First Ride: RockShox RS-1 Fork – Carbon, Inverted, Expensive and for 29ers Only

Apr 8, 2014 at 0:45

by Richard Cunningham

Five years in the making, the RockShox RS-1 became a reality when its creators abandoned convention and adopted a whatever-it-takes design criteria to solve the problems that haunted previous attempts to produce a successful inverted XC fork.

RockShock’s designers were uncertain as to how long the inverted RS1 fork was in development. Some say three years, others say five. Product manager Jed Douglas said that they have made a number of attempts and each time, the results were divided between two camps: good, but heavy; or lightweight and flexy. Turns out that RockShox’s original goal of maintaining torsional stiffness between the inverted sliders while keeping the weight of the fork competitive with its conventional brethren – AND doing so using standardized components – was far more elusive than the engineering team imagined it would be.

The adage: “lightweight, strong and economical – pick two;” could have been rewritten by RockShox as: “lightweight, torsionally stiff and standardized.” The eventual success of the RS-1 project was made possible by advances in carbon manufacturing, and by the decision to engage the SRAM family to develop the inverted fork and the front wheel as an integrated system dubbed, "Predictive Steering." The key player in this role is a special hub that employs a monstrous, 27-millimeter tubular axle which is clamped into place by a standard, 15-millimeter Maxle Ultimate through-axle. RockShox calls this a “Torque Tube hub” and the end result is an inverted cross-country racing fork that is more rigid than its conventional counterparts, and it weighs only 1666 grams (3.6 pounds). By comparison, that is only 55 grams heavier than a SID World Cup fork. Just in case you wanted to know, the RS-1 only fits 29-inch wheels, it can be configured for 80, 100 or 120-millimeters of travel, and it will cost $1865 USD. (Silk handkerchiefs are included with every RS-1 to dry your tears.)

RS-1 Details:

• Purpose: XC racing/XC-trail
• Chassis: Inverted type, one-piece carbon upper, 32mm aluminum stanchions
• Steerer: Integrated tapered carbon
• Spring: Solo Air, internally adjustable spring rate
• Travel: 80 / 100 / 120mm
• Damper: Accelerator, cartridge type
• Lockout: XLoc hydraulic remote (Sprint or Full Sprint)
• External adjustments: Rebound and spring pressure
• Offset options: 46 and 51mm
• Wheel options: 29” only, with proprietary Predictive Steering hub.
• Wheel choices: SRAM Rise XX, Rise 60, Roam 50, DT Swiss - TBD (Predictive Steering hub available separately)
• Axle: Predictive Steering, 27mm Torque Tube type only
• Claimed weight: 1,666g (3.67lbs)
• MSRP: $1,865 USD, € 1,658
• Contact: RockShox

Meet the new RS-1

One look says it all: RockShox did not follow the rules when it created the RS-1. Its tapered steerer tube and crown are a single piece of carbon which is then bonded to carbon legs that house just enough aluminum with which to thread its new remote-lockout Accelerator cartridge damper and Solo air-spring in place. Below its oversized carbon chassis, Fast-Black coated, 32-millimeter stanchion tubes slide effortlessly on bushings and seals which are constantly lubricated by the oil bath above them. Slide the 15-millimeter Maxle Ultimate through-axle from the RS-1’s large, forged-aluminum dropouts and you will see the most important link in the fork’s chain of success: its massive, 27-millimeter “Torque Tube” axle, and the matching slots on the dropouts’ inside faces. The Torque Tube spans the entire distance through the hub and between the dropout faces with no pressed on caps, so when the Maxle Ultimate is tightened, its serrated circumference can grip the dropouts and become a, “structural member of the fork,” says RockShox.

The fork’s intended role is to win World Cup XC races and impress XC trail riders, but it is built to exceed the strength and stiffness of competitive conventional types. We probably will never see it, but the RS-1’s post-mount caliper bosses are certified for rotors up to 200 millimeters, which underscores the robustness of its chassis. As a side effect of its designers’ quest for rigidity, the real estate opportunities created by the RS-1’s massive carbon uppers are a graphic designer’s dream, but RockShox showed their sensitive side by offering a glossy, red-white-and black billboard version, as well as a subdued matte black colorway for the less inclined. Regardless of which graphic is on the fork, however, RS-1 owners will not be able to hide from curious onlookers – so read up and be prepared for a barrage of trailhead questions.

Predictive Steering: Together, SRAM and RockShox coined “Predictive Steering” as a blanket term for all of the components that were used to keep its 32-millimeter inverted stanchion tubes locked in place and torsionally immovable. Predictive steering’s key players are the RS-1’s novel dropouts, the Torque-Tube hub and a 15-millimeter Maxle Ultimate through-axle. The hub rolls on a pair of narrow, large-diameter sealed ball bearings on the Torque Tube - similar to those you would find inside a quality, 1-1/8-inch headset. The bearings and the hub are retained on the 110-millimeter-long, 27-millimeter wide tubular axle by collars that slide over each end and are retained by small set-screws. Like a conventional 15 QR hub, the big torque tube axle locates into U-shaped slots in the dropouts – very big slots. The Maxle Ultimate through axle assembly in this case, functions only as a very large and powerful quick release skewer to clamp the hell out of the interface between the dropouts and the hub’s 27-millimeter axle, and it also ensures that the wheel will not fall out if the user forgets to tighten the Maxle.

The Torque Tube axle (left) keeps the RS-1's 32-millimeter stanchion tubes sliding parallel inside the carbon uppers. The 27-millimeter diameter serrated axle requires a dedicated SRAM 'Predictive Steering hub' (center), which is securely clamped to the RS-1's oversized dropouts by a Maxle Ultimate, 15-millimeter through-axle (right).

No hub, no RS-1: Neither RockShox nor parent company SRAM have plans to license Predictive Steering’s Torque Tube hub design and the fork will not function without it. At present, only SRAM and DT Swiss are making wheels to fit the RS-1 fork, although SRAM will offer the hub alone in a non-branded configuration to be used by racers riding RS-1 forks, who may have conflicting rim or wheel contracts. At present, SRAM offers the Predictive Steering hub in three 29-inch wheelsets: Rise XX, Rise 60, and Roam 50.

29ers only: The lion’s share of elite-level XC racers and XC trailbikes are 29ers, so it makes sense that RockShox targets the RS-1 exclusively for big-wheel bikes. One benefit of the inverted RockShox design for a 29er is its increased torsional stiffness at the same weight. More obvious is at the fork crown, where the lack of a reinforcing arch gives RS-1 racers a huge advantage in sticky mud. Almost invisible, yet significant, is the extra-wide spoke-flange spacing made possible by the 110-millimeter-width Predictive Steering hub design. Wider spoke angles add necessary lateral strength to the larger-diameter 29er wheel.

Two offset options: Dropout offsets are available in both 46 and 51-millimeter options, so bike designers can optimize the steering action for different head angles and travel requirements. The 46-millimeter offset indicates that the way is already paved for a 27.5-specific RS-1 and there were hushed conversations at the launch alluding that a mid-size-wheel version is slated. Don’t hold your breath. The RS-1 is at present, a very complicated fork to produce in large numbers – to the point where RockShox officials plan a soft release of the fork, beginning this June as their factories come to terms with its intricacies.

What's inside the carbon uppers: The Accelerator damping cartridge (left) has a spring-loaded floating piston to isolate its fluid from air and to prevent cavitation. A look up the RS-1's carbon uppers reveals the lower bushings and seal-head. The fork's air piston, with its top-out and bottom-out bumpers is on the right. Both items are threaded into the carbon uppers using a long, tubular socket wrench - the only special tool the fork requires for service.

Remote lockout: RS-1 forks use RockShox’s hydraulically actuated XLoc handlebar-remote lockout system. The button opens the damper when it is depressed and, with a second push, the button extends to lock the fork out. At first, the action may seem counter-intuitive, but it works well. The remote hose enters the sloping carbon crown through small port, which looks much nicer than the plumbing that sprouts from most XC racing fork crowns. When not employed, a rubber cap snaps over the port for a clean look. RockShox offers the Xloc in the fork-only “Sprint” version, or with the wider “Full Sprint” double-hose remote that switches off the shock and fork simultaneously.

Adjustable spring rate: Everything is inverted in the RS-1, including its Solo Air spring that is pressurized from below. Like the Pike, RockShox designed the RS-1’s air spring to use its snap-in “Bottomless Tokens” to adjust the spring rate. Tokens reduce the volume of the air chamber and thus increase the spring rate near maximum compression. They can be easily added or removed in about ten minutes by releasing the air pressure, unscrewing the air-cap and then threading the Tokens into the underside of the air-cap, or into each other. Up to three may be used, and as their name infers, Bottomless Tokens are used primarily to ramp up the end-stroke spring rate to prevent harsh bottom-outs.

The RS-1's air spring can be tuned to be more or less progressive using Bottomless Token air-volume spacers. The air-cap (center) is located beneath the right dropout. The chart on the right shows the changes in ending-stroke spring rate created by the addition of the plastic spacers.

Accelerator damper cartridge: Like the new Pike, RockShox prevents air from entering the damping fluid in its Accelerator cartridge, but instead of using an in-line bladder system, the RS-1 damper has a spring-loaded internal floating piston to compensate for the volume of the long damper shaft as the damper is compressed. To prevent brake dive, the compression side of the damping piston employs the two-stage DIG valve, while the rebound circuit features a 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. The aluminum accelerator cartridge is designed to be easily removed and serviced, but it is the only item in the fork which requires a special tool – a long tubular “socket wrench” that slips around the damper tube and engages a machined interface near the top of the unit where damper threads into a metal insert which is molded into the fork crown.

External Adjustments: To make room for the Accelerator’s remote lockout function, external adjustments are limited to low-speed rebound and spring pressure – a situation that wouldn't fly with long-travel trail riders who prefer a low-speed compression dial as well - but one that has been widely accepted among World Cup XC competitors.

RockShox earns high marks for steering precision with the RS-1. Few if any truly lightweight forks match its tracking ability over rough ground and no 32-millimeter-stanchion 29er fork can.

RS-1 forks will be offered with 80, 100 or 120 millimeters of travel, but don’t expect to see the 80-millimeter fork in North American bike shops, it’s pretty much a Euro-specific racer-boy product. We had the opportunity to ride the RS-1 in both the 100 and 120-millimeter configurations, concentrating on faster, less technical terrain with the Trek-mounted shorter-stroke fork, and pounding the Specialized-mounted 120-millimeter RS-1 on Moab’s UPS and Porcupine Rim trails. Without a doubt, the RS-1 is a whole new animal.

Smoother action: The action of the RS-1's inverted stanchions is much smoother, with so little starting friction that the fork seems under-sprung and under-damped at first. Most of the RS-1's enviable responsiveness is due to the fact that its seals and bushings are constantly bathed in lubricating oil, but there is no escaping that the bending forces imparted on short stanchion tubes, placed near the dropout ends of the fork are considerably lower than the forces that a conventional fork is subjected to with its bushings located much closer to the crown. The RS-1’s distinctly smoother action makes one wonder how much “compression damping” is actually the function of the stanchion tubes momentarily binding on the bushings inside of a conventional fork during a major impact event.

