Is This Linkage Fork the Future of Suspension? - Crankworx Whistler 2017

Aug 14, 2017
by Mike Levy  



Linkage suspension forks aren't a new concept, with the idea being trailed in all sorts of two-wheeled sports throughout the past. Fans of motorcycle road racing still talk about the legendary ELF Honda NSR500 and its wild chassis and linkage front-end that was raced in the 1980s, and mountain biking has also seen a handful of different linkage forks over the decades, from AMP to Whyte and a few others. None of those designs ever caught on, however, and traditional bushing-based suspension forks are obviously still the norm... but should they be?

Structure Cycleworks wants to change that with the 150mm-travel SCW-1 and their linkage fork that's integrated into the bike's carbon fiber chassis. The company knows that they're going to have an uphill battle and that the bike's polarizing looks will be an instant turn-off for many riders, but Structure Cycleworks' Loni Hull says that they're aiming to win people over with its performance, not its appearance.


Structure Cycleworks
The blue bike in the Structure Cycleworks booth is a rapid prototype model that hints at what their production version might look like.


What are the claimed performance advantages over a telescoping fork? We've come to accept that telescopic forks have a large amount of inherent friction, even if they feel smooth, and linkage designs have been proven to be nearly friction-free thanks to the sealed bearings that they pivot on. Less plain to see, though, is the ability to tune both the axle path and the amount of anti-dive, which means that the bike could be designed to handle much more consistently. That should add up to more control, confidence, and speed - at least in theory.

But even if those claims all ring true, the trick might be to convince the everyday rider that this wild looking machine is worth considering. As much as some of us get excited about gear that has the potential to be better, we're a weird bunch that rarely embrace disruptive ideas from way out in left field.


Structure Cycleworks
My test bike was built three years ago as a proof of concept.


The Structure Cycleworks bike and linkage fork are from well outside the stadium compared to what we're used to; not just left field. Part of the issue for what will surely be a lack of universal acceptance is that it's not like the latest suspension from RockShox, Fox, et all performs poorly, is it? No, of course not, but Structure Cycleworks' Loni Hull believes that it's going to take a paradigm shift in order for suspension performance to take another substantial leap forward.

''There's only so much we can do to make forks maybe only a little bit better for next year, but it's all incremental improvement from maximum effort,'' Hull told me when I posed the simple question of why. ''We're designing with a clean sheet; we're looking at how to make a bike ride better for a rider. It performs well enough that I feel there will be a market for it with people who want something that's a quantum leap over the best of what's currently available in enduro,'' Hull went on to say, clearly not short of confidence in the design.

bigquotesWe know that it looks weird. We tried our best to make it ascetically pleasing given that form has to follow function, and function comes first for us. All we care about is making the bike work the way we designed it to work and to give some advantages that telescoping forks can't offer. Loni Hull, Structure Cycleworks
Structure Cycleworks
Loni Hull poses with the rapid prototype model.


Structure Cycleworks
The linkage design activates a RockShox damper to deliver 115mm of travel. The production version will have 150mm, however.


Hull explained that the most notable advantage to their linkage system was that the bike's front-center length actually grows longer as the fork goes through its travel, which is the exact opposite of what happens with a traditional suspension fork that shortens the bike's front-end and steepens the head angle when it compresses.

The Structure Cycleworks linkage design actually lengthens and slackens the bike's front-end by as much as a whopping eight-degrees for their 150mm-travel fork, and by about five-degrees for the 115mm-travel fork that I briefly rode. Why would this be a good thing? Getting the front wheel farther out in front of the rider, especially when the fork is deep into its travel, is only going to add stability and keep the rider from feeling like they're about to get chucked over the handlebar.


Structure Cycleworks
Structure Cycleworks
Even if it performs better than a traditional fork, will mountain bikers be able to get past the appearance?


Right now, a fast and aggressive rider often has to over-pressurize their fork's air-spring if they're facing a steep or rowdy trail, something that compromises small bump action. If the Structure Cycleworks linkage fork performs as claimed, a rider shouldn't have to make this concession. ''We take a rider's center of mass and we look at how the kinematics move around that center of mass,'' Hull explained. ''What we decided is that we didn't want a force-path that brought the axle in a kind of J-hook pattern; we wanted one that maintained the front-center and came up more vertically before it starts to go back into a slacker angle for the big hits.''

That's plenty of talking, but the truth will only come out on the trail, so that's where I went. The futuristic looking blue bike in the Structure Cycleworks booth is actually an unrideable rapid prototype, but they did have their older proof-of-concept machine on hand that they let me take out. This bike is unapologetically rough - it was created three years ago purely to prove that their system has potential. So off I went to find out how much potential it has.


Structure Cycleworks
The prototype bike has 115mm of travel up front but it feels like more. And yes, that is a highly modified Norco rear-end you see.


My three-year-old test bike had some fairly dated geometry and a long-ish stem, but you know what? The damn thing felt like a mountain bike to me, and I mean that in the best way possible. The 115mm-travel linkage fork definitely did not feel like a normal fork, though; it was impossibly active relative to how much travel it has.

I'd go so far as to say that it was more supple than the newest 150mm-travel forks on the market, enough so that I first suspected an under inflated front tire, which wasn't the case. I spend a lot of my time on 120mm-travel suspension forks and none of them are anywhere near as active as this odd looking linkage contraption.


Structure Cycleworks
The fork was impressively supple, far more than a standard short-travel fork.


My other thought was that the bikes front end felt very torsionally rigid. Yes, at well under 160lbs I don't exactly find any fork to be all that noodly, but it was quickly obvious that the Structure Cycleworks front-end doesn't flex as much as a traditional fork that depends on its axle and arch for rigidity. The linkage fork that I rode is over three years old, and it's little RockShox damper sees too much leverage, but the action was still impressive and, most importantly, very controlled feeling.

In fact, if it was somehow possible to do a blind test without me smoking a tree head on, I'd likely get off the bike saying that it's running some sort of high-end, 150mm-travel fork, which is quite the praise considering that it's actually a three-year-old design with an over-leveraged damper and just 115mm of stroke.
Structure Cycleworks
It looks different, but the prototype performs well enough that I'm looking forward to trying the new version.


Structure Cycleworks
What good is a test ride if you don't actually test the bike? Getting airborne on the prototype.


So, is this the future? Yes and no. I believe that a linkage design does offer some substantial performance advantages over what we're all using now, especially in a long-travel setup. And Hull is also likely correct when he says that the paradigm shift of a proper linkage fork is the only way to get more than a few percent performance jump over today's high-end forks. But even if all that does end up ringing true, I just don't see the majority of mountain bikers being all that accepting of the design.

The Structure Cycleworks bike is just too disruptive, too out there to become the norm, and there has been of decades of development and acceptance of traditional suspension forks. Regardless of those facts, I won't be the least bit surprised if and when the 150mm-travel SCW-1 comes out and really does blow current bikes and suspension forks away.

Must Read This Week

668 Comments

  • + 467
 Let me just throw on my NOPE jet pack and NOPE right the fuck outta here.
  • + 115
 I hope it's a e-jetpack.
  • + 79
 With Boost nozzles.
  • + 42
 Ah hell nah! The 90's called and they don't want their frankenbike back.
  • + 168
 Haters gonna hate. Potatoes gonna potate. Debaters gonna debate.
  • + 88
 @colincolin: Seriously. So tired of all the high school fashion show commentators who'd apparently prefer to ride a pig with lipstick.
  • + 15
 @bigtim: your a boost nozzle....
  • + 122
 @aroundpg: *you're
  • - 33
flag NYShred (Aug 14, 2017 at 9:15) (Below Threshold)
 Sometimes trying something new is a step backwards and it over-complicates something relatively simple... Why would anyone want to add linkage and multiple areas of impact that could potentially fail on a part of the bike that has already been simplified.

It's like creating an entire 6 step process to help drink a glass of water, when all I really needed was simply a glass to drink from.

Also, I'm not confident, AT ALL, that this design could survive a huge case or gnarly OTB crash without the bike and rider getting seriously F*'d up.

Gold star for trying, but this duck is dead in the water. I wouldn't waste any more time or money on R&D for this concept. It looks great in the pits for a "PB Randoms" post to help bring attention to your brand but that's about it. Great effort though guys... good luck.
  • + 24
 @colincolin: Mass Debaters however...
  • + 121
 @NYShred: "It looks great in the pits for a "PB Randoms" post to help bring attention to your brand but that's about it."

"That's about it" except for the part where the guy who actually rode and tested it said that it performed great and that he wouldn't be surprised if the final versions blow the current crop of forks away. If you want to argue that the bike looks weird and won't catch on that's fine, but you have no clue about anything else.
  • - 121
flag NYShred (Aug 14, 2017 at 9:44) (Below Threshold)
 @sino428: Telling me I "have no clue about anything" implies that you're an internet dick who's quick to tap out a snarky forum comment trying to attack me personally.

Congratulations, you're an internet dick. You get a gold star too, right next to this shitty suspension concept. Great job buddy.
  • + 3
 @bigtim: dont loose youre cool
  • + 6
 Looks fun.
  • + 36
 @NYShred: ye, couldn't agree more - I guess that's why multi linkage rear ends never ousted single pivots...
  • + 13
 It would be interesting to see someone good race it in EWS to see
  • + 35
 @NYShred: So you have seen the bike in person or ridden the bike?

If the answer is yes then I will apologize for saying you have no clue. If the answer is no, then I stand my my original comments which are that you don't know shit about this bike. It not a personal attack on you, its just pointing out the obvious.
  • + 5
 @brunse: masterdebater?
  • + 1
 haha nice
  • + 11
 @NYShred: did your attention span reach the part where he said it could blow existing designs away?
  • + 7
 @NYShred: world's a disc, too
  • + 30
 The group pshychology of PB'ers is pretty funny. You all had big issues with the Lefty, but are ready to fall on your swords for this. I would love to see this be a raging success if for no other reason than to see you fashion queens have shit hemmorhages and the anti-lefty guys question their sexuality.
  • + 39
 @McNubbin: While the echo chamber may be to blame for this, it could also be in defense of progress. The lefty fork was an incremental improvement over the existing fork. Very little new technology was employed and many people had mechanical issues with the product.
This new linkage is a radical departure from anything made by almost every player in the market, addressing many of the problems inherent to the telescoping suspension fork. Additionally, Mr. Levy here, who has extensive experience riding almost all new tech on the market, generally gives well balanced reviews. He said the unrefined 3 year old prototype of this design was actually GOOD: better in some ways even than the extensively developed telescoping fork.

Long story short: we have issues with the lefty because it didn't really improve much. This could have the potential to revive the relatively stagnant development of the front end of the bike. HOPE my friend. Hope.
  • + 5
 Bottom line is: I don't trust a bike that is built by a guy who looks like the love child of Will Ferrell and James Hetfield.
  • + 3
 So, what you're saying Mike Levy..... is that this type of fork, combined with the R3ACT system could be - the bike of bikes?!

Please don't let them make it, please don't - starts to cry
  • + 90
 I spoke to them for a good while today. While everyone should always be skeptical about new and largely unproven designs, there are good reasons to take these guys seriously enough to at least listen to what they have to say - the design does have substantial potential.
  • + 22
 This nearly broke PB. Good thing nobody mentioned there's room in the down tube for a battery.
  • + 12
 I think it looks like a bike I want to try riding, not sure why people think it looks bad.
Dumb and Pretty vs. Intelligent and Ugly. Who cares how it looks, everyone will get used to it after 10 years and think it's normal.

I understand people not wanting things more complicated, but it might be worth it. Just wondering the weight comparison. Seems like this could become a thing for downhill racing, until they invent a nice soft cloud to float down the mountain on or some kind of hover-bike. Hover-Board …
  • + 15
 @VorsprungSuspension: Thanks, Steve! Great chatting with you today and the support of knowledgeable industry figures means so much to us!
  • + 11
 @BenPea: And there *is* a battery inside - but only a Di2 battery! No e-bikes for us!

We realize not many people are riding Di2, but we still wanted to provide a clean installation option for it - and for any Fox products will share the same battery.
  • - 4
flag nicolai12 (Aug 14, 2017 at 20:38) (Below Threshold)
 @Structure-Ryan: Why select a rear leverage ratio similar to VPP? Santa Cruz moved away from the platform for many reasons....please acknowledge this, otherwise amazing work guys. I'll be in line if the the rear leverage rate progressive please for mid-travel.
  • + 6
 @nicolai12: curious where you're getting that information from? The rear end visibly could not be more opposite to VPP in its leverage rate...
  • + 6
 @RollinFoSho @structure-ryan agreed, fundamentally you need race results to sell something that is aesthetically so different from the accepted norm. That and maybe a compelling documentary like the Britten story. Good engineering unfortunately doesn't just sell itself as much as we might wish it to.
  • + 2
 @brunse: Won't be much mass debating going on over this bike!
  • + 7
 @nicolai12: Thanks for your interest in the finer details of our design!

