Review: Six Months on Structure's Wild Looking Cycleworks SCW 1

Feb 13, 2020 at 15:30
by Mike Levy  



''What the hell is that, and why are you riding it?'' yelled the stranger from across the parking lot. It's almost like he was wary of getting too close to the SCW 1. A bit rude, but those kinds of questions were a near-daily occurrence when riding Structure Cycleworks' 153mm-travel enduro bike. Then again, I can understand the apprehension. After all, the damn thing has two headtubes, an integrated linkage fork, and uses a carbon linkage to control the steering (yes, a second one). Plus, it looks like it might bite you.

Structure makes some very bold claims about their 27.5'' wheeled creation, including that it's ''the most advanced mountain bike chassis in the world,'' and that the bike's 151mm linkage fork ''rides as though it has travel in excess of 180mm.''

SCW 1 Details

• Intended use: Enduro / all-mountain
• Wheel size: 27.5''
• Rear-wheel travel: 153mm
• Fork travel: 151mm
• Integrated frame/linkage fork
• Head angle: 66-degrees
• Reach: 460mm (G2)
• Sizes: G1, G2, G3
• Weight: 34lb 10oz (as pictured, w/o pedals)
• Frame-only: $4,750 USD (frame, fork, two shocks, headsets)
• MSRP: $6,995 - $9,250.00 USD
• More info: www.structure.bike
With statements like that, I have a few questions of my own to answer, especially considering that modern mountain bikes and their telescoping forks don't exactly suck these days. They don't suck while also looking pretty good, which leaves me wondering why Structure is effectively trying to swim up a waterfall of good looking bikes that probably aren't holding us back, especially as they're far from the first company to give this a try.

Yes, there's no getting around that the SCW 1 is heavier, more expensive, more complicated and, well, look at it... But what if it works better?






Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
The 153mm-travel, 27.5" wheeled SCW 1 is designed for enduro and all-mountain riding.


It's not inexpensive or light...

In case you hadn't noticed, the SCW's frame and fork have been designed to work together - you can't put a 36 or Lyrik on the front of this thing - so it's a package deal. The frame and fork kit, including both DVO Topaz T3 shocks, sells for $4,750 USD on their website, and it's said to weigh in at a not-light 13.5lb.

Let's compare. A new Santa Cruz Bronson frame and shock goes for $3,299 USD, and Fox's 36 Factory GRIP2 costs $1,065 USD, so you're looking at $4,364 at retail pricing for both. The SCW includes a second high-end shock that'd go for around $600 off the shelf, and it can't be cheap to manufacture at this point.

It's relatively heavy, too, with my test rig weighing in at 34lb 10oz (as pictured, without pedals) thanks to the chunky frame. If you care about such things, you're probably going be hard-pressed to get it down to 30lb, but hey, if it performs as well as Structure is claiming, maybe the cost, weight, and even its appearance could be forgiven?


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
The 151mm-travel linkage fork offers anti-dive characteristics and slackens the head angle (while increasing trail) as it's compressed. It works extremely well in most situations.


What's up with that crazy fork?

Linkage forks are far from a new idea, but most haven't been designed as an integral part of the frame. Instead, options like Trust's Message or Motion Ride's fork can be put on any bike because, well, it's a whole lot easier to sell a fork than it is a frame and fork combo that only works together. So, why didn't Structure go that route? Standalone linkage forks certainly have their benefits, Structure's Loni Hull told me, especially when it comes to compatibility, but he's also convinced that integrating the fork and frame together is how to get the most out of the concept.

Because the design requires such long linkage arms, and provides a whopping 7-degrees of head angle change when the fork and shock are both bottomed out, Structure needed the real estate that only their own frame could provide.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
The lower headtube unit is home to a carbon fiber dual-crown fork.

Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Massive carbon linkage arms (left) pivot off the front triangle and see the head angle slacken by up to 7-degrees at full compression. This wouldn't have been possible if the fork and frame weren't integrated. An aluminum top crown (right) fits on top of the headtube, and the headset tightens as per usual.


Structure calls their linkage design 'Without Telescoping Fork' or WTF for short, which is also what a lot of people say to me when they first see the bike. Hull believes that all we're seeing is tiny, incremental steps forward in performance every now and then, and that a big leap in performance will come from trying something different. He also says that unlike a telescoping fork, their linkage design does more than just absorb impacts.

Using pivot locations to control the kinematics, much like your bike's rear suspension, the WTF front-end has less dive than a telescoping fork, which means it shouldn't go deep into its travel while you're braking or rolling a steep line, meaning there's more travel to absorb bumps.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Aluminum inserts serve as home to the main pivot bearing, and they can be swapped out to vary its position and change the pro- or anti-dive percentage.


I'll turn it over to Hull for the fork dive talk: ''A typical telescoping fork is roughly 30 to 35% pro-dive under front braking. Assuming 30% as the starting dive inclination, our base position offers a reduction of 17% (still 13% pro-dive; we call this setting Plush), which offers a meaningful improvement when hammering the front brake but still allows a rider to transfer weight to the front to set up a corner. We also have eccentric positions for dive reduction of 22% (still 8% pro-dive; my personal favorite setting), 33% (3% anti-dive, i.e. inclined to open/jack the front suspension slightly when acted upon by front brake forces), and 41% (11% anti-dive, and pretty aggressive; we call this the Race setting)"

It adds trail as it's compressed, and the WTF lengthens the front-end and relaxes the head angle by a whopping 7-degrees when the bike is bottomed-out front and rear. If only the fork were compressed, the bike's head angle would remain largely unchanged, and none of that would have been realistic if it wasn't integrated with the frame.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Did anyone see where that spacer rolled off to? While it looks like a bit of a puzzle, the linkage fork turned out to be surprisingly easy to work on, and the bike comes with a lifetime warranty on all of the sealed bearings. Mine still felt new after six months of testing.


The idea behind all that is to add stability and predictability, which makes it easier for you to go faster. It's kinda the opposite way of how a telescoping fork works; they want to compress when you stab the brakes, which makes your bike feel nervous and sketchy at the exact time when you want it to do the opposite. Telescoping forks depend on the spring and compression damping to stay up in their travel, whereas the WTF and other linkage forks use kinematics.

Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Everything moves on large sealed bearings and aluminum collet axles (left). The bike's carbon dual-crown fork is a one-piece unit (right) with an aluminum top crown.


The fork legs and lower arch are all carbon fiber, as are both (!) of the tiny headtubes and the very lengthy trailing linkage. An aluminum crown is clamped down onto the fork legs, and a short aluminum extension serves as a crown of sorts for the upper headtube. Confused yet?

The slim nose linkage, also done in carbon fiber, is only there to transfer steering forces from the upper headtube to the lower headtube; it doesn't see any suspension loads.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
The nose linkage is also done in carbon fiber, and the only loads it sees are from steering. Structure says that the spherical bearing (right) that joins the two halves will essentially last for the life of the bike.


I know you're already adding up bearings in your head. There are eight 30mm cartridge bearings in the suspension linkage itself, six smaller ones for the steering linkage, and a spherical bearing that lets it all move freely. Oh, and two complete headsets but nowhere to mount a bottle cage inside the front triangle, although the latter might change on future models. Aluminum axles hold everything together, and you don't need anything beyond basic tools and common sense to take it apart. More on that later, though.

Hidden behind those carbon fiber arms is a Topaz T3 shock from DVO in the exact same size and spec (Metric, Trunion, 205 mm x 62.5 mm) that Structure is using to control the rear suspension. The two shocks are identical, including their custom high-speed compression tune that's lighter than usual for improved action over square-edge impacts. If you prefer coil-sprung suspension, you can go that route for the back of the SCW 1 but not the front; there's currently not enough room in the fork's the linkage to fit a coil.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
There's nothing spindly about the SCW 1, especially down at the bottom bracket and main pivot area.


Frame details

Integrating the linkage fork meant that the rest of the frame was probably going to look, er, let's call it unconventional. The strange-looking fork delivers loads into the front triangle in a completely different way than a normal frame and fork, so it makes sense that it has to look completely different as well.

At the heart of it is a massive carbon spine that's home to four main linkage pivots, the eccentric pivot bore, mounts for both the front and rear shocks and, way out at the end, the steering bits. I think that's what some people find so unsettling, how the top tube, if you can call it that, tapers down and seems to just be hanging out there in space, way up front and without any help from a downtube. But again, because there's no telescoping fork, more than one headtube, and due to how the linkage works, it can't look like anything we'd be accustomed to seeing.

How strong is it? The guys at Structure are very confident, especially with this first production batch that's been manufactured like a "brick shithouse'' to make sure there are no issues. Their words, not mine.
Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Alumium collet axles with T30 hardware.

It might look like Ridley Scott took some DMT and used his third eye to design the SCW 1, but there's a lot of normal to be found on the SCW if you look closely. There's a threaded bottom bracket shell, room for 2.6" wide rear tire, 148mm hub spacing, ISCG-05 tabs for a chain guide, a sneaky Di2 battery box, and sleeved internal routing to make life easier. Aside from there being nowhere to carry a bottle, a deal-breaker for me and some others, the SCW ticks all of the enduro boxes.

Sort of... There are probably two sticking points: It's not a 29er, and the 66-degree head angle doesn't exactly sound too enduro-y these days, does it? As for big wheels, I'd expect to see a 29er in the near future.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
Structure wasn't looking for places to save a few grams here or there, with the rear-end (left) feeling extremely solid. A water bottle can mount on the underside of the downtube if you're really desperate (I was), and your Di2 battery can go under this small hatch.


Geometry

For a bike that looks so wild, the geometry might seem pretty ho-hum these days, but the 66-degree head angle is a bit misleading. It's a static number, measured with the bike un-sagged, and the SCW gets up to 7-degrees slacker when both ends are at full-travel. In other words, don't judge a book by its head angle. That said, Hull did let slip that they hope to offer different carbon steering heads (the bottom headtube) that could allow for a 64, 65, or 65.5-degree head angle, and the modular design would make it a relatively easy job in a workshop.

Structure is offering three sizes that they're calling G1, G2, and G3, with my test bike being a medium-ish G2 that has a 460mm reach. The G1 gets a 420mm front-end, while the G3 is a roomy 505mm; I would have liked to see something in the 470 to 480mm range that I've been feeling so comfortable with lately.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 geometry


All three sizes get relatively short seat-tubes that sit at a 76-degrees (effective), and they all share the same 435mm rear-end length. One interesting number is the 1,224mm wheelbase that's only 9mm longer than a large-sized Bronson when both are un-sagged. But at the other end of the travel, when both are bottomed, the SCW's linkage fork pushes the front axle out by roughly 25mm to maintain the bike's wheelbase while the Bronson's (or any normal bike) front-end does the exact opposite. In fact, the Bronson's wheelbase shrinks by roughly 72mm at full-travel.

Longer, slacker geometry is generally more stable and easier to ride at speed or when things are sketchy, so the SCW should, in theory, feel pretty good relative to bikes like the Bronson, SB150, Stumpjumper, and anything else using a normal fork with similar intentions and geometry.



Structure Cycleworks SCW 1
While the front of the bike looks wild, the 153mm-travel rear-end is pretty straightforward.

Rear suspension design

If you didn't get your fill of carbon at the front of the SCW, the rear-end is entirely carbon as well, including the massive rocker arm. The bike's 153mm of travel is delivered via a Horst Link system with swoopy carbon seatstays and chainstays, and all the bearings are protected by aluminum caps. There's a DVO Topaz T3 shock in the exact same spec as what's used to control the front suspension.

The rear of the SCW 1 is almost boring compared to WTF is happening at the front of the bike, but how the two ends worked together ended up being a big part of the Structure's personality.








Test Bike Setup

As strange as it looks, setting up the linkage fork is a pretty normal routine... Mostly. Structure says that over 90-percent of riders prefer the rebound damping wide open, and while I was obliged to at least give that a go, I ended up preferring the more controlled feel of 7-clicks out (of 10) from closed. Being intended for rear suspension duties, the fork's Topaz T3 shock also has a three-position pedal-assist switch that's on the underside of the linkage and can be reached while you're on the move (after some practice). You can also adjust the ramp-up by adding bands to the air chamber, with two of them doing the job for me.

For air pressure, a good starting point for the front shock is around 65 to 75-percent of what it's in the rear shock. I ended up settling at around 105 PSI, which is in that ballpark. The rear shock had 32% sag at 145 PSI, and I bounced around between that and a bit softer while looking for added compliance. The low-speed rebound dial was set to 8-clicks out from closed and, unlike with the fork, I never needed to reach for the pedal-assist switch.

n a
Mike Levy
Location: Squamish, BC, Canada
Age: 39
Height: 5'10
Inseam: 33.5"
Weight: 156 lb
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @killed_by_death
Spec-wise, the only change I made was to replace the trimmed-down Race Face cockpit with We Are One's gorgeous (but questionably named) Da Stem and Da Bar combo.

I've had the Structure for a relatively long time, since last year's Crankworx Whistler, and it's seen all sorts of different kinds of terrain during those six months. Squamish's rough and steep trails featured heavily, of course, as did Whistler, but the bike was also ridden on smoother, faster trails outside of my Sea to Sky bubble. There were zero reliability issues during that time, too, despite the linkage fork's complicated appearance.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 Photo by Max Barron
The nearly 35lb weight keeps it from feeling that sporty, but its efficient rear-suspension makes the SCW 1 a relatively impressive climber. You'll never need to reach for the cheater switch.


Climbing

We'll get to the linkage fork, but first, we need to get to the top of the mountain, a job that the husky Structure does surprisingly well. Something about the 34lb weight and claims of front-suspension that feels like it has 180mm of travel had my expectations low, but the extremely efficient rear-end works wonders at hiding most of that.

With a 66-degree static head angle not being that long, the SCW 1 is an easy machine to live with on slow, technical climbs. It also leaps forward with more urgency than most, especially helpful when faced with those all-or-nothing uphill moves that your friends think you clean half the time. It's only a quarter of the time, though. At best. Enjoy poking your way up the roots and rocks at near-trackstand speeds while pretending to still have a granny ring? There's not many of you left, Jedi, but you'll enjoy the Structure, too.

