What's Inside the Message? Thru-Shaft Damper: The Message's twin-tube, thru-shaft damper sits inside the right leg and has roughly 50mm of stroke that's topped off with a conical bottom-out bumper, and the fork's linkage works off that to provide 130mm of travel. An air cartridge sits atop the damper, with the whole thing sliding out from the bottom of the leg as a single unit. There's an air cartridge inside the left leg, too, but no damper - that's all done within the right leg.
With a relatively short stroke, a sealed bearing at the bottom eyelet, and a low-speed rebound dial (w/ 20 clicks) poking out like an anodized red nipple, the damper looks a lot like a strange rear shock. Then there's that bright red disc that sits on top of the damper and has the high-speed compression shim stack underneath it; there's a separate ''blow-off stack'' for the Medium mode so that they ''
don't need to compromise both with lockout and each can be tuned independently,'' Weagle told me.
The fork's thru-shaft damper uses a twin-tube layout that's similar, at least in principle, to other things out there. Picture a tube in a tube, with the oil passing from one to the other, as well as through the damping circuits, and you get the idea. When compressed, oil is forced out of the main tube and through the compression circuit before ending up behind the main piston via bleed holes that join the inner and outer tubes. Can you guess what happens when the shock rebounds? Yup, the opposite but the oil passes through the rebound circuit this time thanks to check valves.
The red cap (left) is hiding the high-speed compression circuit, and adjustments are made to the Open and Medium modes via a 3mm hex key on the side of the damper (right).
Speaking of the fork's Medium compression mode, this is where you'll find the 3mm hex adjusters for that and the Open setting, with them hidden beneath a rubber cap when the fork is put together. The bottom dial tunes the fork's Open compression via 20 clicks, whereas the top dial offers 5 clicks to alter the Medium mode's action. That's easy enough to remember (there's a big 'C' on the rubber cap, too), but I'd like to see each dial's function labeled as well.
Plastic Gears: What about that strange looking arrangement of plastic gear wheels and that long rod that runs the length of the air cartridge? Trust needed the three-position compression lever at the fork crown to reach the damper, and that's how they did it. The Message is said to be relatively unfazed by pedaling and changes or where the rider's center of gravity is sitting, which is largely true in practice, and Trust debated about whether they needed this cheater switch at all. ''
Trail fork consumers are used to some form of adjustability and lock-out feature and, as such, we felt we needed to include it to not be too alienating,'' Weagle admitted when I questioned the need and execution. ''
That said, we might find that future iterations don't need it.''
The three-position dial atop the crown turns a plastic rod that parallels the air cartridge before itself turning a number of equally plastic gear wheels. This is how you select your Open, Medium, or Firm compression modes.
If you're looking at those plastic gear wheels and wondering how long it'll take to wreck them, you're thinking exactly like I was. The stops are built into the underside of the aluminum compression lever, though, so you shouldn't ever be able to apply too much force to the plastic bits down inside the fork.
Not User Serviceable... Yet: When the Message was first released, word was that the damper would be user serviceable by anyone with the skills and tools to do the job. That's not quite the case, though, with the dampers in first-year forks not intended to be opened up by anyone at home.
Weagle cites two reasons for this approach: ''
First, we want to make sure in our first year that we're seeing everything that happens to the suspension in a variety of real-world conditions. Seeing this enables us to build-in service efficiencies and address common consumer needs in a way that only strengthens future product development. Second, we're actively building out our worldwide service network, training staff and developing a suite of service videos that our distribution partners and service centers can use to properly service the Message.'' I get that, sure, but I still want to take it apart at will.
A single bolt holds the cartridge in at the top (left), and the whole thing swings slightly as the fork compresses and rebounds, just like the shock does on the back of your full-suspension bike.
Oh, and there apparently are also some proprietary tools that require some kind of training, but those aren't available to the consumer yet. While I'm of the opinion that everything on our bikes should be easily serviceable at home with a set of hex keys, average intelligence, and some patience, I can also understand why Trust would be exercising caution on this front. That said, I'd want my $1,975 USD fork to include its proprietary tool kit and anything else I might need to work on it for the next five years.
