FOX Announces 2016 FLOAT 34 for 27.5+ by mikekazimer

271 4

cragus-t (Mar 12, 2015 at 8:59)

Its only just 2015 for fox sake

89 9

cmitchell (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:08)

give them a break, they make RAD suspension

111 5

FlowMasterO (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:10)

Ya, dont try to dampen their efforts

35 26

ginger-wheels (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:10)

Release it all early and take the rest of the year off

36 3

Hammm (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:18)

I think im just going to blowoff this new fad

59 3

mountainbiker929 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:19)

Fox is on the rebound

90 1

Hammm (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:21)

how much kashima will it cost?

18 6

orastreet1 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:22)

So glad they are making a suspension bridge to this new wheel standard.

20 66

Apostt (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:28) (Below Threshold)

I am into mountain biking for a decent amount of time and I don't think I've ever saw a 3.25" tire. Especially on a 150mm bike.

55 3

mddigger (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:28)

People are gona have to Fork out a lotta Kashima to buy this sucker, but i am sure we will see a lot of these Floating around in the near future.

11 52

smillertime531 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:34) (Below Threshold)

They must 650B happy 34 their RAD new fork

5 21

stepf (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:46) (Below Threshold)

Might be a good FIT... I wanna CTDs in their announcements, though.

13 7

ninjatarian (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:48)

Fox thinks they're real smooth trying to slide this in early in the year.

16 5

iffy (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:56)

fat chance that I'll be riding that shit in '15 ...'16 ....or eva!

15 5

bat-fastard (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:27)

fork sake it new hub time again... 20mm ain't dead...

47 3

blackthorne (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:38)

ANOTHER HUB STANDARD ARE YOU FORKING KIDDING ME??

8 2

B650wagon (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:34)

Why didn't this happen for 26" forks? Guess that's what will be next. Wide carbon rims with "wide rim" tires on big bridge 26" forks. Bet you $100 !

10 0

Forever559bitches (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:52)

they're trying to steer us to another new bike and standards? the bump stops here!

4 2

caste1200 (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:06)

oohhh look another "best fork ever" fox fork haha

28 3

Extremmist (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:41)

"Wow, a new standard, that's exactly what I wanted!"
Said no one ever.

5 1

Novic (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:01)

27.5x10"... Now that will be great traction

15 11

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:10)

It didn't happen because the tire makers weren't making wide "light" 26er tires at the time the fork makers were making trail bike forks with lots of tire width clearance. Rockshox Psylo's are a perfect example of that. They were designed for 26 x 2.7s in 2001 but at the time such a tire was well over a kilogram. But that just happened to be the same effective diameter to what the first production 650B tires of the modern mtb age were (Pacenti Neo Moto 2.3s), so the forks were popular for early adopters of 650B given the tires were about 750 grams and the first rim of choice, Velocity Blunts (28mm width) were about 460 grams. It wasn't until 650B was fully here to stay that anyone really looked into making a "light" single-ply casing 26 x 2.7 tire. The first was Surly, who re-launched the Instigator hardtail spec'ed with 26 x 2.75" Dirt Wizard tires on their 50mm width Rabbit Hole rims. They call it "26+" btw. The foldable kevlar bead version is 850 grams. The rim is 600 grams and they like most fat rims use dual-row spoke hole drillings allowing the wheels to be laced offset or on-center depending on frame/fork/hub requirements. Surly tires are not the lightest though which is why WTB or VeeRubber can do a similar width tire to the same weight but in a larger diameter.

10 0

bat-fastard (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:52)

my 33" x 12.5" are just about right...
www.pinkbike.com/photo/8487384

17 8

Alasdair-S (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:05)

for the love of god fox just f*ck off! there is enough bull shit in this industry without you adding more shit to the pile

16 2

taletotell (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:26)

I may have to sell my sexual services (aka fork people for kash) to afford this. Hope I don't catch a ctd.

12 5

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:33)

Ugh I can't stand the CTD... was the low-speed compression adjuster REALLY that difficult to use? I set my air, I set my rebound, and I set the Low Comp adjustments and never touched them again. Lose the CTD, lockout and lockout threshold and give me seperate HS/LS compression adjustments instead thanks.

4 0

ninjatarian (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:21)

You would be surprised. I know some very talented riders who are pretty intelligent who have no knowledge, possibly due to little interest, as to how to properly tune a fork. They just want to ride and three modes is as no brainer as it gets for people like this. I find this type of rider is more the norm than the exception.

1 0

B650wagon (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:42)

This explains the name issues between 27.5 and 650B. 650B was always meant to be this second version.

4 2

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:50)

I don't understand what it is that made multiple brand marketing departments decide that US citizens were too dumb to understand the use of an industry code accepted on the rest of the planet for a rim size to instead use 29 or 27.5 or now 29+ and 27.5+ when only 650B x 2.3 tires are at all close to matching 27.5 inches and similarly only something like a 700C x 2.1 actually achieves 29.0", and 27.5 Plus tires are close to 29 inches and 29 Plus tires are so far in excess of 31 inches.

3 3

PedalShopLLC (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:53)

Wheelie now, stick a fork in it, enough with the puns, it's killing the Suspense.

14 1

Novic (Mar 12, 2015 at 18:03)

26x2.35 for life!

11 6

kdstones (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:19)

Hey all you PB users! Just because Fox announced this product does not mean you HAVE to buy it! This fork clearly caters to a very specific, yet growing group of riders that are probably stoked to see this release. I think it's awesome that Fox has such a wide variety of fork options to fit to any riders need possible.

4 4

Chuvak (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:29)

still extremely simple air shaft design like in cheap forks? still coil negative spring in air forks for 600+ bucks? ha-ha, thanks, fox, but for money you want for your forks it is like a fart in the face.

1 0

blackthorne (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:30)

Brand departments, or bike mags and media that perpetuate the misnomer? Maybe the media should call it the way it is instead of following press releases.

9 3

PedalShopLLC (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:38)

not for nuttin' --- I knew a guy who used to write for a bike mag --- he was constantly having me install a product or build a bike for him so he could test ride it. he constantly assumed I was going to do everything for free for some reason.... I did make the mistake of hooking him up assuming he might give me a little PR on the side --- well, that never happened and I was able to grab a few rides with him before he moved to AZ. Not saying the peeps doing reviews on PB are nuuuubs. I don't know them from Adam but that guy I knew who was writing for a pretty big bike mag --- he was a tool ... he couldn't ride worth a sheet. I constantly found myself waiting up for him, helping him when he did something stupid and messed up his bike, etc. and here he is writing reviews? schay what? He told me along the way one day how he sorta stumbled into the job. yeah -- good choice of words there "stumbled". I normally take most "reviews" with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to the bike magazine companies .. those reviews are ssssuper bias.

3 1

ninjatarian (Mar 12, 2015 at 22:29)

I see no reason you can't just name the mag. Was it "Mountain Bike Fiction?"

3 4

PedalShopLLC (Mar 13, 2015 at 5:04)

this was a long ago (2005, 2006ish)--Ha...only reason I can remember the year was cause I can remember the bike I had at the time.. he took a picture of me hucking off a concrete wall when I was riding my brown Kona Coiler DelX
- the rest of that memory was taking up too much space so I deleted most of it from my bucket... I can't remember the guy's name or the name of the mag he worked for. the few details I can remember was he was a cheap-ass-mo-fo because I think (in his mind) he was a celebrity and writing for a well known bike mag gave him the green light to expect free-bee's from everyone. I recall he tossed me a set of grips he demo'd once.. wuuup eeee!!! thanks bud. and I do remember the bike he was riding when I realized he was in over his head -- it was a carbon Scott of some sort. At the time, a prototype, said to cost something like $8k (or so he claimed), it was one of two he was given to test and review. I remember being nervous about working on it because it was so pricey. This of course was before I went for a ride with him. **** during the ride, he crashed a couple times doing some very simple log crossing type of stuff. That's when I made that infamous face like I just smelled a dog fart. I'm like...."wait, you're writing for XYZ Bike Mag and your riding skills are at an elementary school level?, something doesn't add up here".....

4 3

PedalShopLLC (Mar 13, 2015 at 5:04)

actually, I think it was Bicycling Magazine but, really, I can't remember that part. I did read some of his articles.. I guess you can say, in the technical dept, he did write well but, his riding skills where not even close to his writing skills. that's about the same time frame I put two and two together that a lot of those bike mags don't know what the hell they're talking about and why they're so bias and so repetitive ... they're just trying to sell magazines .. bicycles are just a mode of transportation. All these big bike companies pay em top dollar to make them look good. I'm sure the same is true for auto, boating, fishing, and every other magazine that has people writing reviews on products.

2 2

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 6:35)

That's not unusual for bicycling magazine. Hell its not unusual for bike stores either to meet folks who talk a good game but can't ride for shit. I know one gal who bragged about her riding but was utterly useless on simple exposed tree roots let alone rolling small rock ledges and is such a slow/bad mechanic that it frightens real mechanics to watch her work on bikes and they usually have to re-do her work for her because they get suckered by her eyelash fluttering and good looks. But she did manage to fool a rather well known former pro freerider into marrying her for a time. If it wasn't for Ottawa having an MEC location with a large bike shop I think she may have run out of local stores to try and get hired at. She's worked at practically every one that exists in this area over the past 15 years.

4 3

PedalShopLLC (Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23)

HA HA HA --- getting off topic a little ---- dude, totally struck a faded memory cord --- I wish I had conducted a skils test before hiring some of the peeps who worked for me. They talked a good interview but the skills, building a bike or doing a easy tune up was less than good (i.e., i'd have to correct their mistakes, tell em how to do things).

here's a couple that struck me as funny (looking back).