For as lightweight as the RS-1 is, it holds
a line around corners with uncanny precision.
The same can be said for the fork's straight-
line performance in the rocks. - Adrian Marcoux photo

Suspension setup: As mentioned, the low friction of the RS-1’s inverted configuration requires more attention to air pressure settings. The stock air spring is configured without Bottomless Tokens, because pro XC racers run super-high spring pressure settings. At zero to ten-percent sag, the 100-millimeter RS-1 feels rough over the small stuff, but strangely compliant over the kind of roots and rock gardens that pepper XC courses. With a typical trail setting of 20 to 30-percent negative travel, however, the 100-millimeter fork rides like an 80-millimeter conventional-type slider, with a more sensitive feel over the little stuff and with almost nothing in reserve for significant rock hits.

Tuning the longer-stroke, 120-millimeter RS-1, however, provided more options than the fractional increase in travel would suggest. Set up for XC-type trail work, its small-bump sensitivity is second to none. For the all-mountain style terrain we subjected the RS-1 to in Moab, we had to give up a measure of that small-bump compliance in order to attain the larger-impact performance necessary to maintain pace on the square-edged hits and drops that punctuate the landscape. Lowering the spring pressure to achieve a more comfortable ride would encourage the RS-1 to blow through its travel and cause the bike to nose into bomb holes. When pushing the RS-1 beyond its comfort zone, RockShox's Rapid Recovery rebound circuit played a commanding role, allowing us to use slightly more low-speed damping to keep the suspension smooth at trail speeds, while maintaining ride-height over long, fast stretches of deeply notched sandstone. Once dialed in, the longer-stroke fork was a hard charger.

The takeaway from the RS-1 tuning experience was that in stock trim, both the 100 and 120-millimeter forks were best suited for pro XC racer types - riders who prefer minimal negative travel and higher spring pressures, and who are willing to put up with a bit of a beating over chatter in exchange for big-hit protection. That said, we believe that the addition of one or two Bottomless Tokens would give the 120-millimeter RS-1 the progressive spring rate it needs to soften its initial travel and become a killer XC-trailbike fork. RockShox’s ride-along suspension engineers agreed, and were using similar setups on their personal RS-1 rides at Moab

Climbing smoother pitches out of the saddle were the rare moments on Moab's trail network where the RS-1's XLoc remote lockout proved to be a useful tool.

.
Balance: When a suspension fork moves as easily as the RS-1 does, too firm of a shock tune can drive the fork low in its travel. Once we got the fork set where we liked it, we found that adjusting the shock’s spring pressure to achieve a balanced ride height fore and aft was the last and very important step in the tuning process. On the subject of Balance, the RS-1 is a very honest fork, meaning that its suspension action is stable and predictable, with no damping fade or spring-rate to increase after a tough descent. Once you find the sweet spot between the shock and fork settings, you can forget about suspension and concentrate on your lines.

Pedaling/climbing: When sawing at the handlebar during an out-of-the-saddle effort, the RS-1 feels rock solid in the sense that is doesn't feel like anything is moving underneath you in the lateral direction. Locked out, the RS-1 sprints like a road bike, which is how it should be. Don’t bother locking out the fork, however, unless you either have a dire need to stand on the pedals and attack, or there is a stretch of smooth ground or paved road that you need to get rid of in a hurry. The lockout option feels like RockShox teleports an oak dowel into the Accelerator cartridge when you release the XLoc button – and riding a rigid fork as stiff as the RS-1 on rough ground is not an experience that you will want to repeat.

Steering stiffness: RockShox earns high marks for steering precision with the RS-1. Few if any truly lightweight forks match its tracking ability over rough ground and no 32-millimeter-stanchion 29er fork can. When descending steps and drops that subjected it to maximum travel events, the bike's front end managed to track well and we could make precise steering corrections on demand.

Issues: Mountain bike customers are traditionally wary of big-ticket purchases that require expensive one-off accessories. Mention the word, "proprietary" and it conjures up expensive carbon frames with shocks that won’t fit anything else, cranks without replacement sprockets, steerers that only fit one headset option, and the list goes on. The bottom line, at least for a truly lightweight inverted fork, is that the interface between the RS-1 fork, hub and axle had to be modified in order to make it a competitive product. We expect other suspension makers will present non-standard solutions as they move forward with similar inverted fork projects as well. Whether or not you subscribe to a fork purchase that requires a proprietary front hub and axle, the fact remains that without the courage to break from existing standards, the folks at RockShox would have been forced to leave the prototype RS-1 to gather dust in the bin labeled: "almost products."

Final Thoughts

The flash value alone, of an inverted carbon fiber XC racing fork from the boys and girls at RockShox, will generate sufficient force to drive it into the marketplace. The visibility that the RS-1 will bring to the brand when it debuts at World Cup XC events is yet another story bursting to be told. Beyond the hype, though, the the RS-1 also happens to be a damn good fork - one that seems to have handily overcome the historical negatives that have been recited ad-nauseum in media reviews of its predecessors, Those should be its number one selling points. For cross-country racers, the RS-1 delivers the exact blend of firm pedaling, big-hit insurance and instant remote lockout action that they need to win, along with the additional bonus of a substantial measure of security and stiffness in the steering department. For trail riders, the 120-millimeter-stroke model is the only practical option, as the RS-1's torsionally rigid carbon chassis and effortless suspension action begs to be ridden harder than the pencil-neck 100 or 80-millimeter options can possibly handle. In stock form, the 120-millimeter RS-1 is undergunned in the plush department to compete with some elite-level trailbike forks in the same travel category, but all the pieces are in place. The RS-1's Accelerator damper has seeds for speed, and with the addition of a couple of volume spacers to correct the spring rate, we are confident that the suspension action of RockShox's new inverted fork will match its standout steering precision and chassis stability. - RC

Author Info:

RichardCunningham

Member since Mar 23, 2011
974 articles

Report

Must Read This Week

Kona Bicycles' Parent Company Appoints New CFO, Intends to Sell Brand
64766 views

Downhill Bikes of Sea Otter - Part 1
47167 views

Brian's Randoms from Sea Otter 2024
45053 views

Randoms Round 3: Dario's Treasures
44711 views

Pinkbike's DH Fantasy League: Get Your Team On The Line - Fort William is in 10 DAYS!
39930 views

Randoms Round 1 - Sea Otter 2024
38322 views

[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Araxá XC World Cup 2024
38199 views

Spotted: Frameworks Racing DH Bike with Electronic Fox Shock & Unreleased Enve Rims
37377 views

PB Newsletter Signup

309 Comments

275 5

miguelads (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:05)

ʇsǝuoɥ os ˙˙˙ǝןʇıʇ ǝɥʇ uı „ǝʌısuǝdxǝ„ ʇɐɥʇ

62 5

maxlombardy (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:34)

Expensive, proprietary hub, new axle standard, 29er only... Meh, pass. I like the innovation though and I'm digging the new dampers by Rockshox!

42 27

tjet (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:45)

Can someone explain the advantages of it being inverted? Besides the stanchions getting beat up and scratched with rocks, branches, etc...

58 8

moefosho (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:45)

Something something... too expensive... something something... 29er... something something... upside down... something something... dark side. I bet the performance is fantastic. Time to go buy some lotto cards.

37 36

ninjaty (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:48)

Cool product. I'm really excited about this fork. Shut up and take my money!

32 4

kleinblake (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:50)

The fluids in an inverted fork are always against the seals, giving the best performance. If done right it should be stiffer too, as it's thicker at the top

20 1

bigdrop44 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:01)

@tjet Yes the inverted design has its flaws such as being prone to scratches due to debris, but the main pros to the design is the difference in unsprung weight for small bump absorbtion, and also the ability to have the bushings and stanchions bathed in oil at all times which helps decrease wear on seals and stanchions, increasing the life of fork. Anyways you could always get some lizard skin stanchion protectors on there if it worries you too much.
My opinion is that it is a great idea, but pricing and new standard of hub pushes me away.

21 5

ninjaty (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:22)

It's not a new standard, not yet anyway. Standard = Norm. this fork and technology is far from normal. Specialized does all kinds of proprietary garbage and it is not an industry standard. Lefty's are not standard, gearboxes not standard, top loading stems with 0 reach are also not standard. So how does a one off design equal "New Standard?" When other fork makers are on board, then I can buy into the New standard argument. I don't think the hub size is the deal maker/breaker here, just your wallet size.

chyu (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:38)

Alot people going to buy it with the reason because they can.

34 1

Triber66 (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:18)

"The RS-1 only fits 29 inch wheels." What are they talking about?! There's plenty of room for 650B in there!

16 3

ali-chapple (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:24)

I'm a bit confused. If this is an xc fork, and the SID is 55grams lighter, and unless SRAM/RS have now decided their current XC fork, with normal hubs is now useless, why am I supposed to buy this?

12 0

RoverDover (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:34)

I am sure you fit at least a 26x4.0 in there!

tommy4 (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:36)

29 is the largest "normal" size mountain bike wheel, you can fit anything smaller.

ccolagio (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:38)

^ i asked the same question...so its heavier AND more expensive than whats on the current market? seems logical...

24 1

tommy4 (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:43)

but it looks cool. why be functional when you can be fabulous.

5 24

freeride-forever (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:49) (Below Threshold)

@ tjet, just Google inverts to find out why their better if for some reason you don't already know.

Another new axle spec?? O.o Well that's just what I needed, another reminder about why you suck Rock Shox.

RaleighVoid (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:09)

rockshox: "alright freeride-forever we'll use a quick release then shall we?"

jclnv (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:49)

I guess cornering grip from the sensitivity is it's selling feature. I should imagine on flat, loose corners it'd track really well.

15 6

corywilliam (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:53)

i think im gonna stick with my right side up fork with 26 INCH WHEELS

E-ROG (Apr 8, 2014 at 17:21)

Inovation is great for the sport. I like this better than the "Lefty" idea. Be a fun Demo Day ride for sure. I think some stanchion guards are in order though.

7 23

kranked350z (Apr 8, 2014 at 17:39) (Below Threshold)

haaa gayyyeeeeeeee!

Chuvak (Apr 8, 2014 at 18:30)

this... this... abortion victim for 1860$?! I can buy 2 much more technological dorado forks for these money (one more for me, one for preserving), and also some money for the big box of beer will be left

maxlombardy (Apr 8, 2014 at 18:43)

You gotta have some money left for the big box of beer!!!

11 1

kdstones (Apr 8, 2014 at 19:27)

29er only, AND expensive? They must have made this just for Pinkbike to rant about!

sashamtbrider (Apr 8, 2014 at 21:15)

WHAT! ARE WE RICH OR SOMETHING?!

8 14

bikerboy158 (Apr 8, 2014 at 22:09) (Below Threshold)

"Pick a wheel size and then be a dick about it."

11 6

fecalmaster (Apr 9, 2014 at 7:53)

The douche baggery exhibited here by RS is only rivaled by the Cannondale Lefty! Get your spandex in a bunch now

Angryham (Apr 10, 2014 at 5:25)

What exactly was the point of this review seeing as literally no one wants it and even the article itself was really scathing?

