(Mr MC posting) TJ, as I'm sure you know the irony of BMW using their telever systems is that BMW pioneered the telescopic fork when everyone else was using leading link stuff.
Never ridden a telever BMW but one of the criticisms I often hear is a lack of feeling connected to,, and receiving feedback from the front tyre, expecially during breaking- possibly as riders have become programmed to associate fork dive with breaking force and front tyre grip?
nickc - Member
Telescopics may be a mature technology, but it's a wrong technology.Eh?
Read Ade Ward's post
What I dont get is why its only MTB that hasnt gone down the upside down telescopic fork route that motorcyles have.
I run Maverick sc32's by the way.
MrMC - it felt different for sure and took thousands of miles to get used to. I think a lot of what you said was road testers not having time to get used to it. They aso have rubber mounted bars which does not help feel.
However the advantages were obvious as well - braking over bumps did not lock the wheel as the suspension still worked and soft spring rates were comfy .
i ran a pair of Lawill Leaders for about two years, quite a few years back.. i thought they were very good. The action was very supple, and the constant steering angle was noticable, and welcome.
The links were always a bit sloppy, so wheel tracking was poor on cambers, and once the entire fork imploded whilst steaming along. The upper shock mounting plate was twisted free of the shock. (masive wheel lock, highside, superman to faceplant)
I machined up some new shock bits and got two extra inches of travel out of it, which did start to do strange things to the handling. Mert Lawill designed this as a flat track racing fork where there were few bumps, and little in the way of sharp steering changes, and this is where they would still work well.
i now like the steering angle changes on my long travel bike, and use the action for pinning sharp corners, and berms etc:
Munqe-chick
Never ridden a telever BMW but one of the criticisms I often hear is a lack of feeling connected to,, and receiving feedback from the front tyre, expecially during breaking- possibly as riders have become programmed to associate fork dive with breaking force and front tyre grip?
I've got an 1150GS. You just have to trust it and get used to it. Once you do it's great. You can brake late into corners and it stays on-line with no dive unlike my CBR600 which tries to straighten up at the slightest touch of front brake.
How much of that is down to telelever vs telescopic forks or 19" vs 17" front wheels I dunno.
tinsy - Member
What I dont get is why its only MTB that hasnt gone down the upside down telescopic fork route that motorcyles have.I run Maverick sc32's by the way.
Posted 10 hours ago # Report-Post
dont realy know,,,, maybe worry about damage to lower legs, suspect its those fashion pandas again
panda 1 have you seen my purple anodized pedals
panda 2 no you need white rims
panda 3 you cant run that silver stem
panda 4 he is not actualy there as he is out riding his bike!
Fashion Pandas!! I love it!!! 
I AM a Fashion Panda!
SC32's never really recovered from the early "tests" (is holding the front wheel between your knees and moving the handlebars really a useful test) where people said they flexed. Flex has never been an issue in my experience and I've got SC32's on four of my bikes.
I've got SC32's on four of my bikes.
Is that like me owning several Alfa's? I mean, in the way that at least this way, you'll usually have one close to working?
SC32's never really recovered from the early "tests" (is holding the front wheel between your knees and moving the handlebars really a useful test) where people said they flexed. Flex has never been an issue in my experience and I've got SC32's on four of my bikes.
i've seen/heard you say this before, and obviously you're happy with them, but having gone from revelations to pikes, which have less flex, and having ridden a lefty in the past ( which has virtually no flex at all ), i personally couldn't get comfortable on a fork where the front wheel isn't pointing where my bar position suggests it should. your mileage clearly varies but i think this may be a case where you are the only one in step! 
I think riders and bikes have worked around the dive issue. On my Patriot with 180mm (ish) forks I adjust my riding for dive - leaning forwards and backwards as appropriate. I guess it's a bit like those new-design non-querty keyboards - great idea but no-one wants to re-learn how to type.
When I was in college getting into biking I sat down and thought really hard about how to make the ideal suspension fork (they were very new then). I decided you should have square fork tubes with roller needle bearings in. I found out many years later that that's how Headshocks and Lefties work.. dammit
Which makes me wonder - Lefties must have much less stiction than other forks, but what should be amazing plushness never seems to be much of a talking or selling point. Any Lefty riders want to tell me what they think?
(is holding the front wheel between your knees and moving the handlebars really a useful test)
not sure it is,, you can proberly apply more force doing this than you would see during normal riding
but it is a good way to ensure that everything is bolted together and tight,,
i suspect Flex you do feel is down to the tyre which is proberly the least stiff part in the whole system
molgrips - on the lefty point, yes, assuming they're working well (eg not in need of service), they work noticeably better when loaded. The only problem with that as I found is that when cornering hard, with a telescopic fork, the fork actually helps resist dive due to the drag caused by the loading - the lefty type fork (or headshok for that matter) doesn't stiffen and it's quite strange feeling the fork dive into the travel - also steepens the front end up making it pretty twitchy. Of course, it does have the benefit that the fork actually works much better at sucking up impacts when cornering hard.
