Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just came across a page with old Rock Shox forks (talking 1998 and earlier) and the forks on the page were ridiculously light. (here's the site: http://www.mombat.org/Rock_Shox.htm)
So if they could make these forks back then at almost 1200 grams, why are current forks struggling to go below 1500, and only on uber-expensive ones?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
There is lightweight, and there is durability, and there is performance.
Personally, I'd rather ride something heavier that will last and perform well and I'll take the weight penalty. That's what has been happening with modern suspension forks. They perform miles better than the 1200g SID of 1998, albeit being slightly heavier. Many would agree, that the performance benefit outweighs (forgive the pun) the weight penalty because the steering is more precise, the fork more plush, and more tune-able - resulting in a bike that you can ride longer, faster. Weight isn't everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks, makes sense.
No I've never ridden a 98 Sid. I didn't get into biking until 2005; been loving it ever since.
 

·
defender of bad taste
Joined
·
1,600 Posts
I weigh 170lbs and use a 1998 SID, never had a problem with it.
 

·
Hi.
Joined
·
3,865 Posts
mechagouki said:
I weigh 170lbs and use a 1998 SID, never had a problem with it.
I used to ride one too, and weighed closer to 185. I think it's all a matter of riding style - I was careful in choosing my lines, and didn't just plow over rough terrain (for fear of rim damage.) It was paired with Crossmax USTs which are probably more flexy than the fork itself. But combined with a lower-PSI tubeless setup, I didn't really notice much flex coming from the front end as the tires absorbed most of the deflections.

I still ride the Crossmax USTs, btw. :D
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top