1. I used this auto product for cleaning tires on bikes -- it's a bajillion times cheaper than the stuff you buy that's bike branded -- does a great job for cleaning grease and making a bike look brand new -- I tell the kid to go clean a bike that was hanging in the rack. I'm occupied with something else on the computer ... for quite some time, I hear a hsssssssssssssssssssss, coming from the work shop area but it doesn't click what it is.. I just think he's letting air out of the tubes or something. then it clicks...
wait, what?!?! what are you doing?!?!? he had sprayed the entire bike with this cleaner stuff, including the brakes and rotors. AHHHHHHH!!!! just a squirt here and there, not the whole frikin' bike I yell

3 3

PedalShopLLC (Mar 13, 2015 at 7:27)

same kid --- building new bikes. OK, so right from the factory, bikes are often wrapped with all sorts of stuff --- cardboard, foam rubber sections, little bits of tape, zip ties, etc.. drove me nuts --- he'd peel that stuff off the bikes and just toss in on the floor... end result, costing me extra time cause he'd have to spend, 30 minutes cleaning it up and god forbid, if he ever dropped a bolt or something, he'd have spend 20 minutes searching through all the crap he threw on the ground. took me a while but, I got him off that bad habit.

2 2

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 7:43)

Yeah the gal I mentioned IS still like that. Can transform a basic tune-up into a five hour affair. She came back from Utah once with her ellsworth dismantled and went into a local shop that lets regular customers come in and use their tools/stand if its a quiet day (because of course as a professional bike mechanic, she doesn't even own her own tools or repair stand to assemble her bike properly... I had to put one of her's back together for her once under similar circumstances) and what should have been at most a 2 hour job even if started from scratch somehow resulted in the owner of the store doing nearly all the work for her just to get her out of there and free up the repair stand.

3 3

PedalShopLLC (Mar 13, 2015 at 7:59)

a young girl -- came to her interview riding a fixie --- that was bonus points for me right there ... at the time, I was hard core into single speeders and fixies's. she talked up a good interview and ok, she was kinda cute. I thought that would be good for PR.. for the same reason someone would frequent a local pub, simple cause the bartender was cute. well, the first time she went to change a tire for a customer who walked in, it was quite clear she was a rookie --- it took her about 6, 7 8 minutes to get the tire off the rim, even longer fitting the tire with a new tube ---- me, I got half a thumb and I can change a tube on a wheel is about 2 minutes. sure, I have changed waaaaay more tires than her but it was clear.. she didn't have any skills in changing a tube on a wheel.

2 4

PedalShopLLC (Mar 13, 2015 at 8:16)

and then there was the guy who was a good wrench, good in sales too but ha ha ha .. did he ever talk smack when it came to riding --- he had one story after another about all these extreme places he had been to and all this stuff he had done. he had ordered a set of XYZ flat- freeride, DH pedals from me... I forget what brand they were but they were pretty pricey -- red ano and had huge spikes ... maybe they were Azonic or BlackSPire, something known for being hardcore whatever they were. Totally, Mad Max, lethal, looking. We want out for our first ride together and he's getting all suited up. I noticed right away we wasn't wearing any padding on his legs so I offered an old janky set I had in the truck .. he declined saying he didn't need them. so I shrug my shoulders and I'm like ---- "ehh, allyight... whatever". wouldn't ya know it --- first 'huck' he tries, he messes up, slips off the meat grinder and rips the livin' shit out of his leg. bla ha ha ha --- there was even a 1/2" piece of his skin hanging from one of the spikes. sounds cruel but, I couldn't stop laughing for the rest of the day.

3 4

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 8:44)

Yeah I know, you hire "good looking presentable people" and its the scruffy looking ones who actually end up knowing what they're doing. Although I'd much rather have to deal with someone eager who knows nothing (including no bad habits) who can be taught what they need to know than someone who talks about skills/work ethic they don't actually have, and are too lazy to learn. Its a good thing customers at MEC (MEC btw is the canadian version of REI) cannot look directly into the workshop area otherwise they'd probably not enjoy some of the sights of people working on their bikes (or not working as the case often is). I always wonder about shops that relegate the mechanics away out of sight to some back room or basement dungeon. Sure customers asking questions/hovering can be time delaying.... but it just seems like they're trying to hide something.

2 3

PedalShopLLC (Mar 13, 2015 at 9:04)

scroll up ---

MEAT HOOKS ---
Syncros Meat Hook pedals ----

that's what they were which made it even funnier -- no wonder I couldn't stop laughing for the rest of the day ---- I remember I even busted out laughing late at night, while in bed, just before I fell asleep... my wife was ---- 'what's so funny". I remember my stomach muscle hurt that day from laughing so hard.

1 0

bOObdesign (Mar 15, 2015 at 3:47)

@PedalShopLLC i love to read your stories! you should have a blog or something

1 0

PedalShopLLC (Mar 15, 2015 at 6:23)

Ha ha... Thanks. I used to write pro Bono for a small local paper here in town. I would write random bike stories. .how to's, a review now and then and other random topics... They gave me free ad space in exchange. Grammatically, isn't my strong point..they didn't learn me very good at skool but I have been around bikes for a while so I have few stories.

2 0

jaybird951 (Mar 20, 2015 at 14:25)

what?

105 2

Terryotomy (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:32)

Every time a new bunch of bullshit gets forced onto the market, parts for my bike get cheaper and cheaper. Single-pivot, 10x135, 20x110, 73mm, 7.875x2.25... I am riding a museum of mountain biking history which always brings me to the conclusion that nothing matters more than "How does it ride?"

47 3

moefosho (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:27)

If these new 27.5+ (I will call them chubby bikes) really are better, then I am excited for progress. Right now I am just over here riding my 26er and enjoying all the deals.

55 4

freddiehg (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:33)

Its big boned you ass hole!

4 1

blackthorne (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:45)

Seems like the trend is always bigger and wider, so eventually we'll reach a point where it cannot go any further. In fact 2015 may be the year we maxed out.

40 0

garcmol (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:30)

Sad thing is our "museums" are only a few years old

20 0

spaced FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:57)

It's funny. Between 2005 and 2010 we had a stagnation in stupid standards. DH bikes got upgraded geo and lower weight. Spec had the pitch which was cheap and rode great. Fox 36's had great dampers which worked better than that shitty RLC. RS had the Pike which worked worse than the current model but you could service it yourself.

Not saying most of the product from that time were better than current offerings but then most of the stuff was designed for the rider, now it's stupid profit chasing that will only result in people loosing trust and stoping buying new products (hey, your fatbike is now obsolete, in 2 years you won't be able to buy tires for it, yaaay).

This is silly since it's a new fork standard only so you can basically run 2001 downhill gear on your enduro fatbike hemaphrodite. Go double wides and 3.0 gazzoldis. Next year xxxyzx forks for 3000$.

12 1

orientdave (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:39)

↑ This. I find myself unable to disagree with any of the above.

"Losing trust and stopping buying new products"?
That's me there. One of the reasons we all love to tinker with (buy new stuff for) our rides is that it is (used to be) possible to mix and match components and frames far more easily than it appears to be now. Once consumers predict increasing changes to standards and spacings, they are far less likely to make purchases unless they have a continuing supply of cash for their hobby.

"Riding a museum of MTB history" even though it is "only a few years old"?
That's me there. 9 speed, 73mm, 20x110, 10x135. And loving it still; every day.

"If they are better, I am excited for progress"?
That's me there.I enjoy reading about advances and all the great work the people at the likes of Sram, Shimano, RS, Fox, frame makers etc do; the efforts they put in to make things better. Go for it all of you. Never stop please.

However, I may never get to ride any of it. Shame really, still, I have a small stable of soon to be museum pieces from HT to DH and that'll do me just fine thanks!
Enjoy the weekend all.

5 0

spaced FL (Mar 13, 2015 at 4:23)

@orientdave Exactly.

I buy a ton of my stuff for my bike. My Banshee Legend is 5 seasons old but I changed the damper in my fork. I have 5 wheels for it, 30 tires, 3 stems and a ton of other stuff because I like to tinker and try new stuff on my bike. This trend means I will be unable to do so. It shows that the industry decided that we all need to buy complete bikes even in the 2k$+ market. So what we get are apple bikes with shorter lifespan.

Hell I will probably switch to 27.5 for my dh bike but because of the new standard every year idea I won't do it this year. I will wait 2 more years for the industry to calm down and so geometry can standarise a bit. I really feel like it's 2001. Geometries are all over the place, we get crazy new standards and 3.0 tires are back in fashion. They really need to reinstate skinsuits.

4 0

jaame (Mar 14, 2015 at 1:42)

agreed Dave. I read Pinkbike every day but rarely buy anything these days. I want a new fork right now but I'm not buying 15mm because it won't fit my roof rack. I don't want to buy 26" because it will be worth nothing in resale after one ride. I want to go 27.5 but I have ten or eleven 26" tyres that are barely used. Brand new Dirty Dans that cost me an arm and a leg included. The standards are changing too quickly at the moment.

2 0

spaced FL (Mar 14, 2015 at 3:06)

@jaame that's why I'm not replacing my 26'' bikes for now. Wait till the dust settles.

1 0

jaame (Mar 14, 2015 at 4:07)

Actually I just checked... Thule now have an adapter so the roof rack can be used with 15mm axles, just need to change the 20mm adapter tube thing. I might get a Marzocchi 350 and just use it 26" until my tyres are all worn out.

1 0

orientdave (Mar 14, 2015 at 4:51)

Jaame,

I hear you. I am racing tomorrow morning and it has been raining today with sun forecast in the morning tomorrow. I will be choosing between a Stanton Slackline 853 or a Banshee Spitfire depending on what the course ends up looking like. I will be faced with a choice of Ardent, Maxxis Semi-slick (I did say museum pieces right!), or Continental Mountain Kings.

All 26 inch, 20mm front hubs. I can't consider replacing all my stuff. It'd cost me too much.

In it to win it? No, luckily! In it for the fun of it and can't wait! Enjoy the weekend!

