Pinkbike gave you the first look at Fox's inverted DH fork when Gee Atherton did an early morning practice run at the US Open with it bolted to the front of his bike. It garnered a massive amount of attention, and we took some bold guesses as to the details of the prototype slider, but Fox shared the real story with us during our visit to their new building in Scotts Valley, California. According to Fox, there were a few different versions being tested under their RAD (
Racing Application Development) program, mostly under Gee and Aaron Gwin, that focused more on chassis performance than any new damper technology. The fork utilizes Kashima coated 36mm stanchions that slide into massive 48mm upper tubes, and there were a number of different axle setups that were investigated on track. Fox didn't elaborate on that last point, but we would have to assume that they are either referring to a larger diameter axle, or possibly even a non-round version, in an effort to increase torsional stiffness (
the fork pictured uses a standard 20mm axle setup).
We were told that this particular version uses the same FIT RC2 internals as a team version of the Fox 40 would, although we wouldn't be surprised if there are some far from standard components inside. The spring leg in particular looks to use a different arrangement, with its preload dial at the bottom of the leg and a 5mm hex bolt at the top. The preload dial clearly means that the fork is coil sprung, but the 5mm hex bolt could possibly be some sort of air volume adjustment feature, or maybe serve an entirely different function.
The outcome? After much testing it was decided to discontinue development of the inverted fork, simply because Fox couldn't attain the torsional stiffness that they were looking for without it becoming much too heavy for their liking. Word is that both Gee and Aaron were big fans of how the prototype fork handled fast, rough sections of trail head on - thanks to the increased fore/aft stiffness of the inverted design - but felt that the standard right side up arrangement of the current Fox 40 had the inverted fork soundly beaten in the corners. Fox admitted that they could likely remedy this by added more material, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of competitive downhillers would likely balk at purchasing a new fork that weighs substantially more than what they are currently using, even if it did offer advancements in damper technology or other areas.
While there are surely going to be riders out there who are disappointed that they won't be able to ride an inverted Fox fork anytime soon, Fox doesn't look at this project as a failure, but rather an exploratory exercise to learn from. You may never be able to use one of these forks, but you may be riding suspension technology in the near future that owes some of its DNA to the fork pictured above.
www.foxracingshox.com
"Suckers, they'll buy anything with our sticker... *Laughter all the way to the bank* "
EDIT: not you sniggles, 2 above.
As for the flex, I have to say that some people actually think of it in a positive way.
I can't talk about my own experiences on this yet, but I was riding a 40 the last two seasons and now I'm going to test a Dorado for 2012 in the same ol' rig - so I'm pretty excited about the difference. A shootout between the stiffest fork on the market against the "flexy" Dorado should be really interesting, as the difference couldn't be any greater. To be honset, I can't really imagine that there is a fork out there which actually works better than my 2010 forty, that's how good it is.
But fact is, I heard about lots of people who changed from Fox to Manitou and were absolutely stoked, but I don't know nobody who did it the other way round..?
If the Dorado can handle Romo's riding style, it can handle mine for sure... So I guess the flex argument could be more of a internet half-knowledge gossip talk and maybe a way of marketing weapon from FOX against Manitous Up-Side-Down competition, than a real well-founded argument.
My guess is, that IF this fork was to hit the market any time soon (which obviously is not the case), it would NOT be a substitute for the 40 anyway, since it is just a different product with different pro's and con's. I'm all for diversity in the productline.
USD: more performance, more flex, more maintenece
STD: Less performance, less maintenecns, less flex
so in conclusion: USD IS MOAR!!!
Anyways its good to see fairly direct evidence a manufacturer trying something new, letting the pros test it and tell them it doesn't work the best and not just building it and selling it anyways to feed the ever efficient beast of the 'hype-machine'. Not that this is particularly new, but it's nice to see it happening.
From Wikipedia Molybdenum disulfide: "Appearance: black solid"
From Wikipedia Dry lubricants: Anti-friction coatings: ".., these lubricants bond to the metal surface and form a dark gray solid film."
I'll eat my balls if the gold colour is there for any other reason than aesthetics.
www.foxracingshox.com/technology.php?m=bike&t=kc&ref=lnav_tech (the vid)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum_disulfide
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_lubricant#AF-coatings
I bet we will see this thing htting the shelves sooner as expected... when the first decent 29er dh rig is availible. Gogo Intense 2951
Although they take a lot to get used to the look. And there some you do not want to see at all: www.littermag.com/techno/bcd29er/1.htm
I was going to write an article on it and the first manufacturer I approached said it was not an issue.
