\
Over the last few day, RockShox has been posting images on their
Facebook wall that, when assembled and flipped, make it clear a new inverted fork is on the way. Called the RS-1 (
the same name as RockShox's very first, non-inverted fork that was released back in 1989), the new fork looks to be aimed at the cross-country crowd, with a tapered carbon steerer and uppers designed to keep things light and stiff. There will also be a remote lockout, likely running through the right leg and out the small port at the top that can be seen in the pictures. Photos of the very bottom portion of the fork, where we'd imagine an air valve, damping adjustments, and a 15mm thru-axle are located, have just now been released. It will be interesting to see what steps RockShox has taken to maintain the new fork's torsional rigidity, one of the potential downsides to a inverted suspension design, but given the fork's short travel, cross-country intentions, this won't be as difficult of a task to achieve as it would be on a longer travel all-mountain or downhill fork. Cost, availability and other details are still up in the air, but full specifications should be available in the coming weeks. Is this initial foray into the world of inverted forks a sign of longer-travel options to come? We'll just have to wait and see.
www.rockshox.com
*Here come the negative props*
Lol
Shimano is in a different league.
That was a quality laugh.
On another note it reminds me of a carbon niner rigid fork.. looks cool but not sure how itll ride
Most people won't remember Maverick, but when they did the DUC 32, they had a 24mm hub to try to stiffen the front end. While this is likely not that big, they might be using a specific hub that adds stiffness.
You crazy dutch bastard.
But this would be something much nicer.
I'd love to see a lyrik with a DH version of the charger damper in it.
Maverik also had an inverted single for a very long time, but eventually got rid of it while keeping their 6" dual crown inverted fork. Neither is much a DJ entry though.
www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/components/forks-suspension/product/review-atomlab-pimp-60-10-37742
"Eww is that inverted... On a 29er"
My current fork works fine thanks, no need for a new fork here. I dont buy into marketing bs.
Why dont rs work on a rear shock to challenge the ccdb in terms of performance instead?
Take the ccdb, do back to back testing on the trackmand the dyno against the vivid and find out what ohlins have done to make the ccdb so good and fast on the track.
Take the learnings and employ them over the range.
Or improve your processes and assembly techniques in the background to make the same or better quality parts for cheaper....
.
LOVE ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE, HATE MARKETING DEMANDS.
The "hype" you guys speak of is marketing, and every company on earth worth anything does it. Welcome to the world.
You just described my wet dream, right there!
Peace
1x drivetrains were not brought about by xx1. 1x drivetrains have been around forever, but Sram have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars telling everyone they they ALONE thought of perhaps not having a front mech and putting on a wider ratio rear block to compensate.
In 1998 I had a Dmr Trailstar with 1 front ring, a crap chain device and an 11-36 rear block. It was a bloody awesome bike and my chain didn't fall off as often as when I had multi front ring set up. Roll forward ten years and suddenly Sram come up with this genius new idea and hype the crap out of it until everyone thinks that no one had ever thought of it before.
There are plenty of other examples, but you handed me that one on a plate so there you go...
www.jnj.com/about-jnj/jnj-credo
Marketing plays a part, industrial designers play a more important role. On how it works intrenally.... well that is confidential...
As an engineer, you can sit on the fence and watch the world go by, or look for IP, trade secrets, develop and evolve. Any engineer that has worked with me over the last 20 years, knows which camp I come from. I get to work one some very exciting projects and challenges, often driven and led through the whole stage gate process by myself. We have some very tallented engineers and a great team who are all focused on the 11million patients we serve every day. Its just how we roll. There is a pretty strict entry process for jnj, medical devices, I guess that is why we have so much focus and innovation from within R&D, this drive comes from the very top, which is great.
Get off your high horse. Pretend that you don't buy into marketing. The beauty of Marketing is that they've already got to you, even when you deny it.
Have marketing already got me?.... I would say mostly no, I don't buy into a new fad, I buy into what I can justify and afford, then test it, normally buying 2nd hand, unless it is the likes of handlebars. I find testing things enjoyable.
I am the strange one who has a little blue book with times for different local dh tracks, sections of tracks (using freelap), settings used, how they made the bike feel, mistakes made and where, the weather conditions, tire choice etc. Sad I know, but I enjoy this side of riding. I love building a track, then trying to find the fastest way down it for me.
Having just tested a CCDB on my DHR, I wish that I had bought into that one a long time ago.... it was always just too expensive, but having found a good deal 2nd hand, the test results were outstanding compared to the 2013 Vivid and 2012 RC4.
THE MAJORITY OF THE FLEX THAT HAPPENS IN THE FORK HAPPENS AT THE BOTTOM CROWN. LARGER TUBES THERE INCREASES STEERING PRECISION, AND COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INVERTED DESIGN TO A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN THERE. ITS SIMPLY MARKETING THAT PROPOGATES THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT CONVENTIONAL FORKS ARE MORE RIGID!!!!!!!!!
I know what you mean as the arch creating the cross support. It simply isn't going to affect the clamping area (or rigidity in a cast structure) at the crown. You can do the math, but there is a slight hit in torsional rigidity, which actually allows the wheel to follow irregularities in the surface better than a conventional design, but that is significantly overshadowed by the increase in rigidity in the other planes. The conventional design gives up a lot in fore/aft, and lateral rigidity compared to an inverted design.
Is it really an advantage or was it all marketing?
Remove the sales pitch from the equation and see what actually works, keeping the external variables as controlled as possible.
