[fourarm]

This doesn't hit any of the "sponsored/race" segments (XC,Enduro,DH) and it doesn't hit the WW faction either. I don't see a significant target market at the eye popping price even if it has a magic carpet ride feel.

 

[alixta]

It hits the rs-1/lauf segment though.

 

[VTSession]

In 20 years this ridiculous thing will be hanging on the walls of shops everywhere just like the Girvin forks of the past.

 

[One Pivot]

The linkage marketing makes it seem like every telescoping fork just bobs wildly, undamped, where touching the brake bottoms the thing out and throws you otb.

This thing needs to have a world class damper that's better than anything out there, or else all it has going for it is no brake dive. Even that isn't necessarily a big benefit.

 

[ShredlyMcShredface]

In 20 years this ridiculous thing will be hanging on the walls of shops everywhere just like the Girvin forks of the past.

I sold and rode Girvin forks. They were easy to work on, were way stiffer torsionally than a comparable Z1 or Judy from the day. The only reason they stopped being made is K2 drove the company into the ground after their acquisition.

Also, the Girvin really was just a single shock like the Amp, it didn't have the constant trail feature like the Lawill Leader did. Or this one has. That's the real innovation.

There are plenty of Judy's and Z1's on shop walls today too. Wait till you read the ride reviews... I have no inside knowledge, but I expect they will be glowing.

 

[Harryman]

It hits the rs-1/lauf segment though.

Right? The only people I know who rode RS-1s were the guys who designed it and a doc who spends silly money on xc race bikes. And this fork is too heavy for the money-is-no-object weight weenies.

I think in the best case, it's a refinement in front suspension, the worst case, an ornament. Regardless, unless they can eventually get the price AND weight down in the ballpark of other forks, it'll be mostly be riders who get it for free/at cost, and those with tons of play money riding them.

You can buy a decent FS ride for what this fork costs....

 

[RadBartTaylor]

I'm surprised by the comments here to be honest.

What makes folks think that telescoping forks are anything but a easy workaround to solve the engineering problem for front suspension? It's expensive but what isn't when it's first released? There are a lot of old MTB design that are hanging on walls, lots of failed experiments; stuff that simply didn't work, stuff that worked great but were poorly implemented / executed, stuff that was revolutionary but was ahead of its time....it all influenced where we are today and had an impact on bike design....countless examples. We wouldn't be riding the rigs we are on today if it weren't for all those experiments.

Maybe it's just how my brain works, but I see something like this and I am instantly curious opposed to instantly resistant. It's expensive...so is buying a Fox 36 and getting it converted to coil and re-valved. So are $1200 Push rear shocks.

Based on the track record of all (3) dudes involved, I wouldn't want to bet against them.

Sad world we live in if we are hesitant to push the boundaries of a 25 year old design...

 

[rockcrusher]

I've ridden some linkage forks (Amp, Girvin, 20 years ago) but don't remember what I thought of them all that well at this point. All suspension basically sucked then, really. I've ridden a couple of BMWs with telelever or whatever they call it and disliked them but I am too incompetent of a moto person on pavement for that to mean anything.

I was thinking about this yesterday during my ride, though, and I sort of question whether anti-dive and constant trail are even desirable on a mountain bike.

If I'm braking hard into a corner, I actually *want* a lower trail number and more weight on the front wheel (since I'm going to be going slower and turning), so the front end dive is, within reason, a positive feature. And if I'm riding on more open terrain where I'm not braking much/experiencing dive, the more open turns will work well with the higher trail number.

If I was building a bike for a trail with nothing but tight turns, I'd want lower steering trail, after all. So in a way the brake dive is giving me that bike - but only when I need it. On the faster/straighter stuff where I'm not on the brakes, I can enjoy higher trail and more stability.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to try this and I'm sure the team they put together didn't make something that sucks - but I'm also not sure what they're touting as the main benefit is actually something I want.

