Quantcast

Trust me...

toodles

Turbo Monkey
Aug 24, 2004
2,596
758
Australia
I'm scared to ride one. What if it works as advertised? I could end up unhappy with my cool looking forks and end up dreaming about owning a fork worth more than my Toyota. And even if I could afford it, would i want to explain it to other riders all day? And the endless pestering for test rides to see how it feels? No siree, not for me. I hope the first test ride it snaps and somehow explodes maiming the test rider and a levelling a toddler day care centre. MTBers already look like a pack of dorks wearing bumbags/fanny packs and now we gotta go around with this thing bolted to the front of our bikes?

On a more serious note, the last linkage forks I rode were the old Pro-flex things with an elastomer, and the AMP thing that was terrifying under brakes. And that was like '95/96ish. I think Noleen made one with K2 as well but nobody this big has given this a crack in like 20 years. Despite a million articles telling us how safe it was and how it was scientifically a better design, plenty of mountain bikers wouldn't ever give a Lefty fork a go just based on the aesthetics. The new Polygon/Marin bikes might be the best thing since sliced bread (they're not btw) but again - based on looks alone they're not on a lot of people's "to-ride" lists. I wonder if this thing will end up in the same pile?
 

Pegboy

Turbo Monkey
Jan 20, 2003
1,137
21
New Hamp-sha
They should have created a focus group.
Q: Would you buy a fork, even if it was significantly better than what's currently available, at a cost of $2700?
A: No...I think I'll buy a brand new YT Tues AL for $2699..... or Capra AL for $2499 instead.
 

dump

Turbo Monkey
Oct 12, 2001
5,432
225
Pinkbike comment highlight - Ryan from Structure:



It's about time the linkage concept got the attention it deserves!

And now for my complaint:

Dave says: "What happens if you build a device that lets the stability of the front-end of a bicycle or motorcycle increase on corner entry rather than decrease? It's a simple question that I don't think anybody has ever asked."

Not only have we asked it, this is nearly a copy of the language we use for our Stability on Demand technology.

Focus on stability, rather than axle path: yep, that's the core of our technology.

Dynamic geometry: yep, that's us, too.

Constant trail: in pitch, ditto; in heave, ours increases trail for ultimate stability.

Sealed bearings at all pivots with a lifetime warranty: ditto.

Proprietary suspension hardware: nope, ours is off-the-shelf.

$2700: Perfect, makes Structure look like a bargain! Smile

Challenge accepted, Dave. Time for a group test!
I see another epic dw/Sideways battle brewing. Rep if you remember those!
 

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,128
482
Pinkbike comment highlight - Ryan from Structure:

Dave says: "What happens if you build a device that lets the stability of the front-end of a bicycle or motorcycle increase on corner entry rather than decrease? It's a simple question that I don't think anybody has ever asked."
Interesting, from a physics nomenclature point of view.

In all my racing days, regardless of vehicle, stable (in a handling/cornering sense) = resistance to inputs, wanting to continue on its path, NOT wanting to change direction.

If anyone would ask me a simple question, such as "What happens if you build a device that lets the stability of the front-end of a bicycle or motorcycle increase on corner entry rather than decrease?", the quick and necessary answer is : it won't turn as well.

By definition, we want UNSTABLE on corner entry, to allow quick change of direction, it is absolutely needed. We do want stability shortly thereafter, which is always the challenge.

I don't think they are intentionally misleading, but similar to the Naild guys and others, there are reasons why they can't be specific about what they are feeling.

It's a complicated matrix. "I did enough math":....whatever. No such thing.
 

StiHacka

Compensating for something
Interesting, from a physics nomenclature point of view.

In all my racing days, regardless of vehicle, stable (in a handling/cornering sense) = resistance to inputs, wanting to continue on its path, NOT wanting to change direction.

If anyone would ask me a simple question, such as "What happens if you build a device that lets the stability of the front-end of a bicycle or motorcycle increase on corner entry rather than decrease?", the quick and necessary answer is : it won't turn as well.

By definition, we want UNSTABLE on corner entry, to allow quick change of direction, it is absolutely needed. We do want stability shortly thereafter, which is always the challenge.

I don't think they are intentionally misleading, but similar to the Naild guys and others, there are reasons why they can't be specific about what they are feeling.

It's a complicated matrix. "I did enough math":....whatever. No such thing.
That's OK, we all know dentists don't really corner.
 

hmcleay

i-track suspension
Apr 28, 2008
116
102
Adelaide, Australia
Interesting, from a physics nomenclature point of view.

In all my racing days, regardless of vehicle, stable (in a handling/cornering sense) = resistance to inputs, wanting to continue on its path, NOT wanting to change direction.

