Home > Bike Types > Mountain Bike

RockShox Updates Sid, Reba, and Pike for Boost, Plus New Entry Level XC 30, Paragon Silver Trekking Forks

48
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

 MY15_RS_PIKE_RCT3_DP160_Front MY15_SID_RL_275_GLBLK_Front MY12_REBA_RL_2715_GLB_Front

With a new round of trade shows comes news of new products looking forward to 2016. For RockShox, the biggest news would have to be their new Boost technology which involves the widening of both the front and rear axles from 100 and 142 to 110 and 148mm. As previously discussed, the change allows engineers to add another level of stiffness for bigger wheels while simultaneously providing more clearance for tires and frame components. If you were concerned about the stiffness of 29″ wheels up until now, this could be your answer.

Released in conjunction with SRAM’s new Boost compatible ROAM 40 wheels, X0, and MTH 700 hubs, RockShox is starting into Boost compatible forks with three models for 2016. Starting in June of 2015, 29″ Boost compatible SID and Reba forks will be offered which will also fit 27.5×3.0″ tires. RockShox will follow up with a Pike 27.5 Boost and 29″/27.5+” Boost fork later in the Summer.

The forks will all have the wider axle spacing, but the engineers at RockShox have a little something extra up their sleeve for even more stiffness…

Rockshox torque end cap boost 110

Found on all 15x110mm Boost forks, RockShox will be adding Torque Cap compatibility. Torque Cap increases front end stiffness with more surface area for the contact point between the hub and fork dropout without chaining any other measurements. The dropouts will still be compatible with standard 15×110 hubs, but will benefit from SRAM hubs with a Torque Cap.

MY15_RS_PIKE_DJ MY15_RS_PIKE_RC_SA160 MY15_SID_RL_275_GLBLK

 

MY15_RS_MON+_RC3_Side MY14_RS_VIVID_R2C_Side MY14_RS_VIVID_AIR_R2C_Side

 

2016 will also see a graphics update across the line in both forks and shocks. In addition to new looks, each fork will have updated technical specs clearly listed on the fork including model, travel, spring, offset, hub spacing, and wheel size.

 

 

 

 

MY16_RS_XC30_GBLK_Side

MY16_RS_XC30_GBLK_3QMY16_RS_XC30_GBLK_Front

Along with a reorganization of their entry level suspension product, RockShox is introducing a new version of the XC 30. After consolidating the Recon Silver and XC 32 into a single Recon Silver model moving forward, the XC 30 branches off into the 30 Silver (which is the same fork as the old XC 30), and the new XC 30. Positioned as the new entry point to 27.5″ wheels, the XC 30 uses 30mm chrome plated steel stanchions with a TurnKey Remote or crown lockout and coil spring with external preload. Planned for OE sales only, the fork will come equipped on new bikes in both 27.5″ and 29″ wheels with 80-120mm of travel with QR axle only and straight or tapered steerers. Weight for a 27.5″ fork with a straight steel steerer is listed at 2468g.

MY16_RS_PARGSIL_PM_GBLK_SIDE

MY16_RS_PARGSIL_PM_GBLK_Front MY16_RS_PARGSIL_PM_GBLK

The trekking category also gains a new fork with the introduction of the Paragon Silver. Originally introduced last year with the Paragon Gold, the fork platform allows trekking bikes to run a suspension fork that has dedicated accessory mounts for dynamo lights, wiring, and fenders. Equipped with 30mm steel stanchions with a satin nickel finish, the fork uses a TurnKey lockout with optional remote, and a coil spring with internal preload adjustment which is the major difference between it and the air spring Gold model. Also an OEM only option, the weight is claimed at 2368g.

sram.com

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew
Andrew
7 years ago

I love new tech and enjoy the equipment side of being a cyclist.

But the amount of new standards and speed of obsolescence for small incremental benefit is starting to leave me cold.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a luddite. I run disc brakes on my road bikes and electronic shifting. I am not advocating that a 1 inch headset and a 9mm QR hub is anywhere near as good as a 15mm through axle on a modern fork, but I just don’t see the need other than from a commercial perspective.

Turtlehead
Turtlehead
7 years ago

So. What’s the good news about the 2016 lineup? It would make the whole bitter pill of wider dropouts easier to swallow. And also, aren’t the Sid and Reba due to get an accelerator/charger damper ?

