2016 Fox Factory 34 Float 27-5-plus suspension fork preview

Well, we knew they were coming, and the all-new 2016 Fox Factory 34 FLOAT 27.5+ becomes the first new generation fork designed specifically around 27.5+ tires and the new 15×110 axle standard.

The fork is a completely new model, with everything optimized for wider rims and tires. It’s a whole new chassis, designed specifically for any additional stresses caused by the added leverage the wider hub and increased traction the fatter tires have over it. Beyond the wider legs, there’s a lot of new tech on here, including a brand new 4th generation FIT4 cartridge and an all-new FLOAT damper. Our guess is it’s borrowing some internal goodness from the impressive 36 series introduced last year.

Basically, Fox’s PR manager Mark Jordan says it’s an entirely new fork…but they’re not quite ready to release all of the tech details yet. Those will come at Sea Otter Classic or just before. In the meantime, here’s a quick run down of what is known…

2016 Fox Factory 34 Float 27-5-plus suspension fork preview

Key specs are:

  • 15×110 thru axle
  • New FLOAT air spring
  • 4th-gen FIT4 closed cartridge damper
  • 27.5 x 3.25″ tire clearance
  • Travel: 110mm to 150mm
  • Offset: 51mm
  • Axle to Crown: (checking on it, will update)

Weight is unknown at this point as they won’t actually start building production models until May, and they won’t venture a guess as to how much of an increase it’ll be over the standard 34. Travel is not user adjustable, so you’ll need to buy it how you want it.

2016 Fox Factory 34 Float 27-5-plus suspension fork preview

Not sure what all the fuss is about? Current mountain bike front wheels use 100mm hub spacing, meaning there’s 100mm between the inner edges of the dropouts. The new 15×110 standard pushes that out to 110mm. That means each spoke flange is 5mm further from hub center and there’s at least 10mm more tire clearance up top. The benefit is that fatter tires can be used for better traction, and the wheels have a wider spoke base, which improves the bracing angle and makes stiffer wheels.

On the rendering above, shows that Fox offset the dropouts about 5mm to the inside, pushing the legs farther out to create even more room for tires. After all, a 3.25″ tire is 82.5mm wide, considerably more of a gain than 10mm compared to a 2.5″ tire (63.5mm). That’s 19mm difference.

Of course, normal 27.5″ rims and tires will fit, too, giving any wheel built on a new hub the benefits of wider bracing angle and stiffer wheel, just with way more tire clearance. If you want…this one’s a new addition, not a replacement for the standard 34.

More as we get it!



  1. Jeff on

    I was just thinking to myself that there were not enough standards out there. I’m glad Fox thought the same thing. This should go great with my new 155×16 rear hub. Haven’t heard of it, you say? Don’t worry, it will come… but only if you can afford it… gotta pay for all of that R&D somehow.

  2. Vincent on

    As a 29″er rider looking for better bracing angles, i would chose this one over the classical 34.
    I think the axle to crown must be the same…

  3. NICK O on

    I’m a bit confused. I thought 90% of the “awesome” about 27.5+” was that they are about the same diameter as a 29″ tire? What’s the purpose of widening everything instead of just the cross brace of their current 29″ offerings. Could that little tweak not apply through all their forks without any standard changes?

    I, personally, am not going to feel the 10mm wider hub. I barely notice the difference between a good 9mm skewer and 15mm.

  4. Colin M on

    3.25″ tires…better traction…

    Not to mention more rolling resistance and slower. Plus the tires will be more expensive and they will not fit your current bicycle frame.

    Who is asking for 27.5+ tires? A dozen people?

    Every year or two the bike industry giants have to come out with some new technology just to sell more expensive parts that promise minimal gains. Then they put some pro riders on their product so they can show them skidding down the mountain. STOKE!!!

    It is all fluff and transparent.

  5. Colin M on

    Andy S looking at the current line up:


    In the stockpile is dozens of new tires of various sizes and compounds. That answer your question?

  6. Nick on

    Can we just start calling them “systems,” instead of “standards?” Truth in marketing. Some systems will play nice together, other times you will be out of luck.

  7. Veganpotter on

    Colin M

    Every year, the industry comes out with new standards(I agree that most are useless) but people also buy in every year. Everybody plays the fool…sometimes everybody plays the fool all the time. Once all new bikes are built with a standard “something”, they gradually become the norm and it happens again. 29er? Thru axles? Dropper posts? New things kill old things, even if they worked. 26in bikes(non fat) are practically dead. 27.5+ can fit in 29er frames…just not the biggest 27.5+ tires.