The very sporty pedaling manners also mean that, unlike some enduro sleds out there, it's not as if your soul is being drained every time you need to giv'er beans out of an uphill switchback. The DVO shock (the one in the back, I mean) does have a pedal-assist switch, but it's not necessary - the bike has enough built-in pep to keep your terrible Nino impressions from being wasted.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 Photo by Max Barron
Unlike a lot of enduro-ish bikes, you can stand up and hammer the SCW 1 without feeling like your soul is being sucked from your legs.


It's the opposite story on the other end; the fork is very active, especially if you're out of the seat and over the front of the bike while working hard. If that sounds like how you approach your climbing, you'll want to engage the front shock's pedal-mode. I really do hate saying "front shock," to be honest.

No, I wouldn't want to race it up any long uphills, but as far as 150mm-ish bikes with enduro intentions go, the SCW 1 is an impressive climber all around.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 Photo by Max Barron
Structure's fork tracks the ground like nothing I've ever used before, and the handling that it provides is otherworldly. The faster you're going or the rougher the ground, the truer this becomes.

Descending

Let's get straight to it: The linkage suspension on the front of the SCW feels impossibly smooth throughout its travel, almost enough to make me think conventional forks are filled with a 50/50 mixture of sand and maple syrup for lube. And it's not just at the top of the stroke where we think it matters, but throughout the entire range of travel. That's leverage at work, with a telescoping fork being one-to-one and this, much like your bike's rear-suspension, definitely not; the friction of the shock's seals seems close to non-existent.

The sealed bearings help, of course, and the result is, as much as it irks me to say that Structure wasn't stretching the truth with their claim, a lot like the damn thing has an extra 20 or 30mm of travel. It's implausibly smooth and frictionless, delivering the sort of ground-tracking action that I doubt any telescoping fork could ever match, regardless of pricey clout-coatings and fancy seals.

You know when you try something for the first time and you end up kinda liking it even though it weirds you out, but you're also more uncertain than before? That's how I feel about deep-fried brussels sprouts, gravel riding, and the Structure during the first week I had it. Here's how that played out...

The first few rides: "Hhhmm, either I'm too fat or the fork's shock - ugh, did I just say that? - needs more air in it. If I'm honest, it's probably both, and it's time for me to be honest with myself... I really hope no one sees me riding this thing." Much like when I first rode the Trust Message, I had to remind myself that this isn't a conventional fork and won't feel like one, either. We're not used to front suspension like this, and my first thought was that it needed more air. It didn't. When the front wheel hits something and moves up and out of the way, the way the fork lets that happen effortlessly makes it feel like it's way under-sprung. The fork doesn't use more travel than it needs to, though, and there's enough bottom-out resistance in stock form to keep me happy.

I'm still not sold on those deep-fried 'sprouts, and I certainly wasn't sold on the Structure right out of the gate. It was doing some neat things, no doubt, but it also felt unfamiliar.


The next few rides: "You know what really gets my goose? The people coming way out here to smooth out the singletrack. It's supposed to be bumpy and rough, so stick to Zwift if you don't want to deal with that. Keep the mountain in mountain biking, bruh! Then again, I am going faster than usual... " Wowza, whatever it's doing, it's doing it well. Smaller impacts and the chattery stuff that you might feel but don't think much about are dealt with quietly; it doesn't seem like the front tire left the ground, almost like it went through the root rather than up and over it.

Was it a ghost root? Probably not, but the way it absorbs those small, high-speed impacts is otherworldy. Cool trick, but there's more to a suspension fork than just being slick and forgiving.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 Photo by Max Barron
Does it matter what it looks like if it works well? The fork's ability to smooth out the ground while also providing calm, consistent handling simply can't be matched by bushings and stanchion tubes.


Riding a fast, rough section of trail back-to-back on a dialed-in conventional fork and on the SCW 1 highlights the differences between the two. In comparison, the normal fork acts as you've nearly closed the high-speed compression, while the Structure's linkage front-end does a far better job of dulling impacts. It does it so well, in fact, that the entire bike seems far less concerned about what's going on, although I suspect that's where some of Structure's geometry voodoo is coming into play. Anti-dive isn't no-dive, though, and the fork will dip into its travel in the same situations that a telescoping fork would, just far less.

The SCW 1 isn't a long bike by today's standards, and there's nothing about the geometry, and especially that 66-degree head angle and the chainstays, that screams stability and "Let go of the brakes" to me, but that's exactly what ends up happening. It stays remarkably composed during those I'm-just-hanging-on moments, a lot like it's a few feet longer than it actually is. When the fork goes into its travel, the head angle gets many degrees slacker, the trail increases, and the front-center length grows substantially, but it never comes across like there's that much going on while it's happening.

Instead, it's like both your handlebar and the bike's handling are simply calmer than you might expect.


Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 Photo by Max Barron
The SCW 1 is solid and overbuilt, especially at the front of the bike, with it feeling as torsionally stiff as a dual-crown downhill fork.


Many rides later: "The trail hasn't been smoothed out and I don't know what I believe anymore. If this fork is real, maybe Lazar is telling the truth..." I hope he is, and the fork's performance is very real.

All that calmness that I talked about above applies in the berms and switchbacks, too, and especially when they're choppy, worn-out corners that the over-maintainers haven't "fixed" yet; the rougher the ground and higher the speed, the more the fork and geometry changes felt like an advantage. And it'll only get better if Structure lengthens the SCW 1's rear-end. Then again, the fact that it's not an overly long or slack bike, and has very efficient rear-suspension, means that it's pretty quick when the corner is so tight you're more worried about tipping over than losing traction. I love a bit of slow-speed, mega-awkward jank, the kind where you're thinking so much that 30-minutes goes by in only 5-minutes. The big black linkage bike feels the exact same way, despite the small-diameter wheels not helping matters.

On the handling front, it's almost like Structure has been able to double-dip by creating a bike that doesn't feel too long and unwieldy at slow speeds by using conservative head angle, reach, and wheelbase numbers. Then, when it's time to drop your heels and hang on, the head angle relaxes and the wheelbase doesn't shrink, which is the opposite of a conventional mountain bike that gets steeper and shorter in length. Even so, I'd like to see them add 10mm-ish to the reach across the board, which would take my G2/medium from 460mm to 470mm, as well as 10mm to the chainstay length - the front-end feels so planted and easy to live with, but it was a party behind me sometimes, regardless of if that's what I wanted. More length and more active rear-suspension should help. Speaking of that...


What's not to like?

If you hadn't noticed yet, the Structure went from being in the 'weird but okay' category with deep-fried brussels sprouts to the 'weird but I like it' category with deep-fried chocolate bars. But unlike the latter, the Structure isn't perfect.

The bike's linkage front-end is so impressive that I think Structure may have made life difficult for themselves when it came time to think about its rear-suspension. First, the fork is so supple and controlled that I'm not sure any bike would feel well-balanced with it up front. Second, Structure put a lot of emphasis on efficiency, which is the main culprit for the unbalanced suspension performance. The SCW 1 is a rocket ship when you're on the gas, which I'm always a fan of, but the flip side is that the rear-suspension is a bit harsh in comparison to what's happening at the front of the bike. That said, with a normal fork, I'm not sure I'd be moaning about it so much.

I suspect that future versions will see less emphasis put on pedaling performance, and a coil-sprung shock on the back of the bike would also help matters. Of course, more active rear-suspension means that the bike probably won't be nearly as eager to move forward, but it will make it better overall, even if it has me reaching for the cheater switch every now and then.

There was something else happening, too; I accidentally locked the front wheel a handful of times while entering the types of roll-ins where you're on the limit of traction just to be going as slow as you can. It would last just a fraction of a second, would happen in the wet or dry, and in those moments when you're already committed to going down, be it on your bike or off of it.
Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 Photo by Max Barron
The front-end tracks the ground extremely well, which is especially helpful through rough corners. The rear suspension isn't nearly as active, and the bike can feel unbalanced as a result.

I'd like to think of myself as being fairly good with the stoppers, if only because it comes in handy to goon it up on your front wheel for 20 or 30-feet down a rock slab. So I was confused when I repeatedly locked up the front brake while specifically trying not to, even crashing once because of it.

Turns out, front-suspension with anti-dive characteristics tend to be slightly touchier about front-wheel traction under heavy braking, which is the opposite of what I would have expected. This was confirmed by both Structure and another company who designed and built their own linkage fork but never pursued it. That tidbit of info, as well as my local trails having a lot in common with the waterslides that scared the piss out of me as a child, had me nervous.

The bike's four-piston Magura brakes are powerful, no doubt about that, but I'm also familiar with them and their impressive modulation. At no other point did I come across the same issue with locking the front wheel in any other situation, even under the heaviest of braking from hyperspace to a dead stop, or on steep-but-not-that-steep rock slabs, and low-speed maneuvers using the front brake were the same as on any other bike. Don't plan on pointing yourself down any killer waterslides? Then it's not an issue.

bigquotesIt doesn't seem like the front tire left the ground, almost like it went through the root rather than up and over it. Was it a ghost root? Probably not, but the way it absorbs those small, high-speed impacts is otherworldy.

Structure Cycleworks SCW 1 Photo by Max Barron
The front brake felt touchier than usual on the really steep stuff (much more vertical than this rock roll), and I struggled to keep it from locking up on the extremely steep lines.


Alright, what does all that mean and does the Structure cut it as an enduro bike? It looks strange, and there is certainly some strangeness to how it rides, but yeah, this thing is fast as hell and only going to get better as it's developed further. I don't put a whole lot of stock in Strava times, but for what it's worth the computers do tell me that I had some of my quickest section times while on the SCW 1. I'm also not surprised that they were usually rough, fast sections of trail.

The effort required to ride Structure's enduro bike at my own 10/10ths, or a bit beyond that, felt lower than when I've been on almost any other bike of similar intentions. They'll need to sort out the suspension balance before it feels like a cohesive package, but this thing is the real deal.




Trust Message fork review
Eurobike 2018
How weird do you want to get? Trust's linkage design performs very differently than what Structure is doing, but both offer huge handling advantages over telescoping suspension forks.

How does it compare?

We can't get out of here without talking about Trust's Message and Shout linkage forks, neither of which feel anything like what's on the front of the Structure. I once said that any bike I installed the Message on was instantly transformed into one of the best handling bikes I'd ridden, and that's still true. Trouble is, Trust makes no apologies that the Shout and Message aren't smooth, forgiving forks by prioritizing handling while riding hard rather than my soft hands and weak upper body. I get that, and it works, but I also like my suspension to do suspension things like, you know, absorb bumps and stuff.

Structure's WTF fork performs a different kind of magic when it comes to handling, but the outcome is similar: Consistency that allows you to ride faster. Structure's fork is also far more forgiving than Trust's over all types of terrain, and especially those high-speed compression bottom-outs from you over-shooting every single landing even though you know better.

What about that crazy looking Motion Ride linkage fork from France? I'm currently putting time on one, so stay tuned for that review. And yes, we obviously need a linkage fork cage match where all three Erector Sets fight it out in a battle to see who has the most pivots and which weirdo fork folds up and down the best.



Pros

+ The linkage fork is phenomenal
+ Very efficient climber
+ Did I mention the incredible fork?
+ Very fast and impressively calm, despite the static geo


Cons

- I mean, look at it...
- No bottle inside the front triangle
- Unbalanced suspension
- All-or-nothing proprietary package
- It's pricey, heavy, and the geo is a hard sell on paper



Is this the bike for you?

If you're not okay with people pointing at you and asking what the hell is going on, you probably shouldn't have the SCW 1 on your shortlist. That's fine, because this bike is obviously going to require a certain type of owner; he or she will need thick skin and a thick wallet, and they'll also need to be open-minded... Us mountain bikers are open-minded, right? Most of us would rather pull our jacket hood over ourselves while walking in the pouring rain than carry an umbrella (be honest, we're dumb like that), and the Structure SCW 1 is that umbrella.

For the most part, the bike works well and the fork's action is as impressive as it is strange, but when's the last time you reached for an umbrella? There's your answer.



Pinkbike's Take
bigquotesThe wild-looking linkage fork is really what we want to talk about, isn't it? If I were to judge it on its own, apart from the rest of the SCW 1 and against other forks of similar travel and intentions, and in a completely blind test, I'm convinced that I'd come away believing that Structure's linkage design out-performs any telescoping fork on the market. It offers a level of control and calmness that, as far as I've experienced, can't be matched with stanchion tubes and bushings.

But this is a bike review, not a fork review. Judged as a whole, the SCW 1 is impressive and fast, but it also has a few quirks that need addressing. And if you want to compare numbers, as one does when buying a bike, the SCW 1 is a hard sell on paper. That's difficult to address when you can't offer every customer a convincing demo ride. Fox and RockShox aren't going to be making linkage forks anytime soon and, truth is, telescoping forks will continue to be what we're all using in the future, regardless of how impressive the next Structure might be.

But if you believe Lazar, or you always grab an umbrella when it makes sense, or love a deep-fried anything, you might also be the kind of rider who'll give one of these bikes a fair try. Those who do are in for an interesting treat, regardless of how many telescoping forks are out there.
Mike Levy








542 Comments

  • 302 7
 Sounds like progress. Function over form/fashion and all that. Pretty exceptional review given the reviews on other linkage forks. If Levy had that sort of praise for a telescopic fork we would be all over it.
  • 8 0
 Yep, I'd hop on that!
  • 12 0
 I was able to go in a quick ride on this over last summer, and it’s everything the article says. I like the term “I could corner like an a*shole” staying off the brakes was incredibly fun.
  • 65 13
 Stick a gearbox on this thing and take my money.
  • 3 0
 Put the fun between your legs!
  • 9 0
 @excavator666: You say that but I don't believe you. 40lb bike?
  • 78 24
 @excavator666: Let's not wreck this bike with a silly gearbox.
  • 16 14
 @mikelevy: why do you think gearboxes are silly?