Air Spring: The black cylinder that sits on top of the damper is the air cartridge, and the valve aligns with a port in the carbon leg when you slide the whole assembly home. There are a few things to note here, including that you'll need a shock pump with a long-head on it to reach the aluminum valve; many shock pumps are this way regardless, but I'd like to be able to use
any shock pump on this fork.
Trust does ship the fork with a pump that works with the Message, as well as a bunch of thread-on volume spacers so you can tinker with how it ramps up later in its stroke.
The top assembly comes off to reveal a threaded cap on top of the air cartridge. This is where you install the volume-reducing tokens for more ramp-up.
And did you note the very strange shape to the top of the cartridge? That bit mates to the corresponding shape up inside the leg and, get this, the whole damper and air spring assembly swings in an arc slightly as the fork goes through its travel, just like the shock on your full-suspension bike.
That means that the cartridge's top mounting bolt, the one just above the valve, is a pivot of sorts, and it's also why the Message's carbon legs flare out slightly from top to bottom - to provide room for the cartridge to swing.
You can never have too many pictures of prototypes. Trust says that the Message was in development for the past four years.
Trust's first suspension fork provides endless technical talking points, but we should really be talking about how this thing performs. Is the Message yet another linkage creation that promises to blow telescoping forks off the trail only to end up fading into obscurity like all the others? Or is the very expensive, very strange looking Trust Message the one that proves stanchions and bushings aren't the best way to do suspension?
353 Comments
www.instagram.com/p/ByvqMNiH3o1/?igshid=nhwirh524ht3
I have two “Huck Pucks” (tokens) installed per leg and still bottom out the fork regularly (it’s only 130mm, duh), but I don’t call it a harsh feeling. I am amazed and how supportive it is and agree with Levy—this thing is responsive and ready to take a beating.
Lastly, I came from a Fox 36 and would contest that this fork, for me, has floated over square edge bumps better than my 36. It corners better than my 36. And despite being optimized for trail riding, it sure jumps as well as my 36 too.
I put this on my hard tail race bike.
I'm coming from a fox 32 (too small for my size at 190lbs).
It is still early days for me but this does everything I wanted it to (dozen rides and still messing with settings).
I've been through many rock gardens (up and down) and while I might say this is "harsh" I would also say I never ever think about hitting a rock. This just eats them up.
The trails Ive been riding are
1) left hand canyon
2) heil valley ranch around boulder
these trails make you understand why they call them the rockies.
The big telescopes are plusher and softer on big impacts (duh; the Message is 130mm with ~ 120mm of that travel being vertical). But, for me, the Message out-planes, out-pumps and way out-corners the other forks. As Levy says, going back to the telescope makes the bike feel old fashioned.
As far as "harshness" goes, perhaps the ideal fork for a shreddy rider doesn't erase all trail noise. What if if conveys some energy/info, and this energy/info helps the rider have more fun and ride better? Something like a sports car vs. a grandpa sedan.
Like Levy says, he's feeling more of the trail, but he's riding great.
How cool that Weagle brought this to the world, and we get to talk about it.
Do you also want to tell us how ENVE stuff is great ?
Those of us who haven't tried anything other than a telescopic fork wouldn't be able to appreciate how this feels without trying anyway.
It's above my budget and beyond my needs. I'm just excited about fresh takes on traditional tech. That's how progress happens. Even if The Message doesn't take over the world, the industry will learn from it and traditional stuff will get better.
Source: am engineer
[and buy Shimano of course! Ha, only kidding.... you’ll have fun whoever made your cogs.]
Hey I fix y’alls mistakes....
With DW doing the design and my happiness with his rear suspension designs, I would bet that this could finally be the beginning of linkage forks being recognized as a legitimate direction to pursue. I may not be rushing out to buy one, but I definitely am keeping an eye on this fork.