@jack clarke - what you say makes sense. It was reported on pinkbike some years ago that when they were redeveloping the Boxxer they tried larger diameter stanchions and the riders didn't like them and the stopwatch agreed - they found that the stiffer stanchions had less fore-aft flex and didn't move out of the way of rocks as quickly. Riders felt more beat up. So they wen't back to their regular diameter. Mind you, that was not an inverted fork so they didn't have to worry about lateral flex in the corners as mentioned in this article.
To simplify what I'm trying to say I'll put it into a simpler analogy. Think of Guiness, it looks black but when you pour it and more light can pass through you can see that it isn't black but more a goldish colour (much like Kashima come to think about it). I also noticed the Kashima has changed colour over the years, the 2012 ones seem much more gold in comparison to the 2011 models imo, maybe they did add a little bit of dye in the electrolysis process as a selling point but the gold colour in general could be genuine to the coating. It'd be interesting to see how it would look on a different metal though for sure to test this theory.
The kashima did get darker for 2012. a higher concentrate molybdenum was used. they say its a touch better. like 3% or something
I love my shivers and always will....and a new pair would be sick!!! :-)
if you ask me id rather buy this kowa than fox cause is cheaper and "maybe" better than fox, fox is just big name nothing more!
anyway KASHIMA is kowa technology since many years, and fox stanchons are made by KOWA!
As stated above in my comment, I would fully subscribe to your view regarding oppinions of the Dorado as well as the marketing procedure of FOX...
But your second comment is not really sophisticated, is it? The reason for the use of their 40mm tubes seems to be more of a cost-saving method to produce a performing prototype of a completely different product by using as many already available production parts as possible and therefore not having to design and produce every single bit completely new. Despite the fact, that Fox Shox definitely has the means to invest millions in product development, it doesn't mean they have to pour money down the drain. Other than that, your argument has a point though..
Now the real question is: I wonder if it will use another axle "standard"...
But then again you possibly underestimate the idea behind their statement that should tell us "well, it's just not possible to build an USD fork that is up to our standards... so you better be buying our regular stuff instead of anything else, because we are better than the rest.. especially Manitou with them USD crap".
All the manufacture's are looking for that next improvement, but now its got to the point with suspension where they cant go further with their current set-up's in terms of "radical new changes" so everyone is trying to refine what they've got! Question is what will they do when they cant refine any more!
And sketchy... imagine this... you take a 150/1500 or 250/2500 etc truck out, you realize your axles in your truck, all the way through a 750/7500 truck, use clips just a bit thicker than mars's e-clips to hold the axles in.
But then again, all the people who think Mars's e clips are shady have never EVER seen the inside of the rear end on their vehicle. Soo.. Please...
If a vehicles axles (including rims, tires, rotors etc can stay on... with a tiny clip, I'm sure on a DH mtb it will be fine). Also not that marz made forks with such clips for over half a decade, and never had one truly bad failure in those years.
- that the air is lighter than oil, hence they moved the expansion bladder to the top (read inverted FIT),
- the old Kashima is crap and it rubs off , hence the new improved one (improved with ?)
Off topic: Fox technicians won't tell me how much of which oil should go into my RC4 damper. I figure the company is hungry for my money
BUT anyway, I run 10 year old Stratos Super8's and inverted forks are the best.
Better yet for weight weenies and other custom setting freaks, i know for a fact how easy it would be to convert a 40 to a full air cartridge.
I would instead try to improve the current model as I highly doubt the new inverted version would be lighter than the current model.
List of revisions I would like to see:
- torx bolt all around
- Kashima on the the rebound compression cartridge rod
- metal or aluminum insert for the lower 4 bolts that pinches the axle
- 1 piece spacer on the spring side
- put some motor oil in the lowers instead of the grease and suspension fluid mess. (the cartridge is seal so find a better slick compound that will lubricate the main seals and bushings.
www.kashima-coat.com/en/company/company_history.php
www.kashima-coat.com/pdf/English_pamphlet.pdf
exactly... the thing is, that motox forks weigh like 4 times as much... surely this makes a difference in the possibilites to add stiffness.
But then again, who said, that flex is so bad?
When I got it right, one of the biggest Pro's of carbon as a construction material for frames is, that it flexes and therefore handles much butter as it has something like a built-in suspension system to absorb highspeed vibrations.