The reduced unsprung weight would help to improve the rear end performance like you said would benefit this bike.
  • 10 1
 @excavator666: unsprung weight is not the issue, it’s the excessive anti-squat
  • 6 4
 @5afety3rd: improving the system by reducing unsprung weight would allow for this to be overcome easier though.
  • 8 1
 @excavator666: you’re not looking at the whole picture. They wanted to make a horse link bike that didn’t require flipping the switch. The mass at the rear has nothing to do with that equation. If you put in a gear box and didn’t change the anti squat, the rear end performance wouldn’t be affected, albeit maybe be able to have a click faster rebound setting.
  • 4 1
 Let's not forget that function is more than just how it handles on the trail. What's the upkeep and maintenance like on this thing? That's going to factor into function, as well.
  • 10 0
 @TheR: All the bearings are huge and life time warranty, and both shocks use the same tune. th maintenance is no more than any other full suspension bike.
  • 6 0
 I want to see this front end progress paired with something just as unstoppable and crazy in the back: imagine this thing with a rear end off of something like the Canfield Jedi or Commencal Supreme that has a rearward axle path
  • 3 1
 @excavator666: you got a gearbox bike that is a standout performer to point to.
  • 14 23
flag landscapeben (Feb 17, 2020 at 11:29) (Below Threshold)
 @headshot: you can buy basically the same thing second hand and dirt cheap (cause nobody wants one) made by Whyte from back in the 90's... It's not new, it didn't take on then and it won't now, because function maybe more important than form but who wants a super car that looks ugly? We'd all really rather have a bike that looks awesome and rides great, just not as great as that hideous looking thing that got reviewed on pinkbike. It's the truth even if a few downvote me for saying it.
  • 7 3
 @Rubberelli: Yes I ride a Taniwha. Whenever I jump on a bike with a derailleur now it just makes me despair. Utter nonsense compared to a g'box.
  • 12 1
 @landscapeben: With great respect to Whyte, the PRST-4 was a very different bike with very different handling goals. We would love to have you out for a demo ride and let us know what you think of the SCW1 over a beer.
  • 3 0
 @davemays: I would love to see this bike with Knolly fourx4 suspension on the back. Now that would be a killer rig.
  • 8 1
 It looks cool except for the steering linkage. If they did a telescoping steer tube with a dogbone it would go a long way toward it looking more normal.
  • 3 0
 @Rasterman: Yeah was thinking the same. That giant void in the frame below the bars and the linkage sticking off the front are the weird looking thing. Hell if they just made the linkage fold the other way, toward the bike, it’d look a lot more “normal.” (Though might be a knee-strike hazard...)
  • 2 0
 @landscapeben: I kind of get ya
  • 1 1
 Another issue with function is that you have to use the proprietary frame. Just can’t stick it with anything.
  • 4 0
 @excavator666: in that case, Mike Levy already answered your question with his review of your bike, "But the Taniwha is far from perfect and, in a way, it's perfectly flawed. It's so unique in how it performs that some riders will look past its shortcomings or, perhaps, not even see them at all. I'm not one of those riders, however, as my eye is far too critical to give the bike's imperfections a free pass."
  • 2 0
 @Drew-O: they didn't put it that way so things don't get stuck in the linkage. @Rasterman the way the geometry work something telescopic wouldn't work. i had this conversation directly with the designer, he tried really hard to do anything but this, this was the best solution for the problem, This first model was about getting the concept out there, be durable, and proving it works damn well, i got to see some future designs and they look A LOT better and plan on being lighter as well, assuming the company makes money and can continue to produce the new designs
  • 3 1
 @TheR: Well can't you ? From what I understand you can use different shocks for your front suspension so ride with a Fox, RS or DVo same as when you choose a Lyric, 36 or Helm. And once they modify the linkages further you should be able to use spring shocks which would also open the option for DHX, DB air and so on. But yes you have a frame, same as you have a SC, Yeti or else which you can't modify either aside from changing your shock.
  • 6 1
 @TheR: its really a shame i can put the rear end of an sb130 on a ripmo either, who do they think they are? i want to mix and match everything dammit
  • 2 3
 @Rubberelli: The conclusion on this short excerpt from that review makes it sound like there are many imperfections with the gearbox system and that the derailleur has none by comparison.

In reality this is not the case and gearboxes are superior to the derailleur system in almost every way.

So I'm still left wondering what the justification for calling them silly is.
  • 3 3
 @excavator666: the fact you have to awkward coast to shit being the biggest, weird shifters, the spinning chain/belt, need i go on?
  • 4 0
 @5afety3rd: as opposed to having to awkward pedal to shift when you're caught in the wrong gear with a derailleur?

Sounds like you're making these assumptions without having ridden a gearbox.

The chain doesn't spin whilst coasting on a Pinion.

Actually you can pedal and shift a Pinion, you just have to learn the technique. (same as you had to learn the technique for shifting a derailleur)
  • 4 4
 @excavator666: I’ve ridden several gearbox bikes including a Taniwha. Technical climbing on them is atrocious. Going down it’s fine, but I despise the push/pull of the grip shift and the sub par ergonomics. I’ve said in the past it’s a great application for electronic shifting. You’re just trying to defend your love of you bike, it’s not a bad bike, it’s just not the savior of the bike world you’re making it out to be, gearboxes need work still. I encourage you to ride the latest Shimano 12 speed, you can shift like an a*shole and it just takes it, up or down shifting. Give me a gear box that’s dog engaging like a race car and allows the slamming of gears with disregard. Until then. Get the f*ck off your high horse.
  • 1 3
 @5afety3rd: Sounds like even my high horse shifts better than you.

Dunno what you're on about. Technical climbing is even easier on a gbox! If anything it's fireroad style climbing that's more difficult because the drivetrain can't shift under constant heavy load. Even this is easily overcome by using the right technique though, where you give the pedals a quick burst which reduces the load on the gearing and then you can use this window to shift anywhere you want in the gear range with the grip shifter.

If you've ridden several gboxes then it sounds like you haven't put any significant time in on any them. You can't just jump on a completely new system and expect to ride it like a derailleur straight away. Gearboxes are different and they're different because they're better.

I've been using a gearbox for over a year now and have real world experience which counters all of your arguments.
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: A generous offer, but I'm unlikely to be out your way any time soon unfortunately!
  • 2 0
 I want to see it attached to the Grim Donut
  • 5 0
 @landscapeben: I know I'm the freaking weirdo here, but to me it's absolutely baffling that people have opinions and preferences about the aesthetics of different bikes. If I didn't know better I would say nobody really does, instead it's some sort of near universal group lie or communal self-delusion, sort of like how sociopaths can't really accept or even conceptualize the ideas of guilt or empathy. I honestly can't comprehend being consciously aware of a bike's looks affecting my desire to own/ride it.
  • 3 0
 @JakeEPooh: I hear ya man. Function before form for me every time.
  • 2 2
 @landscapeben: I would buy one immediatley! After all, people buy McLaren Senna‘s aswell wich is the ugliest supercar ever
  • 5 1
 @JakeEPooh: I think this places you in a very elite group made up of a select few. The vast majority seem to care very much how it looks, myself included. I would rather sacrifice a marginal performance gain to have a bike that I also love to look at and it certainly seems to me that places me in the majority.
  • 3 0
 @edfw: Dude if you think the McLaren Senna is an ugly car, you've got issues I can't help you with! It's pretty similar in styling to the Mclaren F1 which is widely acknowledged as one of the very best looking cars of all time alongside legends like the Ford GT40 and the Lamborghini Miura. One of the ugliest supercars i've ever seen was the Venturi 400GT.
  • 1 0
 @davemays: Or that crazy Marin with sliding pivot thing.
  • 1 0
 @landscapeben: “A very elite group” for sure. “Made up of a select few”, think again.
“I would rather sacrifice a marginal performance gain to have a bike that I also love to look at”, ha!
  • 3 0
 @landscapeben: Good on you for being honest, or at least realizing what others can't admit. Everyone else is trying to fool themselves, like they're too cool for school and above it all. "Brah, I don't care what it looks like, bro, as long as it functions great, bruh." B to the S. I'm calling it. It's just a simple psychological fact -- faced with two choices of things that pretty much function the same, people are going to go with the more attractive looking option.

And listen you chuckleheads, that's not to say:

1. That everyone finds this to be an unattractive offering. It is quite possible people find this design attractive, or at least interesting enough. Those people might be giant Praying Mantises from Planet X who appreciate a bike that looks so much like they do, but I suppose it's possible people find the design attractive.

2. That this company isn't on to something revolutionary -- it's just ugly.

Say what you want, but when the rubber hits the road, none of y'all are buying this. I'm sure you'll come up with a reason to justify your decision after the fact, but we all know the REAL reason, don't we?
  • 1 1
 @5afety3rd and @Balgaroth : Regarding the proprietary frame, you know they listed this as a con in the review above, right?
  • 2 0
 @excavator666: unfortunately, you are in the minority here. Every mtb publication was dying to get their hands on a Zerode gearbox bike. I dont think any of them had a much different impression than PB had. But what works for one person may not work for another. Suffice it to say, none of the major manufacturers of frames or drivetrains are producing them, so the Zerode certainly didn't change their mind. However, these manufacturers are willing to jump headfirst into electronically shifted 12 speeds even though the market has certainly not told them that this is what consumers want.
  • 1 0
 @TheR: You might be right, I suppose. That's why I said I couldn't imagine being conscious of a bikes aesthetics influencing my purchasing decision. If so, my self delusion goes all the way down to my core. On the other hand, you seem to be falling for the same psychological tap I alluded to, where another way of thinking is so alien it seems easier to believe the other person must be lying, at least to himself. We're all nations unto ourselves I suppose, eh?

In my case I've had to accept that I'm the one with the messed up mental wiring. I mean aesthetics really seem to matter to just about everybody. I just don't have a sense of how inanimate objects are supposed to look. I don't find certain buildings uglier or prettier than others, I don't have design cues I like or dislike in cars, and I find the idea of colors clashing or going well together completely nonsensical.
  • 1 0
 @landscapeben: ''elite'' has nothing to do with it. Probably some odd quirk of neurology, like a small lesion in some cortex or other. ????????????
  • 2 0
 @JakeEPooh: There does come a point where function supersedes form. I'd rather fly in an older, beat-up, dirty plane that flies than a shiny, new, clean-as-a-whistle jet that crashes half the time. That's extreme, but kind of illustrates what I'm getting at. And if this bike were far superior, the form wouldn't be an issue. It's when all things are equal that looks come into play. There seems to be some trade-offs here -- it's on to something, but not quite there yet.

As for your thing about all the design not registering and all that -- it is possible you are the exception that proves the rule.
  • 1 2
 @TheR:

1. That everyone finds this to be an unattractive offering. It is quite possible people find this design attractive, or at least interesting enough. Those people might be giant Praying Mantises from Planet X who appreciate a bike that looks so much like they do, but I suppose it's possible people find the design attractive

Or, they may just be people who know more on design than you! (think on that)
  • 1 0
 what I would give to have this bike with the Craftworks ENR Rear end... dream setup right there. Only bike to lengthen (becoming more stable) at both ends when pushing hard...
  • 2 5
 @TheR: I believe bikes are at a point where the bike really doesn’t matter, and has been for many years. Even with this crazy radically different fork it isn’t that different performance wise. People who don’t ride often probably wouldn’t even notice the difference if they’re being honest. This is why form/looks matter a lot to many people, because out of the dozens of suspension designs, frame materials, etc. the performance difference is negligible to most. Your mental state, what you ate, if you took a dump that morning all vastly outweigh any frame design differences. But people like to brag, talk shit, and have an excuse for spending $7000 so they think it actually makes a difference.
  • 1 0
 @Rasterman:

You’re quite right here. Ridding something that is “recognizable cool” seems to matter most! At the early 80’s – 90’s having a suspension fork (usually with elastomers!!!), was creating mixed feelings. Even so called specialists, writing mostly at magazines. Were defending the “clean look” of the total rigid hardtail!
But,
my point is that a bold design like this should get more respect.
  • 2 0
 @Rageingdh: I think the sales numbers of these and other similar designs versus conventional Mountain Bikes and the ridiculously underpriced second hand market for them clearly demonstrate what I'm saying is true, but never mind, if you genuinely don't care what your bike looks like, but only it's performance and believe that most riders are in the same boat, then enjoy your delusion Beer
  • 1 0
 @landscapeben: I'd rather go fast on a bike that looks like a gate than get looked at leaning on a gate with a fast looking bike.
  • 2 1
 @excavator666: Right.... but what if the gate was not actually faster or at least only very marginally. Then you'd have a gate with no particular advantage when you could have had a fast looking bike to go fast on!
  • 1 0
 @landscapeben: If there was no performance advantage then there would be no benefit to riding it.

I've said it before, I'd ride a Redalp if they actually worked.
  • 1 0
 @excavator666: Ahhhh, and there we have it! So the question is a variable point, you like me would consider riding a gate if there was a performance advantage but if the advantage is only slight or hardly anything then would you still want the gate over a bike that's almost as good but also looks one hundred times better?

For me the advantage of the gate would have to be massive to consider it, not negligible.
  • 1 0
 @landscapeben: The reason that these bikes look so radically different is because they undeniably perform radically differently as well. Do they perform better though?

In the case of the Structure it would seem yes, however in the case of the Redalp I've never heard anything conclusive to say either way.

If it looked like a gate but didn't have a significant demonstrable performance advantage, then I would still have to consider one that looks like a bike.
  • 1 0
 @uncajohn: If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that we’re all talking out of our asses.
  • 2 0
 @excavator666: I'd second all that. I've put many 1000's of miles on Pinion and even more on Rohloff (and on Alfine). It's a different technique to conventional but the easing off of pressure only needs to be momentary and I didn't lose momentum as a result - hell, I could track stand on a steep and drop a few gears when I needed to. Try doing that with conventional mech. One of the times I miss my Pinion most is technical climbing....

They do have issues - weight, pickup, Q factor, fitting the suspension around it being some - and electronic shifting is an obvious development (available now for Rohloff www.rohloff.de/en/service/handbook/e-14).
  • 1 0
 @b33k34: I'm definitely keen to try e-shifting on the Pinion, but they sure are taking their time working on it.