91 15

tinyfatcat (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:08)

The exposed lower stanchions combined with its 1900$ retail price create extra excitement when riding through rough terrain. Imagine the face of some spandex-clad dentist when inspecting a scratch in his beautiful black coating. Oh wait, there's a silk handkerchief included with the fork. Makes sense...

mnorris122 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:52)

Yea, I'm questioning the logic behind saving weight at the expense of wrecking your fork

49 0

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:18)

I missed the part where they saved weight.

20 13

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:50)

People who'd buy this fork aren't concerned about lower leg damage, or know how to apply a pair of lizard skin fork boots without needing to bitch on a forum.

15 2

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:01)

Lizard skins? Seriously? Why not one of those rubber boots. You can pull one off one of the Walmart forks. At least it will not kill stiction.

27 6

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:05)

You know I've used lots of inverted forks on mountain bikes without lower guards and never had a problem with damage. The whole "scratched" lowers worry is totally overblown in mountain biking, ESPECIALLY on an XC racing fork.

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:13)

Yes, I know. But this one does not have it, and suggesting Lizard skins in particular is.. funny. The point is, this fork is a gimmick. Heavy, with a heavy proprietary hub. Pretty much anybody from a world cup racer to a weekend warrior will be better off with a Magura SL.

18 2

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:32)

It was meant as sarcasm because apparently simply being logical is impossible on here. As to the fork being a gimmick... its as much of one as one of those inverted gold forks from X-Fusion, or those Emerald forks from DVO. They're select user market forks. All had the usual riff-raff on here whining about the price tags and anything else they want to nit-pick on something they aren't the market segment for, well the manufacturers know who the complainers are going to be (immature pinkbike members), where they're to be found (here), and they still submit these products for testing. Why do you think that is ?

Willie1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:48)

3.67 pounds is heavy? It may not be the lightest fork on the market, but its not exactly heavy either.

bobochobo (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:15)

Axxe, someone who's willing to pay $1800 for a fork can probably afford to buy a lizards skin boot...

18 2

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:19)

More relevantly... someone racing XC isn't going to waste the weight on fork boots, for the 1 in 10,000 chance that a stone damages their lowers enough to cause a problem. Forks like these are more likely to be damaged because the owner forgets the bike is on the roof rack before driving into their garage.

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:34) (Below Threshold)

If your suggestion to put lizard skins was meant as sarcasm, it was too close to being serious.
I was not talking about stanchion damage. Dentists who will buy this for a new season, after ski season in Vail wraps up and their new ski, with colored go fast cut outs in the tip, can wait to be replaced until September, will not worry much.
My point was is I sincerely doubt this contraption is worth as far as actual performance benefits. Unsprung weight? I wonder how much of it is eaten by hub assembly.

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:41)

Here's the thing that doesn't make sense to me, based on it's market segment: It has better suspension performance... in a market that keeps their forks locked out 90% of the time, and it weighs... 200g more than a Sid WC that costs... 600 to 800 less. I love inverted forks, but I'm struggling to see what market this is targeted at.

21 0

RichardCunningham (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:55)

Groghunter^^^ The key element that the new RS-1 brings to the Pro XC racer is stiffness. Lightweight XC forks with 32mm stanchions get pretty flexible for 29-inch wheels. The RS-1 is much better than a SID WC in that respect, for a tiny weight increase. Plus, at the same high spring pressures used for XC racing, the RS-1's suspension action is noticeably smoother. My guess is that RockShocks built the fork much sturdier than necessary to ensure its acceptance, and that the XC RS-1s will get lighter, while the knowledge gained from the project will quickly spawn a 130/140mm version for the more PB-friendly trailbike market.

14 5

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:18)

Magura SL is pretty darn stiff. I would want to see one of those German mag test were they measure actual numbers, not just make seat of the pants claims.

How about Rock Shox publishes torsional and braking stiffness measured and repeatable numbers vs competition. Or how about Pinkbike does that? Like, real, hard numbers, deflection - vs Lefty, RS8 SL, SID. And translate it to wheel deflection, so that relative importance of the difference is more apparent.

Challenge for you Richard - if you claim something is stiff, quantify it.

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:39)

If you want to read a fork to fork test, go read one of those magazines that run them (MBUK does a monthly mass comparison feature, this month it happens to be trail bike forks), and leave pinkbike because this has never been the place to do those. What difference would it make even if PB did such testing? The majority of people who complain on these reviews would still complain, especially if their favourite fork didn't do well in the tests, or wouldn't even care about the numbers for that matter.

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:47)

If I want to read something, I will. Does not preclude me on calling out claims unsupported by evidence. If you like to read articles that are copy and paste of a PR release, that's your problem.

freeride-forever (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:56)

You know it's just a myth that an inverted fork is more prone to getting scratched inners. If it's a big worry then put some plastic or carbon guards on. I've f*cked up the stanchions on most of the conventional forks I've ever owned with scratches, knicks, gouges & snapped one right under the crown. If it had been an inverted fork, I doubt it woulda snapped. I've seen plenty of conventionals with scratched uppers. It just depends how & where you fall. You're less likely to severely damage a hardened uncovered lower on an invert than you are to tear off some stupid derailleur. :/

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:57)

Why should a fork company have to provide their own internal testing data in a magazine review to satisfy one skeptic who wasn't likely going to buy one anyway? Give away trade secrets just to make you happy? I didn't see you calling for X-Fusion or DVO to provide their data when they got their new boutique forks reviewed.

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:20)

Good reply, thanks RC. That said, how important is stiffness to an XC racer, vs 200g of weight? the weight has a immediately discernible effect: 200g is more weight to carry with you to the top of a climb, and in a market segment where people remove the top cap off their steerer after clamping down the stem, in order save weight, 200g is substantial. I care about stiffness because I'm stuffing my front wheel into turns, I just wonder how important that is in a discipline where a large percentage of the time, you're cranking an uphill grade? I guess I would put it this way: I don't know any WC XC guys, but the XC guys I do know, in a blind question, if asked whether they would trade 200g for a stiffer fork, would not take the stiffer fork. Tell them that they have to pay $600 for the privilege and you've made it absolutely certain. This fork makes sense to me in a black-box program setting, but I'm not seeing the logic of a retail release. That said, I'm super stoked for them to bring this thing to the trail bike market. I'd have never predicted a few years ago that not only would I be able to get a USD trail fork, but that I might even have choices to pick from.

Powderface (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:24)

deeeight: What happened when Santa Cruz showed the video of failure testing carbon vs aluminum frames? Did they go out of business for revealing "trade secrets"? Nope. Did a lot of people stop complaining about the strength of carbon frames? Yup.

So right now we have a fork that, factually, is heavier and more expensive than what exists on the market yet you're having a tantrum because some readers would like to see scientific numbers backing up the rigidity claims which would, to some extent, justify the greater weight and price. Please explain.

SlodownU (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:26)

Who knew that dentists made so much money. Winter in Vail money. Living like a rapper money. Need to get my ass to dental school.

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:31)

@Powderface: he is throwing a tantrum because that is what he does on the interwebs. Not because Rock Shox or anything.

norcaltw24 (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:41)

Groghunter, as someone who rides primarily xc on a Fox float 32 ctd on a niner there is a ton of chatter in the lowers when braking, descending, really anything where the fork is doing something other than climbing or going steady on straight relatively flat or smooth trails. The RS-1 is offering slightly better performance with heightened torsional and (probably safe to assume) lateral stiffness. With that in mind the lock out great actually providing a near ridged platform to work with on climbs. Though I know I wont be buying it any time soon there are some serious benefits when it comes the the xc market because there's no way that Fox is going to be able to provide the same torsional stability at a similar weight with a traditional, non-inverted fork. Same with the SID WC, good fork but the thing flexes like a limp noodle sometimes which, while not killing performance, can certainly get your heart racing a bit when you think your lowers are about to rip your stations in half and leave you trying not to nose dive into the ground at 25 mph.

hampsteadbandit (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:43)

well I think this fork is f*cking RAD, and I would love to have one to bolt onto my Stumpjumper 29'er and I certainly don't race!

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:58)

@powderface.. they didn't say what their internal design numbers were though, they simply showed what loads the frames weren't failing at. What we have is a fork that is marginally heavier than the SID WC but far stiffer, that has only just been revealed to the world in something other than teaser photos, and a bunch of internet poseurs already whining about it.

@Axxe... if that's what you call a tantrum you live a sheltered existence and I'm done discussing this issue with you since its clear you care nothing for logic.

@hamsteadbandit... you just reminded me of another boutique inverted fork... Marzocchi's RAC fork...another carbon upper inverted fork that had a price tag beyond the realm of most consumers, and which the "kids" here lusted over.

fabdemaere (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:22)

@deeeight dude take your pills already, you're everywhere on this page, stop spamming. I know you're probably going to invent some lame excuse like a broken leg, but your behavior screams hatred of mankind, boredom and a desperate desire for attention.

rideonjon (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:06)

@Powderface Yah I want to see some guys from rock shox hanging out and battering this fork against a concrete barrier aswell!!!!

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:17)

@noraltw24 and @hampsteadbandit1: You guys are talking about general XC riding. I think this fork makes sense for that, in that the performance increase is well worth the weight gain(I've been riding a USD DH fork for a decade for this exact reason.) The problem is that this fork isn't targeted at you guys, because the price sets this well into the "professional racer" category. in that category, the only question is "does this make me faster?" The problem is "200g heavier" is a quantifiable, easy to understand number, that answers "no" to that question. They're offsetting that penalty with the answer that "It's stiffer and will perform better the when you're not climbing." I'm sure that's true. but it's not as easy to quantify, and leaves room for interpretation: "How much stiffer?" "Does that matter for how I ride?" Add the $600 price premium, and that interpretation becomes "a way I will convince myself I don't need it." I can't help but wonder if this was originally intended to be only given to racers at first, in order to gauge interest and generate hype, but they changed that plan after backlash of not letting everybody have the upgraded Vivid.

bkm303 (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:23)

Sorry, where are you guys getting 200g from? The article says it weighs only 50g more than a SID WC. Did I miss something?

Having just switched from a QR RockShox SID fork to a trail fork, I can say that XC race forks can be incredibly noodly. For a 50g penalty I could see some racers opting for the stiffness of the RS-1. More stiffness and sensitivity means more speed/confidence in the tech sections and less fatigue

bikehoarder23 (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:35)

But it will serve good for "profiling" purposes

h-beck83 (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:46)

All that I can say about my non-inverted forks is that the lowers have a lot of marks on them while the uppers have none. I'm not opposed to guards and what not, but I can't accept that inverted forks are no less prone to damage than normal forks. Look at the classifieds and see how many people say, "scuff marks and scratches on lowers, but uppers are perfect." Having said this, I am broke, ride 26", and prefer a bit more travel. Pass.

