Powered by Outside

Interview: Rocksled Suspension's Wild New Linkage Fork

Feb 3, 2023
by Seb Stott  
photo

Much like gearboxes, linkage forks are one of those ideas that keep cropping up decade after decade but so far have never quite managed to go mainstream. To their proponents, the list of advantages is impressive.

For a start, the major source of friction in a telescopic fork (the sliding stanchions) is eliminated, which promises greatly improved sensitivity. And much like with rear suspension linkages, there's the potential to alter the leverage ratio - that's the number of millimeters the axle moves for every millimeter the shock moves. In a telescopic fork, that ratio is fixed at 1:1, but with a linkage, the leverage can vary with travel, creating the potential for progressive spring and damping rates that are almost universally accepted as advantageous on the back of the bike. It's also possible to use the brake's torque to resist brake dive so the fork stays higher in its travel under braking, at least compared to a telescopic fork.

The bottom line is that linkage forks offer much more design freedom. So while there have been many linkage forks in the past (both in the MTB and motorcycle world), in many ways they are as different from one another as they are from telescopic forks.

With that in mind, I got in touch with Ashley Kalym, who has been designing his own take on the linkage fork in his spare time under the name of Rocksled Suspension. I've been following Rocksled on Instagram for years now and have been in contact occasionally to discuss his design in the past. Some of you may remember Mike Levy covered the first version of Ashley's "fork" three years ago, which was single-sided and carbon fiber with a single pivot link. Since then Ashley's changed to a two-sided design with a 15 mm axle for broader compatibility. He's also changed to a steel structure with a floating brake mount. I decided to get the full story on how and why his project has been evolving.

photo

What motivated you to embark on building a linkage fork?


I had taught myself CAD for non-bike-related projects, and as I had been riding for a long time I thought I'd have a go at tackling a purely mechanical problem (as I saw it). I was aware of the differences between front and rear suspension, and asked myself why a frame/structure arrangement hadn't been done for the front suspension as it is done for the rear. The obvious choice for me was to use an off-the-shelf rear shock as the damper, as this would simplify the problem for me and give a huge range of possible sizes to choose from, making the task easier.

What performance characteristics were you hoping to achieve or prioritize?


I was hoping to do three things: First was to remove stiction and binding as much as possible. The second was to be able to use an off-the-shelf shock/damper, and be able to easily swap them for increased rider choice. The third was to use the linkage arrangement to manipulate the axle path and introduce a leverage curve.

Trust Shout review
The Trust Shout and Message (designed by Dave Weagle) are probably the linkage forks that have come closest to mainstream in recent years. They use a trailing link design, where the axle is mounted behind the linkage.

Why did you decide on a leading link design, as opposed to a trailing link like Trust uses?


The reason was simply to do with space and packaging. I knew I had to get an off-the-shelf shock in there somehow, and having the fork legs more vertical (when compared with the head tube) leaves more space for everything. The wheel path differs between the two (a forward-facing arc instead of a backward-facing arc), but the starting point and end point of the wheel can be fairly similar.

Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
The Structure SCW1 is, in my opinion, one of the best executions of a linkage fork on a mountain bike, but you have to buy the whole bike, not just the fork.

Did you look into the linkage forks on the market (for example, those from Trust, Structure, and Motion) for inspiration? If so, how does your design compare to those?


I didn't really look at them for inspiration, but I was aware of them. I definitely couldn't figure out why other approaches had gone with their own damper for example, as there are so many off-the-shelf ones that to me it was a no-brainer to use existing technology. Structure's approach isn't a stand-alone fork, but having read Mike Levy's review of the bike and how insanely active the "fork" was, it was confirmation that it is possible to do something like this. Obviously, the Trust and Motion forks are sleeker and more compact footprint-wise, and they have gone into production and I am still at the prototyping stage, but referring back to my goal with the fork; what frame manufacturer designs and supplies their own shocks? Very few, if any. They worry about the tubes, linkages, bearings, etc., and leave the damping to someone else.

The leading link design means the axle path is steeper than the head angle at the start of the travel, then curves back towards the steering axis towards the bottom out. The fork offset (the distance between the axle and the steering axis) measures 44mm at 0mm travel, peaks at 50mm offset at around 50mm travel, and reduces to just over 22mm at bottom-out.

photo
The leverage ratio drops throughout the travel, from 3.49 to 2.9. That makes it averagely progressive compared to typical rear suspension designs, and more so than any telescopic fork.

There's so much design freedom with a linkage fork - so many possibilities. How did you decide on the combination of axle path, leverage curve, and anti-dive that you have?


I wanted to keep everything as standard as possible in terms of axle to crown, travel, offset (starting at least), etc., so my design isn't really extreme. The offset starts at 44mm and reduces by 50% when the fork bottoms out. Axle path is dictated by the curve, which in turn is dictated by the distance between the pivot and the axle, so I had to make this long enough to give a gradual curve, but not too short that the arc was very tight.

The leverage curve was the best I could get using the simplest suspension layout, so it is progressive, but not massively so. Using an air shock would add progressivity if needed, as would a progressive spring, so if it doesn't feel progressive enough for some people, then this can be taken care of.

Ashley Kalym homemade linkage fork.
photo
Version 2's floating brake (right) eliminates the excessive anti-dive of the first single-pivot version. With the first version (left), the rotational force from the caliper acts to rotate the link toward the fully-extended position. This resists brake dive making the fork stay high in its travel, but Ashley says this also led to harshness and a lack of front wheel grip when braking. With the parallelogram brake mount, the caliper doesn't rotate as the suspension compresses, so the brake torque doesn't affect the suspension as much.

The anti-dive is an interesting one. The first prototype (single-sided, carbon fibre leg, featured in an article on Pinkbike a while ago) had no control of the braking forces, as the brake caliper was bolted directly onto the link. The anti-dive force was very strong and I didn't get on with it at all. So the second version (the fork I am currently riding) has a fully floated brake to get rid of anti-dive force altogether (apart from the compression associated with weight transfer). No one has a problem with the axle path and braking behavior of telescopic forks, so I decided it wouldn't make sense to tinker with these too much. Overall I think linkage forks really shine when it comes to activeness, shock choice (if using off-the-shelf models), and being able to design in features that are present on rear suspension (leverage curve, axle path, etc.).

Tell me about the choice of shock and shock tune.


