Why no rigid fork 29ers?

I have been going back and forth regarding my next bike. I have been torn between a hardtail 29er and a gravel bike.

I realized that what I want is the MTB set up that is as light weight as a gravel bike.

The only want to get the 29er close in weight is to swap out the heavy suspension forks for rigid carbon forks. I can save a whopping 3 pounds that way, way more than any other mod.

Unfortunately, there are very few rigid fork 29ers. Why is this the case, as a really light 29er can do it all.

Why do people tolerate pig heavy forks? They add a massive amount of weight.

RadDogRoadWarrior wrote:

I have been going back and forth regarding my next bike. I have been torn between a hardtail 29er and a gravel bike.

I realized that what I want is the MTB set up that is as light weight as a gravel bike.

The only want to get the 29er close in weight is to swap out the heavy suspension forks for rigid carbon forks. I can save a whopping 3 pounds that way, way more than any other mod.

Unfortunately, there are very few rigid fork 29ers. Why is this the case, as a really light 29er can do it all.

Why do people tolerate pig heavy forks? They add a massive amount of weight.

 

ccand51997 wrote:Why do people tolerate pig heavy forks? They add a massive amount of weight.

Because weight is a massively overrated performance parameter.  What type of tires you run has a much greater effect on performance, for example, than weight.  Plus, it depends on where you ride.  The ride I did last night, on my dual-suspension gravel/all-road bike, would have been some rough climbing on a rigid bike and then any downhills I would have left anything rigid in the dust.  
I have not power-meter tested it yet since I bought and built up the all-road dual, but I suspect that I climb faster on the dual despite it being 4-5 pounds heavier because the dual is so smooth over the bumps and rocks.
Now, in some other place, my dual is probably overkill, but that does not change the fact that weight is not that significant.  On a climb, a one pound difference is about 1 watt. So your question about the fork is that a 3-watt difference on a climb in exchange for a massive improvement in comfort and speed going downhill is why you put up with a suspension fork.  Meanwhile, the difference between a fast-rolling tire and a slow one can easily be 5-10 watts per tire. 

If you are trail riding then you should have appropriate geometry, suspension fork, appropriate tires, and a dropper post.  

Maybe you are looking for a 5-10 year old 29er? Or one of the new MTB-influenced gravel bikes like the BMC Urs or Knolly Cache?

advcyclist wrote:

Sort of true... A reduction of rotational weight (Wheels, Tires, Hubs, spokes) would yield a greater advantage on climbs than just about any static/unsprung weight. That said; I have been riding and racing rigid singlespeed MTB for over a decade and I can tell you that a rigid fork will climb better than any suspension fork, hands down.

With every pedal stroke on any suspension fork; there will be a parasitic loss of climbing efficiency; that's just plain physics (Re: Newton's 3rd law). Even with a "lockout" the fork stanchions will move slightly and, to overcome that parasitic loss; the rider on a bike with a suspension fork/shock will have to put out more power than the rider on a rigid fork. Over time... the rider on a rigid fork has expended less energy.