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:06)

@bkm303: The weight off RS's website for a 29" SID WC is 1440g. the claimed weight in this article for the RS-1 is 1666g. If it's only 50g heavier, I'd like to know which number is a lie... That said, the argument is more compelling at 50g, at least for sponsored riders. a $600 price premium will make that 50g seem like a big number at retail, though...

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:08)

The RS-1 weight includes the hub, the Sid WC weight does not.

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:02)

that explains it, but means that hub is fairly heavy for XC: a SID and a Chris king QR hub would be 1576g, and could be lighter if you went with a low flange hub. So "system" weight difference is closer to 100g than 50g.

michibretz (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:15)

To be able to say if its better weight wise one would have to know the exact weight distribution.
Unsprung (moving) parts including Hub vs. sprung (not moving) parts would be the interesting information. 50grams total more or less is completely irrelevant in terms of function as long as its in the right place.
That said if done right (and there is not enough information about this fork to say so yet but one has to assume) RS1 should have significantly less unsprung mass which will result in better response characteristics.

Seriously, we should actually appreciate if from time to time product finds it way into the market that is designed to offer an advantage for riding and not only for posting stories on instagram or facebook (marketing) instead of bitching about possible scratches.
If you really crash hard you will have scratches even if you put your stanchions as high up as you can. If not and you take care about your stuff you will be perfectly fine riding a USD fork. (talking from experience)

Finally i want t say I am absolutely no fan of anything RS or SRAM. I did not have the slightest positive experience with any of their product in the last 20 years or so. That last positive one was a Judy DH in the nighties which was pretty rad back then but this definitely has potential.

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 18:02)

"Better" and "lighter and therefore better, because all I care about is weight" are two different things, which is my point. At the price point that this hits, there's significant overlap with the "lighter and therefore better, because all I care about is weight" crowd, whom this fork won't please. Personally, if i was building up a 9er XC/light trail bike, and money was no object: this would be the fork I would have. Oh, and you should really look into the modern RS stuff: I was a hater from about the same timeframe as you, but I love my Lyrik. Makes the 36 I had before it look like garbage.

Willie1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 20:04)

Through axle forks are weighed with the axle, where QR forks aren't. Apples to oranges!

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 20:55)

hmm. I guess that depends on if the QR hub is weighed with the skewer. No idea on the chris king hubs. This would all be simpler if they had not tried to fudge the numbers by including the hub in the weight, when no-one else does that, even themselves on any other fork.

RichardCunningham (Apr 8, 2014 at 21:23)

Axxe^^^ I can do a torsional stiffness comparison without too much trouble, but I'd have to establish a baseline before the numbers will mean anything. I'll give it serious consideration. For the record, I won't claim that component A feels stiffer than component B unless there is a large enough margin that an astute rider would arrive the same conclusion.

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 21:29)

That would be very useful, i think. Even astute riders have different threshholds and do not test in identical and double blind conditions. Lefty, rs8 sl from magura and sid would be a great comparison. Combined with weight to stiffness ratio. It is just my personal peeve when people state what they believe in, but it does not measure out. Some of the test numbers with through axles and various forks had been quite interesting.

michibretz (Apr 8, 2014 at 23:11)

Groghunter... It's about performance to weigh ratio. It always is. If it where for pure weight a rider wouldn't, or should not, consider 29er option either. The added weigh of the bigger wheel is much more than the added weight for better working suspension. Not to mention it is unsprung an on top of that rotating mass which hurts performance even more. On Rs, I am in the lucky position to be able test ride all kinds of products. Rs got better again, no question but I am sill not sold. anyway I will for sure take the Rs1 for a spin as soon as I get my hand on one. I couldn't agree more on the fact that fox got really disappointing milking that golden-kashima-cow and leaving riders with absolutely unsuficient dampening.

cikudh (Apr 9, 2014 at 4:03)

recent evolution of bike. F1 tiers components .. carbon frames, carbon drivetrain , carbon wheels from Enve and now carbon forks .... Mustang car tag price is coming alive!

Willie1 (Apr 9, 2014 at 6:21)

groghunter, qr hubs are typically weighed without the skewer. Manufacturers also sift through numerous examples of products, and publish the lightest example. There is a variance based on manufacturing tolerances. The real world is quite a bit different.

groghunter (Apr 9, 2014 at 7:35)

Willie1, while I understand the difference between real world vs claimed weight, we can probably assume that RS picked out the lightest example of both the SID WC and the RS-1 + hub, and that Chris King did the same, so the numbers should be fairly compatible. I also didn't pick the lightest hub option Chris King had, and there's probably brands out there lighter than them, but I wouldn't know, not being a really obsessed XC component weight guy.

bkm303 (Apr 9, 2014 at 8:15)

michibretz has it right. If weight was the only concern we'd see all the xc racers on rigid carbon forks and 26ers, but instead in some races we see them on lightweight full suspension 29ers. Something that can significantly reduce energy loss through small bumps and increase speed through tech sections and tight corners would definitely be worth the extra weight. And as others have mentioned, I'm sure we'll start seeing weight reductions in later model years.

michibretz (Apr 9, 2014 at 10:57)

RichardCunningham and Axxe... forget about stiffens and lab test numbers. Any numbers that will come out of measuring Its absolutely irrelevant for the performance of the Fork. The real world is a bit more complex than weight/torsional stiffness.

1) A fork needs Flex in in order to work. More importantly the whole system Frame-Fork needs flex. Without Flex you would not be able to rid through a turn smoothly.
2) There is more axes than just Torsion. So even if you would know which number its the right one on torsion, not too stiff and not to soft, it will not tell you anything about the performance because you also need to consider it in realization to forward and sideways flex as well as to the flex properties of the frame.
3) like stated before weight to stiffens ratio is also not that important. Its a bit more complicated in the real world and a plain stiffness to weight ratio will tell you about as much about the performance of a fork as the Meat to bread ratio would tell you about the taste of a Burger...
You have to consider weight distribution again on the whole bike and not only one single component. To keep it simple, In the real world you have to differentiate between weight, bad weight and really bad weight. (sprung, unsprung, rotating, rotating and unstrung) and so on...
Depending on where your extra weight is located its influences on performance and ride characteristics range from not feel-able to completely changing the characteristics of the ride.
4) Such a change of ride characteristics caused by added wight does not need to be negative and has mater of fact to do with personal preferences. A lot of people feel added weight positive as it results in better stability (wheel sizes, sorry did not mean to restart this topic)

michibretz (Apr 9, 2014 at 10:58)

My recommendation on this fork: go test ride it. if you like it buy it. if not than not you have the choice nobody forces you.

But don't start putting useless numbers to everything like German Bike magazines do that really say nothing and worse a lot of times would point you in a completely wrong direction because the interpretation of the numbers is too complicated.
Its not as simple as bigger is better!

We should appreciate if companies try to push the boundaries and don't just sell us a new colorway as the huge innovation for the new season even if it sometimes is not to your taste we as long as we have choice there is nothing wrong with that...

Axxe (Apr 9, 2014 at 11:46)

Balderdash. Numbers are never irrelevant. Anything that can not be quantified in weight, stiffness, damping curve etc is pacebo effect. It is a fairly simple apparatus. Its performance is measurable. Obviously any number can not be taken in isolation, but with minimal experience you can translate numbers into expected performance traits.

michibretz (Apr 9, 2014 at 12:33)

Axxe, that's not what I am saying.

I tried to explain to you that Numbers are only worth if you know what they mean.
If you don't numbers are irrelevant. Also I am saying a single number by itself is irrelevant as the situation is too complex to be judged be one number alone.
Torsional stiffness/weight ratio alone does not tell you anything relevant to the performance of the fork.
For performance its about as important to know as the fact that the fork is Black.

In order to Judge suspension by numbers you would have to analyze gigabytes of data. That's a whole Job of its own and can keep you busy for month... In fact it used to be my job for a couple of years...

Axxe (Apr 9, 2014 at 14:09)

Tried to explain to me? I think it is you who needed an explanation. "Torsional stiffness/weight ratio alone does not tell you anything relevant to the performance of the fork. For performance its about as important to know as the fact that the fork is Black." Are you serious? Torsional stiffness is touted as a big advantage for this model, and it is perfectly measurable and it does not lie. You seat of the pants feeling can actually be skewed - by testing on a bike with different wheels, by setting low speed compression firmer etc. Difficult to setup comparison testing exactly. But everything else being equal - you absolutely can predict by just looking at test numbers.

michibretz (Apr 9, 2014 at 15:21)

Axxe... oh well... for how long are you predicting fork performances by torsional rigidity numbers professionally?

If you are able to do that you might want to send your resume to one of the big suspension companies... last time i had the pleasure working with one of them they had dozens of technicians there trying to make sens of the numbers the lab tests gave them... if you can predict the riding properties of a fork by the weight to torsional stiffness ratio only... damn it we all will be out of a job if the wrong person reads this.

Please!!!! don't tell anyone about your superpowers I really need my paycheck next month...

Axxe (Apr 9, 2014 at 19:01)

You are full of it. It is absolutely trivial for an "astute rider" to compare and feel twp numbers. If you can not do that - you are not earning your paycheck, whatever you are paid for.
Claiming that such a simple measure is irrelevant and can not be used for predicting handling is beyond asinine. And you can not wiggle out of making patently asinine statements here, and smug arrogance would not help.
And rest assured - I am more than qualified to judge such simple measurements.

jaame (Apr 9, 2014 at 21:52)

Finally a new axle size we can all embrace! I'm a total hater of the utterly pointless and shite 15mm standard, but 27 sounds like the shit to me. I would happily upgrade all my wheels to 27mm axles over time, as long as Thule can change the tube on my rack to 27mm. And USD will wipe its arse with RWU even in the MTB world over the next five years. Mark my words. The companies want to sell the latest fad, and in this case the fad is actually going to be better. Wide carbon rimmed 650b wheels with 27mm front axles, USD forks, electronic dropper posts, magnetic freewheels... shit it's an exciting time. I'm going to quit and come back in 2020... save my money and then splash it on a rocketship when I'm 40. Get some!

michibretz (Apr 10, 2014 at 8:30)

Axxe, Dude you are killing.... I guess i found my new Best-Forum-Friend....

one last try for you, very simple: What you are asking for is like asking for 2 digits of a chicks phone number.

In order to call the chick you need all numbers and you need them in the correct order.
Having two digits only will not help you to get a "better ride" therefore is irrelevant...

54 2

rodeoJ (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:24)

This fork won't be for everyone, and very few will ride it. And while I have no practical interest in it, I do love that companies are experimenting, putting out those pieces of research and development that just "maybe" someone might find useful, pushing boundaries, reiterating and reinventing old designs, and in general tinkering with everything that is assumed known and done. Keep going Sram, DVO, XFusion, Fox, BOS, etc... creating things like this will teach a lesson or two and just possibly make the fork(s) that I will actually use, better some day.

Willie1 (Apr 9, 2014 at 6:23)

This is the best reply in this whole thread!!!!!!

48 18

Zalgorithm (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:27)

If you've come here to complain about the price, go away.
If you've come here to complain about the wheel size, go away.