For now (and probably even after e-shifting) I'm more than happy with the Pinion gripshifter. It's excellent.
  • 2 0
 @davemays: or something completely whack like the Spot Rollik's leaf spring
  • 110 0
 Am I really the only one who wants to see a video of the fork in action (side view on parking lot, action view on trail, maybe even comparison with Fox 36 on same trail)
  • 24 0
 I scrolled through the article twice looking for the suspension video. It would have really helped illustrate the slackening during compression.
  • 11 0
 @mtmc99:
They already had this when the bike came out first.
www.pinkbike.com/news/structure-cycleworks-carbon-enduro-bike-and-linkage-fork-sea-otter-2019.html

Here are pics.
imgur.com/a/wH0yDkL
To me it looks like this fork makes the HA steeper not slacker, so like any other fork on the market.
But they gave me that answer.

Quote:
"Under compression of both front and rear, the SCW 1 definitely gets slacker, moving from 66° to 58° at full compression. Under pitch (front compression only), our head angle changes by only .5° through the entire travel."
  • 4 2
 @OneTrustMan: but thats only with the front suspension compressed,i guess that in order for the head tube angle to get slacker,both rear and front suspension need to get compressed
  • 2 2
 @mau416:
Doesn't any full suspension bike works like that?
  • 4 2
 Check out our Instagram here: www.instagram.com/p/BwS_LqfgUt7
And here: www.instagram.com/p/B8JnsHwn75W

Many more videos to come this season.
  • 9 2
 @OneTrustMan: A typical bike with telescoping fork gets quite a bit steeper when only the front os compressed, and stays at exactly the same head tube angle when front and rear are compressed (heave) together. On the SCW1, the head angle remains at 66 degrees all the way through travel in pitch, but becomes 7.7 degrees slacker throughout travel in heave.
  • 1 0
 @Magellan35: You seem to be one of the Structure Cycles reps/employees/engineers/etc, anyhow, I'm very interested but concerned with being too heavy for it. I'm an anomaly for bicycle design at 280lbs and 5'11", plus I ride hard...thoughts?
  • 2 0
 I really want to see it in the drop test
  • 4 1
 @wasea04: Impressive! Our G2 size would work well for you, and the DVO Topaz T3AIRs would certainly handle a guy who probably has broken a few bikes in his career. As for the strength of the linkage system, it was designed to handle a heavy hitter!
  • 1 0
 @wasea04: how hard?
  • 1 0
 @mdrrich: Teeheehee, little brother. We could both agree that given how much I weigh that I'm actually fairly smooth, likely out of necessity. You know I'm crazy for avant garde stuff like this, I'm looking for something different!
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: I appreciate your effort to be congenial, being overweight is somewhat impressive, you should see how many tacos I can put down, lol. Thanks for the response, I'm looking into your bike!
  • 2 0
 Huck to flat!
  • 83 3
 I actually think it’s pretty good looking, the links and frame flow together.

I love it when people think outside the box, having tried both the Motion Ride and Trust linkage forks I’m certain they can out perform telescopic forks, this is taking things to the next level.
  • 8 0
 I wish they flipped that nose linkage in board on the frame and it would look way better
  • 7 0
 From the first moment i saw this bike i thought "this looks kind of purpose built", which in my mind also means it looks kinda good. Yes it´s weird, but it´s not really ugly, just different. And once you start to look deeper at how sturdy the whole system looks (which seems to be backed by this review also), it really becomes a cohesive unit.
It´s kinda like looking at a tank. Not an especially beautiful vehicle by any means, but there´s beauty in the way it exudes power and purpose.
  • 5 1
 @Mikevdv: Think about it. Turn a corner and hit a rock then the linkage stabs you in the knee.
  • 1 1
 @karatechris:
lol spot on
figured there had to be a reason for such an atrocity.
Being able to pedal a bike is still a requirement on most I guess.
  • 1 1
 Seems like mountain biking is going down the comp rabbit hole because designs are getting very specialized and peculiar. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGKR1Z1lRik
  • 83 1
 "What the hell is that, and why are you riding it?''
"It's called a Mini and I sit inside it, sir."
  • 26 0
 Haha fair play there
  • 77 2
 That bike is really cool. These guys put a lot of thought into that design and it looks awesome to me. Even the ID looks good, and that blue alloy prototype from a while ago looked stellar as well.

Also, @mikelevy, this has gotta be my favorite review of yours to date. Excellent writing and a lot of really good analysis.
  • 27 1
 Thanks, dude. It was a fun one to do.
  • 3 0
 Agreed, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I have always been a form follows function kind of guy. Another thing that I think is interesting concerning the weight is that this is just a first iteration that is undoubtedly somewhat overbuilt. I would think there has to be a little room for weight savings here and there right?
  • 5 0
 I agree @mikelevy reviews have been outstanding! Lots of useful info with funny relatable analogies! Keep it up Mike! And thank you!
  • 2 1
 @mixmastamikal: Absolutely. Anything in the range of current EWS-winning bikes was going to be acceptable to us, and making a flexible, trouble-prone bike was not even an option.
  • 2 0
 I *just* missed Loni & co last summer when they were coming through Bham with a batch of demo rigs. I'm even more keen on getting on one. Great writeup with such a positive outcome definitely fuels the interest.
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: if you guys find yourselves in Utah at all this summer I would love to try one.
  • 3 0
 @Magellan35: what's the theory with the locking up at the front on steeps? The only thing that bothers be.
  • 4 0
 @BenPea: I almost wonder if its a lack of feedback that leads to this. On a normal fork you begin to dive and associate this dive with how hard you are breaking. Take away the brake dive and you wouldn't really know the wheel was about to lock up until its too late.
  • 2 1
 @mixmastamikal: We have our sights on Outerbike, so stay tuned.
  • 3 1
 @BenPea: Because the bike uses braking force more effectively to slow the bike - as opposed to compressing the suspension - Mike and I theorize that four-pot Maguras with 203 mm rotors are just too powerful for a svelte guy like him on a system with significant dive reduction. For lighter riders a two-pot caliper is likely going to hit the sweet spot. With all due respect to Mike as a skilled rider, we have not had reports of this from other riders, but most of our test crew are...ahem, huskier.
  • 3 1
 @Magellan35: but thinking about it, if the wheel isn't going backwards on compression like with a telescoping fork, then it is staying neutral or even pushing forwards, which is inevitably going to raise the likelihood of losing grip. The whole point of suspension has always been to allow the tyre to stop pushing into the terrain, thus reducing slippage. This does the opposite. Even with normal brakes, I can't see how this won't be an unavoidable side effect. At best this looks like it needs a lot of adjustment to braking behaviour.
Either Levy was riding too many different bikes over those 6 months for his finger to dial in this new way of braking for this bike or it takes longer to adapt than that. Just my thoughts.
  • 3 0
 @BenPea: There's a misconception that has taken shape around our linkage; namely that the front center actually grows during compression. In truth, it still moves up and back like the axle of a telescoping fork, but a bit more vertically at first. The effect on braking modulation is modest until you get a light guy on almost-too-powerful stoppers.

Because we did not prioritize anti-dive over axle path, anti-dive in our system is viewed more as a useful side effect. NOTE that we still prefer a bit of suspension loading under braking. As we both know (probably too well), when it comes to braking you want maximum grip at the contact patch with enough modulation to prevent lock-up, so if the the four-pot Maguras are too powerful, something with more modulation (twin-pots) seems like a good solution. One of the things we're most proud of is that guys hop on the SCW1 and feel right at home going fast. We haven't had anyone say that hard braking required much adjustment, but we have heard a lot of, "Holy sh*t, these Maguras are almost too powerful."

Please don't take that as evasion or an excuse. If others ever report the same few milliseconds of lockup under almost vertical drops, we will be looking into kinder, gentler brakes, and may just offer twin-pots to lighter riders as standard.
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: sure, you get used to needing a certain amount of force to brake *just* enough at the front to stay off the deck. I suspect it takes a while for muscle memory to adjust to a radically different design. Add some crazy powerful brakes and I can believe that it's even harder to do so. That said, idiosyncracy and rider adaptation shouldn't be viewed as a negative if the performance overall is as good as Levy suggests. Shame it outshines the rear of the bike, but you're obviously not going to take that lying down given that your standards are evidently high.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea:
I've only had a few days on the Structure so far, nearly all in slippery/wet conditions, but the braking didn't take any adjustment and I had no issues.

As a comparison, riding super long/slack bikes needed much more adjustment to ensure the front wheel was weighted. Sit back and relax on those and it's easy to wash out the front (I managed it climbing the first time I rode a 63 degree bike)
  • 2 0
 @b33k34: ok. Could be argued that the kinds of situation Levy encountered warrant total avoidance of pad/disc contact anyway. The times when you have to bet the house on your front tyre's ability to save your bacon. Maybe Levy has an itchy trigger finger, but let's not cast aspersions.
  • 6 0
 @mikelevy: For me, this is by orders more precious, informative and interesting review than entire Field Test 2019. Excuce me all PB people and their colleagues who participated on great Field Test, but for me this one particular bike being reviewed is worthier than all bikes of your Field Test. Also, I must admit that it is very well written @mikelevy and I'm reading some sections few more times. First I thought I was missing some clearly stated Message :-) of yours when you were comparing Structure bike with Trust's forks at the end of review, I was hoping it'd be there but then I realized it (or at least I think so :-) ). I also appreciate images of interesting technical details. I think this will be my top review of this year, with no doubt. Thank you very much!
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: Just a quick follow-up: Overly touchy braking can be addressed by using different pad compounds, swapping to smaller rotors, reducing the number of pistons, or (potentially) switching component brand. In this case, Magura jumped right on this with us and are sending pads with a compound they think will address this concern. We'll let you know how the new pads feel on steep drops ASAP!
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: sweet mate. Tchüss!
  • 50 3
 But... i always thought performance would be achieved by:
-golden stanchions
-overly exposed drivetrains
-oversized wheels
  • 19 2
 Clout coatings
  • 35 0
 "... but the flip side is that the rear-suspension is a bit harsh in comparison to what's happening at the front of the bike." Maybe put a fork on the back. Now that would be really strange...
  • 2 1
 Unfortunately, there are only three ways to eliminate pedal kickback, which is the source of the mentioned harshness. One is to ride with no chain. Another is to shift the suspension pivots so that anti-squat becomes negative, which comes with the side effect of the pedalling force being absorved by the shock. This can also be countered with a suspension lockout or an increased low speed compression, which in turn degrades the suspension performance once again. The third is this: bikerumor.com/2016/09/07/eb16-canyons-dh-disconnect-prototype-lets-ride-chainless-push-button-win-like-gwin
  • 4 0
 @DavidGuerra: missing using an idler pulley
  • 8 1
 @DavidGuerra: HSP? No discernible pedal kickback on a Druid despite massive chain growth and significant AS.

On this point, maybe Loni and crew should think about an HSP design to fully max out the Rube Goldberg machine thing they have going on (before anyone hammers me on this, I own a Druid - some of my friends jokingly refer to it as the Rube Goldberg machine).

As an aside, Loni and Structure hail from my home town - the Structure literally sits on the floor of my LBS. Like it or hate it, it's super cool having some local innovation. I love these guys, their passion, and their fearlessness. I wish them nothing but good luck and success in their pursuits.
  • 2 1
 @mtnbkrmike: technically with an idler pulley there is no chain growth
  • 3 0
 @hamncheez: You may be right, although this is from Owen Pemberton himself: "...Because of the increased lower chain growth, caused by the rearward axle path of the Druid, it is often required to run less B-tension than that recommended by the drivetrain manufacturers..."

Anyway, sorry for the derailment.

I am going to get in touch with Loni and ask him about the HSP option and whether he has considered it. I know that some Druid owners, even with the stock DPX2, say that no fork can match it performance-wise, air or coil sprung. That's been my experience too (although I just swapped out my FIT4 damper for a GRIP2, added a Luftkappe, and replaced the DPX2 with an 11-6).
  • 7 0
 The Tantrum missing link is the rear suspension this bike needs
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: That is not true. Bikes with idler pulleys can have chain growth and the associated pedal kickback. If you want to know why, check out the pedal kickback docs here: bikechecker.com/linkagedoc
  • 4 1
 @mtnbkrmike: HSP is just one of a very short list we would consider. That is not to say that we couldn't do a more forgiving Horst setup with less anti-squat, but that would certainly make the climb switch a necessity.

