speed on smooth trails and climbs. The SID delivered all of this, wrapped up in a lightweight and stiff package with easy tunability. It dealt with everything with buttery smoothness and adequate control, and handled all manner of impacts from square-edge ugliness to high-frequency ripples and smaller rocks and roots without any fuss. The damping ensures the fork recovers extremely well from successive big impacts and is ready for the next.

rockshox sid

When you’ve got a mere 100mm of travel to play with, the suspension curve needs to work hard, ensuring you have a supple early stroke for dealing with small chitter-chatter that can buzz the handlebars, yet ramp up sufficiently to prevent bottom out over drops and jumps. The SID manages this tricky balance well. There's a smooth progression to full travel with no harsh bottoming out even if you ride like a complete ham-fisted idiot. On-the-fly adjustment is limited to open or locked out, but you can adjust the low-speed compression of the open model so you can tune the fork to suit different courses, say if one is really smooth and another is full of chundery rocks. The range of rebound damping is ample so you can run it quick or slow to suit your preference.

Measuring the stiffness of a fork outside of a rigorous lab test in the real world is a tricky old thing to assess, and there are so many variables, not least rider weight. Weighing in at about 150 lb / 68kg (on a good day) I didn't find the fork to flutter down the harder descents on my local trails or go vague when slamming into tight corners after a bunch of frantic braking to get the speed down low enough to be able to swing around the corner. The all-carbon steerer tube and the crown really aren't just for show and weight loss, it does seem to deliver impressive stiffness ensuring the front wheel goes where you point it, even when you're redlining and puking up your lungs. The steering is precise, it manages heavy braking and it's stout when you're heaving on the bars up a punchy climb.

rockshox sid

Talking of climbing, the SID damping is well-suited when you're battling with the cruel mistress that is gravity. Whether you’re spinning a low gear on a smooth fire road or mashing a big gear out of the saddle up a rough boulder-strewn track, the SID fork didn't bob excessively - it just feel composed and stable. The Charger 2 damper prevents unwanted movement giving you maximum efficiency when you're on your limit and trying to extra every ounce of power to keep ahead or alongside your main rival in a race.

You can easily lock out the fork on the move with a flick of the Charger 2 dial. XC racers will probably want the optional OneLoc remote control for adjusting on the fly, but away from races and on fast trail rides where I wasn't against the clock I simply left the fork in the open mode, because it's composed enough that you don't feel at a loss in any situation. It would be nice to have a third 'trail' mode as with the Fox 32, though, for a bit more choice between fully open and locked out. The lockout mode does have a blow-off valve so if you forget to flick the switch before hitting a rough trail you won't blow your wrists to a thousand pieces when you hit the first obstacle.

sid vs 32

How does it compare?

The obvious comparison to make is with the Fox 32 StepCast I recently reviewed. Both offer 100mm of travel, but if weight is a major factor in your buying decision, there’s no getting away from the fact that despite its obvious lack of carbon fiber, the Fox is the lighter fork. Granted, only by 34 grams, but grams are grams. When it comes to stiffness, I honestly couldn't detect a substantial difference between the two forks - they both felt solid with precise steering.

Suspension performance is very similar on the two forks too. Each fork can be tuned with volume tokens and there's also low-speed compression adjustment on the top dial so you can make small changes with no tools before a race, or bigger changes back at the pits. The Fox provides a bit more on-the-fly adjustment with three compression modes available from the top dial, while the SID is limited to open and locked. Testing both forks with the same volume tokens (1 per fork) and the same sag produced in the SID a more supportive feeling fork that was less active on the smaller bumps, whilst the Fox was more sensitive and active to smaller impacts. Both displayed good bottom-out resistance with ample progression when you land jumps or hit big holes.

