RockShox Reba Team Review – Video Content

Forks Pro Reviews Video


Review by Robb Sutton
Mountain Biking by 198
Original Article: 2009 RockShox Reba Team Review

For 2009, RockShox completely revamped the Reba lineup. As a previous owner of several RockShox Reba’s, I was excited to see the changes and get this new fork out on the trail for some real testing.

What’s new for the Reba in 2009?

As stated in previous articles, the new RockShox Reba sees a host of new features for 2009.

  • Post Mount Disc Brake Caliper Mounting
  • 20mm Thru Axle Maxle Lite Option
  • 120mm Travel Option
  • Revamped Damping for BlackBox and Motion Control Systems
  • Redesigned Dual Air Spring System
  • Power Bulges on Fork Lowers for Increased Stiffness
  • Hollow AL66 TV Crown on All Models
  • New Look

All of these new features equal a stiffer, lighter Reba for 2009.

2009 RockShox Reba Team

The unit that RockShox sent over for review is the new Team model with the new 20mm Maxle Lite. For 2009, the Team model sees the introduction of the all new BlackBox damping system. This titanium spring tube foundation was based off the original Motion Control design and features a Dual Flow compression and rebound. This equals a more controlled damping system that provides excellent trail feedback at a lighter weight. With these new features, this new RockShox Reba Team weighs in at 3.84 lbs (uncut) including the the new Maxle Lite using a Ultimate Digital Alpine Scale.

Note: Conventional QR based fork weights do not include the quick release. Keep this in mind when comparing fork weights.

For the purposes of this review, I kept the new Reba at the 120mm travel setting. You can adjust the travel down to 100mm and 80mm via the RockShox all-travel spacers, but this does require disassembly. U-Turn travel adjust models use a dial located at the top of the spring side fork leg for travel adjustment.

Note: U-Turn option only available on 26 inch models.

(Visited 20,331 times, 1 visits today)
1 2 3Next

NOTE: There are two ways to comment on our articles: Facebook or Wordpress. Facebook uses your real name and can be posted on your wall while Wordpress uses our login system. Feel free to use either one.

Facebook Comments:



Wordpress Comments:

  • Anonymous says:

    What is the max tire size this fork can accomodate?

  • Mike in Vancouver says:

    “Power bulges”? Yes, indeed, this review does read exactly like a Rock Shox marketing brochure. Let’s have more data and less salesmanship, shall we?

    There is much more that I’d like to know. While Rock Shox offers dramatically improved products than they did, not all of us know how they stack up to the best in the business (Fox, Magura, White Bros., …) Please offer comparisons with data!

    - weight is important. How much was it improved? Is it different for different travel Rebas? 26″ versus 29″ weight? Compared to the competition?
    - controls are important, and are getting more sophisticated all the time. What contols does Reba offer, at what prices, and how do they work? How do they compare with the competition? How effective are they compared to the competition?
    - for those of us who aren’t going to abandon the conventiona quick release wheelsets we already own, does Rock Shox offer conventional QR options, and at what prices?
    - if you’re going to tout stiffness, then please back it up with data. I am so sick and tired of hearing guys brag about running sub-30 psi tires (for more compliance, i.e., LESS stiffness) and then in the next sentence tell me how dramatically better their new “stiffer” fork is. Nobody questions that a siffer fork is better, but no one actually backs up their words with test data, and kno one seems to be able to explain HOW they feel it with low pressure tires. And what about the competition? Magura forks appear to have a vastly stiffer design thanks to the dual arch. Comparisons please!
    - it is stated that “The new BlackBox damping system combined with the more linear design of the new dual air spring creates fork action that is incredibly smooth in both small bump compliance and mid-stroke travel.” This doesn’t make sense to me at all. to offer both small bump compliance and ability to absorb large shocks, a PROGRESSIVE spring rate with low static friction (“stiction”) is needed. No “linear” design would offer the best of both worlds.
    - tell us about the brake mounting. If one has old IS-mount brakes, is there an adapter available, or does the new Reba fork require new post-mount brakes?

    Please update the review to add this important info.

  • Schlachter Factor says:

    While I agree with some of Mike in Vancouver’s comments above about wanting more data, I dissagree with the implication that this review is crap because it left stuff out. MTBR is free to access, and these reviews tend to be very well written. If you want more info from a reviewer, than ask for it politely – otherwise you’re just another whiner walking around with a sense of entitlement. And regarding your comment about spring rate – sorry, wrong. What Robb stated TOTALLY makes sense to me. Everyone who’s ridden enough bikes knows that coil springs set the standard for being the best for both small-and-bit hit compliance. And it’s because they have a naturually LINEAR (NOT PROGRESSIVE) spring rate. I for one am very happy to see more and more use of extra air chambers by shock and fork manufacturers lately for the purpose of achieving a more linear spring rates. As far as I’ve ever been able to tell, the main benefit of a progressive spring rate is simply that it can be used to slow down the travel as the fork or shock approaches the bottom-out. But, I think that there are better technoliges out there now that are superior for achieving that without sacrificing the mid-stroke and almost-full-stroke travel, such as bottom-out springs and position sensitive dampening.

  • Brendan says:

    Mike – a lot of the important information you are requesting can be found from RockShox website – http://www.sram.com/en/rockshox/trail/reba/

    Many reviews are rider dependent and can vary because of riding style and place. You should try and take the review for what it is instead of yelp at the reviewer for taking his time to write this up.

  • Grant says:

    So that near four pound weight is for the fork with the thru axle. I’d love to know if the claimed 3.5 lbs. for the QR version is accurate.

  • Tim says:

    Only posting this for thought. Not directed in any manner toward MTBR.
    Power Bulges???? To put it as simply as possible, “A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link.” So how does making it fat at the bottom help? I’m thinking it helps in reducing time and cost in the manufacturing process and being wrote off with a buzzwork like “stifness” Only my two cents though!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*