How much though? I'm guessing mucho ££.
I reckon they missed a trick and should have released all the details today as it is the first day of spring.
I reckon at the bottom of the fork is going to be a new wheel size, the new 6" format.
Who cares? Ditto re road. Who cares? The majority of consumers/users of bikes don't race under UCI regs, so can use what they want. A USD road/cross fork would be lovely on a tracks and trails CX bike.
You do realise that XC mountainbikes and CX bikes only exist because the UCI says they're different? CX bikes are banned from having flat bars and tyres wider than thirtysomething-mm, XC bikes are banned from having drop bars.
Given a totaly free choice I reckon CX would be more like a cross frame is now, just longer with flat bars.
[img] 
[/img]
Pinkbike making the same conclusions as AlexSimons pic
Is that 20mm? And are the hub flanges different sizes or is it a weird perspective
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Read from the bottom up:
"[i]In 1989 RockShox turned the world of mountain biking upside down, with the release of RS-1. History has a way of repeating itself.[/i]"
Does that say 'predictive steering' on the hub?
It may well be [i]yet another[/i] front axle standard. Possibly keyed/ splined, or similar, to help with torsional stiffness of the fork.Does that say 'predictive steering' on the hub?
God knows you couldn't blame Rockshox for that, they had the best through-axle format so far and pushed it as hard as they can then had to switch over to something that's worse in every way because of OEM pressure... So you couldn't really blame them for offering a 650b axle out of spite.
when are they going to shut the **** up and just take my money!
that brake post looks a bit flexy!
Cool, looking forward to getting my hands on a set of these and to find out how flexy they are...
Why are upside down forks better than 'normal' ones which seem to be the norm? Or is it change for changes sake? I would have thought the stanchions are much more likely to get damaged down there and more chance of crap getting in the seals?
Unsprung mass innit
I think the main advantages are less unsprung weight and gravity helping lubricate the seals.
Why are upside down forks better than 'normal' ones which seem to be the norm? Or is it change for changes sake? I would have thought the stanchions are much more likely to get damaged down there and more chance of crap getting in the seals?
They're better because the oil sit's on the seals and bushings where it's needed, not sloshing about at the bottom of the 'lowers'. The seals actualy get less dirt as it just falls away from them, and any that does stick is wiped off by the seal and falls away, rather than accumulating by the brace/arch. Stanchion damage is usualy mitigated by plastic covers covering all but the back.
depends on the damper, if the oil and damper are in the shaft as normal for modern conventional forks then actualy it maybe higher as the biger heavyer dropouts, hub and axle plus the weight of the oil are all unsprung.Unsprung mass innit
I guess they could be theoretically stiffer as well, the carbon crown on rock shock sids is by their own admission 10-15" less rigid than the aluminium version. By having the fatter outer tubes at the top they should be able to make a stiffer in all one peice unit. (this is complete guesswork of course I have no actually knowledge of these manufacturing and design processes)
To stiffen an USD fork you need some sort of arch, like Emerald use on the EVO. Without they are torsionally weak, unless of course you have a huge stiff axle with a massive clamping interface, but even then they won't be stiffer than the same normal fork.
they won't be stiffer than the same normal fork
Again, only torsionally. Having run Maverick DUCs for 7 or 8 years now, I can say that it's only one factor of stiffness.
edit: oh and the stanchions are still perfect. The guards do a great job.
That's why these interest me. I think upside-down forks are under-appreciated.
[i]Unsprung mass innit[/i]
It's 'cos they look more like motorbike forks, surely?
Muchos short travel there.
BMX forks innit blad...
Actually im saying its above the SID
Can't see anywhere to put guards, which is a bit odd
To stiffen an USD fork you need some sort of arch, like Emerald use on the EVO. Without they are torsionally weak, unless of course you have a huge stiff axle with a massive clamping interface, but even then they won't be stiffer than the same normal fork.
i had Marzocchi RACs felt stiff enough to me - I'm sure there was stories knocking about at the time that they were too stiff and put load through the frame?
Brant had some as well around the same time IIRC?
I reckon teasers ahead of 1st April 😉
Brant had some as well around the same time IIRC?
[url=
cat welcomes RS-1[/url]
thought so 😀
Ok, so we've run out of wheel sizes and the marketing guys have decided that we now all need upside down forks - brilliant! The formula seems to be; think of something that has been like that for as long as you can remember, flip it on its head and convince the world we've been doing it wrong all along.
So what's predictive steering then? Some sort of movement or spring in the axle/
bearings?
Ooh, I was wrong then. Looks interesting.
typical, someone i know apparently has a set,and has for a while, but can't say anything....
Also has the Shimano 2016 catalogue... also can't say anything about that either.
There's a guy works down the chip shop who swears he's Elvis,but but I can't say anything about it.
There's a guy works down the chip shop who swears he's Elvis,but but I can't say anything about it.
Not this time, the guy designs the bikes for a well known manufacturer.
How much travel, any ideas?
How much travel, any ideas?
80mm by the looks of the latest pic.
Gotta say they look cool as ****
80mm? Which picture. I'd be very surprised if it was less than 120mm.
We've not seen a picture of the full stantions, so no way of telling. Agree that 80 is unlikely, although I'd not rule out 100 if it's a SID replacement.
I think the pic he's referring to is just my photoshop mash-up that someone's stuck the last photo on the end of.
They could have made the stanchions any length they wanted.
http://www.vitalmtb.com/product/feature/Sneak-Peek-Inverted-RockShox-RS-1-Fork,230?utm_source=www.cyclingprss.co.uk&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=www.cyclingprss.co.uk
Well the 'Everything Changes' image just shows it on a 'normal' hardtail mountain bike.
Can't imagine them showing it on one of those Nicolai with a Pinion gear box thing, would only show that someone else is actually the real game changing radical thinker, rather than just reintroducing old stuff and trying to big it up.
(oooooh....Get me Girlfriend!)
[url= http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/03/21/more-on-the-new-rockshox-rs-1/#comments ]BR[/url] suggesting it's an XC race fork to sit above the SID, with a 110x15mm axle.
RS have just uploaded a full shot. Looks to be ~100mm and I'm hoping it's not some proprietary axle.
[img] 
[/img]
Pretty sure it is. Something to help resist the twist in usd designs. 100mm widths are a bit old-roadie anyway, then the flanges moved in for discs, then wheels got bigger, so I'd like to see wider hubs on MTBs.I'm hoping it's not some proprietary axle.
It looks like we've maybe /hopefully reached the point where carbon is allowing RS and the like to make up for the potential flex of usd forks by having a stiff and light carbon upper along with 20mm axle to hold things together.
I'm hoping it's not some proprietary axle.
Pretty sure it is. Something to help resist the twist in usd designs. 100mm widths are a bit old-roadie anyway, then the flanges moved in for discs, then wheels got bigger, so I'd like to see wider hubs on MTBs.
Like Doug Bradbury did. On Manitou rigid forks. In about 1990.
Road bike standards. Crackers.
