3 MTB tech trends that won’t go mainstream — and 1 that already has

Any opinions expressed in this article belong to the author alone, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Singletracks.com.

At Eurobike in Frankfurt, Germany this week, a slew of new mountain bike products were unveiled, including many that are truly innovative and exciting. But that’s not to say that they’re all going to be the next big thing. Though all of this buzz-worthy MTB tech will surely find a market, in the long run I believe some designs will prove to be more niche than others.

32-inch tires and wheels

As a mountain bike journalist, I would surely benefit from another MTB wheel-size war (think of all the content!), though I have to admit that I don’t see the 32-inch mountain bike wheel gaining a lot of traction beyond bikes for exceptionally tall riders and maybe, eventually, XC racing. Though Maxxis officially launched their long-rumored 32″ Aspen mountain bike tire at the Taipei Bike Show earlier this year, and this Bike Radar article suggests more Maxxis 32-inch tire models could be in the works, my guess is we won’t see massive consumer adoption of this wheel size.

David Folch’s company, Dirty Sixer, is taking orders for a 32-inch hardtail MTB, and in an interview with Singletracks earlier this year, he made it clear that the bigger wheel size isn’t a threat to 29ers. “It’s not about replacing 29 or signing the death of 26. I’m totally against that idea. I still believe that all wheel sizes have a usage, depending on the rider’s height [and] depending on what you need from your bike.”

In the same Bike Radar article linked above, Mike Hörner from Maxxis is quoted as saying that their 32-inch tire was developed in partnership with an Olympic MTB race team, though ultimately a complete bike wasn’t ready in time for the 2024 Games. I suspect we will see a cross-country bike with 32-inch tires in a pro race in the next year or two. However, whether the size takes off or not will come down to how the bike performs, which is obviously a big if. It’s worth a try, but don’t expect to see everyone at your local trail rolling on 32s anytime soon.

Inverted forks

Fox made waves with the release of the Podium inverted fork this week, and it’s clear a lot of riders are anxious to give it a try. Seeing a major brand like Fox commit to this unusual design is a big deal, but my guess is we’ll continue to see limited adoption despite hearing from experts for years about the advantages of an upside-down fork. Why?

For starters, inverted forks like the $1,999 Fox Podium are much more expensive than traditional MTB forks. It’s possible the costs will come down with mass production, but forks are already expensive, easily costing over $1,000. For the majority of riders, the advantages are not worth the added cost.

Not only is the Fox Podium enduro fork more expensive than other forks from the brand, it’s also significantly heavier than premium Fox forks with a similar amount of travel. Even the RockShox RS-1 inverted cross-country fork, launched in 2014 and priced at $1,865, weighed much more than today’s lightweight XC forks like the SID SL. Though riders who tried it loved it, the RockShox RS-1 was later discontinued, presumably due in part to a lack of demand.

But maybe things will be different for long-travel, big diameter forks. Smaller brands like Wren and Intend have offered inverted mountain bike forks for several years now, with varying degrees of success. Like 32-inch wheels, I think there will continue to be a small market for inverted forks, namely racing where cost isn’t a consideration. However, in my opinion, it’s unlikely we’ll see mainstream adoption given how well traditional forks perform for most riders.

Gearboxes

I’ll be the first to admit that mountain bike drivetrains aren’t perfect, and that gearboxes address a number of common complaints. Namely, they’re more robust for riding off-road and require very little maintenance. And yet, I don’t think we’ll see gearboxes taking off anytime soon.

Yes, gearboxes are heavy and expensive, just like inverted forks, but that’s not the biggest problem in my mind. Rather, it’s the fact that bike frames have to be designed specifically for a gearbox. Small and boutique builders have an advantage when it comes to adoption, but to get to a true mass market, big bike brands need to be convinced there’s enough demand to split their production line between two very different drivetrain setups.

Then there’s the matter of competition. Bike manufacturers can build frames that work with Shimano or SRAM, TRP or Box. When it comes to gearboxes, there isn’t a frame mount standard yet, and really only one player, Pinion. Perhaps with competition from brands like Praxis, we’ll see improvements (including standardization) that make gearboxes more widely appealing, though this will take time.

Now, if a World Cup DH racer wins the (still unclaimed) Gates Carbon Drive €100,000 Belted Purse aboard a gearbox bike, there’s a good chance we could see more widespread gearbox adoption, particularly in the world of gravity bikes. Still, that’s not a big category within mountain biking, and given the weight and cost of current systems, it’s unlikely we’ll see many trail bikes running gearboxes in the future.

Electronic shifting

Whether we like it or not, electronic shifting is here to stay. The two biggest drivetrain companies on the planet are all in on wireless electronic shifting, and according to our own surveys, the majority of everyday mountain bikers (51% at last check) have already adopted the tech.

And yet, even when a trend like electronic shifting does go mainstream, it doesn’t mean the end for competing tech. Purely mechanical drivetrain systems will always exist, and not only that, I predict they’ll become even more robust and reliable. But for the majority of the mid- to high-end market for mountain bikes, electronic drivetrains are not a passing fad.

It’s good to have options

It can be easy to get caught up in debates about the latest mountain bike tech, but in the end, riders are the real winners. Not only do we have more component choices today than ever before, we also get the benefit of the strongest designs that survive an intensely competitive race scene.

Your turn: What do you think about these tech trends? Are there others I missed that are more or less promising?