Inverted, Carbon Fiber XC Fork
The RS-1 name may be one that some riders recognize from many years ago, but the fork itself isn't like anything else currently on the market. Yes, there have been plenty of upside down forks over the years, and even a few single crown versions, but none have benefited from the all-encompassing approach to fork design that RockShox has put towards the RS-1. This includes not only the lightweight, one-piece carbon fiber upper legs and steerer tube assembly that only recently became possible to manufacture, but also the proprietary Predictive Steering design that includes the fork's dropouts, the clever hub, and how the two mate together to add rigidity to the fork. All of that doesn't come without a hefty price tag, though: the $1,865 USD RS-1 has been designed with cross-country racing and trail riding in mind, and can be run in 80, 100, or 120mm travel settings depending on how you're looking to use RockShox's new 1,666 gram fork.
RockShox RS-1 Details
• Purpose: cross-country / trail
• Chassis: inverted, one-piece carbon upper, 32mm stanchions
• Steerer: tapered carbon
• Spring: Solo Air w/ Bottomless Tokens
• Travel: 80 / 100 / 120mm
• Damper: Accelerator cartridge
• Lockout: XLoc hydraulic remote
• External adjustments: low-speed rebound, spring pressure
• Offset options: 46 / 51mm
• Wheel options: 29” only, with proprietary hub
• Axle: Predictive Steering w/ 15mm Maxle Ultimate
• Weight: 1,666 grams
• Predictive Steering hub MSRP: $238 USD
• MSRP: $1,865 USD
Proprietary Hub - The stout looking carbon upper structure of the RS-1 certainly adds rigidity to the package, but RockShox says that the real key to them being able to manufacture an inverted, single crown fork with adequate torsional stiffness is its Predictive Steering design. That name refers to the fork's larger than usual closed dropouts and the Torque Tube hub that houses a pair of massive sealed bearings. There's one bearing on each side, with them sitting on a 27mm diameter axle that spans the hub, and a 15mm Maxle Ultimate runs through the center of all of this to compress the left and right dropouts together onto the matching hub-ends that fit into the dropouts. The fork and the $238 USD hub must be used in unison for the fork to function - there is no subbing in a different hub - which ties RS-1 owners to the SRAM and DT Swiss branded hubs, as the company has no plans to license the design out to anyone else.
Damper Tech - RockShox has long used different variations of their Motion Control cartridge in their SID cross-country forks, but with the advent of the Charger damper that's employed in the Pike and BoXXer forks, it's clear that they are taking a different approach to damper design. This change consists of going from the emulsion dampers (
a design where the damper oil is free to mix with air in the system) to a closed design that utilizes a compensator to, you guessed it, compensate for the volume displacement of the damper shaft entering the cartridge under compression. This layout means that there is essentially no air inside of the damper, and also back-pressure from the compensator, thereby greatly limiting the chance of the oil foaming and the fork acting unpredictably. That's all well and good, but due to weight concerns with the RS-1, RockShox decided to go a different route than to drop in their much lauded Charger damper.
Enter the Accelerator damper cartridge. Rather than an extruded bladder that expands under compression as used in the Pike, RockShox has gone with a more conventional spring-backed internal floating piston, otherwise known as an IFP. As the fork compresses and the Accelerator's damper rod goes into the cartridge, the IFP and the spring behind it are compressed and the added displacement is possible - without it, there would need to be air in the system, and the fork wouldn't compress at all if the cartridge was simply full of oil and had no compensator. After that, as the fork extends, the spring behind the IFP provides back pressure to keep the oil from foaming. It's not a new theory by any stretch of the imagination - it's essentially what's inside of a shock's piggyback, but with a spring rather than air pressure - but it is very effective. RockShox's dual-stage DIG valve has been employed to keep the fork up in its travel under braking, and they've also put in their two-stage Rapid Recovery valve system. Rapid Recovery is a high-speed rebound circuit that returns the wheel quickly after full impact events, while managing slower shaft speeds and mid-travel events with more damping control.
There are fewer external damper adjustments to be found on the RS-1 than with most of the competition: it sports a single knob at the bottom of the left leg to adjust rebound speed, and a handlebar mounted XLoc remote that can be used to firm up the fork on the fly. This likely won't make much difference to a cross-country racer who's going to want their fork to be either pretty stiff or really, really stiff, but trail riders who are used to twiddling dials on every other ride might find more spare time on their hands than they're used to.
Inverted Air Spring - It was pretty much a given that RockShox was going to use an air spring inside of the RS-1, but it's worth pointing out that the fork's Solo Air spring has, just like the fork's chassis, been turned upside down so that the Schrader air valve sits at the bottom of the leg. This was done for simplicity's sake, as it made a lot more sense to do that than to engineer a more complicated solution to keep the air cartridge sitting right side up. It still uses a self-balancing negative air chamber and, just like with the Pike and BoXXer, progression through the later stages of the fork's stroke can be tuned by adding or subtracting RockShox's threaded Bottomless Tokens.