As @Socket mentioned, this is very different from the VPP. I would describe it as a mildly rising rate, overall, with most of that rise happening in the last half of the travel.
  • + 3
 @HansvonStoffeln: fun, strange, or however: It's a wild thing!
  • + 4
 @Case90: Well, at least HE can build a bike!
  • + 5
 @NYShred: if people didn't try to invent new and better ways to do things you'd still be riding a horse to work. Let technology progress.
  • + 1
 @Boondocker390: you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink
  • + 148
 No room for a water bottle, not for me.
  • + 202
 If you put a bottle in the parallelogram linkage up front and a hose from the bottle to your mouth you could get hydrated every time you hit a bump.
  • + 14
 @bigtim: I am the only one reading something really wrong in this.
  • + 3
 but there is lots of room to get your package caught in
  • + 5
 @bigtim: Replace a mouthpiece with a mister end, attach to handle bar and make those hot summer rides a little more comfortable on the way down
  • + 1
 @madmon: Agree completely here. When you're riding gnarly and you somehow, don't ask me how, but it can happen, you get your hand or fingers in the pinch while crashing, your riding days are OVER! Too many jams for the soft tissue if you ask me.
  • + 1
 @madmon: I just pictured that.... Frown
  • - 6
flag dldewar Plus (Aug 14, 2017 at 12:44) (Below Threshold)
 @madmon: It should be a women specific design...........
  • + 4
 How does it ride compare to Redalp?
  • + 6
 Hi @sd351, we hear you. There will be a mount under the down tube, though I agree that's not perfect. I'm a fan of water bottles, too, and I promise you that some day a Structure will have an internal mount, even if I have to design a custom bottle! The internal, triathlon style drinking chamber someone mentioned actually sounds kind of great!
  • + 2
 @SacAssassin: oh a mister end, not a Mr end. Had to read that twice to make sure I wasn't on a different kinda website.
  • + 2
 @paulhern: As soon as the suspension is unweighted it springs to full droop, so unless you invite a friend to stick an appendage in there while you hop up and down....

Seriously, we gave this concern a great deal of thought, and we can't imagine a scenario in which our bike is more dangerous than getting hung up in forks legs, bridge, bars, or cables on any bike.

We all enjoy a dangerous sport, and your concern, while important, represents a small part of the overall picture. We propose that our bike, with up to 40% less inclination to dive under braking, more than makes up for any concern about entangled appendages.
  • + 115
 Same thing I said about Tantrum: if it works, and works well, why the hell not?
  • - 4
flag LCW1 (Aug 14, 2017 at 8:01) (Below Threshold)
 Tantrum didn't look stupid.
  • + 22
 @LCW1: Comment still stands.
  • + 45
 I (dare i say it) ACTUALLY quite like it! O.o
  • + 2
 @LCW1: If it looks stupid but it works.
  • - 11
flag jrocksdh (Aug 14, 2017 at 8:11) (Below Threshold)
 Bc style falls right there bw speed and safety. U may b fast but if your doing it sans style then u might as well rollerblade or ride ebikes.
  • + 87
 @eicca: Thanks for keeping an open mind! We're well aware the appearance is polarizing, to put it mildly, and the original prototype (the silver one) was particularly "interesting".

Front linkage designs will always be unusual, but they really are the only way to gain full control over front suspension dynamics and we think the ride quality will make it worth getting out of your fashion comfort zone!
  • + 38
 If this were ridden by pros and won no one would give two shits about what it looks like, the extra weight, or the extra pivots.
  • + 20
 If fashion and looks are more important than than performance, then you might as well just road bike or ski park
  • + 11
 I guess I'm willing to give it a try. You guys go first, though.
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan: What happens if it bottoms out? do the head tube and fork links just smack or is it physically impossible for them to touch because of the design?
  • + 21
 @LCW1: Ground breakers don't give a shit what other think.
  • + 5
 @Structure-Ryan: Did you investigate controlling steering with a telescoping rod? It wouldn't carry any load and give the fork a more traditional aesthetic. Of course then you might lose the dynamic angle and length if they can't be engineered around.
  • + 9
 @preach: The shock on the front likely bottoms out just like any other rear shock or fork.
  • + 6
 @wreaman: You're not alone. first time I've seen a linkage front end that had some decent aesthetics to it.
  • + 0
 At least it has a reason to look stupid if it works well enough great dont care about looks. However the extra weight is a definite deal breaker for me.
  • + 12
 @preach: Great question!

We've designed it to stop just short of contacting, but if you manage to compress it hard enough to flex the chassis a few millimeters, there's a bump stop to cushion the blow - though it won't save your body, which might be in a rough state at this level of load!
  • + 4
 @wreaman: I think this is pretty nice
  • + 11
 @Structure-Ryan: I like alu one better. I would love to try it. It is ugly, but some bikes are ugly in the "good" way. Seriously, I would go for industrial look. Anyway, lots of respect for trying.
  • + 8
 @Structure-Ryan:
Make it follow the current long, low slack dynamic and I'll buy one. Telescopic forks have needed to be challenged for 30 years but fashion Nazi's have stopped all attempts. Get it some fully floating brake linkage and we can go full Valentino Ribi!!
  • + 3
 So wait, under compression....... do the bars go town, or does the wheel come up ????
Did I just explode my brain? it's possible
  • - 12
flag WAKIdesigns (Aug 14, 2017 at 13:55) (Below Threshold)
 @chasejj: fashion nazis, really? So sports like Moto GP, where pressure of competition is highest in all two wheeled sports and drives evolution of every fkng component to the limit, they are driven by fashion too? Just because telescopic fork isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't the best we can EVER have. Just because this thing up there solves one or two problems doesn't mean it doesn't create 5 other that telescopic fork solves. Number of pivots in this thing and ways sht can develop play, bend out of shape, plus added weight, manufacture cost, mud accumulation. I'd rather ride Rock Shox Psylo. Steering play must be awesome... almost as good as trying to reduce it.
  • + 17
 @chasejj: I would stick a coil on the front and air shock on the rear just to piss people off...
  • + 7
 I don't like how it looks, but I at least see a decent attempt at giving it an appealing aesthetic. Furthermore, if I can have a 120mm bike that outperforms a 160mm bike... I'd mob it.
  • + 3
 @wreaman: Thanks for the support! You'll like how it rides even more!
  • + 3
 @preach: Great question! It's designed to bottom out *just* before making contact. If you hit hard enough to flex the chassis a few millimeters - we're probably talking about a crash situation - there's a rubber bump stop.
  • + 13
 @Rasterman: Great question! The alignment between the upper and lower steering axis changes very slightly throughout the motion, making a telescoping rod almost impossible to incorporate. Also, we would have to call the design "Without Telescoping Fork, But With Telescoping Rod" and WTFBWTR is a less catchy acronym Wink
  • + 6
 @sino428: You're correct. Any suspension system can be bottomed out. If it couldn't, then it would be unnecessarily long - why have more travel than you can use, right?
  • + 5
 @groghunter: Thank you! We definitely placed function before all else, but we tried to give at least a little attention to the appearance!
  • + 8
 @fercho25: We agree that extra weight isn't desirable, which is why our projected final weight is right in the middle of typical carbon enduro frame + fork weights. Final details are still being worked out with the lay-up, but we haven't ignored weight concerns!
  • + 5
 @lkubica: Interesting. A few people have mentioned that. Maybe I can meet you in the middle by spec'ing a raw carbon finish on the production bike Smile
  • + 12
 @chasejj: Thank you! And you bet it's long, low, and slack! Final numbers are still being hotly debated at Structure Headquarters, but I can tell you our personal bikes have reach values over 500 mm - and we're not exceptionally tall.

We will have three chassis, each with significantly different personalities, and we can customize each to fit almost any rider (within reason, of course). It's more like sizing a snowboard than sizing a bike.

The smallest size, Gravity Level 1 (G1), is agile and playful, with our built-in stability enhancing dynamics. G2 is a progressive enduro length - again, with added "stability on demand" that makes it more stable than a downhill bike at bottom-out. G3 is a monster: at bottom-out, it's on comparable to an Extra Extra Longest Geometron*. To be honest, I may revise it down a little, as a sled of that size isn't for everyone!


* We're huge fans of the work Cesar Rojo, Chris Porter, and other geometry pioneers have done to help the market understand the value of increased length and trail!
  • + 10
 @WAKIdesigns:We could discuss this all day as to the reasons these things rarely take off. I contend they did succeed on the Britten V1000 20+ years ago and it would have taken off had John Britten not died of cancer.
Decoster brought the Ribi designs with him to Honda and convinced Honda to purchase the rights. Which they promptly shelved for production cost and weight issues (hard to implement CF on Moto and remain in a price category. You should see what Dave Weagle has developed (look at his patents for Orion)
This is the best attempt I've seen this far to truly offer an alternative fork design. The genius is also the tunability of the dynamics. Pick a shock, coil or air? Ohlins or Fox or RS? Remotes? All pretty much off the shelf and widely available alternatives.
Options are good. I like options. I also like performance advances. This looks like both.
  • + 3
 @Structure-Ryan: Not enough up votes for raw! Make it happen Captain!
  • + 7
 @Structure-Ryan: plenty of people still pitch a fit about Lefty forks and they obviously work. I've had an AMP, a Girvin, and a Lefty, I wouldn't mind riding this if it works, the rest can be sheep.
  • + 7
 @wreaman: +1 I quite like how it looks. It is certainly different, but eye-catching in a good way. Intelligently industrial but with a sexy execution.
  • + 4
 @chasejj: Had theee gentlemen stop by the booth that worked with the Britten yesterday. All were drawn to us and were there independent of one another. Such a treat. A trifecta of cool
  • + 3
 @DanDrago: Suggestion noted!
  • + 3
 @Duderz7: Thanks for the support!
  • + 5
 @Structure-Ryan: I really quite like it. Even the prototype, industrial with a functionally seductive execution. Out of curiosity, if it functions as designed and is indeed as wonderful of a ride as mentioned in the review Mike has graciously provided, why are there no more? Have no advancements in your design since this three year old proof-of-concept rig received functional testing? If other iterations have since been built and ridden, it would be very interesting to see how things evolved, and how you came to optimize the design to what it will be when you begin production.
  • - 3
 Because... it's as ugly as sin. It's nothing like a new idea and it's for the same reason nobody still rides the Whyte PRST-4, it might work well enough but nobody wants to be seen dead on one!
  • + 0
 @Structure-Ryan: Actually thinking about it more you could easily use a telescoping dogbone (they are commonly used in vehicle suspension). This would allow direct steering and full dynamics of the head angle and wheelbase length. This would replace the forward bent steering control arm with a more traditional looking steering piece, it may be lighter too.
  • + 5
 @Structure-Ryan: I'd love to try a carbon prototype... Wink
  • + 0
 never mind, misread something.
  • - 2
 It might work, but I'm sure a hell not gonna be an early adopter.
  • + 2
 @Rasterman: All telescoping rods carry a load. They may or may not have dynamic angles and/or length. I'm not sure anyone finds them aethetically pleasing and many would argue they're not even needed anymore...they've outlived their usefulness.
  • + 8
 @WAKIdesigns: I'll make you a deal: ride it and if you don't like it, I'll put a Psylo on one of my bikes; if you do like it, you have to ride the Psylo. Wink
  • + 4
 @Structure-Ryan: Do you actually have access to structurally complete RS PSylo? I'm sure the manual for mine said 'this fork will self destruct in the next five rides,' on the back page.
  • + 1
 @Fix-the-Spade: I'm still using one on my hardtail. Granted...it sucks, but it's intact and quasi-functional.
  • + 0
 @Warburrito: better than rocking a spinner fork! lol
  • + 1
 @therealtylerdurden: who downvoted your spinner comment? Weird.
  • + 1
 @Warburrito: right? Maybe they thought I meant spinners like on a Tahoe in the ghetto. Lol
  • + 1
 @chasejj: We'll actually be among the longest, on the low side (but not so low as to be overly prone to pedal strikes), and we have the slackest enduro ever at 58° HTA at full bump (front and rear sus fully compressed), while being a modest 65° at sag for easy steering.
  • + 1
 @fercho25: Our alloy bike is 30 lbs and the carbon bike is on target to meet or beat that weight. Weight isn't the absolute measure of performance, but we are very mindful of it.
  • + 2
 @Magellan35: I know is not a measure of performance but is a definite measure of swag!
  • + 0
 @Structure-Ryan: I'm thinking that the last part of the travel, even if it's just some milimeters, could be handled by a little elastomer or rubber piece somewhere between the two "head tubes". This way the maximum force the linkage and frame would be subjected to would be reduced, since at that point the force would go straight up to the stem and handlebar like on a regular fork.
  • + 1
 @DavidGuerra: yeah, nothing like taking apart your headset to adjust the bottom out resistance. Meh.
  • + 94
 Begin nerd rant: FFS, a quantum leap is not large, it is literally the tiniest change possible in a system.
  • + 47
 Plus you have to put up with Scott Bakula landing in your lap every ten minutes.
  • + 2
 As long as it's not Enterprise Scott Bakula...
  • + 11
 Relayed from Loni:

Dammit, you got me. You've won this round, @vespertilianus!
  • + 19
 @Structure-Ryan: I bested someone on the internet? Well time to retire from commenting, never going to happen again.

For real though, looks quite interesting, hope it takes off, even if only to shake things up.
  • + 1
 Thank you. I learned something, and I hate using terms incorrectly; even and especially when it is common practice. As in: for all intensive purposes.
  • + 7
 @Fix-the-Spade: I was on a conference call and disrupted things with my laughter.
  • + 7
 Nerding more, it refers to a leap from one level to another.
  • + 2
 @vespertilianus: The second definition of quantum leap on google is "a huge, often sudden, increase or change in something.
"
  • + 1
 @Noah353: Yeah, you can make that argument for sure, but, the second definition of literally on Google (and actual dictionaries, eesh) is "not literally." Common usage is not always the same as correct usage, which is probably what bugged them.
  • + 3
 A quantum leap is a change from one state to another, with no in-between state. It became tightly associated with tiny changes because it comes up a lot in particle physics. But that is not an inherent aspect. Particle physics uses the term because unlike physics at human scale, subatomic particle behavior is in some ways more digital that analog, changing from 1 to 2 without passing through one-and-a-half. That lack of a transitional state is what quantum changes are all about.
  • + 1
 There is a glitch in the matrix.
  • + 72
 I like the name their website gives the system - WTF (Without Telescoping Fork) suspension system.
  • + 39
 We take our engineering seriously, not our TLAs!
  • + 5
 Does it have TITS (tubes in tubes technology) thought?
  • + 5
 @AMGoran: Actually yes, but Transition beat us to it!
  • + 1
 I see a lot of COCK and BALLS tech in there. Oh look, a door to show myself out.
  • + 65
 First people complain everything looks like a Session, but then complain when someone tries something different. It is an odd looking bike, but it doesnt mean you wont like it if you rode it.
  • + 7
 Even the new devinci got hated on for being too boring looking, something comes up like this and people hate it because it's too crazy.
  • - 1
 Because everything is either the smallest possible incremental improvement, or something rediculous like this.
  • + 66
 Wow, that thing is wild! If it looks stupid and works, then it ain't stupid. Would love to feel what this thing rides like.
  • - 41
flag bulldog6485 (Aug 14, 2017 at 8:11) (Below Threshold)
 Trump v obama
  • + 3
 I agree
  • + 54
 Am I the only one who actually think this thing looks cool as f*ck? Yeah, a little out of the box and will need some serious development. But I would pay good money to take that prototype out for a ride on my local trails to see how it compares to my trail bike.

