Head to Head Review: RockShox Zeb 2025 vs Fox 38 – Pinkbike

This isn’t the first time we’ve pitted the RockShox Zeb against the Fox 38, and it certainly won’t be the last. The two companies continue to battle for dominance, rolling out small and not-so-small overhauls each season in the quest for that top spot. That’s not to say there aren’t other worthy competitors, but for the sake of this comparison, we’ve focused on the two brands you’re most likely to see specified on a new mountain biking this year.

Testing involved several days of back-to-back testing at the Whistler Bike Park (I know, that sounds difficult), as well as several other rides in Squamish, British Columbia, and Bellingham, Washington.

Weight and price

Cold, hard facts are the easiest to compare – there’s no need to try to put feelings into words, or find a better adjective for “squishy.” As for price, both forks cost over $1,000, but the 38 costs $90 more than the Zeb, at $1,249 versus $1,159 USD.

The weight is close enough that I call it a draw. The Zeb is a bit lighter, especially when factoring in the brake adapter, you’ll need to use a 200mm rotor on the 38, but ultimately gram count shouldn’t be a factor decisive in this category – both forks have been designed with more emphasis on strength and performance rather than saving grams.

Purge valves

Both the 38 and Zeb are equipped with purge valves designed to vent any unwanted air pressure built up in the lower sections. The 38 uses a push-button design and the Zeb uses a threaded bolt that can be pushed back slightly to release trapped air.

This threaded bolt design is likely the result of Fox’s lawsuit against RockShox, but it actually has an unforeseen benefit: On Whistler’s new Fitzimmons chairlift, the rack can come into contact with a fork’s bleeder valves, leaving a trail of oil escaping as it rises. This can’t happen with the Zeb, thanks to the forced overhaul.

Fox 38 Features and Updates

For 2025, Fox has revised its Grip2 shock, splitting it into the Grip X2 version reviewed here, and the Grip X, which is aimed more at trail and all-mountain bikes.

The Grip setting. There is also a two-stage “hat” that is used to determine the compression adjustment range at high speeds, and it can be replaced to suit the rider’s needs.

The ring design of the 38 has also been changed. Previously there were vertical grooves in the rings which were supposed to aid the flow of oil, but it turned out that these grooves increased the amount of friction, so they were removed and the rings now have a surface uniform.

RockShox Zeb Features and Updates

The changes to the Zeb’s shock design were not as extensive as those made to the 38, but they also involved an increase in the amount of oil flowing through the damper circuit. According to RockShox, there is now 68 percent more oil flow in the low-speed circuit, meaning lighter riders or those who prefer less low-speed compression have more usable options.

Along with the increased oil flow, the new shock absorber has a larger high-speed compression pyramid. This increased size allows for greater oil flow restriction when the high-speed compression is fully closed, increasing the amount of damping.

RockShox also updated its bushing production process and implemented it on the Zeb, Lyrik and Pike 2025 forks. The changes to the manufacturing process were intended to improve consistency and ensure that there is the less friction possible on all models.

Testing Basics

The underpinnings of the Zeb and the 38 seem to be getting more and more similar, so we headed to the Whistler Bike Park to do several rounds of back-to-back testing to see how all the recent changes felt in the real world.

Our main test track was Upper and Lower Whistler DH, which has a good mix of challenging, higher-speed sections mixed with slightly slower, steeper sections that require heavy braking. This is a track that wouldn’t be out of place in an enduro race, and the higher speeds and hard, repeated impacts make it ideal for fork testing.

In order to keep things as consistent as possible, both forks were set up with similar sag and enough volume spacers that a similar amount of travel was used at the end of each stroke. Once we had each fork tuned to our liking, it was time to start doing back-to-back rides to really understand the similarities and differences.

Facility

As far as setup goes, Henry and I sit on different sides of the fence. My setup for both forks is close to the manufacturers recommended settings, and if it deviates it ends up being on the lighter side of low and high speed compression damping.

Henry has fallen down a rabbit hole of data acquisition lately and tends to run his high-speed compression fully closed, his low-speed compression almost closed, and his rebound very fast, with higher sag. It’s definitely not a setup I would run, but it works for him, so I try not to argue, at least not too much.

The good news is that we were both able to find setups that were comfortable and suited to our riding styles, which is really the main goal and speaks to the range of possibilities that both forks possess.

On the track

When it comes to the initial hit, the Zeb feels more eager to embark on its journey, with a more buoyant feel compared to the 38. This leads to an overall more muted feel than the 38 – the Zeb seems to round the edges. impacts before they reach your hands to a greater extent than the 38. Now I should point out that neither fork was harsh and I didn’t experience any unexpected hand/fore-end issues. arm even after doing laps for several days in a row, but for riders who prefer a plush, almost coil-shaped fork, the Zeb gets it right here.

To analyze it a little further, the Zeb gives the impression of prioritizing comfort a little more than precision. He is very eager to embark on his journey and also to use this first part of his journey. “Busier” is the term that came to mind when trying to compare the Zeb and the 38 – the 38 has a more immediate, direct feel that lets you know exactly what your front wheel is doing. Henry’s analogy was that this Zeb sucked itself into the ground, and the 38 sank into the ground, which I think is appropriate.

Henry and I were able to get rebound speeds as fast as we wanted with both forks, something the previous Zeb riders lacked. Interestingly, the new Zeb’s rebound circuit is the same as before, meaning it could be increased oil flow and a stack of compression shims, or possibly better ring tolerances which allow for faster return speed.

Bottom resistance can easily be changed by adding or subtracting volume spacers, and I was happy to install a spacer in each fork. This setup allowed me to travel long enough to work, with a little extra in reserve for those unexpected big hits.

Is there an ideal driver for either fork? If pressed, I’d say the 38 looks “racier”, not in a skimpy outfit. That aforementioned direct feel makes it seem like it wants to handle an impact as quickly as possible and keep moving forward, exactly what you want when you’re trying to be the first to cross the finish line. Sure, the Zeb can certainly be ridden, and it already has plenty of podiums under its belt, but I’d say the ideal candidate for the Zeb is someone who places grip and comfort higher on their priority list , and doesn’t do it. think about a slightly more active front end.

Sustainability

Neither fork developed any issues in our testing, and they both saw extensive use in wet and muddy conditions, as well as on drier, almost dusty tours. There was no unwanted ring play, squeaky crowns, or gasket issues to speak of. I would call this part a draw – the basics are taken care of and both forks can withstand harsh conditions without any issues. We’ll update this if anything happens, but so far there’s been no cause for concern.

---

Verdict

---

But wait, there’s more. If you can’t stand videos and don’t want to read all those pesky words, how about listening to a podcast instead? In this episode, Henry and I dig a little deeper into how we tested, our setup preferences, and then play teacher to assign a score to each range.