The review is already mostly positive, the comments of non sponsored people/dentists who ride it are also positive, so no need for hidden advertising in the comments.
Jeff Kendall-Weed can ride well on any component that isn't a catastrophic disaster. Give him a 5 year old entry level Pike and he will probably send it just as much.
Does it not give you at least a little bit of confidence seeing Tues being thrown down crazy Rampage runs and not breaking in half?
Sam Hill on a Kids Bike will be faster down an EWS track than i would be on my trailbike. By that logic a Kids Bike should be all i ever need for my level of riding.
For the record, I'm sure I'm gonna smoke Sam Hill if he was on a *kids tricycle*. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Hill.
One of the biggest things about progressive geometry is that you can actually get your weight forward to get some traction from your front wheel without killing yourself - and from what @mikelevy says above, the Trust puts that effect on steroids by not having the front divebomb into turns and upsetting your fore/aft balance. Since that railing turns thing is one of the things that really lights me up about riding, that gets my attention.
As a product, this is probably about $1k and two years of maturation (in terms of servicability, proven reliability, set-and-forget ease of use and such) away from where I'd buy one - but when I'm ready for my next bike two years from now (yep, not an early adopter...), I'm sure I'll take a very hard look.
Go Dave Weagle - way to fly your engineering freak flag proudly!
No. No. No. So by your logic no one should buy a Factory 36 or a Santa Cruz CC R (or whatever their stupid expensive top trim is) model.
The price should not be counted as a con. Mountain biking has a massive range of prices, and the high end stuff never has a linear price-to-betterness ratio. People who can afford a $10K Cannondale will buy it over the $5K version because they want either those marginal gains or like the looks or cachet, or both. I don't think they have any illusions that it's twice better.
Maybe people will start questioning whether to go soft on tyres/grips/wheels/etc now - trading NVH for rigidity.
Regarding the amount of damping: In my past 7 months on the fork I too thought maybe it was overdamped because of the amount of noise that was coming through the fork. Multiple times, I've done full bracketing sessions (this graphic shows how bracketing works www.leelikesbikes.com/wp-content/050307bracketing.jpg).
I expect these sessions to end with me at wide open compression and rebound but, amazingly, I keep ending up in the middle of the adjustment range, very close to the suggested setting.
This exercise is a great way to find a setting that fits your needs. For me, that's a good mix of comfortable, lively, fun and yet controlled and confidence inspiring.
As Levy said: The Message does not feel like a telescope. To get the most from it, you need to focus on the overall performance/character of the ride — best accomplished with back to back runs while paying attention to details — not making the Message feel like your old fork.
Fun!
Since this thing is already thinking outside the box, though - I wonder if there are ways to alleviate harshness that won't impact geometry and control. For example, what if there were some sort of suspension bushing incorporated somewhere in the design not to introduce more travel into the system, but to isolate the rider from some of the hard chatter/vibration? In windsurfing, we use tendons made from polyurethane (same stuff you'd see in skateboard trucks) as a compromise between the full-on rigidity of a mechanical universal joint (unbelievably harsh and unforgiving) and a soft rubber u-joint (horribly spongy and imprecise).
Total 60
Same as the Cadillac CT6 or 911 Speedster.
So the concept has been around longer than dirt or at least me :^)
The Trust is probably harsher due to 1. Constant trail means as soon as there’s a steer angle and lateral force, you create massive torque on the handlebars. Telescoping forks lose trail as you turn so torque and feedback reduces.
2. The Trust doesn’t bind-there’s only kinematics and very little compliance so every single longitudinal force input on the hub got transferred directly to the handle bar. Telescopic fork binding does absorb this as a kind of hub compliance.
3. There’s significant damper lever ratio on the Trust so stiffer valvings for a given amount of damping force on the hub. Telescopic fork 1:1 lever ratio would have softer valves.
My 0.02.
It's not like there is a whole new frontier to explore.
Great video and article. Mike did back to back tests which was good to see and did a great job at giving us a sense of the differences, but at no time was a stopwatch used which I think is a huge missed oppertunity.