So what you are saying is, that the fork of a 450kg motobike like the Honda Goldwing is weighing 3 times as much as the fork of a light motox bike, just so the weight is equivalent? That, Sir, is bullcrap.
Actually we are talking like 6lb for a DH fork on a bike that weighs ca. 39lb and about 17-19lb for a motox fork for a bike that weighs 330lb and up(!) WITH fuel.
So if you'd really done your math, you would have realized that a DH fork makes about 15% of the overall bike weight, whereas the motox fork makes like 5% of the overall weight of the motobike. This is anything, but NOT equivalent.
And thats exactly my point... you don't need to double the material and therefore the weight, to double the stiffness.
Take a look at the development of bikes... a quarter lighter and twice as stiff as a few years ago.
Cheers..
So, a bike that weights 500lbs... and has forks that weight say 20lbs at very most... do the math on the ratio. 20lbs to 500lbs. And 6lbs at 38lbs. See the ratio difference.
And a quarter lighter and twice as stiff comment... yea... also twice as weak. Some of us have forks that have seen the most insane beatings and crashes and have still lived without breaking after 10 years. Try that with your new ultra light forks. There is a reason forks are obsolete as fast as computer equipment now... it's called fadsters. Point is, many people (non pro) go to races on stuff from the early 2k's like shivers, and spank the shit out of people timewise running top end new stuff.
New doesn't = better. It ='s lighter... but weaker. And that is a fact. Put ANY and I mean ANY new DH fork against my Avalanche mTn 10 forks... and If you or anyones forks break before mine during riding... I'll literally sign you off a 5,000$ check. New ='s weak and replacing every season or two, old ='s beating the shit out of them for 10+ years and still riding like new.
btw, by adding a LB to my shivers.. my shivers are stiffer than EVERY non USD fork on the market. Bar none. Stainless Axle... no flex. My shivers are stiffer than Foes F1 forks which have a crazy big axle OD. So for the extra weight nothing compares to stiffness. No fox forgery, no rock shoxfailurely, no 888 crapery nothing.
But then, for making my point on the actual subject, namely the weight ratio discussion, I figured it would be helpful to talk in lbs since you startet the discussion with lbs. What is more, I really don't understand what your point is in using my own argument in which I advised YOU of the significant ratio difference and therefore disabled your bullcrap equality argument, and now YOU are trying to tell me something about the different weight ratio?
I mean.... really?
But wow, it definitely made you look really smart insulting me how stupid it was, to switch between KG and lbs, although it was just in the first and examplery sentence that I used KG.
Now to get to your stiffer and weaker comment. I was talking stiffness - not durability.
The production technology has increased, so has the stiffness, but there is less material.. so it's just obvious that i.e. the frame does get dents when it crashes on stones and gets serious damage.
But then again, why is it, that the bikes get lighter and lighter? It's not, that companies want to reduce the durability, it's because WE, the consumers, ARE ASKING for it. Try to sell a wheelset with like 2,2kg and just NOBODY will buy it... it has to be beyond 2000 grams by now.
The demand induces the supply, bro.
Besides that, I'm actually in complete agreement about the fact, that parts should not get too light at the expense of durability, that's exactly what I wrote a couple of lines further down to some guy that foolishly demanded a cut of weight from the 40 - and got neg propped for it.
So to sum it up, you actually do agree with everything I said, but you just needed to distinguish yourself by talking pseudo knowledge bullcrap and then trying to talk yourself out of it, so nobody notices that it was actually loads of stupid meaningless words?
www.dh-rangers.com/anhang.php?id=22892&ad=br&adw=170
www.kashima-coat.com/pdf/English_pamphlet.pdf
Read the sources before you post some moronic comments.
fox stay on standard 40 fork...
maby you see this on some bike for 3 years... not earlyer
sure bike technology is cool, but what..?
~ from a Fox Fan
Not to disgrace any names here, in fact I would love to ride a 888 Ti one time soon, but then again I'm not up for the abuse those guys can throw at their forks.
"So, unsprung weight, is this an issue on MTB forks? In our opinion, very little. The total weight of bicycle forks nowadays is so light that unsprung weight is negligible between inverted and standard."
Pick up a set of cast magnesium lowers from a set of 40s and compare them to the stanchions. Now compare the weight to a DH wheel with a DH tyre on it. The difference between RSU and USD when compared to the unchangeable unsprung mass (the wheel) is negligible.
If the weight was that important they would all use the smallest brakes and rotors they could, including the exotic carbon rotors.
As for what the pro's say, what is said in the press is not necessarily what they say off the record ;o)