The shock on the second version (that I am riding currently) is a Marzocchi Bomber C1 in 230mm x 65mm metric. For the third version, I'll move to a 210mm x 50mm for packaging reasons. I experimented with a few different sizes, but getting everything to fit in a package that is small enough is very difficult, and required a lot of trial and error. But as the design stands now, any shock type should fit, even air shocks with larger bodies, and shocks with piggyback reservoirs. Shock tune isn't something I have experimented with yet, as I have been focused on tweaking the design and getting things feeling good, but I'm sure I'm missing a trick by not tuning the shock properly. In addition, this is a side project that I try and do when I am not working or looking after family (three kids), and so things like shock tuning do come last I'm afraid! I imagine that a high-end shock with a proper tune for my riding style and ability would take the fork to another level, so I really should find some time to send it off and get it tuned!

photo

Stiffness is a concern with many linkage forks. How did you address that?


The fork legs on the second version (the one that I am riding now) are steel and feel very robust. The linkages sit on 20mm axles and run on 20x32mm bearings, with a 20mm axle for the wheel with plenty of overlap. It feels hugely stiff to me, but then again I am not a heavy rider, nor am I a hugely fast or competent rider either. I certainly haven't chased light weight as a factor in the design, and in the 18 months plus of riding version 2 I've never thought that it needed to be stiffer. I think it can be a bit misleading though, as the sheer activeness of the fork makes it feel like you have a flat tire sometimes, even when it's not, so could this also lead to a noodly feeling? I'm not sure. I do observe that telescopic forks have a join at the steerer tube/crown, another join at the stanchion/crown junction, and another join between the stanchions and the lowers. I think reducing the number of joins can only increase the feeling of stiffness, so I guess it depends on the linkage fork design that is pursued.

How does it ride?


It rides as I thought it would to be honest; because there is so little stiction the fork moves into its travel with very little effort, even when it's run with less sag than normal. It looks strange from a riding viewpoint, but as the offset is more or less normal it doesn't feel vastly different steering-wise. The small bump sensitivity and the fact that I'm running a coil shock mean it's incredibly active over any bumps, and it's a bit jarring to go back to a telescopic fork, as it feels like they have a threshold that needs to be overcome to get them moving.

Braking wise it feels normal as well, as version 2 has a fully floating brake, so the braking behavior doesn't affect the suspension directly as version 1 did. It certainly is heavier than a telescopic fork, especially with a coil shock and a normal spring, but version 3 will be lighter. Steering feels very good with the reducing offset, but could I tell the difference between it and a telescopic fork? I'm not sure. I think a very good rider could though, and on paper, the reduction in the offset figure should increase steering stability.


I have to ask - how much does it weigh?


I'm not sure how much version 2 weighs, but it's more than a telescopic fork for sure.

photo
photo

What's next?


Next is to finalise the design for version 3, and get that made. Then ride it to check everything is as it should be, then send it off for testing. If that's successful and it doesn't break after lots of abuse, then I'll look to do a limited run of 5 or 10 forks and see how it's received. If I sell any then I'll be in touch with the riders to see what problems they might have. As long as that goes OK then sort any small issues, then look to try and get it into the market. Obviously, it will be a niche product, but I think there might be enough people out there that are interested in linkage forks to make it viable.



If you've seen any more innovative homemade MTB projects, let us know in the comments so we can bring them into the limelight.

Author Info:
seb-stott avatar

Member since Dec 29, 2014
321 articles

252 Comments
  • 207 8
 You can take your KIS and integrated cable routing and pack sand. This is the stuff that gets me going.
  • 17 6
 Agreed, I have 3 Shouts and love them. Not sure that is the best axle path out there, but the fact folks are messing with it and trying to find the holy grail rather then going with the single linear axle path is great. Would be interested to see the difference on this versus the initial straight rearward path of the Shout. The rearward axle path of the shout is incredible for sucking up square edge hits. Seems this is kind of the opposite. And the response is interesting: "well, it fits better that way" versus a performance gain.
  • 11 4
 what will happen in a rock garden or if you are in a rut? Do you expect to just smash through it?
You could easily be into the travel and hit the bottom of the link or the Fork leg
Is there a video showing the clearance between it and the ground at full compress?
  • 15 46
flag on-the-move (Feb 3, 2023 at 14:13) (Below Threshold)
 Yeah its cool, But a regular telescopic fork with a linkage that floats the axle in the path you desire is a way better way to achieve a fancy axle path than this f*cking swiss army knife that puts mechaical loads absurdly far off centre and a whole lot of weight down low.

It's nonsense though, you can't ride a bike as fast as Jackson Goldstone or Jessie Malamed and they absolutely can go faster without building this shit. To me its as unnecicary as cable routed headsets.
  • 20 0
 @inside-plus: There are three main approaches to a front linkage:

1. Low pivot, as you described, and like the Trust products. It's easier to create a stiff chassis, but the short links make it difficult to create optimal kinematics, as Trust discovered. Additional links can be added to tune the kinematic properties, though that defeats the simplicity of the low pivot platform.

2. High pivot, such as Motion Ride. More difficult packaging and structural properties, but more potential for good kinematics.

3. Chassis integrated, dual-axis, used by Structure. Much more freedom in the kinematics. The lower fork no longer has to move on the same axis as the stem, so the dynamic handling properties can be independently tuned. For example, the head-tube angle can get slacker as it compresses, increasing stability when highly loaded, rather than getting steeper and reducing stability.
  • 4 16
flag on-the-move (Feb 3, 2023 at 15:23) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: No Ive not seen anything like Im describing, yet. Litterally just a normal telescopic fork, with a linked floating axle that moves the wheel path backwards as the fork compresses. It doesn't exist yet, but it will. and it wont look ugly and will sell a lot.

If you take the approach that the best thing for front wheels is a normal telescopic fork, and then engineer away from that. You'll get a much better product than taking the best thing for back wheels, and engineering that to work on the front end. Which is what all current linkage forks do.
  • 24 0
 @inside-plus: Ah, I see. The rearward axle path was a trap that most early mountain bike linkage forks fell into. It sounds like a great idea, but it creates a problem: it shortens the front-centre, often at the worst time. When the rider's weight is already shifted forward, and the front end is already diving, the last thing the rider needs is to have the front wheel moving back. This was only a moderate problem in the days of maybe 40 - 70 mm of travel, but we now have three times as much travel and designs need to focus more on dynamic geometry and less on the perfect axle path for compliance.

