In a NON-open cartridge bath fork and as light as Mag lowers are, I don't see the unsprung mass reduction. That said, the USD forks are so sensative that it might feel like it's lighter.

 

Constant lubrication, very similar to actual open-bath forks in terms of how well lubricated. It's unfortunate that open-bath dampers like Avalanche are not mainstream and the companies have went the way of weight-weenie with fork cartridges and closed systems.

That said, there is an additional negative with an inverted design, there's even a recent picture showing this in the Push thread. If the seal goes, it will spray your brake rotor.

 

No one seems to be discussing the parts of the design that I thought was interesting, so I have to do some typing!

How the design differs from other USDs implies a difference in priorities.

The axle.

Most designs (that I know) use a hex axle or equivalent to reduce twist at the axle.

Fox not only went for a round axle, but steel!

To be this implies that rotation at the axle isn't important but axle flex is.

Also at this price, why steel over titanium?

Anyone got an informed opinion on this?

As ever I'm the wrong type of engineer so might be overlooking something.

 

No one seems to be discussing the parts of the design that I thought was interesting, so I have to do some typing!

How the design differs from other USDs implies a difference in priorities.

The axle.

Most designs (that I know) use a hex axle or equivalent to reduce twist at the axle.

Fox not only went for a round axle, but steel!

To be this implies that rotation at the axle isn't important but axle flex is.

Also at this price, why steel over titanium?

Anyone got an informed opinion on this?

As ever I'm the wrong type of engineer so might be overlooking something.

I always thought the hex axle was a design choice to replace the threaded clearance fit on one end with something that has a tighter tolerance instead. It's an attempt to make the axle structural in the lower leg assembly. But does so in a way that makes axial preload adjustment and axle removal easy for the consumer.

Surely the crown of the fork fixes the lower tube/stanchions so they can't rotate about the drop out anyway. They can shear for sure, but rotate? There's also no torque acting on that axle so round tubes are just fine.

As for titanium, I think that's easy. Steel has a higher Youngs modulus and is far cheaper than Ti.

 

E for aluminum, ti, and steel is ~70/100/200 GPa. If you want stiffness in a member of constrained dimensions, you want steel.

 

Yep. Cessna Caravans landing on unimproved surfaces were breaking axles and they went to Ti for strength, but strength is not the same as flex. Ti was also still a compromise because steel aircraft parts are generally avoided due to weight.

 

It looks cool and I'd try one no problem... but my negative and pessimistic side says:

"Here we go again... all the usual online personalities/sites are gushing over another Fox product. But in a few months we'll see all kinds of threads on forums exposing issues."

 

It looks cool and I'd try one no problem... but my negative and pessimistic side says:

"Here we go again... all the usual online personalities/sites are gushing over another Fox product. But in a few months we'll see all kinds of threads on forums exposing issues."

And then a year later, Fox will be like "We re-designed the air spring and the damper as well as increasing the torsional stiffness. The old damper was total shyte but this new one has better support while at the same time maintaining small bump sensitivity."

 

DSD is already reporting issues with binding

 

I can’t remember if it’s Manitou or just Rulezman who recommends tightening the axle on the Dorado with no air pressure and fill compressed to properly align things. Wonder if that is something that would beneficially in this case?

@Mudguard, this video shows the stanchions sliding up in the CSU overlap as we were talking about.

 

That's a $2000 fork? I bet there was excessive grease in the air spring as well.

 

It's a Fox. That's a feature.

 

Part of me wonders if the hub could be out of spec? It seems to loosen up when he pulls it sideways slightly

 

The floating axle would eliminate hub width as a cause of the binding.

This looks to simply be a chassis alignment issue. Not surprising as it is very common with the non-inverted forks Fox sells as well.

 

And all other mass-produced brands as well. Chassis misalignment is not something that's solely unique to Fox.

 

How many times in the history of mountain biking have we seen some iteration of this fork design? Where are all those forks these days? The cutting EDGE of suspension, the RS-1?

Kendalweed said all I needed to know in his video. Pedal hit the coating, left a nasty gouge, fork puked oil. Junk.

 

How many times in the history of mountain biking have we seen some iteration of this fork design? Where are all those forks these days? The cutting EDGE of suspension, the RS-1?

There are a lot of things we use today that were trash when they came out (hydraulic brakes, dropper posts, FS bikes, tires, mountain bikes in general?) and early iterations didn't work or had major faults. I don't know that this is the best thing ever - but I wouldn't write it off purely because manufacturing 20 years ago couldn't make it work, a lot has changed since then.

 

Watching bike check footage of the enduro world cup this weekend, didn't see a single Podium fork, including Richie's bike.

 

I don't know anything about marketing but I'd be wary about pushing a product onto every athlete... If they all had a dip in form it wouldn't look good!
If it's more a mix the data is more blurry!!

 

They were already running the forks prior rounds and looks like they took them off this round.

 

Maybe too much climbing!!

 

Alex Rudeau before Finale:


After Finale:

 

Same for Richie and Ryan, both took it off. Maybe they are more worried about the weight for Val di Fassa.

On a side note I ride a meta v5 and that bike is under rated.

Looks like Dan and Slav are in the lead again.