Sure, it is expensive, but it has a purpose and I'm glad to see RS doing something different. I know this isn't the first inverted fork, but I'm excited to see how it performs and how it may change the suspension industry, if at all. I'm not interested in such a short travel fork at the moment, but maybe down the road when the price drops, if this is a sucess.

But to you people who constantly complain, nag, and b**** about the aforementioned topics, give it a rest. RS doesn't care and neither do most of us. And what about the X-Fusion Revel? Not quite as expensive at around $1800, but close. Criticism is one thing, but your incessant complaining is on a whole different level.

Challenge yourself with a different perspective and an open mind. Though I do miss the more DH oriented stuff, I'm glad to see all the trail/AM reviews as I was in a need of a new AM bike. Thanks PB and RC.

Edit- Apologies for the rant everyone.

52 10

WAKIdesigns (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:36)

I want to complain on people who complain about people complaining high prices and wheel size deficit.

14 2

topherdagopher FL (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:37)

What?! Shhhhhh. You can't have an opinion unless it's our opinion.

RobbyBriers (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:38)

Look at that. There's hope for 'Murica. 100% with you!

It's not even on the market, yet the majority of PB-users knows exactly how the fork will do when it's being sold.

RS has been making forks since... And well ok, that's no guarantee for success of the RS-1. BUT: as long as it hasn't been tested on a wide scale, you cannot say how it will perform. You can guess, but that's it.

Calm down, read, watch, listen, compare, and only then, judge.

tjet (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:42)

I love how PB sets off the title for a big argument, and you fools step right into it...

TheOriginalTwoTone (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:42)

I'd normally agree with you, but this is a little over the top. $1800 for a heavier fork that requires at a minimum a wheel rebuild also. To me that's not progress.

It may preform better, but honestly how much better than the lighter traditional SID?

Sshredder (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:42)

X Fusion Revel is the ultimate bling enduro fork. This is for that 29er crowd.

Zalgorithm (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:46)

I know Waki, I know. And on a tangent, I must admit, I'm big fan of your work. Well done.

Why so serious? I don't know, I suppose it's frustration at this point. I know the whole industry is evolving rapidly, but that's life and change is inevitable. Evolve or die. And thanks Robby, it's appreciated.

fullbug (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:48)

what? tell people to go away then apologize for it?

notthatfast (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:50)

I just don't see the point - a lightweight XC racing inverted fork, fine. But it's more expensive than a sid, it's heavier than a sid - yeah it might be stiffer, but no XC racer is going to pay more money for something that is heavier than what they already have. Ever. If the want better damping, why not just put a new damper in the sid?

kleinblake (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:54)

The fork may be a little impractical, but after it's used on the WC circuit, XC forks will be pushed forward. This is innovation

fullbug (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:56)

and i used to be able to give my friends who play golf crap about the money they spent.

notthatfast (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:56)

There's nothing innovative about this. They're doing what marzocchi did 10 years ago with the RAC, but with better marketing. The fork is stiffer than a shitty XC fork, yeah we all know what can be done with carbon, nothing new there. What's innovative about a heavier fork with shittier damping? Nothing.

Tnp128 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:57)

Do you have a bike? then go ride it and stop complaining. It's a waste of time

WAKIdesigns (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:08)

Zalgorithm - I am rarely serious, I just wanted to write some crap, you know as usual.

Tnp128 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:10)

It's cool. I'm just joking as well.

TheOriginalTwoTone (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:11)

Another point, the Fork is already heavier- how much heavier is that hub than say a DT240?

Matt-W (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:18)

"if you've come here to complain about people complaining go away"

fullbug (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:28)

channeling brick tamland

jameshoke1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:08)

@sam264 most wc racers aren't going to pay for the rs-1 so they dont care how much it cost

chasejj (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:54)

Hmmm. My crystal ball tells me that a new range of Enduro forks (RS-2, RSE?) is coming with proprietary hub as well.
Not only are you buying a fork but a hub which will drive you to buy their wheels. I see them thinking about a proprietary disc size to further up the horizontal integration of the product line. Chew on this. I would not be shocked if the wheels will only come with the XX1 freehub. At least for the 1st production run. This will lock you into a XX or XO drivetrain s well.
I like the hub interface solution to torsion forces much better than XFusions idea of keyways. As long as it works.

I get it. Makes me think about a 29er for the first time in my life. But I still like my 26er.

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:57)

Right, but WC guys care about faster. the question becomes, does the fork make me faster? 200g of extra weight to pedal to the top of the hill certainly counts against it, so the performance on the downs will have to be something REALLY special to make this at all worth it.

22 1

pb-kg (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:11)

I'm looking at the lowers of my 6 month old Pike and wondering how the hell this fork is supposed to last more than a few rides without the stanchions getting mangled.

PLC07 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:24)

I feel the same but then I don't really recall people crying about their dorado stanchions getting destroyed so my guess is that it's not that bad of a problem.

pb-kg (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:36)

Dorados have bolt-on rock guards for this very reason: a href="http://www.sicklines.com/gallery/data/1031/medium/dorado-pro-expert-2013.jpg">Clicky/a>

alexsin (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:11)

If this fork goes over well I could see them expanding the program to include more Trail/AM applications and those would require some kind of stanchion guards. I think this is a cool move forward.

22 1

RyanWensley (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:14)

That price tag..... That's more than a 40.

bipolarexpress (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:26)

and guess what, you have to replace the stanchions every now and then

RyanWensley (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:29)

Good thing I don't like XC riding then.

10 0

todd96srv (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:28)

Breaking new ground requires commitment, despite what the masses say. The cost will come down, someone will design a stantion guard and you will see this product on the trail sooner or later. Congrats to Rockshox for pushing their limits and forcing the others to catch up!

mfblackwell1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:35)

The most concerns on here are 'its a 29er and expensive' even I said it, but I agree with you in that anything new and different like this starts off expensive... With the price down and possibly bringing out 27.5, maybe will have more appeal then to the 'masses'?

10 0

almightybenners (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:47)

I imagine that its mainly going be specced OEM on high end race bikes (sworks, scott ltd etc) which will come with wheels anyway so the proprietary hub isn't really an issue for 95% of people who will end up with the fork.

10 2

BeardlessMarinRider (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:43)

Looks like all the disadvantages of a Lefty (high price, new hub) but without the advantages such the low weight and I'd be incredibly surprised if it was as stiff as a Lefty.... which is just ridiculously stiff. Who knows how popular Leftys could be with good marketing...

jaybird951 (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:05)

$3300 Enve Wheels, $1900 XC Fork, $3300 Frame, $2000-$3000 XTR SRAM X1 package, $1000 other bits like Chris King BB, HS, Carbon Bars, Telescoping Seatpost Carbon Saddle...we now have a $12,000-$13,000 USD bike easily....WOW...nice! line me up for something (sarcasm)!

locoola (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:37)

Someone has to pay for innovation, may as well be the XC riders ;-) Looks sick.

PacificPointer (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:54)

Every time something new comes out it seems I end up buying a complete bike for 1/4 - 1/3 of it's value from someone who just has to have the latest current offerings.
My life as a bottom feeder.

gnarbar (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:00)

sensible

bikebudha1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:30)

So RS has created a new fork that weighs the same as most every other fork, rides as well as most every other fork, yet costs over twice as much, and requires a proprietary hub? No thanks. I'd rather spend that kind of coin on a German-A 'Kilo' fork where you get all the same torsional stiffness at a whole pound less...

bikebudha1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:41)

edit, German-A also makes an inverted 29er fork - the 'Flame'. They make them for both 29" and 26" wheels. Granted, not carbon. Although that doesn't matter in this case. Carbon has two benefits, dampening and weight savings. In the case of suspension, the dampening is irrelevant as the suspension does all the work. So if so much carbon is used that there is no weight savings, then all carbon does is add to the cost....

wheel-addict (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:50)

So cool to see RockShox trying something truely different, even if version one is a bit pricey. Perhaps it will prove to be a failure, but perhaps it won't and will lead to a major advancement in fork design. Personally, I think it looks pretty rad.

fantaman (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:13)

'' MSRP: $1,865 USD, € 1,658 '' RS please give us a break that price is ridiculous for a XC fork & why 27mm axles if there isn't enough standards.

morewhitenoise (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:42)

Expensive, proprietary, and heavier than the competition.... Why would i buy this again?
Whats the USP here? Even if i had unlimited money...id still want the best, and i cant see how this is the best XC fork on the market at all!

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:46)

It's not even heavier than just the competition. It's 200g heavier than a Sid WC.

burt-reynolds (Apr 8, 2014 at 20:30)

No, it's not. Weight includes the hub. Talking about 50 grams here.

groghunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 20:52)

Yea, we went over this in the thread above: the weight is with the hub. Pair a SID with a typical XC hub, and you get a difference closer to 90g, with lighter options available.

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:58)

Well looks like the talk about this becoming a fat fork might be true. Why do I say that? The using 15QR dropouts with 110mm hub spacing. One of the currently made Fat Suspension forks is a 15QR dropout inverted fork. All RockShox have to do is make new uppers to widen the fork stance to take a 135mm hub and presto... fat fork. And a wider hub spacing would let them eliminate the need for a torque tube hub (because the fat bikers ride tires so soft that they'll never notice
any loss of torsional rigidity anyway).

beeone72 (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:09)

Hey deeeight - Your the biggest windbag ever ! Do you spend all day posting your nonsense on here ?
Seems you just love to whine about the whiners ( which makes you one also ) - good thing you do all your sh!t talking online Gandolf cause I can't see you living too long in the real world talking like you do.
You've got to be the biggest Pinkbike nerd ever .... Guaranteed.

carym (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:52)

Wow, Rockshox invented the Maverick SC32, only 10 years later and twice the price.

joeyrotundo (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:42)

I Was Inverted - Top Gun (3/

Movie CLIP (1986) …: youtu.be/wUZxSf_P2r0

beeone72 (Apr 8, 2014 at 18:16)

I call bullshit ! Iceman style. Lol.

digthehills (Apr 9, 2014 at 3:22)

"Ego writing cheques that your body cant cash" lol no-one will be writing cheques for these bloody forks at that price!!!!

badpotato (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:51)

Follow me on this:
RS1 is for 29" wheels --> Long fork
Long fork --> I can put it on my 26" Enduro/Freeride bike and still have the same geo
I have my enduro/freeride bike with the same geo but less travel ---> I ride pavement and become a hipster with looks over function!!
WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? ;]

dmadness (Apr 8, 2014 at 18:57)

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA.. nearly 2G for an iverted 4" travel fork, WOW, people love to be sold stuff.

let me know how those lowers do without any form of guard, have fun with your dented and expensive fork./

Baconbiker (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:17)

Can someone please explain to me the benefits of inverted forks? They look butt ugly and cost insane amounts of money. These forks even have exposed stanchions! all I can think of is riding behind your buddy when his tire kicks out a rock, which in turn comes flying at a good speed straight towards your naked stanchions and dents them.

lucent (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:49)

Less unsprung weight = smaller mass to move during compression of the fork = (in theory) more sensitive suspension. www.mb1suspension.com/#!unsprung-weight/c15fs (a moto article, but explains why moto forks are inverted)

Mac-Aravan (Apr 9, 2014 at 4:33)

Bushed that are in oil bath are major +, so can really work as hydrodynamic bearing. Seal also slightly benefit from it.

mfblackwell1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:10)

29er only and that expensive? I know they have said they have 27.5 in the pipeline, and yeah go rockshox for the innovation, after previous failed attempts its quite the task, but apart from it being a successful inverted fork, looking pretty cool and some other small pro's, I can't see what is really selling it when compared to some forks already mentioned on the above comments?