    ***I’m really thinking fat bikes will go to 4″ 650B tires…29+ will be 3.5s. I don’t really want all this to happen, I just see it happening. Then before you know it, those weird 31″ wheels will become the norm for taller riders and fairly common for average height riders.

  8. mateo on

    Great point Vegan. Everyone was up in arms several years ago when manufacturers were too slow embracing 29″. Now everybody is up in arms that manufacturers are offering too many options.

  9. Chris D on

    I’ve been riding fat bikes AND full suspensions for some time now and this excites me. I bet 27.5+ wheels on a full suspension bike will be an absolute blast to ride.

    Quit b*tching about new standards. That’s how you make progress. Go back to elastomer forks and toe clips you curmudgeons.

  10. chasejj on

    This is interesting. It would be even more interesting if I could get a 36 version of this as well.
    Lets just do an end around on Trek and screw the 12×148 idea they are pushing and go all the way to a 12x157mm. Wider bracing angles are good and very necessary the larger the wheels and sideloads get.

    So conceivably I can get a new 29er 4+” travel frame with 12×157 rear that will accept 27+ and 29er wheels no problem. So I can go FAT when terrain dictates it and go skinny when it dries out. My wheels will last underneath my fatass as they pick up 10-20% added stiffness from the wider flanges.

    My 15×110 wider fork will go either way and still have the 51mm offset needed to handle correctly. Still wish 20mm would come back. But I think this would be pretty trick.

    Dave -where’s my frame?

  11. phella on


    I’m all about your idea there as long as the BB stay relatively narrow. I’ve been dreaming of a 160mm bike that I could ride with 275 DH rubber and a 180mm front fork at the park, then lower the travel to 140mm rear and 160mm front and run it as a long travel 29er, then in the winter swap on my fatties. Make that with an 83mm BB and I’d be happy. Make it relatively lightweight and reasonably priced and I’d buy one today.

  12. Andy on

    Looking at the big picture MTBs, and to some extent all bikes, are slowly becoming motorcycles. Soon companies will be making every part on a bike, aside from little things like tires and grips, and you will have to buy your spares from them. I give it ten years.

  13. Colin M on

    Motorcycle is going to be less expensive than the super-bike that phella describes above and it doesn’t have a single piece of carbon on it so it doesn’t get broken when you slam it onto the ground.

  14. groghunter on

    “Current mountain bike front wheels use 100mm hub spacing” Oh, FFS. 20×110 has existed for almost 20 years, & it’s only been 3 or 4 years since the majority of forks only came in QR or 20mm.

  15. chsad on

    Chris D,

    Well actually progress was going from skinny quick releases to thru-axles and pretty much no one had an issue with that. It is “incremental” changes portrayed as ground breaking advances that have people cheesed. Imagine you just plopped down 6K on your dream ride and you have been waiting to rip it up as the snow melts. Oh wait your fancy new whip is last years news before you even got it dirty and the “standard” that you just bought is on the way out. Lame. Progress is tubeless systems and shocks that actually work. Not making the rear thru-axle 5mm wider. Lame.

  16. chasejj on

    Phella- I think 83mm would work perfectly. I am actually OK with chainlines favoring the larger cogs in back anyway on 1X systems.
    I think the possibility of 2X systems could come back due to the seamless synchro Di2 shifting across both FD and RD with a single shifter. Only problem is that fat wheels+short chainstays do not play well with front derailleurs.

  17. Andy s on

    Collin M, from your current wheel/tire combos it would appear that you see value in “better traction”. Yet in your post regarding “better traction” you seem to have a negative perception about going wider. If you don’t want better traction why are you riding any 2.25, 2.25 and 2.5?

    My point is that there is a benefit to better traction and everyone can see the benefit otherwise they’d still riding 26×2.0.

    About 1.5yrs ago I started riding 29+ and couldn’t stop smiling. Now I’m onto 26×4.8 riding XC with all the “skinny tire” people and just as fast as I ever was…but having even more fun now. A wider contact patch doesn’t nece mean it’s slower.

    Tires of all cycling segments are getting wider. Until people are open minded and willing to try things they never know the pros/cons. Just asking people to be open minded.

  18. pdxfixed on

    This 15×110 shenanigans is killing me. Most front hubs out there are compatible with 10×100, 15×100, and 20×110 already. That’s one hub shell for all three, no difference in flange spacing or stiffness or any of that crap. I guarantee every hub maker out there is just going to come out with a new set of end caps that are a 15mm version of the 20×110 caps that they already have.