Adventurebybike.be
7 years ago

(deleted)

Jake
7 years ago

Andrew, it sounds like you are a bit of a luddite. If anything the move to 148 and 110 spacing and moving hub flanges away from the center line to give better bracing angles for building stronger wheels is the most significant improvement in wheels in a long time. Why would you be against the ability to build a stronger wheel?

ascar larkinyar
ascar larkinyar
7 years ago

10% stiff trade off for having to buy all new wheels/frame/fork with no forwards or backwards compatibility…..yawn/fail. i refuse to buy a six month standard.

lets just jump to the future 200mm front and 600mm rear spacing.

Will
Will
7 years ago

I honestly don’t think you’re going go notice a difference in stiffness between a 142mm rear wheel and a 148mm rear wheel. Probably even less than you’ll notice the 100mm vs 110 in the front.
I’m a big guy, and I have been happy for decades with 100mm front and 135mm rear hubs. I have got to agree, I’m all for progress, but this seems more like planned obsolescence than a huge improvement.
Sure, it’s probably a bit better, but not enough that I want to buy a new bike for it. I guess as the bike industry gets more and more popular, there is room in the market to justify all these new standards.
Unfortunately, I can’t buy a new bike (or even wheels) more than every 5 years or so, so it’s a good thing I’m happy with my “obsolete” standards.

Paul
Paul
7 years ago

I am very, very angry about this.

We already have a great front axle standard. It’s 110x20mm and it’s ace.

Instead, Rockshox is going to have to invest in new casting/machining facilities to accommodate the extra 10mm in hub width (but not diameter) in addition to engineering the lowers for three different wheel sizes. That’s six different configurations of lower depending on whether you want 110x15mm or 100x15mm.

Guess who is going to pick up the tab for this? It’s also going to be confusing for aftermarket fork customers who’ll invariably have to ditch their hubs to accommodate a new standard that is as unnecessary as it is unwelcome.

But the industry just doesn’t seem to get it.

Crotchety Old Man
Crotchety Old Man
7 years ago

I seriously hope Trek’s push for this fails. Seriously…every d*mn company out there is trying to set a “standard” that lasts for a couple years. This smells too much like a marketing gig more than anything. Can’t have sales go stale now, can we? Global marketplace rules!

gringo
gringo
7 years ago

@ Jake
I don’t think anyone is against having a better system, it’s just that there is no control mechanism in place in this industry to help assure that ‘standards’ are not implemented only to be revised again in a short time.

Let me ask why, if for Boost we need new hubs, cranks, forks and swingarms, just to get an incremental increase in stiffness, then why not go full hog and move to 157mm (an existing standard) and build a super strong dishless wheel?

I’ll bet any taker here 1000 USD that at least one component of boost will be ‘improved’ and or changed in less than 5 years with no backwards compatibility.

craigsj
craigsj
7 years ago

Well, Jake, I think Andrew was pretty clear about that when he said “speed of obsolescence for small incremental benefit”. He’s right.

The industry already had the 150/157 standard so the Boost rear change doesn’t seem to offer anything we didn’t already have. Regarding the front, Is the wheel’s stiffness such a problem that we need a mere 10% increase in width that the new 110 spacing offers? Neither of these changes passes the sniff test.

Frankly I see no value in these Boost changes at all. Why would I “be against the ability to build a stronger wheel”? When, Jake, did you stop beating your wife?

I could build stronger wheels than I do today but I don’t need to. If I did, I’d rather have a different standard that offered gains that Boost does not. Meanwhile, wider hubs place greater demands on the frame and fork. It’s not clear to me that Boost is a step forward in any way.

Crotchety Old Man
Crotchety Old Man
7 years ago

Gringo is on to something with his last line….

caveman
caveman
7 years ago

157mm… its been around, there are already bikes using this, i dont understand why not use something already in production and follow what this gentleman has already done. –> https://bikerumor.com/2015/03/08/nahbs-2015-quiring-boosts-29-mountain-bikes-beyond-148-w-clever-parts-use/

ABW
ABW
7 years ago

GAH! My mtb has a 15mm fork and 142 rear. I just went to the shop to check, and the moment I opened this website, the hubs crumbled to dust! I called my local shop, and they said their inventory of everything but these new systems had also crumbled to dust! I asked them to check with their distributor, and they said everything but these new systems had disappeared from the distributors catalogs overnight!!! Oh the humanity! I literally have NO options but to buy these new products before I can ride again! I’m so sick of being persecuted by the Bicycle Marketing Industrial Complex!!!!