Also, this goes out to @Structure-Ryan, would I be correct in assuming that despite the lengthening of the front-center the axle path is not actually forward with respect to an impact but rather neutral and it is only the motion of the front wheel with respect to the frame that causes the lengthening of the front-center?
  • + 19
 Hi @cueTIP,

Thanks - glad you like it!

I'm answering questions as quickly as I can while staffing our Crankworx booth, so forgive me if I direct you to my reply a few minutes ago about the axle path. The short version is that Mike's statement was a minor error: our front-centre shortens by a couple millimetres, so it's only lengthening *relative* to what a telescoping fork does.
  • + 7
 I'm right there with ya, @cueTIP

I think it looks pretty well executed.
  • + 5
 @Structure-Ryan: so the trail numbers don't go out of wack then, sounded a bit odd alright.
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan: That should be cleared up in the article above. My first thought when reading that was, "So if my wheelbase is growing under compression, my cornering radius is going to grow as the suspension compresses, which is the opposite of any bicycle or motorcycle...wtf?"
  • + 4
 Actually, the biggest problem I have with this design is that steering linkage. I hope they find a way to hide it a little bit.
  • + 2
 @MTBrent: Thanks for the support!
  • + 3
 @fussylou: Our opinion is that trail numbers for telescoping forks go out of whack! Our trail holds steady or increases, depending on the nature of the compression, while telescoping forks can lose 80+% of their trail.
  • + 3
 No, no you're not. I love it. I can only hope it might be. For the Clydesdale in the herd
  • + 1
 Uggh... damn mobile keyboard...
  • + 33
 I can't imagine chasing a creak with all the extra pivot points
  • + 59
 I can't imagine casing a creek with all the extra pinot pints.
  • + 16
 Better to chase a pivot creak than live with a CSU one
  • + 0
 @stella10: if your csu is creeking, it is pretty much a guaranteed warranty claim
  • + 4
 @adrennan: except for the 1600+ forks currently for sale in the Buy/Sell.
  • + 2
 @adrennan: Yeah, cause fork warranties are what, 20 years? Right.
  • + 1
 @acali: I would argue since creaky csu assemblies are a tolerance issue, the issue should reveal itself in a year if it is going to show. Or you can go the ohlins route and make it a single piece
  • + 1
 @adrennan: I don't know why they happen but I've experienced the issue over four brands of forks. And often after the warranty has expired.
  • + 25
 PinkBike Users: C'mon Industry, show us some non-marketing BS innovation!

Structure Cycleworks: Here you go!

PinkBike Users: um.. insert any comment above> actually... we are happy with the generic spoon-fed updates we are getting fed by the mainstream industry, thanks.
  • + 3
 Nailed it.
  • + 23
 AWESOME - with the R3ACT bikes and this its like 1998 all over again - in a good way. GREAT to see companies revisiting this stuff with modern materials and geo. After years of being spoon fed that a 50mm bar is better than a 35mm and 6mm on axle width is a revolution this stuff is refreshing. For all those immediately dismissing it on looks - you are a bunch of tarts.
  • + 26
 Looks like a Session... and a praying mantis that had a love child.
  • + 5
 praying session?
  • + 17
 @Thustlewhumber, That might be the nicest thing anyone's said all day. I'll take it!
  • + 20
 If things don't change they will stay the same. Glad to see people pushing boundaries for better performance and not afraid to try out something different. Looks like it works really well. Crack on and good luck with the project
  • + 5
 Thanks for the kind words, @Matt76
  • + 22
 I want to see this design mixed with the Marin Wolf Ridge or that Polygon contraption and then we can really look at something from the freak show!!!
  • - 5
flag kjjohnson (Aug 14, 2017 at 9:45) (Below Threshold)
 Pinkbike Poll: Which would you rather toss into a volcano...?
  • + 20
 Not hating at all, I enjoy the forward thinking concept. Just curious:
I often have a knee slapped against the top tube and this looks a bit scary for that position - and in a crash - what prevents the moving parts at the front of the bike from pinching errant appendages?
  • + 43
 Valid concerns!

The final version (still being drawn) will have narrower and smoother lower links. We have never scraped a knee on the links, though, as they're more out of the way than they might appear.

For the front, the carbon double crown fork limits steering so it won't pivot to a dangerous point (a little less than a DH fork, though), the front end will be fully extended to a static state before you could spin your "appendages" into that location, and the parts will always be opening as you wrap around it.

The space at the front of the bike is surprisingly well protected by the handlebar and wheel. I don't know about you, but I've never been tangled in the front cable loops of a DH bike, so I think you'll be fine! Smile
  • + 18
 I think the blue one doesnt even look too terrible
  • + 14
 Thanks, @Nathan-MTB! The response from our European visitors at Crankworx has been especially positive. I guess we had better accelerate our plans to enter the European market!
  • + 14
 So many ignorance in this comment section... opinion based on looks and beliefs and no actual experience or facts. I have a lot of experience riding motorcycles, the telelever and duolever from BMW are the best front suspension system I have ever ridden. Barely any dive during braking. The bike stay super stable during cornering. It really isolate bump absorption from steering input and braking forces. I could write pages on how this system is superior (except looks maybe) FWIW I am a mechanical engineer.
  • + 3
 Are the usage scenarios of BMW on-road motorcycles (and their customers' budgets) similar enough to off-road mountain bikes that the same suspension system designs are appropriate?
  • - 8
flag mollow (Aug 14, 2017 at 13:59) (Below Threshold)
 So how can a mechanical engineer.of your caliber dare compare a bicycle to a motorcycle...
  • + 8
 @chrod: Valid question, of course the geometry are not the same, different speed, weight etc. Not the same application as well. My point is still valid regarding the concept of the suspension system. At a certain level, the end goal of the suspension system is the same whether it is on an on-road motorcycle or an off-road bicycle: keep the tires in contact with the ground + isolate the rider from the terrain (comfort?) and we could also add give a good quality of feedback. The same principles of physics applies in both cases.

Also, see any videos about the GS challenge (where they all race BMW 1200 GSA and you'll see that this suspension design is not only used in their road-going motorcycle. Agreed the GS Adventure is not an hardcore off-road machine but it can still take a beating.

I recommend anybody interested in suspension design (motorcycle or bicycle...) to take a look at a book called Motorcycle handling and chassis design by Tony Foale (you can maybe find a pdf online)
  • + 2
 Well said sir
  • + 3
 Always nice to hear from someone with experience in this area. Thanks for the comment, @GillesDisorder!
  • + 13
 Kudos for going outside of the box for sure. I can appreciate "tuning" the leverage rate of the fork via kinematics instead of volume spacers, but I can't for the life of me understand how the steering would feel solid on slow techy terrain - think climbing a rock garden. It seems like a 2 part linkage connecting the stem to the fork might be problematic? ...but I haven't ridden it either.
  • + 13
 Hi @tevans473,

As counter-intuitive as it seems, the steering is *more* direct than with a telescoping fork! The carbon steering links (which will be even larger on the production bike) are extremely rigid and move on bearings, rather than the softer bushings of a telescoping fork. This, combined with our short, stout, carbon double-crown fork make for an extremely stiff front end. The production version will be several times as stiff as the one Mike rode, which he noted was still quite direct.

But there's only one way to prove it, so throw a leg over the production one in about a year and see for yourself!
  • + 13
 First off a front suspension that does not dive would be a revolution in how both suspensions perform.
Also being able to change the leverage curve to math the rear suspension would make a very balanced feel front and back.
The front suspention would be made from carbon fiber.
Weight would not be an issue.
Sloppy pivots?
Are those an issue on any rear suspension?
Looks weird but i think this would work as a trail bike.
  • + 2
 Thank you for the support, @Sshredder!
  • + 15
 Apart from the looks, what happens when that linkage develops some slop. Steering wouldn't really be predictable, right? That would be my main concern.
  • + 31
 Hi! It's true that would be the case, which is why we worked extra hard to ensure that doesn't happen! The front end of the proof-of-concept bike stayed tight for years before needing new bearings. The final bike will be many times stiffer, the bearings will be rated for a few times as much load, and the bearings will be nicely shielded by the linkage components. If the pivots do wear, we'll have a full bearing kit available via a single click of your mouse and all bearings can be punched out via the opposite side.
  • + 8
 @Structure-Ryan: Forgive me if I misread the article (or maybe it was written poorly), but by saying the wheelbase grows and HTA slackens as it goes through its travel, doesn't that mean that the front wheel moves forward upon compression? Wouldn't that be akin to an ultra low rear pivot point, making it difficult for the wheel to move back, up, and over obstacles it encountered?
  • + 2
 @hamncheez: I see what you're saying. The benefits of a high pivot point for rear suspension are definitely appreciated by many people in their "DH sleds" when they want to just lean back and cruise over rough stuff. Leaning back is so appealing because it allows you to unweight the front wheel. If you were to ever lean into rough stuff with your front wheel, you would eat sh**. So I would speculate that a frontward axle path on the front isn't so bad because it's not like you are letting the suspension do all the work in the front anyway.

But I agree, I would rather ride this fork on a smooth track with big hits than a rough one.
  • + 20
 @hamncheez: Yes, that's a slight misinterpretation. Don't be too hard on Mike, though, as there's a lot going on with our bike!

Our front-centre remains almost constant with a fairly vertical axle path. It only lengthens relative to what a telescoping fork does.

The effect isn't so dramatic as to make it difficult to get over obstacles. In fact, the lack of friction, due to pivoting on bearings, gets the front end moving so easily that you probably won't notice any detriment to the more supportive axle path.

And if you want it to be plusher, there's an eccentric (essentially a flip chip) that can be used to dial in more plushness with less aggressive support.
  • + 18
 @Structure-Ryan: sick. When you launch, you need to go on a demo tour so we can all try it!
  • + 13
 To all those haters, I suggest to step back and do a small research. When the first suspension forks appeared (along with the first bigger tires) A LOT of bike people, mainly “experts”, claimed that they just looked “too moto”, “too complicated”, “too ugly”!
And.
The bikes we see today, seem to us nice and rad, because we are used to these visual characteristics!
So,
All I want to say (to those haters) is to step back and think before posting their... hate. Behind all those new ideas are people who Do love our sport and have invested their precious time (and money) developing them. Much more if the final product is so refined as this nice / rad looking bicycle.
Respect, That’s all.
  • + 15
 I really like it! I would definitely try it. And the blue one is nice. But unrideable.
  • + 6
 Thanks, @fracasnoxteam! We'll have a rideable one for you next summer!
  • + 11
 In my decade here on PB: Its amazing and sad how staunch people are on not wanting to change based on looks.

I remember when:
Air Suspension came out. People freaked.
1x systems came out. People Freaked.
Dropper posts People flipped
27.5 Nope
26x24 wtf
Dual Crown Hell no
Taper Head Tubes WTF m8
1.5 Head Tubes COME ON
Carbon Bikes HELL NO PLASTIC
Carbon rims NOPE
Oval Rings WTF is this?
etc etc etc

Some things are dumb, yes. However....

The modern MTB is as dated as the Internal Combustion Engine from an engineering standpoint. There are many better options for performance. But, 'Its not what we're, *I'M* used to!' Thusly, it will be killed off and progress will never be made.

They said man will never go over 60mph too at one point.
  • + 6
 Right to the point... & very well said.
  • + 2
 Who ever flipped out at dropper posts? Heaven sent they were! Big Grin
  • + 3
 Glad to see folks who appreciate attempts to move things forward, @mongoose85!
  • + 4
 @Structure-Ryan: For sure. I love my Spartan and Wilson, don't get me wrong, but you guys addressed a key fault with the suspended bicycle here.
Compression = Wheel base Shrink/Head Tube Angle Deflect and front end control lock up.

I'll keep an eye out if you guys go to production.

Keep it up!
  • + 8
 @structure-ryan Don’t be dissuaded buy the nay-sayers if you truly believe it’s better. The writer of this article seems impressed and looks to be the only one here that’s actually ridden the thing. Let your professionalism and product speak for themselves. Us mountain-bikers are a finicky and often shallow bunch. I remember when people thought a suspension fork was over-kill and heavy and disc brakes sacrilegious. If it’s better, it’s better and will become the thing those ‘in the know’ will use. If it’s not better, well... kudos for blindly thinking outside the box!
  • + 5
 Thanks for the encouragement, @jeremiahwas!. We expected the negative comments from folks who haven't ridden it, so no worries. One of the nice things about being a small company is that we can pursue what we believe is best, rather than having to please everyone, and trust that a small number will believe in what we're offering.

