I’ve got a 34 on my 140mm 29er hardcore hardtail. It does the job perfectly and I’ve never once felt I needed a bigger fork. I can see the benefit of a better fork(damper/air spring) but more stiffness isn’t always better. It just makes me think of how many products are now having additional compliance designed back into them(wheels, bars, grips).
It’s a multifaceted thing really, the theory (that TBF mostly fork manufacturers espouse) is that fore/aft rigidity improves the forks ability to not bind up on it’s bushes and thus provide better small bump sensitivity, at least in a straight line, and mostly upright. If it’s still such a benefit once you’re over at a steeper lean angles, with a bit of torsional (steering) load, on rough surfaces or if some lateral compliance might be a benefit sometimes is a separate discussion I suppose, and on a single crown fork the steerer is pretty much always the most heavily loaded point (mechanical advantage and all that) and they are pretty much fixed in (outside) diameter…
It is interesting to watch those PB ‘huck to flat’ Slow-Mo videos as much to see how the forks behave/flex as it is to watch the back end doing it’s thing…
Who still remembers riding 32mm Boxxers?
I loved them TBH, but If you wanted a beefier, stiffer (DH) fork back in the early 00’s it was going to be a Monster T or… Nope that was about it, definitely not the lightweight option, so the Boxxer sold well for a long while. Ahh, Simpler times.
Eventually the “stanchion wars” kicked off properly with the competition introducing the 888 and the 40 etc, and 17 odd years later here we are worrying about +/-2mm of stanchion diameter on a trail fork with 20% less travel than those old DH bikes, and a single crown, which 99% of riders can’t really discern any meaningful difference in.
RS and Fox Marketing have done a great job of selling varying sizes of tubes IMO. I believe the proper term is “market segmentation”…