UrsaMajor (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:27)

As a spandex-wearing-carbon-fiber-cross-country-race-weight-weenie I normally keep my mouth shut around here...But boys you were right the end is near.

broomhandle (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:06)

Cannondale has had the lefty since 2000. Inverted and light. Lefty is a special hub too but it can do 26/27 or 29...

Inverted is cool. Price and special hub that I bet is not cheap are not cool.

Marlin29 (Apr 8, 2014 at 21:51)

Out of my price range for sure, but so is a new Pike, even if I could fit it to my Pitch. A lot of good tech and innovation in there, and that can translate to improvements across all product lines. Keep up the good work SRAM, and keep tuning out the self-serving haters.

reddirtrides (Apr 9, 2014 at 6:41)

This is the start of something new, as far I see it. You see, carbon fiber... inverted... new axle... Sram is smart and aiming this at the right market. It needs real world testing. It needs exposure, It needs someone to mount it on their 26" dh bike next year, ride whistler, have it survive a season, and say "OMG, this thing would be awesome if it was a little bit longer travel." It needs enduro riders to set it at 120mm, put those spacer things in it and start running it hard and winning. It is way lighter then shivers, and has the same potential... It is the real world exposure that begins the end of forks as we know them, IMHO

byorita (May 18, 2014 at 9:31)

I came here cause i saw the ad, and had a question. I guess that hub kinda answers my questi0n, but would it really be strong enough to handle lateral forces and having both sanctions compress at the same time? Seems like this will have more lateral wobble due to independent sanctions placed together with the moving hub.

Terrapb (Jul 1, 2014 at 17:35)

When I look at how things are going in MTB and the history of evolution in MTB there is not a lot to complain about. Remember when the first RS1 came out... I remember thinking that thing was for racers and 'merchant bankers' only. But then competitors came on board and now any $100 bike has suspension forks of some kind.

They say the best you've ridden is the best you know... I've ridden motorbikes on racetracks, enduro trailbikes etc and the big thing I notice lacking on my 29er MTB is front end stiffness and tracking. Let's face it, most XC-trail 29er front ends are woeful in this regard. Up until now if you wanted an XC-trail front end that actually tracks really well you had to go carbon rims and a lefty fork.

This new USD RS-1 is going to put the spotlight on 'front end tracking' for 29er MTB. Plus its wide hub might help builders get more stiffness out of the 29er front wheel. Note that rockshox isn't licensing the hub, so Fox, Marzzochi, Magura, Manitou etc can have at it... Can't wait to see what Fox do. It will force the industry to raise the bar on front-end tracking.

The RS-1 will become cheaper (quickly) and more hub manufacturers will get on board... Plus the weight will come down a bit and there will be more adjustment options. We just need to hold our breath for a while. Let the 'merchant bankers' show up with the new toy, I hope they all buy one, and let the sponsored racers do well on them. RS will have more confidence in the direction of the market and will up the scales of economy - so next year's model becomes cheaper.

Yep it's stupid expensive for a fork. But far from bleating about not having a meal ticket to play with the new expensive toy, I'm happy for the advance from one of the big players and will be patient until it trickles down to my price point.

bman33 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:17)

$1900 and requires the rider to purchase a proprietary hub and extra cost? When the Foes F1 came out it required a similar hub that came with the fork for the crazy price, so no excuse. And then the article doesn't even mention the cost of the hub (which will probably be more than a Chris King). Ridiculous. I am sure it's a great fork but that little point seems to be an FU from Rock Shox

alexsin (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:43)

Or how about: "We're trying something new by applying contemporary materials engineering and recent damper success from the Pike and applying them to an old design problem. It's going to be innovative and expensive and likely not for everyone. But it will teach us a lot about materials and design and will likely trickle down to other more affordable products."

Presumably you will not buy any later products based on learnings from this experiment then?

bman33 (Apr 8, 2014 at 19:34)

You completely missed my point. At that cost the hub should come with it. Back to my Foes F1 example: At the time that fork cost $1000 I believe. Nothing was near that for a fork at the time. That hub was proprietary and the forks worked great. My comment was in no way bashing the tech or innovation. The inverted fork has been toyed with for 20 years or so with the bike market as materials and tech advanced. Looking at the hub it isn't anything special. Larger diameter axle interface maybe. But it is more advanced or complex than say a Chris King or Hope. Hell, charge $2000 for the fork and make the buyer feel he is getting a complete package at least. If there where other options, fine. But the article says they are going to license the tech. (which is probably just a hex type thru axle).

Steve-skidvd (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:27)

Re-inventing the wheel ??? there are many competitors out there producing equally performing XC forks, and for far less money... May appeal to lawyers, dentists, doctors etc.. as a must have, even more appealing as its 29er specific... this will make them think that they look even faster with these forks....

wolf-amongst-lambs (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:01)

So.pardon my ignorance, but what makes this 29er only? Why won't a 650b or a 26 fit in? I mean besides looking funny... Does the offset kill anything but 29?

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:46)

You could fit either except you would have a much taller fork for a given wheel travel so it'd slacken your head angle and the fork offset is optimized around the steeper head angle geometry common to 29ers. You could even use an existing 20mm wheel if you had some reducers made to shim the 15mm axle inside it. But in the end you'd have a fork that makes your bike steer like a cow, for a lot of money.

wolf-amongst-lambs (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:56)

Well i Mean you could lace any hoops you want to their hubs that's not the point But if the geometry is that much different, that's a different story

b26-4-Life (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:07)

"110 mm hub provides wide spoke spacing to increase wheel stiffness"
What else was 110? The "outdated" 20mm thru axle!

And are the patent clerks totally useless at this point? The torque tube is no different from a Specialized stout hub, or basically any other QR or 15QR hub, just larger.

digthehills (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:27)

As soon as people start paying this much all the time for a new fork (that prob wont make that much difference to their weekend ride) companies will just put the price of the next model up another little bit, and so on, and so on. Seriously people, do you not remember when these kind of prices would have been called scandalous??? It seems that as soon as one company starts to persuade customers that "YOU NEED THIS FOR YOUR BIKE" dispite the huge price tag, all the others will set their prices to be similar ( purely because they know they can get away with asking such a ridiculous sum of money, as people have paid these mad prices to one of their competitors ) and all of a sudden the going rate for a set of forks is around the 2 grand mark n o matter what make they are. It has got crazy these days, Innovation / maybe. Progression / maybe, but as for extorsion / definately. How about one of these companies tries to blow the other one out of the water for a change and give people something new that is upto date and actually affordable for a change. Last time i checked, wages dont go up anywhere near as much as the price of bike products. And as for people saying "dont come on here and complain about the price" listen to yourself! The price is crazy to the average person. You may be able to afford these and that is fair enough, but i hope the majority of riders out there agree, ENOUGH OF PAYING THROUGH THE ROOF. neg prop away if you have nothing better to do

alexsin (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:39)

I didn't get the impression from the article that they say 'you need this for your bike'. It seems pretty well-understood that this is an innovative new product and it's expensive and intended for a limited audience. There's nothing extortionate about it. It's the latest greatest thing and you'll pay for it, just like anything else. Prefer more affordable but equally functional stuff? Then buy that. What's the big deal?

This is an interesting engineering challenge that they've taken on. I don't have any need to spend $1800 on an XC fork but likely this technology will feed back to us on more affordable stuff eventually so I'm stoked that they're trying to push the boundaries. Not sure why anyone would complain about a company trying to innovate.

digthehills (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:43)

The innovation is a good thing but I just think that prices are getting a bit out of control. I will always buy what I can afford and I say go ahead to anyone who wants to buy these forks if that is what they want to do, its their money at the end of the day so they can do whatever they like. I understand that this is a complexed engineering challenge, otherwise there would be plenty of choice from different manufacturers for single crown upside down forks by now, but there isnt. That is why they can charge a price like this, because they are the only company to offer a such a product. I just wish the next company to bring out a similar fork (now that the technologies are available to create it) really challenges the market with a price that will get people talking about it for the right reasons. I cant wait to read a review on pinkbike someday for an upside down single crown fork and most of the comments at the bottom of the page are things like "WOW what a brilliant price!" and "AMAZING I can go and buy these in the next couple of weeks" New technologies should be made available to a wider audience as soon as they are developed, not just the very wealthy or the sponsored riders. This applies to many products in the bike industry.
They do not state in this article that this product is a "must buy" but if there is major improvements in the performance then obviously everyone will want it, so why not try and let everyone afford it.

hillharman (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:14)

Is it stiffer than a Pike? The 29er Pike only weighs 4.2 lbs, and that's at 140mm travel. Seems like if you had another $800 in it (carbon steerer, 120 mm), that you could pull off a fork at a competitive weight with 35mm stanchions. It seems like the stiffness is the whole thing here, and I wonder how much stiffer it actually is.

gabriel-mission9 (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:11)

Why 15mm axle????? Its got its own proprietary hub with a 27mm axle, so why bother stepping down to 15mm? whats the point? Why not use a proprietary 27mm thru axle for massive stiffness and less weight? Or if you MUST use a standard size axle (for reasons I can not work out as you will never fit another hub to this fork) why not use 20mm? Theres plenty of room in there. It literally makes no sense.

rideonjon (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:08)

Why use a 20mm?Give me some reasoning.

durkonion (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:18)

There are only a couple of reasons I can see why they went with a 15mm "quick release" instead of just making a 27mm thru-axle. First, they'd have to make a new thru-axle which is more complicated than a torque tube. Second, you wouldn't be able to use it with your current roof rack adapter mounts. Those are kind of lame reasons. Other than that...I have no idea.

bbpr (Apr 8, 2014 at 18:46)

If the end buyer has already dropped $2 grand into the fork, whats a little more for a new rack adapters.

Beyond that, it shouldn't be too hard to scale a 15mm maxle up to 27mm for that extra boost in strength, rigidity and proprietary goofiness. Using the existing 20mm thru-axle hub design would let other companies hubs be used and that just isn't good for locking in the end user to this one system.

gabriel-mission9 (Apr 9, 2014 at 8:38)

Why use 20mm?:

Increased surface area between dropout and axle = more clamping stiffness.
More air in the middle = lighter weight.
No need to design a new qr axle design as they already exist in 20mm.

Why use 15mm? Give me some reasoning
Why not use 27mm? Give me some reasoning

Also. Someone neg propped me. Not bothered, but in keeping with the theme.....Give me some reasoning.

vggg (Apr 8, 2014 at 19:47)

RC writes:
"..we believe that the addition of one or two Bottomless Tokens would give the 120-millimeter RS-1 the progressive spring rate it needs to soften its initial travel ..."