Our experience here at Crankworx has been extraordinarily positive. When we spend a few minutes - often dozens of minutes - discussing it with visitors and showing them the genuine article, the response has been fantastic.
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan:
Yep.
Keep up the good work. The fashion minded haters will post all kinds of low IQ commends. That’s already a fact. They do forget that the same happened with the first full suspension frames, the first forks, the first disk brake systems and more. Much more. It is really funny to recall the bike fashion “experts” hitting hard on anything new (I remember so many negative comments about the early suspension forks. So many disliked them just because they had straight legs!!!).
The same stands with the yellow fork forest (there were so many yellow forks back then!!!), the fluo colors, the frame decals, the hydration packs colors, the baggy shorts, the jerseys…. COME ON!
As for the “too many bearings” sceptics, just take a look at Motion France’s fork. Their fork is equipped with synthetic bushings which are service free!
Your design is not only promising, but has the fresh air of innovation, like the designs of the early days of Mountain Biking…
  • + 7
 I'm not skilled or fast enough to take advantage of the performance gains Levy saw by the seat of his pants, but I'd give one a try. I love the engineering aspect. Until someone actually weighs it I'm not holding that against it. I'm also not going to hold the possibility of pivot bearing maintenance against it because there's too many factors involved to make that assumption. I'm also too focused on trying to better my line choice and comfort level at speed...I'm not looking at my bike. When I'm back in the parking lot I'd suspect more curiosity from others than haterade.

In the end I see it as another choice, not the only choice. I like the outside the box thinking. Best of luck in the development/deployment.
  • + 6
 I have ridden many linkage forks, pretty much all are mediocre at best. But I had a Look Fournales fork and it was the plushest fork ever, great for cross country, but if you had a big drop or jump you could bottom out your front tire on the bottom of the steer/head tube and then you go over the bars. I also had a Whyte PRST, they ride great for CC. And this bike is a upgraded version of a Whyte PRST. would love to ride it. Im not scared to try new things.
  • + 6
 They're going to have to put it under an EWS or UCI DH rider, and have that rider suddenly get much faster, for anyone to touch it. Shouldn't be that hard to do--lots of fast hungry guys out there who don't need a six-figure contract to try out a weird bike, especially if it actually makes them faster. If the Tyrrell 6-wheeled F1 car had dominated F1, people would be able to go out and buy a 6-wheeled sports car today. And we would think that it looked cool by now.
  • + 6
 I had a conversation about this after looking at what Peter Verdone has been doing regarding head angle experimentation on his bikes, to say nothing of Pole and Nicolai. If you see some of the G out photo galleries, you can see the fork isn't always getting full travel on landing due to the front wheel being pushed so far ahead of the bike. Bushing bind and subsequent wear is going to be a very real issue with telescopic forks, especially as manufacturers slacken head angles even more. The fork is in a better position for a forward/oncoming impact but will suffer when it comes to more vertical ones. If head angles are going to continue getting less, there'll need to be a rethink in traditional telescopic fork design to account for it. Linear bearings are an idea, but they add cost and weight while still doing little to address vertical impacts. A linkage fork, like what these cats are doing, can have better geometry to deal with both forward oncoming and vertical impacts, while maintaining a near neutral head angle and keeping wheelbase in check through its travel. From a pure function standpoint, a linkage fork best addresses functional issues that longer travel and slacker head angles bring to telescopic forks. Just my two bits.
  • + 5
 Thanks, @ExxonJuan! We agree it's nice to let a frame and fork each do what they do best and there are serious compromises in a fork that attempts to be both a structural item and a shock. That's not to say our design is free of compromises - nothing is, of course - but we're particularly happy with how smoothly our front suspension moves.
  • + 6
 That blue prototype looks awesome, I hope they get them produced. Too many fashionistas, all with the same damn kit, and same damn bikes. When someone new claims function over form, they all throw their toys out of the pram!
  • + 2
 Thank you for the support, @downhillnirvana!
  • + 5
 If I found myself in a position of being able to afford a new bike (and lets keep our fingers crossed on that shit), I would approach my exorbitant purchase with as much critical thought as possible. Lets use the movie Goonies as an example. While Sloth was one f*ck ugly man, and he was f*ck ugly, he served a very good purpose to the protagonists that none of them could facilitate. Now, if this f*ck ugly bike can serve to be a more enjoyable ride than the what we deem to be normal, I'm gonna buy the shit out it and ride that butter face.
  • + 2
 @FuriousGeorge: Umm ... thanks? Wink
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan: To be fair, I think the prototype is sexy as hell. I was just saying ugly to address the myriad comments with that theme. Keep up the good work. Someone else hit the nail on the head by saying that this is TRUE innovation. Something that redefines the form as opposed to introducing new standards under the guise of innovation. Kudos!
  • + 2
 @FuriousGeorge: I heavily endorse your first post, but I got so lost in the beauty of the analogy that I can't work out if I get it or not. I will say this: Sloth was great in a fight, but you wouldn't want to ride him in any way shape or form (actually... they kind of did come to think of it).
  • + 5
 I love new ideas, even if they never see production. However I wonder.... most bikes these days are not the limiting factor out on the trail. That is not to say that there shouldn't be progress because most of us are trail sheep (even if we don't want to admit it.) But, what is the point of a radical new design that takes an open mind to ride, and a lot of money to own, when most people aren't getting the performance they need out of their fork because they're still on the front brake in the berms?
  • + 7
 Hi @hangdogr,

It takes an open mind to look at, but it's surprisingly neutral to ride. Most people who ride it describe it as "disappointingly not weird"! What many find more surprising is how weird a telescoping fork feels after a few hours on a WTF front end.

Give it a try some day and let me know what you think!
  • + 5
 An interesting point. I think fear of injury holds a lot of people back. I am a big advocate for more protective gear to not only reduce injury but to give the confidence needed to become a better rider.
  • + 6
 @Structure-Ryan: I would love to try it, even if it was just for a single ride. I don't know if I'm good enough to realize or notice any of the potential performance gains it might provide though, which is my point. I'm sure I'm the weakest link in my current system.

I love to geek out over bikes, and if I was a different kind of engineer I might even try my hand at bike design. But skill and (like @ghotinori said) fear are my biggest limitations. The pro's prove daily that most any bike can handle riding far above my abilities. So I wonder - even as I drool over fancy new bikes and clever ideas - what the critical areas of bike improvement really are?

Note that I don't say this to discredit the design, but more in introspective response - which I think a new design/idea should inspire in us.
  • + 5
 I was blown away when I read about how the wheelbase gets longer and it slackens by 8 deg on compression! that would be incredible for the really steep stuff!!! The styling I think is not bad, reminds me of Street Fighter motorcycles, straight out of anime! Its got to be good if they've taken the design this far, would love to try it!
  • + 5
 I must be a weirdo but i really like it. Its refreshing to see someone experimenting with 'mechanical progress' rather than some wheel size, tyre or gear ratio bullshit. It looks like someone's taken a Whyte PRST-1 thought about it with modern platform suspension and rejigged it. Thumbs up from me.
  • + 3
 That isn't far from the mark, @Andy-ap. I've always admired the work of Norman Hossack, Jon Whyte, James Parker, and others who have given linkage fronts a shot, but had a few ideas of my own.

A few difficulties with past linkage systems relate to 1) integration with the rest of the chassis (many replace a telescoping fork and slot into a standard front triangle's beefy steering head, which I find too limiting for a number of reasons), 2) axle path (most follow a force vector that creates a J-hook axle path and tucks the wheel; not good for stability or rider confidence), and 3) stiction and rapid wear in the system, with riveted bushings, spherical joints and other sub-optimal hardware in the load path.

We feel like we've done due diligence to avoid those things and offer a bike that is super supple and active over small impacts while offering useful resistance to dive and increased stability as travel approaches full bump. We also went the extra mile to make our control arms (as we call them), TT, and double-crown fork beefy and stiff so as to avoid torsional or lateral deflection in the system.

We aren't sure what more we can do other than to keep riding the telescoping fork bikes we already know and love. It wasn't contempt for teles that motivated us; it was love of riding and the hope that there's still a fair bit of room to evolve biking for as many as care to join us.
  • + 5
 How are they measuring the front travel? Similar to rear suspension where it is measured as the vertical travel, or are they correcting it to relate to 'typical' telescopic forks? On a telescopic fork,150 mm travel with a 67 degree head angle is actually only about 138 mm of vertical travel, so Mike riding this 115 mm prototype could really be like a 140 mm telescopic fork at 67 degree HA.
  • + 8
 Didn't BMW do this years ago with the telelever setup on their GS models?
  • + 3
 sure did
  • + 5
 Good eye, @Spark24! There certainly are similarities to the Duolever design! The simplest way to describe the difference is that the Duolever uses two spherical bearings in the main load path, while we use only single-axis bearings in the main load path. We have moved our single spherical to the steering linkage, where it's under far less stress and out of the way of contamination.
  • + 3
 This is more similar to BMW's Duolever, which has two "levers". The Telelever has one "lever" and a telescoping "link" (ie a fork with ball joints at the top)
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan: Yes agreed!
  • + 1
 @Structure-Ryan: Why not Telelever design instead (like BMW Q6.S)?
  • + 2
 Please see my reply to @Andy-ap just above. Telelever and Duolever are significantly different in layout and performance.
  • + 2
 @Magellan35: Thanks. I understand that there is a difference between the two systems. In reality though for a given application wouldn't it be just "good enough". I mean, if Duolever outperformed Telelever by a significant margin I believe BMW would not shy from it on GS1200, right? Also, Duolever was implemented on their road focused bike while GS1200 has some serious off-roading capabilities as well.

Mind you, I am not knowledgeable on this, or pretending to be, just curious.
  • + 2
 @jollyXroger: I could never speak for BMW, but I can make a few educated guesses about both cost and intended use playing roles in which layout is used on which bikes.

There are also limitations to the use (and abuse) that Duolever could take if directly translated to long-travel bicycle use. Duolever has top and bottom links attached to the cast fork unit by means of ball joints that are in the load path, which we feel would be less than ideal on a bicycle for reasons of stiction, weight, and wear -- none of which is as great a concern on a large touring motorcycle.

Because of what we are doing with axle and load paths on the SCW 1, telelever simply wouldn't allow us to control axle path, rake, and trail in the manner we intend.
  • + 6
 I'm too old though give a crap if some kid thinks I'm cool or not. If it worked better than existing designs and improved my riding I'd be on it in a second.
  • + 2
 We like your style (or lack thereof), @Dustfarter Wink
  • + 4
 I think it looks sweet! The new prototype looks mean in a good way. I am really happy to see engineers working hard to improve the sport they love. I'm sure the conservative #264lyfe crowd will hate as per usual, but ffs it's about time we looked at the telescopic fork and asked if it could be better somehow. If the price for the frame is reasonable I might buy one, I am always interested to test out people's crazy ideas. Sometimes they suck (Magura eLect) but sometimes they are awesome. My Tantrum frame will arrive in a few weeks, maybe I could do a comparison between these crazy bikes and my now banal seeming Insurgent. Anyway, props to the engineers who worked on this, looks like a labor of love.
  • + 8
 As a #264lyfe member i think it's awesome. 650b was marginal-gains, all-your-stuff-is-obsolete bullshit. This opens up a whole new range of ways a fork could be tuned. Real innovation rather than arbitrarily changing stuff enough so it's incompatible.

I don't even mind that it's ugly! 26'ers are ugly.
  • + 1
 Please...tell us about your Tantrum experience when you can. Thanks!!!! Or by private missage to mike.vicent@gmail.com
  • + 4
 Nice thinking outside the box! I can't get over the look of that black steering linkage though... I know its imperative to the design but it kinda looks like an afterthought. It would look a lot less intrusive if it was reversed backwards so that it folds into the frame, not sticking out in front. Also that stem floating out in the middle of nowhere looks a little weird... one of those integrated stems like the Mondraker integrated stem would look cool and go with the futuristic look of the bike.
  • + 2
 Hi @Samrwood,

Valid concern! If there was a way to make the steering links less conspicuous, we would've done it. Actually, the upper mount will be moved below the upper head tube on the production bike to keep them compact, but that's as much as we can do. Folding rearward would require compromising the frame to make room for them and no one wants a heavier or weaker frame!
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan: You might revisit this. Almost every objection here is some variation of "it'll be hard to maintain" or "it's ugly." To my eyes, it looks pretty decent in Photoshop with the linkage flipped around. You wouldn't be the first designer to sacrifice a few hundred grams (if even that) for aesthetics. I wonder if you could skip the hinges entirely and use a carbon leaf spring?
  • + 0
 @alexdi: I spent most of the evening pondering over the aesthetics of this bike and ended up thinking the exact same thing... switch out all of those bearings on that steering linkage for carbon (or anything that flexes under vertical load) and save those grams while being less conspicuous. Though it might be quite an ask for carbon to flex that amount in that small amount of space, maybe it could link from the headset to the front dropout - some kind of faux bendy carbon triple clamp looking fork at the front for steering while the load is being taken by the main front frame linkage?
  • + 4
 I don't know....

Well before I got into Mountain Bikes I was into motorcycles and road racing. I remember bikes like the ELF3 NS500 (not NSR guys!), Bimota Tesi, Yamaha GTS-1000, and various others. In truth, there was a very big need for the consideration behind these designs because the forces dealt with are far greater than what we see on mountain bikes.

On a motorcycle it was recognized that forces generated during breaking and suspension action were transmitted into the frame heading up the fork legs and through the frame head. That's why frame spars, fork legs, and triple clamps on motorcycles GOT HUGE in the 90's. This fought flex in the system that was flawed due to the path forces acting on the system had to take. Forces that caused a lack of steering and tracking precision as well as amplifying stiction.

On bikes like the GTS-1000 and Tesi, this path was optimized and forces traveled straight back instead of going up the fork legs then down the frame spars.

To this point, I could never see another reason for doing this on a mountain bike and after reading this article I still don't!