Sorry, not sold on the 29er speed argument, if it covered smooth ground that fast compared to 26 or 650, we would see other disciplines and sports moving to 29. If it was just a case of going bigger and bigger to go faster and faster over smooth ground, why stop at 29? The fact is that companies have to sell things, and if they tell the masses it is better, many of the masses will follow and buy into the placebo effect they get from what they are told.
Indeed to little give is a very bad thing, i remember a few years ago (05/06?) Yamaha bringing out a new chassis for their Moto GP bikes and all the riders complaining that the front end was too stiff, similar to the CR250 you described. You could see their front wheels skipping about in hard corners compared to other bikes. So yes a little give is a good thing, but on an mtb USD forks generally give FAAAR too much flex. I have myself plowed a set of Dorados into a deeply bermed corner and looked down to see my front wheel pointing a good 20 degrees to the outside of the corner compared to my bars. I only weigh 10 stone and the fork was pretty much box fresh (and yes all the relevant bolts were torqued.) This is too much flex. Waaay too much. I am yet to see any USD fork on an mtb that can compete even with a boxxer for stiffness, and to be honest boxxers arent the stiffest right way up forks out there...
On an interesting side note, I was in the British Motorcycle Museum the other week having a look at the line up of Norton Race bikes from 1900 to 2010, and noticed they all had right way up forks except the original 1900s one. Which surprised me more than a little I must say. Figure that one out...
Everything from engineering to ID come together to sell a product that will be successful. If you are an engineer, then you must have noticed by now that the VAST majority of the population does not think like you and they need technical concepts to be broken down and described from a 10,000ft level. That is what you are calling hype. What do you expect someone to write? "Oh, we made this fork. It is kind of like some old BS that you rode back in the day, but better now because we know our stuff". Not a lot of folks buying that. I dig the tech as much as anyone else but you need the marketing to sell products to the populace. Yes, there are performance design attributes that don't make it into a marketing pitch, but those are possible missed opportunities for marketing and sales.
I must say I don't go in for all this hating on crap riders with nice bikes. If I see a guy on a bike waaaaay too good for his skill level, i think "good on him, if he really loves the sport he will get better very fast on that bike". If I see a really good rider riding all the most fashionable current hype parts, rather than just what he needs to go fast, i have been known to think "what a wanker" Don't really think much more about it than that. but yeah on Pinkbike I do have a habit of going on a bit longer than necessary. Once I start typing I figure I may aswell make my whole point. I quite enjoy the discussions to be honest as long as they have interesting points of view in them, rather than just a slanging match.
But yeah, perhaps I should just let people get on with buying shiney crap if it makes them happy. Just think they will be so much happier in the long run if they see through the hype and buy what they need.
www.marzocchi.com/template/detailProdotti.asp?LN=UK&idC=1686&IdFolder=113&idMY=2145&IdOggetto=3077
are you kidding me?
Have a look st this stuff here seen at Eurobike show last year and it was the stiffest fork I had my hands on so far. Better torsional rigidity than an Fox 36, The tappered head tube also uses the same system, which is a 1.1/8 shaft in combination with an 1.5 cone set that is worked it the bridge. The reason for doing so is a reduced load of force to the shaft. What should result in a longer lasting unit.
But check it for your self. Here is the link:
www.german-a.de/de/pdf/flyer/GA_katalog_2014.pdf
Turns out the pictures were of an S-Works Epic with a Fox 40 and DH tires...
It is possible that suspension technology may be better in the years since your Beta Trials bike I am thinking. At least entertain the possibility?
I loved my old Shiver and Dorado so im exited about this path RS are treading.
But for a hardtail im sold on the www.lauf.com forks.
Cheers.
mombat.org/195Halson.jpg...
www.rotorburn.com/forums/showthread.php?273436-It-s-Gold-Baby!-Inside-X-Fusion-s-Inverted-Revel-HLR-Fork.
Will fox debut its answer to then pike there?
Many new bits are made public there...
Advantages? Wetter seals. That's about it. Anyone who says less unsprung weight is incorrect as the magnesium lowers of forks weigh practically nothing. Fox just tossed the idea of releasing an upside down fork because, if I remember correctly, they couldn't get the torsional rigidity they were after within their desired weight limit. MX comparison is not valid as MX forks can be a lot heavier and stiffer.
The only major argument I can come up with for them going with an inverted design for xc first, without prior development and POC in a DH fork is purely for weight savings. Looking at ways to reduce weight, they are going to look at how to incorporate as much carbon, or rather remove as much metal as possible. In a regular non inverted fork, the magnesium lowers are already plenty light, but that cant really extend further up the fork, and going with a carbon steerer and crown, and bonding it to an aluminum stanchion is going to require a lot of carbon material to maintain adequate strength, and that design approach just doesnt suit carbon that well anyway as the gains are quite minimal. Going with the single piece carbon steerer/crown/uppers has been proven already in rigid forks. It looks like they essentially took that, a rigid carbon fork, and used that as the POC to build off of. And the result has got to be absurdly lightweight.
Meta i agree with your comments.
flip bike, spray round seals, wipe excess with a cloth, flip bike
non inverted:
spray round seals, wipe excess with cloth
Oh no, please don't make me flip my bike, that's such an arduous task...
Plus the fact that the oil readily sits at the lowest point, up against the seals, means you don't need to lube them as often.
Tip, check which manufactures back the use of juice lubes. Pretty sure Mojo (Fox UK distributor) actually recommends not using it.
This fork on a XC hardtail would look sweet!
so what's the advantage of this fork?