Comparisions of which is faster and where would have been a very good addition to both video and article. (or perhaps a seperate video is coming??? @mikelevy )
Pinkbike commenters are always pretending spring shocks and forks are better because they are linear and they don't heat up on longer downhills.
In forks, the heat usually dissipates better than in shocks, but some say that the heat built up is still noticeable in a fork when doing a long downhill.
I don't feel it in a shock nor in a fork so I don't really care, but i'm curious if you have done long downhill on this fork, and if so, if you have noticed whether the fork was feeling stiffer at the end ?
but only 20% of bikes carry that 70% of goodness
Looks blahblahblah
Geometry blahblahblah...
Alright you've done the big trail bike test last fall, you know what we care about. Where is the slow motion footage of Adam doing the huck to flat test?
Everything about it makes me curious.
(and screw the looks. 6 years ago the only forks with black stanchions were cheap Suntours. It was almost a mark of shame. Fast forward a few years, and the fashion's all reversed. it's a bike, not a boob job).
Overall interesting design and possible upsides in geometry, but unless they take a less harsh approach to how the fork feels in practice it is doubtful they will gain traction.
I think with that in mind it really makes linkage forks much more appealing to me than before I realized that the HA was actually slacking out with the Trust fork when going into it's travel. It does seem like linkage forks could be the future of mountain biking.
I also am curious as to why the Girvin Proflex linkage design isn't still a popular way to make a linkage fork, it seems like it could be made to accept something like a rear suspension shock into it while providing the user with a ton of adjustability in fork trail and users could put coils on their fork to brag how heavy their bike is. . .
ETT is a single static measurement that just no longer aligns exactly with the frame tubes\structure. Just like reach and stack (although they never directly related to a tube)
"Effective head angle", if it was a real thing, would be dynamic and also wouldn't really tell you anything, since there are combinations on both sides of actual HA and trail that would give the same "EHA" but would feel very very different. Combine that with different offsets and wheelsize, and EHA is too variable to be useful. Even the rate of the dynamic changes would also vary between differences in offset and wheelsize. There is a reason "effective head angle" is never discussed. (Note that this is different than "dynamic head angle", which is the head angle with both ends sagged (including a hardtail with it's zero (or tire only) sag))
On the original Girvin forks they had a sort of J-shaped axle path, with the axle traveling back and then up, somewhat like the Message fork, again with claimed benefits over a telescopic fork. People complained that, on steep descents, it felt like the wheel was tucking back under you making endos more likely. Granted that was with a 135mm stem, so we have more margin for error now, but it could still be of concern when pushing toward the limit of going over the bars. Girvin switched to a more vertical axle path on later models, to mimic a telescopic fork and alleviate those concerns.
The rearward travel of the message will also potentially negatively affect front center:rear center weight distribution, which people have been paying a lot more attention to lately.
I'm not saying that the pros don't outweigh the cons. I'm just saying that in preserving trail on the Message, they are robbing from Peter to pay Paul. A more holistic solution is something like Structure is doing (structure.bike), where they increase trail as the fork compresses by slackening the head tube angle, thus preserving trail while not stealing from the front center length. The downside is that it requires a whole dedicated chassis, it looks crazy (although the Message does too), and we don't know if they have executed the whole concept well yet as there are very few reviews out there, but that is ultimately a more promising direction I think when it comes to geometry preservation throughout the suspension travel.
It did feel a bit harsh over high speed chatter - and drops and impacts were more felt more the arms, but cornering is probably the most fun thing you do on a bike (for me anyway), and the fact that cornering is just so good on this fork makes it all worth it!
As a last point I don't subscribe to the notion that expensive products should be more durable - that's not the case in any other industry.
I'm definitely not an engineer, let alone Dave Weagle, so I should probably keep my mouth shut, but these are the PB comments after all
The only thing that sounds interesting is the fact that as it compresses the trail increases but it isn't enough to make me spend that much money.
Plus it looks terrible. Sorry..