I'd never buy a $2700 fork even if it was noticeably better than my Fox 34, but I'd love to try one and see what it's actually like.

-Walt

Me too. I rode girvin a bit but Amp's a lot. Never noticed them being better than anything else from that time and the Z1 blew them away when I got one of those. However this could be amazing, but I also wonder about the cornering. Part of me feels like this would be amazing when on flowy straight trails but one tight trails where you are relying on the fork to compress and get you around the corner quicker, could it be a hindrance? On the other hand we have learned to ride rigid bikes and then poorly performing in suspension bikes, then huge travel enduro bikes, our bodies and brains are pretty good at extracting performance from something that is new, just like converting to clipless or flats from the opposite type.

Are we still talking about carbon fiber components being weak? You can take whatever dig you'd like at the fork, but the one that will hold the least amount of water is saying carbon isn't strong enough for a fork. I've been hammering a rigid carbon for for years no issues.

$2700 for a fork, that's crazy. A fork made of carbon fiber, very sane.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I think and am assuming he is referring to the environmental cost of using CF. It is not the cleanest nor the most environmental material, unable to be recycled or even upcycled and once failed I would wager in an application like this it would be not able to be repaired.

I definitely do not agree with his take on the strength aspect. While this is a flagship product, I would wager it will be just as strong, if not stronger, than a comparable flagship fork. The people involved are definitely not like Apple.

I have a hard time spending $100 on fenders for my bike I ride everyday in Seattle winter, I am certainly going to balk at spending that much on a fork. My commuter, a carbon gravel bike, cost that much. The whole bike, Ultegra, carbon, HED wheels, etc. Still that fork is pretty amazing looking!

 

[SLCpowderhound]

I'm surprised by the comments here to be honest.

What makes folks think that telescoping forks are anything but a easy workaround to solve the engineering problem for front suspension? It's expensive but what isn't when it's first released? There are a lot of old MTB design that are hanging on walls, lots of failed experiments; stuff that simply didn't work, stuff that worked great but were poorly implemented / executed, stuff that was revolutionary but was ahead of its time....it all influenced where we are today and had an impact on bike design....countless examples. We wouldn't be riding the rigs we are on today if it weren't for all those experiments.

Maybe it's just how my brain works, but I see something like this and I am instantly curious opposed to instantly resistant. It's expensive...so is buying a Fox 36 and getting it converted to coil and re-valved. So are $1200 Push rear shocks.

Based on the track record of all (3) dudes involved, I wouldn't want to bet against them.

Sad world we live in if we are hesitant to push the boundaries of a 25 year old design...

Completely agree! Is it perfect? Maybe, maybe not. But it is at least challenging our assumptions of what a fork should be. I like that. I also remember a ton of people complaining about electronic drivetrains (still hear it...), but the truth is if you have shifted any modern electronic drivetrain you would know it is head and shoulders above anything else. Not an apples to apples comparison, but the same idea.

 

[RadBartTaylor]

Me too. I rode girvin a bit but Amp's a lot. Never noticed them being better than anything else from that time and the Z1 blew them away when I got one of those. However this could be amazing, but I also wonder about the cornering. Part of me feels like this would be amazing when on flowy straight trails but one tight trails where you are relying on the fork to compress and get you around the corner quicker, could it be a hindrance? On the other hand we have learned to ride rigid bikes and then poorly performing in suspension bikes, then huge travel enduro bikes, our bodies and brains are pretty good at extracting performance from something that is new, just like converting to clipless or flats from the opposite type.

I think and am assuming he is referring to the environmental cost of using CF. It is not the cleanest nor the most environmental material, unable to be recycled or even upcycled and once failed I would wager in an application like this it would be not able to be repaired.

I definitely do not agree with his take on the strength aspect. While this is a flagship product, I would wager it will be just as strong, if not stronger, than a comparable flagship fork. The people involved are definitely not like Apple.