  19. KJR on

    The problem @pdxfixed, is that they have also pushed the caliper mount on the fork 5mm out. So while a 15×100 or a 20×110 have the disc mounted in the same spot, the 15×110 does not. So an all new hub is required to use this new “standard”. (deleted)

  20. Colin M on

    KJR – look who comes out with a hub first and it tells you who these “innovators” are in bed with.

    Andy S – We are probably different riders. Contact patch of a giant balloon tire with 5mm knobs is not the same as the traction from a rigid DH style tire that digs rather than flattens to the surface. I’ve got tires and wheels for all conditions and most are meant to go as fast as possible for those conditions. Except mud…dammit..we just don’t have that here in CO.

    I’m not mad as a consumer because I’m educated enough to see through this marketing drivel. I’m most worried about bike shops who yet again have to catch up to these constant innovations and standards to be able to communicate to their customers without looking like they aren’t hip with the newest “trend”. There were negatives to how the 29er thing went down and the big industry players are doing what it doing so it sets the trends rather than catching up with the little guys.

  21. Colin M on

    Ok last thing…by “trend” I don’t mean that completely in a bad way. There a little niche markets in the bike world. 27.5+ is one of them. I’m sure Fox thinks it is great that they are meeting the needs of a niche market. Again, they got burned by the 29er movement and their QC recently so they have good intentions. It is just that once their marketing people get a hold of it the talk of technological breakthroughs and 7% stiffer and blah blah blah gets to be more than a bit much. Just sell how cool biking is and stop with how high tech and expensive you can make the sport. I haven’t felt like I’ve been able to introduce a new person to this sport in years because they get sticker shock from overpriced bikes and parts along with the hot new thing changing from year to year.

  22. Substance on

    Colin m, you have no idea how off you are. Everyone complaining about ‘standards’ needs to look at what they ride now and look at what was available 15 years ago. If things go too fast people flip out. If someone showed up with the bike you ride now in 2000 everyone would laugh at you short stem and your waaaay too much travel and your wide bars, and your 1 chainring, and your ridiculously huge tires. Nobody is going to deny that bikes have gotten better over the last 15 years. It didn’t happen all at once. If you think your 26″ wheels are so great, stick with them. Anyone who says that they can’t find parts for them is full of it. Tires, rims and forks are plentiful. Just go to your local bike shop and look at the q catalog.

    Can’t get the latest suspension tech in a 26″ fork you say? Why would anyone riding 26″ wheels care about having the latest greatest fork? A $350 rockshox recon is a thousand times Berger and waaay cheaper than anything that existed in 2000.

    Shut up about standards. Your stupid 26″ wheels are still supported. Nothing that is good is being replaced by this. Ride what you want. Speak with your dollar and don’t buy it if you are poor or a Luddite. If you are not a Luddite but you are poor, sorry, but you won’t be an early adopter of this stuff. Don’t worry though, it’ll trickle down. Innovation starts at the high end.

    Industry, bring on more ‘standards’ or ‘systems’ if it makes things better.

  23. Speed565 on


    I’m one of this 26″ folks. I’m not mad because thing are changing. That’s a good thing – evolution. Rather how it’s done. My bike’s frame has 4 years. The wheels are older and I would by glad to get a new ones. But now even the hubs wouldn’t fit in the next frameset. With Boost 148 crankset is a problem too!

    Why when they invented X12 they didn’t make it wider? Or with the 15×100? Thats the only diffrence. The result? If your bike has 4 years almost nothing will fit in a new frameset.

  24. Tim on

    @Substance- You have made two arguments. One of them is that consumers won’t buy innovative stuff if it is introduced too quickly. There is some substance to this idea. I knew a guy back in 1998 (earlier than the 2000 benchmark you use) who rode a Karpiel with six inches of front and rear travel. It had front and rear Hayes hydraulic disc brakes and a relatively short stem. The bike had a 3×8 drivetrain (there was a Ritchey 2×9 system back then, but it was not too popular) and narrow bars. It definitely wasn’t heavy. I rode a more conventional bike and remember what happened the first time we went downhill: he smoked me by riding in a very straight line over tons of rocks and roots while I was busy navigating around them. I thought- he pedaled. That one ride changed my mind. He raced XC on that bike and I can tell you, no one laughed at him. If the big companies (GT, Trek, etc.) had wanted to at that point, they could have made such a machine and some people would have bought them. If they had replaced their whole lines with such bikes, they might not have been able to sell all of them and might have lost money.
    Plus- let’s suppose people really would have snapped up lightweight, long travel bikes if only volume-sales oriented producers had provided them. In that case, it would have been dumb from a financial standpoint to do so- why not spread the profits out over decades rather than a very short time period? And indeed some combination of consumers not being ready and manufacturers wanting to spread the profits out over a long period of time is the reason it has taken us so long to get where we are today and will be tomorrow in terms of how advanced the bikes we ride are. We will not find out what proportion there is between these two factors. Do you agree?