Can I make the 34 maintain the bike's geometry? Of course by adding more air and some compression. Does this mean the the fork will be unrideable if I go let's say from 30% sag to 20% sag? I doubt it and the same applies if I add some clicks of compression.
Will it be exactly the same as the Trust fork? Most probably not but it will be good enough (for me) and I will save some money in the process. Unless of course our existing telescopic forks have become obsolete because a new design has been introduced.
Anyway despite my opinion about the Trust fork it is great to see companies challenge the existing status quo but when you ask double the price then you need to be much better than the existing options.
What I was left unsure about however was whether the harshness was simply down to the spring/damper settings, or if it was somehow inherent to the linkage. This was touched on when Levy said even when set up soft the Trust felt harsh, but I'd like to know more. As @DavidGuerra said, it'd be interesting to see a similar comparison between the Trust and a Fox 34, set up "overdamped". Perhaps with a coil spring too, to better match the more linear (and heavier) Trust. Would the Fox then maintain geo similarly to the Trust, or would it do it differently/better/worse? Would the traits due to the increasing trail of the Trust be allowed to shine through with the damping better matched, or is it the difference in damping that provides most of the advantages felt when riding the Trust? As a person currently running a coil sprung and overdamped by most peoples standards (I really dislike brake dive, and general geo instability) telescopic fork, I'd love to see this explored.
Message: a little harsh, but with handling benefits. Not comfy, but it is fast and very in control.
Telescoping fork set up "normally": feels good, but with some handling drawbacks. Fairly comfy, but without the speed and control benefits.
Telescoping fork set up "harsh": feels harsh, and still has the same handling drawbacks. Not comfy, and without the speed and control benefits.
Suspension setup is a compromise and it seems that both the telescopic forks and the linkage forks offer some benefits but none offers all of them so it comes down to personal preference. And budget.
Mike Levy, @11:15, talking about the Fox: "It's using a lot more of its travel, and that means that the bike is doing this more [stinkbug hand gesture] ... It means the angles of the bike are changing more; the handling is changing."
Talking about the Trust: "It's staying up higher in its travel ... You could see the attitude of the bike is changing less; the angles are changing less ... that means the handling stays more consistent. It was rougher with the Trust fork, but I had more confidence."
From the text: " the Message acts like there might be too much high-speed compression damping for my liking, with more harshness..."
It would have been really helpful to do a few runs with more spring/tokens and/or damping in the Fox--it would have addressed a HUGE confounding variable. He tried making the Trust softer, but it bottomed out too much--but he didn't try making the Fox stiffer. Obviously he knows exactly how he likes to set up a 34, but tweaking the setup would have been informative. For that particular short section of trail, maybe he would have liked the 34 with a stiffer setup.
It is rare that a product and its review could turn the industry on end. This could be one of those instances. If this review had been shorter, less scientific,or less passionate, the product might have slipped out of the spotlight. But I don't see that happening this time. I predict this is only the beginning. I truly hope this fork continues to to evolve and comes down in price. If what you're describing is true, there's definitely use cases where this thing will crush the competition.
Back to it being harsh...I have a terrible wrist injury from 10 years ago, still ride with a brace. I lost 70% of motion in my right wrist. I used to struggle to ride back to back days with regular forks. The message isn't plush but it doesnt hurt my wrist like every other set up I've had and I'm considerably faster. I can't really explain why it doesnt hurt my wirst, but if you want to go faster and can afford it, buy one. If you cant that's fine, too. There are so many good forks and products in general today it's insane. It's never been a better time to be a mtn biker.
It felt like shit because damping was way off and I should be running 170 in both legs, but that’s a different story. Long story short - I had a problem and Trust took care of me, and holy shit I was impressed by how stiff this thing is even with such uneven pressures.
Honestly I think that with torque caps (or maybe even without) you could run this thing with only one airspring pumped up and it would perform alright. As long as your shock pump goes to 340 psi (or whatever you need) ((probably don’t do this though)).
If you want my full review see the comments in the article about the $725 price drop. TLDR: it’s a dope dope fork and I like it.