I mounted the 100mm travel RS-1 to the front of my Rocky Mountain Element in early June, just in time for me to put some serious miles on it before heading off to the BC Bike Race, an event that served up more than 30,000 feet of descending on some relatively rowdy trails. The bike has also spent a considerable amount of time pointed down all sorts of singletrack on not just my home mountains, but also Whistler's infamous terrain, including an ill-advised trip down the notorious Gargamel trail. This often led to it probably seeing more than RockShox ever intended it to in regards to abuse levelled out, but there's certainly nothing wrong with that, is there? Nah.
Sensitivity - The spring rate that you settle on will obviously depend on where and how you ride, as well as how much you weigh, but the cross-country riding in my neck of the woods tends to be on the aggressive end of the scale in regards to what you should (
or maybe shouldn't) be doing on a short-travel bike, which often has me leaning towards a stiffer setup than what I would roll with elsewhere. Most short-travel forks suffer in regards to small bump compliance when under me simply due to the relatively stiff setup that doesn't allow for much in the way of suppleness, but the RS-1 is different. Very different. As far as short-travel cross-country forks go, it takes suppleness to unheard of levels, with a sensitive early stroke feel that is more akin to a fork with another inch or two of travel. This was so pronounced that the fork almost felt a touch under-sprung at first, even with the stiff setup. This is likely down to two reasons: a) the inverted design means that the fork's seals and bushings are more likely to be coated with lubrication oil. And b) the inverted design also means that near perfect alignment of the stanchions and upper assembly can be achieved, thereby ensuring that the fork is never fighting itself when being compressed.
When you're working with less, you really have to know how to use it, right? The RS-1 is the most sensitive and active cross-country fork on the market, of that I'm positive, which, in theory, should lead better ground tracking by the front tire and more traction. I'm not going to tell you that I took note of said increased traction, but I will say that anyone who rides the RS-1 will note how active and forgiving it is, even when run quite stiff.
Air Spring - The RS-1's Solo Air spring is very much geared more towards cross-country riding than any sort of hard charging trail bike shenanigans, and taking the latter approach quickly shows that its spring curve doesn't ramp-up fast enough or hard enough to keep the fork from gobbling up its travel faster than me eating a mid-ride Pop-Tart. That said, this is not an all-mountain fork, is it? No, it is a cross-country weapon whose air spring isn't designed for you to be chucking yourself off of anything that might require knee pads, and its stroke is meant to be more forgiving for its intentions than having it ramp up hard enough so as to keep flyweight racer boys from ever reaching bottom. I, on the other hand, could touch bottom pretty easily when I removed the two Bottomless Tokens that came installed inside the fork from RockShox, even when running on the extreme end of the recommended pressure range. With that in mind I'd tell that anyone who seeks out a spot of rowdiness on their cross-country bike to leave a few of those volume spacers inside of the RS-1.
The RS-1's air spring is too linear for my liking but, truth be told, I'm also probably riding it in places that are a bit above what RockShox really intends it for. The Solo Air spring does feel more appropriate on tamer terrain, though, and the option to easily add the Bottomless Tokens goes a long way to having it ramp up enough to keep nearly every rider happy.
Fork Rigidity - Just how stiff is the RS-1, both torsionally and front to back? First, a primer: inverted forks, and especially single crown inverted forks, have always been more akin to over-cooked noodles than pillars of accuracy, and trying to have them be as rigid as a traditional right side up fork usually results in them not only failing at that task, but also upping the fork's weight to a point where you just have to ask why bother. That said, out and out rigidity isn't the be all and end all decider of a fork's worth, is it? I've been on downhill forks that I've thought were too torsionally rigid, and I can say the same thing about some cross-country and downhill frames - some of my favourite bikes have been as flexy as a nubile yoga instructor. There's a point where a certain amount of flex is too much, but that point is further along than most riders think it is, at least in my mind.
Anyways, back to the RS-1... It is staggeringly flex-free front to back, enough so that I'd say it feels to be approaching what a downhill fork offers in that regard - there is simply none of the tucking feeling that can occur when the wheel is forced back under you during heavy front braking. This was pretty clear right off the bat, but I didn't fully understand how much so until I got off of my Rocky Mountain Element test platform that the RS-1 is bolted to and onto a 160mm travel bike with what should be a much stouter fork - yes, I know it's longer and has more travel, but it should also be stiff all around - and came away surprised at the difference, especially when I jumped back on the Rocky. Advantage RS-1, at least when talking about fore-aft rigidity.