The bearing pivots of a linkage system already move so much more smoothly than the linear bushings of a telescoping fork that it's unnecessary to chase even greater compliance gains via a rearward axle path. Instead, there's more performance to be gained by "investing" some of that extra smoothness in optimized dynamic geometry.

Another concern is the use of both sliders for travel and a linkage for axle path tuning. If such a design already requires a linkage, it's more efficient to use the linkage for both travel and kinematics, allowing for the elimination of the redundant telescoping apparatus.
  • 1 0
 @jwa9681: you have 3 shouts?
  • 1 0
 @gtill9000: correct
  • 2 0
 @inside-plus: yeh. I agree.
  • 3 12
flag on-the-move (Feb 3, 2023 at 18:20) (Below Threshold)
 @R-M-R: I mean you can just use the same system I sugest and make the axle path go whereever you like, doesn't have to track backwards. No the telescopic fork is not redundent, theres still room for it I think. Do you think there is room for things like leaf springs and torsion bars in this deisgn? Idk why but the idea of a torsion bar on one side and just a damper on the other gets me excited, could reduce weight.
  • 6 0
 @inside-plus: Yes, the axle path could go whatever direction is determined to be ideal, but it's still two systems: the telescoping and whatever mechanism alters the axle path. A linkage fork does both and eliminates the telescoping elements. If there's a simple and effective way to do what you propose, I'm all for it, but my feeling is it will end up with equal or greater complexity and lesser benefits.
  • 1 0
 @jwa9681: I've got 3 as well. On new builds I kept trying to go back to new telescopic forks but performance through rocks just felt too harsh compared to the Shout. I now have like new Factory 36/38's and a lyrik/zeb ulti's sitting on my parts shelf. My newest build is perfect w/ the Shout, a Deviate Claymore. Bikes rolls through rocks and roots like its flat and never loses speed. Since it's a long bike, when the front end shortens as rear end lengthens, the WB doesn't grow too much during compressions and the bike stays extremely maneuverable on tight trails.
  • 1 0
 @jwa9681: that's cool. I've got a Message and whilst it may not work as well as the telescopic fork on the rough chatter, it's way more interesting. It's a part of mtb history, I never plan to sell it.
  • 7 0
 @jwa9681: I have a Message, and while it’s sometimes harsh, it’s a 6 link design that has the PRECISE axle path Dave Weigel intended.
I can smash rocks and roots uphill like an MX bike, and drop into uphill faces, like an MX bike, which is where I established all of my two-wheeled skills.
Those Trust forks catch way too much crap from people who never rode one!
  • 2 0
 @inside-plus: You should check suspension smith, I’m not sure it’s quite what you’re describing but it’s pretty awesome!
  • 2 0
 @Untgrad: yeh I agree that DW's concept does work. I can see why he wanted to build it. It's the best cornering fork I've ridden by some way.
  • 2 1
 @tremeer023: I have a design for taking the harsh spikes out of the ride.. Need more parts, but don’t want to speak of until I get it to work.
I swear I thought of it before I heard of Buttercups. 3 days before..
  • 2 0
 @inside-plus: what you are describing sounds a lot like the USE Sub fork from the early 00s
  • 1 0
 @inside-plus: Do you mean something like the floating disk brake mounts on old Foes and Konas (DOPE system) that attempted to isolate the brakes from suspension movement?
  • 7 1
 I find it hard to believe you could get this far testing a fork and not be able to give at least an approximate weight... seems disingenuous. Unless you specifically didn't want to know what the weight was so you didn't have to tell anyone...
  • 5 0
 @stiingya: With a coil shock, all that pretty CNC’d linkage and a crown strong enough to deal with the tubes run nearly vertical, I wouldn’t talk about it either.
  • 2 0
 @stiingya: Trust had to go full carbon just to get close to a competitive weight. This thing will be heavy.
  • 3 0
 @tremeer023: Absolutely!
I’ve had my Message apart- those carbon bits are so pretty.. And so plentiful! That fork looks just oozes “cost no object”.
I saw one for $350 on Pinkbike a while back. Sad, but maybe it’s an idea whose time has finally come.
Maybe this single pivot clunker showing up on PB is only the beginning of the beginning of a new crop of linkage forks. Which would give my fork instant OG street cred..
  • 4 0
 Amen! I love me some iconoclast sh!z! I wanted a Shout or Message the moment I saw them for the same reason. If they could have made them feel better for losers like me I would have bought one.
  • 4 0
 @inside-plus: You're not crazy, but the fact that any bottom-tier, semi-pro, rally car driver's mistress is faster in like a box truck than me a Boo-GAAH-ee doesn't mean I can't benefit from technology... hell, maybe it does, damnit? Now I'm just typing because I like to see my username name in print.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: I hereby swear on my old Cannondale Headshok, that the moment Structure does a 29" bike, I'm buying one. I'm such an a*shole, I love it.
  • 1 0
 @JakeEPooh: Thank you for that! I'm no longer with the company, though, and let's just say the choice of wheel size and absence of geometry / wheel size flip chips was not made by me.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: I had no idea you ever worked with them. In fact, after I posted that comment I worried a little bit that you worked for a competitor and I was being more of a jerk than even I intended. I guess not I know why your comments seemed backed by actual knowledge.
  • 1 0
 @inside-plus: explain how you plan on driving the linkage if the suspension is telescopic? You literally need suspension to drive the link so what's the point of having two different systems on the same fork? For one it's gonna weigh a f*ck ton to achieve your goal then you have to different damping systems competing against one another do you know how hard that would be to get just perfect? Your design maybe good in your head but I see no upside to your design.
  • 1 0
 @JamesR2026: can see why it never made it to production I don't think people want their front suspension to be useless when braking. Cool concept though!!
  • 84 0
 How much does it weigh?