Thanks for putting in the time to produce that video, as a reader here I really appreciate it.
Would you say there is more potential for a fork like this where someone rides less burly trail? Place that's a bit smoother where they really get to take advantage of the trust fork not changing the bikes geo as much?
With a hardtail, the trail will remain the sameish through the travel, vs decreasing trail on a telescoping fork.
With a full suspension, if you compress both the front and rear equally, then trail will increase for the message, vs staying the same for a telescoping fork
Gotta admit i'm more intrigued now. The preserved geometry and handling alone are a huge selling point over other forks. Think if they address the cons with the next generation of forks they could really have something.
A 160-170 travel fork, with improved ride quality, progressive spring rate, lighter weight, 1500$ price range ...would be a game changer...
The looks don't really bother me if this thing would be able to perform twice as good as telescoping forks.
Honestly, I am a big fan of this fork, and linkage forks in general. I've become a fan of French MOTION fork after watching some British video review where was claimed that MOTION-RIDE will replace the bushings by standard bearings.
I like that the Message is built on very stiff and strong chassis, the long sloped tube housing the springs and damper. I like the short suspension links and overall burliness of the fork. There is no Alu steerer pressed into carbon crown.
As for its "higher" weight - nobody has noticed that Message's unsprung weight is much much lower than it is at telescopic fork's lowers. You are able to make a long travel fork out of it just by lengthening the suspension links a little bit and the sum weight will be almost unaffected. However, it'll move the fork into Lyrik or FOX 36 category and weight comparison suddenly becomes a bit different !!!
As for the harshness. Its axlepath is more rearward and that's why it needs more of a vertical input to get it moving into travel. And how often is trail fork hucked to flat? Average trail rider will maybe never do such a drops like Mike Levy did in his video. I think Message will allow rider to stay centered over his bike during the drop-to-flat landings because Message keeps it's handling composure (unlike telefork) allowing rider to control the bike immediately after touching down. Telefork needs to rebound after serious impact. And probably one of the main reasons why we move backwards on our bike when doing drops is to keep our distance from front contact patch to gain some margin because telescopic front end is rubbish when in full travel.
A longer section of taller roots, stones, steps is another graveyard of telefork.
For me, the Message would be clear winner performance-wise.
It could be that the Message handles way better deep in the travel, due to it's alteration of trail measurement, but it seems like you may not understand how it does that. It isn't magic. Normally, when the front end of the bike dives, like under braking and/or on steep terrain, the head angle steepens, which reduces trail. With a telescopic fork, the fork offset is fixed, so you have a steepening head angle, with fixed for offset, leading to a trail measure that gets lower the more the fork compresses. The message fork compensates this by having a rearward axle path, so as the steepening head angle is reducing your trail, the rearward axle path is increasing it, and hopefully the combination of the two leads to a consistency in handling.
The problem is that, in your scenario of a drop to flat, where you have your weight back because you want to stay behind the front contact patch, the Message fork is preserving the trail measurement by moving the contact patch backwards! In other words, it is decreasing your offset as you go deeper in the travel, which will put more of your weight on the front wheel. In situations where you are trying to lean back on the bike, the Message will make you get even further back to keep the same weight distribution.
In cases where you are landing to flat with equal weight distribution between the wheels, your head angle will not steepen as the rear suspension will be compressing equally to the front, and in that case the trust could offer more stability, as it it would be growing the trail above baseline, rather than simply preserving it (as a telefork would do), but in a flat landing with equal weight distribution the telefork would still not drop below baseline stability levels.
Telefork will nicely waste all of its travel, rider will happily enjoy the suppleness of his telefork, but he must significantly move backwards because telefork loses its "ideal" composure which is a situation that you just wish to survive somehow. That's why you want to build some safe-zone buffer b moving you backwards until telefork rebounds and regains its composure.