 

It’s funny how all the “experts” here criticize a new product they never saw, let alone tried themselves.

 

Welcome to the internet mate.

 

Anyone curious about the increased compression damping due to low friction, but reduced rebound damping... Doesn't friction go both ways?

 

The reviewers don’t really commit to making a definitive statement about torsional stiffness.

 

I'm curious to why no fork arch, but I really don't think this is going to work in the long run as a single crown.

 

And then a year later, Fox will be like "We re-designed the air spring and the damper as well as increasing the torsional stiffness. The old damper was total shyte but this new one has better support while at the same time maintaining small bump sensitivity."

Actually this is already an iteration of GripX2, apparently they changed at least shimming "to match the reduced friction", but my money is on that the GripX2 HsC part was not very optimal to begin with..

I am waiting to see teardowns or the schematics to figure out what they actually did.

Anyone curious about the increased compression damping due to low friction, but reduced rebound damping... Doesn't friction go both ways?

It does and my guess is that they removed or modified the checkvalve on LsR.

GripX2 has noticeably more very low speed rebound damping compared to Grip2. This is easily felt when cycling the dampers in hand.
Possibly the checkvalve restricts even too much.

Also Fluid Focus has replaced the checkvalve with a bleed hole in their GripX2 tunes.

 

Actually this is already an iteration of GripX2, apparently they changed at least shimming "to match the reduced friction", but my money is on that the GripX2 HsC part was not very optimal to begin with..

I am waiting to see teardowns or the schematics to figure out what they actually did.



It does and my guess is that they removed or modified the checkvalve on LsR.

GripX2 has noticeably more very low speed rebound damping compared to Grip2. This is easily felt when cycling the dampers in hand.
Possibly the checkvalve restricts even too much.

Also Fluid Focus has replaced the checkvalve with a bleed hole in their GripX2 tunes.
View attachment 2151235

I've always wondered about check valves vs orifice.
Does anyone do anything cunning to reduce orifice back flow e.g. Turbulence or do they flow easily both ways?

 

Just lending some perspective on weight: My MY23 Lyrik w/ 35 lbs Smashpot and Avy Cart is 2450g and it rides great, do not notice the weight. My Dorado on my Lithium is 3 kg, also rides great, still don't notice the weight.

 

The older I get, the more I realize how far ahead of the cycling world Cannondale has been. I'm no huge fanboy but seriously they had
-1.5" headtubes first,
-first or very early mass produces aluminum bikes (1980s with their CAAD frames)
-had a real gravel bike (with front suspension) in 2015, (cannondale slate with lefty fork)
-made a crankset in the early 2000's that looked and performed like todays integrated cranksets (with a 30mm aluminum spindle!) while the rest of the world was struggling with square anchors (Cannondale SI Hollowgram)
-had larger front axles while the rest of the industry was fumbling around with 10mm noodles,
-Integrated bar aero stem combo (KNØT SystemBar and stem in 2016)
-and finally, way back in 2015, made a 160mm inverted fork that worked amazing well, was lighter than the fox podium, and came stock on one of their bikes, and was cheaper (adjusted for inflation to today). (lefty PBR supermax)

Imagine if lefty had been spun off as a dedicated premium suspension company, their designs were decades ahead of their time and their forks worked amazingly well.
If their pattern holds up maybe we can expect pull shocks to make a come back.


edited for format and clarity

 

On a total side track, the back of my bike is a tad flexy. So inspired by the Podium I've ordered a solid steel axle for it.
Let's see if I notice the difference!

 

Have to say that looking at the latest Intend USD products all of these years later, the chassis' at least offer quite a lot of value. They are light, priced fairly, well established at this point & exotic.

I wish they used stock Fox Dampers really.

 

Rulesman intend with mezzer damper i think is key after owning both forks

 

Shortened Fox-Podium on a Mondraker F-Podium... Hmmm...

 

Also, the Intends go to 190mm travel at the lower weight.
Hard to imagine Fox missed something huge. Not sure what to make of it.

 

Looks like the Podium got a podium. Slav opted to run it this round and captured another win. Hard to tell if the fork gave any advantage since he was already in 1st in the overall. At least it doesn't appear to be holding him back.

 

Kendalweed showing fork flex when the fork is fully extended when hanging off the rear of the bike is misleading. Most of the time you’re in attack position. Also, MBUK said the Podium has the torsional flex of a 36 and that should be enough for anyone. Well, except me, which is why I’m on a 38.

I‘m not hating on the Podium. It looks cool as heck . Believe me, if the fork lives up to the hype, I will probably try to rationalize purchasing one, even though it’s the last thing I need.

And it needs a carbon fiber axle. Oh wait, it might implode.

 

And it needs a carbon fiber axle. Oh wait, it might implode.

These are aways funny little catches with inverted forks. Push inverted, need to use certain hubs to make sure the axle interface is stiff enough. Fox podium, steel axle to be stiff enough. Manitou, hex axle. They tell us that the design makes no compromises, but the design is obviously less stiff torsionally and extreme measures have to be taken to make up for this, more-so with single-crown.

What he should have done in the video is a "straight down" vid where he brakes as hard as possible with both forks. IME, you see the wheel tug to the direction of the brake with the inverted.

 

Has the podium fork been on any podiums?