Damn. I don't know. More, though. Definitely more.
  • 32 0
 A hilarious answer. Like, there’s a point where weight is really important and building a massive chonky steel fork is gonna cross that line…
  • 20 1
 "14 lbs....uh no friction from those damn stanchions though!"
  • 90 2
 Start by ensuring the product works properly, then figure out how to make it lighter.
  • 5 2
 Why make your own internals? Well Dave, because otherwise you have to bolt on a whole shock.
  • 1 17
flag on-the-move (Feb 3, 2023 at 14:15) (Below Threshold)
 @Linc: The unsprung mass is going to feel horrible as it moves through its travel discombobulates the whole front of your bike.
  • 3 0
 @R-M-R: and do it as cheap as possible. Thus going the heavy route first
  • 4 0
 @inside-plus: there is really not a lot of unsprung mass here. There is the wheel+brake, no different from a normal fork, and the linkage. Which can’t weigh much more than telescopic fork lowers + bath oil, if at all. There’s the shock, but the only part of that that has any significant movement is the lower eyelet and damper shaft. Honestly, with some work they could easily get the unsprung mass below that of a telescoping fork.
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: you are always going to be limited by the actual packaging. You can't shorten the distance between two static points and no amount of super light materials will change the fact this is a large complicated structure.
  • 2 0
 @usedbikestuff: it’s a fair argument. But how successful and appreciated are even customized rear shocks like re:activ. Not so much.

It’s obviously not been a focal point. This is admittedly a hobby project and he still needs to send a shock for a tune.

If it gains traction and turns into a biz I could imagine one of the shock cos creating custom solution. But lots of people will like the idea of tinkering.
  • 1 0
 @usedbikestuff: The internals of the Trust forks are an air tube on one side and a twin tube damper on the other. That’s right, a twin tube fork!
  • 1 0
 @olafthemoose: I think what he means is the distribution of mass as you maneuver the bike, due to the sheer size of the fork rotating around the steering axis.
  • 1 0
 @olafthemoose:
As it sits, it sure looks like significantly more unsprung mass.
  • 46 0
 You thought pedal strikes were bad? Wait til you experience fork strikes!
  • 6 2
 No shit! Had a 220 rotor on the front, for coolness more than real need. Neither that fast or aggressive. Landed bad in some rocks after tiny jump, bent rotor and woke up 15 minutes later! Meekly put smaller rotor back on and extreme phobia of shit hanging off my fork
  • 1 0
 I hit my Maxel QR enough to remove it for a bolt on. This thing is flat out dangerous. OTB city
  • 2 3
 @ShredlyMcShredface: if you're hitting your axle maybe learn how to choose your lines better lol
  • 46 12
 Pretty cool. I think the unusual looks are holding these forks back, mountain bikers are such fashion junkies. I can't imagine it's not at least possible to make a much better performing fork with a linkage design than with telescopes.
  • 19 1
 there is also the fact that they dont come stock. Like i wouldnt mind having a bike with a linkage fork, but ma dude I already spent 5k on my bike, i dont want to spend 2k just on a fork.
  • 15 1
 Different not better. I own a Message that i got NIB after the bankruptcy for cheap, well not cheap but 'normal' fork price. I like it but certainly wouldn't bother with another at retail price. A bit like the Lefty, fun to look at, fun to ride, but not really worth the price or hassle to maintain ( I also ride a lefty)
  • 16 1
 For me its 100% price. I dont care what it looks like, but if it costs twice as much it needs to be twice as good. Ill deal with a little stiction to save 1200 dollars since telescoping forks aren't really interfering with my riding.
  • 5 0
 @pink505: kudos to you for trying new tech!
  • 7 0
 @kingbike2: Somebody needs to keep us out of a recession. Next is converting all my bikes to headset routed cables!
  • 5 2
 No way I could justify that based on the look of the fork. nope no and no.
  • 2 0
 @RonSauce: ...that you know of!
  • 2 1
 Where do you get the price? From what I read this is a prototype and not (yet) for sale. I don't think a mass produced linkage fork would be a lot more expensive than a telescoping fork of similar build quality.
  • 30 1
 I feel like there is a lot of narrowness in these comments. Without people trying their own thing and innovating around issues they see, we would all be stuck riding rigid bikes with v-brake and Allen key adjustable seat post. Somebody has to push the envelope. I am really stoked to see where this will end up and whatever is next.
  • 3 0
 Hopefully there’s a next iteration in the works.
Hopefully he doesn’t toil away for months just to reinvent something.
Hopefully this is the moment of the resurgence of linkage forks!
  • 36 7
 I like to see stuff like this. Funny how many negative comments.
  • 12 1
 Take my money?
  • 6 0
 Expensive low volume suspension, you need Intend, but the Name checks out.
  • 26 6
 I'd take seeing this fork on every bike if it meant I'd never have to hear an I9 again.
  • 9 0
 I think all you have to do is look to the motorcycle world if you're interested in linkage forks. I think there are 2, one from BMW, the other is from BIMOTA. Both have serious problems with turning radius, which makes them pretty impractical for a lot of riding. The Bimota is a track focused bike and is supposed to be great at holding its line. The Beemer is a touring bike, and the focus for it is also holding a line while very heavily loaded.

The Bimota is hugely expensive, you'd have to be a rich, track focused rider to want one. The Beemer is also expensive, but all their bikes are. In either case you are paying a premium price largely based on novelty. Neither of these suspension systems have ever been successful in competition, and that's with big time engineering departments driving the programs.

For everything that's "wrong " with telescopic forks, no matter what kind of motorcycle racing you watch, that's what they use. Well, at least the guys that win...
  • 4 2
 How many motorcycles have rear suspension designs in common with MTBs? Do you see things similar to Horst Link etc or are they mostly linkage driven single pivot. Despite their similarities they do have different purposes and limitations.
  • 10 0
 @catweasel: rear suspension is different in that a motorcycle might be delivering 100+ horsepower through it. This requires a rigid swingarm. The front suspension is directly comparable. When I ride my motorcycle my interaction with the fork is exactly the same as it is on my mountain bike.
  • 7 0
 Honda Goldwing uses a link front end too.
  • 4 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: and the Ariel, and the softail springer, and the GTS1000, and the vyrus, and so many 1930's bikes.
  • 3 0
 Oh, my Hercules 125 has one too.
And BMW has a linkage/telescopic combo fork.
  • 3 0
 @danger13: I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. If you could build a linkage fork with similar performance to a telescoping fork that preserves geometry under compression it could have big advantages for gravity orientated bikes.
Levy loved the structure but obviously the complexity is a problem. Most reviewers agreed the trust had lots of benefits but ultimately had too many compromises to be successful. The potential is there, it remains to be seen if anybody can strike the right balance.
  • 16 3
 this is really cool,
  • 3 0
 agreed,
  • 3 0
 @bocomtb: it's just very cool to see out of the box thinking,
  • 15 3
 Awesome job, Dude!
  • 8 0
 Hell yeah, I feel like there is so much untapped potential in linkage forks. Could probably be significantly lighter if everything was packaged into the left side. Might just need a yoke on the shock.
  • 13 3
 Suddenly the Lefty doesn't seem so bad.
  • 6 2
 I’d buy a 160mm 29er lefty if it existed!

I think the long travel one was 27.5 only. So sad.

And agree lefty is mild compared to this. I like at least that you just bolt a shock into it. Cool and crazy.
  • 4 9
flag A1990ToyotaHilux FL (Feb 3, 2023 at 15:15) (Below Threshold)
 The lefty was and will always be bad
  • 8 1
 @A1990ToyotaHilux: Speaking as a lefty I think you suck! You are just like those nuns back in Catholic school that cracked me with a yardstick for writing left handed.
  • 5 0
 @danger13: I'd hate a righty the same way, if that gives you any comfort ^^
  • 2 0
 Yeah but the you would be the guy on a lefty. And everyone would remember that. And once you go down that road you’ll forever be made fun of and have to quit riding.
  • 4 0
 @danger13: that’s better than what the priest was doing…
  • 7 0
 First a resurgence of 90s mountain bike tech, I mean gravel bikes, now linage forks! I love seeing old tech come back into fashion. Bring back linkage plates!
  • 11 3
 I think its awesome. I'd love to ride it.
  • 15 9
 The ultimate front suspension will have linkages, not sliding legs. It's funny that this bothers the MTB technophobes so much.
  • 14 3
 You act like this is new and hasn't been tried hundreds of times already on bikes and motorcycles by some of the best engineers in the world and STILL failed.
  • 4 1
 @OnTheRivet: Possibly the best comment on here. Last I read about this in the moto world a good 10 years ago the consensus was that telelever designs actually were much better for road going applications but lacked feel and grip when pushed to the limit. I feel like the comments about friction loss from a sliding design is evidence that they might be trying to solve the wrong problem. Where I really care about how my suspension performs is when it's most of the way compressed, in a corner, and fighting for the last little bits of grip, which from what I've read (no personal experience with lever forks) conventional telescoping designs seem to do better.
  • 4 1
 @OnTheRivet: It did not reach mass acceptance, it's only a fail in that sense, but it produced products with great performance. Just too expensive in comparison with the simple sliding legs design. I personally love the combination of unamtched fore-aft/lateral rigidity with unmatched vertical compliance. It's a very different riding experience. That's reason enough for products of this type to NEVER stop being attempted.
  • 2 1
 @DavidGuerra: why are you acting like the performance advantage of linkage forks over telescopic is a well established fact ?
For your two main arguments :
"It did not reachass acceptance" - you know they used to be mainstream, right ? Also, mainstream brands such as BMW tried it recently

"Just too expensive in comparison with the simple sliding legs design" - several applications in the Moto world that are not constrained by cost, such as Moto GP, MX, etc never really got into it, why ?
  • 4 1
 @Arierep: "why are you acting like the performance advantage of linkage forks over telescopic is a well established fact ?"
Yes, it obviously is, it's indisputable. The stiction associated with the telescopic design is inherently difficult to overcome, as well as its lack of rigidity. Of course you can have fun with a telescopic fork and it will fulfill its role, but the buttery responsiveness of a linkage fork, as well as the rigidity it can offer, is unmatched by a telescopic fork of any stanchion size. It's just a different riding experience.
  • 4 1
 @Arierep: The Lefty is a very optimized design for responsiveness, rigidity and weight/rigidity though, and possibly the ultimate fork design for any bycicle or motorcycle application if anti-brake dive characteristics are not a goal.
  • 1 0
 @DavidGuerra: sorry, but that's simply not true. Linkage designs allow the design freedom to offer a number of advantages over telescopic forks, the main being system friction and control of anti dive. But those come with a number of tradeoffs. It is far from being obvious that a linkage for is superior, all things considered. Again, just look at the Moto world
  • 3 0
 @Arierep: There are a number of reasons why telescopic forks are so widespread. Nevertheless, it's an inherently flawed design in the areas I mentioned. A linkage fork can provide a completely solid interface and a stiction-free operation, which is impossible for a telescopic fork, unless it runs on needle bearings and square profile tubes like the Lefty. Of course that's it's possible to produce a noodle-like linkage fork, from what I hear AMPs were a bit like that, but I'm talking about principle, and many telescopic forks were indeed made that are more responsive and rigid than any telescopic fork ever produced. This is just a fact. And I'll say it again, why should it be a surprise to you that a compromised design is so widespread? It just offers sufficient performance, it fulfills the role, it's relatively simple, doesn't attract negative attention from technophobes. That doesn't mean it's the superior one on the metrics I mentioned, which it absolutely isn't. And as for the trade-offs, they depend on the implementation, on the particular design. There are no inherent trade-offs besides the extra complexity of such a system.
  • 6 2
 @Rocksled, as you can see from the comments, the design goal for the next version should be to make it look as much as possible like a telescoping fork without losing the mechanical advantages. Good luck!
  • 4 1
 As a general rule, when there’s a settled solution in engineering, any alternative has to be significantly better in at least one aspect in order to gain general acceptance and have a viable business model. If there are other compromises then it needs to be an order of magnitude better.

This (and all linkage forks) is engineering for the sake of fiddling at the margins. Interesting concepts, but never going to go further than that.
  • 6 0
 RockShox made a WHAT?! Oh, wait, never mind.
  • 3 0
 That's the business model...with a no refund policy.
  • 2 0
 I fell for that to.
  • 3 1
 "It's also possible to use the brake's torque to resist brake dive so the fork stays higher in its travel under braking"

seems like braking would prevent the fork from working versus resisting diving, no? at the very least, break traction while braking...
  • 24 2
 An understandable thought! I'll try to explain.

When not braking, the fork will sag to a point where the shock force and weight on it balance one another.

When braking, the centre of mass of the system (rider + bike) shifts forward. The suspension compresses to a new position that is a balance of the forces acting on it (weight and torque, if we ignore it sticking due to friction). The forces are now balanced, so any bump force will disturb the balance and cause compression, regardless of whether the fork compressed, extended, or neither when it reached its braking balance point.

A linkage fork can choose the balance point under braking load by tuning how much brake torque acts upon the suspension. Many linkage fork designers have chosen 100% anti-dive, meaning the brake torque equals the weight shift, resulting in no additional compression due to braking. I chose a different (and adjustable) amount of anti-dive for the Structure that reduced brake dive, while still feeling somewhat familiar to a telescoping fork. In both cases, though, the forced end up balanced and bump forces are equally free to compress the suspension; the difference is how much extra sag is induced to reach that balance.
  • 4 0
 @R-M-R: Super explanation.
  • 3 0
 @R-M-R: very cool. Curious how head tube angle is calculated?
  • 2 0
 @HughBonero: Great question, without a clear answer. It's usually measured static (flat ground, unloaded), but that's clearly not the condition in which we normally ride.

It's one step better to measure it at sag (flat ground, under rider weight), but is that really the situation that matters most?

Maybe head-tube angle matters most at full pitch (100% front compression, 0% rear). Even if we compared head-tube angles at this extreme situation, do we use flat ground? If we use angled ground, what angle best represents the conditions when we are most concerned about head-tube angles?

Regardless of how we measure it, I can tell you this much: The kinematics package I created for a front linkage involves a head-tube angle that is slightly steeper than average when measured static, and becomes much slacker than average at full compression, when compared to telescoping forks under the same conditions. I'm sure it's not the absolute perfect design - give me as much R&D time and money as has been used for traditional suspension and I'll give you a slightly better design! - but I believe it's already better than telescoping designs.
  • 3 0
 @R-M-R: good call making it adjustable. I've worked with superbike riders on suspension setup and they complain when the front end wasn't diving enough under braking. They found they couldn't push the front end as hard and the "slacker" head angle (they call it rake, it's annoying) meant they lost turn in agility. Obviously the circumstances and requirements are different with MTB, but it was interesting to hear that that dive is necessary.

Having said that, I also spoke to a guy with a 1200gs adventure that he took on track and he said that the telelever front end meant he could outbrake any of the sports bikes, so wtf, this whole comment feels like a waste now...
  • 2 0
 I think if I were gonna buy this fork, I would need a bike where my brake lines went through my headset, top tube, then down tube, through the seat post, through both hubs, and then back through the headset before being externally routed to the actual brakes... I would not do the same with shifters bc if I could afford this I'd have AXS as well...
  • 8 2
 What’s the opposite of bike porn?
  • 1 1
 (PICK ME PICK ME!) This is! hahaha xD
  • 3 1
 Always nice to see diy and people thinking outside the box. Motion-ride has a revised version of their e18 fork coming out this year supposedly. Will be interesting to see what they come up with. Even their first iteration is quite good. I wish the Structure frame was lighter, the geometry and implementation look excellent but it seems really heavy.
  • 2 0
 I remember my dad made a meat tenderizer out of a rolling pin and some screws or tacks or some shit. I opened the drawer and said ‘’what’s this dad? ‘’ He said ‘’that’s a meat tenderizer.’’ I said “well why did you ruin the rolling pin then?’’He said you sound just like your mom. I said your f*ckin mental …
  • 2 0
 Real men don't need a rolling pin but they do need a meat tenderizer. Maybe your Dad wasn't mental after all...
  • 2 0
 @singletrackjamaica: true…but I was just rolling out some ironic satire. Really you just need to buy better cuts of meat. Reinventing the tenderizer isn’t going to help make you any dough$.
  • 3 1
 I understand the humility, but I don't exactly want to trust the ride experience explanation from someone who is self-described as "not a [hugely] competent rider". Have confidence, my dude! You also don't need to be the fastest to be competent at feeling what the bike is doing and providing feedback, and in fact the fastest are sometimes terrible at that since they might only care if it feels fast and how it feels at speed.
  • 1 0
 Bingo. Engineers/Designers are usually their worst critics. This is why you see so many startups fail, they don't have self confidence and often lack the art of the sale. Take Shark Tank for instance. So many cool ideas that just lack the sales execution. Knowing your market is critical to success!
  • 2 0
 I really respect this man, I have always wanted a linkage fork, for all of the above mentioned reasons. But I am disappointed that in an in-depth interview with the worlds leading bike forum, there is no mention of how much travel is has, or why, he does not know how much it weighs, and he has never had the shock tuned …
  • 2 0
 After experiencing a pike or lyrik after a fresh service and set up correctly it’s hard for me to think it needs to be any better. They are so incredibly good at most everything. I like innovation and creativity! Good job for both.
  • 5 2
 It's far too offensive looking for me, personally, to care beyond a morbid curiosity how well it could possibly work, or why. Now where is my inverted, ABS ready Fox 38?
  • 5 0
 @Rocksled--make it out of some of Neko's carpet fibers and I'm in!
  • 5 3
 Awesome! I mean I'd be lying if i said the design didn't throw me off somewhat. But i love that there's new stuff being developed, it's exciting to see people coming up with new solutions to existing problems. Godspeed!
  • 3 0
 I gotta throw a nod to my Amp Research linkage fork from the 90s. Rest in peace, my fun and weird little friend, whichever landfill you're spending eternity in.
  • 1 0
 imma be a party pooper and say no one would be looking into linkage forks IF manufacturers actually cared to get the lowers and bushing tolerances right so there wouldn't be stiction. hell, i've a fork with a misaligned bushing out of the factory (part is worn through to the backing steel) and it's pretty good like it is except for the god damned stiction, if it was done RIGHT it would be stictionless. amount of stiction is a total lottery, you should buy 10 same forks and keep the best one, some are literally perfect, others are total shit, same model, same year
  • 2 1
 Leading Link fork experimentation has a long history in the moto world.....The Ribi leading link for was used by motocross legend Roger Decoster in the late 70's....it's essentially the same design as seen here. Great article looking at quite a few clever leading link forks here: motocrossactionmag.com/leading-link-or-missing-link-the-awesome-fork-that-time-forgot
  • 1 0
 Cool article!
  • 1 0
 Not hating but I thought the goal was to have a fork with a very low offset to get that direct steering feel to it. Low offset, short stems it's to get that direct feel. This looks like it will handle like a long stem. You will get that delayed feel.
  • 1 0
 While it may have a slightly longer offset than normal at some points in the travel, the offset may actually be shorter than normal deeper in the travel. I think what you may be missing though is how severely the steel fork legs angle backward before connecting onto those long lower suspension links. The rear offset of the steel legs offsets (no pun intended) the starting point of the lower links so far back, that even with the long length of the links, the axle ends up in a close to normal position. Since the axle position relative to the head tube steering axis is what determines fork offset, it doesn't much matter how much zigging and zagging occurs in between those 2 points.
  • 1 0
 I'm too lazy to read the comments and find out if a million people already said the same thing, (damn, it might be in the article too) but wouldn't this thing's axel path make it so the wheelbase wouldn't suddenly shorten whenever you go deep into the travel? Wouldn't that be a great thing if riders could get used to it? Because good riders (def not me) have built up handling instincts over years and years, would it be really hard for experience riders to love it? Would someone have to start off learning on a bike like that to really exploit any benefits?
  • 1 0
 Wake me up when someone win any kind of race with a linkage fork and I promise to look into it more thoughtfully. Personally I think a lot of the new things people are designing (high pivots, weird shifting setups) cause at least as many problems as they solve. But hey man, that's just like my opinion man!
  • 3 0
 Look to me like the guys at Shockster decide to get back together.
www.ebay.ca/itm/123872652211
  • 2 0
 I remember some pictures around 2000-2002 when this concept was on a Giant mountainbike, and the company supposedly had patented this fork construction.
  • 1 0
 To the best of my knowledge patents can only last 20 years in most cases, they may have had it patented which is now expired
  • 5 1
 Cool, this is the stuff I like to see.
  • 4 0
 I'm disappointed you didn't interview the fork like the headline implied.
  • 1 0
 Should show it to Neko Mulally. He has lots of testing experience and is a really fast rider. His thoughts about it could probably be very valuable. He makes his own bikes too so he might be very interested.
  • 8 4
 if motocross aint doing it... i dont wanna know
  • 4 5
 @R-M-R: Exactly. 1985 and they left it there with no further development.