As the graphs indicate more force is required for the same travel, how can the initital travel get softer?

jcupit (Apr 8, 2014 at 20:05)

Used to run marzocchi shivers on a dh rig over 10 years ago...the upside downs have been around for years. Ya they have their strengths but i did get chips on mine, the seals went and they were expensive and hard to repair, service and clean. Rockshox's been doing great stuff recently with their charge system, but sadly i dont really see much point in these, i'll take some xx SID's instead thanks and i won't have to change my front hub either

eball (Apr 9, 2014 at 21:38)

Good ol #merica propaganda at its finest, nothing innovative about this fork, yeah the internals are something new, but its way overpriced. At this pace a good bike in 2020 is going to cost over 20k, but hell as long as we keeping paying for bikes and parts at any cost these manufactures will continue to jack up there prices. #fail

guppie (May 5, 2014 at 20:09)

Keep seeing the same thing over and over... slightly heavier, increase scratch potential of lowers, stiffer... Honestly, how much more fork stiffness does an XC racer really need on all those gnarly drops and berms? (sarcasm) Is there really no fork currently available that can achieve this? I'm sure there is, but it probably comes at a 250g penalty instead of 200g; therefore SRAM inverted the fork and saved 50g net. Regardless of the cost and application, there will always be people out there who have nothing better to do with their money except to spend it.

loomis-school (Jul 4, 2014 at 9:02)

Just a lame copy of the 1990 RS-1 fork. That fork had it all, steel stations, Bontanger style crown (with alternate rake options). Non-remote lock out, (sort of). Replaceable steerer. It was the bomb. Add a machined brace and carbon shimano booster, you could enduro that fork to hell and back. haha

laudenbach12 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:44)

29er, Expensive, why did I even open this article!

AKASHIC9 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:58)

It's heavier than Reba RLT 29.....are you kidding me?Why a carbon fork is heavier than a aluminum fork!?

tsheep (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:24)

So it costs more than a SID XX, it weighs more than a SID XX, and it uses proprietary technology, unlike a SID XX. Rockshox has been on a role lately with the Pike and new Boxxer, but really what the hell is the point of this thing? It doesn't even appear to complement a product in Rockshox's own product line. Are they going to claim the feel is worth it? Then why not spend that R&D cash on improving the damper in the SID (the Accelerator or whatever they call it)?

northcut21 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:25)

$1800!? That makes me want to go upside down..... off a bridge.

mentalhead (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:32)

Title says four reasons not to be interested in this fork. Thank you PB, for such an informative title, so I can skip the whole article and not waste my time on it. More article titles should be like this.

gnarbar (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:08)

agreed. lots of crap irrelevant content recently. thank god for the forums. way more objective

hamncheez (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:54)

Lefty is lighter, prob stiffer.

pakleni (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:00)

RS made an inverted fork? Lameee!!!
Fox is way better. For 2015 they have prepared 'Specail Edition Decals' in brand new heritage 'burnt orange' color. Hell yeah!

EnduroManiac (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:26)

Heavy, proprietary, ultra expensive - pick 3 I didn't know this one!

bigdood (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:53)

First thought: Dentist fork.

Second thought: It's cool to see companies pushing the limits and trying new things AND releasing those new things to the public that can afford it. The more companies push the limit on the high end the more we'll see that technology trickle down to the everyman level.

erubio (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:55)

And So... Its better to get a lefty ... Stffer, eye catcher and race proved And $800.00 lessssss

maxyedor (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:39)

At the risk of becoming just another Pink-Bike price complaint. Between this and the new Enve rims reviewed yesterday, you'd be into a new top-of-the-line XC bike $4k before you even bought a frame and driveline, WHAT? That $4k doesn't even include spokes to lace those $1000/ea rims to the fancy new 27mm hub.

rideonjon (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:10)

easy solution..... don't buy it.

gnarbar (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:07)

simples. ignore it. don't respond to these ads (because they're nothing but advertorial content). don't buy. express zero interest. the R&D costs will cause fail. then MTB companies will have to invest in making viable affordable product. the more that the sheeple buy this stuff, the longer it will take to get value products to market. companies offering value and quality will succeed in the long term

fabdemaere (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:57)

Haha just another review, but with a super "controversial" (i put the "" because ir's only controversial here on PinkBike) title.
Classic RC. I didn't even read the review, but boy was this entertaining.

steve9train (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:20)

New fork standard for 29ers....Inverted were great with 27mm axle and 32 mm legs.....lets make a new 36mm 20mm axle 29er fork.....you know something like a fox 36 or something like that.....this is just the calm before the 20mm axle storm hits up again.

bikerguy97 (Apr 8, 2014 at 17:18)

I'm a big fan of rockshox but this ain't cool. Go home rockshox, you're drunk

LondonCowan (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:15)

so we totally cant fit a 26" wheel in there. yup.... no way whatsoever.....it just wont fit

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:16)

Wrong market segment to try to sell an overpriced doodad with no actual advantages.

msisle1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:32)

I'm glad someone else picked up on that utterly ridiculous statement in this article!

wolf-amongst-lambs (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:50)

I guess you missed my post about a half mile up

wake-n-rake (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:20)

It's a lightweight fork, yet weighs more than a cheapo Reba RL 29?

BeerGuzlinFool (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:29)

So what's gonna keep the seals from losing all the oil.. This is still a rock shox fork.

gurthang (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:48)

That´s it, I am throwing away my 140 mm 29er Pike that I got for 625€ and getting this Real Sh...1 that is 200g lighter, requires a non-standard hub with a pipe in the middle (´cause the fork alone flexes like hell), costs 3 times more, and more importantly cannot be dialed properly for both small bumps and big hits.

Might be just an attempt to recover cash because everybody is getting the xx1 cranks and ring and not the xx1 cassette and rear derailleur.

Anybody getting this would be better off with the Voodoo Zombie 500 rigid fork that sell for 99$.

ridethree (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:03)

I really don't want to be a dick, but I simply can't find any good points about this fork. It looks super ugly, is heavier than e.g a sid or a similar fox fork although a hell of a lot more expensive, it is only available for one wheelsize and you have to buy a new hub to fit the new axle and I strongly doubt any rider in the world is happy about another axle standard. So if it's performance is not absolutely off the charts this fork is nothing but a waste of time and money. Just my opinion though

foghorn1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:33)

I miss the day when Pbike had a dh/freeride focus. This kind of stuff is totally irrelevant to me. I think my next click will be over to Sicklines.

RichardCunningham (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:35)

^^^ Fair enough, Foghorn1. Plastering an XC fork on the PB front page is a stretch of the imagination considering that 76-percent of us ride flat pedals and long-travel bikes. The story is there to show the new direction that RockShox may be headed and to entertain the large segment of PB readers with voracious appetites for new cycling technology.

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:02)

Except its not 76% of "us", its merely 76% of the people who wasted time answering a poll on a web forum.

foghorn1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:25)

I understand about the new tech being exciting, and I ride dh, xc (6x6x26), and a hardtail indoors. It just seems like PB has shifted it's focus and is now diluted to the point that there is less that would interest the group that made it bloom in the first place.
I guess that is a natural shift in a commercial website, sliding to where the fat part of the market is. I'll adjust, but won't be spending as much time here.
Props to you RC for reading the comments and staying in touch.

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:32)

I say this montly, magazines test what is submitted for testing, that is all. If manufacturers ceased to submit 26er/DH/FR/whatever stuff its because they chose to do so, most likely because not enough of the people who claim on web forums to like that stuff, actually TRULY buy that stuff, and the ones who don't post on forums, also clearly aren't buying enough of that stuff to justify wasting time/product on magazine reviews. Yeti announced four months ago they had stopped production of the 2014 SB-66s because there wasn't sufficient real orders for the things from dealers. Less than a dozen were ordered by all domestic USA dealers combined, for a model they probably had already geared up to produce several hundred of. So they're blowing out what's been produced already and while they claim they can resume production if demand re-appears, that is unlikely.

gnarbar (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:03)

follow the $$$

go mainstream

dilute

fail

Quinn-39 (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:49)

Was really hoping this was going to come in 100g+ lighter than other options. That was the only reason I could see myself being interested.

Guess not. Try again RS.

themountain (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:12)

That fork makes perfectly sense:Carbon, 29", ridiculous price tag something for the show off biker who was already breaking his head about buying more titan hardware.
Well , for me I wont read anything more about those products...pointless IMHO

gabriel-mission9 (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:13)

Im also slightly confused about the statement "it only fits 29" wheels". Yes it may have the correct offset for use on a 29er, but smaller rims will defo fit.....surely?

nohyphens (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:29)

Carbon, Inverted, Expensive and 29er only. Four things I don't care about!

Capitanbikes (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:01)

HOLY SHIT GOOD JOB R.S. To much d.b. that do not understand whats up with the rs1

jordache-keepers (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:37)

These inverted shocks look like a pair of legs wearing pants that are too short.

the-one1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:45)

Xc 29'er SS guys wear them, they're called shants

gsspirit (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:19)

It reminds me of many concept cars. I am left thinking why would someone wast all that time on this.

steve9train (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:17)

its a lefty with a righty attached to it...x-fusion made ground with an 1800 dollar inverted fork...Rock Shox didnt want to miss the boat/

m0ngy (Apr 8, 2014 at 23:41)

That last pic of RC, with the spectacular view out, over the desert valley, is quite stunning. Good to see the old boy still getting down and dirty.

furman1990 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:09)

WOW this fork is in the same price range as most top of the range DH forks what a joke.

mentalz (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:18)

Carbon

Nobble (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:18)

Why? There's more tech in it than a DH fork. That carbon CSU is comically expensive to produce.

dmadness (Apr 8, 2014 at 18:59)

more tech than a Dh fork?? me thinks you have ridden some Shite forks.

Nobble (Apr 8, 2014 at 19:56)

methinks you dont know how expensive carbon moulds are....

dmadness (Apr 9, 2014 at 20:37)

on the contrary, but it still doesn't justify raping people for their dollars.. Its people like you defending the price gouging that contribute to the attitude that this marketing inspires.

Nobble (Apr 9, 2014 at 20:48)

nobody is making you buy a top of the line XC race fork...

Given the machine time that goes into a standard fork, it doesn't surprise me that this costs more to make. If you don't like it then don't buy it, but don't say it's price gouging just because it's expensive. Suspension tech has advanced a shitload in the past decade and labor/machine time hasn't got any cheaper. Every machined part of a fork takes at least a minute to run (adjustment knobs, seal heads, EVERYTHING). Most of them are longer, you're looking at a considerable chunk of money in machine time alone. Add in external coating costs, assembly, freight, distributor markups, etc and the manufacturer isn't making that much money. I'd be surprised if RS is making more than a few hundred dollars on each fork.

What continues to astound me is how everyone assumes they have to buy something just because it's the top of the line one and that any cheaper model is "bad". There are plenty of other forks out there for those who don't want to spend that kind of money. It's not like they're replacing a cheaper model with this fork.