2 0

jaame (Mar 14, 2015 at 6:17)

When I race I have a choice of three wheelsets with dirty dans, muddy marys or wicked wills, all 26" 20mm axles, 12x135s on the rear. 15mm and 650b are confusing matters somewhat!

1 0

spaced FL (Mar 15, 2015 at 3:38)

15mm and 650b are not that hard. 15mm is unnecessary but we can live with it, 650b kinda makes sense but You still have 142mm 157mm hubs, you have a relatively new bb standard (which sucks), giant tried to push a new headtube standard, we also have an idiotic 35mm bar standard (seems to have little to no benefits over 31.

. All those came in the last 4-5 years maybe less.

1 0

jaame (Mar 15, 2015 at 4:36)

The worst one for me is the 49mm headtube. You can't use a zero stack 1.5" headset, and you can use an external 1.5 in a 44mm head tube. Ergo, 49mm is completely pointless. Or am I missing something?

1 0

deeeight (Mar 15, 2015 at 22:23)

You're probably missing that it allows top and bottom 1 degree angle-set cups to be used as well as they actually do make external cups for the 49mm interface to run 1.5" steerers.

1 0

jaame (Mar 16, 2015 at 4:17)

Sorry I didn't explain it well. 44 and 49 can run 1.5 externally. I didn't know about the 1 degree angle cups, but I'd guess that's not the case if the head tube is 44/49mm like the new Nomad. 49 can run 1.125 zero stack, but so can 44, so what's the point of 49? What I'm saying is, 44-49 does not offer anything that 44 straight does not, and it is inferior to 44-56. Why Santa Cruz are still making brand new designs with 44-49 is a mystery to me, unless you can run 1 degree angle cups with that configuration. Can you?

1 0

deeeight (Mar 16, 2015 at 8:03)

49mm is the original cup standard for running a 1.5 steerer tube, and also the minimum that allows an zero stack 1.5 cup/bearing setup. As to why Santa Cruz uses a 49 lower instead of a more modern 56, why you don't you email them to ask them ?

1 0

rocofab (Mar 16, 2015 at 15:40)

You guys think your bikes are museum pieces. All my bikes are from the 2001 era mention.

, ihave 6 bikes in my stable and the newest being 2004. andyouknow what there awesome and I'll never out ride them

.

1 0

jaame (Mar 17, 2015 at 2:25)

56 is zs1.5, 49 and 44 are both zs1.125 or external 1.5

81 2

wake-n-rake (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:17)

Kill me now..... Could have done 110 x 20 as those hubs have been around for....oh I don't know....the last 17 years? Would probably make more sense with the wider stance of the fork too / armchairengineer

72 4

jhtopilko (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:16)

Totally stupid. 20x110 was out a long time ago. Why create 15 x 110? 15mm anything has fixed nothing.

16 23

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:40) (Below Threshold)

Easier to widen existing 15mm axle hub shells and lengthen the axles than to design new lighter 20mm axle hub shells and axles, when the intended market has shown they'll already accept other 15mm axle hub shells (Bluto's are 15 x 150mm spacing for example) and that improving the angle of the spokes plays a bigger difference in wheel stiffness/strength and how the fork steers than the absolute axle diameter. Remember the "entry" level for most people buying fat bikes has been about $2000 each. Norco and KHS might have $1000 models on offer, but most stores have found that more of their clients will look at the difference between the $1000 and $1500 or $2000 models, and then buy the more expensive bike instead.

43 1

BSal (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:15)

20x110 works perfectly. Keep your 15x110 bs axle, Fox.

9 18

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:36) (Below Threshold)

It may have but most brands have already abandoned development of 20mm hubs/fork lowers, and consumers who spend real money don't care what someone who doesn't want to buy a new hub says on an internet forum. Also few hub makers that DID offer 20mm x 110 hubs actually bothered to increase the spacing between the hub flanges to stiffen/strengthen the wheels so why argue for a hub standard that largely doesn't actually do what's required?

18 0

bat-fastard (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:46)

so what does most DH forks use... 20x110 seams to work fine there and are plenty in production.. None are changing to 15mm...

11 2

BSal (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:48)

Im a consumer. I spend money. I just recently got a Marzocchi Slope CR cause it was 20mm and not 15, like RS and Fux. So as a consumer ill buy what i want and will continue to. I also dont care what some dude on the internet says or what Fux develops next. Plus this may be a good thing. All the 20mmX110mm forks and hubs will decline in price, Keep it up Fux, keep the change coming.

13 15

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:53)

Fox is already changing to 15mm for their DH forks. The most commonly used front axle diameter for MOTORCYCLES... bikes which weigh a considerable amount and have major stresses to deal with when turning at speed, is 15mm. Apparently what's good enough for moving 400 pounds around at 100mph isn't good enough for you.

scandalon.com/2009/06/motorcycle-front-axle-diameter-chart

6 1

melanthius (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:01)

The point was that they wanted to widen the caliper spacing. 20x110 has the same wheel-center-to-caliper distance as 15x100 thru and 9x100 QR. They could have done a SECOND 20x110 standard but your current 20x110 hub shell would have the rotor 5mm too far in.

Oh wait, Marzocchi used EXACTLY that back in 2003 on the QR20/QR20+ lowers. They called it a "20mm DH" spacing: 20x110mm but with the caliper mounts on the fork lower spaced out an additional 5mm. You could use their hub that had the rotor spaced out the additional 5mm or you could run 5mm spacers between the IS caliper mount and the post adapter.

I think the extra clearance isn't really needed anyway to get a 2.8" tire in there.

6 0

atrokz (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:08)

All this site shows...
scandalon.com/2009/06/motorcycle-front-axle-diameter-chart
Is how 15mm was used in the 90s. At any rate, their axles and forks are completely different and stiffer because they don't have the weight considerations. It's not really comparable, as the entire package would need to be evaluated as being substantially lighter and more flex prone.

7 0

bat-fastard (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:23)

2015 mx bike 22mm axle not even comparable to thickness materials and clamp sizes..
motocross.transworld.net/1000162476/features/first-look-2015-yamaha-yz-model-line
I'd rather have 20mm as the clamp size is stronger, its not nice snapping fork lowers which is another thing fox used to do too..

13 4

BSal (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:31)

All I'm reading is, "I'm such a fox fanboy ill follow them to the ends of their ass". Later guys.

5 19

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:34) (Below Threshold)

And all I'm reading is "Oh not another new standard, I hate change and will cry about it instead !" So I'm done with you.

6 1

BSal (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:54)

Yup just another useless standard. I've been done, late to the party bruhsky. Don't own a fox, don't plan on it. HAHAHAHAH. "im so done with you". HAHAHAH. Do we know each other? no. PM me.

5 0

jaydawg69 FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:07)

All I'm reading is you need to buy a new hub (wheelbuild) to use this fork. Better off with Fox36 as you can run a 20mm hub. This will also be hard to resale as well... no sale!

2 0

katmai (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:14)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 20x110 is the same flange spacing at the hubshell as 15x100. Only the axle itself is wider and larger. The 15x110 will have a wider hubshell to in theory lead to a stiffer wheelbuild. Frankly, I don't really care whether the axle size itself is 15 or 20. I might if I did more DH or freeride, but I spend 90% of my time on a 6" bike.

4 2

BSal (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:20)

just pm me if you want to keep arguing please. This is just idiotic. Go buy your 1200 fox and stfu.

4 0

bat-fastard (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:41)

a normal 20mm hub spacing is already plenty strong enough, well unless your flat landing at rampage maybe...

5 1

ctd07 (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:06)

Deeight , have you ever even looked at a motor bike? They nearly all have 20mm+ alloy axles nowadays, on top of the fact that the non-threaded end is an even larger clamping diameter. This new 110x15 axle size is pure retardation when 20x110 already exists and is heavily supported. Comparing mtb's to motorbikes is completely irrelevant.

3 5

dhridernz (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:22)

CTD07, Have you ever lifted a motorbike and then your mtb. Try it and you might see why we don't need 20mm axles on trail bikes!

6 1

BSal (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:24)

You ever bend a 20mm axle? I have, If it was 15mm it would have snapped. Link mr to these 20mm motorcycle axles please, id love to see them.

3 8

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:39) (Below Threshold)

@ctd07... Yes I have, but if you folks insist on making comparisons to hubs that aren't designed to the same dimensions or for use with the same rims, then why can't i make comparisons to something else that hasn't anything to do with the actual topic ? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Here's a bit of info you 20x110 fanboys just don't collectively seem to know, or want to ignore maybe instead.

20 x 110 hubs were designed to lace to the same rims that 9 x 100mm hubs laced to, and 15 x 100mm followed suit the same way. Rims where the spoke hole offset is tiny, maybe 2mm from one side to the other. But all Fat Bike and now Mid-Fat rims (and some Trials bike rims too btw, which is where a lot of Mid-Fat rim designs come from) use spoke holes that are offset apart significantly more, and using them with a regular mountain bike front hub would reduce the pulling angle for the spokes, weakening the wheel.

5 0

bat-fastard (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:45)

how wide are these rims, I remember double tracks at almost 50mm wide lacing up to 20mm hubs perfectly ok...

5 0

jaydawg69 FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:50)

using offset rims like what NOBL or NOX uses will help with bracing strength. Going to a full new standard makes as much sense as Boost 148. Planned Obsolescence by the bike industry is amazing.

3 8

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:51) (Below Threshold)

But really why all the arguing for a hub that doesn't work the way its needed, when you probably DON'T own a frame already that could clear the tires, and won't be putting one of these forks onto a bike you already own, and anyone buying a new bike built around this trend will already be paying for it completely put together. Very few people actually own 650B in the greater marketplace already to have the existing wheelsets built around 20mm front hubs except those of us who did conversions early on and the small numbers who've bought DH/Enduro bikes the past couple years but these new tires won't fit them anyway.