  25. Tim on

    @Substance- Your other line of argument conflates “new standards” and “innovation”. I have to take exception to that- it’s also a common argument in favor of new standards. Anyways, if you looked at my ideal bike (I don’t really ride much as I am extremely busy with work, so it would not make much sense to buy a new bike at this point) you would see it would have at least front suspension; it would have clipless pedals, 27.5 or 29 inch wheels, a short stem, and a front thru-axle- preferably 20mm, or maybe I would use a Lefty. It might have tubeless tires. I definitely would try them out. Depending on the terrain I would ride on, it might well have a dropper post. The frame would be carbon, or maybe titanium if it were a hardtail. I would want short chainstays. As you can see, I am not anti-tech. I am against just making something wider or bigger here or there without it benefiting anyone. It means that you can’t use the same parts farther down the road if you want to. But that’s a moral argument: “What bike companies are doing is wrong”. And we all know how much weight moral arguments have on Planet Earth: zero. They’re immaterial. Bike companies exist to make profit, and they happen to do it by selling bike stuff. And that’s life. We have to live with new standards, like it or not.
    As for poverty- I don’t have a ton of money, but what I am waiting to trickle down to lower price levels is awesome suspension, light frame materials, the right size of wheels, light, grippy tires, and so on. Not a slightly wider rear axle or a bigger handlebar bulge, although those do have some benefits for sure.

  26. alvis on

    like BBs cant we agree if its got 85% of the market its the ‘standard’ (singular– there can be only one) any less its just another format.

  27. Paul on

    Dear bike industry

    Unnecessary new standards are as welcome as a fart in a diving bell.

    Unnecessary new standards mean that your products become more expensive to develop, more expensive to manufacture and more expensive for the consumer. It also means that people like me will become disillusioned with your marketing model and may choose to boycott your entire product lines.

    Please take 15×110 away, put it somewhere uncomfortable and bring it back when it becomes 20×110, which works with pretty much every single boutique hub made in the last fifteen years.

    Thank you

    A disgruntled customer.

  28. haromania on

    You know it isn’t actually a rule that you have to buy something the bike industry makes. I think, and I need to double check this…if you’re happy with what you have, that you can just keep riding it and leave the new(er) stuff to the people that want it. I love the new stuff, I buy all of it I can. I don’t care what trips your trigger no more than you care about what trips mine. I guess what I’m saying is (to those complaining about new standards), shut up.

  29. substance on


    exactly, exactly, exactly!

    I guess what I’m getting a little sick of is people going hulk on their keyboards everyday because the bike industry is improving things in the wrong way. Nobody has said that any of the wheel size, or axle type, or bb type(maybe not bb type), or headset type, or electric shifting, or electric suspension control, or whatever isn’t making things better. Bikes are getting better all the time. I would argue all of these things(including BB stuff) is making bikes better. Sure, the new stuff may not fit your old frame, but big deal. How long will it be before you buy a new bike anyway? Every time Ford comes out with a new Mustang, I guarantee that nobody says, “b.. but… but… why doesn’t the new suspension fit on my old mustang? I’m boycotting Ford forever!” Somehow this is a sentiment thats unique to the bicycle industry.

    And while I’ve read this many times I’ve never actually heard it spoken out loud(probably because I work at a bike shop) that new standards make it harder for the local bike shop to survive. This is absolute garbage. People whined when 27.5 came out, “oh no, what will bike shops do? How will they stock some extra tubes and tires?” As far as axle standards go, bike shops don’t stock this stuff. QBP, BTI, J and B, Hawley, these are the guys that stock this stuff. When bike shops need it, they order it. New standards enter bike shops on complete bikes, not aftermarket parts. And if nothing changed bike shops would be having one hell of a time trying to sell you the same stuff they sold you last year, and 5 years ago, and 25 years ago.

    Change is good. Stop whining. If you don’t like the new stuff stick with what you have, or theres always ebay. I bet you could get a 26″ wheel bike on there for real cheap.