I have a hard time spending $100 on fenders for my bike I ride everyday in Seattle winter, I am certainly going to balk at spending that much on a fork. My commuter, a carbon gravel bike, cost that much. The whole bike, Ultegra, carbon, HED wheels, etc. Still that fork is pretty amazing looking!

That's a really important point that I think a lot of folks miss. Sometimes things take time to adjust too. First rides are rarely indicative of real performance....setup takes time, fine tuning takes time and (to your point) your ability to ride effectively does too. It may require different riding style.....it likely will.

 

[RadBartTaylor]

While a different spin on a link fork, this is a good read (bonus points for AMP reference):

https://motocrossactionmag.com/the-fork-design-that-time-forgot-the-history-of-leading-link-forks/

Several top riders of the era were firmly behind it along with some manuf...Honday being one of them and investing big $$. This sums it up for me, from article:

"So, what happened to leading-link forks? Back in the 1970s, the improvement of telescopic forks made the leading links look old fashioned-and, as often happens, the riders of the era deserted leading links for the next big thing. Honda built several exotic, CNC-machined, ultra-light versions of the Ribi design but decided that the motorcycle market wasn't ready for such a radical-looking idea."

 

[One Pivot]

Thats the thing though. Its not the 80's and we're not riding repack. We're not stuck to cow trails and fireroads because the bikes suck.

Its not like we're guessing what works anymore. Mountain biking has pushed forward insanely where people are, literally, riding off cliffs... and the gear still holds up and works well. Just a few years ago, a chunky trail meant your arms were going to be beat by the end. Not anymore.

At some point its like saying you can go faster on a unicycle if you add another wheel. Certainly, thats true, but its no longer a unicycle. Same with mountain biking.

How many "negative" traits do we need to iron out of mountain biking, and at what point do we change so much that its not the same sport anymore?

Imagine a linkage driven fork on a 300mm travel FS bike, with an 2000w electric motor. Engineer the bike the ride properly while seated. That would absolutely steamroll trails we call difficult today, and probably set KOM's going up, too.

Ill keep my telescoping fork. We needed to advance damper quality until we can ride all day without hand pain, and setup geometry to perform well and confidently. I think we're good! We have a little more ironing out in terms of geometry, but thats different than entirely changing the dynamics of the bicycle.

 

[RadBartTaylor]

Thats the thing though. Its not the 80's and we're not riding repack. We're not stuck to cow trails and fireroads because the bikes suck.

Its not like we're guessing what works anymore. Mountain biking has pushed forward insanely where people are, literally, riding off cliffs... and the gear still holds up and works well. Just a few years ago, a chunky trail meant your arms were going to be beat by the end. Not anymore.

At some point its like saying you can go faster on a unicycle if you add another wheel. Certainly, thats true, but its no longer a unicycle. Same with mountain biking.

How many "negative" traits do we need to iron out of mountain biking, and at what point do we change so much that its not the same sport anymore?

Imagine a linkage driven fork on a 300mm travel FS bike, with an 2000w electric motor. Engineer the bike the ride properly while seated. That would absolutely steamroll trails we call difficult today, and probably set KOM's going up, too.

Ill keep my telescoping fork. We needed to advance damper quality until we can ride all day without hand pain, and setup geometry to perform well and confidently. I think we're good! We have a little more ironing out in terms of geometry, but thats different than entirely changing the dynamics of the bicycle.

I get it, you are a "if it aint' broke don't fix it" kind of guy, I can respect that. Some of the most successful designs and engineering problems were solved by constant small iterative improvements vs big steps. Seems like that is where we are with forks, really good and getting ever better by the year.

But in saying that, new technology enables things that were not possible 25 years ago, some of which we are seeing with this fork. We'd be a dull group of folks not to embrace the advancements of technology and what it enables.

Nobody is advocating electric motors nor "entirely changing the dynamics of a bicycle", it's a link, wheel still goes up and down, just like the links on the back.

Use your own example, "riding all day without handpain", this fork may help solve that issue in ways telescoping forks cant. You, nor I nor anybody on this forum knows the answer...