As an aside, our rear end currently has kinematics that would almost directly overlay some current popular enduro models. It's the suppleness of the front that now makes a perfectly good four-bar rear seem crude. Talk about "first-world" problems.
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: Here's a vote against sacrificing pedalling efficiency in order to try to match the fork's performance.
  • 40 11
 Con: doesn't come with a pre-supplied mask to wear when riding in public places.
  • 46 0
 You won’t be riding this in public places.
  • 4 0
 @Laurence-CE: i could see somebody riding this at whistler
  • 4 1
 @Laurence-CE: I would, it not just to be a spectacle...then again, I rode Softride (Tri) for years and years.
  • 1 0
 Pro: hopefully comes with a bearing press.
  • 4 1
 @CantQuitCartel: Comes with a lifetime of free bearings under our warranty. In 2019 our bearings held up insanely well. We replaced zero pivot bearings in our entire demo fleet, in a year that included racing and demos at Whistler, where we placed no restrictions on which trails could be ridden.
  • 25 0
 Seriously nobody is going to talk about the fact that Mike said he improved his Strava PRs on rough/fast section while riding on a 27.5 wheeled bike ? Considering this is exactly the type of sections where 29ers are supposed to shine maybe we should focus more on making functional bike/forks rather than wheel sizes and new standards.
  • 22 5
 Or put 29ers on it and go even faster.
  • 1 0
 Who cares if it is 29 if it is not the bestest thing ever since being thing was a thing....MicroSpline. So many issues solved there....
  • 102 74
 Burn it before it lays eggs!
  • 11 8
 I'm behind dat eggs bruh.
  • 21 24
 How does someone draw plans for that, look at it and be pleased. Then still go to production. I cannot fathom.
  • 6 9
 @Scottybike36: it’s probably an in-house manufacturer’s joke to see who can build the ugliest bike and sell the most . That praying mantis fork is still in the lead !
  • 6 10
flag EnduroriderPL (Feb 17, 2020 at 4:22) (Below Threshold)
 Maybe it rides good but it just looks wrong. Soo wrong.
  • 39 1
 The next generation will work even better and I bet you will somehow get used to the looks once the pros start using them. Preserve the eggs.
  • 9 10
 I think Ian Malcolm has this covered.....“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
  • 4 0
 Ghost root haha
  • 41 1
 I am hoping that Marin buys them out, and marries this to the Naild R3ACT rear suspension... THAT would be a bike that would break the internet.
  • 15 0
 When the first suspension forks appeared, I was reading exactly the same remarks into magazines, from novices and (so called “experts”)!
Ha!
  • 6 1
 @uncajohn: Agreed. And to be honest, who didn’t shudder a little bit at the sight of the Canfield BFF last week. Sure it was cool when it came out nearly 20 years ago but now it looks so dated. Same for a Trust fork. It may not look *normal*, but it’s growing on me. Personally I’d love to give the SCW a ride.
  • 5 1
 @Scottybike36: That's easy, they do the maths. If it works better then it's better, imagine still riding flat narrow bars with bar ends because wide risers look too much like a shopping bike.
  • 2 4
 @sngltrkmnd: they will need to get that price down a lot though.. dear me, 4400 USD for a frame set (ok with that linkage fork included in fairness) seems a load
  • 16 0
 @saladdodger: honestly, the price isn’t disturbing. Look at how much extra effort went into this thing, and it costs the same as a any other high end frame + fork. I’m surprised it isn’t more.
This isn’t a budget-friendly bike - it’s clearly high-end by any measure (just look at it!), so expecting it to cost what a budget bike costs is ridiculous. Not to mention the lack of economies of scale.
  • 4 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: I’m huge on innovation. Mountain biking has innovation at its very roots! I get that without it we would still be riding around on road-bikes with fattish tyres (Wait...aren’t those now called gravel/cyclocross bikes?)...anyway. My point is, as a species, we don’t have a good track record of choosing function over aesthetics. That is clear in any industry. Part of the beauty of mountain biking is in having easily serviceable components. I don’t see that having a tonne of linkages, bearings and unique (moving) parts is going to catch on. The sport gravitates towards simplicity of function and seamlessness. This isn’t it. I don’t think you’ll be seeing a pro on one of these any tIme soon.
  • 5 0
 @saladdodger: I dunno. While $4400 is still a considerable amount of change, Transition lists the new Carbon Scout frame at $3200. Trek wants $3300 for a Remedy frame. An SB140 is $3400.(Granted, how many people pay these prices? No one can know.) Bike prices have definitely gone a bit nuts - but Cycleworks' offering is so unique that it doesn't feel as outlandish as it could be.
  • 2 1
 @Scottybike36: I wouldn't rule out a pro giving one of these a spin, but it seems unlikely that it will be a big name in the trailriding/enduro/whatever scene.
  • 2 0
 @ReformedRoadie: Then I would finally buy it.
  • 3 1
 @Scottybike36: I see your point, but in this case I think they've done the best possible job. Normal bearings, normal shock, normal tools to service it. This thing looks no harder to work on than VPP type frames. I certainly like this direction of development far more than AXS/Di2/every electronic shock ever, it looks like it might help my slow, cowardly self go a little bit faster.
  • 3 2
 @Scottybike36: Something we hope riders will catch onto with the WTF linkage system on the SCW1 is that the bearings last a long time, with 250-hour inspection intervals. If one of them develops any roughness we pay for the bearing, which can be driven out quickly from either side of the bike (depending on your removal tools). Essentially, the bike was made to be serviceable in any back alley on earth with readily available bearings that bike shops everywhere carry. Big perk: No more fork service, ever.

It may look complicated, but we made real efforts to make the bike easy to maintain and live with, as Levy experienced. Hopefully in time folks will see that front linkage is no more difficult to live with than the best linkage rears, which few riders nowadays describe as "too complicated to live with".
  • 1 0
 @saladdodger: A Yeti SB165 with a Trust Shout will run you $5,974 so it's almost a Bargain.
  • 23 0
 Can you attach a pair of garden shears to the front and ride straight thru the jungle?
  • 3 0
 Bahaha
  • 7 0
 Nah, that's the spot your Accordion goes.
  • 11 2
 Yes.
  • 2 0
 Most underrated comment ever.
  • 24 8
 Now you can break your nose AND nose linkage by crashing into a tree. Progress!
  • 43 3
 Funny true story. Mike Levy ran our alloy proof of concept straight into a tree a few years ago. The linkage and steering were entirely fine, although the fork steerer (single-crown at the time) was ovalled. The carbon steering links have wall thickness much greater than a carbon bar, and you'll actually break your bar before you'll do damage to the steering links.
  • 15 0
 That's probably HR Giger you want there inspiring on DMT and not Ridley Scott. Just saying...
  • 2 0
 This, thank you
  • 5 0
 Not nearly enough genitalia on it for a Giger fever dream.
  • 14 0
 We need a video of it in action Smile

With the front suspension being very planted, how does it perform of jumps?
  • 4 0
 Came here to ask for a huck-to-flat video
  • 1 1
 @Magellan35: why is the video faster, when the interesting part starts?
  • 1 1
 @MartinKS: Stupid Samsung phone and its very limited period of super slow-mo.....
  • 11 0
 "Most of us would rather pull our jacket hood over ourselves while walking in the pouring rain than carry an umbrella, and the Structure SCW 1 is that umbrella.
[...]when's the last time you reached for an umbrella? There's your answer."


[jingle] *its the analogy of the year sooo faaaaar* [/jingle]
  • 9 1
 The year just started, though! I'm sure we'll use something dumber soon Smile
  • 2 0
 My umbrella is made from carbon fibre. I carry it to match my carbon fibre cufflinks. And I'm not joking about either.
  • 1 0
 Insanely accurate analogy! I don't even own an umbrella.
  • 1 0
 @iamamodel: Sir, we have your bike.
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy: its not dumb! its perfect!
  • 16 5
 This is fantastic and looks quite logical, if a tad complex, to my engineering eyes. Unconventional, yes, but I don't find it ugly, at all. Reminds me a bit of the old Whyte bikes. Needs lawill at the back, though.
  • 11 1
 I had a go on one of those motion ride linkage forks and couldn't believe how it seems to work completely independent of the front brake. You can be braking super hard and fork behaves as if you're not - super weird feeling and very cool. After having a go I found myself in a bit of strange place where suddenly I believe the hype and maybe linkage forks are the future - but for now at least I can't get used to how they look - and I also don't believe for a second that my riding exceeds the capabilities of a telescoping fork.
  • 10 1
 I think it's important to note after my conversations with Loni Hull, this bike is built to last. He could have engineered it to be much lighter, but he wanted a bike that would take a beating. You should see the thickness of the carbon layups on this thing compared to YT and other brands... All in all, a big congrats to Loni and the structure team! It's super exciting seeing a innovation come out of Calgary that is making such a big impact on the MTB world. I'm sure all of the concerns and cons will be addressed with future iterations of the bike. Believe me, you need to ride one and see it in person to believe this thing. It's not a weird looking as you'd think! The fit and finish of everything is amazing.
  • 14 5
 Ok frame makers... opportunity is knocking for you to make more money and refine this concept. Eat fox, RockShoxs OEM fork lunch. If this works as good as he says, I’m in. But try to fit a bottle mmkay?
  • 6 1
 Considering it still takes a conventional rear shock for front suspension, they probably aren't that worried.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: yup. Raise shock prices 20% and only sell half the SKU’s. Easy money!
  • 13 0
 where's the video?
  • 19 0
 HUCK TO FLAT. STAT!!!
  • 6 3
 www.instagram.com/p/B8JnsHwn75W

We'll do some big drop to flat videos soon.
  • 1 0
 @Magellan35: WOOT! WOOT!
  • 11 3
 I would just have concerns about all those linkages and bearings at the front... The tolerances have to be incredible otherwise you're going to have a rattly steering feeling.
  • 24 0
 I find jamming my water bottle between the two headtubes really calms the front end down for those long climbs.
  • 16 2
 The tolerances really are incredible. As Mike noted, the SCW1 he was on felt like new after six months because we care tremendously about measures that support bearing longevity. Because of that, we offer a lifetime warranty on frame and bearings, transferrable to second owner (see structure.bike for details).
  • 12 1
 They made the front all fancy and the rear still looks like a Session
  • 3 1
 We figured the front was unique enough. That's why everything that hangs off the frame and even the pivot hardware is as normal as can be.
  • 7 0
 "You know when you try something for the first time and you end up kinda liking it even though it weirds you out, but you're also more uncertain than before?"

Yes...

"That's how I feel about deep-fried brussels sprouts, gravel riding, and the Structure during the first week I had it"

Oh thank god, I thought that was going someplace very uncomfortable, like the back seat of a volkswagen, or maybe a mini in Levy's case.
  • 11 0
 This thing would look badass with a WWII fighter paint job.
  • 11 2
 i love every bit of it -even the looks. whats the point of doing such a wonderful concept and not stand out.
  • 5 1
 I think it is cool too. Makes much more sense to me than a linkage fork like Trust.
  • 12 2
 Smooth like a Buick yet corners like a Porsche. Looks like a Prius.
  • 3 1
 Looks like a Fiat Multipla
  • 1 0
 @kiksy: I really loved the original Multipla.
I kinda not find this bike revolting too...
maybe I need some time with a shrink
  • 2 1
 @Becciu: Can we come too?

Seriously, we care about aesthetics, but function drives form. Look for plenty of variability to the looks of front linkage in years to come.
  • 10 1
 This bike should be called Chantelle, not pretty but something you’d ride in the woods without your mates knowing.
  • 8 2
 HTFU people. I wonder if the nose linkage could be turned backward, to be more integrated in the design of the bike. It surely ain't pretty but there's room for improvment and if it works as good as described, why not.
  • 5 1
 Agreed. Its remarkable though that a really small company creates a product that so easily outperforms what huge r&d deps have been developing.
  • 10 2
 Because the space between the upper front link and the bottom of the top tube is eaten by travel, facing the steering links backward would add stack, which is something we tried to avoid. In the future, who knows? This is just the beginning...
  • 2 1
 @Magellan35: maybe you could even use a telescopic shaft for that, since it wouldn't be affected by longitudinal forces, almost like a dropper post.
  • 7 2
 @joaovasco: A splined telescoping shaft was considered in early days, but because the fork swings up on an arc, the upper and lower steering axes are independent. They don't line up well enough for a shaft to work, particularly when the steering is at full lock with the compression fully compressed.
  • 1 0
 it's time for new ideas for the steering?
Let's do a cable actuated steering system like some cargo bikes.
Or better, an electric wireless system. Should be future proof.
  • 1 1
 ***with the suspension fully compressed***
  • 1 0
 @faul: Mmh indeed, a cable actuated steering should work, and supposedly gives a lot of freedom to design the frame as it will simply follow around.
Or maybe a hydraulic steering system ?
  • 1 0
 @Will-narayan: People worry about our almost-solid carbon links failing (they are insanely strong and we never worry about them after thousands of hours of trouble-free testing). Can you imagine how they would react to hydraulic or wireless steering?
  • 1 0
 @Magellan35: Haha I agree, I must say I worry about the carbon link as well, it's probably a cognitive bias as we're used to a solid shaft taking the stress rather than a link.
But I'm also a geek/nerd so the idea of a cable/hydraulic steering appeals to me. Also, all the huge mining machines use hydraulics so this is some strong stuff, I'd be more worried about sensitivity or lag.
  • 1 0
 If a few more linkages were added to the steering link, they’d be nothing stopping the extending out the lower head tube further than the top head tube. Extra super long wheel base with reasonable reach and head angle might be interesting for an Uber sled
  • 8 0
 Where can I get this 50/50 mixture of sand and maple syrup for lube? Asking for a friend.
  • 4 0
 Check Levy's bed after a day at the beach.
  • 1 0
 Canadian shore
  • 9 0
 Lots of umbrella bashing in this article. Dampens my spirit.
  • 8 0
 It's amazing what companies can do when they aren't constrained by the premise of trying to be profitable.
  • 5 0
 It's happening!! I've been following these guys for quite some time now, local outfit, see the van around town. I've been talking up the pros of linkage forks for a while now really hoping that someone can make a go of it. Between this and trust I'm pretty stoked. Now I need to get out on trail with one instead of just bouncing around the store.
  • 5 0
 13.5 lbs with frame, shock, fork and headset is not heavy; A fork weighs about 4.5 lbs, a headset is about 1/4 lb, rear shock 3/4 lb. That means the comparable frame weight is 8lbs w/o shock or 8.75 lbs with shock.
I can think of a number of popularized AM/EN/FR frames that weight that much or more. Seems kind of disingenuous to call this setup heavy.
Also since this is a new design, in a few years the designers aught to have more ability to shave weight, whereas current chassis design has been wittled away at for a couple decades.
  • 5 0
 I'm no engineer - however the genius of this design seems to be the headangle slackening and forward wheelbase growth that seemingly can only be achieved with the frame out design. Could that be why it doesn't have any of the "landing from a jump" harshness the the trust shout has?

Otherwise both linkage designs maintain or increase trail values through the travel range. And both have anti-dive kinematics. Which are tunable on the structure frame design to suit feel or terrain preferences. Not so on the trust.

Seems to me this is an all or nothing proposition. Linkage forks need to be frame out integrated to reap the real benefits they provide. Otherwise just stay with telescoping.

I personally would be more willing to try one of these frames before I would just mount a linkage fork on a conventional bike. At least with the current limited options. Nevertheless, this is an exceptional effort at very relatively reasonable price and weight concessions.
  • 2 0
 We would love to ride with you. Where are you located?

As far as the all-or-nothing proposition of a Structure bike, very true. That is true of the rear linkage on most frames, BB and headset types, and a number of other brand-specific details. In our case the commitment is to two shocks (which we hope is not too strange (FRONT SHOCK, MIke Levy. Yes, we said it.).