Colin M
Colin M
7 years ago

@Jake – Did you just call him a Luddite after he stated he wasn’t? Is Luddite the vogue bike nerd insult?

While 15×110 might make a stiffer wheel by x.x% so do several other methods that do not require a hub standard to be developed and then pushed on consumers.

We aren’t Luddites. We are smart enough to take current products and make them work great and have no complaints. The trend setters who want to tinker with parts or discuss their improvement theories online (rather than just ride their bikes) love this industry nonsense.

Padrote
Padrote
7 years ago

@ABW nailed it

CXisfun
CXisfun
7 years ago

: in all fairness, just because someone says they aren’t something, doesn’t mean they truly aren’t. I don’t think Andrew seems like a luddite, but I’ve met some people through my years that prefaced some pretty hateful things by saying, “I don’t hate group x” then goes on to spew hate toward that group.

Padrote
Padrote
7 years ago

also “I can’t feel any difference from this change, so it is bad and unnecessary!”

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

“Standard” 15×110 axles? Excuse me!

JBikes
JBikes
7 years ago

Since RockShox doesn’t make anything that ties into the rear hub, nor a rear hub itself, I don’t really understand how they are pushing a rear axle standard.
Now I can see SRAM and frame manufacturers doing so, but I fail to see how anything RS makes relates to rear hub width or rear hub/rear triangle stiffness.
Perhaps I am wrong though. I really don’t keep up with every single product everyone has.

Brendan
Brendan
7 years ago

I’m not going to voice any support or disdain for the new ‘standards’, but I do want to point out something about the 15×110 front hub specification: Saying it has no benefit relative to 20×110 is false. 20×110 hubs keep the disc brake and spoke flanges at the same spacing from center as 15×100. This is why hub manufacturers can make one hub fit 9×100, 15×100, and 20×110 just with different end caps. On the other hand, 15×110 spaces out the disc rotor, and with it the spoke flanges can move out as well. This means that a 15×110 wheel can be built stiffer than a 20×110 wheel, all other things being equal.

Alex
Alex
7 years ago

As the owner of size 12 shoes and a short chainstay 29er I object to rear spacing over 150mm for clearance reasons. Also, why not just boost the flange spacing on 150mm hubs?

pile-on
pile-on
7 years ago

@Everyone–planned obsolescence has been a part of the bike industry for decades, of course the engineering and marketing departments calls this progress/better design. Very little the consumer can do about it except let the early-adopters be the guinea pigs. Ambivalence is the key to happiness, sigh.

Colin M
Colin M
7 years ago

“let the early-adopters be the guinea pigs”

Love this. Spend that money early-adopters. Let us know how that 1% increase in stiffness changes things. Be honest is all we ask. All of this keeps MTBR alive you know.

J
J
7 years ago

If its not broken, don’t fix it. I am perfectly fine with the current standards, just use an offset drilled rim if bracing angle worries you so much. I do hope Trek fails this push as well. We riders don’t need a new standard that makes our $3000 frames and $1000++ wheelsets obsolete.

Heffe
Heffe
7 years ago

Hmm, so my brand newish XC hardtail with a front 15mm thru axle and 135 QR rear dropouts won’t be able to find replacement parts in a few years? That sucks.

Smokestack
Smokestack
7 years ago

If you look at the bike as a system, there is some validity to the Boost standards. A couple mm increase here and there can be a great thing when it comes time to design things like a new suspension design. I think the 110 front end makes a heap of sense (albeit way too late in production cycles for component manufacturers) but I am of the mind that going with a 157 OLD and 83mm BB shell on the frame would have opened up the design envelopes even greater than the Boost design while still allowing for a wide variety of more available components and keeping overall industry manufacturing costs in check. While dedicated xc riders may have felt peeved about it, the majority of us who just ride would have had no real issue. Additionally, it would offer even better bracing angles for the spokes and more than enough clearance to fit the fattest of the + series tires almost regardless of suspension travel. The fundamental tenets of the Boost designs are valid, but the overall execution does leave something to be desired in the minds of consumers. Hopefully Trek is left to fester with the Boost back end the way that Giant was left with OverdriveII, while other manufacturers pursue the 83mm/157mm frame program. Won’t hold my breath though.