Sports evolve...that's what keeps these guys innovating, not the other way around....

 

[mikesee]

modern electronic drivetrain you would know it is head and shoulders above anything else.

Bad example, because while the shifting *might* be marginally better (open to debate, but I don't think it is) the attendant problems and pitfalls that come with e shifting hamstring it in many ways. To the point that it's emphatically a drawback in pretty much every category from where I sit.

The Trust fork may have pitfalls too -- only time and actual (not "E") riding experience will tell.

 

[mikesee]

It hits the rs-1/lauf segment though.

?! Your critical reading skills could use some polishing. If only for putting those two in the same sentence, but also for lumping them in with the Trust -- which you haven't yet ridden.

 

[PurpleMtnSlayer]

?! Your critical reading skills could use some polishing. If only for putting those two in the same sentence, but also for lumping them in with the Trust -- which you haven't yet ridden.

Maybe he means they're in a group of expensive forks compared to their competitors? RS-1 is $1750 and Lauf is $900 for plastic.

 

[BunniBoi]

A lot of Luddites here claiming "what we have now is 'good enough'". Seriously, if we'd listened to them back inthe '90's we's still be riding rigid steel, straight tube, and rim brakes.

Sure, linkage forks have been tried in the past, and the failed for whatever reason, but typically it was a commercial failure, not a problem with their performance.

This fork looks interesting, although I don't really think I agree with the reasoning behind their design choices. It seems like they've created a really heavy (vs light XC forks), expensive XC fork that tries to address problems that are more AM or Enduro in nature... but without enough travel.

Full disclosure: I have 2 Motion E18's on order and can't wait to put them through the wringer. Their reasoning and design choices make sense to me and I believe they've hit the sweet spot for performance and price. The Message, not so much. Odd reasoning, seems to try and fill a niche that doesn't exist and the price. $$$$$ Maybe it works, but people were already balking at the E18 at $1400.

 

[mikesee]

Maybe he means they're in a group of expensive forks compared to their competitors? RS-1 is $1750 and Lauf is $900 for plastic.

I suppose that's possible, but there are other, more expensive forks that weren't listed so I didn't immediately make that connection.

That aside, while the MSRP for the RS-1 is indeed north of $1600, I found mine for $700, including overnight shipping from the UK. That was a new fork, from a reputable company, and included full factory warranty.

Which is part of why I don't think that was the original intent of that post.

 

[PurpleMtnSlayer]

Maybe the Trust will be going for 56% off retail in time so we can get some real user feedback?!? I fear until that happens we’re just going to get paid advertisement and misleading post-purchase rationalizations due to choice-supportive bias.

 

[Drew Diller]

I understand the sticker shock, but I think the technology is really cool! See how the uppers are static position? Imagine putting panniers on that thing and the gear will be sprung mass instead of bouncing up and down absurdly like I once experienced on a racked telescopic fork. Yes please. I know some packing types don't like the extra mass rotating around the front axle, but I don't seem to mind it too bad.

I've sketched these types of forks and they are hard to package correctly.

@urbanheroes CFRP has come a long way since the early days of carbon bikes. I kind of understand the skepticism because poor quality control can make for dangerous situations, but quality control has been boosted. I agree that the end of life scenario isn't good, but I see what happens to metal bikes end of life even though the metals are reclaimable. The metals don't get reclaimed, practically speaking. I live near low income housing and the young kids see no problem whatsoever just leaving bikes derelict around the neighborhood once the bikes expire. Sometimes I'll pick up a bike off the street that is just thrashed, strip the broken shifters off, set the derailleur limit screws to be in a vaguely useful gear, and then put it back on the street and watch it get ridden off to the horizon like five minutes later. Hardly anyone recycles. Why should they care about the world when the world doesn't care about them? I don't want to demonize these people, I want to empathize. It's a no-win situation. It just sucks. So you're not exactly wrong regarding the end of life, but you're functionally not right, either.