To use these existing wheelsets in a conversion you'd need to also own a 29er frame with a lot of tire width clearance, as well as a 29er fork with the same criteria. So far the early adopters of these tires who've tried them have found they don't fit more than a handful of frames (out of hundreds of 29er models produced) and only then if you use smaller width rims to squeeze the tire casing. You can JUST get the WTB 650B 2.8s to fit into some existing 29er fork models because they're actually a 2.8 casing with a 2.3 tread width. But not any of the Vee 650B+ tire with tread widths that actually match the size claimed especially not the 3.25, unless its an inverted model (so a DVO or a Rockshox RS-1, or a Lefty) or an actual Fat-Bike fork like the Rockshox Bluto or a Carver Trans Fat, and four of those require specific hubs to be used.

13 0

ctd07 (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:52)

I'm out! Pinkbike and the mountain biking industry gets stupider every year

2 8

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:10) (Below Threshold)

Remember, these tires are NOT meant for people with existing DH/Enduro 650B bikes. They're for people with long travel 29ers and expedition touring hardtail 29er setups (like the Salsa Fargo) and future bike designs. The first bike shown at Sea Otter last year with the WTB tires and Scrapper i45 rims was a prototype Rocky Mountain full-suspension Mid-Fat bike called the Sherpa which is supposed to be their "expedition fat bike" model. But it needed to have a rear end specifically built for it. It was not simply a repainted Element or Instinct 29er. The only non-inverted/non-fat suspension fork made currently that'll clear these tires and use an existing thru-axle hub is a DT-SWISS OPM ODL 29er and it uses a 15x100 hub. The market is settling on 15mm as the size for front thru-axles... that's the new standard diameter like it or not. Even road/cross bikes are adopting it for rigid forks with the rise of disc brakes (though there's also a 12 x 100mm thru-axle being pushed by some brands). Also this has been known to be coming (the new hub spacing) for quite sometime in the industry. Rockshox's XC Racing 29er fork the RS-1 fork uses 15x110 spacing (albeit with an additional 27mm Torque Tube inside the hub shell supporting the bearings). Its not just Fox making this move.

www.bikerumor.com/2014/12/19/2016-axle-standards-part-1-rear-148mm-thru-axle-coming-fast-its-about-more-than-just-better-wheels

2 0

bOObdesign (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:20)

isnt a mx bike way less meant to react on rider weight shift and doesnt really care as much about creating speed through the ground as a dh bike.... maybe thats why they all got usd forks and smaller axle diameters

5 0

jaame (Mar 14, 2015 at 1:48)

Hope hubs are lighter in 20mm than 15mm. I don't hate change per se, I just hate change for the sake of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 20mm wasn't broke but they fixed it anyway. Why? To save 13.6 grams? Or was there an ulterior motive?

1 0

deeeight (Mar 14, 2015 at 8:00)

And they're heavier still in 9mm QR.. the end caps keep getting thicker. But the QR skewer/axle weight isn't included in the hub weights, so... not a great analogy when you leave out part of the equation needed to use the hub in a wheel/fork.

2 0

jaame (Mar 14, 2015 at 18:17)

It's not an analogy, just a statement.

1 0

santacruz-ing (Feb 25, 2019 at 16:22)

@BSal: this comment did not age well

1 0

BSal (Feb 25, 2019 at 17:26)

@santacruz-ing: not sure what you mean??

61 2

dump (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:26)

"a sign that the 27.5+ movement is gaining momentum"

The what?

22 3

PHeller (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:31)

Come on man, you mean you don't spend all of your free time on bike related discussion forums?

5 11

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:19) (Below Threshold)

Go figure a universe exists outside pinkbike which is usually behind the times in reporting trends that have already taken off with the consumers who have open minds and open wallets. They only started reporting about fat bikes this winter and that's four years after they started to explode in sales. They actually DID report about the 650B plus WTB tires an Rocky Mountain Sherpa full suspension at Sea Otter last year but apparently most PB users ignored it.

3 0

deadtime (Mar 12, 2015 at 18:14)

I remember the RM from Sea Otter, imagined it to be 40+ lbs. But the bike which really made 650b+ look right was the steel hardtail from a show in England recently.

I was going to buy a Remedy 8 27.5 until i heard about the new axle standard (boost 14

, and wondered if it would come to the 27.5. After seeing this fork i'm hoping that with 'boost' and 15x110 you'll be able to run (with the right rim/hub) either 2.35 tires or 2.8. That might be sweet. It might make the right bike (Remedy?) very versatile.

3 0

spaced FL (Mar 13, 2015 at 9:05)

@PHeller it's funny. I spend quite a lot of time on them and even still I don't know that 27.5+ had any momentum outside of the fact that it existed.

2 0

PHeller (Mar 13, 2015 at 9:30)

You're not on the right forums then. The 650B+ Tire discussion has been at the top of the MTBR 27.5" sub-forum for a few months now.

2 1

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 10:03)

They've even now given the + sizes their own dedicated forum.

forums.mtbr.com/27-29

1 0

dump (Mar 13, 2015 at 11:00)

@PHeller, I thought you were being facetious...

4 0

PHeller (Mar 13, 2015 at 11:17)

Nope. I will admit to spending as much time on discussion forums as I do on the bike. That's all because I can't ride bike while at work, but I can type this message.

2 0

spaced FL (Mar 13, 2015 at 16:29)

@PHeller so you have to be on all the forums?

I avoid wheel sized names forums. I ride my bike. Hell I may even say I go ride downhill or my trailbike (might call it enduro) but I'm yet to say to my mates "hey wanna do some 27.5in?" That just sounds dirty and so are those forums

33 2

thunder13 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:15)

Every possible marketing (for mountain biking) ploy in one product. New standard, Comprised size in all dimensions to provide better this without all the draw backs of that. Sorry Fox, not interested

13 0

freestyIAM (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:47)

I feel like we are living in the Cambrian explosion of wheel hub and axle standards. At some point the market will become so fragmented that only the fittest will survive and we will end up converging back to something that shows itself as having the right blend for a widest number of application. Or the market really can support this enormous diversity. Who knows. Ride what you got and when you are in a market for a new bike, buy one you like and then don't think about it again until you are need to buy another one.

1 0

shaowin (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:20)

^^^^this

34 1

glasvagas FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:09)

If my bike was 5mm bigger in every direction, would that make it better?

2 2

kaveh (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:48)

26 0

dougies (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:49)

Only for a year or two, at which point 5mm smaller in every direction will then make it better. I really hate the mtb industry.

15 1

dingus (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:59)

It would make you slightly smaller.

25 4

dizastical (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:13)

This is a joke right? 27.5+ ??????

12 14

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:26)

I prefer 650B Plus... number #1 27.5 was the dumbed down marketing name meant primarily for the USA in the same way that 29er was for wide tire 700C wheels and #2 when you go to a 2.8-3.25 width on a 650B rim, you end up with effectively a 29 inch diameter tire, same as you do on a 559mm rim (26ers) with 4 inch width tires. Surly and a few other brands have been pushing 29+ for a few years now, with 3" wide tires on 700C x 50mm width rims for effectively 31 inch diameter.

5 0

jlhenterprises (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:42)

I see a lot more Fatbikes out there than 27.5+, in fact I dont think I've even seen one, ever.

2 0

PHeller (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:56)

That's because until recently, there were virtually no tires in production. WTB did a small release of the Trailblazer back before the Holiday, and very few people got them. Vee-Tire just released is first shipments of the Trax Fatty, and Panaracer still hasn't released the Fat-B-Nimble.

8 9

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:00)

That's because the tires are new (they've really only started mass production this winter) and currently there's no production bikes for them yet, just people doing conversions, but based on the number of tires being ordered by those of us (yes I'm one of the early adopters) building wheels for our existing bikes (for me a fat bike, for others 29ers with sufficient tire width clearance), the brand managers KNOW they'll have people buying proper suspension forks and frames for them, just as happened with 29ers, 650Bs and Fat bikes already.

4 1

UtahBikeMike (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:59)

Why are people downvoting deeeight? He's actually correct here

1 0

lurch710 (Mar 13, 2015 at 2:26)

I noticed that too. Maybe because he's a 650b mascot? Haha

5 4

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 6:43)

@Utahbikemike Pinkbike comments aren't about facts, reality or being right. People vote on popularity. Folks like me who post real true info get downvoted and folks like waki who sling bullshit get upvoted. Immaturity rewards immaturity around here, and unfortunetly the immature are the ones who mostly get drawn to bike/component reviews. Its why the folks in the bike industry who really make decisions largely ignore this site's user base. Hell if it was possible to negative prop the actual bike review authors so the whole review disappeared off the main page, they'd try and do that too.

1 3

PHeller (Mar 13, 2015 at 9:23)

It's a shame that guy like Deeight who's been riding MTBs since before they were MTBs, and still manages to stay current with the newest technology continually gets belittled by people who advocate for no change in our industry. I sometimes get the feeling that people would rather mountain bikes hit a certain point and stop progressing. Metathesiophobia runs rampant in our sport, its as though people expect a bike first produced in 2009 should be able to be purchased 6 years later, unchanged, and yet these people buy a new iphone, car, or tv every year.

3 3

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 9:43)

Pinkbike is the playboy of the bicycle world. There's well written articles, blogs and reviews by people who actually know their shit, and are living the dream lives (of the bicycle world) but unfortunetly it often seems that most of the members only come here to ooogle at the pictures, rant about the lives of the professional riders who they can only dream about ever being as good as, and whine about/at the other folks in the industry who are apparently not allowed to have happy lives without someone here propping what they say. Props are like facebook likes... really they don't mean anything. Except to people giving them out. Getting four negatives is actually better than four positives, because the "hiding" of a comment actually encourages people to open it to read it for themselves. Unhidden comments are usually such skipped over by most, just like facts in the articles get skipped over. Almost any bike/fork/component review will include someone asking a stupid question about some detail that was actually explained in the article in the first place.