* A variance of up to 8 degrees in head angle as the susenpsion moves through it's travel? That's insane! At the limit, you don't want to alter things that can upset the current level of traction. Leaned over at the limit, a decreasing head angle put's one in danger of no longer having enough weight on the front to maintain traction!!!!!

* The mountain biking industry needs to experience the same moment motorcycle road racing did in '93 when it was recognized that everything got too stiff!!! In particular, sidewalls got too stiff and frames got too stiff. And so compliance started being reworked back in.

Trying to introduce small bump compliance is misleading. How small of a bump is considered small? And how small must it be before it's something you can say needs to dealt with by introducing compliance? Forks and shocks these days are actually pretty damn good at being sensitive. It's tires that need to be made better. The mountain bike industry needs to realize what motorcycle road racing and Formula 1 already know: that the tire is the first part of the suspension system.
  • + 1
 So, to sum it up your argument...KILL IT WITH FIRE!
  • + 5
 if you think it's insane to have the head angle slacken, you should try riding a DH bike down a hill and have the head angle STEEPEN when you hit or bump or pull the front brake! That would be WAY worse. You would surely go OTB every time. Oh wait, that is every DH bike in existence. I don't think you are aware of anything that all of the major tire companies are not aware of. If they could make better tires, they would have done so already. Until we get some magical tires, we should look elsewhere for increased traction.
  • + 1
 @rwb500: So I'm blasting down a steep hill when I hit a bump then I decide to hit the front brake? Great example! ;-)

And don't be so sure what the industry believes, knows, or when they get a clue. Gary Nixon complained to Honda for a good bit about how much the front forks were flexing before they showed up at an event and actually watch him bend the forks under braking at the end of a straight.

Never mind that they can't figure out how to make a tire that can remain compliant and not be prone to flatting or coming away from the bead.
  • + 5
 @BDKR: " they can't figure out how to make a tire that can remain compliant and not be prone to flatting or coming away from the bead"

They did, it's called UST, and nobody bought it.
  • + 2
 @scottzg: Actually I know about UST. I chose not to go into it. It was also proposed as a standard, but everybody chose to do reject that idea and go their own way.

This industry is dumb!
  • + 2
 @BDKR: lol i very clearly said "when you hit a bump OR pull the front brake" way to ignore my actual point though, that if you think head angle slackening with suspension compression sounds bad, then steepening should sound even worse.
  • + 1
 @scottzg: Of course, because they would have to pay a royalty for something they could 'make better themselves and be on the collecting end'. And in the end you have incompatible standards.
  • + 0
 @rwb500: My bad for reading it wrong.

That said,

1) The angle "is" going to steepen when you hit a bump. How much so? And considering it's a bump, FOR HOW LONG? If you actually notice that steeper head angle when hitting a bump, you're doing it wrong.

2) If your front fork is diving a lot when you hit the front brakes (there by also causing the head angle to get steeper) USE MORE LOW SPEED COMPRESSION as a form of anti-dive.
  • + 4
 Anyone older than 40 may remember iconic names from the motorcycle world like Egli, Bimota and Britten. All had odd looking front ends but performed as good as anything from the top brands. Funny looking does not make it bad.
  • + 4
 As a s person who bought the original Lawwill Leader and then the Leader 2 back in the 90's I understand keeping an consistent head tube angle through the for travel. Heck yeah on innovation and trying things that are not in the status quo. Two headsets - as a person that was in for many years OE sales for such parts all the better. Innovation sometimes upsets people so screw those who dare not to dream outside the box. In bikes you always have to think what is next not only next year but 5-10 years down the pipe. Shimano has a 5, 10, 20 year plan laid out for both growth and innovation - anybody who doesn't in this industry is just reacting an not leading.
  • + 2
 Thanks for the positive attitude, @NWintheUSA!
  • + 4
 @Structure-Ryan since the stem mount and the fork mounts are not colinear through all the travel, there has to be some flex incorporated into the linkage, unless you wouldn't be able to turn the wheel, if all linkage rotation axles were paralel to eachother and perpendicular to the steering axes. I guess this is where the spherical bearing comes in?

My wustion then is, how much bump steer does the system see? Granted, you rarely have an issue with this since steering angles at large shunts in the front are minimal. I also suppose te bump steer is small, but it must have been considered somehow?
  • + 4
 Great question, @Primoz!

Yes, the changing alignment between top and bottom *when turning* requires the spherical bearing on our steering link.

Bump steer in two-wheeled vehicles is a tricky variable. We chose to minimize it by aligning the two axes at sag; they go out of alignment through the travel by only a tiny amount and bump steer is virtually nil.

In the future, I plan to make some prototypes that take advantage of bump steer in an attempt to fine-tune the steering feel. There are numerous variables with far greater impact on handling, though, so this effect could get lost amidst the more significant effects.
  • + 4
 I'll take one if the price is right. I don't give a sh*t if its's ugly. I'll ride it even without the five beers it took me to say the same about your mom.

Seriously though. It's not that ugly and good performance means a lot more to me than looking cool like a a bro. I wonder how it'd ride with a coil on there.
  • + 2
 Thanks for the support, @taletotell!
  • + 4
 Good for you guys for trying something different. I like the idea, particularly that it doesn't shorten/steepen as it compresses. This is a big issue for hard tails especially not too slack ones, defiantly less of an issue for slack full suspension bikes. The feeling of having the front wheel tuck back under you is very uncomfortable. I understand that one might say just ride a slacker bike, but that isn't always the answer. Maybe the front linkage suspension isn't for everyone, and that's fine, but maybe it's just perfect for someone else, and that makes it cool and worthwhile.
  • + 3
 Mmmm, sounds all to familiar, Oooh who needs suspension, my ridged bikes great. Oooh who needs rear suspension these forks with 80mm travel are all you need! Oooh who needs disks, just heavy and unreliable, my v's work just fine! Oooh who needs a dropper post, I've got a quick relive on mine. I could go on... grow the up, until you have riden one you can't comment on how it rides! If you don't like the look fine but don't knock the ride cos of that. If we all stuck with the norm and never went for progress we'd be on cyclo cross bikes, cos that's what you'd ride off road. Not them weird new fangeld fat tired klunkers that evolved into what we all ride now.
  • + 2
 Thanks for keeping an open mind, @MrAngry!
  • + 5
 Love the idea! And I actually like the bike's look. Imagine Tantrum's rear suspension merged with this thing! Probably the wildest bike ever made after the Redalp!
  • + 4
 @Structure-Ryan I truly hope this succeeds. I would buy one in your G3 description. It's important to trudge along and show the world the benefits of this design. I've been waiting for so long on this. HURRY! LOL
  • + 3
 Thank you for the support, @yz426ll! If you really do want to get in the queue, we're taking deposits and the first 50 will be a special edition with a few bonuses and a doubled money-back guarantee period. Drop me a line if you want to discuss it!
  • + 3
 its not exactly a new idea....... I think its great to see engineered exploration.

A very simple argument for this design........

If telescoping forks were the best then why not use on the rear too ?
If the rear 4 bar type rear suspension system is working well....why not use on the front too ?

Why do you think many other suspension systems DONT use a simple telescoping design?..........its because it just has a linear axle path, and in many cases is not going to be able to optimize the damping requirements in the same way as curve linear axle path.

Visualy i like the shock position of the proto better...it is slightly more central. Why not try and have the shock placement lower for better CG ? Was the linkage weight too much ?

You should look into the use of AI genetic algorithms to optimize....
  • + 2
 Hi @lambertsam, Thanks for the support!

The shock on the Generation 2 (blue) bike is actually lower. The standover is so much lower that it may make the shock appear higher, but any lower and it would contact the tire!
  • + 5
 I would ride it, if it is better why not? If you wouldn't ride a bike with better performance based on how it looks then you aren't a true enthusiast.
  • + 2
 Thanks for the support, @poozank! We wish everyone felt the same way, but we respect that everyone's values are different, as is everyone's sense of style.
  • + 3
 @Structure-Ryan. Congratulations for getting your design up and running and out there. Having ridden Tantrums ( @tantrumcycles ) with their creator Brian, its always good to see designs that innovate and improve on the "accepted." I still clearly remember watching the Britten and a Yamaha GTS being raced at the TT, but anyhow. Good luck for the future!
  • + 2
 Thanks for the support, @chadgmail!
  • + 3
 Yep,
but following this.. mentality, we should turn away from anything new. No matter how promising seems, no matter if the current technology (...meaning "forks"), passed through a period of wild experimentation (and problems)... (ok. for knowing that you have to be ridding bikes -on dirt- for more than 25 years)
so,
shall we ban all experimentation for the fashion nazis?
  • + 3
 Thanks for keeping an open mind, @uncajohn!
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan:
Be strong, you’re going to hear a lot from ignorant people. I know, I’ve been there…
  • + 4
 I think that bike actually looks brilliant. It's the steerer links I do not like. If it was some sort of telescopic tube I would like it better, but then again, it would look like a fatty suspension!
  • + 3
 Thanks, @Amukinado!

The final bike will have the upper mount moved below the upper head tube to keep it more compact. We agree it's a prominent feature, but it really is the best way to connect the upper and lower. Much more direct feel than a telescoping system - and more compact, too, at full compression.
  • + 6
 I would happily ride if it gives a better performance and not to expensive. To bad you can't swap it on your own bike dough.
  • + 2
 Thanks for the support, @stefanroussev!
  • + 3
 This is the coolest! What we really need is the REACT rear suspension system, Pinion gearbox and this front linkage fork, running Foes Mixer style 29/27.5 wheels. this hybrid would seriously haul ass anywhere! Roll on the future!
  • + 2
 My thoughts exactly
  • + 3
 To Structure-Ryan: If you could put that front-end joined to a R3act (or Tantrum) back-end...it could be magic. If you join your paralelogram-fork to another simple back end...you'll waste all your work & efforts...please think (2 times) about it. I want your design to succeed !!!!
  • + 2
 Thanks for the support, @bodynaut! We respect the work of Darrell Voss and, particularly, Brian Berthold.

Difficult as it may be to believe, our design intention is to make a bike that's as predictable as possible. The Horst link allows us to keep the anti-squat, anti-rise, and motion ratio very consistent throughout the travel. Similarly, the front end is intended to reduce the bad habits of telescoping forks. It's a complicated design that's designed to simplify your ride by not forcing you to compensate for quirky dynamics.

Everyone who rides a Structure tells us they were expecting something conspicuously exotic in the ride qualities, but it's frustratingly non-weird!
  • + 7
 Really looking forward to replacing 24 bearings every few years......
  • - 1
 Every few months where I live????????
  • + 5
 Then maybe stick with your FOX suspension that never needs maintance or new bearings, service, etc.
They also say the (early, unrefined) prototype never needed new bearings so far.. i cant remember ever having problems with my bearings on my cube, scott or trek rear suspension linkage.. maybe i just dont ride as wild as you do
  • + 4
 We hear you @chrod. There are no bushings anywhere on the bike though, and all of our bearings are Enduro Max sealed cartridge units that can be driven out from the opposite side. We'll cover the entire frame - including bearings - with a lifetime warranty for the first owner. It's what we would want if we were you.
  • + 4
 Interesting idea. We have all seen this a time or two in years past. The concept is a valid one. If there was a proven version of this with a gearbox, it would be high on my list of new bikes.
  • + 4
 Thanks, @nmckay! Despite the design and manufacturing challenges, front linkage designs offer so many advantages that the idea will always be attempted. We certainly won't be so bold as to claim we've perfected it, but, after five years of development, we believe we have addressed past challenges to a sufficient extent that our design offers a clear advantage.

The gearbox is another "holy grail" product in the mountain bike world and we're as keen as you are to see it succeed!
  • + 3
 It may look a bit odd but inovation is always good and healthy. Well done for looking outside of the box and trying something different. If no one did this we wouldnt have suspension in the first place, letalone, 1x, dropper post, tubeless, etc, etc
  • + 2
 Thank you, @woody74!
  • + 3
 You know, a fancy written article and cool pics makes one think it's a decent design, but a video of you really putting the bike through its paces would make me a believer WAY more.

What bottoms out first? The shock(front) or the fork/steered tube onto the top steerer tube?
  • + 2
 Hi @theronsta,

The shock bottoms out just as the rubber bump stop begins to contact the lower headset. The bump stop engages only if you manage to flex the chassis those last few millimeters, which would probably be in a crash situation.
  • + 1
 @Structure-Ryan: well in all intensive purposes (no pun intended) I look at the travel specs on a bike as the max I can push it to. That does sometimes include crashing..
  • + 3
 Hands down the most awesome concept bike I've seen in a while. Would be very excited to try something like this out. And for the record I think it looks mint, the non-traditional chainstays help tie in the curves of the front end. Keep up the work and keep us posted on production.
  • + 7
 One podium finish and they would have trouble building them fast enough.
  • + 2
 Totally agree, @roaddust! Race teams aren't cheap, but we would love to see our machine on the world stage!
  • + 2
 I had a Whyte JW4 which looked remarkably similar in concept. Loved it although quite short travel for cross country where it was so comfortable, everyone loved it. The downside? Bearings, especially as they were US sizing so very expensive to replace. This one looks great to me and I would love to see it in production.
  • + 2
 if it works well then why not but as im still happy with single pivot bikes having ridden a few multilinkage bikes I doubt I will care enough to want to try this but hopefully some others will. My main reasons are that I like simplicity and a simple telescoping traditional fork suits me fine but fair play for going a different way.
  • + 3
 I think it looks totally sweet and I'd love to try riding one. Do wonder how the swinging arm arrangement limits the amount of travel it can have. How would you need to lay everything out to have 200mm front wheel travel?
  • + 4
 Thanks, @hookso! Definitely some design challenges, but if humans can land on the moon when the slide rule was the height of computational power, I'm sure I can configure the WTF design for 200 mm - maybe even a 29er!

