Bike Check: Maxime Marotte's Rockrider 940S

 Thanks, I'm doing my best to get the detail right on them. big thanks to Matt for writing this one up for me.

 That rear caliper mount is pretty sick looking

 This is exactly one of the biggest reason I check PB, I want to see the Pros stats and what the Pros are riding down to the tires, including PSI. Thank you PB

 Any chance of Onza or X-lite barends? Perhaps they could alternate with a Pace fork too

 @korev: At least you can ride Onza tires again.

 @Ttimer: I'm not that brave!

 Not to mention, Josh Dubau *just* missed out on the 3rd place in a sprint with Dascalu in the most recent WC race that the article talks about, in Val di Sole. Strange that they wouldn't bring it up, since he rode the same bike. Not too bad for a new "house brand" bike - 4th and 6th place.

 And wish they wouldn't cost $60+

 Love the username

 It’s a prototype from Manitou it was fresh on the bike for the Val Di Sole round so it could be a while before it’s out

 Hayes is a brand to push large volumes so if they're going to release a remote like that, it probably won't be machined. CNC allows them to play with ergonomics, cable pull ratios, the orientation of the cables entering etc. Once they've found something they're happy with, I suppose they'll redesign it to preserve those ideal properties but make it out of a cast or extruded part (possibly with some post-machining) and maybe some injection molded parts too. Doesn't by any means imply that it would be a worse part. Instead I can imagine they'd seal some parts so that after you've landed your bike upside down in the mud, you won't be driving muck into the cable housing. CNC levers are more something for boutique brands and even though some might like the looks of the fine texture CNC gives you, they wouldn't necessarily perform better than something primarily made through different methods. And yes indeed, most production methods (forging, casting, extrusion) will still need some milling on the surfaces that need to be more accurate.

 Looks like my Paul Components dropper lever, minus the suspension lockout lever.

 Bikeporn...

 You should be able to do just that they tell me there going to sell team spec bikes in decathlon early next year

 Meh-RockShox used to do a double crown SID. Performance wasn’t really better.

But…..if you can engineer and build a better front end around a double crown…….the pros will adopt it 10-15 years after it’s validated as an improvement.

 @wyorider: I didn't say double crown. I said direct mount stem. These forks already have a crown, mount a stem to it.

 I Like the idea. But only if we route the cables through the LOWER headset bearing! ;-) :-D

 @delarscuevas: Whether you have a dual crown fork, a single crown fork with a direct mount stem on the (lower) crown or a "regular" setup like we see here but with a lot of negative rise on the stem, you won't be able to rotate the bars too much anyway. What they're trying to realize with the headset routing (that you don't need big loops of cable and hose to allow for handlebar rotation) you pretty much also can enjoy with a direct mount stem and having the cable ports under the downtube, just behind the lower headset. Not sure how much it would interfere with a forward facing arch, but it seems to me you'll be fine with a rearwards facing arch like we see on this Manitou fork. That said, of course you're free to guide all cables and hoses all the way through the steerer and then guide them externally.

 I'm having a hard time picturing what you mean here. The stem mounted to the crown UNDER the headtube? Would the stem then have a bunch of rise to avoid the headtube getting in the way? I get the strength, stiffness, and control advantage but it seems kind of goofy?

 @bluemonkeywrench: You seem to be picturing it just fine. For the grips to be in the same position, you're indeed going to use a stem with a good bit of rise and/or handlebars with a lot of rise. What we now see are both stems and bars having negative rise, so taking these super short headtubes people are running these days, it may not even be too extreme. I'm not too worried about it seeming goofy at this stage. You can always apply some carbon-look stickers and it will suddenly look pretty amazing.

 e-XC is the future

 Yep, still making wheels you don't want to own!

 Obvious typo, don't stress it. 2.3" wide obviously, and 19bar in the front and 20bar in the rear tire.

 60mm wide and set to 131kpa front and 137.9kpa rear.

 @kusa: nope. PSI.

 @plustiresaintdead: and no inserts??

 @Dogl0rd: yup, xc bois have been running that low for a few years now. Pretty wild! It’s actually much faster than high psi.

 @JohanG: 1310HPa / 1379Hpa for all the meteorologists

 @plustiresaintdead: they ride some gnarly tracks how do they not destroy rims

 @plustiresaintdead: Someone once said most time is won or lost on the climbs in XC. I can them imagine getting proper traction over slippery roots and loose rocks is paramount. I can imagine they just go as low as they can without likely damaging the rim or making it too unstable. This may very well be the sweet spot for them.

Personally I'm running 0.9bar in the front and 1.2bar in the rear, so that's a bit lower than what he is running. Though I've got my ProCore tube inflated to 5bar so it won't burp and it will also protect my rims if they hit something sharp. But ProCore doesn't provide sidewall stability and it still works well enough.

 @kusa: 27 PSI does not make more sense here. There's no way any of those XCO WC racers run 27 PSI. 19 PSI sounds right and it can easily belower for different riders and bike set ups.

 @Dogl0rd: Did you see the part where he is 141 pounds? 19 psi is plenty.

 Wow this is interesting, I run low pressures in my enduro bikes (18-23psi depending on condition) but my XC hardtail stays pretty firmly at 28psi, sometimes higher, had always assumed this was best for speed and efficiency. I get that there is a grip advantage but I would have thought this came at a high price for speed and potentially fragility too. I will have to experiment!

 @Jmac888: Definitely not better for speed and efficiency, as you end up bouncing on top and off of things, instead of tires being able to absorb many of them, remain in contact and keep traction. That costs time, more fatigue over time and can actually be harder to maintain your exact planned/desired line which can lead to more lost time or potential crash. Of course, it's a fine line between also keeping the pressure high enough to prevent flats and damage to tires/wheels.