17 1

baca262 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:54)

i wish you could get people to boycott stupid new standards... nothing 20mm couldn't have accomplished again. shit i bet you could make 20mm as light or lighter than any of the 15mm stuff

3 0

jesse-effing-edwards (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:21)

It's weird to me that anyone thought 5mm would make any difference compared to 20mm which already existed.

11 2

Metacomet (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:28)

Its a mountain bike axle, not a totalitarian government. Use your wallet.

5 1

atrokz (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:29)

5mm makes a substantial stiffness increase, at the cost of a few grams. 25% diameter increase sees a stiffness increase much larger than 25%.

4 0

feeblesmith (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:22)

Indeed, bumping axle diameter from 15 to 20 mm increases resistance to bending by just over 100%.

2 0

DMal FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:10)

If the majority of end consumers were building bikes completely custom, I'm pretty sure that few new standards would survive. Nobody likes a new standard that is impractical with imperceptible functional advantages. The issue is OEM spec. Parts with new standards end up on complete bikes. Since it's unlikely that the majority of buyers will decide against a complete bike because a part with a new standard is included, the standard will survive. So it's really up to product managers at bike companies to speak with their wallets, which is unlikely to happen. Basically, the industry will have their way with the end consumer.

7 1

WAKIdesigns (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:42)

If you take a front hub as light as Tune, and one of those alloy axles, you will save as little as 50-60g on going from 20mm to 15mm. That's in total hub+axle+fork (I measured it on Revelation forks) and was plain dumb because in most cases it saves nothing. It has been marketing movement by Fox/SHimano, they wanted to give XCers their own axle standard, it had nothing to do with performance.

Considering axle stiffness itself is futile because axle is a part of the system. There are more things that make up the stiffness of a whole fork: the way the crown is made, steerer tube and it's connection to crown, arch of lowers, bushing overlap, stanchion diameter and when talking axle, we must consider the way the axle is clamped. If you hold a long stick horisontally, it plays a major role whether you keep it with whole hand or with two fingers. 4+1 bolts, or thread of Maxle - you catch my drill

Ultimately one must consider the relation between stiffness and tracking - while stiffer fork allows to enter a section of terrain in a more precis manner, when you get into the rockgarden, it plays at your disadvantage because large objects will bounce you off your line more than when on a fork that can deflect - it is counterintuitive but at the sae time fork can be too flexy. off course. Most of standard forks won't have this issue. Considering such number of variables axle diameter is not as important. However changing dimensions all the time is undoubtedly fkd up and makes speccing a custom, non-complete bike into a nightmare.

5 0

baca262 (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:02)

"Use your wallet."

NO.

1 0

atrokz (Mar 13, 2015 at 4:46)

Of course it's important. It's part of the package in relation to stiffness. If 5mm gains 400% stiffer interface, you better believe that's going to compound onto the rest of a 'stiffer' package. Ahem...In fact, that is exactly where you want it to be stiff, and you can tune in flex elsewhere in the chassis.

1 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 13, 2015 at 5:03)

mmm atrokz, where did you get a number of "400%" stiffer interface? There will be at least three factors when it comes to axle/lower interface: axle diameter, depth of insert (both contribute to surface) clamping force on axle, clamping force along axle clamp-hub-clamp, as result of it: hub contact area (as in predictive steering hub for RS-1). If we remove arch from lowers, like it happens in case of USD forks, you would highly probably lose more stiffness there than if going from 20mm to 9 QR. But USD forks provide fantastic tracking so why would you care?!

The issue is only in naming, if Fox and Shimano would call this fork and hub as 275+, there would be no problem what so ever. But now we will get 34 150 275+ among 34 150 26, 34 160 26, 34 275 34 29 and so on. Then SLX front hub 110x15 among 100x15m 110x20, 110x9. There is no wondering that 275+ is a completely different animal, s why not run a new series of components with less confusing names.

1 0

atrokz (Mar 13, 2015 at 5:51)

Where did I get it? I said if. IF we want to get technical, we'd need to know the modulus of elasticity of the exact material, then run it through an equation, but even then there's several formulas depending on what kind of load or stress we are discussing. That's technical. However, since this is PB and not work, I'll make it easy. If you double a tubes diameter, the stiffness is 15 times greater (and only 3x heavier, a massive strength to weight increase). Read that again. Saying it's 5x (400%) doesn't seem so crazy after all does it? Because its a conservative estimate, that's why.

The rest is completely moot and not worth discussing. You bring up several examples of areas that affect stiffness and none of them were part of the discussion or point. Of course they affect things. That's other areas that would be designed in concert with the axle system. But, again, not the point at all. The point is why not stick to an already existent 'standard' that's inherently better at it's job.

5 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 13, 2015 at 6:10)

Ok, excuse me, now I get you. I don't back up 15mm by a tiniest margin, I truly honestly hate 15mm axle - for instance for the reason that I can't easily swap wheels with my wives bike. Now... the reason why they changed it is purely in product design, selling strategy. One can make best product ever, but if it is not obvious enough, if there is no good story to it, it won't sell. Shimano and Fox wanted to do a good thing by simplifying wheel removal, increasing stiffness at the same time with minimal weight increase. But XCers would not esaily buy a story of a fat axle being as light as a thin axle, especially a standard synonymous with DH bikes. Those were the times when DHers were saying that anyone sitting on XC bike has no skills, and XCers saying that anyone on a bike with tyres fatter than 2.1" and a fork with more travel than 120mm had no fitness, in 2008 I bought a Nomad and all my DH friends were calling it a bike for XC, beefed up so that it can handle "good skills" of a DHer - it was that simple. So they easily ate their "own" 15mm axle bridging the gap between their elite XC and Alpine kind of riding that they knew from experience, required slightly bigger and more forgiving bike. I am more than sure that recent PIKE has 15mm axle to appear lighter than competition. It's a perception thing, it has absolutely nothing to do with testable reality. Vast majority of 15mm interfaces weigh the same as 20mm ones, and that fact alone shows how we are all subjects to tricks that our minds play on us.

3 0

atrokz (Mar 13, 2015 at 6:18)

Bingo. Then we are in agreement! haha. I agree with the pike thing with regards to perception. A discussion on tires came up and people were willing to ride a poor performing tire because it's 100g lighter. That's crazy to me.

19 0

Ben-P (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:02)

'captain, we accomplished full-retard mode...!'

3 0

shaowin (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:25)

Dude, you never go full retard!

19 2

Andy-Grant (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:38)

26 for life..

1 2

PHeller (Mar 13, 2015 at 9:27)

Actually 700C has been around for multiple lifetimes, probably since the early 1900's, but I suppose if you want to follow trends, 26" is just another new wheelsize by comparison.

13 2

Cliff-E (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:03)

im stoked for the release of the 36 831 thats been floating around the web!

3 0

PHeller (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:28)

hook us up with a link!

2 0

Cliff-E (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:54)

www.pinkbike.com/photo/11966370

3 0

Vans4life14 (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:20)

If this has a 20mm axle then this is awesome.

2 0

seraph (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:13)

It does appear to have a 20mm axle.

3 0

kierz (Mar 12, 2015 at 22:05)

PLOT TWIST! the new 831 has 17.5mm (414b) axle. For a new race format in between Enduro and DH.

7 0

naveednasir (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:28)

First they said 26, then 29 and finally the industry decided enough was enough and we should settle for 27.5

I really think the industry needs to take a chill pill and let people enjoy their bikes and rear axle spacings. Things move too fast often at the expense of game changers which are a sack of poop (35m bars?!)

12 2

IluvRIDING (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:03)

I would rather prefer a Float 34 RC2. Sizes 26 and 27,5 and 15x100mm.

15 0

bat-fastard (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:31)

I would rather prefer a Float 34 RC2. Sizes 26 and 27,5 and 20x110mm

4 0

Charge262 (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:06)

So the new 36 then.

4 0

Startgas (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:18)

I would rather prefer a Float 36 RC2. Sizes 26 and 27,5 and 20x110mm

11 2

macming (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:21)

WTF. Another new standard for the sake of marketing.

7 0

blackthorne (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:42)

Fox has got planned obsolescence and marketing down to an art form. Just wait when the 2017 forks come out They will say it's 28.6% stiffer and 12.3% smoother than this one.

16 8

karoliusz (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:13)

Things should be called by the name: 26-bike, 27.5-bullshit, 27.5+-fat bullshit, 29-gay.

11 4

rnayel FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:04)

Fantastic, another hub standard. Joy!

Why not just ship it with two little 5mm metal spacers, or taper at the hub?

2 0

sweet-bike (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:06)

Brake wouldn't work if they did that

2 1

PHeller (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:29)

Wait, so no converting hub end caps? Lame.

9 1

jamieridesbikes (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:30)

with an offset brake adapter it would

6 0

badpotato (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:11)

...or you could loosen spokes, cut your hub in half and put 10mm spacer between those parts....
#toiletseatengineering

1 0

brycebee (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:49)

2 x 5mm endcaps + 5mm spacer for the rotor. Or just dont buy this crap.

4 0

jesse-effing-edwards (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:00)

My only foray into PLUS sized bikes is my fat bike with huge 4.8" Vee Snowshoes, and a few km on a 29er+ with heavy non-tubeless rims. I imagine with cutting edge carbon and tires the experience would be that much better, but honestly I can't see why people are flocking to these trends. After a winter on my fatty, I can't wait to be back on my 2.35 Nobby Nics. Sure, they are "wide" by 2005 standards, but they weight of my contemporary 29er rims and tires are quite a bit less than higher end 26er products of only a few years ago, which makes it worth it. The grip of these plus size tires and their forgiving nature aren't really extra 300 grams on each tires and another 200 on each rim. If I was riding flat ugly stuff maybe, but with all the short punchy climbs I have these things would be a nuisance. I'm not against big rims/tires as they have their place, but seeing the whole industry start to rally around these wheels and new standards to accomodate them seems kinda crazy. I'm not typically a conspiracy "The industry is shoving it down my throat" kinda guy, but the amount of "standards" out there now is making buying new gear more trouble than it's worth. I feel like stockpiling a bunch of hubs and bottom brackets, ha ha.