To answer more seriously, though, the control arms would probably get a bit longer and have to be beefed up, but that's not surprising. Stack will get pretty high due to all that travel plus two headsets, but nothing that can't be solved by a flat bar and, if necessary, a drop stem. Not insurmountable - and the greater the travel, the more our system shines.

I'd love to do it, so who knows!
  • + 2
 Stick a gearbox, belt drive and 29" wheels on one of these, give it to PB to review and the internet would actually melt from the anger flowing into the comments section here.

I dare not even think about an e-bike version... oh the humanity... those poor keyboards, getting smashed and spat on with all the furious hating...
  • + 3
 I'm interested to see how this pans out its an interesting progression from old use forks and the why're prst1 both of which worked very well for there times, with twin tube shocks these days I can see this working well.
  • + 3
 Love it! Keep up the disruption. Its time front suspension got the same attention that the back end has got. If this review is anything to go by, a full on 150mm travel version will be even better.
  • + 3
 Thanks, @headshot! Yes, it really comes into its own with longer travel.
  • + 4
 I love crazy geniuses, really like them on a personal basis. But I always remember the Spitfire fighter plane: tremendously effective and also a real beauty.
  • + 4
 so beautiful in fact that car companies, motorcycles and tattoo artists have been paying homage ever since
  • + 4
 Congrats @Structure-Ryan and the rest of your team on what you guys have accomplished. Looking forward to seeing this thing in person.
  • + 3
 Thanks, @LiterOfCola! Watch for us next summer and I hope we can set you up with a test ride!
  • + 3
 I like it. Hard to base buying a totally new bike based just on the front end. But if they get all the details right and build it without fear of a slack front end then I would definitely give it a go.
  • + 2
 Thanks, @MonsterTruck! Hope you get a chance to test one next year!
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan congrats guys on developing this. I must admit from the conversations I had with Loni during the initial stages of conception and design I thought he might be nuts, but what you have achieved is pretty amazing. Good job!
  • + 2
 Thanks, Graham! You might be right that we're nuts, but we'd like to think that we're the right kind of nuts. We still love telescoping-fork bikes and ride them daily, but we want to offer advancement of the sport for as many as we can.
  • + 6
 This has the same look and feel as the Bimota Tesi. Very elegant
  • + 3
 Thanks, @danfromme, we're big fans of their work!
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan: there's some paralever going on there as well for the anti-dive I guess as well!
  • + 2
 @danfromme: We certainly do have some anti-dive! About 40% less brake dive than a telescoping fork, which is adjustable via our eccentric. Not so much that impacts are harsh or braking traction is sacrificed, though. We feel it's a happy medium.
  • + 4
 BMW telelever, anyone? There are advantages (not looks), including less friction and lower unsprung mass... I'd certainly be interested to ride one. Why not?
  • + 2
 I hope we can get you a test ride next summer, @Berniejv!
  • + 5
 Is there a video of someone riding this? For some reason my brain can't picture this bike actually being ridden...
  • + 0
 There are never videos of these crazy bike designs being ridden aggressively.
  • + 2
 @Rubiconbmx: The most valuable videos (and we know it) will be of our carbon bikes once we get them out of the molds in spring.

Until then, we have a YouTube page under Structure Cycleworks with a short clip posted of riding down a pretty sketchy stretch of very round 4-6" river rock. Although we've since ridden and jumped very aggressively (and so did Mike Levy, it seems), we've focused on riding and engineering instead of keeping a videographer around...definitely to a fault.

Once we get the fork crown on the prototype fixed, we'll focus on getting hard rides on video (the crown became loose relative to the steerer after "smoking a tree head on" [see article]. No frame or linkage damage, it's important to note).

Forgive my enthusiastic niece in the video :-)
  • + 2
 Interesting how many people on this thread are concerned about increased maintenance with all the bearings. Ummm... just how often do these same folks perform maintenance on their forks? I'll bet the actual required maintenance goes down (shocks and bearings are easier to maintain than forks), but I would definitely stock up on bearings. Yeah, I think something along these lines will eventually replace the traditional fork. The advantages are too obvious, even if everyone wants to dig their heels in and decry change. Of course if I manufactured forks, I might be looking over my shoulder...
  • + 5
 I think it looks decent, and I'd love to try one! There is so much hate on hrre
  • + 3
 Hi @blackmountainsrider,

Thanks for the support! It's not for everyone, but we think those with an open mind will be thoroughly impressed!
  • + 3
 I'd 100% be cool riding this. I actually quite like the look. If it performs better than a conventional design then even better! Sure maintenance will be a little trickier maybe but ah well!
  • + 5
 I don't give a rats ass how it looks, if it really does perform as well as Mike Levy says it might, I'm all in.
  • + 3
 @mrosie, the first 50 sales have a four month money-back guarantee, so feel free to go all in; if you don't love it, just give it back!
  • + 3
 I am intrigued enough by the concept to work around the aesthetics but I don't think this could be brought to market at anywhere near a cost I would find reasonable. Interesting bike though for sure.
  • + 4
 Hi @EndlessWheelie,

You're not wrong about the cost. To be honest, there are entry-level full suspension bikes that cost less than what is costs us to make this chassis. Thankfully, the direct sale model allows us to sell it for a price that's not terribly out of line with the current upper tier of carbon enduro bikes. We wish we could offer this at a price that everyone can afford - maybe some day!

There are two ways I like to frame the value proposition:

1. If you look at the difference between a mid-level and upper-level bike, we believe we offer a greater incremental benefit for the extra cost.

2. If our design was the norm and someone proposed saving a couple grand with a telescoping fork, complete with its drawbacks, perhaps we would be seeing an equally polarized comments section!
  • + 2
 Ok, look ugly but less stinction on front suspension it's a huge point. But let's talk about riding dynamics and geo.

It's vertical axle path a good thing? I don't think so, but the head angle doesn't change and that sounds good...
  • + 5
 When can I buy one? I actually really like this.
  • + 3
 Thanks, @e-loop! We'll soon be taking deposits and the first 50 will be a special edition. Full details are still being finalized, but drop me a line if you want to talk about it!
  • + 3
 Make that bike work as it looks in these photos and make it 12.5kg and if it performs as claimed my dollars will be your dollars and your bike will be mine.
  • + 3
 Thanks for the support, @GHJ! The frame weight will be category average for a carbon enduro bike and we're happy to work with you on a super light parts kit!
  • + 4
 Can you build a 200mm travel DH version to prove it's better please? Then I might think it's a good idea.
  • + 3
 Hi @Altron,

We really, really want to build a downhill version! It's a difficult business case, though, as downhill sales aren't what they once were. Still, the more travel, the more our "stability on demand" design separates itself from telescoping forks, so a longer travel implementation plays to our strengths.

This is something we debate frequently and I won't rule it out ...
  • + 3
 Whyte PRST-4...or is it just me that remembers that...and my myopic eyes
(apologies if anyone else has mentioned it up ^ ^ ^ ^ there, I couldn`t see anything)
  • + 2
 I see a lot of passion on the comment and definitely lot of work on that prototype. nice work !
I am sceptical on the force produce on the rigid fork and on the "space" between fork and bar.

a non comment frame for sure.
  • + 3
 That rear-end design is really elegant looking, and if Structure made a normal front suspension bike with that rear end, it'd probably sell like hotcakes.
  • + 5
 If it works real good, why not? Looks not bad.
  • + 1
 Gives me flashbacks to the days of trailing arm front suspension on snowmobiles, it was awful. A forward axle path is stupid for absorbing bumps, it is at best inefficient, but from the pictures it doesn't look like this one has that, unless the dynamic HA change is drastic enough to offset the rearward travel.
  • + 2
 Hi @Losvar,

Valid concern about axle path. Ours isn't forward; in the more supportive configuration, it's nearly vertical, while the more compliant setting incorporates more rearward motion.

Our experience is that replacing sliding bushings with bearings provides so much smoothness that it more than compensates for the axle path issue.
  • + 1
 Besides the weight penalty, the only functional issue that I see is bearing maintenance. Replace those cartridge bearings with a leaf spring system similar to what Spot is doing with the Mayhem and I could see this being a viable product. Then there is cost...
  • + 1
 Will this design make it possible to link the front and rear suspension together? I know FRIC suspension is great on cars and I see no reason why it wouldn't work on a bike as well. It could easily reduce dive and squat without too many side effects.
  • + 2
 Hi @LaurensVR,

Our feeling is the front and rear need to be able to work independently, but if someone can make your idea work, I'll be the first in line to congratulate them!
  • + 1
 OK, so a while back I read an article on axle path that said the perfect path for rear suss to take on square edge hits would be a rearward axle path "same as a front fork"

also this system slackens while compresing unlike a current fork? but if both front an rear suss compress at the same rate would'nt head angle remain constant? (unless it's a HT)

Alsi, I would'nt trust that long unsupported top tube on landing a big drop!!
  • + 4
 I'm curious about the axle path too. Seems like they could design the axle path so it's rearward in the first 2/3rds and then ramps up vertical at the bottom of the stroke to preserve the front-center on the biggest impacts. I wonder what they did, and how they tested it.

The long unsupported top tube is only carrying the weight on your hands, unlike a conventional fork.
  • + 4
 I can say the newer blue one looks far better than the silver one. Maybe a stealth paintjob would make it even more lowkey
  • + 3
 Hi, @ibishreddin,

Thanks! Personally, I'm all about the naked carbon, but this blue colour looks so good in the Whistler sun that even my industrial-chic tastes are being won over!
  • + 4
 Crazy looking design! I'd give it a test ride just to see what it feels like!
  • + 3
 I'd be caught on this before I got caught on an Ellsworth. Yeah the new ones look less goofy, but man the previous generations were fugly.
  • + 1
 Why do people think this is a new idea? Look at BWM motorcycles, and hundreds if not thousands of fork concepts in the past.....any why do no of them take over? An analysis was done by Keith Duckworth (founder of Cosworth), and the telescopic fork has one HUGE plus....as the front wheel starts to loose traction (Mu starts to reduce), this actually causes more weight transfer on to the front wheel and thus reduced the likelihood of skid, so a bit like anti-lock brakes although it can clearly happen. With the BWM style layouts (and most other), a reduction in Mu as the tyre (sorry, tire) starts to skid actually un-loads the suspension so perpetuating the skid.....hence on motorcycles those systems ALL have ABS fitted. Fitting ABS to a MTB is probably a step too far, so telescopic fork for me please.....
  • + 2
 @JasenK, we have given this more thought than you might imagine. We agree that the skid potential and lack of feedback from systems that severely limit weight transfer under braking would be big negatives, as would not being able to use the brake to get your weight forward for cornering.

The way we've addressed this is to make it easy to get weight over the front and allow some transfer under braking. Rather than seeking 100% brake anti-dive, we reduce dive by only 30-40% vs. a telescoping system (depending on position of our frame eccentric). In real-world riding, what this means is that the bike feels stable and brakes harder while still remaining communicative and allowing weight transfer when you really want it.

Whereas many riders utterly avoid the front brake on descents, now it's a more viable option, and on dusty corner entries over bumps our linkage front allows much harder brake application while maintaining far better contact with the ground (bump compliance on linkage fronts is a revelation). It's one of the main reasons we pursued this design, and we think Mr. Duckworth would approve.

We really hope you'll demo a bike with us next year to see for yourself.
  • + 6
 I like it.
  • + 4
 Generating a lot of hate, some of you lack imagination.
Did your fashion sensibilities get offended?
  • + 4
 The SCW-1 might be the first integrated linkage fork that looks decent. Would love to read a review on that thing.
  • + 3
 Aside from the steering linkage, I like the looks of it. If you could mount the linkage inside the opening rather than outside it would look much better.
  • + 3
 Hi @BykerMike,

Unfortunately, reversing the links would require removing material from the rest of the frame, which would compromise strength or weight. The production steering link will be mounted below the upper head tube for even better stiffness and shorter links.
  • + 4
 I don't like it, but i don't hate it so that's something, right?
  • + 2
 Best looking linkage fork i've ever seen... which is like being the smartest idiot.
  • + 4
 would like to try it for sure.
  • + 4
 But will it fit on my north shore rack?
  • + 2
 Hi @shsfreeride,

It should, but we'll have to confirm. None of us use a vertical mount rack and we hadn't thought about it. Thanks for pointing it out!
  • + 0
 I don't want to be a prick, but I feel like people are being pricks to the consumer often by producing products, and saying they're "innovative", or an "improvement" just because they're different. You can sew embroidery on a headband, but please don't act like it's the brave new era of anything.
  • + 0
 It's the unsprung weight champion of the world. I would honestly just like to see a bike one time where somebody knowledgable did everything in their power to make it great.
  • + 0
 If you're going to support something, this idea at least has some mechanical merit behind it. youtu.be/dJdt5OVcork
  • + 4
 I'd wear knee pads on that terrain.
  • + 0
 I want to like it... It's just so ugly. I could probably get over the looks if I were able to test ride a polished production version and it really did blow my mind in terms of performance. I'm just pretty skeptical about how much better the performance could actually be. There's no innovation in the rear suspension, and the front fork on most current bikes is the best part about them. If I were going to try something crazy, I'd pick another part of the bike to tinker with. Yes I'd buy one if the performance is good enough, but it's going to be a really hard sell.
  • + 2
 It will be avaliable in the summer of 2018
  • + 4
 Slap a gearbox on it and I'll ride the piss out of it.
  • + 0
 Totally dig it but I agree the paradigm shift on it's looks might take a while. In the mean time, why not mask it as much as possible to look like a normal bike? Just for now, include some kind of flexible rubber in the negative space? I often thought the same as the cannondale lefty fork, it works awesome but doesn't look good, so just complete it with a fake right hand stanchion. Maybe even stash some stuff in it like OneUp did with the steertube. @Structure-Ryan
  • + 4
 I wanna try it... what could possibly go wrong?
  • + 4
 Stick a Pinion gearbox in it and sign me up!
  • + 2
 Steve Mathews from Vorsprung Suspension about linkage forks (2016), and why they have all failed so far : www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUsl-qb138A
  • + 2
 We agree with Steve, actually. But we also feel it's important to note that Steve and many others would like for a linkage system to live up to the idea's inherent potential. We believe!
  • + 3
 interesting stuff! Would love to see 2d kinematics of this vs. a traditionally suspended bike
  • + 4
 HOW IS THERE NOT A VIDEO OF THIS COMPRESSING THROUGH THE TRAVEL?
  • + 1
 The design would be livable if it weren't for those two black members sticking out like a beak. It's always the black ones that get the shaft Frown

But if this does work, servicing a shock is way easier than servicing a fork.
  • + 2
 If you order one, @uphill-blues, I'll paint the steering links any colour you want!