It's not quite so cut and dry when talking about torsional rigidity, a much more obvious performance characteristic to most riders. Yes, the RS-1 feels as flex-free as it needs to be, and it certainly has a leg up on other pure cross-country forks on the market, but it might not be so much that one will have their minds blown by its torsional stiffness. It is more rigid than other short-travel forks, but I've honestly never felt that a RockShox SID or Fox 32 were so flexy as to be holding me back when I'm riding a 100mm travel cross-country bike in the manner it's meant to be ridden. On the other hand, it's all about incremental improvements these days, and the RS-1 is definitely more flex-free all around than the other 100 or 120mm travel contenders out there. The question is, does having to run the proprietary Predictive Steering hub make that gain worthwhile, and I guess the answer will come down to whether you mind being locked into that hub / front wheel or not. The Predictive Steering design is the biggest single factor in the fork's performance, after all, and the RS-1 likely wouldn't have come to fruition without it.
Damping - How much performance should one expect from a 100mm travel fork? Well, if it costs as much as the RS-1, I think we should all expect a lot of it. The fork's sealed Accelerator damper comes through on that front, giving the RS-1 great control on rough ground. It's still a 100mm travel fork, so don't go expecting the roots and rocks to part so you can ''Sam Hill'' your cross-country bike, but there's a noticeable step up in composure compared to the SID's Motion Control DNA damper. I say this after having spent multiple seasons on a SID, and at the time never feeling like it left me wanting for more relative to its intentions. However, it's clear that there's a gap in damping between the two forks when pushing hard.
I'd describe it as just simply having more control in a lot of situations, especially repeat impacts that put the fork deeper into its travel, and that translates to you feeling like you have just a bit more in hand if you need it. Combine that performance with the stiff fork chassis and the RS-1 as a whole feels like much more fork than you might expect given its travel and weight figures. I did still find myself wishing for a separate, crown mounted low-speed compression knob as is available with the Motion Control damper, mostly so I could dial-in some added low-speed control over what the stock cartridge supplies. I didn't find that the fork dived too excessively, actually, but it was so supple that I sometimes found it a bit too active. I guess that's what the XLoc remote on my handlebar is for, though. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of high-performance trail riders being willing to swap out low-speed compression adjustment for a handlebar mounted remote.
Other Details - With moulded-in guides that use snap-in plastic housing retainers, the fork's front brake routing is more dialled than we've ever seen from the competition, but at the same time it's a given that you don't want said housing to be rubbing on the carbon uppers for months and months on end. There looks to be a rather thick application of clear coat applied to the carbon that would likely require you to be a real dumbass about it in order to cause any real damage over the long haul, but you'll still want to make sure that your front brake line is just the right length, and that you've applied the included protective stick-on decals in any areas where it might make excessive contact.
I don't like remotes. Not one bit. Which is why I'm bummed to see that the RS-1 only comes with RockShox's hydraulic XLoc remote system - there is no crown-mounted compression option. I know it's a cross-country fork and that those Lycra weasels lock out their suspension even when just talking about a climb, but the SID is made with the same intentions in mind and it has a crown mounted low-speed compression dial and lock out option should one choose to go that route. XLoc works quite well, there's no doubting that, but I'd rather not have it as I don't often firm up my fork. Racing cross-country? You might think differently, then.
With no guards to protect the lower legs, my RS-1 test fork must have some banged up stanchions after the months and months of riding I've put it through, right? Wrong. There isn't a single scratch, ding, or any mark whatsoever on them, and that's even after the bike spent a full week being transported
inside of a semi-trailer with a few hundred other machines during the BC Bike Race. I've ridden and crashed horribly on rocky, pointy terrain; I've lent the bike out for others to abuse like it was their own; I've had it in the back of pick-up trucks on rowdy 4x4 access roads. I stopped worrying about marring the stanchions long ago, and now treat it as any other fork. I know many out there will be assuming that its lower tubes won't last more than a few weeks under them, but I'm personally more concerned about an oncoming alien invasion than scratching up the RS-1. You fret about the fork's stanchions while I wear my tinfoil hat, okay?