If anyone would ask me a simple question, such as "What happens if you build a device that lets the stability of the front-end of a bicycle or motorcycle increase on corner entry rather than decrease?", the quick and necessary answer is : it won't turn as well.

By definition, we want UNSTABLE on corner entry, to allow quick change of direction, it is absolutely needed. We do want stability shortly thereafter, which is always the challenge.

I don't think they are intentionally misleading, but similar to the Naild guys and others, there are reasons why they can't be specific about what they are feeling.

It's a complicated matrix. "I did enough math":....whatever. No such thing.
Totally agree with your definition of stability.
Although I interpreted the 'stability' commentary as having a lot to do with pitching rather than steering. With any amount of anti-dive (or even simply less 'pro-dive' than what you have with telescopic forks), the front is going to maintain its ride height better when braking, and is therefore more stable.
Re-reading it now, they talk a lot more about steering rather than dive. But I still think that if it proves to have any significant performance improvements over telescopic forks, it will be mostly due to anti-dive, rather than trail control (via axle path).
It's worth noting that in theory, with this type of linkage, anti-dive and axle path can be tuned independently, so one doesn't dictate the other (which is what DW suggested). Although once you take into consideration the physical constraints of where pivots can/should be located (for appearance or structural reasons), and practical means of incorporating the spring/damper, then it reduces the independence.
 

StiHacka

Compensating for something
FWIW, string theory is pretty much dead. Stick to the Maldacena Conjecture for now.
The AdS/CFT correspondence? Nah, not a death of string theory at all. Au contraire, it is a pet toy for the string theorists working on the UFT.

(we live in a simulated hologram anyway and quantization of spacetime makes it possible with finite computing resources of our lizard overlords ;) )
 

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,128
482
The AdS/CFT correspondence? Nah, not a death of string theory at all. Au contraire, it is a pet toy for the string theorists working on the UFT.

(we live in a simulated hologram anyway and quantization of spacetime makes it possible with finite computing resources of our lizard overlords ;) )
Nonono Nobody's fault but mine

All I know is, the faster I go, the longer I live
 

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,450
164
I thought the bike industry had shed itself of the displeasure of having to listen to Dave Weagle suck his own dick. Obviously, I thought wrong.

Nevermind for a minute how idiotic this is from a mechanism standpoint - I tried to make sense out of this thing from a business standpoint but I just couldn't, looking at their pricing, their marketing, their first run quantities, etc. I got the subtle vibe from the article like they may have gotten WAY too far into this project with some investors behind them to be able back out of it, or something to that effect.

Back to the idiocy, this is just a Horst-link on the front end of the bike. Nothing more. It's also presenting a solution to a problem that nobody had....about the only benefit of this is more reliance on the structural compliance of a series of links to take out some of the high frequency transient shit, rather than a telescoping member.

The physics behind it "having the same mechanical trail all the time".....also absolute horseshit. There's ONE scenario of linkage cycling where that could hold true, and as soon as you throw the rear suspension motion into the game, that becomes physically impossible. Basically, the attitude of the bike and the true angle of the steering axis (actual or theoretical) relative to the contact patch will NEVER be constant with both ends moving.

While the goal of "consistency" sounds nice on paper, when this idea has been executed on street bikes in the past (mentioned somewhere else here), the feeling to any aggressive or discerning rider has been that it's just super inconsistent and weird feeling.

The exposure for rocks/mud to interfere with this thing is monstrous as well. Can't see a way around that except to put a CF bashgaurd or something around it.

The final point that makes me want to hit my head against the wall is the lack of scale-ability to this thing. I'm frankly amazed they were able to get 130mm of travel out of it. Linkages (typically) imply rotation of some member, and the magic bullet of the "vertical axle path" from a linkage only comes in forms that scale up to be massive. So trying to make a really long travel version out of this will almost guarantee that it will have a LOT of hardware mass and/or a LOT of swing to the axle.

My armchair is now drenched in ass sweat and I have to go refuel with more Hatorade.
 

shelteringsky

Monkey
May 21, 2010
188
113
Sooo... The best way they found to show how good the fork is was a guy doing a helluva MANUAL???
Yah, I was hoping for some gratuitous slow mo footage of those bad boys. Dude was hitting some big sets though and he pinned those corners. Hmm.
 

