Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Where's my funny hat?
Joined
·
455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just a quick question for anyone in the know; with all the MX technology we have seen creeping into the MTB world over the last few years, I was wondering if anyone knew why no-one to my knowledge is currently making MTB forks with the lower being the "piston" and the upper the "cylinder"? Pretty much all MX forks have been made this way for some years now (due to reductions in unsprung weight), but apart from a vague recollection of some Marzocchi's in the mid-nineties I don't think anyone makes MTB forks this way. What gives?:confused:
 

·
some kind of hero...
Joined
·
543 Posts
Stevo the Devo said:
Just a quick question for anyone in the know; with all the MX technology we have seen creeping into the MTB world over the last few years, I was wondering if anyone knew why no-one to my knowledge is currently making MTB forks with the lower being the "piston" and the upper the "cylinder"? Pretty much all MX forks have been made this way for some years now (due to reductions in unsprung weight), but apart from a vague recollection of some Marzocchi's in the mid-nineties I don't think anyone makes MTB forks this way. What gives?:confused:
Not sure... But maybe for single crown bike forks it would be hard to make an upside down fork as rigid - problem with the arch that is used on the traditional lowers...

Cheers
:cool:
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,450 Posts
There have been a few attempts over the yearsat single crown inverted forks - Suspenders, the Halson Inversion - the older ones either needed their own disc brake, or some odd system to get the cantilever brakes to move with the lowers.

The last one I was aware of was the Marzocchi RAC.

Who can say why there are not more? Dunno really. Just the way "it is" I guess...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
I know Maverick has a whole line of inverted forks, single crown and double crown, and Marzochi had a few in their lineup until recently (i think).
 

·
Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
Joined
·
10,939 Posts
With the exception of the Halson inversions, Mr Dirt PBF, and the DuroTrak forks in the early to mid 90s, all inverted forks have depended on not just disc brakes, but also oversized hub axles of some sort to compensate for the absense of fork braces. The last Marzocchi ones were the shiver SC's and they ran 20mm bolt-on axles. The Maverick's depend on a 24mm axle. Mountain Cycles Suspenders had dedicated hubs with 12mm axles (bolt on with bullseye hubs in 1989-91 and later basically an combo thrushaft axle and qr with pulstar hubs beginning in 1992). This is in addition to massively oversized upper stanchions and sliders that themselves were typically as large a diameter as the lowers of many regular telescopic forks were of the time. All these extra large parts add weight (unless you use super thinwall construction like the mavericks and hanebrink forks, which are also super dent prone), and relative to the weight of the forks, convention forks tend to be stiffer. The only advantage to the inverted setup is the reduced unsprung mass makes the forks react quicker to impacts. So you take heavier forks and combine with heavier hubs, and you end up with something few riders really want or need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Didn't RST Attempt to build an inverted fork in the late 90's? Wasn't it like a double crown with 100mm of travel for "Downhill" bikes at wal-mart or something along those lines?
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top