Splitting differences then is tricky. They both offer top-level performance that any racer would be more than happy with. Both are high end forks providing top-level performance and each is offered in cheaper versions if money is a factor. Whichever fork you choose you’re not going to be unhappy.

sid vs 32


+ Controlled, predictable, and smooth damping
+ Easy to set up

- Not the absolute lightest in this category
- Only 2-way adjustment

Pinkbike's Take
bigquotes For the riding and riders the SID is aimed at it delivers superb performance, with smooth and consistent travel, easy tuning adjustments and a lockout mode if you need it. It'll suit the rider or racer who wants to go full gas everywhere and wants a fork that will get the job done without putting up a fuss. There are slightly lighter options, but the SID is reliable and easy to live with, and cheaper options are available if the highest end models is too spendy for you or you haven’t got a pro contract yet. David Arthur


  • 247 2
 Sid annocuces parting ways from Rockshoxs 2020
  • 224 0
 There are no full information on it, but one half goes to Cannondale.
  • 29 1
 @Sirflyingv: Not sure that's the right decision...
  • 36 1
 @MTBrent: What option is it Left with?
  • 11 2
 This news just gave my Head a shock.
  • 5 1
 I would steer away from posting unverified information.
  • 5 0
 @kyytaM: it goes without saying that this news is truly shocking.
  • 1 0
 hopefully they can smooth the transition, then
  • 174 0
 "The fundamental chassis design for the SID hasn’t changed, but the foil graphics are new"

true mountainbike innovation
  • 48 9
 Thats a sram innovation right there
  • 24 0
 @zyoungson: and the non-rebranded oil.
  • 8 0
 Come on now... did you look at the new blue color tone? It is totally different than the old.
  • 6 3
 I tried the new SID. I thought it blue.
  • 6 0
 I don't know if it's different from the old but the Sid is clearly a fair bit wider than the Fox which presumably would allow wider tyres but would also potentially increase side to side rigidity I would think...?
  • 3 1
 Also... Somebody please explain how they are both 100mm travel when I can see an extra 20mm on the Fox when they're side by side in the photo!
  • 2 1
Not sure but I am sure that the fox was better on the downhills for some reason. LOL
  • 3 0
 @landscapeben: the dropouts are off the ground on the Fox but not on the Sid.
  • 2 1
 Actually I think the tilted ground and bricks line has more to do with it.
  • 128 11
 "Splitting differences then is tricky. They both offer top-level performance that any racer would be more than happy with. Both are high end forks providing top-level performance and each is offered in cheaper versions if money is a factor. Whichever fork you choose you’re not going to be unhappy."

This is the entirety of the review. The introduction is just a spec sheet put to words, the midsection is a description of mountain biking, and this is the attempt at product evaluation.

Either Mr. Arthur is unable to differentiate between products or these are the most similar forks ever created. The latter is possible. If so, don't be satisfied publishing this low-effort crap. Create or borrow a test fixture and measure stiffness. Send them to a suspension tuner with a dyno and have the dampers compared. Put a bending load on them and test binding. Do something - ANYTHING - but whatever you do, do better than this.
  • 37 6
 Pinkbike does not do strict fact based reviews, they are more into moods and impressions. Don't get me wrong, I love the site, especially for the comments section, but for product comparisons you need to search elsewhere.
  • 46 6
 Isn't the point here telling the difference from rider's perspective? If the two forks are fairly indistinguishable, it's totally proper evaluation unless your goal is finding differences for the sake of finding differences.
  • 22 5
 @Toutacoup: These are flagship products from the leading brands. They deserve more than a shrug of the shoulders and a review that amounts to "they both seem pretty good to me".
  • 28 0
 it's off season, it was either this or reviwewing grips, you choose.
  • 6 2
 Took the words off my keyboard. At least clamp the forks by the steerer tube and hang a weight off the end of the leg or rim of an attached wheel and measure deflection. sheesh.
  • 2 1
 Liking your laser vision tup
  • 9 8
 He’s a pretty useless reviewer.
  • 7 3
 Last I checked Pinkbike isn't a German website.

Also, most if not all suspension reviews whether it is motorcycle, auto, or even over priced mountain bike products only get into the subjective terms. "Feels good man" is all you can expect.

Bike geeks gonna bike geek.
  • 5 0
 Yupppp never buy anything based on a pinkbike impression. There are literally no reviews on this site
  • 6 5
 I was thinking this was pretty in depth.. I learned a lot.
  • 2 0
 In fairness, he did put the same amount of air and volume spacers in each and said the SID was more supportive, but the Fox gave better small bump compliance. It could just mean they use slightly different amounts of air and could be tuned to preference, but it's something.

Also, is it a surprise they are fairly similar?
  • 6 0
 @mtb-sf: Putting in the same amount of air and spacers shows the lack of understanding. It's a bit like putting the same air pressure in different tires: it only makes sense if they're the same size. The springs in the SID and 32 SC are not exactly the same, so it doesn't make sense to use the same settings. They should've been tuned to have similar *support*, not *settings*, then the feel of each could be compared.

No, it's not surprising the forks felt similar. They are, after all, highly evolved products in a well-established category. I'll bet they feel more different than road bikes in the same category, though, yet reviewers still manage to differentiate between those. Or, if they really are that similar, then compare them to the next model down to determine whether *all* forks now feel the same or flagship products are still worth the money.

A meaningful comparison with actionable observations will always be possible. If this reviewer can't do it, hire someone who can.
  • 43 0
 I won't trust a review of a fork without a huck-to-flat video.
  • 11 1
 I'm not sure if im getting the message.
  • 4 1
 @noisette: It is expensive
  • 5 0
 Came here for this. Huck both the Fox and Rockshox back to back and watch the flex show.
  • 1 0
 @boozed: It can be to use the camera in the Field Test videos, but the iPhone slo mo camera is pretty impressive, and uhh, cheaper.
  • 5 1
 @m-t-g: I think you didn't get The Message. Trust me, they're not talking about production costs Smile
  • 2 1
 @KxPop: Woops, missed that one completely
  • 32 0
 “ Measuring the stiffness of a fork outside of a rigorous lab test in the real world is a tricky old thing to asses”

Depends on the ass I suppose...
  • 9 1
 If you huck both forks to flat and film it to 1000 fps, the size of the ass becomes more relevant I guess ..
  • 2 1
 @southoftheborder: this is exactly what the need to do with these forks.
  • 4 1
 @5poundplumbbob: I've got a pretty substantial bottom to contribute to the err... Bottom out test.
  • 10 0
 Having just realised how easy it is to home service Pikes, I would imagine that would be a significant plus for any home racer. Assuming these are a similar process to bleed the charger damper and perform lowers service, if I was putting in serious hours riding and racing I'd definitely be pushing these towards the front of my list...
  • 8 0
 This is the reason I prefer RS over Fox. They are both great forks, but pull apart any recent fox and there are about 20 tiny bits that are just begging to be lost, along with almost every model year seeming to have slightly different variations of dampers and air chambers. If I wasn't the mechanic for my bike I would consider fox as they are great.
  • 9 2
 @Chris97a: and don't get me started on using special tools for lowers removal, with a different €50 tool (in the Netherlands) for the left and right leg. And don't try using a long nut, because they use non-standard threading. And after purchasing the tools for €100 (production costs: €5) or risking damage to your €800 fork by using a socket when hammering the legs off, you have to buy a crush washer to replace the old one. Something that's absolutely needed to keep the fork from leaking, even though non of my other 3 forks seem to need one.
  • 3 0
 @Mac1987: you really don't risk damage by tapping a socket, and all fox lower service kits come with new crush washers.
  • 1 0
Tapping the rods out of the lowers isn't too bad with a socket or right on the nut when there is no rebound adjustment shaft coming through the middle of the rod. Done it hundreds of times with no problem, seen it done at least a thousand times with no problem. Just definitely go by the recommended torque value when tightening those nuts back on. I've seen those break several times on RS and fox, but the fox ones seemed more sensitive, a few Newton's over torque and it is a sad day.
  • 2 0
 @spaceofades: I know, but you have to be more careful. With Manitou (or most other brands) forks you just unscrew the rod and you're done.
Regarding the crush washers: I don't exclusively open my forks to do a whole service. Sometimes I just check the grease or replace the bath oil. When following Fox instructions, one should replace them everytime you open the fork (which is obviously ridiculous).
  • 2 0
You don't have to replace the crush washers everytime. It is just cheap insurance that you won't leak out your lowers oil. Both RS and Fox have that design but they are super cheap. Just saw a bag of 50 RS ones for $8.
  • 3 1
 @Chris97a: again, I know. But follow Fox's instructions (most beginner home mechanics should follow manufacturers' instructions just to be safe) and you have to spend a lot of money and stock more extras than with competing brands. The thing is, Fox isn't into making home servicing easy or cheap.
It's one of the reasons (next to performance and value for money) that I prefer brands like Manitou (but they aren't the only ones I'd prefer to Fox).
My Mattoc is so much easier to work on than my Float 34, only requiring a slotted cassette tool and a thin wall 8mm socket as 'special' tools, both of which can be bought and modified if needed for far less then the Fox tools, are actually necessary from an engineering standpoint (instead of a sales standpoint) and can be bought from Hayes as a set costing less than a single removal tool for the 34 (of which I for some stupid reason require 2).
  • 3 0
 One if the main reasons I stick to RS these days too.
  • 2 1
 @Mac1987: have a fancy fork on your fancy bike and you worry about the markup on a tool?????
  • 3 0
 @RoadStain: the fork came with the bike and except for the MSRP isn't that fancy. The bike I got a good deal on. That doesn't mean I'm ok with spending €100 on two unnecessary tools that Fox designed just to make extra money and that would have cost €25 with other brands. What if Shimano developed a €100 tool to adjust the derailleur, Magura a €100 tool to bleed your brakes, DT Swiss a €100 to adjust strangely shaped spokes and Raceface a €100 tool to adjust headset preload? Things would get very expensive very fast for the home mechanic. But no, for most of these things, you just need a rightly sized allen key or €2 spoke wrench.
  • 3 2
 @Mac1987: Okay? I have no Shimano parts on any of my bikes...I can tell you that in my car(s), in general I have to get a special tool. More often than not it is to keep a "shade tree mechanic" from getting in over their heads. I have no issues with the need for special tools at all. It is a buyers market...Maybe I am just to old to be worried about such trivial things.
  • 2 0
 @RoadStain: I don't mind 'special' tools that keep inexperienced home mechanics from messing with delicate stuff. But when you provide how-to guides and sell these 'special' tools to consumers for ridiculous prices, it has nothing to do with preventing people from messing with you products. It's just for cheap and easy profit without providing value to your customer in return. It just doesn't feel like mutual respect.
Keep in mind: a €100 tool for a €800 fork (which is also needed on their €500 forks) corresponds to a €5,000 tool on a €40,000 car. Would you be okay with that?
  • 1 0
edit: €5,000 tool for a €40,000 part of a car.
  • 2 0
 @Chris97a: VW sells you a car. Fox sells you a fork. But fine. We can argue the details, but my opinion remains that I don't agree with Fox when they want to sell me an expensive and unnecessary part for simple maintenance just to up their margin. If other people see no problem in that, that's fine. But then also don't complain when they see it works and sell another two unnecessary parts for €200 with the next iteration. I prefer paying fair prices for fair products. I buy my bike from my LBS, because they respect their customer and I want to reward that. I won't buy an aftermarket Fox fork for the same reasons. Companies like Manitou do, so I will perhaps buy a Mezzer or Mara Pro in the future if I need one.
  • 10 1
 Germany's Bike Magazin did lab testing :
Rock Shox SID Ultimate 2020 : torsional stiffness 25.9 Nm/°, brake stiffness 166.9 Nm/°.
Fox 32 Float Factory Fit4 SC 2020 : torsional stiffness 14.8 Nm/°, brake stiffness 175.7 Nm/°.
Both rated 'super'.
  • 4 0
 Those torsional stiffness numbers show quite a big difference.
  • 3 0
 @delarscuevas: I have both forks and really disappointed in how easy it is for the fox 2020 sc32 to deflect off impacts and get off track. Feels much less predictable and stable in rocky sections than the SID.
  • 3 0
 @delarscuevas: the previous version of the Fox with the 'old' step cast chassis was tested by the same magazine in March 2017.
Fox 32 Float Factory Fit4 SC 2017 : torsional stiffness 10.8 Nm/°, brake stiffness 117.7 Nm/°.
More info here :

The Rockshox RS-1 2015 fork's torsional stiffness was a lotgreater than the old Fox step cast 32 and nearly identical to the new chassis.
Rockshox RS-1 2015 : torsional stiffness 14 Nm/°, brake stiffness 265.5 Nm/°.
Rated 'super'.
More info here :
  • 1 2
 @delarscuevas: Even with a big difference in numbers, when you put the suppleness of your handlebar, stem, wheel, bearings in the equation, there isn't much difference overall, and as a human you can't really tell the difference when riding...
... except for (really) supple forks that'll move out of phase. In this case the forks will have it's own ways so you are able to tell if it's moving without permission.
  • 11 0
 I would take the blue even at 35 grams heavier.
  • 3 0
 Fortunately... the Fox also comes in black.
  • 3 0
 @boozed: The SID comes in black too!
  • 8 0
 Every once in a while I'll see a sleek new product like this come along and think, "I should build me up one of them fast, skinny tired, xc hardtail, bikes." Then I come to my senses.
  • 8 1
 I had a 1998 Santa Cruz Chameleon in ‘Sid Blue’ colour. SIDS were so popular at the time that colour was named after them. Lovely looking bike. Had Pace RC36 forks, Azonic bars... not relevant, just reminiscing...
  • 4 0
 I remember they first came out OEM on a Trek alloy hardtail that also was one of the first XC bikes to come with OEM disc brakes. Hayes disc brakes, bright blue fork, and bright yellow/gold frame. Ahead of it's time and seemed like 1/4 of all XC racers were on that model, a huge step up from the elastomer springed forks and v-brakes.

Still couldn't compete with Cannondale Headshock though, which was by far the best performing fork for years until travel started to kick up over 70mm.
  • 9 0
 That's not an integrated crown race... it's completely flat and you are supposed to mount a crown race on top of it.
  • 2 0
 Yep! Had to check the first time we fitted one as it does look pretty funky. I have seen them used as crown races before by accident (not by actual trade people like this though...), a bearing does fit over the top of the ridge and sits on the taper. Made a right mess of it.
  • 5 0
 Yup. No angled bearing seat on that puppy.

"...and RockShox has bonded an alloy bearing crown in place - the headset bearings simply plops straight on top." Not simply misleading, but actually incorrect, and dangerous if somebody takes this literally.
  • 3 0
 @UtahBrent: yes this whole wrie up sounds like someone started new year's Eve early.
  • 9 0
 What happened too the RS-1 has it turned back the other way up?
  • 5 0
 I have not heard anything good about the RS-1 from any owner. I avoided one last XC bike purchase.
  • 5 0
 Ever seen the flex on a rs-1?
  • 9 0
 @iamamodel: I have one and it's a very reliable fork, does everything you want it to do, and it has never failed me. The con's are your'e limited to two specific hubs for the predictive steering. (Sram or DT Swiss hubs). Some people may not like the aesthetic appearance and it comes in all the best color options as long as you like black.
  • 4 0
 @iamamodel: I have one and I like it a lot.
  • 6 0
 @Squale183: That is a comprehensive hub list as long as you add Tune, Syntace, Onyx, American Classic, Fun Works, Roval, or Carbon-Ti. So yeah, limited options.
  • 1 0
 I apologize for not being specific. Perhaps the question "Is the RS-1 better than the SID?" would have been a better place to start. I almost bought the Focus O1E 9.9 but opted for the 8.9 to avoid the RS-1 after researching it and asking racing buddies.
  • 5 0
 @iamamodel: RS-1 is heavier and not as stiff laterally/torsionally.
  • 1 0
 @UtahBrent: yep, which is one of the reasons I didn't get it.
  • 2 0
 @iamamodel: The RS1 is better than the SID if you want a light 120mm fork since the SID is not made with that travel. It is better on small bump compliance (my opinion having owned both). The torsional rigidity is not an issue using xc tires. If it was a problem for me I would simply replace it. But I like it.
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: For 2020, the alloy crown SIDs are available in 120mm.
  • 1 1
 @JohanG: American Classic has been out of business for like two years now.
  • 2 0
 I absolutely loved my RS-1 but then maintenance time came around. There was a seal that was expose to be water tight from the manufacture at the top and it's not (later models may have fixed this) so the bolt to get the legs off is completely rusted. I also learned that since it's truly an inverted fork, each time I played in mud, the mud got in the oils really easily. If I didn't ride that fork in such horrible weather all the time, this wouldn't be much of an issue and I would just get it fixed. But unfortunately I'm not changing my ways and now in the market for a new fork.
  • 9 3
 I think my 8 year old third hand SID WC 29er carbon whatevertheyare forks have that exact same crown and steerer. So now I should upgrade because of blue lowers?


  • 14 1
 Boost + Blue = STRAVA KOM!
  • 1 0
 I thought I was always going to have my old SID WC too, until I looked under the crown and found some cracks, lots of cracks. No fault of the fork, I beat that thing up for years. But have a look. Also make sure the steertube hasn't started to separate from the crown. These things happen over time and are not noticeable unless you look close or they brake while you're riding.
  • 2 1

Actually it's a feature.

Pretty sure you can just pop a new damper in the same chassis. Correct me if i'm wrong.

After 8 years, you can still upgrade the internals and make it feel all new. That's pretty cool
  • 4 0
 Different lowers, different damper, different air spring, and maybe a different layup in the crown. I know my 2012 SID XX with carbon crown was not quite stiff enough compared to the alloy crown, maybe this one is better. The new damper alone is magnitudes better than the motion control or XX from 8 years ago. I've ridden both.
  • 4 0
 "On-the-fly adjustment is limited to open or locked out, but you can adjust the low-speed compression of the open model with a small Allen key."
Is the reviewer seriously saying that he doesn't know how the low speed compression adjuster knob works? Is he trying to adjust it with the allen key bolt that holds the adjuster assembly together? .
  • 2 0
 Ya I wondered that too when reading it.
  • 4 0
 I still have 2 of the 98 gen 1 SID's, both unobtanium 1in versions. That fork was such an upgrade over anything in existence at the time, for XC, and at about 1150g, it still amazes me.
  • 1 0
 I believe SID was the first air fork with a negative spring to get 0 preload (or closer to 0 preload), which was a huge innovation, but it was still a flexy flier and had a basic orifice damper. Headshok at the time was as stiff as a modern fork and had a legit shim stack damper. I'd take the Headshok over the SID, but both were miles better than the other RS and Manitou elastomer forks.

Marz came next with innovations in damping and longer travel, and then Fox hit the scene and was the first to deliver the whole package together with a high quality modern stiff chassis, decent air spring, and shim stack open bath damper in the same fork. IMO Fox really changed the game. RS didn't catch up until the Charger damper models, and Manitou faded away. Marz continued innovating in freeride/downhill, but didn't compete in lightweight trail/xc chassis until it was way too late.
  • 3 0
 Don't need or care for this type of fork, but one piece crown/steerer units should come as standard. So many forks with creaking CSU's. This would fix the problem instantly and permanently.
  • 1 0
 Anyone know if the 100mm sid can be raised to 120? Assuming the 120 can be dropped to 100? I’m just building up a blur and not sure what fork to run? I Can get the 100mm slightly cheaper online but will get 120 if the 100s can’t can’t be raised
  • 2 0
 The Carbon version can't be raised as it's 100mm only. For the non-carbon version I would contact Sram directly.
  • 9 5
 Some great advice for the every day consumer, Thanks Pinkbike
  • 5 1
 Would have been lighter if removed blue paint!
  • 3 0
 This review is making me think the REBA is the way to go. Cheap stiff light and everywhere.
  • 2 0
 Once you go Ribbon SL, you never go back. Relatively light and it will actually help you go faster.
  • 1 0
 Wow, the stack height on the SID vs Fox 32 StepCast is substantial. That will noticeably change how it rides. Slacken the bike slightly and changes the body position to more downcountry bro. Unless you drop the bars.
  • 1 0
 No way that SID is pressurized, looks like it's shown 80mm stanchion, at most.
  • 3 0
 @UtahBrent: Look top of the lowers where the stanchion seals are. The SID is lower as well. So, both look to be at full extension.
  • 3 0
 Testing a world cup xco fork withtout remote control, yeah, Pinkbike guy got it!
  • 4 1
 That raw carbon crown looks so good.
  • 1 1
 What are peoples opinions on offset for the 29er. 41 or 52? Which are advantages and disadvantages of both. What style of bike would one or the other best suit? What about for a gravel bike?
  • 1 0
 I tried the two different offsets on the same bike and the shorter offset climbed better with the wheel wandering less on steep climbs. I couldn't tell any difference descending. However, it was on a 160mm bike, so might be totally different for an XC bike geometry.
  • 1 1
 Carbon fiber is supposed to be 1.5 times the strength of steel. They must be talking about mild cold rolled steel. Two XC forks from the two largest supplier s of forks and the Aluminum one is lighter. I'm honestly shocked!
  • 2 0
 I agree. Surprising the Rockshox is 34 grams heavier with the crown & steerer tube both made of carbon fiber. I wonder what type of carbon layup or other materials are used, as the RS should be lighter? The stepcast lower leg cutout design on Fox's SC forks does make a difference for weight, but still comparing to carbon fiber used on the sid? Would like to see Fox use carbon fiber on their crown and steerer tube for both their 32 SC and 34 SC forks and see what the weight would be? However, could not imagine the cost of Fox SC carbon fiber forks...

Actually carbon fiber has 2 to 5 times more rigidity (depending on the fiber used) than aluminium and steel. Here is an interesting link:
  • 1 0
 @RowdyAirTime: i independently googled tensile strength of hi modulus carbon fiber and 7075 heat treated aluminum. What I found gives a bit of insight . Hi modulus carbon fiber has a maximum Gpa of 375 .
7075 heat treated Aluminum has a Gpa up to 570!
7075 heat treated Aluminum has a significantly higher tensile strength.
This is one property of materials. I could research modulus of elasticity, shear strength ECT.
Thing is carbon fiber also has epoxy in the matrix. Too many variables.
My first dive into research found Aluminum to be much stronger than carbon fiber.
  • 1 0
 @Sshredder: I do agree carbon fiber has many variables. Strength and rigidity of a carbon fiber component is created by positioning fabrics in a specific way. This presents opportunities for the manufacturer but also requires great knowledge and expertise.

For example,a component made from standard carbon fiber of the same thickness as an aluminium one will offer 31% more rigidity than the aluminium one and at the same time weight 50% less and have 60% more strength. Use of carbon fiber of higher modulus and one-direction fabric may provide x 4 times the rigidity compared to aluminium.

Furthermore, the stiffness to weight ratio of carbon fiber is five times greater than that of aluminum. Carbon fiber will demonstrate more elasticity and, after momentary bending, will restore its shape following release of the loading (spring back effect), unlike aluminium, which can permanently bend. However, fabrics of highest modulus – will offer less resistance to damage. The more a component is reinforced with fabrics of highest modulus, the more it will be susceptible to breaking during bending. This where the expertise and knowledge comes in when using carbon fiber and why we see big differences in the manufacturing process between companies.

I have been into high end materials for a long time (RC's) and have had many aluminum frames, and even had an exotic "Scandium" Rocky Mountain frame, but would choose carbon fiber
  • 1 0
 @RowdyAirTime: You have done your research and the air craft industry uses carbon fiber for it's strength to weight ratio. If carbon fiber is 50 percent of half the weight with 60 percent more strength than in theory an eight pound aluminum frame could be substituted with a four pound carbon fiber frame and it would be 60 percent stronger than the Aluminum frame. That's the theory. In reality I have seen carbon fiber frames that are at best a pound lighter than an aluminum frame . Where are these four pound DH frames??? In fact I don't trust a carbon fiber DH frame that is under 8 pounds.
Carbon fiber rims can be as light as 400 grams maybe a few grams less. The best Aluminum rims of the same size are about 450 grams. In theory one should be able to make a 250 gram rim that is 60 percent stonger with carbon fiber. According to your facts we should be able to have four pound DH frames and 250 gram rims made of carbon fiber. I trust the material that does the best job for the application. I see a slight reduction in weight with an extra 1000$ added to a frame and 300$ for a rim to save a few grams.
I'm not all impressed with carbon fiber.
  • 1 0
 @Sshredder: the answer is not that simple the strength of carbon fiber is not the entire story... its strength to weight not just strength i strongly suggest that you research the way the test for compression and yield are done , they use a sample based on size aspects and not weight ... also i am pretty sure that fox uses 7005 aluminium not 7075 because 7075 is prone to micro-fractures due to grain structure work hardening.... although i agree with not going for carbon fiber (mostly for economic reasons), the design and manufacturing processes of the entire part needs to be considered ( forged vs machined, heat treatment, fabric weave alignment...) and not just the material strength.
  • 1 0
 @drpmstrdan: the difference between 7075 and 7005 Al is the amount of copper and I believe Vanadium. 7075 is 7 percent copper with 7.5 percent Vanadium. The more alloyed metal the stronger . The stronger the material the more brittle it is or the less malleable.
But I digress.
The blog that was posted does not specify where they got the results from . I researched actual manafacturers of Al. and toray hi modulas carbon fiber. I also stated that areospace industry uses carbon fiber.
So why do we not have four pound carbon fiber DH frames. My guess an areospace engineer makes perhaps 100, 000 to 150, 000 dollars a year and would be at the top score in university. An engineer fresh out of university in a bike company probably makes 50,000 dollars a year to use a computer program that any one can buy. An areospace engineer would use proprietary software that you can't buy in fact they would hire an engineer to write to code for the software. A bike company then lets an out side source( China) to manafacture the frame . No comparison. Bike companies are not doing billion dollar contracts. No comparison.
Google how well carbon fiber cranks are for longevity. Far too many cranks fail.
Carbon fiber may be superior in theory but it's on par with Aluminum frames for strength to weight ratio not half the weight as the blog suggest.
Fork crowns are made from 2014 Aluminum for it's the best material for 3d forging.
These two forks suggest that 3d forged aluminum is superior to carbon fiber.
The bike industry is run by underpaid people that have a passion for bikes. The profit is minimal. The engineering is a joke compared to the areospace industry .
I'm a naive twit when it comes to the engineering aspects of bike manafacture. If you want better clarification do what I do . Give RC a PM with your question s . That man knows the bike industry better than any other individual.
  • 3 0
 Will we see a 120mm carbon steerer crown/tube of this fork as well?
  • 5 3
 keep that cheap plastic forks away of my noble cutlery
  • 1 0
 Hand up. Had the original. Seemed good at the time but was a POS especially for what I was asking it to do.
  • 2 0
 I think in the next few years lightweight 35mm forks will be a the thing.
  • 2 0
 Needs downcountry travel upgrade
  • 2 0
 Pretty sure this fork screams upcountry bro and not downcountry bro.
  • 1 1
 Had some old 28mm stanchion SIDs. Flexed like fuck but lightest fork ever owned
  • 4 3
 That carbon crown would put such immense fear in me i wouldnt ride it.
  • 1 0
 rock shox's partnership with making the lightest forks has come to an end
  • 2 0
 It looks freakn awesome!
  • 2 1
 Can we review it on a DJ Bike?
  • 2 1
 But how it works in 4X?
  • 12 2
 Wouldn't that just make it 4x bigger?
  • 2 2
 @seraph: just like controversy of new trail 140mm Recons and light trail 120mm Pikes
  • 2 2
 that thing would get broke before it got off the UPS truck to me
  • 2 1
 Mag 21 or GTFO
  • 3 5
 German-A Xcite Zero 998g??
crown race, carbon steerer also stolen from G-A
  • 2 0
  • 1 0
 A quick search showed that fork came out in 2015. Didn't the SID with carbon steerer come out way earlier than that?
  • 1 0
 @Chris97a: I had a SID Black Box with a carbon steerer/crown in 2001.
  • 1 2
 Sid super fork, but need good service)
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment

You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2021. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.020125
Mobile Version of Website