Again, it's something that's not necessarily good but we've got used to with telescoping forks and it's quite hard/strange to learn to ride differently.
you can proberly apply more force doing this than you would see during normal riding
Yeah but it's a relative test. That fork flexes more than this one. But it's also interesting to note that the wheels flex a lot too so you have to watch that too. A slacker built wheel could make a fork look bad.
i am not convinced about any single sided fork my reasons are
Anything in double shear (std fork) can be made lighter and stiffer than an item in single shear (lefty sub)
take your front wheel out of your bike and pretend to be a normal fork hold the axle either side of the wheel now try holding it just on one side,,
this is why most most gp bikes have gone away from single sided swinginarms it can be lighter and stiffer supporting the wheel both sides
but I do admire people trying stuff ,,, someone has to inovate but there a few dead ends on the road to the perfect suspension system
take your front wheel out of your bike and pretend to be a normal fork hold the axle either side of the wheel now try holding it just on one side,,
I agree with your point but the test abobe isn't really relevant though - you're effectively comparing a fork (two legs) with the same fork with one leg removed. Single sided 'forks' are beefed up considerably, including larger, stiffer axles and you can't replicate that with your hands/arms
FWIW, I've ridden a couple of leftys and they certainly don't seem to flex noticeably more than most normal forks aimed at the same market (eg XC) and they're not heavy either..
. Single sided 'forks' are beefed up considerably, including larger, stiffer axles and you can't replicate that with your hands/arms
clubber thats the point isnt it,, you have to build in more stiffness to account for the leg missing on the other side ,, so you have to add more material and increase the size of axles bearing etc to achieve the same stiffness,,
i dont know the weights of any of the single sided forks or any comparable "normal forks" but i'm sure someone will
it will be an interesting comparision
i know my preston forks are the lightest , but that is because the shock isnt part of the steered fork less steering inertia ( is that a good thing? )
well no one ever suggested you could take a normal fork, cut one side off and it still be stiff. The question really is whether with all other factors added in (eg Cannondale's use of square sliders with rollers rather than tubes and bushings, different axles - QRs/Maxle/lefty tapered axle, etc), a one legged 'fork' is more than the weight of a telescopic fork for the same stiffness.
Like I said, my experience and off-the-top-of-my-head recollection of weights for leftys suggests that they're lighter...
Ade,
my mech eng isn't strong enough to give you the proper definitions, but there's a whole root square thing going on with the lefty/othersinglesidedfork, to do with the surface area ( i think! ). for the same reason that increasing regular fork stanchions from 32 to 36mm gives a considerable increase in stiffness, this same principle is taken to the extreme on the lefty. you can bin off one side, beef up the other, and achieve an increase in stiffness AND a reduction in weight.
"Like I said, my experience and off-the-top-of-my-head recollection of weights for leftys suggests that they're lighter... "
if that is right ,,,it's lighter and stiffer than a normal fork then there has to be a catch ,, price,, then why havnt i got one,,,
o yes i have two whyte prestons
Dell i'm not qualified enough to comment but sounds very feasable big thin wall tubes are strong and stiff
Weights here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=suspensionforks
Lefty seems to vary between 1.3 and 1.7kg (2.9 to 3.7lbs) which seems pretty light to me...
upside down forks are hard to make as stiff as you can't have a fork bridge / brace across the top of the sliders so need a very rigid spindle to give the assembly rigidity
it's a square thing IIRC, and if it weren't for incorrect market perception displayed perfectly by ade, single sided forks would dominate the market IMO, esp for longer travel lightweight stuff...
I think that Cannondale WANTED specifically to use roller needle bearings for smoothness and durability. So to do that you have to make it with beefy square tubes which would make it very heavy if it were a normal double-sider. I'm sure they tried that first. So they started with the headshock, but when more travel was needed they had to come up with the lefty. Of course, they could make forks like everyone else but where'd be the fun in that IIRC the damping let the headshock down, so it would be interesting to see someone like MZ or RS who are good at damping produce a fork or shock with needle rollers...
Again I seem to remember that the top-whack team edition lefty that was all cast Ti and carbon was something like 2.7lbs. £1200 or something daft tho.
So to do that you have to make it with beefy square tubes which would make it very heavy if it were a normal double-sider. I'm sure they tried that first.
They did - the first moto forks they did were two sides with square sliders. Stiff but fairly heavy
cynic-al - Member
it's a square thing IIRC, and if it weren't for incorrect market perception displayed perfectly by ade, single sided forks would dominate the market IMO, esp for longer travel lightweight stuff...
i'm sorry i still fail to see how standing on one big fat leg is better than standing on two little legs ,, but i expect we will agree to dissagree on this point,,,
but life would be boring if we all had the same thing and agreed about it,,,,
I am not overly keen on telescopic forks ,, as can be seen in my earlier posts
ade - it's the same for most bike components - larger diameters allow for stiffer (relative to weight) structures - eg stanchions, frame tubes, cranks, etc.
FWIW, the prices of cannondale's leftys have always made me suspect that the relative light weight is at least partly down to the use of expensive materials rather than the design alone.
i'm sorry i still fail to see how standing on one big fat leg is better than standing on two little legs
It's not - it's just that the bearings they use require a fat leg - so two fat legs is heavier than one.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