But I guess all manufacturers could just stop innovating and trickling down new tech and we could all go back to riding 50lb huck bikes if you'd prefer.

dmadness (Apr 9, 2014 at 20:52)

Relax Sandy, I never said I was going to buy it or that I was being tricked into anything... Its overpriced.. simple. keep defending these fiends... you'll get a free cookie.

nightrider16 (Apr 9, 2014 at 14:42)

I'll pass and buy a lefty, cheaper, lighter and doesnt bind, Good try Rock shox but still not as good as the lefty

aabclimbs (May 25, 2014 at 7:53)

Not totally new. Maverick came out with this design (not carbon) in the mid 2000's for 26er's.

mentalz (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:14)

This will sell!

Tsoxbhk (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:18)

Will this fork fit 29+? I really would like to see one of these on a ops surly Krampus.

nightmareterror (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:19)

I'd sooner take a normal fork over this anyday, look at the vulnerable stanctions below. No thanks !!

triplegmoney (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:55)

All I can think is scratched stanchions and contaminated rotors.

Axxe (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:14)

I see they have the more-money-than-brains market segment cornered. Will go nice with color matched Enve wheels.

EnduroriderPL (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:36)

5 years in the making, XC racing, 29 er only, special hubs and $1,865 USD ( € 1,658 )... THATS GOING TO BE THE FORK OF THE YEAR 2014! ROTLF

drivereight (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:05)

$1900....that's all? Why not $1999.99?

badpotato (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:58)

For your mamma not to bit#$ about it ;]

adam-silver (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:41)

jeeebus. over priced a tad !

n1ck FL (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:44)

What! No carbon rock guards for the stanchions?

JLantz (Apr 8, 2014 at 17:52)

I hope the Next Big Innovation many of us are waiting for from Shimano isn't as boring as this fork.

jinjuriki (Apr 9, 2014 at 4:00)

nothing wrong with normal forks so I don't need to remortgage my house to buy an upside down sram fork.

wheelerdrew69 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:06)

Looks very cool tho

bstoops (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:20)

If mtb is going to go anywhere, we need cheaper ways to go over bumps

Ro-11 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:50)

Hahaha! Love the title of the article!

tetsuwa (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:14)

no need

funnyjr (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:03)

$$$ forget it.

mac123 (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:34)

Cool, Walter White is sponsored by Rock Shox

mattibart (Apr 8, 2014 at 20:00)

And i thought 29 ers couldn't look any worse and then this crap comes along starting to get really put off by sram etc.

Leeboy7 (Apr 9, 2014 at 6:39)

What trail is this and where???

Uniballerjimmy (Apr 9, 2014 at 9:41)

I promise to ride my bike every day if they invert the seatpost.

fatyowls (May 5, 2014 at 15:01)

Sod the fork! What an absolutely amazing place to ride.

Spark24 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:19)

Sram having a go at the Lefty? At least they've got the ugly look part sorted

bipolarexpress (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:20)

hello marzocchi rac. but this time it's 29 wheel, how odd.

taskmgr (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:22)

Lightweight $1900 fork? $80 heavy handlebar. mixed messages here! my head is going to blow up!!!!!!

thatshowiroll (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:39)

First thing that came to mind is that it looks a lot like a Niner rigid fork from the front.

qirill (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:06)

OMG It's soooo ugly..no way, even for free

barnz0rz (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:11)

You had my attention until $1800+ for a trail fork, and propriatary hub.... And 29er only... No need for that.... Come on Sram, stop shoving your elitest propriatary stuff down people's throats. You're inflating your pricing by only offering specialty components. It's fine to create products that you believe will benefit elite athletes. But you're probably cutting out at least half of your market who will buy your products. And at a time when your main competitors pricing is improving a hell of a lot.....

digthehills (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:30)

well said sir

yeahdog31 FL (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:21)

So my question to RockShox is this -- can I thread one of those Bottomless Tokens onto the air cap on my 32mm Revelation?

Matt-W (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:22)

Massivley overpriced, unreliable due to exposed stanction, weak carbon can crack on impact. This is litterally the perfect 29er enduro fork.

badpotato (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:54)

For your mamma not to bit#$ about it ;]

caporalhicks (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:27)

And 26 "is when?

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:42)

Likely never unless they offer new internals to boost the travel as the smaller wheels are fitted. A 650B version is more likely though.

hollowing2000 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:32)

Maybe i should just start running.

callumfraser (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:14)

So for some of us, its a new bike then a new front hub, then to top it of a bloody expensive fork!

goytay (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:26)

too expensive,too specific. lets hope some of this "tech" reaches the rest of RS line up.

chaserider (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:26)

It looks killer. But with a high probability, I will never own one!

nimajneb (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:27)

More product for the sram wall of shame? Only thing I trust from sram are their 9/10 speed moutain bike grupo (no brakes)

xLIKEAPROx (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:42)

One word SHIVER Tried tested and loved buy an old set of marzocchi shiver give them a good service and save a small fortune

jcupit (Apr 8, 2014 at 20:11)

10 year old tech too, i had a set, don't think id go back to upside down forks tbh, the pro's don't out weigh the cons for me at this point. Props to rockshox for revisiting the idea thow, be interesting to see where it leads

xLIKEAPROx (Apr 9, 2014 at 4:06)

cons with all upside down forks was batterd fork legs which then lead to damaged seal's and leeks dont get me wrong i totaly agree with the idears of new parts and tech but it seems like thay are re using old tech and idears and charging a premium on them id say thats totally unfair on the weekend rider but better cash could of been spent on improving the 26 range insted of changing a extra for the 29er range. also why make expensive forks for one wheel size and hub that then limets the riders choice of wheel and hub. im still running marzocchi monster on my balfa bb7 but ive seen many new forks fall apart or snap on same trials bike company's are getting very greedy in there prices and quality is getting worse sure id love a carbon on dh or xc bike but there not built to last any more. and im not one of them old school only riders before anybody says anything as im using sram x0 gears nukeproof bars as i look for good quality parts not the disposable light weight crap that is been sold today

madriaanse (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:49)

Proprietary is a dirty, dirty word. No sale for me.

jordanneedsafork (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:04)

what has a lower centre of gravity? upside down forks or normal forks?

mtbjeremy (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:27)

Somehow I just couldn't get excited about it. Whoopieeee

badpotato (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:44)

SHIVER got ROBBED!!

firstonmike (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:38)

Wow lots of geekys commenting

justanotherenduropunter (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:56)

go ride ya downhill bikes!

mudd (Apr 8, 2014 at 14:24)

Woohoo! Return of the ultra-flexy Marzocchi Shiver SC. Fugly Capri shorts for your 29er.

lstanners (Apr 8, 2014 at 19:07)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHpdgHTINik

shredmdp (Apr 8, 2014 at 21:35)

We'll be interested when the 160mm travel RS1 comes out

bigbear (Apr 9, 2014 at 0:35)

Late to the table on this April fools prank!

nouser (Apr 9, 2014 at 5:25)

RS stands for Return Soon

CaptainSnappy (Apr 9, 2014 at 16:47)

Just when you think the 'stupid comments' bar on PB can't get any lower...

paddleskevin (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:16)

not that ill buy one but i was all excited to work on them then you put only 29 why? WHY!

erikwyattatmedotcom (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:33)

It is because its been in production so long they missed the 650 thing all together. You can save ounces elsewhere is my opinion. This for is for a very select few racers. I wouldn't expect full retail production or prices to come down on different levels of this fork.

deeeight (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:40)

Its a starting point...begin with the highest leveraged wheelsize that has the most big wallet spenders in it, then trickle the technology over to other segments. If they can do a 120mm 29" wheel in this thing, they can also offer it for Fat Bikes (by changing the molds for the uppers to widen the legs) or change the internals on the existing one to fit 650B with more wheel travel. Of course realizing that requires the common sense that's sorely lacking among many people here.

mike-j-smith (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:43)

Can't wait until they release the enduro specific model...

ctmtb98 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:33)

lol the title

hamncheez (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:34)

I wouldn't ride porcupine rim with anything less than a Monster T.

ctmtb98 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:40)

the hell is this pinkbike??

Karpiel073 (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:55)

I'll take two and some of the new ENVE rims too!

wisconsin-freerider (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:19)

Sigh...

benbiker1 (Apr 8, 2014 at 13:44)

29" ONLY?! I wanted to dirtjump this thing...

sterlingmagnum (Apr 8, 2014 at 21:42)

lame...

GiraffeInPurple (Apr 9, 2014 at 11:09)

Pass

jansaager (Apr 8, 2014 at 11:32)

There look so good

sewer-rat FL (Apr 8, 2014 at 8:04)

even more of a reason not to launch off a booter on your 29er

gnarbar (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:02)

why would you? weak shit that's not designed for extreme MTB just lolling up and down fire roads zzzz

Matt76 (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:28)

Good look to those riding these when those crowns snap!!

Kristo (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:37)

nicee

RedBurn (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:02)

Gay

poah (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:33)

XC 29ner only fork - should be painted pink

gabriel-mission9 (Apr 10, 2014 at 5:54)

what?! who negged this ^^^ Its literally the best pinkbike snark ever. Genuinely made me laugh out loud

poah (Apr 10, 2014 at 9:14)

I suspect they wear lycra, have 29ers and ride XC.

Below threshold threads are hidden

Jobike123 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:06)

This fork is great and all, but the expect me to buy it and I cant even footjam on it? Come on guys I love footjamming while riding up hills

jordanneedsafork (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:03)

use the front brake and just rest your foot on the tyre?

xLIKEAPROx (Apr 8, 2014 at 9:44)

And stick with the 26 not the 29er bullshit that bike companys are forcing people to buy new bikes forks or even wheels

digthehills (Apr 8, 2014 at 12:48)

If companies want to know what size of wheel people want to be riding, then surely they have to continue making all of those options

xLIKEAPROx (Apr 8, 2014 at 15:39)

i totaly agree with the idears of new parts and tech but it seems like thay are re using old tech and idears and charging a premium on them id say thats totally unfair on the weekend rider but better cash could of been spent on improving the 26 range insted of changing a extra for the 29er range. also why make expensive forks for one wheel size and hub that then limets the riders choice of wheel and hub and i stand by my prev statment as im still running marzocchi monster and a set of shiver on my bikes but ive seen many new forks fall apart or snap on same trials bike company's are getting very greedy in there prices and quality is getting worse

digthehills (Apr 8, 2014 at 16:53)

You are right It is just pure greed, and it doesnt show any sign of stopping anytime soon

CaptainSnappy (Apr 9, 2014 at 16:49)

...

morocco-singletracks (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:11)

don't like 29ers anyway!!!

CaptainSnappy (Apr 9, 2014 at 16:47)

Thanks for letting us know.

sachatouille (Apr 8, 2014 at 10:16)

"only for 29er" BULLSHIT !!

BenGLasT (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:02)

Looks like a very useful fork to me despite its price and 29er only tag

carterhbond (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:10)

Ha, he has a rigid fork, wait, it's just inverted...

2 11

Eds91 (Apr 8, 2014 at 7:02)

thought april fools was last week?