Pinkbike's take: | The RS-1 is expensive, requires a proprietary hub, and obviously has a pretty small target audience. Those facts alone will make it more of a ''pig in the window'' for RockShox than a fork most would consider purchasing. However, if you put those points to the side and only look at the RS-1's performance, you'll find that it's stiffer and offers a better (but less adjustable) damper than its predecessor, the SID. It's a safe bet that the proprietary hub is going to put off some potential buyers, although racers will often look past such things for even the smallest of gains in performance, and that's the exact group of riders who I see not minding the whole "no hub, no RS-1" thing. As for the more casual riders, the ones who might not plan on regularly toeing the starting line but still like to have the latest gear, taking the same approach will put them aboard the best cross-country fork on the market, as long as they can afford the eye-watering cost of entry.- Mike Levy |
www.sram.com/rockshox
Ummm..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAO_RVeOBX4&feature=youtu.be
"taking the same approach will put them aboard the best cross-country fork on the market"
So it requires a propitiatory 170g hub, has a real weight of 1700g with axle, has a damper not suited to hard riding and small bump sensitivity coexisting, is as torsionally stiff as a old school SID (despite this reviews claims) and costs an absolute fortune. Yep, sounds like the best XC fork on the market!
Buy a Lefty
P.S. Sorry for the repost of the same comment as below, seems better here
suckers, fools and losers only.
shame on you RS
Its absolutely amazing how people believe that the inverted design is inferior, yet EVERY other two wjeeled sport has embraced the improved tracking and steeing precision of the inverted design.
Don't bother with the lame "its about weight" argument. Weight went down in other sports compared to the conventional design. This is the best example of people buying into marketing that I have ever seen. Most of the steering precision comes from clamping area at the crown. Using a proper sized axle solves the flex issue. All successful inverted forks use a larger axle.
Its absolutely amazing that you still bang on about inverted designs being stiffer when every usd fork on the mtb market is either flimsier, heavier or uses some sort of proprietary hub/axle arrangement. The "hold the wheel solid and twist the bars to asses torsional rigidity dingbats" are clearly onto something, as there is no usd mtb fork using only standard parts that is as torsionally stiff as a conventional fork of a similar weight. A simple way to test this is to ""hold the wheel solid and twist the bars to asses torsional rigidity, dingbat". Yes this exerts far more of a torsional stress than you ever will under normal riding conditions, (although no more than you could quite easily see in a crash situation) but that does not take away from the fact that it is a simple way to assess which design is stiffer.
Sadly the "I'll believe what I want despite the evidence right in front of my face dingbats" still have a way to go...
And yes it is a weight issue. EVERY other two wheeled sport that has embraced the USD design uses a motor. Something which you quite clearly failed to mention, I wonder why? When you make a fork that can deal with the loads a motorbike chassis can put through it, the torsional stress a persons arms can exert pale into insignificance. That is the difference. Its pretty simple really.
As a side note...
" thekayo (49 mins ago)
pinkbike we are stil waiting on a review for the 380!"
YES PLEASE PINKBIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well that is for you to do yourself. But it does demonstrate how flexy it is compared to (almost) anything else in the same category. Doing this with my Lefty XLR carbon/ Stans Podium MMX rim of SI Lefty hub with KCNC stem and New Ultimate bars results in barely any torsional flex regardless of how hard I grip the wheel and crank the bars. Certainly nothing like the RS-1.
German magazine bike also did more robust tests and found it 15% stiffer than the next stiffest (Lefty) under braking but it performed very poorly under torsional loading. Pretty relevant to cornering accuracy/ riding off camber sections/ tracking lines though ruts/ etc. It is easy to knock the video but I can't see who Mike can review this fork like this... "the RS-1 is definitely more flex-free all around than the other 100 or 120mm travel contenders out there"... without a cynic looking to the pennies SRAM undoubtedly pay for advertising here.
It may feel ok to ride by itself but back to back with some other forks out there I'm certain it would get shown up.
If you love the idea of the fork no doubt you'll defend it to the end of the world but you have to admit that a lot about the fork just doesn't make sense on a lot of levels and if the reviewer here is honestly believing the RS-1 is "the best cross-country fork on the market" then that suggests a massive lack of time testing and investigating other XC forks on the market. Leftys have all the same advantages with none of the disadvantages but a single sided fork somehow has an uncool reputation with some while SRAM is one of the cool kids. It is a "lifestyle" product pure and simple (read: targets the weekend enthusiast with more money than sense) rather than an out and out XC fork to rule all XC forks as the review suggests. Even the promotional videos were all about cool guys that just like to hang out bro
I had a qr, carbon crown, but 26", and not only was it flexy but it was sticky and harsh as shit. Like pretty much every XC racing fork, weight was pretty much all it had going for it. Point is, the video tells you nothing about the fork except that under an unknown amount of force applied in an irrelevant manner it does what every other fork will do. Post a similar video with a SID, hopefully in a more meaningful orientation, and then possibly we have something to talk about.
Yeah, it's "stiff enough" and apparently has the best damping and ride quality of any XC race fork, at a competitive weight. I think it's pretty easy to argue it's best in class. Considering that, and that it's barely out of the prototype stage, yeah I expect it to be pretty damn expensive. And considering how different the design is from anything currently available, I expect it to use some new parts. What's the big deal? They coulda gone with something like Manitou's hexlock, but that would be a pain in the ass day to day.