  30. substance on


    your friend’s karpiel sounds awesome, but it also sounds like he is really strong. Suspension travel started to increase a lot when suspension technology started to get better. I’m not saying that the Karpiel is an inefficient pedaler, but I bet its not as good as a Pivot Mach 6.

    Sure, bike companies could have made really big jumps earlier by taking really big risks, but that might have meant big losses. It seems to me that the 29″ wheel thing really had an impact on much of the industry. Some companies were slow to get in and they paid for it. Now it seems like bigger companies are taking those bigger risks trying to weigh them with the big “what if we don’t get in early?” Perhaps there is more of a fear of not being on board soon enough. I think the answer is to blame the 29″ wheel for how the industry treats new standards, and boycott the 29″ wheel.

  31. Tim on

    @Substance- I can’t quantify the Karpiel guy’s strength compared to mine, but I don’t think he was far stronger; I didn’t have ogre-like power surging through my legs, but was pretty fit and strong. Maybe he was more so. The difference was mainly up to his bike from what I can tell. We had absolutely different bikes- but our strength levels were comparable. He openly admitted that a lot of his riding bravery came from the bike and not talent.
    Yes, as you said there were both financial and technical reasons the bike industry didn’t have light, long-travel bikes earlier. I don’t think suspension technology was the limiting factor- the suspension he had was simple by today’s standard, but it sure as heck beat bikes with half the travel (“long-travel bikes” in the parlance of the day). In other words, suspension quality did not matter much. HAVING suspension with ACCEPTABLE quality did. I think it was no coincidence that that bike appeared just a year after Hayes introduced an industry standard for disc brake mounting. Discs made it possible to have longer travel bikes more than anything else…
    What I take most exception to is your claim that all innovations are equal. 29 inch wheels are a much more important and beneficial innovation than widening a bottom bracket axle by a centimeter. 29 inch wheels improve my ride, making it faster and smoother. Going from a 20mm axle to a 15mm axle that weighs a few grams less has a negative, not a positive, effect on my ride. Press-fit bottom brackets that creak also make my ride worse. Some other standards, like wider bottom bracket axles, have little effect. Part of the proliferation in standards comes from the fact that bikes today are taking shapes and forms that allow them to do riding that was barely possible before. Snow bikes, fat bikes, long travel, lightweight bikes being the main categories. These bikes require, or at least greatly benefit from, new standards- much wider hub and bb axles are the most obvious examples. But not all of the new standards arise from this. Sometimes companies just make stuff so it doesn’t play with other stuff- 15mm thru axles (the “why bother” size is what I call it) and some companies make stuff just to make framebuilding faster and more profitable (for example, press-fit bottom brackets which yes, in fact, MANY people have real, not imaginary complaints about because they make noise). That is unfair, and that is life.
    You also say you want the bike industry to be like the car industry, as if it were axiomatic that the car industry is a model for the bike industry. What is so great about the car industry other than that it is large and earns a lot of money? I ask that without sarcasm. Other people here don’t want the bike industry to be like the car one because the former until recently was based on nearly universal standards which allowed tinkering, garagemanship, and sharing of parts.
    That way of making bikes is quickly fading into the past. Some people are unhappy about it, I being one of them to some extent. Yes, we can get old parts on eBay. I personally am not worried about new standards too much for that exact reason.
    Telling people to shut up is rude and distracts people from the substance of your arguments, a substance which at times comes from reasoning but other times seems to be based on nothing more than conviction and unexamined beliefs (like the one about the auto industry) that underlie your arguments.

  32. substance on


    I’m not going to try for a second to argue that all “innovations” are of equal importance. If I implied that before it was unintentional. You’re totally right that things like wheel size are of way greater benefit than things like bottom bracket shell dimensions and press fit BBs.

    As far as 15mm being the “why bother” size, back when it came out, the outcry was that we already had 20mm thru axles and that these could be made lighter. Rockshox actually didn’t make 15mm thru forks for a year after everybody else because they were going to stick to their guns on 20mm Maxle light. This is an example in my mind of consumers calling for more 15mm thru because what happened is that XC and trail riders said, “why would I put the same 20mm thru axle on my bike that downhill guys use? That must be super heavy.” It wasn’t super heavy. It was hardly any heavier than 15mm thru and it most definitely offered more stiffness. So Rock Shox caved and made all their all-mountain and below(travel wise) with 15mm thru instead of 20. I’ve also heard from many people who are more industry insider types than me, that 15 thru was to help take care of the fact that QRs are a liability on mountain bikes more than any other. People can’t install them correctly. I would think that anyone who looks at this site, let alone posts here can properly operate a QR lever, but the number of bikes I work on that have the QR in the open position and then just twisted tight would blow your mind. The wheel is crooked a lot too. Yes, I feel like this would be more of an issue on lower end bikes that are purchased by more novice riders as well, and these bikes still have QRs on them, but whatever, I don’t decide on the bike spec.