3 0

PHeller (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:55)

I think there is a decent amount of consumers who want a bike to serve many purposes. Me? I'd like a lightweight 160mm travel 275 bike that could be slackened out for runs at the park, or shorter travel 130mm link for more mundane terrain but still have clearance for both B+x3.25 and 29er. Park bike, Plus Bike, XC/TR bike. I don't mind if that type of bike has a bunch of standards because I know I'd keep it for awhile. The Blk Mrkt Roam is the closest thing to this concept.

2 0

jesse-effing-edwards (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:56)

I recently ordered a Chromag, in large part because of adaptable dropouts and a 44 head tube which can basically run anything. I don't think I'll look at a company in the future that doesn't offer the kind of flexibility that you and I seem to be keen on. There really is little excuse for offering these kinds of features.

2 0

kierz (Mar 12, 2015 at 22:11)

Chromag - bike riders making stuff for people that ride bikes.

4 0

Matt76 (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:03)

Oh focking hell here we go! Another pissing "wheel standard" I'm really starting to get disillusioned with mountain biking. 27.5+ new industry standard!148mm hub new industry standard. When does it stop?? Absolutely ridiculous.

3 0

MrPink51 (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:43)

Is this the new tweener? The new middle ground? The new compromise? First wheel size, 26 to 29, compromise = 27.5! Tire width, normal to fat bike, compromise = 27.5+!

Marketing: "It's all the things you want, with none of the things you don't"

In reality, the industry is trying to tell you: "You need to buy a new bike, since we have a new hub, a new tire width, which will require a 27.5+ specific frame"

2 0

mikekazimer FL Editor (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:55)

In many cases a 27.5+ wheel will fit in a 29er frame without issue.

2 5

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:36)

But only if its a WTB 2.8 tire (or another tire built the same way... wide casing narrowing down to a no larger tread width) and often squeezed into a rim that's narrower than the tire was designed for in the first place. The Vee Trax Fatty 3.25 on a Ibis 41mm carbon rim is 3.11" at the casing and definitely will NOT fit anything but a fat bike frame or one specifically built for it.

1 0

shaowin (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:37)

Let me ask you this, (prefaced with I'm not scared of change, I buy what I like to ride) would you buy into any of these "new standards" with your own earned money? As you are a insider and far more of an expert than I, will this change anything for the average Joe? Or is it just one more option at the bike shop? Okay that was more than one question....

2 4

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 20:31)

Even when i pay wholesale for something i am still using my own earned money so yes, i would. As to options at shops, depends. Not all shops have the same supplier accounts and some folks still insist on riding brands they don't sell at their own shop and that requires buying from other stores, often discounted but still more than just wholesale. A buddy loves kona and used to have his own store and sold them. He is now just the head mech at another store but is stil riding kona. I got three of my salsas from the only salsa dealer for this area. As to average joe, most not looking to be an early adopter will end up with one of these bikes as an option during a future bike purchase.

2 4

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 21:10)

I was an early adopter of 650B ( been riding them since early summer 2008 ) and to do that I spent RETAIL to order a pair of Pacenti Neo-Moto 2.35s from Kirk Pacenti in the USA, and got a pair of Velocity Blunt's from another local dealer that has a QBP account which again I paid retail for, along with a pair of Hope Evo 2 hubs (at retail). The only part of the wheelset equation I got at wholesale were the DT Revo spokes and the splinedrive alloy nipples as I had my own dealer accounts with the distributors that offered them in Canada. When I wanted to get a full production 650B bike, and really I bought it JUST for the frame, a Haro Beasley, I special-ordered it thru the Norco rep (Norco was Haro's distributor in canada at the time) one day when he came by the store I was wrenching at, at the time (which wasn't actually a Norco bikes dealer but they did have a Norco parts account and they did sell Masi, which was the road brand owned by Haro). I paid regular dealer wholesale on it but I paid for all, upfront on my Visa card. I've now got a pair of Vee Trax Fatty 650B x 3.25s ordered thru the same local store with the QBP account and while less than retail its still more than wholesale I've paid for them. I still have to order another pair of fat bike hubs AND a set of Velocity Dually rims. But its worth it to shed what is probably going to be four pounds from my Mukluk for summer riding (currently its low 28 pounds) for only 3/4" less tire width.

12 6

endurocat (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:05)

Another axle standard for big travel fat bikes. Another stupid trend.

4 18

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:09) (Below Threshold)

If you think its stupid, don't buy one. But the brand managers already know from the tire sales already happening that people spending money on them far outnumber the people complaining about it.

7 2

endurocat (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:52)

No, and where did you get this figures?
You don't even work for the Industry.

6 2

ridehard84 (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:12)

Love it when people pull "facts" and figures out of thin air to try to prove their point.

7 1

endurocat (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:20)

@ridehard84
No kidding, this guy always does the same thing.
They dream of being industry insiders.

6 13

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:27) (Below Threshold)

More in the industry than you'll ever be. And there's more to the bike world than pinkbike for online resources.

7 1

jaydawg69 FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:17)

legend in his own mind....

5 1

bishopsmike (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:51)

@deeeight: no there's not.

5 12

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:23) (Below Threshold)

@bishopsmike : Yes there is... mtbr for starters has more brand owners/managers/product reps among its regular user base than this site, and its users were ahead of the curve on a great many trends related to wheels. Stan (of Notubes) got his start there, and Kirk Pacenti really drove the 650B movement by being a regular there and having hundreds adopt the wheels when the children here were whining/moaning and saying it'd never happen.

4 10

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:35) (Below Threshold)

Here, educate yourselves...

forums.mtbr.com/27-29

5 2

MrDuck (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:37)

Yeah great, so when the super amazing (read pointless) 27.5" started there, it must be awesome, eh? I mean, I do read other forums regularly. But just because one BS is successful with its marketing doesn't mean we need more of that c*ap.

4 9

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:38) (Below Threshold)

When the discussion started there, it was amongst people who actually achieved adult age WITH maturity and not close-mindedness unlike here were people act 12 even when they're thirty-somethings.

4 2

MrDuck (Mar 12, 2015 at 20:46)

I'm sorry that asking for not making utterly useless junk and marketing it as the new big thing is being childish.

2 8

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 21:13) (Below Threshold)

How is this fox or wider 650B tires utterly useless junk? How much riding time have you on either to make that statement ?

6 1

MrDuck (Mar 12, 2015 at 22:52)

I'm talking 650b in general, which offers 95% marketing and 5% actual placebo over 26", not 650+. And this fox just uses an utterly useless axle dimensions, I don't care how the fork performs as long as it's bringing something new that'll be of no benefit to the rider while being incompatible with an exremely similar design that's already out there.

2 8

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 6:24) (Below Threshold)

Well then its useless talking to you because you're a moron and I don't give a damn which way my statement gets propped.

7 0

Ralston88 (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:14)

F*ck me this is shit

6 0

phobospwns (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:40)

Is that an "M" in the lower's arch?!

Lawsuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 0

matt5311 (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:23)

Just feck right off. You're taking the piss now. I've had enough of your stupid new standards that make no bloody difference Bike industry.... Just make your mind up. Who are the mouth breathers that insist upon buying stupid bikes that are shit at everything. Seriously, fat bikes were supposed to be a joke that clowns ride. Rockshox tried to tell us that they have a new front axle standard that gave us predictable steering few months ago... Just stop pissing in my pocket and telling me it's raining because by now it smells like an old peoples home around here.

1 0

MadDawgOrr (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:23)

I doubt companies are just gonna make an extra wider hub adapter, gonna have to reset the CNC machine again, for wider apart flanges. Why couldn't they've just made them that way in the first place as the 20mm axle has 110mm already. Too simple an idea, at the time! Anyway am a Old School Rockshox fan!

2 0

tranthony123 (Mar 15, 2015 at 20:17)

So this is how they try and compete with Sram PIKE's success... interesting.
The question is... am i willing to pay out of my ass for this when there is PIKE???
Only if it comes with a blowjob Il buy it haha

6 1

RedBurn (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:25)

woaw. ONLY 4523 $ what a bargain

2 0

genericmk (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:29)

Just inching back up to the 20mm x 110mm standard. This whole 15x100mm nonsense got shoved down our throats, we all accepted it now we're slowly going back up to what we all want. Great. I guess that's progress.

6 0

caporalhicks (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:43)

26 aint dead !

1 0

bryan46 (Mar 13, 2015 at 0:32)

The tooling and RnD is likely in the same ballpark as their other forks, price wise. This fork has to have a verrrry small target market, meaning, it must be priced high to be financially viable... if its priced in the $500-$700 range does that mean consumers will have to eat the cost of this fork's tooling and RnD when purchasing their other forks?

And we wonder why the buy in for mtb is so high?

1 0

silvbullit (Mar 13, 2015 at 10:58)

I have been riding my own version of 26"+ for a while now. 26"+ is perfect. No joke.

The industry painted themselves in a corner with the 27.5 thing since a 26" x 2.7" tire (Gazzalodi JR circa roughly 2000) measures 27.5 on a Velocity Blunt 35 rim. The Nokians are brutally heavy so instead I run 2.5 Maxxis DHF (2.5" Trail Kings are a known super-high-volume aggressive tire as well) tires that measure about 27.2" The way they handle is night and day versus a narrow rim and smaller volume tires in terms of flat resistance, conforming to the terrain, and they don't roll off the side of the rim at low pressures in high-grip cornering. Not to mention they have astounding grip for rocky and technical climbing.

Now everything is standardized for 27.5" when 27.5+ is just 29" with a big heavy tire...

My only complaint is that the Velocity rims are the only ones available with that amount of width at a reasonable weight. As a result, I have dented the bead to complete shit given my aggressive (careless) and abusive (too tired to lift) riding style. The beauty of alloy is that I have repaired them and they still take the abuse. Someone needs to create a zero-hook aluminum rim to avoid the tendency hooked rims have to fold in on themselves.