With Message you are able to control it even immediately after the big landing because it doesn't lose its composure. It's a stiff chassis (unlike telefork) with consistent behaviour (unlike telefork). And that's why you don't need to build that safe-zone buffer. The initial impact may be harsher to the rider than with telefork but overall performance after impact is kept composed.
It would be very interesting to compare Trust Message with MOTION E18 fork which was developed on different philosophy.
The benefit for the MOTION fork is that in theory you could come in faster to corners, brake later and suspension remains active (good for braking bumps etc.). Like ABP or Split Pivot suspension designs but for the front wheel. Additionally, when riding steep terrain where braking is required, you can brake harder and not have to shift weight bias backwards.
But in corners you wouldn't get the same benefit of the Trust - of having a good support without a negative effect on traction (like you would get with a telescopic by running lots of LSC)
Way out of my price range at this point but would be awesome to try.
On the harshness... why not pair it with 27.5+ and drop some tire pressure?
It’s seems like in the comments more people are more open minded towards this fork than they would be if a company like Specialized introduced it
End of the day I can ride harder and faster which equates to more fun. It’s made trails i’ve Ridden for 15 years that much more fun and can ride them with even more confidence than I did on full squish bikes with more travel...yet beating those PR’s I set on such bikes when I was in better shape and younger...on my hardtail with the Trust fork on it.
Yeah, I’m very happy with my fork. Couldn’t go back to a telescoping fork after 3 months on this. And i’ve Ridden telescoping forks of all kinds since 1991.
Like you, I'd really like to see if they are able to make all of that potential come through in reality. It would be awesome to see some reviews, or even demo one.
It is still very niches product since no oem
Also, the reviews of that other linage fork seem to be quite a bit more positive.
PB does a real solid and fair job on these reviews.
Great job!
Bottoms out too easily: of course it does, that's expected with a falling leverage rate.
Too harsh: Trust appears to be trying to control bottoming with excessive compression damping.
There's no need for a linkage fork to feel harsh. If anything, a telescoping fork should feel more harsh because it needs more support to keep it up in its travel. All the excuses about the harshness being due to hysteresis, low friction, or being too different to compare are just that: excuses for a workaround solution for the falling rate.
A front linkage fork has to choose the superior kinematics of a high linkage (ex. Motion Ride) with challenging chassis stiffness and weight, or the compromised kinematics of a low linkage (ex. Trust) with easily achieved chassis integrity. Maybe Trust can overcome their kinematics problems by creating a highly progressive position-sensitive damper and a more progressive spring. Until then, the Message appears to be another front linkage that falls slightly short of realizing the potential of the concept.
Normally when I set up a trail bike I opt for roughly a balanced feel between front and rear, which is pretty much 20% sag in fork, 30% on the shock usually is a really good start. There was never a minute I rode the Message that it felt balanced with the rear, it was always choppered out using rec'd pressure for body weight. Next I dropped the air pressure down considerably less than suggested. Still it rode nose up.. When standing up climbing it was a scalded cat and if I ran straight into a rock or root across the trail most of the time it would suck it up in the most miraculous way. I might be standing and hammering up the hill, but the speeds are quite tame haha. Then as the trail turned down and the speed went up, hitting rocks became a guessing game.... was this a slapper or a cush impact. Sometimes the impact was so great it stung the hands, others would just disappear under the linkage. With a linkage it seems there is a very different bump feel depending on very slight changes in speed, body location and bump shape. The best way to run this set up was put the rear shock in mid position for more low speed compression to keep it from dragging ass around deep berms where the g forces would smash the bike, but only the rear suspension would respond. Now I will say that like many others have said there is a unique feel to the fork in a turn, very calm and stable as it will just set on the arc you pick with the angle of lean and amount of counter steering. The talk of 'trail' numbers has merit. The fork is also stiffer steering than a 34 which is a fork I am very familiar with, so that helps it's stability too. Then I switched to the big Fox with 20% sag, but tuned in more support like you would want on a faster jump line with a lot of G's. Checking tire pressure and rear shock pressure with digital gauge so it was exactly the same as when set up with the Message. Just getting out of my neighborhood the suspension action is infinitely superior. Holy shit, little holes, little drops, disappear like uhhh, I had suspension. Even more firmed up than I would ever have thought to run, when the front end hit something the Fox would open up and do a much much better job of eating it. On the trails the telescopic fork sure felt softer under hard pedaling efforts when standing, so I flipped it to full firm. Then came the descents, so many more of the rocks I smacked yesterday just disappear with the Fox. Maybe not as quite as good as a PIKE I have on a 29r, but the Fox was still way more confidence inspiring in the rock/roots.