Not only is servicing a shock easier, but this shock has one of the lowest leverage rates on the market and less force on it, since the front wheel generally experiences less load than the rear. The service intervals on our front shock will be particularly infrequent.
  • + 3
 If everything is as well executed as the welds on that prototype, they might have something going there ...
  • + 2
 Thanks, @FR33DOMdotCOM! Loni is as much of a perfectionist about the execution as I am about the numbers!
  • + 4
 That front linkage looks prone to massive cable rub.
  • + 2
 @willmur, in production the upper steering link will pivot from the bottom of the upper steerer/TT and the cables will be kept well away from the top link.
  • + 0
 I see very clearly that the average rider wants what the pros ride. I'm not saying the average pinkbike commenters are average riders, the "real" average rider just buys a bike and rides it, not following all the latest news about high tech things and improvements, like we do.

That being said I don't think this will fork will become accepted unless they invest some proper money into sponsoring some of the best riders.

Once you see the pros compete and do well on these things everyone will want them. The people will ask for them and other bike companies will jump onto the change because they see they can make money there. Most bike companies have their focus on making money and not improving the quality of bikes in general.

But as long as Structure Cycleworks doesn't sponsor several of the best pro riders, this will always stay a very small niche market.

For the average rider this will be nothing more than "I once saw some dude ride on the trails on a very weird bike"
  • + 2
 I just wonder how the steering linkage would hold up in the event of a direct impact? Would the ability to steer be compromised. It just looks a little exposed to me.
  • + 2
 Hi @willdunne,

Valid concern! Between the wheel and wide handlebars, that region is remarkably well protected. Mike managed to hit a tree sideways on his test ride and left a core sample of a tree embedded in the stem bolts, but the linkage is fine; not something anyone else managed to do in years of testing, so thanks for the additional data point, Mike!

As long as it's intact, the steering will be fine. Any product can fail, of course, and we don't want to see your ride cut short with a nasty failure, so we've made the links almost twice as wide for the final version. Far wider than we think is necessary, but it adds only a couple grams and it looks as burly as the rest of the bike!
  • + 4
 I love the look of it. I would jump at the chance to give one a ride!
  • + 3
 Thanks, @Patrick9-32! We hope you'll have a chance to do so next summer!
  • + 4
 I like it.
  • - 1
 Just heading to Zog burgers and couldn't quite believe my eyes! Whyte bikes are back! Seriously it looks pretty much exactly the same lol! As I'm strolling down the lane I'm feeling a little apprehensive that maybe I've fallen into some gravitational entity that's shot me back a few decades. Expecting to see Shimano air shifters next it turns out to be a hallucination (I think).
  • + 1
 Which part looks like a PRST-1 or PRST-4, out of curiosity?
  • + 2
 It looks unapproachable, but I do like the idea of moving to all non-fork shocks
  • + 3
 No water bottle = No chance of decent review
  • + 9
 Yep, no water bottle mount is definitely the reason this won't take off.
  • + 4
 @Konda: There will be a mount under the down tube. Not perfect, we know, but I promise we'll eventually fit one inside a Structure frame, even if we have to make a custom bottle!
  • + 2
 @Structure-Ryan: It was a satirical post, mocking the way bike reviews usually pan out. Personally, it's not a deal breaker for me.

I do like you mentioning custom water bottles however, and I'm suprised no other company has come out with one yet. It surely can't be impossible to get a custom size/shape bottle for a space in a frame. If it's possible to get a tightly toleranced carbon fibre frame manufactured, surely it's not too hard to get a funky shape hollow plastic shape made with provision for a screw top to use already available bike bottle tops.

I am keen to see how this bike pans out, the proto looks very smart and even if the looks upset some people, better is better.
  • + 2
 @Konda: Price is the problem. A custom bottle and cage can cost tens of thousands in molds and tooling. We could justify that if we expected to sell thousands of frames, but, at our projected volumes, I'm afraid it's impractical.
  • + 3
 @Structure-Ryan: hm, fair point. I hadn't considered custom tooling costs. I'd seen aero road bottles in the past and thought something similar must be possible for a frame recess. I'm sure the market for aero road bottles can't be that high, so assumed costs wouldn't be prohibitive.
  • + 3
 @Konda: Exact numbers can vary, of course, but that's the general idea. If, for example, the bottle's lid and cage are off-the-shelf parts and projected sales are 1000 units, the custom bottle will be a modest addition to the frame cost. If all three parts are custom (bottle, lid, cage) and sales are only a few hundred, the cost is prohibitive. We're somewhere between those two scenarios and are choosing to forego the custom accessories, for now.
  • - 1
 I am.curious to see the engineering math behind the linkage between the bars and the "fork"! How much torsional rigidity and stability can that linkage have, surely not as much as a fork crown!! I understand there is some leverage, given the length of the linkage. Wonder if there is a delay in feedback should the tire get caught in a rut???
  • + 1
 Please see Structure-Ryan's comment elsewhere regarding this, but we are beefing up and tucking the steering linkage away a bit more for production. Our criteria for the system require that you not be able to detect lateral deviation or break the carbon links before you twist your stem on the steerer.

No one has ever detected feedback delay from the front tire getting caught in a rut on our prototype alloy bike. On the other hand, a telescoping fork presents a big, deflecting moment arm that definitely does allow deviation of the axle from a rider's desired steering angle. We've all felt it, particularly on long-travel forks; we're just used to it.

The test we will insist on passing is this: If you hold the front wheel of a Structure bike between your legs and twist the bars back and forth, the linkage system should deflect no more than a telescoping system in which one leg attempts to lengthen while the other tries to compress. In fact, we're shooting for less deflection than in a telescoping system, which is why we use such large surface areas on the control arms and TT and a double-crown fork. Carbon fiber is definitely the right material for our bikes; we'd never argue otherwise.
  • + 3
 Gearbox first... One thing at a time please!
  • + 3
 Any compression videos of the front suspension?
  • + 2
 Hi @mountguitars,

Great idea! We'll try to get one from the blue bike, even though it's a non-rideable rapid prototype. For now, try this:
www.instagram.com/p/BXx_WvQBArH
  • + 3
 nice write up. See it at Interbike??
  • + 2
 Hi @tantrumcycles,

Can't promise we'll be at Interbike, but let's try to connect some time. Drop us a line and let's chat - it's always a pleasure to talk to fellow start-ups and innovators!
  • + 2
 Of all the articles to NOT have a video of the suspension cycling through it's movement...???
  • + 1
 Two things:

1. The face of the guy riding the bike in that first photo pretty much says it all.

2. So pretty much THIS? www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z37PR0-kdhA
  • + 2
 If the steering linkage was re-thought and less pokey outy, I think I could be tempted...
  • + 5
 @twelvemonths, we've moved the upper mount below the head tube for this reason. Still "pokey outy", but less so!
  • + 4
 I like it. Cool concept
  • + 3
 Hey I'd ride it, live a little everyone!
  • + 2
 Thanks for the support, @fuzzhead45!
  • + 3
 If Gwin goes to SCW-1, I will too.
  • + 3
 THIS IS SO COOL. I want one.
  • + 3
 I vote yes. I would buy one.
  • + 3
 The blue one looks badass!!!! Terrifying even! Tip of the hat!
  • + 3
 It is a nice MTB version of the BMW duolever fork.
  • + 2
 Thanks, @Ncos! There certainly are similarities. Different placement of spherical bearings, though, and - naturally - each has been tuned to its specific application.

It's nice to see so many people appreciate this niche of design history!
  • + 3
 We need an e-bike version!
  • + 2
 Show a video of it going down a line with some style that will sure blow minds
  • + 2
 Admit it. You only looked at the pictures and jumped straight to the comments section for comical relief.
  • + 3
 Blue version looks pretty good - I'd ride it with a coil F&R
  • + 3
 This guy must really like BMW motorcycles.
  • + 4
 We like all innovators!
  • + 3
 life time warranty bearings ??
  • + 1
 The only issue I see is the potential for getting things (like errant body parts) squished between the moving parts. Other than that, I'd like to try it.
  • + 1
 Cool design, really liking it!
But how is this not conflicting with the Hossack patents? www.hossack-design.com
Or have they run out?
  • + 1
 Can't say directly, but the Hassock is really a different version of designs previously done by AMP, Lawwill/Control Tech, and Noleen. My guess would be prior art renders it moot.
  • + 1
 Our patent is pending for details that are actually new in the system, and they are admittedly not easy to see. A couple of details involve a new manner of dealing with axial misalignment of the upper and lower steerers in a long-travel suspension and design of a whole chassis in which front and rear parallelograms are interdependent for proper function. That doesn't cover everything, but suffice it to say that we think we have some real innovation in our linkage system while still offering great respect to those who pioneered linkage fronts.
  • + 1
 If bushing friction is an issue people care about in normal telescoping forks, it would be easy to put linear bearings in there like a lefty.
  • + 3
 Looks like a Bimota:
bimota.it/en/?p=119
  • + 1
 I'm not a very good rider, so I have to look mint on the trail to make up and this bike and fork would just F that all up. Sorry I'm out. Smile
  • + 13
 @NWARider, well, maybe you could be a better rider with a more advanced bike ... Wink
  • + 5
 I'm not a very good rider and no amount of "insert cool trendy product here" will change that fact. So, this is exactly what I need. I'm in.
  • + 1
 @Structure-Ryan:

Haha I don't know man, you've never seen me ride. ????
  • - 1
 Seen a similar thing in the sea otter randoms articles for the past couple of years. Obviously this is different but it has same principles. Thing is with shocks, due to their reduced size, suffer far more from heating problems, their size means they dissipate it less effectively and have a lower thermal capacity. Also i'm pretty sure this would not only be more maintenance, but also heavier than a conventional fork. Plus it looks weird imo.
  • + 4
 Heh. I'd ride it.
  • + 0
 I agree, every time I ride my moto I think ahhh, this is nice, and then promptly wish my mtb fork that cost a 1/3 of my whole moto worked as good...

But I don't think this is the answer.
  • + 3
 We are in 2017 Pinkbike, why not showing a video showing the suspension?!?
  • - 1
 Personally, my main issue with this type of linkage is not the linkage or the bike its self. Nor is it going to take a 'paradigm shift' for everyone to accept it. It all comes down to price its being sold at.

There is plenty of perfectly functional direct sales bikes that everyone knows and will buy at the price they are happy with. However this is completely unproven and untested bike trying to be sold for the same if not more expensive amount. If your going to charge the same amount or more for what we all know as perfectly functional and reliable bikes then why would I want to invest in something I know nothing about based on 1 review?
  • + 4
 Valid concern, @georgy291! We agree it's a terrifying proposition to put down this much money on a new and very different product, which is why we're offering a money-back guarantee. Ride it for two months and if you don't love it, we'll refund your purchase - for the first 50 buyers, we're doubling that to four months!
  • + 3
 I'd still take it over a Lefty!!!
  • + 1
 Dear fellow nerds,

Is this a similar idea to how the struts work on Subarus?

Sincerely,
An curious, yet ignorant human
  • + 4
 No, a telescoping fork is more like how a mcpherson strut on a subaru works (although not exactly). This is more like a double wishbone arrangement where shock leverage ratio and wheel path can be tuned independently and altered to a much larger degree, and loads from the wheel don't cause a telescoping mechanism to bind.
  • + 4
 @scottzg: Ah, Thank you good sir.
  • + 0
 MacPherson struts are the most utterly conventional suspension design in the world, found on every car in the world that's built to a price point, including my 2003 Toyota Sienna minivan. It's chosen mostly because it is cheap to build. This is slightly different from that. More like 6 Cannondale Lefties assembled nose to tail in a spiral that eventually works its way back to where the front tire goes. Or in car terms, a Citroen getting it on with an ostrich.
  • - 1
 Is it the future? Nope. Such designs have existed in the motorcycle world for decades and consumers never showed any interest. Seriously doubt the mountain bike world will be any different.
  • + 1
 I don't want to be that guy, but the prototype has no dropper post lever. Is this another innovation? lol
  • - 1
 I applaud the out of the box thinking. I would think adding moving parts would only make the system more unstable and susceptible to breakage. I dont see this becoming the future
  • + 1
 Chasing a creak on that bike would turn into a life-long journey that I don't ever care to take part in.
  • + 2
 This bike is *lit*. Would rock, 100%.
  • + 1
 you can't come out with something like this without a sick edit and hucks to flat to 'show' its performance
  • + 2
 I'd give it a go. Hopefully it comes with a lifetime supply of bearings
  • + 3
 Cool looking gizmos!
  • + 2
 Does not look like a Session.
  • + 0
 Sick! Really, it looks sick. Wonder how long it will take before someone takes a spill and that contraption finds a way to pierce someone body.
  • + 0
 Very interesting to look at, and a very high level of skill and craftsmanship. But is it "really" necessary. Just saying. Peace!
  • + 1
 Skipping past coil sprung fork and going to this? I don't think our relationship is ready for this big a step
  • + 1
 Introducing this to the PB crowd...the same guys that freaked out when an extra 6mm was added to an axle width.
  • + 7
 Totally different thing. 6mm to the axle width is a bullshit half-step that's a cheap way for major manufacturers to make old equipment obsolete with minimal production line costs or risk. This has the potential to be a fairly dramatic improvement over telescoping forks but carries with it a lot of production cost and risk. This is awesome, boost sucks.
  • + 3
 @scottzg: I'm glad you see as much potential in the idea as we do! To be fair, Boost does offer some benefits, but yes, it's a prime example of incremental improvement and we're looking to move things forward with a little more gusto!
  • + 0
 It's a little scary to imagine the consequence of that linkage snaps apart in the middle of a ride. If they beef up that part, I would be down for a test ride!
  • + 3
 How do you know that it`s not already beefed up? You could easily build that linkage strong enough to survive a nuclear blast with modern materials.
  • + 4
 Hi @henrysun918,

The linkage on the blue prototype is already stronger than we believe necessary, but, just to give a visual impression of strength, we have increased the spacing and diameter of the steering links by over 50%.

Enjoy your test ride!
  • + 1
 Is nice because you can feet a sleep bag and the camping gear to bike trips
  • + 3
 Video or it didn't hapen
  • + 2
 anyone else remember the whyte prst1, just an updated version
  • + 3
 Hi @Bozman-69,

We remember it! We commend Whyte for taking a risk and we thank them for what their efforts taught us.

The Whyte is one of the reasons why we don't have a spherical bearing in the main load path. It also illustrated the value of using the flexibility of a front linkage to focus on dynamic stability, rather than going for ultimate plushness. The smoothness of using bearings in the pivots already addresses that, freeing us to pursue the much more important goal of increasing stability under load.
  • + 1
 What if you want to do bar spins & frame whips, does that void the warranty?
  • - 2
 I saw it yesterday and yes it's as weird looking in person as the photos would suggest. The guys there seemed very keen but had huge "Do Not Touch" signs on the two bikes they had in display. If I can't even lay a finger on a bike I'm not likely to consider buying one. Anyway, if they want to make a go of it they need to come back next year with a demo fleet and I bet quite a few people will try it. If not then I don't see why they would bother.
  • + 3
 We actually only had the Do Not Touch sign on the blue bike. You could have ridden the alloy prototype around the courtyard and bounced the suspension as much as you liked. Sorry you didn't get that opportunity, as many did!
  • + 2
 Can we please get a video of that thing working??
  • + 2
 I got to listen to AC/DC first.
  • + 1
 Why wasn't the weight of the bike given?
You'd think a truly impartial 'review' would've given that kind of info
  • + 4
 Hi @YoKev,

The final version is still being drawn, so there's nothing to weigh, I'm afraid. For now, let's say weight will be on par with our enduro segment competition. More accurate numbers will be provided in the coming months as we finalize the lay-up.

I give a lot of credit to Mike and Pinkbike. Several cycling industry journalists have walked past us without even asking a question. Mike jumped at our offer to check it out and insisted we don't tell him a single thing, to ensure he could ride it without any bias or expectation. Friendly guy and super professional. I've always felt his reviews were among the most honest in the industry and I have more respect for him than ever.

When the time comes for a thorough review of the final product, I can only hope every reviewer is even half as passionate about his or her job.
  • + 2
 It might look better if the steering system was backward.
  • + 2
 Build me a bike with two forks and then we'll be talking
  • + 3
 Some of the very first full suspension bikes had basically a fork in place of the rear seat stays. So they have years ago.
  • + 2
 Bring back the Lefty, ASAP!
  • + 2
 Add in an all wheel drive, gearbox, and motors..,count me in!
  • + 0
 Can't tailwhip it or do barspins. Doesn't that basically prevent most riders from wanting this bike like when Trek released the knock block design?
  • + 2
 One thing a bikes linkage dosent need is more bearings.
  • + 1
 This gets you to the next level of cleaning your bike.
  • + 2
 Climbs like a goat!
  • + 1
 Is the last picture taken on Fromme, on the "climb-route" ?
  • - 3
 When mtb engineers smoke to much weed things are getting more complicated instead of more functional. I´m not an engineer, but if that system works, it definitely fits more to a four wheel drived vehicle. Remembers me on all that sketchy eyecatchers that you get offered year by year in the asia halls of the trade shows.
  • + 1
 This is going to keep me from doing barspins.

Who am I kidding?
  • + 1
 was that not what the NEO-MORF was riding in Alien Covenant Smile
  • + 1
 Could of provided a suspension cycle video !
  • - 1
 hang on... "We've come to accept that telescopic forks have a large amount of inherent friction" yet there is a telescopic shock doing the damping on this too.... !
  • + 4
 Hi @unityjon,

That's true, but it's quite a different situation. A shock has much less bushing area and shorter stroke, but the real difference is that a shock doesn't have an enormous bending moment on it while it's trying to slide.
  • + 0
 I believe the majority of riders just wanted room for a bottle cage, not an Accordian
  • + 1
 It's basically a pocket protector for bikers, like a badge of nerdism.
  • + 1
 There needs to be more linkage in that linkage.....
  • + 1
 imagine cleaning that bike
  • - 3
 If someone showed me this 5 years ago, "Waki leaks" would never come to existence... The moment Trek or Giant logo appears on a thing like that, my work is done... this thing is a God send to people who put 650B wheels on a MTB back in 2006 and said: so much better, never looked back. Or those who put roadie bars on a fatbike... your search is over guys, you WILL finally be really different.
  • + 1
 And the "Kill it before it lay eggs" prize this year goes to...
  • + 1
 I would get one but i don't like air shocks.
  • + 2
 Great ebike design!
  • - 3
 That linkage will be rattling before too long, I think anyone who keeps a full suspension for too long knows the pain. Plus I'm not paying the inflated price they'll want for that cluster fuck, even if it does ride moderately better. For that reason, I'm never calling it my bike, EVEN IF THERES A FIRE
  • + 0
 'that's a quantum leap over the best of what's currently available' - so a very, very tiny leap?
  • + 0
 Bikes should never go full Homer

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw9gaEiQAxY
  • + 2
 *aesthetically
  • + 0
 If you remove both shocks take the wheels off it could perhaps fold up for storage or travelling!
  • + 1
 Missed doing adjustable linkages to adjust the "headtube" angle...
  • + 4
 Hi @Vrooom666,

There will be an eccentric to adjust the support vs. plushness feel and it's not impossible to create a couple different lower head tube units. We'll consider it!
  • - 2
 This bike looks like you can put the handlebars where the seat is and vice versa. I can see Trek stamping their name all over this bike. Looks like another new frickin new "standard" they came out with - WTF?!?
  • - 1
 + I like the innovation.
- Looks a bit dweeby
- Linkage joining the bars to the fork looks kinda flexy. Steer one way, go the other.
  • - 1
 I just can't see the stiffness there? How would this link behave in nasty turn or in situation Rachel Atherton put herself in in MSA?!
  • + 1
 Why not route the cables behind the linkage?
  • + 2
 Hi @Rigidjunkie,

We're working on the cable routing. It will be even cleaner on the final bike!
  • + 1
 Well, it's no Lefty. But I guess interesting nonetheless.
  • + 0
 clicked this link and went straight to the comments lmfao
  • + 0
 You're an ideas man, Loni! m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lrbw4-vkFM
  • - 1
 I love the freak bikes. Na na na na boo boo, my bike has one more headset than you do!
  • + 0
 "Is This Linkage Fork The Future of Suspension? " I really hope not!
  • + 0
 Wait... is that a bottle opener?
  • - 1
 Someone call Polygon so they can put the R3ACT suspension on it, it's the one bike that won't get uglier!
  • - 1
 Anyone know just how many bearings one will need to service/replace? Labor + parts would equal a really nice Pike.
  • + 4
 I replace the pivots on my Wilson and Troy every year. Costs me $25 in parts and about 30 minutes for each bike. It isn't a big deal to change bearings out. A good bearing punch/press will set you back about the same as a proper seal driver will for a telescopic fork.
  • + 2
 @cueTIP: Very true. The last thing we want to do is ask riders to accept a controversial aesthetic *and* burden them with increased hassle. We may have a lot of bearings, but we've made sure they'll last a long time and they're as easy to work on as anything in the industry!
  • + 0
 Looks like a mutated Polygon N9. Very alien look.. I like alien movies.
  • + 0
 Where do you put the water bottle?! #enduronot
  • - 1
 Even if it performs better than a traditional fork, will mountain bikers be able to get past the appearance?

NOPE
  • - 1
 I reckon 300$ for a bearing kit for all pivots of this thing, therefore NEVER will I EVER!!!!!!
  • + 0
 Any idea if this will be offered as a tandem bike?
  • + 0
 The answer to a question no one asked.
  • - 1
 This looks to be quite a nightmare to service and maintain. Bearings everywhere?
  • - 1
 This is actually one of the better looking linkage designs. But still, NOPE.
  • - 3
 Looks heavy, looks flexy as hell, has about 6 more pivot points than I have already that I will need to maintain, and seem designed to explode if I crash, no thanks
  • - 1
 To many bearings and moving parts Eek
  • - 3
 Just please stop already. I'm all for ingenuity but even if this thing does work well I can't think of many people who would be excited to ride it.
  • - 1
 Worked so well for Whyte all those years ago.... Oh, wait... NOPE.
  • + 4
 Hi @DarrenT1982,

[I'll copy what I wrote elsewhere]

We remember the PRST-1 and PRST-4 and we commend Whyte for taking a risk and we thank them for what their efforts taught us.

The Whyte is one of the reasons why we don't have a spherical bearing in the main load path. It also illustrated the value of using the flexibility of a front linkage to focus on dynamic stability, rather than going for ultimate plushness. The smoothness of using bearings in the pivots already addresses the latter, freeing us to pursue the much more important goal of increasing stability under load.

Just as the telescoping mountain bike fork has come a long way since the RS-1, the front linkage has evolved since the pioneers!
  • - 2
 Thats a great big ol' bag of NOPE. From the bag, I'll extract a NOPE sandwich and proceed to eat it!
  • - 1
 This will not make America great again!
  • + 0
 ITS begging for a lefty
  • - 2
 NOPE it from ORBIT!!! All of a sudden the Wolf Ridge is looking way better.
  • - 2
 If it had a high rear pivot i might've believed all that crap about quantum leaps and performance benefit bullshit.
  • - 2
 I already have play in the frame bearings. Can't wait to get play in the stearing bearings
  • - 1
 I like it! this abomination will terrify my riding buddies
  • - 1
 HAHA!! HELL NO! Don't care how it performs. JUST NO.
  • - 3
 get in the bin
  • - 3
 WTH im doing here.
  • - 3
 MY EYES!!!!!
  • - 3
 I just threw up in my mouth a little bit!
  • - 3
 Good luck casing a jump with that.... or hitting anything over 5 feet.
  • - 3
 KILL IT WITH SUPAHOTTT FIYAAAAH!!
  • - 3
 yeah looks really easy to manufacture and maintain...said nobody
  • - 2
 this is frightening
  • - 3
 No it isn't, I don't have to read the article to know that.
  • - 2
 I vomited in my mouth looking at that fugly bike!
  • - 2
 monkey wrench technology met mtb
  • - 2
 Flexy front ends are the future!
  • - 2
 looks like cannondale fired someone
  • - 3
 I mean...... can you sell it with some kind of device attached so i dont have to look at the thing?
  • - 2
 if mx isn't doing it i'm out
  • - 2
 ya sure do this so we don't need to put a spring in our fork.
  • - 3
 Hell no. Reminds me off the soft ski boots with thing a ma jig that went up the back off your calf.
  • - 2
 Somebody kill it before it escapes the lab. Oh no, too late.
  • - 3
 No thanks! Too many linkages. Today's suspension forks offer superior performance and are relatively simple to maintain.
  • - 2
 I can't wait to be stylin' and profilin' on my Cannondale lefty version.
  • - 2
 Solution looking for a problem ?
  • - 3
 I think....too much work (more bearings, more head sets , more pivots........) for less performance...........
  • - 2
 This bike looks great!!! I can finally get rid of my soft ride
  • - 2
 YO dawg i herd u liked linkage, so i put some linkage on your forkage
  • - 3
 So...I see 2 pair of scissors at work in front of me while I'm trying to hang on for dear life...yeah...nah...
  • - 3
 Is there any possibility that I can unsee this ? My eyes are bleeding why did I clicked on the link...
  • - 1
 Looks like a session
  • - 2
 Only 16 more pivot points to service. Yay!
  • + 4
 Hi @hellbelly,

We understand your service concerns. We wouldn't want to work on our own bike if it was as bad as you think!

All frame pivots will have easily serviced bearings. Pull out the through-shaft and punch them out from the other side. You can probably have all of them replaced - if you even need to, as they'll last quite some time - as quickly as just a couple bearings on a frame that requires a blind hole bearing puller!
  • - 2
 It´s not new, in 90's some weird full suspension bikes apear already.
  • - 2
 I love all those bearings that will die in no time 3
  • - 2
 Virtual pivot on a fork... Nice try.
  • - 3
 I'm sure all the Lefty users will love this senseless/useless bike ! Ahah !
  • - 1
 "Looks like Alien."
  • - 2
 I should just turn my bike around and make it rear wheel steering.
  • - 2
 I feel bad for the BS mechanics that will have to service those
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2017. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.312438
Mobile Version of Website