Carbon sucks, it can't be recycled or repaired and the cost of entry is just plain obscene.

1 0

FarmerJohn (Mar 15, 2015 at 20:40)

Whole lot of Fox bashing here but one can only imagine that the other forkers will have this too, they just haven't launched it yet... Sea Otter. Boost sizing isnt a Fox thang, its comes from Trek and word has it that Special lies will go big with these Plus sized bikes. Is tis all a result of a relatively stagnate market scrambling to make something new to peak consumers interests?
These higher volume tires will require lower running pressures, probably somewhere in the range of 17-23psi depending on the overall tire size. Less sluggish than a true fat bike but far slower than a 27.5x2.35-2.5 set up.
Who is this tire size really for? Maybe this is an ideal set up for dads who want to give MTB a go but lack skills. Maybe this is for mobbing down the boardwalk at the beach like SoCal bros and their lifted F150's. Beyond than, I struggle to identify a bike that goes slower but boasts more traction.

3 0

skiomax (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:58)

one more change to grab more money from everyone... isn't there enough wheel size already!

6 2

madmon (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:28)

the most important fact missing.....weight. I can't see it....

5 1

nigeJ (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:30)

Oh yay, another "standard".....................

3 0

mel22b FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:43)

Makes me wonder how far away an updated 36 will be. If they 'finish' the axel setup they can drop more weight.

3 0

peugeot (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:59)

who'll be the first the build a 10mm spacer and offset lace the rim on a standard a 15x100?????

2 0

marshalolson (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:47)

or 2x 5mm spacers on the axle, and 5mm spacer for the rotor, and use an existing hub + longer brake bolts

3 4

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:31)

Essentially that's how most convertible front hubs already work. Its just different end caps. The actual rotor mount and spoke flanges are in the same places on most every 100mm (QR or QR15) and 110mm (20mm) hub already in existence. The difference here is they're widening the spoke flanges apart 10mm to improve the overall wheel and support a wider rim better (as Fat bike hubs already do).

2 0

groghunter (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:29)

5mm at the rim is pidling at the spokes honeslty. No offset lace needed, just throw the spacers on, redish the wheel, go to town. I predict Hope, at the very least, won't release a new hub for this, but just spacers for existing pro 2.

1 6

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:59) (Below Threshold)

Except for the detail lacking from the story background that most here don't know (unless they're fat owners) is that the spoke hole offsets in the RIMS themselves also moved apart, that's why they needed to widen the hub flanges to keep pace. Simply building a regular hub to a proper mid-fat or full fat rim, weakens the wheel. That's one of the reasons hardly anyone copied Surly's Pugsley design using regular 135mm rear hub spacing with special offset laced wheels being needed to fit into distinctly offset built frame and fork. Pugsleys today still have the offset frames but they've gone to non-offset forks because there's a wide range of 135mm front hubs for fat bikes now, and in practice hardly any of their owners ever bothered to build two rear wheels just to save on hub prices or to be able to swap wheels/gearing in the field..

5 0

mudmandhbrazil (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:07)

27.5+myass

5 1

Joelrider (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:52)

Marzocchi offered that + technology.... in the super monster T ahahah xD

4 0

teknorob (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:00)

has my watch stopped is it 1st April??

2 1

jkbike FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 18:10)

Thanks for not making it a 20 x 110 hub that would have been stupid. Nobody has those laying around from when we all had to change to 15. Coming next week .... Fox announces all new 2034 lineup!

1 0

xoticx (Mar 12, 2015 at 20:16)

So isnt the axel spacing the same as 20mm front axel type forks?.. 110mm. As far as the brake line goes, look like the have adjusted the post mount on the fork to suite 100mm x 15mm wheels.

1 0

katmai (Mar 12, 2015 at 22:12)

Yes, but the flange spacing is wider than a 20x110 hub, which in theory allows for a stiffer wheel. I'm not saying that I approve, just that there is a difference.

1 1

wavetrance (Mar 12, 2015 at 22:13)

Dear popular mountain bike industry, as a consumer I am finding it harder to support the industry that I love, your purposeful and continued introduction of new standards are making a complex mess of what is in essence a past time that brings us closer to simple enjoyment. I suggest you turn off you cad program's, your 3d printers and computer generated diagnostics and try to see the wood from the standards..

1 0

rory (Mar 15, 2015 at 17:59)

Whether it's fatbikes in general, or just one more new standard to add to the growing list of gimmicks...here's my opinion on the subject:

www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=168721

1 0

rocofab (Mar 16, 2015 at 15:42)

I feel the bike industry is in its confused teenager/college stage of life and is experimenting, which can lead to great things but theres also that one night at bobs house!, this is that one night at bobs house!!!

7 3

simooo (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:04)

2016, seriously?

13 0

reno-be (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:36)

2017 models coming in May so don't buy now!

8 0

adrenalized (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:10)

Indeed and they are 24.5'' in 2020 ...wtf i stay with 26'' ...it is all about busyness if ya now what i mean ....

6 3

jaybird951 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:45)

Thanks Fox, this is what the industry needs!

4 1

Patrick9-32 (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:22)

Yawn. This, in my opinion, will not be a game changer.

5 6

ridehard84 (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:10)

FOX must be a democratic company. Always preaching about "change" and "new" and "progressive" and each time they fall short of the mark already set by other companies.

Fox should be focused on producing a product that will blow the Rock Shox Pike out of the water instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.

When FOX finally produces a fork that is an improvement over the Pike, please send them my way.

4 1

livetomtb (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:56)

So if i put an extra fat tire on my 26er would it be 26+?

3 1

mikekazimer FL Editor (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:58)

Yes, and Surly's one step ahead of you: surlybikes.com/bikes/instigator_2point0.

2 0

Yellow-bike (Mar 13, 2015 at 1:53)

wonder if anyone has tried putting 26+ into a modern 650b enduro bike...?

1 0

deeeight (Mar 13, 2015 at 10:07)

Same clearance issue as fitting 650B+ into many 29ers... tire width.

1 1

Vans4life14 (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:25)

so someone please inform me what the hell 27.5 plus is. Is it just a fat bike thing or is this some new bs wheel size that now offers "the best of both widths between fat bikes and traditional bikes"?

2 1

mikekazimer FL Editor (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:56)

1st paragraph (out of two): "What's 27.5+? If you take an extra-wide 27.5" rim and mount a wide tire to it, one that's in the neighborhood of 2.8" or greater, the result is what's being called 27.5+. The height of the wide rim / wide tire combination is almost the same as that of a 29" wheel, but with a larger footprint. The claimed benefits are greater traction and flotation, but without the sluggishness that a true fat bike has."

4 0

FarmerJohn (Mar 16, 2015 at 22:37)

But more sluggish than a standard 27.5 bike. Plus size is not going to solve the sluggish problem with fat bikes because you wont get the flotation needed in snow or sand. This will be a good 2nd or 3rd MTB for those not wanting to ride in early spring muck but once things dry up and get fast, 27.5+ will be slower and heavier than a standard 27.5.

Real question...
What problem dos the plus bike solve?

2 0

Vans4life14 (Mar 17, 2015 at 14:01)

Yeah I guess this was more what I meant to ask. What type of riding is 27.5+ aimed at?

4 0

DaRoOo (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:30)

.......... no comment !

4 0

Caiokv FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:07)

5 1

lurch710 (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:08)

Thank God for rockshox

1 1

slumgullion (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:12)

They have their own fork that uses a proprietary hub: www.pinkbike.com/news/rockshox-rs-1-review.html

3 0

lurch710 (Mar 12, 2015 at 22:55)

I was comparing it more towards the pike and lyrik range

1 0

DrPete (Mar 15, 2015 at 14:43)

Because they've never been known to come up with wacky standards? OK then....

3 0

chris (Mar 12, 2015 at 17:45)

Too early for April Fools

2 0

str8dwn (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:10)

What happened to 24x3.0 Gazzaloddis? I thought that was ideal for grip and cornering. Now this crap?

2 0

Reedou (Mar 13, 2015 at 3:52)

WTF. I start to hate that f.... bikeindustry. Another stupid Standard, another Change... When does that bullshit stops.....

1 0

DrPete (Mar 15, 2015 at 14:42)

Everyone butthurt about Fox can just head here. www.pinkbike.com/news/first-ride-rockshox-rs-1-fork--carbon-inverted-expensive-and-for-29ers-only.html

1 0

PossumsDH (Mar 15, 2015 at 18:42)

The MTB industry needs to better what we have at the moment instead of creating so many variables. Soon enough bikes will have mechanical wings....

2 0

ivansf (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:53)

WHAT THE FOX, FOX! We needed a Bluto competitor

1 0

thudbuster (Mar 13, 2015 at 21:27)

another piece of s##t that will flex all over the place and come loose at the crown when ridden hard!

5 2

tomcrowther (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:03)

YAY new standards.

3 4

bogey (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:09)

It would be easy to use this with existing 15x100 hubs if you're using a bigger rotor. The brake caliper adapter could be designed to have a 5mm inwards offset. Nice looking fork though.

2 4

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:45)

Easier to fit a 5mm spacer ring under the rotor to move it outwards.

5 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:07)

MMM... 5mm spacers for rotor bolts? Is this an idea from the same bag where you find alloy rotor bolts and composite caliper mounting bolts? They say this is how you mount Darwin MTB award to the wall...

1 0

feeblesmith (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:36)

If the spacer is keyed to fit the external profile of the hubs discbrake mount it could be done. A new hub is a better solution though.

1 1

bogey (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54)

@deeeight, why would it be easier to mount a spacer under 6 rotor screws? The caliper adapter would be one piece. So easy to do, less fasteners to deal with and safer.

@feeblesmith, they'd have to make a different adapter for every style of hub. Not practical at all when one caliper adapter would do the trick. A new hub is not a better solution for the millions of wheelsets that are out there.