You act like they threw all this crazy tech into a brand new product and it came out the same as every other fork on the market.... it didn't. In every way except cost it's better than the current crop of XC race forks. RS invested some serious time and energy into the RS1 and they came out with a successful experiment. An XC fork that actually rides smooth is big news.
@beardless Never ridden a lefty though. In fairness, it's silly that it gets shit on so much; as an XC fork it makes plenty of sense IMO, and the RS1 will likely suffer the same derision as the Lefty does currently. At least for a while.
It is obvious that the designs feel different. This is probably what people refer to as "flexy" but its a difference in reaction to terrain, that once adapted to allows much better tracking. As far as I know, Fox is the only company actively rejecting inverted designs. Maybe that's because their behind the 8 ball in development?
In Moto, conventional forks had better small bump compliance, because longitudinal forces flexed the cromoly slightly. In an inverted fork, this caused binding in the bushings. In the conventional design, the chromoly flexed at the clamp, leaving the bushings free to slide. Aluminum flexes a lot less than chromoly steel, so the effects are minimized. When you think about these principles, they make sense from an engineering standpoint.
The dorado is weight competitive with the other designs. I'm not sure why everyone goes on about this. The old dorado was flexier, but the boxer was even worse with 32mm stanchions.
www.vitalmx.com/forums/Moto-Related,20/Picture-of-MCs-Zooks-Conventional-Forks-Anyone,1037041
the 40 is pretty much the stiffest dh fork on the market. The dorado is the flexiest. The dorado weighs more. I don't see how this can possibly be argued. saying the dorado tracks better in this conversation is (perhaps purposefully) misunderstanding the term "tracking" and is quite possibly unfounded. I assume you mean the wheel tracks the undulations of the floor better. Wheres the data? I am ready to believe the fully oiled up lowers of a set of dorados arent much lighter than the lowers on the latest fit 40s. Anyway, my point is that no amount of bump tracking is any use when the bike doesnt go where you point it. For this point I refer you to my comment much further down the page. As for the moto/friction/weight question you asked me earier, you have already answered it yourself. It is a side effect of the 50mm legs required to deal with the braking forces a motorbike inflicts. To have legs this large on a conventional fork means insanely heavy lowers and huge bearing surfaces. You just dont see braking forces anywhere near this large on an mtb. I'm out. Again, see below. Byee
"saying the dorado tracks better in this conversation is (perhaps purposefully) misunderstanding the term "tracking" and is quite possibly unfounded. I assume you mean the wheel tracks the undulations of the floor better."
I know what tracking means. I was suggesting you don't as, although the dorado probably does a good job of tracking the undulations of the floor better, Its lateral tracking is inferior to EVERY OTHER DH FORK ON THE MARKET. This is unarguable.
You HAVE read a review saying the dorado doesn't track very well. Its at the top of this very page. Everyone knows USD forks in the mountain bike world suffer increased twisting. That is why they are all so bloody heavy. Why do you think they are heavy? Just for fun? Did DVO think "lets make a USD fork, and lets make it really heavy, and at the same time quite twisty, as a sort of drawn out and expensive marketing campaign for Non-USD forks"? For gods sake man this argument is over.
.... When you are all done geeking out on the All Mountain... Sorry enduro testing, please remember all us DH'rs
Cheers!
Steering precision on a motocross bike has more to do with suspension setup than it does on a mountain bike. But to answer your question, yes when you want the front end to drop into a rut entering a turn, or even for just general tracking and line choice at speed, it's very important that the wheel be exactly where you need it, just like bombing a downhill course or riding singletrack on a mountain bike.. There's just no real noticeable flex or deflection in the front end of a modern motocross bike because of the massive fork tubes, triple tree, and wide front axle. The whole switch to USD forks in motorsports, on road and off, was because it's a structurally stiffer design, which allowed for better steering and suspension performance under the extreme loads of braking. The first thing I noticed abut the RS-1 was how long the fork tubes and stanchions look with only two points of connection at the crown and hub, it's gonna flex torsionally like that no matter what materials they make it out of.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0xAgGAejq8
no flex ever.
weight aprox the same, the difference is unnoticeable due to the LESS WEIGHT AT THE AXLE which you do notice making it feel a LOT LIGHTER in actual use, the front end is far more responsive easier to move aka TRACK where i want and lift as needed making for an overall much better experience in all conditions.
Its like you guys are ignoring why they made USD forks in the first place for most of your arguments... in actual use the way it works feels and operates is far superior and isnt heavier in practical use.