That said, a tremendous amount of possibility for tuning exists on our bike for those who like to tinker. DVO is certainly not the the only metric trunnion shock that fits the SCW1, although we're big fans of the crew at DVO. Coil at the rear and a four-way adjustable front shock? Doable.
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: North East Coast US. If you're doing Demo's this Summer PM for sure.
  • 1 0
 @fitnj: It's a deal.
  • 6 1
 You don't need a climb switch for the front shock. You can activate climb mode by placing your water bottle between the two headtubes.
  • 23 2
 At Structure we suggest zip ties and a drinking tube so every big hit gives you a sip.
  • 6 1
 @Magellan35: I'd buy it just cause you guys respond to questions, comments and critique from keyboard warriors. Thanks for not weaseling around.
  • 2 0
 @Christophza: You're welcome. We can't improve if we hide.
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: I like it too. I had a Cannondale hardtail with a Girvin linkage fork with a coil shock and Spin wheels in about 1998. Was that fork called the vector? Unfortunately ended up cracking the rear wheel doing a whip on the ol hardtail. Maybe it’s time for me to ride another linkage fork. When I say linkage fork, I mean your bike, not one of the linkage forks out there.
  • 2 0
 @Rageingdh: it would've been either a Girvin Vector one or two, depending on if the stem was integrated into the upper mount or not (the two's let you use your own stem). I really enjoyed my carbon smert vector 2 fork, very fun fork to ride given the noodle legged competition of the time. When bushings supplies started to dry up after Girvin was absorbed by K2, I sold it for what I could and got a "long" travel Z1 bomber with a glorious 5" of travel.
  • 1 0
 @bbpr: It was the vector 2. Thanks for that.
  • 6 2
 Please make a project with Zerode. That bike would be awesome. And then it would be great to get Shimano on board to cut the costs for the transmission. That bike would probably outperform any existing bike.
  • 7 3
 Nah. It needs something like Forbidden Druid - high pivot with pulley.
  • 4 2
 @kyytaM: Deviate Guide :-)
  • 5 4
 Oh god, please don't ruin this bike with a silly gearbox.
  • 1 1
 @kyytaM: This is what i was thinking about.

@mikelevy would a high pivot rear suspension layout give this bike the performance it needs to match the front AND give it the pedalling efficiency it has?
  • 7 0
 what if lazaar was right though
  • 2 0
 DARPA called... "Project 115" is missing from S4
  • 5 0
 I think a huck-to-flat video is a requirement for this one.

Pretty sure I saw this thing in Starship Troopers. The bug, an ugly but efficient (trail) killing machine.
  • 2 0
 there is actually one on their site -looks not too bad
  • 4 0
 I only remember the shower scene.
  • 1 0
 @OneTrustMan: And Dougie Hauser.
  • 1 0
 It’s on their Instagram, link attached.

www.instagram.com/p/BwLoURYAP87/?igshid=c1z6y1ppylb9
  • 6 0
 I somehow think this doesn´t look as bad as a "normal" frame with a Trust fork.
  • 3 0
 Great article Mr Levy. I enjoy the chatter quite abit at the end of each article. I look forward too and learn tons off the chatter. Perhaps waki could learn to be nice and learn from all the info as opposed to being critical and a troll
  • 1 0
 Thanks Smile
  • 3 0
 Speaking of which, where is Waki?
  • 2 0
 @laksboy: have been thinking the same thing. Kinda surprised not to see his comments in here. I think the bike looks kinda neat. Maybe he does too so nothing negative to say about it. Lol
  • 6 0
 I like it.
Does that mean I have to be set on fire?
  • 6 0
 naild r3act out back with this up front
  • 2 0
 It might be a match in suspension performance but unfortunately I don't think the r3act system aces in rigidity.
  • 3 0
 The moment it did everything better than a standard bike, iis when I'd no longer care about the looks. Sounds like it's very close. Also with the weight, it might be a good candidate for a moped e- bike thing.
  • 2 0
 well, this is interesting. not too often we see something that is so different and yet also sounds like has the potential to be substantially better than the status quo. Agree its looks disconcerting; will be interesting to see if they can convince people that that the look is irrelevant given the performance. I know a UCI level DH bike/team/sponsorship is most likely not feasible, but this seems like the perfect sort of thing to put to the test in that sort of environment.
  • 2 0
 I'm intrigued @Magellan35 is the long top link at the front required to give enough leverage to turn the bike or is there another reason? I'm intrigued enough to try to find one to ride, I have zero fashion sense anyway (according to SWAMBO) so I really don't care what it looks like.

Be interesting to see Dave Weagle's/Cesar Rojo's rear suspension added to this, would it reduce some of the choppiness from the back end that @mikelevy described? Kudo's for trying something outside the norm too, hope it works out for you.
  • 4 1
 Yes, the front steering links are as long as they are to apply proper leverage for turning and handling big torque inputs. As for looks, we don't mind being polarizing as long as function is on target. Regarding the rear, interestingly our rear kinematics overlay a number of very popular enduro bikes almost exactly. It's just that the linkage front tracks the ground and rolls over obstacles almost too well. Giving up pedalling efficiency...well, that's something we'll have to think about long and hard!
  • 1 1
 If you are in the Vancouver/Whistler area message me and we can set up a demo ride for you. I am the Regional Ambassador for the area and would be more than happy to take you out for a spin.
  • 2 0
 @blackers I’ve ridden this bike a lot. The backend isn’t choppy. It’s perceived to be more choppy because the front end is that good. IMHO
  • 1 0
 @funfonzie: Thank you for an independent viewpoint from someone who has ridden the SCW1 quite a bit. When Mike learned that our rear kinematics basically overlay one of his favourite rides (which comes with a telescoping fork), he was surprised.

Progress often results from improving one thing and then finding that another is not as perfect as we supposed!
  • 3 1
 Overall, I like it. Sounds amazing.
Question on the looks: Why does the linkage need to stick so much in front of the bike? Couldn't this be done with shorter version, slacker angle that will make it resemble a more standard bike/fork and also make it more compact?
  • 2 1
 We can do a number of things differently, such as shortening the linkage, but every decision carries knock-on effects. In this case the goal was long travel and as linear an axle path as possible, so...long arms.

Regarding slackness, we chose 66° because we wanted nimble handling at/near sag. By 60% of the way into the travel in pitch (compression of only the front suspension), the 66° of the SCW1 is slacker than even a DH bike, which starts at ~63° static and ends up at ~73° at full compression. It takes long arms to hit these targets the way we wanted..
  • 4 1
 @Magellan35: You're the best brand ambassador i've seen on pinkbike in a long time. No bullshit, funny, and educational. Hope you make it out to california on a demo tour this summer.
  • 1 1
 @kittenjuice: Thank you sincerely! We are 100% in this for riders. We'll be at the Sea Otter Classic. Can you make it out?
  • 1 0
 @Magellan35: I'm enjoying reading all (well, many) of the comments and your thoughtful and good-humored replies! In this case I believe the question is about the steering link arms. I think the answer is that for the same steering torque loads, longer steering links allow for smaller forces at the spherical bearing and more precision between rotation at the bars (upper steerer tube) and the fork (lower steerer tube). Also, shorter links would become nearly co-linear when the suspension is full extended, requiring a bearing that could transmit torsion, which the required spherical bearing does not. Not sure if that explanation is clear without a sketch.
  • 1 0
 @dcmackintosh: That explanation works perfectly, and is 100% accurate. You're right that there was a bit of confusion about steering links vs the main suspension links, which we call "control arms" at Structure.
  • 2 0
 I like it! I've always been a function over form guy and with a little more refinement this could be my next to next bike. Make it a mullet bike, add the secret sauce from the 2020 Specialized Enduro rear suspension, fit water bottle in the frame and I'm in.

The loss of front suspension travel / front end dive when descending steep terrain with the brakes on has always been a big problem for me. Sure you can add more pressure to your fork (or make it more linear such as with the DSD Runt which works better) and this helps in that situation but makes the fork harsher / less compliant in other situations.
  • 2 0
 The shop I work at stocks these, and I am really hoping to swing a demo for a few days to try it out. It’s an interesting concept and if it works as well as Levy claims it may be worth the price and the odd looks from strangers. As for maintenance, it doesn’t look like much more of a PITA than any V10 style Santa Cruz (to my mechanic’s eyes, at least).
  • 3 0
 Only really looks a bit dodgy from the side. It seems like linkage forks do have something to offer. Perhaps in a few years we'll all be on linkage forked lightweight e-bikes Smile
  • 5 0
 Still a hardcore 27.5 fan, this thing looks crazy cool. Love the innovation
  • 2 0
 At long last a company has put into practice something that makes real sense! And, after 6 months of testing this new suspension the bike comes out on top. The ultra conservative attitude of the big manufacturers who dare not rock the boat and continue to sell the telescopic fork that was designed close on a hundred years ago, garnishing it in coatings and slippery who knows what, well now they must look and learn. That old suspension system is very well known for its failings and effects on geometry and at last we have a suspension system on the market that works. Will the conservative riders that on the one hand embrace the multitude of rear suspensions, yet stick rigidly and misguidedly to telescopic forks please finally agree the future has begun? And when do we see the arrival of the new front mounted internal derailleur system please?
  • 5 0
 If the T800 road a bicycle.
  • 3 0
 I guess the question, is how much of the front linkage can you see when you're riding it?
Guess this one works and the Trust sounds like an overinflated XC fork.
  • 6 0
 This is brilliant.
  • 3 0
 I hate that I'm such a superficial bastard but I don't think I can ever get over how this thing looks.. then again, I really like brussels sprouts.
  • 2 2
 We have a deep fried chicolate bar here for you (according to Mike).
  • 3 2
 I feel like this is one of those skin tight Lycra suits in DH moments... sure it performs better... but The UCI banned it because it looked utterly ridiculous. I get a sweat on thinking about changing all the frame bearings in my 4bar linkage frame... now this has multilink front and rear... I count about 18 bearings alone in that front linkage setup, including the 2 headsets! Everyone slate orange for being overly simple... but 2 bearings front and rear with some new bushings your good to go for another season.
  • 6 1
 Fork Shock

=

Frock?

Shork?
  • 7 2
 Didn't read the article. Straight to the comments
  • 27 1
 Same
  • 12 2
 @mikelevy: Same. Just kidding.
  • 3 0
 ''What the hell is that, and why are you riding it?'' Screamed the stranger in terror and panic while he failed to open his car door due to his shaking hands..
  • 1 0
 Just out of curiosity, could you notice any difference in the suspension performance when you had the bars turned, as opposed to going in a straight line?

I would guess that the type of corner that requires you to turn your bars enough to generate any serious side loading in all the linkages is also going to require you to go so slow that it makes no difference.

Cool product.
  • 2 1
 Good question! Nope, I couldn't feel any difference. I don't think it'd ever bind up.
  • 5 0
 What's wrong with umbrellas?
  • 5 1
 Nothing. But there is an aversion to them in the Pacific Northwest, always has been. I sincerely don’t know where it came from but growing up here—people are anti-umbrella! I was a product of this vibe. I thought they were big and brutal and dumb. I only started using one a few years ago, and yeah—lemme tell you—umbrellas are great!
Maybe it has something to do with showing off your gore tex jacket or something.
It’s definitely a thing here though. A quiet thing. A passive aggressive sleeper macho comment here or there, that’s exactly where you’ll encounter it. Kinda like here!
Umbrellas are so sick.
Although the a*shole giant golf umbrella is the MAGA hat of the Seattle. F those things.
  • 3 1
 @owl-X: Agreed, I don't know why it's like that here in the PNW. You'd think everyone would have multiple umbrellas here.
  • 4 0
 @mikelevy: I'm still working it out, but there's a greater connection to the whole Seattle Freeze / PNW Flake Phenomenon going on too. It's all related. Somehow. The biggest music festival in the region is named for an umbrella, something we insist we hate, and it's some weird curly mustache version of the word, "bumbershoot."
Self loathing Stockholm Syndromers with the preemptive sabotage so we can save ourselves from ourselves with our waterproof breathables.

I'm popping the bubble. Catch me in a leather NASCAR jacket under an umbrella.
  • 3 0
 I think it's because when it rains as much as it does in the PNW, you just invest in good rain gear instead of an umbrella. If it only rains occasionally, you just grab your umbrella and head out the door.
  • 2 0
 @owl-X: "Tourist!" Razz
  • 1 0
 Can we give it some clothes? A shrink-to-fit futuristic gauze to just cover all the uncomfortable-looking things, an omnidirectional shock boot for the whole bike? So it doesn't look like a strange pac man with braces.

I find it notable that most of the riding shots are butt flavor. Let's see some 30° coming-at-us shots, or a vid of it approaching through some roots.

I don't doubt it works. But what are we doing here?
  • 2 0
 I think it fits more into the steampunk genre.
  • 1 0
 This is one of those rare scenarios where the "pushing down on front fork..er, suspension" and the parking lot test that felt good actually directly resulted in actual on positive performance on trail.

I pedaled around on the Structure bike in parking lot C at Crankworks last year as well, perhaps the same bike as used in the test. The bike felt just like it looks, like there is plush rear suspension directly in front of you. Parking lot test felt good for how little that was worth. I'd like to see this as a 29" with a long top tube and more Pole like seat tube angle!

I encouraged the Structure team to get these out in popular riding locations so people could get out and get firsthand riding experience on them. Possible coming Hood River...
  • 1 0
 The only times I saw that sort of design before was many many years ago with some 2WD moto-cross prototypes. I remember that I was completely obsessed by these machines because in MX`s world it was kind of a concern.
Funny to see that this kind of design, which is not new at all, reappears and redisappears regularly as years are passing by. Makes me think that despite of its qualities, this design will never really pierce because of its alien singularity. I might be wrong though..
  • 2 1
 I like the idea, and it has been done elsewhere, but I'll stick with my maple syrup and sand (which works great for me right now - and on that note I actually like to feel what's happening under my front wheel) until it's at least astetically pleasing and not nearly completely proprietary.
Yeah yeah, there's other linkage forks, but I am simply not ready to invest until it's established, proven, and doesn't look like you've bolted something on to the front of your bicycle that you could also fend off an Alien invasion with. I'm all for function over form but good lord these things are unsightly.
  • 4 0
 This is actually nothing close to as ugly as a trust fork on any bike... what a glowing review!
  • 3 0
 So it’s really, really good but kinda ugly. Maybe it’s time to redefine what a mountain bike “should” look like? If it’s that much better I’d be down.
  • 1 1
 I agree.