Now if one is running more support in a RockShox, Fox, DVO, Xfusion, MRP, CaneCreek etc, than I think the steering stability difference gets very small. As soon as I opened up the low speed compression lever on the Fox fork when descending, the handling got looser, the opposite of what the Message was actually good at. It was certainly an eye opener to me who has always gone for the plush feeling suspension. This personal test has taught me that going firmer radically stabilized the bike and allowed me to really enjoy the 65.5* head angle. Which got me thinking, maybe if the damper in the Message was as good as the other forks on the market it just wouldnt have the same advantage, that some of the cornering advantage is directly related to the way it barely absorbs bumps? What if the damper really moved as well as any 130mm fork on the market, then it certainly would be more prone to mid turn G force compression? Or would it be so amazing we would all want to spend 2-4X what we can get a PIKE or a 36 for? (PIKE RL on Cambria right now for $500 for sake of conversation)
The difference with the Message is that the axel path is back first and then up. The 'division of labor' is apportioned in a way that makes the best use of it. It sort of climbs over bumps.
The other thing that makes it seem to have more travel is none is used in braking. The lack of front end dive is so strange that I'm nowhere near used to it. That same 170mm fork might use up 20 or 30mm in hard braking before it even encounters the obstacle.
you also missed the sarcasm.
I ride with a 160mm fork. So then a telescoping fork of the same size would have some very odd effects. I'd imagine that (since axle path isn't straight) I'd actually get a decreasing trail figure for the first part of my fork's travel and one that is even larger than that of a telescoping fork.
So for the first part of it's travel the 160mm fork (at least in my mind's eye) would be less or equally stable compared to the telescoping fork.
That first part of the travel is the money zone so why take the weight and size penalty for something that doesn't improve the most important part of the fork's travel?
Someone would've snatched one up.
That said, I wouldn't be worried at all about those fork bearings. I like to have my lowers dropped min 2x/year anyway, and water doesn't smash the front wheel like it does our rear main pivots. My front hub bearings last years (rear, not so much).
The current Transition and my last do-all bike, the Devinci, are the most reliable of the bunch. But still, pull them apart after a year and they're crunchy. I now at lease clean and regrease every 6 months, with new bearings every 12 months. We ride hard, we ride a lot, and we ride year round.
Lol reminds me over being attached by a Praying Mantis
Aside from Levy's review here, I've come across two types of review; those saying The Message is a pile of harsh overpriced garbage, and those sounding like they've been brainwashed, staring into space and waffling on about how much they now love the Lord - I mean the Message fork...
The Message has some notable cons, no doubt about that, but I don't think the bearings are one of them
Hahaha
Everything good is usually more expensive and heavier and weirder looking at first. Eventually either the benefits outweigh those deficits, and\or technology and manufacturing improves enough to marginalize those deficits.
But how? Or more specifically, when? If the Message transmits energy back up into the arms, then its because the linkage isn't really traveling
Where do I sign up?
I had another LBS bust my axle on my DH bike by not loosening the pinch bolts.
So I can only imagine what would happen, what I would be charged, if I showed up with this thing to get serviced.
I'm more than happy to do it when I have a moment to open up the chambers, but between work, kids, and riding I don't have much time to spend a couple hours wrestling hex and torx keys.
If someone had fiddled with your bike for free I would agree, but if you pay a company for a service and they screw it up?? Sounds like a reasonable thing to complain about.
In before doctor/dentist/attorney has been mentioned in the comments (because you know it's coming).