OH AND LETS NOT FORGET THEY MAKE A CARBON VERSION THAT DOES WEIGH LESS.
for reference - ive ridden totems, marzo 66, fox 40 ... never a boxer ever i am too rough on stuff...
www.vitalmx.com/forums/Moto-Related,20/Ruts-at-dilla-with-pictures,1274294
I faced up to the fact that it is me that is the issue a long time ago
Manufacturers make things like this almost as much to make people talk about them as to actually sell them. It also lets them learn how to tweak new manufacturing processes and designs while having their test riders (consumers) help pay for the development costs. They haven't discontinued the SID, and the likely won't.
Take it as it is, a pretty cool piece of tech that might be fun for people to play with if the have the cash.
Seriously people, break is broken, brake is stopping.
$4500 was a LOT of money in 94 I say it's more affordable than ever.
Cars are expensive too if you buy a Ferrari but a Carolla will still get you where your going.
Can't afford an RS1 ? well there's a massive selection of budget forks to choose from
@razorback Epicon is the shit. Hell even the Raidon and XCR-Air are solid, especially when compared to equivalent forks from other mfrs. Great bargains.
Ummm..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAO_RVeOBX4&feature=youtu.be
"taking the same approach will put them aboard the best cross-country fork on the market"
So it requires a propitiatory 170g hub, has a real weight of 1700g with axle, has a damper not suited to hard riding and small bump sensitivity coexisting, is as torsionally stiff as a old school SID (despite this reviews claims) and costs an absolute fortune. Yep, sounds like the best XC fork on the market!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WlRqcAQr2w
Personally, I think this is actually a great idea for marathon XC racing, like the BC Bike Race, the registration fees for which will pay for this fork and a day or two in a hotel.
It is not rocket science. Not a single review of RS-q actually quoted the exact numbers. In N-m and what not.
Its not just how much a fork flexes. It matters how it feels on the trail.
The industry has to get over the placebo effect it created with the marketing campaigns in the early 2000's.
Anyway man, we've had this conversation before and it went on for a loooong time. I agree USD is better on paper, but think with current materials available, it hasn't yet been made a viable option in the mtb world. A point Levy hits on in his review, saying something along the lines of Current USD forks are nowhere near stiff enough, and trying to remedy that has led to them being uncompetetively heavy at the same time. I guess you don't agree, but on that we'll just have to agree to differ.
I expect modern carbon manufacturing techniques will make huge advances in this area, and have even heard rumors of 'zocchi playing with ways to coat carbon with a smooth/hard enough surface to run a bushing over. This could have been some sort of April fools trickery but then, it could be a bloody good idea. Either way I have seen no convincing evidence of it happening any time soon. This Rockshox fork looks like a promising step, but its still only has a small amount of travel and uses a huge axle (and therefore big heavy hub bearings, diminishing one of the USD designs major advantages) and a very expensive looking one piece crown and oversized steerer to achieve stiffness similar to far cheaper conventional forks with smaller axles and lighter hubs. DVO had to do a similar thing, adding weight to the unsprung end of their emerald fork in a less than successful attempt to bring the stiffness into line with its lighter competition. Some say 40's are too stiff, and I can believe that is true for some riders, but they are also bloody light. Imagine how light you could make a conventional xc fork if using some of the tricks used by the RS-1.
Bring on the USD revolution I say. I just don't see it happening for good a few years. It certainly hasn't happened yet.
Want to take it in context of overall performance, thats fine. But there is no magic.
Anything else is har har so rad noise. Saying that actual measurable numbers do not matter is grade A bullcrap.
Licence the "technology" to others..? What's stopping people like Hadley or king from making thicker end caps for their 15mm hubs to fit this fork as their hubs already use this design!?
chrisking.com/files/images/hubs/Green_20mm.jpg
Here's a take on the Dorado:
The truth is that no matter how good the Dorado is, and it really is that good, there will be those that will find fault with it. Let's be honest here, it could be easy to find something to pick out: it's carbon and no matter how much proof is out there or how well it is made you are sure that you will snap it in two simply by loading it onto your bike rack! And of course it's inverted and you simply will not be able to ride down your local hill without the front wheel pointing off in the wrong direction! Oh yeah, it's holy-shit expensive and you... Ok, I'll give you that one as I'll never be able to afford it either! But wait, the new aluminum legged version sporting the same amazing internals could be just the ticket for us bike bums. I'll be truthful, when bits of info and pictures of the new Dorado were first made available I immediately balked at the prospect of the new fork.
ive owned and ridden a dorado on two flatlines old and new model for about 5 years now (BIG NOTE I AM FEATHERWEIGHT)
no flex ever.
weight aprox the same, the difference is unnoticeable due to the LESS WEIGHT AT THE AXLE which you do notice making it feel a LOT LIGHTER in actual use, the front end is far more responsive easier to move aka TRACK where i want and lift as needed making for an overall much better experience in all conditions.