    Perhaps ‘the industry’ feels that all these different standards are necessary(for hub axles at least) so that you can’t take a super light hub designed for road bikes and put it on your weight weenie DH bike. DH and DJ bikes use 20 thru, All mountain, enduro, some trail bikes use 15×110, and the rest of the trail bikes and XC bikes use 15×100, unless you are willing to gain a little weight(and perhaps spend a little money) in the name of wheel stiffness and use 15×110. And then 12×100 for road and CX bikes. This probably makes for some cross compatibility by switching out end caps or axles but only between categories that are close to each other. Or you might be able to cover more categories but the hub needs to be designed for the heaviest duty category that it’ll fit. Would it be easier if 20×110 had just never gone away? Sure it would. But I feel like that is the doing of the consumer speaking with their dollar and the industry responding. Perhaps I’m off, but this is my perception.

    As far as me complaining about other people complaining about all the ‘standards.’ Perhaps I should just try to stop reading the comments. It never changes my opinion much anyway, although sometimes I feel like I get something useful out of it. Its rare though.

    As far as what this started out as, I think that Fox fork looks bad ass, and I love the idea of 27.5 plus, and more wheel stiffness, even if it comes at the expense of another axle ‘standard.’

  33. substance on

    Last thing, for real.

    I don’t think the tinkering has gone away. As far as the comparison to the car industry, the tinkering hasn’t gone away there either, its just changed forms a bit. I think thats happening to bikes too. If we are using a bike industry example, I think cannondale has it right with system integration. Its a marketing term for sure, but when you design more things to work specifically with something else bigger gains can be had in terms of performance. This is the case with cars too. The sharing of parts among different car makers might be a thing of the past, and again, if i implied that thats what I want for bikes it was unintentional. I want bikes to remain cross compatible in as many ways as possible, but I don’t think that BB standards and axle standards are changing bikes into cars. Think of how many bikes have interchangeable dropouts, and how with the right BB there are very few incompatibilities between frames and cranks. I bet every single mountain bike that costs more than $1k will accept the very fork talked about above with the right headset.

    Perhaps some of that cross compatibility is disappearing, maybe when you tinker with your car you have to stick with stuff thats made by the same company or aftermarket stuff thats specific to your make. I really do hope that day never comes for bikes. It is going to take some way crazier things than axle or BB standards for me to feel like its coming though. If theres ever a time when stems, bars, pedals, derailleurs, saddles, bottle cages, brakes, and any number of things that can easily be swapped from bike to bike all the sudden can’t be, I’ll be very very unhappy about it. I bet others will let you know how they feel first.

  34. have a pike; want a 34 on


    Yes the Pike is an awesome fork. But the new air spring in last years 36(you know) and now this years 34 are the real deal. Feels just as good as a pike or better. They got rid of those damn u-cup seals that added drag and ingested oil from your open bath to your air chamber. I’ll be keeping my Pike around for sure but a new 34 is on the wish list for my shorter travel war pig.

  35. Atle on

    @substance: “cross compatibility is disappearing,”

    The industri will fight cross compatibility with claws and teeth since it’s impacting
    directly at their own profit – with expensive spare parts (which may disappears after X years). As cars are today.

    Sadly most of the people/customers indirectly “wants” these “new standards” since they’re not boycotting or rejecting these “new” standards/systems, most of peoples needs to experience the new creaking BB, fragile parts, the wiggly quickrelease, and the companies are still earning a lot of money of these mistakes most of peoples does. Hidden cost of maintenance and R&D are pushed to the customer and LBS.
    In a way people feels that’s easier to buy a new bicycle/system than to build a new one from parts. What will happen to the bicycle in 15 years?

    I have a square BB. It’s still smooth running after seven year of zero maintenance.
    And I ride a lot, in rain and snow. When it breaks downs, it’ll take me a 10-20 minutes to switch it out, so I can ride out and earn more money as soon as possible.

    Look at a bicycle as a income, when it’s broken, you’ll loose the value of joy.
    Love it as a mistress, keep her happy with gifts of maintenance, be cheap to make you happy, punish her if she breaks down. That’s what I do. 🙂


COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.