What’s everyone’s thoughts on lockout or not for a 120mm marathon/xc race and do it all bike? I’m very attracted to the idea of not having 6 cables on the front end of my next bike, but find I do use the lockout a lot. Never thought that flipping switches was too hard though on past bikes, and really only use the lockout when I’m on the road (and could easily flip the switch). Has anyone actually missed their lockout?
2 Likes
I have a 120mm FS XC bike that I use for light trail and racing. I use the lockouts a ton during less technical races and/or getting to and from trails. For the parts where you’re just on a fire road for a while or something obviously you can just flip the levers on the fork and shock manually easily enough so it’s not a discriminator. I also find that I use them a good amount mid-trail though, especially if I’m coming to a short incline in the middle of a flow section and I want to power through it out of saddle to maintain momentum.
On the downside, the front of my bike is basically a crime against humanity in comparison to my fully integrated road bike. 2 brake cables, shifter, dual lockout, dropper. Cables do have a quantifiable aero penalty but MTB speeds are low enough vast majority of time it really is only an aesthetic gripe. That and it makes mounting race number plates annoying.
Overall I’m on team lockout, but I do hate the cable mess.
6 Likes
I will die on the hill that lockouts are not worth it. They make the bike feel faster, but I don’t think they actually are faster. My anecdotal evidence is from when I had both a hardtail and a full suspension. There’s a fairly substantial gravel climb here to access most of the trails, takes about 45 minutes on a mtn bike. My times were pretty similar between the hard tail and the full suspension, even though the hard tail felt so much faster. I also don’t think the hardtail was any more efficient, as you lose quite a bit of efficiency on uneven surfaces.
I will concede that if you spend alot of time on paved roads, it probably makes a big difference. But I have never been in a mtn bike race with a paved road as part of the course. Also the cable mess is so ugly.
10 Likes
I agree with @Northshorerider. I’d even go so far as to say they don’t help on pavement. The only place I think they’re really useful is a sprint finish or a sprint to a choke point or something, when you’re standing and sprinting. So XCC and maybe XCO at the pointy end.
Edit: I could see it depending on the bike though. Nice efficient pedalers like my Epic Evo and my previous bike (Canyon Lux), I don’t see the need.
2 Likes
I am currently on a Spark with 3-pos TwinLoc. I use traction mode and open mode and switch between them all the time.
On one hand, it still annoys me that I have the mess of cables and need to think about it. On the other hand, it is 100% an advantage going from open to climb for any sort of climbing or not too chunky singletrack. It lifts the BB as well as increases the support at the rear.
It’s one reason I am looking at bikes without any lockout, but I do worry I’ll miss the ability to have the bike optimised for fully open when descending.
Almost never use full lock.
4 Likes
I only have a hardtail, but I do not lockout the fork if I’m on the trails. I only use the lockout on gravel and tarmac.
I’ve found that the chatter during climbs locked out is more distracting than the occasional fork bob.
2 Likes
That’s generally how I feel about my Blur ('19) but since it has the lockout (and I haven’t bothered to rig it in the unlocked position with cable tension, since stupidly the unloaded position is locked) I end up using it.
Went with just the rear lockout when testing a different fork and never had problems with that setup. Going forward with another bike it just still is something that lingers in my mind.
2 Likes
The sparks definitely seemed designed with that trick suspension in mind. Like the old Treks with the ReAktiv shock, they just weren’t super great in the full open mode for pedaling performance. It seems like the newer models do just perform better in every aspect in the open mode.
1 Like
Looking at mountain bikes and still trying to figure out how to compare models. I’m understand the drivetrain and wheelset differences, but I’m a bit stuck trying to figure out forks and rear shocks. It’s there a good place to go where I can (on paper) compare them?
For example, the forks on some of the bikes I’m looking at are:
RockShox SID Ultimate
Rockshox SID Select
RockShox Sid RL
And the rear shocks:
RockShox SID Luxe Ultimate
RockShox DELUXE Select+
FOX Float Performance DPS
I’m having a hard time figuring out what the differences between these are and what it means in terms of performance, maintenance, durability, etc. Trying to get an idea of what is “better” and if the differences are big enough that once is more worth it versus another
Not perfect, but a good start. I used a guide like this recently.
The differences across the top models of RS and Fox within the same category are very small as far as I can tell. Whether some of the proprietary features are worth choosing or not I’m not 100% sure.
From my own personal experience. Fox seems more trail capable, RS seems more supportive and racey.
3 Likes
For the RS rear shocks, the Deluxe tends to be a little “beefier” and more trail oriented whereas the SIDLuxe is lighter and racier. The downcountry bikes you may find more of a mix of bikes with the Deluxe or the SIDLuxe, but most of the more race-oriented XC bikes with RS suspension are going to have the SIDLuxe.
3 Likes
44mm offset or 51mm offset fork?
@mailman I went 44mm cause that was all the rage for awhile there. I wonder how much it really matters…
1 Like
I’m not sure how much it matters either. It’s only 7mm. I have a 120mm fork on my HT that feels “wheel - floppy” but I don’t know the offset or have a means to test it.
It hurts my brain trying to look at the different things that affect trail and how they affect steering on their own and how the trail change changes steering.
So I gave up and came to ask what people are using.
I’m just trying to do a parts budget and work if it’s worthwhile. doesn’t look like I can afford two bikes, so want to work out if I’d be replacing my Spark with a sufficiently nice spec to make it worth it.
I should clarify that I think the shorter offset does help with the longer/slacker trend we’ve been seeing. When I was building mine up, it seemed most OEM’s were speccing 44mm offsets on similar bikes, so I went that way. I haven’t stayed up on what they are doing nowadays.
What I meant with my first comment is that I’m not sure I’d be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
2 Likes
I think the fork offset should be selected according to the frame it will be used with: if the frame geometry was designed for 44 offset, the 51 offset changes the handling of the bike. IMO it would be stupid to buy a good (and usually expensive) bike and then use the ”wrong” offset.
Counterpoint, I have a 51mm fork on my epic evo, which was designed for 44mm. It’s awesome. A bit less trail works better in my terrain, and makes it even more race friendly IMO. It’s not a big enough change to invalidate the design intent of the frame (see flip chips on forks, like the cervelo Aspero).
5 Likes
I agree with your point, but that’s kind of why I asked. We’re talking about mostly a 100mm frameset with super long reach and relatively slack HTA. The stock bike comes with 44mm.
The question would be, going to 120mm fork should you go 44mm to match the original fork, or 51mm to reduce the trail closer to the original trail figure.
1 Like
That’s a good point.
Anybody running DT Swiss suspension (front or rear)?