Its like you guys are ignoring why they made USD forks in the first place for most of your arguments... in actual use the way it works feels and operates is far superior and isnt heavier in practical use.
OH AND LETS NOT FORGET THEY MAKE A CARBON VERSION THAT DOES WEIGH LESS.
for reference - ive ridden totems, marzo 66, fox 40 ... never a boxer ever i am too rough on stuff...
you are a featherweight but too rough for boxxers? i find that very hard to believe. what forks does sam hill run?
Boxxer RC: Weight 26” - 2882g, 27.5” - 2934g
Boxxer WC: Weight 26” – 2585g , 27.5" - 2637g
Fox 40: Weight 20mm thru axle 5.98 lb / 2.71 kg
The Fox and Manitou are weighed with axle, not sure about the Boxxer. This does not take into account the unsprung weight.
ps before you mention my dorado maint look at the vid on pinkbike at how easy it is to do yourself OR better yet its built just like a moto fork and can be brought to any moto shop and they can handle it if you give them the seals and such .... my dorado needs maint about 1 time a season from my experiances ...
Dorado: Weight 2973.7
Boxxer WC: Weight 2585g
thats .85 lbs. Or as I said previously, "getting on for a pound". This is not an insignificant amount of weight. If someone were to say "hey man, can I strap this pound of sugar to your headtube, before your race run?" I doubt you would reply "yeah sure man, I won't even notice the difference"
Location of weight:
Yes the dorado has less unsprung weight, and yes this is a bloody good thing. What the difference is i do not know. However you have to add the weight of a dh front wheel, tyre and brake to both forks. A LIGHT dh front wheel weighs well over 2 kg. Now measure the difference in unsprung weight. As I say, I do not know for sure, but am willing to speculate that it is a tiny % difference. So the unsprung weight will be almost the same, your fork will be less laterally stiff, AND still weigh nearly a pound more.
The point you make about the position of the weight of the fork doesn't really make much sense. The weight being higher up the fork will not make the fork "easier to lift". At all. What it will do is make your bike very slightly harder to make quick changes of direction with, but this will be a pretty insignificant difference.
Maintenance: Have you ever owned a boxxer? They actually require very little maintenance, and when they do, just like the dorado, Its piss easy. Have no idea what has led you to believe that they need a lot of care. Its just not true. Talking of seals. If you blow a seal on a USD fork, thats it. riding over. If you blow a seal on a normal fork, you can finish your run. Hell, you can probably finish your days riding if you have to.
If you think pro riders get a new fork every run you are sorely misinformed. Every season yes, with replacement parts on tap when something breaks. Which really isn't that often.
Do Manitou still make the Carbon Dorado? cant find it on their website....
The Dorado is the closest thing to the Moto forks I have used for decades, in terms of setup, feel, and tracking.
This convo is going in silly circles. no ones strapping sugar to their bike here.... its a fork.... for the SMALL amount of weight LESS then a pound if i was asked would you want all of what i said above for that would you take it , i already answered that by buying the fork. I said yes. Also as stated above the carbon version is about the lightest you can get ... so everything you said is null and void on that matter....
Also carbon dorados are regularly for sale on the used market ive seen about 5 since i got my pro and started looking not often and just on ebay and pinkbike and im sure there were/are many more other places for one to be had.
PS. its cool for you to split hairs with the weight when its less unsprung its hardly anything when its less then a pound up on weight its a big ol bag of sugar.... your attempts to skew the discussion arent guna work here , were only talking about a fork not the other nonsense that does not prove your point.
HisShadow: I am not attempting to skew the discussion. I do not care which fork is better, I am just trying to be objective rather than a fanboy. A pound is a lot of weight. .85of a pound, is a significant amount of weight, and despite what people who don't get it may tell you, weight does matter. I spoke to an F1 engineer the other day who had recently been part of a team given a £200k budget, to shave something like 150g off of the paint on the car he works on. And they have nearly 1000bhp to play with! A human, on average has about 1hp.
The unsprung weight advantage of a dorado IS important, I was just trying to make it clear that when you strap 2.5kg of wheel and brake to the thing, the difference in the forks ability to track the undulations of the floor diminishes. A lot.
As for maintenance...Don't know what else I can say. The boxxer is the most used (sponsored and privateer rider alike) fork on the circuit. Thats a lot of forks. Even with Srams god awfull quality control and cheap ass manufacturing processes, that is a lot of forks, winning a lot of races, and rarely failing...
Anyway, I don't think any relevant new points are being made any more, so can we stop? If it makes you feel any better, I do believe that as material tech improves, USD designs will indeed take over. I'm guessing at maybe 5 years time?ish?
