March 27, 2026

Grips Are Not Rocket Science. That Is Why They Matter

Every few years, the bike industry rediscovers the grip. To be fair, not just the grip. Cycling has a habit of rediscovering the wheel too.

A patent appears. A new internal structure. A clever construction. A design that promises to solve what previous grips somehow failed to solve.

The latest example is this recent article from Singletracks, covering Fox’s newly granted patent for a “Fiber Core” grip. The concept uses a braided mesh structure, described as working like a finger trap, paired with elastomeric material. The stated goal is simple enough: make a grip that is more comfortable and easier to install, while avoiding some of the compromises of traditional lock-on grips.

If you want to go deeper into the technical side, you can also look at the patent itself here.

That is a legitimate design question.

But it is also a good moment to say something that should be obvious and somehow rarely is:

Grips are important, but they should not be over-engineered.

The problem is real

The starting point is not stupid.

Traditional lock-on grips often use a rigid inner core and clamps. That makes installation easier, but it also takes away usable thickness from the rubber or padding for a given outer diameter. Foam-style friction grips can feel excellent, but they can be tighter by design and less convenient to remove. Fox is clearly trying to sit somewhere between those two worlds.

That is worth thinking about.

And to be clear, we are not against innovation. AMS has innovative products too, protected by patents, and we know very well that new ideas can sometimes be ridiculed in comments before riders even understand what they are looking at. Comments are not the final judge of a product.

But there is still an important distinction:

Thinking seriously about grips is not the same as overcomplicating them.

And, as we know, the world of patents can sometimes drift into wonderfully ridiculous territory. Not every patented idea deserves to become a product, and not every product idea becomes better just because it can be drawn in a patent filing.

What a grip actually needs to do

A grip does not need to be technologically exotic to be good.

It needs to do a small number of things very well.

It needs to provide consistent grip in real conditions. It needs to stay secure on the bar. It needs to distribute pressure sensibly. It needs to suit the rider’s hands and preferences. It needs to last long enough to be trusted.

And above all, it needs to get out of the way.

That last part is often forgotten. A good grip should not feel like a science project. It should feel natural enough that the rider stops noticing it.

That is the job.

The comments are often more interesting than the patent

This is often true in cycling.

The Singletracks article itself is fair. It explains the concept clearly and does not pretend the product is already proven. In fact, it raises the most important practical concern: if the system relies on tension and compression in the way a finger trap does, what happens when the grip is compressed during riding? Could that reduce security rather than increase it?

That is exactly the kind of question that matters more than the novelty of the concept.

Then the rider comments do what rider comments sometimes do best: they drag the conversation back to reality.

One rider says foam grips are not actually difficult to install or remove if you use isopropyl alcohol and an air compressor, and describes the concept as “an expensive and complicated solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.” Another questions how the design would really work without clamps on both ends, since a finger trap tightens under pulling tension and loosens when that tension is gone.

That may sound blunt. But it is a healthy kind of blunt.

Because it reminds us that grips live in a category where cleverness means very little unless it survives contact with riding.

The grip category does not reward complexity for its own sake

This is what makes grips such an interesting product category.

They are small. They look simple. But they sit at the intersection of biomechanics, surface feel, diameter, pressure distribution, weather, glove use, riding style, and rider preference.

That is already enough complexity.

A grip does not become smarter just because the internal structure looks smarter in a patent drawing.

Sometimes the smartest grip is simply the one that has the right diameter for the rider’s hands, the right texture for their glove habits, the right balance between support and feedback, and the consistency to feel the same after many rides as it did on day one.

That is not anti-innovation. It is just a better definition of innovation.

That is also why we built the AMS Grip Finder. Not because grips need more noise around them, but because riders need more clarity.

Different riders need different grips

This is where the real conversation should be.

Not every rider wants the same thing at the bar.

Some riders want more direct trail feedback. Some want more support under the palm. Some want a calmer feel over long descents. Some ride with gloves all the time. Some ride without gloves and care much more about surface comfort. Some have small hands and prefer easier finger wrap. Others want more fill and more stability.

This is why grips deserve real thought.

Not because they need to become more technical-looking, but because riders are different.

The important variables are already there.

What good grip design actually looks like

Good grip design is not mysterious.

It means asking the right questions.

Is the diameter right for the rider’s hands? Is the texture right for gloves or no gloves? Is the support where it needs to be? Is the feel too vague, or too harsh? Does the grip stay consistent in sweat, dust, and rain? Does it last? Does it stay put?

Those are not boring questions. They are the real questions.

And once you take them seriously, a lot of the industry noise starts to look less impressive.

A note on Fox and Singletracks

None of this is an attack on Fox.

And it is definitely not a criticism of Singletracks for covering the patent.

Quite the opposite.

It is good when grips are treated as important enough to deserve serious product analysis. It is good when media covers design ideas in a category that is too often reduced to color, sponsorship, or vague claims about comfort and control.

So thank you to Singletracks for covering it, and thank you to Fox for reminding people that grips are still an open design problem.

We just think the answer is unlikely to be found in complexity alone.