Chris
Chris
7 years ago

Great, my new Fuel 9.8 that isn’t available to ship until May 25th is already old news.
Did I hear a few months ago a wheel company say they had their pro riders complain their wheels were actually too stiff? So they made them less stiff for this year. I think it was FSA or DT. This is all quite silly and to the point that’s it’s just to keep things revolving. The big company’s want to convince us into new bikes every year. What’s wrong with getting 5+ years out of a bike?

muf
muf
7 years ago

‘course theres validity to the boost “standard”.
but in 2 y they’ll use 157 or 200mm. why not now and keep it for years? because money, thats why.

Mattbyke
Mattbyke
7 years ago

Man , I hope I don’t kill myself riding my 100/135 9mm standard.
My 20mm fox 36 is so good and stiff. Why not use that ?

Eric E. Strava
Eric E. Strava
7 years ago

At what point does making a marginal improvement in wheel stiffness become more important than ensuring that bike shops aren’t faced with an SKU and stocking nightmare? Or that consumers aren’t made to feel that their “superbike” from 6 months ago is now an obsolete pig with inferior technologies?

This new standar…er, system seems like too little late. This should have been addressed when 15mm fronts and 142mm rears where being introduced, or not at all.

ShopMechanic
ShopMechanic
7 years ago

Simply designing a full suspension bike around a dedicated 1x drivetrain (wider pivot spacing and bigger chainstays) would provide far more of an increase in stiffness than this new axle standard will. Not saying that the standard is bad, but that we’re passing up some incredibly ripe low hanging fruit here.

JBikes
JBikes
7 years ago

ShopMech –
I think the ‘boost’ standard allows the wheel to be made stiffer laterally as well as improving the hub to bike/fork interface, which is another flex point. Going to 1x specific frame designs may allow a stiffer frame, but do not address these flex points.
That said, I do not know what is more beneficial (stiffer frame vs stronger wheels).

I do think a bike frame can become too stiff laterally, as some flex is required since current suspension only operates in one plane, while bikes are leaned at all angles. Motorcycle frame manufacturers realized this as racing frames (motoGP) became stiffer and stiffer. On bumpy tracks, riders complained of traction issues when leaned over.

Andrew
Andrew
7 years ago

@CXisfun. Calm down and ride more! Likening a comment about a hub to the views of some deeply racist/fascist/sexist/whateverest friends you might have is frankly offensive. I would change the company you keep before changing any part on my bike! I am an early adopter of most new technology. Some of my best friends run 110 front hubs (that’s sarcasm BTW in case your technologically advanced brain has been programmed to ignore humour as well as blindly adopt all new tech). Nevertheless, I am entitled to an opinion evidently shared by many about a new ‘standard’ (how many do we need?!!!!) on a bike forum designed to share just such views. Keep it clean. Keep it fun (CX is afterall fun, right?!). And try to avoid getting personal. It’s only a hub!!!!!!

MikeB
MikeB
7 years ago

There’s not a single rider out there that can honestly say they notice the performance differences (aside from maybe the shifting) between 142/148 and 100/110: I don’t care how much testing they cram down our throats, how strong of a rider you are, or how much people buy into the hype.

Unfortunately, the bike industry is starting to reach a point where the performance gains in new product launches are extremely marginal, so we’re seeing little tweaks here and there such as new axle standards.

You don’t buy this because of the performance advantage, you buy this because of the slight chance it may become a new standard in the future. This will make your bike more modern, more appealing for resale, and more “standard.” The only catch is you’ll have to wait at least a year to see if it actually sticks as the new standard.

Ripnshread
Ripnshread
7 years ago

This is SRAM flexing. They have gotten a little giddy that we seemed to glom on to the whole 1x idea. So now they are trying to out STI Shimano. Are the changes worth the risk for them considering they have to convince the whole industry to go to this new “standard”? Only if they stay on top of the OEM ladder.

Seeing that Shimano has not embraced 1x at all, stuck with their tighter rear cassette ratio, built all this hoopla over their electronic “brain” shifting your front mech for you.

Seems like this is a ripe time for SRAM to distance them even further from Shimano af far as cross compatibility is concerned. Or, at least force Shimano to follow their lead setting SRAM up as the “trendsetters” a position Shimano has coveted for years.

Also, with 1x drivetrains, SRAM’s baby, all that would have to change other than the obvious hubs and frames/forks is the offset of the one piece front chainring.