A pound ... 850 grams to be more accurate for all the benefits of USD which as i stated i notice and prefer having tried both sides of the coin and can feel a preference. Thank god neither of us are fanboying on this at least it makes this a lot easier to stay on facts and preferences...
Next up the unsprung weight doesn't disappear because you put a wheel on it ...thats how it works it has less there is nothing to debate here same wheel same bike diff fork one has less at that wheel and therefore responds differently if that is to your preference or not is the real matter. And for me i prefer that and can feel a difference.
and yes USD should become standard like in moto when we can get over the incorrect info and spin from manufacturers and posters buying into the lies, and sure manufacturing costs and capabilities would help facilitate that but we know it costs more now and companies dont want to spend more your already willing to buy the inferior designs and listen to them.. watch how better it is when they can make them cheap... sales hype is real!
blah blah rowdy blah blah shenanigans blah blah awkward simile blah blah blah really really blah blah, which, in theory, blah blah blah rowdy blah blah.
Standard 15mm Thru-Axle. HUH?!?
If you really MUST use a standard axle size, there is such a thing as 20mm
However if your gonna use a proprietary hub anyway, why not use a proprietary 27mm axle too? It'd be lighter, stronger and stiffer. Don't need it to be any stiffer you say? Well then just make it even lighter and "only" the same strength...
Also, it costs how much and doesn't even give you adjustable compression damping?? Then blows through its travel too easily unless you lock it out. Errr, sounds great Rockshox,. sign me up....
Was really hoping this fork would be awesome. Not that I'll ever be buying one either way, I just like awesomeness. Oh well, better luck next time.
With tapered steer tubes and thru axles 29er forks are plenty stiff for XC racing, or even most trail riding.
Put the RC2 damper in it, with 20mm axle option..no talas, weight is not that big of a deal for the people who would buy it
In my opinion, a lot of the 29er folks who have and might not convert back to 26 or to 27.5 are bigger, large , xl frame , with an xl frame themselves.
220 pound casual xc rider who puts in a lot of kms a week, no racing etc would benefit drastically from a stiffer, less travel 29er fork. IMO
personally, I have run into this problem numerous times, the float 34 140 was stiffish but too much travel and the CTD sucked
the 32 mm reba was good at 80mm , ok at 100 sucked at 120mm
now carbon sid 80mm on my ss and 100mm carbon sid on my 27.5...not the best and actually heavier than the RCT3 sid, but options are very limited.
34/100/20mm option, dont even need the carbon, i will build one myself
@JesseE Where on earth are you getting that shit? The reviewer not only says the fork is stiffer than (or at least as stiff as) anything currently available, but that it has best-in-class damping and sensitivity. How is that not an improvement? And where are you getting the xfusion 29er stanchion thing? The Velvet and Slide are both 32mm and the adjustment to 27.5" is internal, meaning it's exactly the same fork for the two wheel sizes. The Trace (29") and Slant (26") both have the same 34mm stanchions too. They're doing exactly what everyone else does with their stanchions ---> 32 for XC, 34 for trail/am.
It depends what you mean by "perform as well" I guess, but for an XC race you're simply not going to get a 34mm fork to be weight competitive, and those courses are 100% rideable on 32mm stanchions, even for a 29er. Shit, even a 100mm Revelation WC would sprobably be lighter than a 34mm XC fork, and there's no way a skinny ass racer dude wouldn't be able to stick every single one of those lines on a Rev.
I think you guys are completely missing the point of this fork. It's in the same category as the SID and DT Swiss OPM. Nobody looking at any of those forks would consider a 34. If you're riding really aggressively or you weigh 200+ lbs then yeah, a short travel 34 might be nice.... but then why the hell would you be looking at an XC race fork like this one?
mkm303, All caps, seriously? We're talking about bike parts, dude.
You guys are brutal.
waki-leaks.blogspot.se/2014/09/expensive-bikes-and-gear-is-mountain.html
I saw some WCs this year where someone's race was spoiled by a flat with a slow wheel change...
Inverted fork design makes a lot more sense to me. I miss my Shivers (although they were ridiculously heavy). This new design appears to solve the weight problem.
American classic have gone and made a hub for this RS1:
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb11410726/p4pb11410726.jpg
Nothing to it really!1
Who knew the RockShox was in the Pork business?
Hi- it’s Mike, from the future. I have a 2016 130 mm variant of this fork on my S-Works Camber (bike bought used in 2020). The RS-1 stanchions are much cleaner after rides than my Reba stanchions ever were.
"Maxle" AKA "overgrown QR skewer"
Kinda makes the whole death to 20mm TA scars start itching once again
They would sell thousands of them