As the Regional Ambassador for Structure Cycles in the Vancouver/Whistler, if you are in the area, message me and we can set you up for a demo ride.
  • 4 0
 @mikelevy so how do the different anti-dive settings compare on the trail? Was surprised this wasn't in the article.
  • 1 0
 I still have serious doubts. While @mikelevy is a serious rider, and offers great insight, based on his bio, he's not a huge guy that would really put those linkage points through the ringer. I'd really be interested to see how the bike/fork holds up to someone what exerts a little more force to them, and already has a reputation of breaking traditional bike/fork designs.

Personally, being someone 6'4" and over 240lbs, I not sure I would entrust my life to that design, as I think on the first ride I'd snap it like a turkey wishbone...which would quickly be followed by a smashed up face.
  • 4 1
 These are all fair concerns. To address them we've built extremely strong, stiff individual links. Even the upper and lower steering links are almost solid carbon fiber much thicker than a bar end (I'll come back to that in a sec).

When the upper and lower control arms are mechanically connected to form a box of 8 points, it creates an incredibly stiff structure (consider how difficult it is to twist a box) with a typical - if truncated - steering head for the fork, which itself is immensely stiff due to its double crown, single-piece construction, and relatively short arms. The sum of these parts is a system that is 25% stiffer than a typical enduro telescoping fork.

Importantly, reduction in the chance of OTB is the main reason the SCW1 was designed in the first place, so we're thinking about keeping riders out of trouble, not getting them into it. Our factory builds bikes for other major brands and stands behind our lifetime warranty with riders like you in mind, and none of us wants to see you hurt.

Back to that carbon handlebar. We made sure it was by far the weakest point in the system.
  • 2 1
 If you are in the Vancouver/Whistler area message me and we can set up a demo ride for you. I am the Regional Ambassador for the area and would be more than happy to take you out for a spin.

I am 6'1" 200lbs am will be ripping this wicked ride all over the North Shore Mountains here in Vancouver. I'll definitely do a long term test review after a full season of riding.
  • 1 0
 @Ithillien: unfortunately (or fortunately) I'm in the Okanagan, but look forward to reading your full review.

Happy trails, and always land rubber side down.
  • 1 0
 @roberm: I believe we have a Rep in Vernon. I can get you in touch.
  • 1 0
 Very cool to see a small company pursue their dream. I would love to try one out. It would be super fascinating to ride and it sounds like it would be really fun. The fact that its short and stable makes me wonder what incredible things they could do if they went 'full enduro.' Hopefully they'll be able to stay in business long enough to create a V2. Horrible visual identity on this thing though. That's certainly going to hold it back, which is a shame. I'm certain this layout could look acceptable with a new set of frame molds.
  • 1 1
 If you are in the Vancouver/Whistler area message me and we can set up a demo ride for you. I am the Regional Ambassador for the area and would be more than happy to take you out for a spin.
  • 1 0
 "I would have liked to see something in the 470 to 480mm range that I've been feeling so comfortable with lately." But you said the bike is easier to go 10/10ths than anything else... So that means the geo is pretty spot on...
  • 1 0
 This bike proves that I'm too vain to get outta my own way. The silverlining of this bike is that you don't, and shouldn't, have to look at it while riding it. I'm in the camp that I'd like to try one, but I would hate to field all the baggage that would come with the bike at trailheads.
  • 1 0
 Really?
  • 1 0
 mm. definitely the future, can't say i'm hoping on this train yet. but if we aren't pushing the limits, we're not going anywhere. Definitely happy to see new concepts, just think they should rething that horn/steering contraption sticking out the front. I'd just be worried that i'd go headfirst into a tree or rock and snap that sucker :0. Otherwise, very cool concept, will probably go with a Trust fork if it had to be a linkage fork. looks a tad bit prettier in my opinion.
  • 7 4
 Please make an Aggro carbon 180mm linkage driven front travel hardtail and crush them steel is real bros soul :-)
  • 1 1
 Yes! This as a hardcore hardtail would be the bees' knees! Not that I would buy it, since HCHTs for me are all about highest amount of childish giggles per buck.
  • 1 0
 This is no match for my realest-of-steels 853 hardtail....
  • 5 4
 That appendage sticking out the front looks really bad. I bet its really easily damaged too. Great ideas but in terms of practical design to minimise crash damage its poorly executed.
  • 13 2
 just think of it as a bumper to skewer ebike riders with
  • 6 2
 The carbon steering links have much thicker wall thickness than a handlebar and have been cased into rocks and trees many times with zero failures of the linkage (including when Levy cased a tree on a prototype three years ago). You'll break your bars before you break the steering links.
  • 5 1
 Agreed, it looks spindly but doesn't seem like it in person. After riding the bike for awhile, I wouldn't worry about it.
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy: fair enough lads. But i stand by what i say it still looks pretty bad. However im sure with future models and designs it will look better with time. Its also good to see people thinking outside the box...or should i say thinking outside the telescopic forks!
  • 4 0
 Looks like one of those Boston Dynamics warzone robots
  • 1 1
 I always wondered who has the money and time to invest in this sort of design venture, it must cost an adsolute fortune, shurly someone in the early design meetings of the bike would have brought up the whyte prst. The back end looks nice abit of an old devinchi Wilson and evil mix.
  • 4 2
 We know and respect the Whyte Preston bikes at Structure. However, the purpose and layout of the the Structure and Whyte bikes are entirely different from one another, with a big emphasis for Structure being on ease of maintenance and durability.
  • 3 0
 I would love to see this front end with the rear end using the Naild R3ACT 2PLAY system
  • 2 0
 I would rock that all day long, just to annoy the haters.
  • 4 4
 @mikelevy That was both fun and interesting to read. However, a bit of writing feedback: the sentence below is painful to read. Maybe it could've been reorganized or broken up.
"At no other point did I come across the same issue with locking the front wheel in any other situation, even under the heaviest of braking from hyperspace to a dead stop, or on steep-but-not-that-steep rock slabs, and low-speed maneuvers using the front brake were the same as on any other bike."
  • 4 1
 Ooof, that one does annoy me a bit. Good catch Smile
  • 1 1
 Yamaha used a similar linkage for steering on some of their snowmobiles back in the day (Phazer, Exciter and some others), and a big problem with those was bushing play in the steering.
A little bit of play in the bushings got amplified for each bushing, and the end result was that barely noticeable play in each bushing added up to a whole lot of slop between skis and handlebar.
This would need some pretty amazing bushings to avoid this in the long term.
  • 4 0
 It uses bearings.
  • 5 0
 not very similar, the phazer has long tie rod ends, drag links and a pretty puny linkage (to keep the stanction lined up with the uppers, keeping the ski straight) on a telescopic strut that is attached directly to the ski. Instead of a shock that is controlled by links that alter the leverage ratios and angles as it moves through its stroke. The phazer is basically just a big wide conventional fork.
  • 1 0
 @basalt: Except it's not, the play comes from the bushings in the "knee" by the skis.
If they are widely enough spaced, it shouldn't really be a problem though.
  • 4 0
 Anyone want to buy a Pole Evolink 131 with Lyrik for, oh, about $4,750?
  • 4 0
 finally, a linkage design i can trust
  • 2 0
 29er, Fox X2 front and rear, dwlink (or some other similar hover suspension, VPP et al) in the back and a bit lighter and this looks amazing...
  • 3 0
 Anyone remember when Top Gear made their own car? This looks like that in bike form
  • 2 0
 That's called the grim donut
  • 3 0
 I suspect this is the underhanded free throw of mountain biking. Far superior but everybody is too embarrassed to use it.
  • 2 0
 Geometry is in the database for comparison... although I'm not sure this is 'apples with apples'!
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/structure-scw1-2020
  • 3 0
 If it already performs better than a telescopic fork in the first iteration, this has to be the future. Pretty cool!
  • 8 5
 Looks like a session (at the back)
  • 4 1
 Looks like Pacman's mouth
  • 7 0
 needs one of the old bomber mouth /teeth paint jobs though
  • 7 2
 @optimumnotmaximum: We already have that planned!
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: nice! Will look badass for sure.
  • 3 0
 @Magellan35: Nice! The mouth could open and close as the linkage compresses!
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy what anti-dive setup were you riding? I'm curious about the strange braking behaviour. Thx.
  • 5 2
 Unless Levy contradicts me, I think he was likely at the 17% dive-reduction position. We discussed this over the phone and Levy and I suspect that for lighter riders a twin-pot front caliper may be just the ticket. The Magura four-pots are wickedly powerful with a 203 mm rotor on a bike that uses braking force to more to slow the bike than compress the suspension.
  • 1 1
 @Magellan35: is there a possibility that the increasing head angle also caused this strange braking behavior?
  • 2 0
 @Magellan35: so I found an OK side view and modelled the bike based on that. Well, I'm very impressed by its curves! Well done. Continuous trail (unlike Trust) and that anti dive is nice and flat! Damn I wanna try one!
I seem to miss some progressivity in the leverage ratio though?
  • 1 0
 @zojdson: Very cool that you went to the effort! Front and rear have similar, slightly progressive leverage curves that work great with the Topaz T3AIRs we spec.
  • 1 0
 @rifu: Not the increasing head angle specifically, but greater resistance to dive means that more braking force is aplied to slowing the bike than to compressing the suspension.

No one else has reported the same sudden grab without room to modulate at the lever, and there's nothing in the articulation of the linkage that would make brakes bite harder mechanically, so our theory is that the braking force applied was simply too great for available grip at the contact patch in a near-vertical drop situation. The bike in question might have simply had a particularly hard-biting set of Maguras, but it's more likely that twin-pot calipers will serve lighter riders better than the extremely powerful four-pots on the bike Mike tested. We'll keep a careful eye on this and do some testing with other calipers, for sure.
  • 3 0
 will definetly need a good mudguard for that one
  • 2 0
 Lots of good aftermarket options out there. We have considered designing one, but in thousands of hours of testing the DVOs have been unfazed by muck on the rebound knob and climb switch. We wash the bikes with soap, water, and a long-bristled brush on a regular basis and find it takes only a few minutes. Muddy tires are far worse to clean than the front links, I promise!
  • 2 0
 don't know why, but it reminds me of a spider terminator. but it's so ugly it's almost beautiful.
  • 2 0
 Expensive, but look at the spec, and production volume. Gotta say it's pretty good
  • 2 0
 Only $400 more than the Santa Cruz with shock and fork. Pretty impressive considering the number of bearings and other parts.
  • 2 0
 @Hydrophobic: And if that Santa Cruz has a linkage fork....
  • 2 1
 If there is a real benefit to divorcing damper and spring progression ( and employing a leaf spring) I would think this is a prime opportunity.
  • 2 0
 They need to get out on a demo tour and let the people ride it. Sounds cool.
  • 5 2
 We're on it!
  • 2 1
 @Magellan35: Good. When are you coming to the San Diego area.
  • 1 1
 @RayDolor: We won't get that far south, but we have a regional ambassador in California and will be at Sea Otter. Come up and visit!
  • 1 1
 As the Regional Ambassador for Structure Cycles in the Vancouver/Whistler, if you are in the area, message me and we can set you up for a demo ride!
  • 1 0
 Wish the Trust Shout had this kind of review. Seems to be trying to solve the same problem, but Trust went for optimizing anti-dive. Maybe a bit too much?
  • 1 2
 exactly, but I'll probably still get one cuz I'm tired of fighting with telescopic forks ... though I suppose the Shout will probably fight my efforts too, but in a different way
  • 4 0
 I DO like umbrellas.
  • 1 1
 If it is buttery smooth like this on a air shock then surely a coil shock would feel other worldly. If this bike ever gets a second iteration I hope they include the ability to put a coil shock on it.
  • 1 1
 Coils both ends!
  • 1 1
 @littleskull99: We will definitely be looking at how to make room for a coil on both ends in the future. At the moment, the DVOs have a large negative spring and very little friction, so they get moving and stay moving beautifully.
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy did you ever endo? Curious to know the durability of the elephant trunk.
  • 3 0
 Yeah, one really big one. I had a few other random spills as well, but just the usual stuff that would happen on any bike. Zero damage to the SCW 1.
  • 2 1
 29er & 3#s lighter and I feel like they have an incredibly compelling machine.
I don't care about the looks, but either way, it'll grow on us.
  • 2 0
 Agreed, those numbers would make it really appealing.
  • 1 0
 I'm sure, pretty sure, that there are other ways to achieve the desired front axle path during fork compression, without looking like an exo-skeleton from hell.
  • 1 0
 It ain't stupid if it works! ..should be their tagline.
Would love to try one, not sure about owning one.. I guess they could aim for the rental market to start? Smile
  • 2 1
 Silver Star will have SCW1 rental bikes this season.
  • 3 0
 slo-mo...huck to flat please. I want to see the flex vs a standard fork.
  • 3 1
 Looks like a session.........that was totaled.
  • 2 3
 I'm a bit worried about the "the only loads it sees are from steering" bit. Sometimes you hit a stone and it puts a lot of stress in the steering, and if your stem isn't tight enough you have to realign the steering.
  • 2 2
 The steering links are almost solid carbon, and much thicker than a carbon bar. We've often experienced what you're describing and have to realign the stem/bars, but this causes no problems for the steering links.
  • 6 4
 Linkage forks are the future, they will get less ugly, get over it.
  • 2 0
 The perfect bike for keeping yeti clad tourist at bay - sign me up
  • 1 1
 But how will it fare in crash tests? The front end looks like it will take more damage than conventional forks and head tubes...
  • 1 0
 isn't this bike guaranteed NOT to crash?????

Ladies and Gentlemen, keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times, for your safety.
  • 5 2
 In several years of testing we have cased the front into many trees and rocks with no failures of the steering or linkage system, which is 25% stiffer than a typical enduro telescoping fork.

