mtbsam

I kind of feel like with a price tag like that, they should stand quite out a bit more. I still run a pair of Twenty6 pedals (https://www.pinkbike.com/news/twenty6-predator-pedal-tested-2011.html) that retailed for about the same amount, and they are lighter and have a lot more work done to them in terms of shaving weight and contouring a flat, low profile pedal. I want to like these because they seem like cool guys and their facility is super nice, but I'd probably rather burn through 2 pairs of OneUp alloy pedals before I took the plunge on these.

I work for a company that makes similar style vacuum (or suction) cups and I was responsible for designing and building the newest version of our test equipment. I have seen what the vacuum performance of this type of equipment looks like, and without some sort of pump to regenerate vacuum level as it loses hold, I'd be terrified. The performance can be affected by anything from a piece of lint or hair under the seal to actual damage to the cup itself. Based on everything I've seen in my experience and testing, I wouldn't trust hanging a $400 bike off the roof with vacuum cups, let alone something much more expensive. It's a great concept in terms of temporary mounting, but it's definitely more temporary than would trust!

MANIAC!!!!!!!!!

I should also add that although this material APPEARS similar, I don't know how the chemical and physical properties/characteristics compare. I'm simply saying that foam is pretty cheap.

As always, there are a bunch of misconceptions flying around in the comments. The biggest I see is that people think the insert IS the spring. Air is still the spring, the foam insert simply makes the air volume dynamic (changes depending on conditions). As the pressure increases, the spacer volume decreases, and ultimately the air chamber volume increases. How much of this is happening? I don't know. It's clear from the graphs that the foam compresses very little until near the end of the stroke. The other thing to factor in is that less spacer you run, the less of the volume reduction you will see. I saw a few comments about how the charts have no numbers, and that is definitely a good point. I think the numbers were omitted because those charts apply only to formula forks with this particular spacer. However, if you put them in another fork, the ratio of overall volume to spacer volume will factor in. I really do think this is a somewhat valid idea, but the cost of that seems outrageous! I just looked online and..... https://www.mcmaster.com/#8637k151/=1caocy6