JBikes
JBikes
7 years ago

Just to throw something out there –

I’d assume lateral stiffness of the wheel hub to drop out interface is primarily accomplished by the axle (on a thru axle set-up). I could see how the increased surface area provided by the “torque cap” system would help a QR, but I am not seeing how it would greatly increase the stiffness of a well made (i.e. to tolerance) thru axle system. It may help decrease stress riser on the hub and dropout, and negate slop issue on the thru axle (manufactured or wear) but I am not fully buying the “stiffness increase”. It would seem a better idea to make the thru axle longer and the mating surfaces in the fork and hub wider to provide more contact area.

EpicThroatBeard
EpicThroatBeard
7 years ago

OMG! if y’all cry any louder the dog’s around you are going start howling like an ambulance just drove by. I wish this new cassette was a thread-on has been said by no-one ever. If only these Maxxis dh tires were sew-ups I’d be so happy. what happened to Campy Diamond, it was so innovative and then…where are my rocks. I just like throwing rocks! i don’t even like bikes!

Quickie
Quickie
7 years ago

I went for a ride today, but I didn’t even enjoy it on my 15 and 142 axles.

hjb
hjb
7 years ago

Ripnshread- interesting comments. I imagine the dream for SRAM would be for Shimano to adopt one of their proprietary standards such as XD Freehub, Torquetube etc. Interesting times ahead!

Bazz
Bazz
7 years ago

Stuff these new standards. I’ve just built a fat bike frame with sliding dropouts so I can run 29er, 26×5″ fat, 650b+ and 29er + on a 197mm thru-axel rear hub. Front is 150mm thru axel.

mateo
mateo
7 years ago

Can’t blame rear axle standards on SRAM. They’re not just going to make up a new size that doesn’t fit any frames.

David French
David French
7 years ago

I don’t think anybody in the above comments is making the complaint that they think new standards* don’t improve performance. Rather, they are worried that if they bought a new bike a couple of years back and need say, a new fork, that all this (seemingly built-in) obsolescence is going to write off an otherwise perfectly good bike just because of parts availability. And I’m with them. I have a fantastic hand made steel bike in the shed and always I think to myself that I hope I don’t break the forks, because my steerer is 1 1/8th and they’re 120mm – so my choice is getting more and more limited. Not only that, but it’s got those bizarre wheels that make you a really slow rider apparently.

*Let’s not call them ‘standards’ any more. Because they’re anything but standard.

substance
substance
7 years ago

Your old bike still works, new stuff doesn’t make it less enjoyable, and won’t make parts for your bike any harder to get.

15×110 will build stiffer wheels than 20×110 because the disc spacing is moving out, so yes, there is more room to spread the flange and there will be a stiffness increase, a big one. Anyone who actually builds wheels will look at the flange spacing and start drooling.

Bike shops do not have stocking issues with this stuff. Anyone who tells you that has no idea what they are talking about, or must work at a shop that does such stupid stuff that it’ll be going out of business soon regardless.

How many people above who claim that this stiffness increase doesn’t matter have actually ridden a bike with this stuff? My money is on none of them.

This is the first significant change in flange spacing for front hubs in the history of mountain bikes. Up until now things really did have to fit into essentially the same space, and to say it won’t provide a noticeable stiffness increase is flat out wrong.

Andrew
Andrew
7 years ago

I don’t need to ride the stuff to know that the bracing angle of the spokes on a 29 inch wheel will not be materially changed by a 2.5mm difference in the spacing of each flange from the centre of the hub.

I will say it again, just so that something else can go in some ears and out of the other. I don’t dispute the marginal performance gains. My issue is that the marginality of the gain does not warrant the hype or the speed of the change to yet another standard so soon after many people have invested in last season’s emperor’s new clothes.

I do accept that nobody is forced to buy this stuff, but at a certain point it will make many otherwise serviceable kit obsolete for a very small performance gain.

substance
substance
7 years ago

In the same way many people would like ‘the industry’ to refer to new standards as ‘systems’ I’d like for bike rumor to change the name of the ‘comments’ section to ‘complaints.’ I feel this would much more accurately describe what you find here.

Shredder
Shredder
7 years ago

good call SRAM, those forks didn’t need the Charger dampers….

Troy
Troy
7 years ago

Everyone is complaining about their wheels and frames becoming obsolete with another axel spacing. Any new axel spacing does not change what you have. Chris king, DT, Phil wood, and many other high end hubs still come in almost all of the axel sizes and spacing. If you have a hub that you can no longer get service parts for because the company has moved onto a new spacing/axel maybe it is that company you should be mad at and not a new “standard”.

jeff
jeff
7 years ago

Keep changing the standards and I’ll just save a couple thousand on my next ride by buying a competitive dirt bike.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.