Happymtb.fr

Monkey
Feb 9, 2016
822
213
SWE
Some people have express concerns about the fact that the 15mm axle is the only link between both sides and that it should be the reason why there are 2 air springs, the idea being that it is less likely to twist if there is the same resistance on both sides. Then compression and rebound are only on one side, so there might be some twisting anyhow...
What is for sure is that 2 air springs will yield double the amount of friction and that even before considering the pressure needed which is around double of a traditional sliding fork.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
15,829
937
01776
So, he couldn't sell his MTB suspension in the Moto world, so he took an un-sellable suspension from the Moto world to sell to MTB ers? K

It's dw, so I'm confident it will ride well and be expensive. I live goofy forks but this is like the gearbox of front suspension. Very expensive but hard to justify when other forks are so good.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,026
1,450
AK
It's dw, so I'm confident it will ride well and be expensive. I live goofy forks but this is like the gearbox of front suspension. Very expensive but hard to justify when other forks are so good.
Lets take a step back here. Other forks are not all so good, but the reason why IMO is damping. Springs to a much smaller extent, as in the excessively restrictive factory high speed circuits make you over-compensate by running compression "open" which exacerbates the flat mid-stroke air-spring issue, so if you had better compression circuits that are better tuned that can offer supports without becoming a jackhammer, you can make up for this significantly and the air spring ain't that bad (and a coil is even better). That's my issue 99% of the time, not whether or not it's a lnkage fork and having brake-drive tuned out. So the bottom line for me is that TrustCo™ better have some absolutely amazing damping, high and low speed circuits, otherwise it's just one in the heap of failed linkage forks. Some forks HAVE made some good progress here though, Grip2 in particular. So again, this better be some goddamn fancy ass damping for $2700.
 

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,128
482
Totally agree with your definition of stability.
Although I interpreted the 'stability' commentary as having a lot to do with pitching rather than steering. With any amount of anti-dive (or even simply less 'pro-dive' than what you have with telescopic forks), the front is going to maintain its ride height better when braking, and is therefore more stable.
Re-reading it now, they talk a lot more about steering rather than dive. But I still think that if it proves to have any significant performance improvements over telescopic forks, it will be mostly due to anti-dive, rather than trail control (via axle path).
It's worth noting that in theory, with this type of linkage, anti-dive and axle path can be tuned independently, so one doesn't dictate the other (which is what DW suggested). Although once you take into consideration the physical constraints of where pivots can/should be located (for appearance or structural reasons), and practical means of incorporating the spring/damper, then it reduces the independence.
You are probably right and they are just doing a terrible job communicating. He keeps talking about stability in steering and handling and cornering, when in reality, such stability may be "pitch" stability. If the fork isn't diving up and down, corner entry would be more consistent and arguably more "stable"

But then there are statements like this

''Most of those other link designs end up with forward-arcing axle paths or try to mimic the linear motion of a telescopic fork while adding some braking anti-dive feature with their link,'' Weagle said. ''That’s probably partly why our product looks so different than anything else. In the end, by focusing on stability, we ended up with a pretty novel invention.'' Preventing brake dive actually wasn't the focus of his efforts, even if it ended up being a byproduct of it.

and

''To put it simply: handling remains the same even when the head angle changes - early in the turn, at the apex, and at the exit, climbing or descending, your bike always steers the same,'' are their exact words.

"The axle path just became what it needed to be."

Haven't most of the linkage forks in the past been about preserving geometry, which is something I might refer to as increasing stability? ''Yup, about preserving geometry under brake dive. So I just said straight up from the beginning, 'Brake dive is something I'm not concerned about"

On the other hand I NEED CURVES!!!!!. I can throw up a random rear suspension linkage and get 20 guys to photoshop a pic and give me results, but not one of this fork???

I want to see the rearward, curving upward axle path and see how close it is to the famous Girvin J path....
 

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,128
482
ImI actually Luis, told you so in a PM about a week ago. Please, remember to take your memory pills.
I thought since you were invoking, Luis was just your RM alter ego where you hang out to avoid holographic calculations.

That's why I'm here. Well that and the urban dictionary education

I take drugs to kill brain cells and memory. I have determined that too many is not good.
 

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,128
482
"The suspension feel of the Message isn’t going to be to everyone’s liking, either............ Those seeking a pillowy-soft ride won’t find it here — at least not with how Trust has tuned things currently — and what you feel in your hands doesn’t always jive with how your front wheel is interacting with the ground, or how the fork apparently behaves in the lab."

Either this means that the shock had the wrong tune....

Or what your hands feel isn't really happening.

I have to stop reading about this fork. I don't even care if it works any more.

Plus, the multiverse is waiting
 

slimshady

¡Mira, una ardilla!
Dec 20, 2007
2,553
653
La Plata, Argentina
Or what your hands feel isn't really happening.
This has actually been my experience with linkage forks on scooters. I used to ride a Vespa and then some high-end Hondas (for a scooter) back in the day, and the vagueness I experienced in handling/feeling on flat corners is the thing I remember the most about this type of front suspension. And it certainly isn't inviting me to test this thing.