3 5

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:52)

The point to the new hub is to make the wheel stronger/stiffer with wider spoke flange spacing, not do the exact same thing as existing hubs into a wider dropout spacing. The plan for these tires is using them with 50mm width rims with a greater offset for the spoke holes. Its a complete re-design of the wheel/tire/fork, just as the Rockshox Bluto did with its 150mm front hub, with its excessively wide flange spacing to allow builds with 100mm width rims. On your typical trail bike rim, like Specialized Rovals 26mm width or Transitions Revolution 28mm width, the offset distance between the spoke holes is about 1mm from the centerline to either side but for most Mid-Fat (50mm) to full Fat rims (up to 100mm) , its about 10 to 15mm offset from the centerline. That reduces the angle at which the spokes leave the hub flanges and in order to compensate for that, you need to widen the spoke flanges in the hub shell.

2 0

bikelust (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:21)

Wouldn't a larger diameter hub flange accomplish the same thing? You can go wider, or increase the diameter of the hub flange to get steeper spoke angle.

2 4

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:12)

Larger diameters reduce the number of crosses you can accomplish when lacing. We're pretty close to the limit of what's practical for 3X lacing already, and the actual change in angle isn't as great as moving the flanges outboard.

1 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 13, 2015 at 15:59)

The interesting question is, would current super 29ers like Enduro29 or The Following gain something by using fat bike fubs?

Bring in fat ikes!

3 1

madmax650 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:32)

5 mm spacers between the rotor and hub?

1 6

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:08) (Below Threshold)

The rotors would also need 5mm spacers to put them in the right place. Fine for folks doing conversions maybe keeping existing hubs/wheels but for a brand manager spec'ing a new bike, they're going to want the least number of important "small parts" in the supply chain, and they know the people who'll ACTUALLY spend money on this segment of the sport, will not complain about an entirely new wheel built around a proper new hub. A Rockshox Bluto costs about $800 retail and requires a 150mm x 15mm axle front hub (that isn't included in the fork price), and that hasn't stopped thousands of them being sold.

4 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:10)

Yes go on, use 5mm spacers to mount a rotor - You better be signed up to Obama Care boy, that's gunna cost'ya!

2 1

madmax650 (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:18)

How? It would cost a few bucks. End caps made, longer high grade bolts, spacers and shims it would work fine. Not ideal by any means Though. What are the implications of that setup?

2 0

bogey (Mar 12, 2015 at 12:57)

@madmax650, fasteners are best used in shear (or pure tension) which is how normal rotor screws are used. Putting a 5mm spacer in there would add a bending load to them which is awful for small screws like these.

2 3

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:37)

It won't. Any fat bike owner who bought a carver carbon or titanium fork to upgrade their existing stock fork on a Salsa/907/Surly which all used 135mm REAR disc caliper mount spacing for the forks, had to put a 5mm spacer ring (which comes with the fork) under their rotor in order to keep using their existing front hub. Hell centerlock adapters for 6-bolt rotors have 6 tiny aluminum studs to support their rotors and they don't just shear away so there's no way in hell a steel or titanium rotor bolt with a spacer ring under it is going to. You simply run 5mm longer bolts.

2 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 12, 2015 at 13:53)

Try that on hub like Mavic, with shallow bolt mount, with spacers, not with ring that distributes load more evenly. It's not about shearing, it's about bending+shearing. Centrelock adaptor supports rotor right next to it's surface. Whatever it is, it is not happy enginery - just like 5mm spacers holding IS>PM adaptor to Saint Caliper to my Marzocchi Shiver SC...

9 11

bicycle019 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:37)

Can't wait to try 27.5+, screw the nay sayers. More rubber on the trail, wider footprint without the sluggishness of fat bike sized stuff. I'm already running 2.5" wide Minion DHF on wide rims, can always go a bit wider and air down a bit more. All of you guys worried about "standards" are going to want one after you see what this has to offer. If you don't want it, don't buy it. More progressive riders will reap the benefits of what it has to offer. I've already seen people experimenting with the 27.5+ WTB Scrapper rim and matching 2.8" Trailblazer tire with great results on 29" frames.
Wait till you see what shows up at Sea Otter...it's going to be the 27.5+ kickoff event.

6 0

jesse-effing-edwards (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:45)

It may not be as sluggish as a fatbike, but a kg of tire and rims that weigh over 600grams is not going to create a peppy ride. I'm all for different rim and tire combinations, but unless electric bikes really take off I think anyone looking for fast rides that include lots of climbs are gonna stick to more traditional setups. I'm kinda bummed that this 27.5+ seems to be associated with new hub standards, but other than that I think this might be a nice option for replacing fat bike wheels/tires which are overkill unless you are riding very specific conditions.

4 4

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:18)

Most people doing conversions are using whatever hubs their bikes/forks already call for. In the case of me and my fat bike, that's going to be another 135mm front hub and another 170mm rear hub.

1 0

jesse-effing-edwards (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:27)

If I go anywhere near 27.5+ I'll be doing it in my old 15mm/135QR. What I like about this wheel/tire size is the supposed adaptability to 29er frames, so if I try this out it'll be on my "other" bike, which should really be called my "leftovers" bike.

4 5

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:44)

Depends heavily on rim internal width. The tire sizes are for the WTB based on the casing width (the tread is still just a 2.3) but with the Vee Rubber Trax Fatty its really a wider tread AND casign. A wider rim spreads the casing out flatter and shrinks the height of the tire center a bit and a narrower rim will pull the casing in and increase the height. The proper rim designed for the WTB tire is a 45mm internal width but folks trying 29er conversions have been using rims as narrow as 23mm to get them to clear their existing 29er frames/forks. The Vee rubber tires are being offered so far in 2.8, 3.0 and 3.25 widths.

1 0

bicycle019 (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:52)

Dirt Rag already weighed some of the new Panaracer Fat B Nimble 27.5x3.5 (measured at 2.8" really) tires at 670-690g per tire, which is way lighter than the 1000+g for a 29x2.5 Minion DHF that I'm currently running. That means that a 27.5x3 with some reasonable sidewalls and knobs can still end up in the 850-1100g range, and no one is complaining about tires in that weight range for 26" or 29" sizes. I think the key moving forward with wider rims is the move to carbon. That will allow for 27x40mm+ width rims that weight in the 450-550g range without anything new or groundbreaking. Just look at Derby, Lightbike, or Ibis - they already have rims in that size and weight range without ENVE type prices. I rode some Ibis 941's in Moab with High Roller II 29x2.3 last year and as great as HRII's are, they were not big enough to take advantage of the rim width offered. Yes hubs will have to change, but I think once people ride the wider tires and feel the benefits, they will be able to make the leap. A lot of what's coming can be adapted to current bikes as well as mentioned above.

2 0

owl-X (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:04)

They're making forks. This is happening.

3 2

tttyyler (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:23)

One more reason to always buy complete bike. Get the bars and tires you like and don't worry about the rest.

2 0

arcyeti (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:36)

How much for this new fork "standard" calling another bike standard...?

2 0

arcyeti (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:38)

and at the end of the end : a two wheels JEEP !

3 1

Clarry (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:44)

How much kashima gunna have to fork out?

2 0

UtahBikeMike (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:59)

Why the hell doesn't fox make a 26" fatbike fork yet?

2 0

lurch710 (Mar 12, 2015 at 21:19)

First the iPhone 6+ and now this? Haha

1 0

scottzg (Mar 13, 2015 at 17:04)

Why wouldn't you want to put this axle size on all your light duty bikes? Better spoke angle sounds like a free lunch.

2 0

beeboo (Mar 16, 2015 at 20:49)

Oh god not another axle standard again

1 0

TrailSnob (Mar 14, 2015 at 7:51)

Should also make a 29er plus so I can put it on a surly Krampus!

1 0

Whipdat (May 22, 2015 at 12:22)

Wish they were doing these in 26inch

2 0

RedBurn (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:24)

for fat bike ???

3 0

PHeller (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:31)

for plus bike.

9 0

mtbrider119 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:40)

Does that mean we need plus sized bike models?

3 0

PHeller (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:59)

Ain't nothing wrong with a little extra cushion, as long as you're still having fun.

2 7

deeeight (Mar 12, 2015 at 10:13) (Below Threshold)

For fat bike owners who want lighter tire/wheels in the summer and don't mind giving up a bit of tire width/volume to do it, and for long travel 29er owners with sufficient frame clearance for the tire width, but want more air volume to safely run lower pressures. Most likely you'll see a handful of DH/Enduro team riders who use 29ers to be trying out these wide 650B tires this season.

1 0

ScandiumRider (Mar 12, 2015 at 18:27)

Goddamn that's an ugly fork.

1 0

aljoburr (Mar 13, 2015 at 4:40)

Yes this is the way forward, but sure there is a pricing problem?

1 0

dmackyaheard FL (Mar 13, 2015 at 16:54)

Time to throw away my bike and start another one... cuz Fox said so

2 0

skylinespeed (Mar 15, 2015 at 5:39)

Fox is crazy.....

2 2

cunit (Mar 12, 2015 at 15:34)

why, why i want one just one soooooo bad!!!

1 0

Pnzr (Mar 18, 2015 at 15:05)

PLOT TWIST

2 1

MrDuck (Mar 12, 2015 at 16:34)

Hahahaha nope.

2 1

a-m-c (Mar 12, 2015 at 18:02)

looks flexy.

2 1

pugafi (Mar 12, 2015 at 19:10)

Pffff

9 9

biking85 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:16)

APRIL FOOLS!!!!!

11 3

thunder13 (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:19)

its march

15 0

Jimmy0 FL (Mar 12, 2015 at 9:24)

MARCH FOOLS!!!!

1 4

biking85 (Mar 12, 2015 at 14:15)

It's called sarcasm, there, thunder13, or a joke, if you're not familiar with those either.

4 7

george444 (Mar 12, 2015 at 11:58)

Wont work. Period.