With a lifetime warranty on frame and bearings and reasonable crach replacement pricing, we're here for you when things go sideways. Of course, a bike that handles better in the first place will (ideally) crash less often!
  • 3 0
 Cool AF!
  • 1 1
 I feel that if they somehow manage to invert the front linkage backwards into the wheel/downtube gap they would hit the jackpot aesthetics wise.
  • 1 3
 I love this. But history tells us that simplicity always wins. Also this bike looks like it could really use a product designer. It looks typical of something made by an engineer: impressive technically, unbalanced and amateurish from a design perspective.. Just cause carbon lets you mold shapes doesn’t mean you can just bolt together a bunch random curvy pieces. I’m excited to to see v2, and curious if a hardtail version would work better!
  • 1 0
 We are surround by cars, planes, and computers in our pocket among other things. We need none of these but oddly enough we can live without them. simplicity in process but not in innovation.
  • 2 0
 The Weissach axle immediately comes to mind. I think you need to re-read those history books. Unnecessarily complicated is what I think you’re referring to.
And hardtail? Really? Why make the rear of the bike perform even worse? It already can’t keep up with the front. HT sounds terrible, especially considering the HTA change if not accompanied by some rear squish, too.
  • 1 0
 @erikkellison: with that logic why do hardtails even exist then? The lengthening of the wheelbase, as opposed to the steepening/shortening of the wheelbase of a typical fork, should benefit handling.
  • 1 2
 @blackthorne: good question, why do they even exist when we have good dual suspension bikes available? Why not take a hard tail Harley off road too instead of a dirt bike and see how that works. Why anyone would buy a hard tail is beyond me.
  • 2 1
 @Twenty6ers4life: cheaper, more durable, and more fun.... The real question is why arent you riding one?
  • 1 2
 @Civicowner: More fun? LMFAO! Not even close! I’d rather be in control while having a nice plush ride when I’m hammering rocks, roots, drops, and jumps. None of those are fun on a hard tail
  • 2 1
 @Twenty6ers4life: Did you really just say jumps are less fun on a hardtail? Have you even ridden a decent hardtail with good geometry? Have you even ridden a bmx? Or are you sticking to your 2012 26 inch freeride bike and refusing to try anything new? Bmx riders do just fine with no suspension on drops to flat likely bigger than youve ever hit.

Anyway, how often do you really make use of your 180mm rig? Have you ever tried underbiking for once?
  • 3 1
 @Twenty6ers4life: your reply is at odds with your username.
  • 1 2
 @Civicowner: 1st of all, I’m not talking about a groomed super smooth bmx track where you land smoothly on the downside of jumps. I’m talking about MOUNTAIN BIKING offroad. 2nd, my bike is a 2014, not 2012 and yes, I do use all of that travel on almost every ride. I’d rather have too much travel than not enough, or I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
  • 1 2
 @Twenty6ers4life: Maybe stop casing all the jumps then.

Do you need a shock in each spoke so you can fall asleep riding your bike and not get bounced around? SOme of us actually like to feel like we are riding a trail rather than a smooth road. Is that why you need so many stem spacers? So you can be in the old man cruiser bike position?

Also, I never knew people still rode doubles.....
  • 3 1
 @Twenty6ers4life: too much travel rather than too little? are you compensating for something?
  • 2 1
 @Jonahecker: lmfao, go big or go home bro!
  • 2 1
 @Twenty6ers4life: his name is Civicowner... I don’t think he’s riding a hardtail by choice... probably justifying the choice he had to make. We all want to be happy with our choices, so we defend them, even if there are better options (Or maybe we just learn to love what we have?). It’s not that HTs aren’t fun, but this is an article about a bike where the rear can’t keep up with the front already. HT will make that disparity even worse, and lead to even worse performance on the trail. But hey, if you’re more about “having fun” on your HT than riding trails fast, you do you. This bike probably isn’t for you.
  • 1 2
 @Civicowner: Wow, that was a really weak response. You should just stop, you’re just making yourself look bad man. If u really like to feel the trail, why don’t u ride a full rigid? Seems like you’d like it. Did I trigger u bro? Maybe u should go to your safe space for awhile until u feel better. Civic owner,,,,lmfao!
  • 1 1
 @erikkellison: Rear not being able to keep up with the front is the fun part... so much easier to jump, pump and manual a hardtail.... and i ride a custom steel hardtail, i could easily afford a full sus if i wanted to Razz

FYI i dont own a civic....
  • 3 0
 getting a chuckle at these replies. If you're not fast on a hardtail... it's cuz you're not fast.
  • 2 0
 @kittenjuice: you’re missing the point entirely. It’s not about who can ride what “fast,” or whether Rider A on a HT is faster than Rider B on FS. It’s not about the rider. It’s that HTs, by design, aren’t as fast as FS, because the tire can’t grip as well. Viewing FS as a crutch for riders who “aren’t fast on a HT” is more Divisive BS. We’re all riders here - if your self worth comes from being a HT rider who is faster than your FS peers, I feel sorry for you.
  • 1 0
 I'm thinking @richardcunningham retired to license this design and restart Mantis.
  • 2 0
 So this is what a two wheeled stapler looks like.
  • 2 0
 Dare I say make it an E-bike? Would be interesting to see
  • 2 0
 if this the answer, wtf is the question??
  • 2 0
 The lol is off the charts!
  • 2 0
 The review the Mezzer wishes it was.
  • 1 0
 nah the mezzer is the class leader before you even get it dialed in.
  • 1 0
 @kittenjuice: it's a shame PB got a bunk unit.
  • 1 0
 @panzer103: lol if you're reading pinkbike reviews for anything but entertainment, that's your loss.
  • 2 0
 I think the steering should be in the back...
  • 1 0
 I appreciate the thoughtful review and previous comments, but what happens when you leave the ground, aka take air?
  • 2 1
 Check out the videos of the SCW1 catching air at:

structure.bike
  • 2 0
 I always carry an umbrella in my bag.
  • 2 0
 Make an ebike version, I’m pretty sure you’d clean up.
  • 2 0
 -But is it better than the Grim donut?
  • 1 0
 Im really starting to like the look of it. Its futuristing and I hate fork dive so I need a demo. When u in the UK guys?
  • 1 1
 We have a bike in Bath now and more to come. Drop us a line at contactus@structure.bike and we'll see what we can set up.
  • 2 0
 UK Ambassador here - drop me a line.
  • 2 0
 Sand and maple syrup is my favorite sex lube
  • 1 1
 I want a filter,or graphic content warning.. those still hurt my brain...maybe make a sister-site for those twisted people whom take pleasure in watching stuff like this..
  • 2 1
 For something to be a progress it's need to be simple. This is not simple. Same with cars...
  • 1 0
 you mean simple as a spaceship or simple as a wodden wheel ?
  • 1 0
 Wow !!!! Fantastic front end...and a fullshit at the back!!! What a pity!!!
  • 1 0
 The back of the back looks outdated like that. Needs a dual crown fork with a coil seatpost.
  • 4 3
 When you want to ride your guillotine on the trails.
  • 5 7
 Hmmm maybe they can make suspension for the wheels now, put a shock in every spoke. I guess they can fit a shock in the stem as well, and make the bike so smooth you would fall asleep
  • 1 1
 Are you unfamiliar with suspension stems?
  • 4 0
 Raises questions doesn’t it? What are we hoping to achieve when we ride our bikes in the woods? Go faster? Have more ‘fun’? What makes more sense, to make an easy trail more rewarding or a tech trail easier? Guess it depends on you and where/what you ride. I loved the challenge of riding my hardtail but now use a full suss more often as my ageing bones cant take an all day battering.
  • 1 0
 I need to start slapping fork designs at people.
  • 5 4
 Imagine how much it would cost to replace the bearings lol
  • 7 2
 We recommend inspection at 250 hours and offer lifetime warranty on the frame and bearings (see structure.bike for details). After a very busy 2019 riding season, we've had to replace zero bearings in our fleet of demo and press bikes. We've also made bearing replacement as simple as possible.
  • 3 2
 I will buy this alu prototype for half of the price Wink
  • 2 0
 Mike "Cheat Switch" Levy
  • 1 1
 They say not to put your hands anywhere you wouldn't put your d***, no way I'd be reaching for that climb switch!
  • 4 2
 AHHH my eyes !
  • 1 0
 Good from far....really far.
  • 2 0
 definitely not a session
  • 3 0
 What do you mean? It's got two wheels and a handlebar. Just like a Session does.
  • 1 0
 I can’t remember WTF the rebound was set at on my WTF
  • 1 2
 Part of my motivation to go ride is to like the look of my bike. This bike would make me want to run the other way. To each their own however.
  • 1 0
 Internal routing, no thanks
  • 1 0
 Hmmm, E-bike? Anyonoe have 15-20K in their wallets to burn?
  • 1 0
 Yay! more pivots to worry about....
  • 3 1
 one word : WHY?
  • 8 3
 We love and ride typical bikes with telescoping forks too, but there's too little room to improve them much in the future. The only way to do that was to take a big leap and make front and rear do the same things. Rear linkage has worked well for a long time; now we know the same principles bring benefits at both ends.
  • 1 4
 It's wierd as shit, but it seems like the question has been answered: It rides well, perhaps better than a conventional bike.

If the Shout had been as successfully reviewed, perhaps there'd be more buy in ...

I really appreciate what this bike represents, but I'd probably get a Shout before I'd buy a dedicated frame/fork system.
  • 1 1
 I don't get why it needs that spherical joint? Wouldn't a normal bearing suffice?
  • 3 0
 Because the fork actually swings up on an arc, when the bars are fully turned the lower steering link (connected to the fork) and upper steering link (connected to the handlebar) twist slightly in relation to each other. This would break a typical hinge, so we use a spherical to deal with the twist while the sealed cartridge bearings flanking it deal almost frictionlessly with folding and extension of the steering links.
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy curious which steep slab you locked up on?
  • 1 0
 It was on Labor of Love in Squamish. There's a rock roll onto a wooden roll down, or the B-line to the rider's left that's much longer but not quite as steep. It was right at the top of the B-line.
  • 2 1
 No more riding buddies with this one
  • 9 0
 Apparently because it's so fast you'll be already finishing your first beer before they arrive!
  • 4 2
 I quit earth.
  • 2 2
 Just no. I don't care how it rides... I can't get on board with any of this linkage trash.
  • 2 1
 This fork belongs on the Marin Wolf Ridge!
  • 1 0
 that feeling when u cant afford a pair of 40s
  • 1 0
 So.. could you swap that carbon dual crown for a Fox 40? :]
  • 1 0
 F making a 29er, make it 180mm f/r and 26+!
  • 1 0
 I'll wait for the E-bike version!
  • 1 0
 This design needs a pinion gearbox
  • 2 1
 So that first photo is after the train hit it?
  • 1 0
 Yes. Pretty durable, right?
  • 2 1
 the frame is too fat the linkage would snap horrific bike
  • 1 0
 We hope you'll re-read the article.
  • 1 0
 Who else wants to see this in a huck to flat video?
  • 1 0
 Please put aero bars on it.
  • 3 2
 mantisssssss
  • 1 0
 Might as well go all in and make it green, could there be a mullet mantis version to make this check all of the boxes?
  • 3 4
 I'm sorry for being this blatant, but this thing is ugly. No consistency, no cohesion in the design.
  • 1 0
 Nutcracker
  • 2 3
 Love innovation, its what drives us but the asethetics are equally important as well. Thats just not pleasing.
  • 2 3
 This bike shoud come with warning sticker: Use only in dark and far away from your neighbours.
  • 1 2
 That thing could make me faster than Loic, and there is still no way I could look at it and be stoked to go riding.
  • 2 2
 I'd take it for a rip with a bag on my head. That is one ugly ride.
  • 2 3
 This thing is so ugly, it should be mandatory to have an electric motor on it.
  • 1 1
 How it compares to a Santacruz? Fack outta here
  • 8 2
 Correct. Without Telescoping Fork.
  • 2 0
 First we have AF, now WTF. I sense a trend!
  • 2 0
 @railin: actually, this is WTFAF
  • 2 1
 BuT cAn IT TaKe cOiL?
  • 3 2
 Mike notes in the articel that the rear can take a coil, but the frame pocket up front is too small for a coil front shock.
  • 3 0
 @Magellan35: This was a joke I had made before I read the article haha. I said it mockingly about the front end of the bike.
  • 1 1
 gasoline, match, enjoy the show.
  • 1 1
 Make it an ebike and don't worry about the weight.
  • 1 0
 No bar spins...I'm out!
  • 1 1
 As the Regional Ambassador for Structure Cycles in Vancouver/Whistler, if you are in the area, message me and we can set you up for a demo ride.
  • 1 0
 Who did that
  • 1 1
 Another stupid suspension concept. Simple is better.
  • 2 0
 Simple is full rigid. We love all bikes, so there's definitely a place for full rigid, but they can be a bit hard on the body.
  • 1 1
 This fork makes the trust fork look good!! Lol
  • 1 2
 The back end of the bike seems decent
  • 3 4
 No room for a water bottle. I'm out.
  • 1 2
 holy crap... let's over complicate the ...ahh, screw it. Im out
  • 2 2
 We need the Grimm donut!
  • 5 1
 Soooooon
  • 1 2
 1st test is the bottle cage....none, then you should have stopped there!
  • 1 1
 looks like a session
  • 1 2
 too bulky, too many moving pieces, too expensive, keep it simple
  • 7 10
 "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"
  • 3 5
 reminds me of that piece of shit Whyte PRST 1 thing.
  • 1 3
 Pure sinnnnnnnnnnnnn
  • 4 2
 Sinn is German for sense. So You're saying this makes pure sense?
  • 1 0
 @travisgarton: haha, it would have 2 be a colin
  • 6 9
 27.5, tough timing.
  • 4 1
 Agreed, but a 29er is coming.
  • 3 2
 @mikelevy: Good to hear. It must be tough to spend all that time/cost developing 27.5 only to see trends swing toward 29 when you're too far along to make the switch on the initial product offering.
  • 5 0
 @Kiotae: yeah 27.5 is unrideable now that we've been marketed something else, how did we ever?? We're we really even having fun?
  • 3 0
 @mikelevy: if it was a Tantrum at the back...BEST BIKE EVER !!!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.054776
Mobile Version of Website