There is a lot more R&D money going into motocross bikes, follow the MX trends because they do what works.

We need more inverted fork options in the mtb world. That is the future!
  • 6 0
 Motocross has inverted forks and yet the mtb industry in general still insists on building right side up forks...
  • 3 1
 @tralebuilder: weight not so important in MX.
  • 5 2
 @thatguyzack: All high-end cars have multi-link suspension, with only cheap systems using struts or similar. There are at least three production linkage forks in the moto world. And the article states the extreme expense of the linkage fork prompted rule changes to control the costs of race R&D, so it's possible linkage forks don't appear on motocross bikes simply due to cost, not a lack of performance. So, I don't think the "motocross ain't doing it" argument is as strong as it might appear at first glance.
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: what’s your unbiased take on the motion-ride e18? That seems like the most advanced linkage fork currently made (as a standalone fork)
  • 1 0
 @BarneyStinson: Neither is performance in MTB apparently...it's all light and hype.
  • 1 0
 @tralebuilder: I would imagine the problem for inverted forks with MTBs would be axle size?
  • 1 0
 @BarneyStinson: Bigger axles have been done by Foes and Bos but 20mm works just fine. I have a Dorado and wouldn't trade it for a fox40 and any other right side up fork.
  • 4 0
 @EdSawyer: My first and most important opinion is that I'm tremendously disappointed I haven't spent any time on one! As such, I can only speculate on a few things.

First, I've heard the chassis rigidity is pretty good, so they're off to a good start.

There are so many variables within the kinematics that have little prior art to draw upon. The brake anti-dive is high, and it's unclear at this point in front linkage R&D to say whether it's too high or would be ideal once people get used to it, but it would certainly take some adaptation. Axle path isn't alarming - certainly better than that of another, better-known front linkage fork. Wheel rate is difficult to determine because I don't know the properties of the spring - neat design, though!

The shock is a concern, as there's a poor record of alternative shocks matching the performance of more established brands. It could be great, for all I know, just saying they've given themselves a huge challenge that few others have met, on top of all the other challenges of a front linkage design - not to mention market acceptance of things that look different!
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: thanks for the feedback!
  • 1 1
 Not seeing not the offset increases before decreasing. The pivot is below the axle at all times in all the pics and graphics, so the path of the axle is all rearward. To increase the offset the axle would have to move forward, which is not shown anywhere.
  • 2 1
 @R-M-R tha antidive on the motion e18 was horrible, the fork would stiffen up significantly while braking and behave like utter shit in rowdy terrain. My wrists hurts only from thinking about ..
  • 1 0
 Thank you for the feedback! Not many people have first-hand experience. Early versions had bushing issues and I know nothing about the damping of the shock, so maybe those factors contributed. Could be the anti-dive you were feeling, I'm just suggesting we can't jump to that conclusion without testing other variables. It's difficult to say how much of what we perceive is due to what we've learned to ride, rather than what's ideal. With telescoping forks, it would be quite a coincidence if the ideal head-tube angle and offset for handling, compliance, and weight transfer all happened to be the exact same parameters. More likely, our current configurations are the most acceptable compromise of all these things. When we have the option to independently tune the brake dive, it feels unlikely we would choose the extremely high amount that's intrinsic to telescoping forks. Maybe it would turn out to be ideal to have a lot of brake dive ... that just sounds so unlikely to me. Everyone has learned to ride bikes with significant brake dive, though, and maybe forks with less are simply different, not necessarily worse. Maybe with enough time to learn a different set-up, less brake dive would eventually feel better. Impossible to know without extensive testing, but would be interesting - and important - to explore this further.
  • 1 0
 "YEAH, BUT YOU DESIGNERS ARE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD THAT THEY DIDN’T STOP TO THINK IF THEY SHOULD." Stolen quote from Jurassic Park, fits perfectly here.
  • 1 0
 m.youtube.com/shorts/WYHYGwhDYxk


If you've seen any more innovative homemade MTB projects, let us know in the comments so we can bring them into the limelight.

Innovate don’t bellyache
  • 3 0
 Looks like a Sugar Bear Chopper fork, but with reverse rake.
  • 6 3
 Get ready for your lowers smash into rock when travel goes down.
  • 3 0
 That's a big concern. Is there a picture of it fully compressed?
  • 1 0
 I was just thinking about this one rut in a local trail here… this would Not fit when the axle has moved up. Certain drama
Good lord
  • 4 2
 You better patent it with the shock on both sides before D. Weagle does and calls it his own.
  • 4 1
 Awesome stuff. If it isn't super expensive I'll be ordering one!
  • 6 6
 So if I just draw up some kooky shit in OnShape or Solidworks with bearings and fab it and then draw some graphs in crayon does that mean I can get on pinkbike front page too?
  • 4 0
 It doesnt stop anyone else.
  • 3 1
 I am happy to see a fresh take on something that I usually take for granted.
  • 2 0
 I like the innovation but I will take the extra weight of a gearbox over this all day everyday
  • 3 4
 Everyone's trying to make baja trucks forgetting that mtbs have no engines or throttle and you have to use body mass and leverage over rear axle to create lift and acceleration while descending. A big boat anchor Baja ooey gooey stick to the ground frontend completely worthless for anyone who knows how to shred. Sorry.
  • 1 0
 Could the pivot be mounted higher to avoid rock strikes in full compression? Would probably result in a different shock position.
  • 3 3
 Please stop now. Nobody (roughly 3000 people) will buy it. You'll go broke and be saddled with bankruptcy and losing your house. All because off a great linkage that looked shit. Please stop.
  • 2 0
 I'm still not okay with the lefty... What the f*** makes you think that I'll be okay with this?
  • 1 0
 "How much does it weigh"
"Not sure...more than a telescopic fork for sure"

That's code for "This thing probably weighs 4x what a regualr fork does."
  • 2 0
 Sweet. I was looking for a bicycle-tech time-warp back to1998, just for fun. And here it is!
  • 1 0
 Can someone make a bike with a front middle and rear triangle. Just mirror the rear to the front and have some sort of middle to sit on and handle the bike from.
  • 11 10
 "We saw how well the Trust fork sold and figured we'd try our own radical design in hopes of replicating their success!
  • 3 0
 This shop thinks there's still a chance... www.pinkbike.com/buysell/3547992
$500 seems to be going price for the dodo bird of forks.
  • 2 1
 To be fair, it sounds like it rides a bit more forgiving than the Trust. I'd take a punt on it for the right price.
  • 2 0
 Should call it the platypus.
  • 3 1
 Combine this with some headset routing and you got yourself a deal!
  • 3 1
 Why not, hanging around interesting people broadens your perspective
  • 2 4
 Interesting design, I can see the need for suspensions on the front wheel in modern mountain biking. However, I seems like a lot of mechanical load where it isn't neccicary. It seems a lot more efficiant to build a single telecopic suspension which travels in a stright line from point A to B. Perhaps something like this already exist?
  • 2 1
 Wondering when Specialized is going swoop in, patent it, then sue him for billions of dollars.
  • 3 1
 that is a LOT of weight on the front of your bike lol
  • 3 1
 Nah dude. I want that axle to head squarely and directly toward the bars.
  • 8 8
 Pro tip, Mx bikes haven't changed. Stop feeding us bullshit that doesn't work and doesn't need to work. Sincerely Reality check.
  • 2 4
 I've ridden a structure. It worked like a bike. Did I want to buy it nope. Does a soft front end actually do much? Nope... stiffen that f*cker up, you'll go faster. This particular bit of bikery is bloody ugly also. So very ugly. It's a no for me. Thanks but no.
  • 3 1
 Somebody deserves a proper slap for that.
  • 3 3
 Everytime I see one of these linkage forks I say to myself “this guy is trying to bankrupt himself” they don’t work, give it up already.
  • 2 0
 Wanna see you fit that between a tight rut..
  • 1 0
 I'd rather run an RST fork from Canadian Tire than be seen on one of these.
  • 1 0
 I'd love to send one of those through a rock garden at full speed. Anyone fancy sending me one out for some R&D resting?
  • 1 0
 its wide and will clip on roots and wont even fit on the whistler bike rack chairlift
  • 1 0
 I have my company called Reev component we specialize is 3d manufacturing!!
  • 1 0
 If you clip a rock with one of the arms, do you get suspension jack?
  • 1 0
 You get Jacked for sure though
  • 2 1
 Only if it has headset cable routing and a gearbox.... otherwise i'm out.
  • 5 3
 sick AF. I love it
  • 2 1
 Cool project. But no thanks
  • 1 0
 Gonna be a helluva faceplant when (not if) one of those bolts breaks.
  • 1 0
 Um no it already looks broken
  • 1 0
 @bikecranks
Twitter
Bike cranks?
  • 2 0
 no
  • 1 0
 here we go again.........
  • 1 0
 Now you can have air and coil in one Wink
  • 2 0
 Girvin
  • 2 0
 No
  • 2 1
 Fingers crossed this goes the way of the TRUST forks.
  • 1 0
 The geniuses making these things should be curing diseases.
  • 1 0
 I'd gladly ride a linkage fork, just make it pretty though.
  • 44 44
 Why isn't this in Friday fails?
  • 5 7
 Cos it's not 1st of April yet.
  • 2 2
 Need it or keep it?! Right on brotherino! Keep the rubber side sliding! #staynudepb
  • 5 6
 Flintstones' engineers are working on a new fork and they say that it works well with wooden square wheels and fur tires.
  • 6 6
 At last, a good looking linkage fork. (/s obviously)
  • 1 1
 I’d like one absolutely! 26” with 20mm front hub… perfect!
  • 3 3
 When smart people do meth
  • 4 4
 It doesn't even look fun at this point.
  • 1 2
 To be honest I belief it could be one of the best looking forks out there in the final stage. Imagine all of it cnc'd.
  • 1 0
 Perfect for my hardtail
  • 1 1
 Too much “could we” in the board room and not much “should we”
  • 4 6
 With forks nearly perpindicular to the ground, it's gotta ride weird, right?
  • 6 2
 No. For steering with a given head-tube angle, it only matters where the wheel ends up, not how it gets there! For example, imagine a rigid fork: doesn't matter whether it's straight, curved, or a crazy art piece, as long as the wheel is in the same place.
  • 4 4
 @R-M-R: I don't believe it. If you're turning hard and it compressed hard, there is going to weird flex. As well as the unsprung mass moving under compression and discombobulating the whole balance of the bike. (just wanted to say discombobulating though, mostly)
  • 3 0
 @inside-plus: It's a good word and I can't blame you for being keen to use it.

The Rocksled design may require more material to reach the appropriate level of stiffness, but it certainly can reach such a level.

That may be a separate issue, though, as I interpreted dstroud70's question to pertain to steering geometry, like head-tube angle and trail. These things also aren't necessarily different from a traditional fork.
  • 1 0
 The polar opposite of the Trust forks. Seems like it would have a lot flex under braking bumps in rock gardens. This could be a good thing. Or catastrophically bad.
  • 1 1
 I Donno!!
  • 2 2
 Wicked fork love it.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.059445
Mobile Version of Website