Timeline for Upside-down Fork vs Traditional Fork
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2018 at 3:48 | answer | added | user40295 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 22:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackBicycles/status/883822540174508033 | ||
| Jul 8, 2017 at 20:45 | answer | added | James | timeline score: 12 | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 17:40 | comment | added | ojs | The actual reason why unsprung mass is bad is terrain tracking. A lighter unsprung mass accelerates up and down faster for the same same forces, which means that wheel will track ground better and have better grip. | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 7:41 | answer | added | cherouvim | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 21:30 | comment | added | Daniel R Hicks | @rclocher3 - The old rotational inertia myth has been around for a long time, hasn't it? If you look around here you will find where it is discussed and the issue pretty well demolished, except perhaps for TdF level bikes. And it is unfortunately true that racers (real and imagined) drive the choice of what manufacturers produce, for serious riders, meaning that we must pay considerably more for the stuff we buy than is really merited. | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 19:46 | comment | added | rclocher3 | @DanielRHicks It might not make a big difference on the forks, but there's even more of an effect for parts that spin, thanks to rotational inertia; small weight reductions from the rims can make a relatively big difference. But racers drive equipment improvements, and then ordinary riders want the same equipment the pros have, so an improvement that's not worth worrying about today can be what everyone demands tomorrow. Personally it would be a lot easier for me to lose some weight before I spend money on a lighter bike, ha ha! | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 23:25 | comment | added | DWGKNZ | Not sure if I'd go as far as a marketing gimmick @DanielRHicks but I think Rockshox actually thought they had something with the RS-1 a few years back. If you look at the bikes in the Rio XCO there were a mix of both RS-1 and conventional RS forks in the mix. The winner rode what I'm guessing was a SiD. I think one of the key selling point's originally with the RS-1 was stiffness of the new hub, however since then Boost has come along and probably offers similar marginal benefit to elite riders. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 21:17 | comment | added | Daniel R Hicks | What everyone said about unsprung weight. Except that the amount of weight difference (when compared to other factors) is so tiny that it's not worth worrying about. The other mechanical factors may be worthwhile, or this may just be another marketing gimmick. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 20:37 | comment | added | rclocher3 | Engineers try to minimize unsprung weight (on the wheels or the part of the fork connected to the wheels) because it takes more energy to move than 'sprung' weight connected to the frame. In other words, unsprung weight feels heavier than sprung weight. If you imagine riding over washboard bumps that the fork is absorbing, you can see that a weight on the wheel moves up and down more than a weight on the frame. Since you the rider are providing the energy to move the weights around, it's better to have the weight on the side of the springs that moves up and down the least. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | Criggie♦ | As the owner of a English car - all seals leak eventually. "All the oil above the seal" is a recipe for failure. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 19:44 | comment | added | Fred the Magic Wonder Dog | Unsprung weight is the weight on the "wheel" side of the spring. (i.e. the weight of materials that moves up and down with the wheel). | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 16:02 | history | asked | ebrohman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |