Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 246
  1. #1
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311

  2. #2
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Competing designs:

    Motion France

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-stw-2018-07-04-motion-ride-linkage-fork-1.jpg


    Structure SCW1

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-fxrxr6s.jpg

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-6zxnubs.jpg

    I personally am looking forward to when linkage forks take over. I like Structure's design philosophy and holistic take on it, balancing out the suspension feel and preserving geometry.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,325
    Very exciting! Wonder how many takers at that price.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by westin View Post
    Very exciting! Wonder how many takers at that price.
    It's damn near free...in a Bill Gates/Buffett kind of way.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    31
    As someone who's quietly been hoping for linkage forks to make a realistic return to MTB, this is a real disappointment.
    I knew it was coming, but nothing about it and my distain has led me to post on here in probably the first time in 15 years!

    To me, this is an Apple iPhone X of a product - huge, largely unwarranted talk of revolutionary technology and redefining performance at a price tag that ensures most actual customers will be some of the most clueless types ever to throw a leg over an MTB.

    Perhaps that's why the team felt justified in constructing this otherwise promising fork out of a fashionable material, rather than one which suits the environment the fork should be used in, safe in the knowledge that it's unlikely to see any hard use.

    The proliferation of Carbon Fibre in cycling is alarming to anyone with even a cursory understanding of how it's made and the realities of dealing with it at end of life, but for such a decorated engineer to use it so liberally in an area of the bike that is exposed to heavy impact is inexcusable & demonstrates a lack of leadership (even if one of the team founded ENVE).

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    333
    Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't preservation of trail (and preservation of head angle under compression) via the fork mean that a dual suspension bike will effectively slacken quite significantly under compression affecting both the front and rear suspension? I'm sure some people will say otherwise, but that sounds terrible to me...I don't want my front wheel effectively moving away from me as I load up front and rear suspension in a corner.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    619
    I have less than zero interest in a linkage fork. IMO the best thing about a telescopic fork is the amount of stoke you have to work with when getting them tuned in. A 120mm travel fork has 120mm of stroke to play around with. When you start using linkages your 120mm of travel now may only have 1.75" or 2" of stroke at the shock.

    So when you start playing around with settings to try and get a certain feel early in the stroke or in the mid-stroke instead of having, say 30mm early and 60mm mid-stroke you now have like 10mm and 25mm. Everything has to happen on a tighter scale.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,969
    At that price, they should have painted it yellow...

    Honestly, although it might offer a slightly different and maybe even improved ride, it will be a very hard sell. I mean, the current crop of telescoping forks are very good and I don't see people rushing to try something new.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Redlands R&C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    966
    I'd like to see some real ride time reviews first, and actually get a chance to ride one myself before making full judgements. It doesn't make the front of a bike look very good though.
    Silly bike things happening.

  10. #10
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    I've ridden some linkage forks (Amp, Girvin, 20 years ago) but don't remember what I thought of them all that well at this point. All suspension basically sucked then, really. I've ridden a couple of BMWs with telelever or whatever they call it and disliked them but I am too incompetent of a moto person on pavement for that to mean anything.

    I was thinking about this yesterday during my ride, though, and I sort of question whether anti-dive and constant trail are even desirable on a mountain bike.

    If I'm braking hard into a corner, I actually *want* a lower trail number and more weight on the front wheel (since I'm going to be going slower and turning), so the front end dive is, within reason, a positive feature. And if I'm riding on more open terrain where I'm not braking much/experiencing dive, the more open turns will work well with the higher trail number.

    If I was building a bike for a trail with nothing but tight turns, I'd want lower steering trail, after all. So in a way the brake dive is giving me that bike - but only when I need it. On the faster/straighter stuff where I'm not on the brakes, I can enjoy higher trail and more stability.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love to try this and I'm sure the team they put together didn't make something that sucks - but I'm also not sure what they're touting as the main benefit is actually something I want.

    I'd never buy a $2700 fork even if it was noticeably better than my Fox 34, but I'd love to try one and see what it's actually like.

    -Walt

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SLCpowderhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanheroes View Post
    As someone who's quietly been hoping for linkage forks to make a realistic return to MTB, this is a real disappointment.
    I knew it was coming, but nothing about it and my distain has led me to post on here in probably the first time in 15 years!

    To me, this is an Apple iPhone X of a product - huge, largely unwarranted talk of revolutionary technology and redefining performance at a price tag that ensures most actual customers will be some of the most clueless types ever to throw a leg over an MTB.

    Perhaps that's why the team felt justified in constructing this otherwise promising fork out of a fashionable material, rather than one which suits the environment the fork should be used in, safe in the knowledge that it's unlikely to see any hard use.

    The proliferation of Carbon Fibre in cycling is alarming to anyone with even a cursory understanding of how it's made and the realities of dealing with it at end of life, but for such a decorated engineer to use it so liberally in an area of the bike that is exposed to heavy impact is inexcusable & demonstrates a lack of leadership (even if one of the team founded ENVE).
    Are we still talking about carbon fiber components being weak? You can take whatever dig you'd like at the fork, but the one that will hold the least amount of water is saying carbon isn't strong enough for a fork. I've been hammering a rigid carbon for for years no issues.

    $2700 for a fork, that's crazy. A fork made of carbon fiber, very sane.



    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Stahr_Nut View Post
    I have less than zero interest in a linkage fork. IMO the best thing about a telescopic fork is the amount of stoke you have to work with when getting them tuned in. A 120mm travel fork has 120mm of stroke to play around with. When you start using linkages your 120mm of travel now may only have 1.75" or 2" of stroke at the shock.

    So when you start playing around with settings to try and get a certain feel early in the stroke or in the mid-stroke instead of having, say 30mm early and 60mm mid-stroke you now have like 10mm and 25mm. Everything has to happen on a tighter scale.
    Like rear suspension? Seems to work ok....

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    I rode the Lawill Leader back in 1996, was by far the best performing fork at the time. Even better than the Z1. It was the same idea as this one. But it never took off due to lack of funding, and industry support.

    This go around is not going to be the same. The Trust team is genius.

    --Make 2500 of them before announcing. Means they have financial backing
    --Make it at the very very high end of the market. Means that most will covet it, particularly after some glowing reviews.
    --Spend 2 years or so at this price point to work out any kinks. Then come out with a $1200 version that everyone will buy like crazy
    --Assemble a team of industry veterans that people trust. Mert Lawill was a motocross guy, not a bike guy with huge wins already.

    I'd bet on it, this is the real deal. 5 years from now, if you are buying a $6k bike it will have something like this. This is one of the last areas of high end MTB's that is ready for a revolution.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanheroes View Post
    As someone who's quietly been hoping for linkage forks to make a realistic return to MTB, this is a real disappointment.
    I knew it was coming, but nothing about it and my distain has led me to post on here in probably the first time in 15 years!

    To me, this is an Apple iPhone X of a product - huge, largely unwarranted talk of revolutionary technology and redefining performance at a price tag that ensures most actual customers will be some of the most clueless types ever to throw a leg over an MTB.

    Perhaps that's why the team felt justified in constructing this otherwise promising fork out of a fashionable material, rather than one which suits the environment the fork should be used in, safe in the knowledge that it's unlikely to see any hard use.

    The proliferation of Carbon Fibre in cycling is alarming to anyone with even a cursory understanding of how it's made and the realities of dealing with it at end of life, but for such a decorated engineer to use it so liberally in an area of the bike that is exposed to heavy impact is inexcusable & demonstrates a lack of leadership (even if one of the team founded ENVE).
    Jiminy Xmas - you got to be kidding?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by ShredlyMcShredface View Post
    I rode the Lawill Leader back in 1996, was by far the best performing fork at the time. Even better than the Z1. It was the same idea as this one. But it never took off due to lack of funding, and industry support.

    This go around is not going to be the same. The Trust team is genius.

    --Make 2500 of them before announcing. Means they have financial backing
    --Make it at the very very high end of the market. Means that most will covet it, particularly after some glowing reviews.
    --Spend 2 years or so at this price point to work out any kinks. Then come out with a $1200 version that everyone will buy like crazy
    --Assemble a team of industry veterans that people trust. Mert Lawill was a motocross guy, not a bike guy with huge wins already.

    I'd bet on it, this is the real deal. 5 years from now, if you are buying a $6k bike it will have something like this. This is one of the last areas of high end MTB's that is ready for a revolution.
    yes, yes, yes, you have seen the future !

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    Jiminy Xmas - you got to be kidding?
    Lol no doubt, the salt factor running extremely high for urbanheros. Iím sure he could build a better fork in his basement if people just gave him a chance!! 😂

  17. #17
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    If I'm braking hard into a corner, I actually *want* a lower trail number and more weight on the front wheel (since I'm going to be going slower and turning), so the front end dive is, within reason, a positive feature. And if I'm riding on more open terrain where I'm not braking much/experiencing dive, the more open turns will work well with the higher trail number.

    If I was building a bike for a trail with nothing but tight turns, I'd want lower steering trail, after all. So in a way the brake dive is giving me that bike - but only when I need it. On the faster/straighter stuff where I'm not on the brakes, I can enjoy higher trail and more stability.
    Fork compression shortening the front end and steepening the HTA sure does load the front with more weight, but I see that as a bad thing as a short rider on a bike that's already nose-heavy. Too much weight on the front pushes the front tire out, especially at the apex when/where the front is loaded most, forcing me to compensate by actually shifting weight back. If a linkage fork keeps things so consistent that I don't have to do that weight shift, it'd make cornering a helluva lot simpler.

    Lower trail means that steering's much more sensitive. If you get that through offset, then the front wheel is more inboard too when turned. I tried both, and I like needing to recruit more of my body to turn. It jives with my style of controlling the bike from my core.

  18. #18
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Can't wait to try one.

  19. #19
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    It better have some absolutely out-of-this-world fantastic damping at that price, given it's not lighter than a Pike, let alone it's about a pound heavier than 34SC. In fact, I'd rather have fantastic damping in a telescopic fork first, even if this does work well. Crappy factory tunes are all over the place these days. Fox's Grip2 is a good step in the right direction. Adjustable high/low rebound and compression that truly works and doesn't just make it harsh. That's where you start, then worry about chassis, etc. Supposedly they have some "good stuff", but I haven't seen any real info on it yet...
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,449
    I've always been a sucker for a linkage fork but never owned one. It is an interesting design, but it has XC travel at Enduro weight, with 16 bearings.

    And very expensive.
    Bahaha. Jayem beat me to it.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    576
    This doesn't hit any of the "sponsored/race" segments (XC,Enduro,DH) and it doesn't hit the WW faction either. I don't see a significant target market at the eye popping price even if it has a magic carpet ride feel.
    Romani ite domum

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    221
    It hits the rs-1/lauf segment though.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,549
    In 20 years this ridiculous thing will be hanging on the walls of shops everywhere just like the Girvin forks of the past.
    Vermonter - bikes, beers and skis.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,448
    The linkage marketing makes it seem like every telescoping fork just bobs wildly, undamped, where touching the brake bottoms the thing out and throws you otb.

    This thing needs to have a world class damper that's better than anything out there, or else all it has going for it is no brake dive. Even that isn't necessarily a big benefit.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by VTSession View Post
    In 20 years this ridiculous thing will be hanging on the walls of shops everywhere just like the Girvin forks of the past.
    I sold and rode Girvin forks. They were easy to work on, were way stiffer torsionally than a comparable Z1 or Judy from the day. The only reason they stopped being made is K2 drove the company into the ground after their acquisition.

    Also, the Girvin really was just a single shock like the Amp, it didnít have the constant trail feature like the Lawill Leader did. Or this one has. Thatís the real innovation.

    There are plenty of Judyís and Z1ís on shop walls today too. Wait till you read the ride reviews... I have no inside knowledge, but I expect they will be glowing.

  26. #26
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by alixta View Post
    It hits the rs-1/lauf segment though.
    Right? The only people I know who rode RS-1s were the guys who designed it and a doc who spends silly money on xc race bikes. And this fork is too heavy for the money-is-no-object weight weenies.

    I think in the best case, it's a refinement in front suspension, the worst case, an ornament. Regardless, unless they can eventually get the price AND weight down in the ballpark of other forks, it'll be mostly be riders who get it for free/at cost, and those with tons of play money riding them.

    You can buy a decent FS ride for what this fork costs....

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    I'm surprised by the comments here to be honest.

    What makes folks think that telescoping forks are anything but a easy workaround to solve the engineering problem for front suspension? It's expensive but what isn't when it's first released? There are a lot of old MTB design that are hanging on walls, lots of failed experiments; stuff that simply didn't work, stuff that worked great but were poorly implemented / executed, stuff that was revolutionary but was ahead of its time....it all influenced where we are today and had an impact on bike design....countless examples. We wouldn't be riding the rigs we are on today if it weren't for all those experiments.

    Maybe it's just how my brain works, but I see something like this and I am instantly curious opposed to instantly resistant. It's expensive...so is buying a Fox 36 and getting it converted to coil and re-valved. So are $1200 Push rear shocks.

    Based on the track record of all (3) dudes involved, I wouldn't want to bet against them.

    Sad world we live in if we are hesitant to push the boundaries of a 25 year old design...

  28. #28
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I've ridden some linkage forks (Amp, Girvin, 20 years ago) but don't remember what I thought of them all that well at this point. All suspension basically sucked then, really. I've ridden a couple of BMWs with telelever or whatever they call it and disliked them but I am too incompetent of a moto person on pavement for that to mean anything.

    I was thinking about this yesterday during my ride, though, and I sort of question whether anti-dive and constant trail are even desirable on a mountain bike.

    If I'm braking hard into a corner, I actually *want* a lower trail number and more weight on the front wheel (since I'm going to be going slower and turning), so the front end dive is, within reason, a positive feature. And if I'm riding on more open terrain where I'm not braking much/experiencing dive, the more open turns will work well with the higher trail number.

    If I was building a bike for a trail with nothing but tight turns, I'd want lower steering trail, after all. So in a way the brake dive is giving me that bike - but only when I need it. On the faster/straighter stuff where I'm not on the brakes, I can enjoy higher trail and more stability.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love to try this and I'm sure the team they put together didn't make something that sucks - but I'm also not sure what they're touting as the main benefit is actually something I want.

    I'd never buy a $2700 fork even if it was noticeably better than my Fox 34, but I'd love to try one and see what it's actually like.

    -Walt
    Me too. I rode girvin a bit but Amp's a lot. Never noticed them being better than anything else from that time and the Z1 blew them away when I got one of those. However this could be amazing, but I also wonder about the cornering. Part of me feels like this would be amazing when on flowy straight trails but one tight trails where you are relying on the fork to compress and get you around the corner quicker, could it be a hindrance? On the other hand we have learned to ride rigid bikes and then poorly performing in suspension bikes, then huge travel enduro bikes, our bodies and brains are pretty good at extracting performance from something that is new, just like converting to clipless or flats from the opposite type.
    Quote Originally Posted by SLCpowderhound View Post
    Are we still talking about carbon fiber components being weak? You can take whatever dig you'd like at the fork, but the one that will hold the least amount of water is saying carbon isn't strong enough for a fork. I've been hammering a rigid carbon for for years no issues.

    $2700 for a fork, that's crazy. A fork made of carbon fiber, very sane.



    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    I think and am assuming he is referring to the environmental cost of using CF. It is not the cleanest nor the most environmental material, unable to be recycled or even upcycled and once failed I would wager in an application like this it would be not able to be repaired.

    I definitely do not agree with his take on the strength aspect. While this is a flagship product, I would wager it will be just as strong, if not stronger, than a comparable flagship fork. The people involved are definitely not like Apple.

    I have a hard time spending $100 on fenders for my bike I ride everyday in Seattle winter, I am certainly going to balk at spending that much on a fork. My commuter, a carbon gravel bike, cost that much. The whole bike, Ultegra, carbon, HED wheels, etc. Still that fork is pretty amazing looking!
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SLCpowderhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    I'm surprised by the comments here to be honest.

    What makes folks think that telescoping forks are anything but a easy workaround to solve the engineering problem for front suspension? It's expensive but what isn't when it's first released? There are a lot of old MTB design that are hanging on walls, lots of failed experiments; stuff that simply didn't work, stuff that worked great but were poorly implemented / executed, stuff that was revolutionary but was ahead of its time....it all influenced where we are today and had an impact on bike design....countless examples. We wouldn't be riding the rigs we are on today if it weren't for all those experiments.

    Maybe it's just how my brain works, but I see something like this and I am instantly curious opposed to instantly resistant. It's expensive...so is buying a Fox 36 and getting it converted to coil and re-valved. So are $1200 Push rear shocks.

    Based on the track record of all (3) dudes involved, I wouldn't want to bet against them.

    Sad world we live in if we are hesitant to push the boundaries of a 25 year old design...
    Completely agree! Is it perfect? Maybe, maybe not. But it is at least challenging our assumptions of what a fork should be. I like that. I also remember a ton of people complaining about electronic drivetrains (still hear it...), but the truth is if you have shifted any modern electronic drivetrain you would know it is head and shoulders above anything else. Not an apples to apples comparison, but the same idea.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    Me too. I rode girvin a bit but Amp's a lot. Never noticed them being better than anything else from that time and the Z1 blew them away when I got one of those. However this could be amazing, but I also wonder about the cornering. Part of me feels like this would be amazing when on flowy straight trails but one tight trails where you are relying on the fork to compress and get you around the corner quicker, could it be a hindrance? On the other hand we have learned to ride rigid bikes and then poorly performing in suspension bikes, then huge travel enduro bikes, our bodies and brains are pretty good at extracting performance from something that is new, just like converting to clipless or flats from the opposite type.


    I think and am assuming he is referring to the environmental cost of using CF. It is not the cleanest nor the most environmental material, unable to be recycled or even upcycled and once failed I would wager in an application like this it would be not able to be repaired.

    I definitely do not agree with his take on the strength aspect. While this is a flagship product, I would wager it will be just as strong, if not stronger, than a comparable flagship fork. The people involved are definitely not like Apple.

    I have a hard time spending $100 on fenders for my bike I ride everyday in Seattle winter, I am certainly going to balk at spending that much on a fork. My commuter, a carbon gravel bike, cost that much. The whole bike, Ultegra, carbon, HED wheels, etc. Still that fork is pretty amazing looking!
    That's a really important point that I think a lot of folks miss. Sometimes things take time to adjust too. First rides are rarely indicative of real performance....setup takes time, fine tuning takes time and (to your point) your ability to ride effectively does too. It may require different riding style.....it likely will.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    While a different spin on a link fork, this is a good read (bonus points for AMP reference):

    https://motocrossactionmag.com/the-f...ng-link-forks/


    Several top riders of the era were firmly behind it along with some manuf...Honday being one of them and investing big $$. This sums it up for me, from article:

    "So, what happened to leading-link forks? Back in the 1970s, the improvement of telescopic forks made the leading links look old fashionedóand, as often happens, the riders of the era deserted leading links for the next big thing. Honda built several exotic, CNC-machined, ultra-light versions of the Ribi design but decided that the motorcycle market wasnít ready for such a radical-looking idea."

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,448
    Thats the thing though. Its not the 80's and we're not riding repack. We're not stuck to cow trails and fireroads because the bikes suck.

    Its not like we're guessing what works anymore. Mountain biking has pushed forward insanely where people are, literally, riding off cliffs... and the gear still holds up and works well. Just a few years ago, a chunky trail meant your arms were going to be beat by the end. Not anymore.

    At some point its like saying you can go faster on a unicycle if you add another wheel. Certainly, thats true, but its no longer a unicycle. Same with mountain biking.

    How many "negative" traits do we need to iron out of mountain biking, and at what point do we change so much that its not the same sport anymore?

    Imagine a linkage driven fork on a 300mm travel FS bike, with an 2000w electric motor. Engineer the bike the ride properly while seated. That would absolutely steamroll trails we call difficult today, and probably set KOM's going up, too.

    Ill keep my telescoping fork. We needed to advance damper quality until we can ride all day without hand pain, and setup geometry to perform well and confidently. I think we're good! We have a little more ironing out in terms of geometry, but thats different than entirely changing the dynamics of the bicycle.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    Thats the thing though. Its not the 80's and we're not riding repack. We're not stuck to cow trails and fireroads because the bikes suck.

    Its not like we're guessing what works anymore. Mountain biking has pushed forward insanely where people are, literally, riding off cliffs... and the gear still holds up and works well. Just a few years ago, a chunky trail meant your arms were going to be beat by the end. Not anymore.

    At some point its like saying you can go faster on a unicycle if you add another wheel. Certainly, thats true, but its no longer a unicycle. Same with mountain biking.

    How many "negative" traits do we need to iron out of mountain biking, and at what point do we change so much that its not the same sport anymore?

    Imagine a linkage driven fork on a 300mm travel FS bike, with an 2000w electric motor. Engineer the bike the ride properly while seated. That would absolutely steamroll trails we call difficult today, and probably set KOM's going up, too.

    Ill keep my telescoping fork. We needed to advance damper quality until we can ride all day without hand pain, and setup geometry to perform well and confidently. I think we're good! We have a little more ironing out in terms of geometry, but thats different than entirely changing the dynamics of the bicycle.
    I get it, you are a "if it aint' broke don't fix it" kind of guy, I can respect that. Some of the most successful designs and engineering problems were solved by constant small iterative improvements vs big steps. Seems like that is where we are with forks, really good and getting ever better by the year.

    But in saying that, new technology enables things that were not possible 25 years ago, some of which we are seeing with this fork. We'd be a dull group of folks not to embrace the advancements of technology and what it enables.

    Nobody is advocating electric motors nor "entirely changing the dynamics of a bicycle", it's a link, wheel still goes up and down, just like the links on the back.

    Use your own example, "riding all day without handpain", this fork may help solve that issue in ways telescoping forks cant. You, nor I nor anybody on this forum knows the answer...

    Sports evolve...that's what keeps these guys innovating, not the other way around....

  34. #34
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by SLCpowderhound View Post
    modern electronic drivetrain you would know it is head and shoulders above anything else.
    Bad example, because while the shifting *might* be marginally better (open to debate, but I don't think it is) the attendant problems and pitfalls that come with e shifting hamstring it in many ways. To the point that it's emphatically a drawback in pretty much every category from where I sit.

    The Trust fork may have pitfalls too -- only time and actual (not "E") riding experience will tell.

  35. #35
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by alixta View Post
    It hits the rs-1/lauf segment though.

    ?! Your critical reading skills could use some polishing. If only for putting those two in the same sentence, but also for lumping them in with the Trust -- which you haven't yet ridden.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PurpleMtnSlayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    ?! Your critical reading skills could use some polishing. If only for putting those two in the same sentence, but also for lumping them in with the Trust -- which you haven't yet ridden.
    Maybe he means theyíre in a group of expensive forks compared to their competitors? RS-1 is $1750 and Lauf is $900 for plastic.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    150
    A lot of Luddites here claiming "what we have now is 'good enough'". Seriously, if we'd listened to them back inthe '90's we's still be riding rigid steel, straight tube, and rim brakes.

    Sure, linkage forks have been tried in the past, and the failed for whatever reason, but typically it was a commercial failure, not a problem with their performance.

    This fork looks interesting, although I don't really think I agree with the reasoning behind their design choices. It seems like they've created a really heavy (vs light XC forks), expensive XC fork that tries to address problems that are more AM or Enduro in nature... but without enough travel.

    Full disclosure: I have 2 Motion E18's on order and can't wait to put them through the wringer. Their reasoning and design choices make sense to me and I believe they've hit the sweet spot for performance and price. The Message, not so much. Odd reasoning, seems to try and fill a niche that doesn't exist and the price. $$$$$ Maybe it works, but people were already balking at the E18 at $1400.

  38. #38
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by PurpleMtnSlayer View Post
    Maybe he means theyíre in a group of expensive forks compared to their competitors? RS-1 is $1750 and Lauf is $900 for plastic.

    I suppose that's possible, but there are other, more expensive forks that weren't listed so I didn't immediately make that connection.

    That aside, while the MSRP for the RS-1 is indeed north of $1600, I found mine for $700, including overnight shipping from the UK. That was a new fork, from a reputable company, and included full factory warranty.

    Which is part of why I don't think that was the original intent of that post.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PurpleMtnSlayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,112
    Maybe the Trust will be going for 56% off retail in time so we can get some real user feedback?!? I fear until that happens weíre just going to get paid advertisement and misleading post-purchase rationalizations due to choice-supportive bias.

  40. #40
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    I understand the sticker shock, but I think the technology is really cool! See how the uppers are static position? Imagine putting panniers on that thing and the gear will be sprung mass instead of bouncing up and down absurdly like I once experienced on a racked telescopic fork. Yes please. I know some packing types don't like the extra mass rotating around the front axle, but I don't seem to mind it too bad.

    I've sketched these types of forks and they are hard to package correctly.

    @urbanheroes CFRP has come a long way since the early days of carbon bikes. I kind of understand the skepticism because poor quality control can make for dangerous situations, but quality control has been boosted. I agree that the end of life scenario isn't good, but I see what happens to metal bikes end of life even though the metals are reclaimable. The metals don't get reclaimed, practically speaking. I live near low income housing and the young kids see no problem whatsoever just leaving bikes derelict around the neighborhood once the bikes expire. Sometimes I'll pick up a bike off the street that is just thrashed, strip the broken shifters off, set the derailleur limit screws to be in a vaguely useful gear, and then put it back on the street and watch it get ridden off to the horizon like five minutes later. Hardly anyone recycles. Why should they care about the world when the world doesn't care about them? I don't want to demonize these people, I want to empathize. It's a no-win situation. It just sucks. So you're not exactly wrong regarding the end of life, but you're functionally not right, either.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (officialy in 2016, functionally in 2020).

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by PurpleMtnSlayer View Post
    Maybe he means theyíre in a group of expensive forks compared to their competitors? RS-1 is $1750 and Lauf is $900 for plastic.
    Yep that was what I meant, that, and all 3 elicit emotional responses based on their aesthetic (not just price).

    It was just an observation, nothing that requires any deep thought or discussion.

    I love my RS-1, and can't wait to bolt on a DW fork, but will have to wait a few years until the price (new or used) is palatable.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brisco Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    296
    The refinement of technology is going to happen whether you like it or not. How many people on here yearn for the days of 8 track players, typewriters, and rotary phones? Itís a good thing that people are trying to push the envelope. Would you rather to riding a 26er with caliper brakes, 3x8 gearing, and tubed tires? These new designs are going to live or die based on the perceived value to the rider. I think this team of innovators has the track record for most of us to have a wait and see perspective.

  43. #43
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisco Dog View Post
    The refinement of technology is going to happen whether you like it or not. How many people on here yearn for the days of 8 track players, typewriters, and rotary phones? Itís a good thing that people are trying to push the envelope. Would you rather to riding a 26er with caliper brakes, 3x8 gearing, and tubed tires? These new designs are going to live or die based on the perceived value to the rider. I think this team of innovators has the track record for most of us to have a wait and see perspective.
    Agreed - I grew up on rotary phones. My friend is into antiquing. Recently he brought a rotary phone back home from his most recent market haul. I couldn't remember which way to turn it!! I don't miss 'em. I didn't like cell phones for a while because they were so fragile, but that got sorted out pretty well.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (officialy in 2016, functionally in 2020).

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I couldn't remember which way to turn it!!
    It's clockwise.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    874
    Maybe it catches on....but I would be completely shocked. Number one, the thing is hideous, and that matters...a lot. Secondly, the price point is absurd. Most importantly the ride report from the one guy who rode it wasnít exactly glowing. He liked it, but spent more time on drawbacks than advantages...didnít exactly make the case that it was better than a $700 Fox or RS. Very slim chance it catches on IMO.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SLCpowderhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisco Dog View Post
    The refinement of technology is going to happen whether you like it or not. How many people on here yearn for the days of 8 track players, typewriters, and rotary phones? Itís a good thing that people are trying to push the envelope. Would you rather to riding a 26er with caliper brakes, 3x8 gearing, and tubed tires? These new designs are going to live or die based on the perceived value to the rider. I think this team of innovators has the track record for most of us to have a wait and see perspective.
    Similar thing is going on in the road bike world with disc brakes. Some people think "my rim brakes work great, I don't need disc brakes!"... And then they ride them.

    "Telescoping forks are great, why change it..."

    I'm not saying this fork will completely change the game, but it might.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,370
    And this is the low end version based on comparable adjustability. Plenty of room for future versions with more.

  48. #48
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,386
    Nice to see people pushing the envelope.

    On the other hand the first thing I think about is the R&D spent on dirt bike tech vs mtb tech - its a fart in a windstorm proposition. If this was the way to go I think most dirt bikes would be on a linkage fork.

    Another thing - it is very rare I see riders "out-riding" what they currently on. The mtb world is filled with dudes on tricked out rigs who probably can't push the bike half way into its capability. When I see the masses routinely out-riding their 6" travel rigs then maybe it will be time for $2700 linkage forks. Heck, most riders barely know what all those nifty little damper knobs do !

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Nice to see people pushing the envelope.

    On the other hand the first thing I think about is the R&D spent on dirt bike tech vs mtb tech - its a fart in a windstorm proposition. If this was the way to go I think most dirt bikes would be on a linkage fork.

    Another thing - it is very rare I see riders "out-riding" what they currently on. The mtb world is filled with dudes on tricked out rigs who probably can't push the bike half way into its capability. When I see the masses routinely out-riding their 6" travel rigs then maybe it will be time for $2700 linkage forks. Heck, most riders barely know what all those nifty little damper knobs do !
    Iíve heard the dirt bike vs MTB for 20+ years. Dirt bikes have way more money invested, they have way more tech, are more advance suspension, more money in sponsorships. All true.

    What they donít have is a power to weight ratio of 1/3 horse power to drive a $10k machine. So innovation and precision on mtbís can be very different. Yes they share tons, but what matters to a mtb at 30lb machine weight and mtb speeds is very different.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,448
    Quote Originally Posted by SLCpowderhound View Post
    I'm not saying this fork will completely change the game, but it might.
    Some of us like this game. Yes, it might.

  51. #51
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Another thing - it is very rare I see riders "out-riding" what they currently on. The mtb world is filled with dudes on tricked out rigs who probably can't push the bike half way into its capability. When I see the masses routinely out-riding their 6" travel rigs then maybe it will be time for $2700 linkage forks. Heck, most riders barely know what all those nifty little damper knobs do !
    I agree, but that won't stop the high end market from doing high end market things. I grew up around audiophiles (not by choice), hardly anyone uses em right but they sure feel good doing it. Heck, your average passenger car these days has crazy amounts of power relative to twenty years ago. And the super car power outputs are WAY outside of the average driver who thinks of themselves as gifted at driving (just look up the youtube compilations of Ferrari and Mustang rear wheel drive throttle oversteer). Makers still gonna make.

    I ride within my limits because I'm not that great at riding. I still wanna ride a sweet bike cuz it's my main thing, I don't spend money on much else.

    There's also the consideration that Trust went with an initial high price point because their work WILL be copied by someone (we're talking about fancy levers here), and they need to make good on their investments before the copycats do their copying.

    I'd gladly pay to license the design in my own flavor (single sided external shock available from popular shock makers, which throws the neato 1:1 tuning feature of the Trust fork out the window but makes shock replacement very accessible).
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (officialy in 2016, functionally in 2020).

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    A couple of comments.

    This varies from almost every other linkage fork being trailing link rather than leading link. But it appears to have a rearward IC which makes the axle path mimick a leading link. The design intent being to increase offset and maintain trail as the fork compresses under braking.

    But there are a few issues with that. One is varying trail and offset when you're taking bumps without brake dive. Could give a constantly changing feel to the fork over bumpy terrain. Another is the assumptions required for bike wheelbase and head-angle to see what you're trying to acheive.

    Structurally the only thing synchronizing both sides is the 15mm axle. Which means it's got more flex modes than a conventional telescopic fork. They've balanced out the spring forces by putting a spring in each leg. But they can't balance external loads and they haven't balanced the damping forces. This suggests compression damping is minimal and it's relying on air spring progression. Attempts to run more compression damping will give it sideways flex under hard and fast compression.

    You've also got 10 pivot points (12 if you count the top of each shock or push-rod) which means at least 16 bearings and 4 bushings.

    This design cannot work with a single sided shock. You'd need to extend the rear links into a brace that joined around the wheel to gain enough stiffness.

    Travel is limited as the geometry is hard to get right with more travel. You can't easily scale this 130mm design up to 170mm.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  53. #53
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,535
    Wonder how they'd sync up the air springs. Do they have hoses leading up each leg, with a single valve at the crown?

    Name:  M8Umu41.png
Views: 3872
Size:  241.1 KB

    Thought these were valves at first, but it looks like they're just cut outs to give room for the air springs to rotate on bearings.

    Update: mystery solved...

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-trust-performance-message-fork-review-14.jpg
    - Non-drive side air valve

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-trust-performance-message-fork-review-11.jpg
    - driveside air valve

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-trust-performance-message-fork-review-12.jpg
    - high and low speed damping adjustment. Didn't say if it was for rebound or compression. I'd wager that it's for rebound, considering there's compression adjustment at the top of the crown
    "The challenge is not in developing new ideas, but in escaping old ideas."

  54. #54
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    I'm surprised by the comments here to be honest.

    What makes folks think that telescoping forks are anything but a easy workaround to solve the engineering problem for front suspension?
    The fact that Motocross hasn't been able to improve on it?

    Seriously, I'd pay good money for a good damper that is easily serviceable and re-configurable at home without having to buy a bunch of tools and parts. We are getting there and this is where technology will be pushed and make practical gains.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    Structurally the only thing synchronizing both sides is the 15mm axle.
    Pretty sure it is actually the wheel hub that will synchronize both sides.

    If you read about the fork he says that he had initially thought he would have to clamp the axle to make it work. But as he found out. He was able to make it work without having axle pinch bolts clamping it.

    This works in the same way most modern 15mm forks work. The axle is used in its best way. To pull two pieces together. Just like on modern day forks the axle sees tension stress only. It pulls the two sides of the fork onto the hub. The friction between the hub and two sides is what creates the strength and stops everything from moving.

    This is in contrast to MX and 20mm MTB downhill clamp forks. Where the 20mm axle is clamped, and virtually no tension is placed between the hub and fork. The axle then sees all sorts of bending and shear forces.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    Pretty sure it is actually the wheel hub that will synchronize both sides.

    If you read about the fork he says that he had initially thought he would have to clamp the axle to make it work. But as he found out. He was able to make it work without having axle pinch bolts clamping it.

    This works in the same way most modern 15mm forks work. The axle is used in its best way. To pull two pieces together. Just like on modern day forks the axle sees tension stress only. It pulls the two sides of the fork onto the hub. The friction between the hub and two sides is what creates the strength and stops everything from moving.

    This is in contrast to MX and 20mm MTB downhill clamp forks. Where the 20mm axle is clamped, and virtually no tension is placed between the hub and fork. The axle then sees all sorts of bending and shear forces.
    I'm well aware of how axles and carrying load in friction work. The average 15mm axle does not carry all the load in friction, it cannot acheive enough clamp load. Coarse threads of 15mm diameter. Limited torque.

    20mm axles were tensioned in the same manner as 15mm. Giving the same friction to carry load at the hub interface. Only a few of each got finer threads and more torque to deliver proper tension. It's not correct to say 15mm carries only tension and 20mm is under bending and shear. From the same manufacturer they were essentially the same and carry the same tension. Only 20mm being stiffer and usually clamped provides a much stiffer and stronger interface.

    As I stated. The axle is the only thing synchronising each side of this fork. There is no brace or other load path.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    75
    The other load path is through the hub.

    Also here's how fox says to install a 20mm thru axle on a Fox 40.
    "Loosen the four (4) axle pinch bolts on the lower leg with a 5 mm hex key wrench.
    Using a 5 mm hex key wrench, turn the axle counter-clockwise to loosen and remove.
    Install the front wheel into the dropouts and install the axle into the lower leg.
    Using a 5 mm hex key wrench, turn clockwise and lightly tighten the axle to the lower leg to 19 in-lb (215 N-cm) torque (see Figure 6: 40 Axle Clamps).
    Tighten the two left side (from the seated rider's perspective) dropout pinch-bolts to 19 in-lb (215 N-cm) torque.
    Compress the fork on the bike a couple of times to let the right side of the dropout float and settle to its low-friction point. Tighten the two right side dropout pinch-bolts to 19 in-lb (215 N-cm) torque."

    If you can't understand how a front 20mm thru axle provides effectively no tensile load from this example then I don't think anyone can help you understand.
    Of course the axle will eventually be under tension or compression loads. This is how physics works. Even when loaded in shear as we call it the material is still being tensioned and/or compressed.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    Pretty sure it is actually the wheel hub that will synchronize both sides.

    If you read about the fork he says that he had initially thought he would have to clamp the axle to make it work. But as he found out. He was able to make it work without having axle pinch bolts clamping it.

    This works in the same way most modern 15mm forks work. The axle is used in its best way. To pull two pieces together. Just like on modern day forks the axle sees tension stress only. It pulls the two sides of the fork onto the hub. The friction between the hub and two sides is what creates the strength and stops everything from moving.
    This is a fork where the Rock Shox Torque Caps really start to look worth getting. And the fork is natively designed for them, with little adapters you bolt in if you are running a regular hub.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    - high and low speed damping adjustment. Didn't say if it was for rebound or compression. I'd wager that it's for rebound, considering there's compression adjustment at the top of the crown
    They have published a manual and separate setup guide on their website. So it looks like they have a rebound knob at the bottom and the two hex screws under the cap on the leg are low speed adjustments, one for each of the damping modes (open and medium) selected by the top lever (skipping one for the lockout w/blowoff setting). Which I believe is a unique setup, and helps make those modes more meaningful. I don't know if you could consider the mode selector a high speed adjustment or not, but there is no other separate high speed adjuster.

    Interestingly, the rebound and open mode adjusters have 20 clicks, while the medium mode adjuster only has 6.

    It can also use up to six volume reducers per leg, which they thoughtfully include for the $2700. Out of the box it has 2 per leg.

  60. #60
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    The axle is the only thing synchronising each side of this fork. There is no brace or other load path.
    As built, you're right. You could easily make this design asymmetrical, but it would cost certain things, and these are things that I wouldn't want to sacrifice.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (officialy in 2016, functionally in 2020).

  61. #61
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Wait until $699 on JensonUSA?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    The other load path is through the hub.

    Also here's how fox says to install a 20mm thru axle on a Fox 40.
    "Loosen the four (4) axle pinch bolts on the lower leg with a 5 mm hex key wrench.
    Using a 5 mm hex key wrench, turn the axle counter-clockwise to loosen and remove.
    Install the front wheel into the dropouts and install the axle into the lower leg.
    Using a 5 mm hex key wrench, turn clockwise and lightly tighten the axle to the lower leg to 19 in-lb (215 N-cm) torque (see Figure 6: 40 Axle Clamps).
    Tighten the two left side (from the seated rider's perspective) dropout pinch-bolts to 19 in-lb (215 N-cm) torque.
    Compress the fork on the bike a couple of times to let the right side of the dropout float and settle to its low-friction point. Tighten the two right side dropout pinch-bolts to 19 in-lb (215 N-cm) torque."

    If you can't understand how a front 20mm thru axle provides effectively no tensile load from this example then I don't think anyone can help you understand.
    Of course the axle will eventually be under tension or compression loads. This is how physics works. Even when loaded in shear as we call it the material is still being tensioned and/or compressed.
    Cool story. You've found the one 20mm axle with low torque on the cap. You've seen Rockshox 20mm forks right? Manitou 20mm? Marzocchi 20mm (before they became different colour fox)?

    They all tension the same as their 15mm counterparts.

    Any time you'd like to get back to the subject at hand is fine by me. The 15mm axle is the only thing synchronising the two halves of this fork.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    As built, you're right. You could easily make this design asymmetrical, but it would cost certain things, and these are things that I wouldn't want to sacrifice.
    Sure, extend a brace around the wheel which connects both axle links. That can give you enough strength and stiffness to run a one-sided shock.

    But they've deliberately not done that. For reasons the designers will know and we can guess at.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,650
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanheroes View Post
    As someone who's quietly been hoping for linkage forks to make a realistic return to MTB, this is a real disappointment.
    I knew it was coming, but nothing about it and my distain has led me to post on here in probably the first time in 15 years!

    To me, this is an Apple iPhone X of a product - huge, largely unwarranted talk of revolutionary technology and redefining performance at a price tag that ensures most actual customers will be some of the most clueless types ever to throw a leg over an MTB.

    Perhaps that's why the team felt justified in constructing this otherwise promising fork out of a fashionable material, rather than one which suits the environment the fork should be used in, safe in the knowledge that it's unlikely to see any hard use.

    The proliferation of Carbon Fibre in cycling is alarming to anyone with even a cursory understanding of how it's made and the realities of dealing with it at end of life, but for such a decorated engineer to use it so liberally in an area of the bike that is exposed to heavy impact is inexcusable & demonstrates a lack of leadership (even if one of the team founded ENVE).
    Forgot your meds?
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by SLCpowderhound View Post
    Are we still talking about carbon fiber components being weak? You can take whatever dig you'd like at the fork, but the one that will hold the least amount of water is saying carbon isn't strong enough for a fork. I've been hammering a rigid carbon for for years no issues.

    $2700 for a fork, that's crazy. A fork made of carbon fiber, very sane.



    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


    I'm certainly not suggesting that carbon fibre is 'weak', because it most certainly isn't (assuming such a nebulous term is appropriate when talking about material properties).
    The longitudinal UTS of even moderate grades of carbon fibre is impressive (circa 2000mpa) easily eclipsing that of steel and although those numbers drop considerably once in a matrix with resin, it's still got remarkable mechanical properties and as everyone knows, strength-to-weight is practically peerless.

    My objection to the use of carbon fibre in the Trust fork is twofold:

    1. Environmental:-
    The fibres are very energy intensive to produce (from petrochemicals); processing is very wasteful (typically 30% material scrap); issues exist around the carcinogenic nature of the processing particulates & other manufacturing externalities; once fibres are combined in a (thermosetting plastic) matrix and cured, the process is non-reversible, effectively condemning the material resources, processing pollution, energy inputs etc that it took to produce the CF part to the single lifecycle of the part in question.

    Whilst efforts to recycle CF exist, most relate to dry fibre (prior to adding to the matrix, so inapplicable to products) and those that tackle cured material require inordinate amounts of energy, chemicals or both and none produce fibre with anything like the properties desirable for making performance products. Typically, recycled fibres are short in length and tainted by the process that liberated them from the adhesive matrix and end up being downgraded for use as a filler in moulded parts, which in turn become unrecyclable. Ordinary plastics (currently being vilified the world over) are environmental saints by comparison.

    I recognise that mountain bikers don't necessarily consider, or care about the environmental impact of the products they lust after, so am not naive enough to expect readers of my comments to agree, but nevertheless, I submit these points for consideration.

    2. Practical:-
    With all I've said above in mind, consider the shortcomings of Carbon Fibre for MTB applications and its suitability for use in a fork.
    One characteristic CF has that is particularly problematic is percentage elongation, or lack of it. CF also lacks hardness, which makes it rather easy to scratch or gouge in comparison to even soft metals such as aluminium or magnesium. What is also worth noting here is that metals are highly isotropic (similar mechanical properties in all directions) CF by nature cannot be isotropic. This is both a benefit and a shortcoming, depending how & where it is used.
    Where surface damage is concerned, being isotropic is an advantage, as is more % elongation, since the combination allows a material to accept high stress by yielding in one area, without adversely affecting another. Carbon fibre components rely almost entirely on the (very high) longitudinal strength and stiffness of the carbon fibres in the matrix; it's therefore essential that those fibres are both long, remain intact & adhered to one another, to ensure the function of the part.
    In mountain bikes, which suffer all manner of impacts, knocks and bangs, manufacturers substantially overbuild areas of the bike most likely to experience damage (look at a section through a CF DH bike downtube) and this has a lot to do with why carbon mountain bikes aren't much lighter than their high-end aluminium counterparts, despite the dramatic differences in material properties. Another is the very thick layer of protective lacquer on top of the CF to prevent surface scratches reaching the fibres.

    With regard to the Trust fork, CF has been used throughout & the design dictates that all the moving parts are near the axle - most likely to receive impacts. These impacts differ from those typically experienced by a bike's downtube, because the object being struck is often fairly rigid rather than airborne.
    A rock thrown up by the front tyre has energy, no doubt and the impact will be relative to the speed of the bike and the mass of the rock in conjunction with angle & surface area of the impact, which is largely down to the shape of the rock. However, when a fork lower is impacted, the same factors are at play, but if the object being stuck is fixed to the ground and the rider is on the bike - a glancing blow in a rock garden for instance, the mass & thus forces involved are much more substantial.
    Even in the case of a crash, the fork lower is much more likely to strike an object on the ground than the downtube (thanks in part to the handlebars and pedals being in the way) and in this case, the mass of the bike comes into play and that is always going to be greater than an object thrown up by the tyre.

    My contention is that the use of carbon fibre in this fork, particularly for the linkages, results in parts that are less capable of dealing with the harsh realities of mountain biking than a metal equivalent and will therefore require replacement when (inevitably) damaged, to prevent impacts that would merely dent or scratch a metal part from resulting in catastrophic failure & very likely injury.
    I would have less of an issue with this if carbon fibre parts were less environmentally damaging in production and if redundant, damaged parts could be usefully recycled.

    I should add that I was a proponent of carbon fibre at one time and had access to material through work contacts. I was in awe of the properties and flexibility for design & thought nothing of the wider picture. The more I've learnt, the less enthusiastic I've become, but am prepared to shift my outlook if the problems I've described are resolved.
    There are certainly applications where the material would be terrifically advantageous if the long-term environmental impacts can be addressed, but linkage forks are not amongst them!

    One final point I should mention is that I'm in no way criticising the design of the fork itself, I've long been an advocate of linkage forks and this particular layout is very interesting.
    I had the pleasure of spending a few days on the original (aluminium) Santa Cruz Blur with a USE SUB fork up front many years ago and the experience was enlightening to say the least.
    Sadly, those were the days when pedalling platforms were all the rage and even Cannondale was licencing SPV and ProPedal damper tech for the Lefty. A small UK brand known for seatposts simply couldn't pay to play in that market. I'd love to go back and ride a SUB now to see if my rose-tinted memories hold up to scrutiny.

    If you've read all that, fair play..

  66. #66
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,439
    But it'll look cool on the bike rack hung from whatever your choice of Teutonic wonder mobile you opted for.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanheroes View Post
    My objection to the use of carbon fibre in the Trust fork is twofold:

    1. Environmental

    2. Practical
    Your environmental issue is really irrelevant to this discussion when your broad issue is with the CF industry as a whole. It's a very specific beef in the larger scheme of things, I believe there are more pressing environmental issues out there to worry about. Modern high-end bikes tend to use a lot of carbon fiber, if you have such a big problem with it, is this really the right thread to unload in? My personal opinion is that high-end bike parts are a drop in the bucket of the larger problems with the impact of composite materials, and any resources spent on bikes is fundamentally more environmentally positive than most other uses. I also tend to take care of my stuff and get good life out of it, and carbon is often repairable. A well designed CF frame will outlast an aluminum frame. Hopefully this fork will fare similarly. The production numbers of a $2700 fork are likely to make it a meaningless issue.

    As a practical matter, this fork would be difficult to manufacture in a different material without a significant weight or durability penalty. I think most riders will not have the problems you describe. I can't remember ever putting a deep gouge or hard impact into my fork lowers or having an incident that would have significantly damaged or destroyed this fork design. The guys that are hard on their equipment know who they are and probably won't choose this fork. But sometimes bad things happen and things get broken, it is part of the sport. Despite the largely CF construction this fork doesn't look to be fragile, and it does look repairable. I don't see it as a concern, but other riders in other conditions may decide otherwise.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    The 15mm axle is the only thing synchronising the two halves of this fork.
    I don't want to insert myself into a dispute, but I do want to be clear on this subject. The 15mm thru-axle is pulling the sides of the fork together through the hub's own axle, the fork dropouts/uprights are then solidly linked through the hub axle with the 15mm thru-axle providing the clamping force required to hold this assembly rigidly together.

    Maybe this is assumed in your position, but to be clear as I see it the 15mm axle is only a part of the equation. A rigid hub axle is the other critical component. And Torque Caps suddenly seem like a pretty good idea to me. Or am I somehow looking at this wrong?

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Velodonata View Post
    I don't want to insert myself into a dispute, but I do want to be clear on this subject. The 15mm thru-axle is pulling the sides of the fork together through the hub's own axle, the fork dropouts/uprights are then solidly linked through the hub axle with the 15mm thru-axle providing the clamping force required to hold this assembly rigidly together.

    Maybe this is assumed in your position, but to be clear as I see it the 15mm axle is only a part of the equation. A rigid hub axle is the other critical component. And Torque Caps suddenly seem like a pretty good idea to me. Or am I somehow looking at this wrong?
    Yes, apart from the "solidly linked" part. It's a thin wall 15mm aluminium axle without enough tension to clamp everything securely.

    Everything flexes, everything is a spring. Only the stiffness varies. Here the stiffness isn't great and you've only got one spring (the axle).

    Yes bigger endcaps (SRAM torque caps etc) will help. But the proper solution needs a bigger axle and/or seperate brace. Brings us back to the discussions had ~15 years ago that the 15mm axle was not the best way forward.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    Yes, apart from the "solidly linked" part. It's a thin wall 15mm aluminium axle without enough tension to clamp everything securely.

    Everything flexes, everything is a spring. Only the stiffness varies. Here the stiffness isn't great and you've only got one spring (the axle).

    Yes bigger endcaps (SRAM torque caps etc) will help. But the proper solution needs a bigger axle and/or seperate brace. Brings us back to the discussions had ~15 years ago that the 15mm axle was not the best way forward.
    Remember Maverickís solution to this was a 24mm hub, it always regulated them to a subculture product. Itís smarter from an product engineering standpoint to overbuild the lowers enough that a 15mm hub works. At 4.3 lbs or so, Iím guessing itís over engineered enough to be stiff enough for a 15mm hub. If itís not we will see very soon a bunch of people putting the front wheel between their legs and twisting the fork, just like we saw with the Maverick DUC 32

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ShredlyMcShredface View Post
    Remember Maverickís solution to this was a 24mm hub, it always regulated them to a subculture product. Itís smarter from an product engineering standpoint to overbuild the lowers enough that a 15mm hub works. At 4.3 lbs or so, Iím guessing itís over engineered enough to be stiff enough for a 15mm hub. If itís not we will see very soon a bunch of people putting the front wheel between their legs and twisting the fork, just like we saw with the Maverick DUC 32
    Can you list all the other 15mm axle forks with no additional brace? It's a short list.

    20mm axles do exist. In fact almost every aftermarket hub supports them. They even have 20mm axle versions which key into each dropout to resist individual leg twisting.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  72. #72
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,566
    If weíre going to pick apart the environmental aspects of carbon fiber component production, shouldnít we do the same with aluminum and magnesium?

    I mean, do people think that just arrives at Foxís factory in billet form, pooped out by elves or fairies?

    Itís also an incredibly energy intensive and destructive process to produce aluminum. The Pole founder conveniently left that out of his spiel on Pinkbike a while back.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    Can you list all the other 15mm axle forks with no additional brace? It's a short list.

    20mm axles do exist. In fact almost every aftermarket hub supports them. They even have 20mm axle versions which key into each dropout to resist individual leg twisting.
    If its not stiff enough weíll know soon enough. Product reviewers in general are NOT very good at identifying flexy products. Case in point, was the 15 years of 28 and 32 mm stancion forks that all sucked in terms of flex. How many reviews started off with, well itís pretty well sprung and damped, but the new Judy still flexes like crazy.

    So I wonít take one or 2 reviews that say it rides great, it takes a bigger rider that flexes stuff a ton to tell.

    We will know soon enough. Either the 15mm hub is plenty stiff enough. Or itís not.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    If weíre going to pick apart the environmental aspects of carbon fiber component production, shouldnít we do the same with aluminum and magnesium?

    I mean, do people think that just arrives at Foxís factory in billet form, pooped out by elves or fairies?

    Itís also an incredibly energy intensive and destructive process to produce aluminum. The Pole founder conveniently left that out of his spiel on Pinkbike a while back.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    No, sram has the elves and fairies on lock, and fox uses goblins.

    It's a dumb joke, but no dumber than this line of discussion

    Let's let the carbon-is-bad troll stick to pre 2010 threads.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ShredlyMcShredface View Post
    If its not stiff enough weíll know soon enough. Product reviewers in general are NOT very good at identifying flexy products. Case in point, was the 15 years of 28 and 32 mm stancion forks that all sucked in terms of flex. How many reviews started off with, well itís pretty well sprung and damped, but the new Judy still flexes like crazy.

    So I wonít take one or 2 reviews that say it rides great, it takes a bigger rider that flexes stuff a ton to tell.

    We will know soon enough. Either the 15mm hub is plenty stiff enough. Or itís not.
    It's worth noting that stanchion size doesn't dictate fork flex. The actual flex in the stanchion is minimal. It's mostly about crown, axle and brace design.

    Fork stanchions have grown bigger for marketing reasons as well as fitting in bigger diameter dampers (bladders etc need room to expand/contract) and bigger diameter air springs.

    Manitou Sherman was a great example of a relatively small stanchioned (32mm) fork with extra grunty crown, brace and 20mm hex axle. Now days we have 32mm forks that are too noodley for hard XC use.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    Cool story. You've found the one 20mm axle with low torque on the cap. You've seen Rockshox 20mm forks right? Manitou 20mm? Marzocchi 20mm (before they became different colour fox)?

    They all tension the same as their 15mm counterparts.

    Any time you'd like to get back to the subject at hand is fine by me. The 15mm axle is the only thing synchronising the two halves of this fork.
    You deliberately ignore the part where I mention MX (style) axles, and axle clamps, and the engineer deciding he didn't need axle clamps (like on mx and 20mm mtb downhill clamp axle forks) to make yourself sound correct.
    I didn't find 'the one 20mm axle with low torque on the cap'. I found one of the most popular DH forks with low torque on the cap.
    Here are some others.
    DVO diamond. "9. Holding the front brake, using your body weight compress your fork. Do this a few times to allow the fork legs to self-align on the axle. Now tighten the drop-out / axle bolts down to the appropriate torque value of 7 N.m / 62 in.lbf."
    Bos IDYLLE. "6. Compress the fork on the bike a couple of times to let the right side of the dropout float and settle to its low-
    friction point.
    Tighten the two right side dropout pinch-bolts 3N.m torque."

    Not sure what Marzocchi 20mm thru axle forks you are talking about. But my old 888 used MX style clamped thru axles.
    Here is what a 2009 manual says. "Forks that are created for more intensive use are provided with a wheel fastening system, which originates from the motocross application and uses a 20 mm axle"
    and "Tighten the axle to the required torque (ē 15Ī1 Nm) using a 6mm Allen key to the caps of the axle (see 4B of Picture 4). Check for the proper fork-wheel alignment. To do this, begin by ē fully compressing the fork a few times."

    Now comes the part that I find really troubling considering you are a self proclaimed Manitou expert.
    Manitou has this to say about installing 20mm thru axles like on their Dorado fork. "To install the hex axle, simply slip the axle into the dropout, small axle hex side first into the large dropout hex. (See Image 2, page 6.) Thread the set bolt into the small hex side and snug slightly. Push the fork up and down a few times to center the axle and hub and then tighten all pinch bolts to recommendations found in Table 6, page 15."

    Arguing about stupid shit like this makes you seem really unprofessional as a business, and being wrong about things you claim to be an expert in just makes you look like an idiot.

    Again. The 15mm does not synchronise the two sides of this linkage fork. The hub does.
    Just like the axle studs on a car don't hold the weight of the car up. They are simply tensioned to provide a clamping force between the wheel and hub/disc.

  77. #77
    J:
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,128
    I want to try it but.."revolutionary" suspension has a good damper and coil springs.
    video=youtube;][/video]...

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    You deliberately ignore the part where I mention MX (style) axles, and axle clamps, and the engineer deciding he didn't need axle clamps (like on mx and 20mm mtb downhill clamp axle forks) to make yourself sound correct.
    Sure did. Because this isn't a MX axle and you're drifting further and further off topic.

    I keep trying to pull you back to discussing this actual fork. But with no success. Instead we're stuck in outwardly growing irrelevant circles.

    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    I didn't find 'the one 20mm axle with low torque on the cap'. I found one of the most popular DH forks with low torque on the cap.
    Here are some others.
    DVO diamond. "9. Holding the front brake, using your body weight compress your fork. Do this a few times to allow the fork legs to self-align on the axle. Now tighten the drop-out / axle bolts down to the appropriate torque value of 7 N.m / 62 in.lbf."
    DVO Diamond is 15mm QR! https://www.dvosuspension.com/products/diamond/

    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    Bos IDYLLE. "6. Compress the fork on the bike a couple of times to let the right side of the dropout float and settle to its low-
    friction point.
    Tighten the two right side dropout pinch-bolts 3N.m torque."

    Not sure what Marzocchi 20mm thru axle forks you are talking about. But my old 888 used MX style clamped thru axles.
    Here is what a 2009 manual says. "Forks that are created for more intensive use are provided with a wheel fastening system, which originates from the motocross application and uses a 20 mm axle"
    and "Tighten the axle to the required torque (ē 15Ī1 Nm) using a 6mm Allen key to the caps of the axle (see 4B of Picture 4). Check for the proper fork-wheel alignment. To do this, begin by ē fully compressing the fork a few times."
    Bos Idylle isn't even a current fork. But you do appreciate that 15Nm on that axle is significant right and far more than the average?
    15Nm on an M6x1mm pitch screw gives approx 1.5 ton tension. The (correct) calculations are more complicated for larger diameters with fine threads. Ballparking with K values is easy but rough.

    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    Now comes the part that I find really troubling considering you are a self proclaimed Manitou expert.
    Manitou has this to say about installing 20mm thru axles like on their Dorado fork. "To install the hex axle, simply slip the axle into the dropout, small axle hex side first into the large dropout hex. (See Image 2, page 6.) Thread the set bolt into the small hex side and snug slightly. Push the fork up and down a few times to center the axle and hub and then tighten all pinch bolts to recommendations found in Table 6, page 15."
    Having ridden those axles for the last ~15 years I can reliably state that more torque is required. If you just snug it lightly you'll feel the wheel shifting around on the axle. See axles have about 0.2mm clearance inside the hub bearings and without any clamp load they rattle around. Braking pushes them down, gravity pushes them back up. Feels horrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    Arguing about stupid shit like this makes you seem really unprofessional as a business, and being wrong about things you claim to be an expert in just makes you look like an idiot.
    Nothing like some personal attacks to really show competence. I'm happy to get back to the topic any time.

    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    Again. The 15mm does not synchronise the two sides of this linkage fork. The hub does.
    Just like the axle studs on a car don't hold the weight of the car up. They are simply tensioned to provide a clamping force between the wheel and hub/disc.
    Except. Without the 15mm axle the hub falls off.

    P.S. My cars take ~130Nm on each M14-M16 wheel stud. To reliably carry load, as shear, with friction requires significant clamp load. They also have hub centre spigots which are close fit (light interference even) to carry overload and ensure radial alignment.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    75
    Dougal you are ridiculous.
    I mentioned that the engineers had already looked into a clamped axle style such as is used in MX and 20mm downhill axels and decided it was not needed. For some reason you felt the need to 'correct' me. Your 'correction' however was completely wrong as I have shown.
    Again I showed how you were wrong about the Marzocchi and Manitou too. Just trying to cause trouble?

    Okay the Bos Idylle is not current. Take the Bos Obsys then. I don't have the manual for that but it doesn't take a genius to see from the pictures that it has the same MX style clamping system.

    The DVO I mentioned should be their 'Emerald'. My mistake.

    Okay. Take a car with wheel bolts then. Not studs. The wheel will fall off too. It doesn't matter if the wheel will fall off from no bolts or no 15mm axle. They do not support the vehicle. As is the case with the 15mm axle on this fork. They simply apply a clamping force for the wheel/hub to support the vehicle.

    I'm done here. I've shown multiple times that you are wrong and just looking to argue. Physics don't lie on such as simple subject.
    Continue on with your huffing and puffing, when you can't even understand how the engineers designed the axle system to work on a product which you are an expert on.

    Bye.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    Dougal you are ridiculous.
    I mentioned that the engineers had already looked into a clamped axle style such as is used in MX and 20mm downhill axels and decided it was not needed. For some reason you felt the need to 'correct' me. Your 'correction' however was completely wrong as I have shown.
    Again I showed how you were wrong about the Marzocchi and Manitou too. Just trying to cause trouble?
    Ah yes, me just deciding to argue and cause trouble. Starting it all with this post: Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"- Mtbr.com


    Tell me again how you know what the engineers did during development?

    Quote Originally Posted by KoolGrandWizardLuke View Post
    I'm done here. I've shown multiple times that you are wrong and just looking to argue. Physics don't lie on such as simple subject.
    Continue on with your huffing and puffing, when you can't even understand how the engineers designed the axle system to work on a product which you are an expert on.

    Bye.
    Fascinating reading in your other posts. Your hobby of trying to prove engineers wrong looks like a tough one. .....

    Sideshow is over boys. Back to the topic.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    Tell me again how you know what the engineers did during development?
    I read and listen to those who obviously have more knowledge than myself. Not people who are too busy listening to their own crap.
    Yup. I've read your previous posts too. You're an older man with a little knowledge who thinks he has learnt all the world has to offer.

    "I expected the axle to be keyed on the ends so as to tie the left and right clamps together, but Weagle says that they've gone with a standard 15 x 110mm Boost thru-axle that's also Torque Cap compatible. He was originally expecting to have to use pinch clamps (they're on the older prototypes), but the chassis proved to be impressively rigid and they weren't needed."

  82. #82
    cmg
    cmg is online now
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,503
    however well it does or does not work, nothing changes the fact that it is goddamn FUGLY
    always mad and usually drunk......

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Velodonata View Post
    Your environmental issue is really irrelevant to this discussion when your broad issue is with the CF industry as a whole. It's a very specific beef in the larger scheme of things, I believe there are more pressing environmental issues out there to worry about. Modern high-end bikes tend to use a lot of carbon fibre, if you have such a big problem with it, is this really the right thread to unload in? My personal opinion is that high-end bike parts are a drop in the bucket of the larger problems with the impact of composite materials, and any resources spent on bikes is fundamentally more environmentally positive than most other uses. I also tend to take care of my stuff and get good life out of it, and carbon is often repairable. A well designed CF frame will outlast an aluminium frame. Hopefully this fork will fare similarly. The production numbers of a $2700 fork are likely to make it a meaningless issue.

    As a practical matter, this fork would be difficult to manufacture in a different material without a significant weight or durability penalty. I think most riders will not have the problems you describe. I can't remember ever putting a deep gouge or hard impact into my fork lowers or having an incident that would have significantly damaged or destroyed this fork design. The guys that are hard on their equipment know who they are and probably won't choose this fork. But sometimes bad things happen and things get broken, it is part of the sport. Despite the largely CF construction this fork doesn't look to be fragile, and it does look repairable. I don't see it as a concern, but other riders in other conditions may decide otherwise.

    Thanks for a literate and reasonable response, I'll try to be brief in explaining why I disagree in this instance:

    The you're right, high-end bike parts are a 'drop in the bucket', insignificant when considered in isolation. However, markets and entire industries are moulded & shaped by figureheads and flagship brands. Would the massive market for low-end, largely Chinese designed and manufactured CF frames and parts, not to mention the many carbon veneer, or carbon print/wrapped lookalike products exist without carbon fibre first becoming aspirational & almost mystical via the unobtainable ultra high-end market?

    Consumers are extremely malleable in the hands of people & brands they admire, particularly those they perceive as successful leaders, or innovators and this is increasingly true as time passes - it hardly bears mentioning, but consider for a moment the influence entirely unqualified members of the YouTube community wield over their millions of adoring followers on subjects such as health and diet.
    I mentioned Apple in my initial post, so why not here - aspirational herd mentality - it's easier to believe than question after all.

    Weagle et al are extremely influential, the comments in this thread bear out the trust that riders have in Dave in particular to get it right.
    Like many, I've ridden and deeply appreciated Dave's designs, including being very fortunate to ride the 'Ard Moors Enduro on a Robot R160 that makes use of his DW6 linkage (yes, I've expressed my disapproval of the use of carbon tubes to Robot!).
    As a result, I also trust Dave to get it right, but that trust is not without question.



    Just a brief word on your points about durability:-

    Yes, a well designed CF frame can outlast an Aluminium one, that is because (undamaged) CF has very low fatigue. That said, a well designed Aluminium frame will last a very long time (easily long enough to go out of fashion & become redundant) and has the overwhelming environmental benefit of being completely recyclable, re-alloyed and turned into any grade of aluminium for any purpose, an indefinite number of times.

    On the subject of weight, a well engineered aluminium part or frame can often compare favourably with CF, the best example of this in my view is German manufacturer Liteville.
    Also, don't ignore the possibilities that metal additive manufacture is beginning to present for lightweighting parts. Done right, this can be highly effective from an environmental perspective and deliver weight savings and structural enhancements that moulded CF can only dream of, all while keeping manufacture local.

    I hope this explains my stance and why I believe the figureheads of our sport should be held to account for the influence they have on the wider market. It's also worth mentioning, that many high-profile designers and engineers in other industries are bicycle enthusiasts and influenced by their passion.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    636
    Would love to see what the inner guts look like. Curious if we'd be able to recognize any suspension partner for the shock.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,401
    How soon til Lefty version? Not entirely joking. But then telescope forks do ok with side loads from having a spring in one side and a damper in the other, so maybe this could too.

    To the guy talking about aluminum extraction: word to that. A factoid I remember is that something like 2% of the world's electricity goes to making aluminum. Failing to recycle it is a sin against technology.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by cmg71 View Post
    however well it does or does not work, nothing changes the fact that it is goddamn FUGLY
    Ugly today is trendy tomorrow.....

    I personally don't think it's bad.

  87. #87
    cmg
    cmg is online now
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    Ugly today is trendy tomorrow.....
    Perfect , tomorrow lve got a chance with the chicks
    always mad and usually drunk......

  88. #88
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    How soon til Lefty version? Not entirely joking. But then telescope forks do ok with side loads from having a spring in one side and a damper in the other, so maybe this could too.

    To the guy talking about aluminum extraction: word to that. A factoid I remember is that something like 2% of the world's electricity goes to making aluminum. Failing to recycle it is a sin against technology.
    recycle aluminum requires 5% the energy to create new aluminum from ore, and 36% of all aluminum ingots today in US is from recycled...so the more sports and rec equipment that you can find in aluminum is overall 'good'.

    carbon fubar parts can only be thrown out


    anyway back to this fork the overall problem I see is a stratospheric price, but that might have logic all it's own. charge less, no one would notice it or buy it. charge more than most full mid-range bikes cost, people will line up for it (rich ones)
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    How soon til Lefty version? Not entirely joking. But then telescope forks do ok with side loads from having a spring in one side and a damper in the other, so maybe this could too.

    To the guy talking about aluminum extraction: word to that. A factoid I remember is that something like 2% of the world's electricity goes to making aluminum. Failing to recycle it is a sin against technology.

    Agreed, I think there is a pretty strong argument for this to be a single-sided fork - something that appears to be supported by the decision to use two air springs to balance forces out in the Message.
    Cutting 16 bearings down to 8 would be pretty appealing too, but a balanced chassis would be the real win.
    I can't imagine single-sided wasn't at least discussed during the four year development process, so it would be fascinating to hear why it didn't go further from someone in the know..


    On aluminium: I can't confirm your factoid, but extraction and smelting of bauxite is certainly many orders of magnitude more energy intensive than recycling aluminium already in the system - the figure used by Eurostat (European Commission) for recycling aluminium cans is a 95% energy saving.
    So yes, not recycling aluminium is abhorrent.

    An interesting point of context is a fact I gleaned from the excellent BBC radio 4 series '50 things that made the modern economy':-
    ē World production pf plastic consumes circa 8% of oil production - half for raw material, half for energy.
    (Source: BBC radio 4, 50 things that made the modern economy: Plastic http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0978d4d)

    I should add here that 'oil' is being used as a generic term for fossil fuels here, since these days a lot of plastic is made from natural gas.

    Food for thought.

    Carbon Fibre of course, is produced from 'plastic' precursors, plus a large amount of energy.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    How soon til Lefty version? Not entirely joking. But then telescope forks do ok with side loads from having a spring in one side and a damper in the other, so maybe this could too.

    To the guy talking about aluminum extraction: word to that. A factoid I remember is that something like 2% of the world's electricity goes to making aluminum. Failing to recycle it is a sin against technology.
    Already exists in leading link config, I don't see why same concept couldn't be turned around...

    Name:  Funny fork.PNG
Views: 3750
Size:  356.0 KB

    https://singletrackworld.com/2017/06...he-funny-fork/

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    The fact that Motocross hasn't been able to improve on it?

    Seriously, I'd pay good money for a good damper that is easily serviceable and re-configurable at home without having to buy a bunch of tools and parts. We are getting there and this is where technology will be pushed and make practical gains.
    Or have we exhausted the limits of conventional forks and are being sold technology that improves it only fractions of a % a year? We are getting close to that, not to say it's wrong though. As I pointed out before, incremental improvement on an existing design WORKS even if it's not the perfect solution. Forks work great...but what if there was something else?

    Motocross experimented A LOT with this stuff back in the 70's and 80's. I wouldn't say the landed on what worked BEST, but simply the best combination of performance, value and consumer acceptance.

    It can't be that motorcycles got it right back in the early 20th century could it? We've been using the same design since then....

    Lots of engineers have tinkered with link forks, the engineering principles are sound and make sense. It's only a matter of time until the technology (carbon and lightweight dampers) catch up with the concept...which is what we are seeing here.

    Commercially viable? Consumer accepted? TBD. The Lauf forks seems to be, but it is comparatively inexpensive.

  92. #92
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    Already exists in leading link config, I don't see why same concept couldn't be turned around...

    Name:  Funny fork.PNG
Views: 3750
Size:  356.0 KB

    https://singletrackworld.com/2017/06...he-funny-fork/
    Vespa has been using a trailing link lefty for 70 years....

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-vespa-suspension.jpg

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    Already exists in leading link config, I don't see why same concept couldn't be turned around...

    Name:  Funny fork.PNG
Views: 3750
Size:  356.0 KB

    https://singletrackworld.com/2017/06...he-funny-fork/
    The trust fork has a rearward IC and behaves like a leading link. Except the pivot point migrates as it compresses.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  94. #94
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by alixta View Post
    Yep that was what I meant, that, and all 3 elicit emotional responses based on their aesthetic (not just price).

    It was just an observation, nothing that requires any deep thought or discussion.

    I love my RS-1, and can't wait to bolt on a DW fork, but will have to wait a few years until the price (new or used) is palatable.

    Gotcha. Well put.

    I don't own an RS-1 anymore but only because I downsized the quiver. I miss the bike it was on as much as the fork. Just a great overall all-business/all-day package.

    I still own a Lauf and use it when appropriate. Usually multi-day or multi-week fatbike expeditions where weight is critical and failure is not an option.

    I don't yet know if or where a Trust fork will fit in my quiver, but I look forward to trying one to see if I'm smitten.

  95. #95
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Got about 2 hours in on one of these today. Enough to say "It's different" but not much more.

    I'll have it all next week and hope to get a few good hours on it.

  96. #96
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    I'm excited to see a ride report from someone with a better vocab than good, great, better, awesome, best I've ever used, etc.

    What bikes and trails are you testing it out on?

  97. #97
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    I'm excited to see a ride report from someone with a better vocab than good, great, better, awesome, best I've ever used, etc.

    What bikes and trails are you testing it out on?

    I rode it on a Ripmo today and it wasn't ideal. The Trust fork is a little more than an inch shorter A-C, and the Ripmo is already too low in the BB for where I like to ride. I've got a small arsenal of demo bikes to put it on -- I'll do some measuring and figure it out.

    Riding in W. CO and E. UT.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,217
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I rode it on a Ripmo today and it wasn't ideal. The Trust fork is a little more than an inch shorter A-C, and the Ripmo is already too low in the BB for where I like to ride. I've got a small arsenal of demo bikes to put it on -- I'll do some measuring and figure it out.

    Riding in W. CO and E. UT.
    I am pretty sure that a Fuel EX would be the ultimate test for this fork. Not because I personally own one. Nope, that has nothing to do with it at all.

    Seriously, very curious. One of the best feelings in mtb is cornering on a rigid bike (when the trail is at least smooth-ish). There is just no nonsense going on up front. Set up for the corner, and rail it. Just wondering if the Trust might duplicate that a bit, AND eat up some chunk at the same time......
    Whining is not a strategy.

  99. #99
    SISSIF
    Reputation: TheCanary's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    526
    I wonder if the constant trail and axle path might make this a great Hardtail fork, aside from the extra weight.
    Big Wheels and Fat Skis keep me young.

  100. #100
    C-H
    C-H is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    Vespa has been using a trailing link lefty for 70 years....

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Vespa suspension.jpg 
Views:	317 
Size:	91.9 KB 
ID:	1222880

    Hahaha. yeah there really isn't much new under the Sun but the new fork might work just fine.
    $2700 retail.......... LMFAO! No way.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I rode it on a Ripmo today and it wasn't ideal. The Trust fork is a little more than an inch shorter A-C, and the Ripmo is already too low in the BB for where I like to ride. I've got a small arsenal of demo bikes to put it on -- I'll do some measuring and figure it out.

    Riding in W. CO and E. UT.
    I figured that would be the case, I'm also on a ripmo. There should be options to space it higher for bikes that need a longer AC length.

    I bet on a Ripley it's about right.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    It's worth noting that stanchion size doesn't dictate fork flex. The actual flex in the stanchion is minimal. It's mostly about crown, axle and brace design.
    I remember my first ride on a 28mm RS Judy after spending a year riding a Cannondale Headshock. I stopped 3 times on my first descent because I thought my front wheel was loose and about to fall off

    The Headshocks were stiff AF, since it was basically a rigid fork. To your point it took tapered steerers, 35mm+ stanchions, 15 mm thru axels, larger bushing overlap, to make single crown forks acceptable.

    Overall you can't build a sub 4 pound single crown fork that is stiff enough to be fun. Remember back in the day the Mag 21 SL was 2.6 lbs. Talk about a noodle.

  103. #103
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,176
    Mikesee, I'm actually really glad you got your hands on one of these. I'm not surprised it doesn't feel right on a bigger travel bike. I think they were hoping for too much when they pretty much said it could fit anything from XC to enduro. I'm sure you'll keep us up to date with your honest feedback.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,065
    Subscribing for that mikesee review. I expect I'll own one of these for model year 2032. Until then I'll enjoy living vicariously through others.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  105. #105
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    Mikesee, I'm actually really glad you got your hands on one of these. I'm not surprised it doesn't feel right on a bigger travel bike. I think they were hoping for too much when they pretty much said it could fit anything from XC to enduro.
    Yeah, that claim was ridiculous on it's face. I'd say the outer limit is about plus/minus 10mm of axle to crown for things not to get at least a little funky, and they are saying it's +/- 20mm or so.

    Maybe those old super-tall baseplates from back in the early days of 29ers (when fork crown clearance was a problem on lots of frames) will make a comeback. You could get like 6-7mm of extra front end height out of them as I recall.

    -Walt

  106. #106
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Name:  B0xC6Kz.png
Views: 3733
Size:  204.5 KB

    This spacer, in an appropriate length, is how it can be made to work on longer travel bikes.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ShredlyMcShredface View Post
    I remember my first ride on a 28mm RS Judy after spending a year riding a Cannondale Headshock. I stopped 3 times on my first descent because I thought my front wheel was loose and about to fall off

    The Headshocks were stiff AF, since it was basically a rigid fork. To your point it took tapered steerers, 35mm+ stanchions, 15 mm thru axels, larger bushing overlap, to make single crown forks acceptable.

    Overall you can't build a sub 4 pound single crown fork that is stiff enough to be fun. Remember back in the day the Mag 21 SL was 2.6 lbs. Talk about a noodle.
    We had a Mag 21 SL-Ti in for service a few years back. So I weighed it and it was over 3lb. Turns out the mid 90's were peak BS for weights of everything. I have no idea what they left out to make that fictional claim.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  108. #108
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    We had a Mag 21 SL-Ti in for service a few years back. So I weighed it and it was over 3lb. Turns out the mid 90's were peak BS for weights of everything. I have no idea what they left out to make that fictional claim.
    I had an Indy SL at one point ~20 years ago that was legitimately well under 3#. I used to weigh stuff on a non-digital old school postal scale so the accuracy is questionable but my recollection is that it was in the ballpark of 2.7# with a pretty long steerer.

    Now, it provided almost zero functional suspension in most conditions. But it was certainly light.

    I don't think the weight of the Trust fork is any kind of issue, personally. If it works as well as it's supposed to, an extra half pound of weight is the last thing I care about.

    -Walt

  109. #109
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Name:  B0xC6Kz.png
Views: 3733
Size:  204.5 KB

    This spacer, in an appropriate length, is how it can be made to work on longer travel bikes.
    Yes, that's what I was referring to. There's an outer limit on that solution, of course, but I'm surprised they're not shipping them with +5 and +10 spacers (off the top of my head those both seem doable without causing other problems) of some kind.

    -Walt

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    359
    Yeah first question was how to get the AC measurement right. I dont doubt the quality of travel but all this work to slack head angles and BB are already low and they say go ahead put it on and replace a 160 Fox or RS. Need a spacer solution to be realist. Hopeful the reviews come in and we can start finding the headset spacer solutions.
    Transition Scout Carbon

  111. #111
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Got 2 more hours on it yesterday. It's definitely different from anything else. This test mule had a few quirks that didn't seem quite right, so much so that I was concerned that maybe the damper had issues. I had a conference call with a few of the principals at Trust this AM, made some changes that they insisted would bring it in-line, then got 2 more hours on it this afternoon.

    And it's still very different.

    A good friend whom was once a card-carrying pro DH racer picked it up an hour ago. He'll set it up to his preferences and ride it in the AM. He and I couldn't be much more different in how we ride and what we like our bikes to feel like, so he seemed like the obvious choice to hand it to for a second opinion.

    More once I hear his report.

  112. #112
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,176
    Define "very different".

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  113. #113
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    A good friend whom was once a card-carrying pro DH racer picked it up an hour ago. He'll set it up to his preferences and ride it in the AM. He and I couldn't be much more different in how we ride and what we like our bikes to feel like, so he seemed like the obvious choice to hand it to for a second opinion.
    I'll take it next please.
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - VP of Business Development

  114. #114
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    Define "very different".

    Nothing at all like what we're used to.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Nothing at all like what we're used to.
    AAAAArgh, patience not working.....

  116. #116
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by ShredlyMcShredface View Post
    AAAAArgh, patience not working.....

    Here's what I can say so far: It's a fantastic climbing fork. Always active but not bobbing or diving or _____ing. You can stand and hammer and contort and throw every kind of body english at it, but it doesn't seem to care. It stays active, follows trail contours, and it does this without need to flip a lever.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    320
    5-25mm fork AC spacer has been around for a while

    https://www.mtbtools.com/product/ext...ork-clearance/

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,748
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I rode it on a Ripmo today and it wasn't ideal. The Trust fork is a little more than an inch shorter A-C, and the Ripmo is already too low in the BB for where I like to ride. I've got a small arsenal of demo bikes to put it on -- I'll do some measuring and figure it out.

    Riding in W. CO and E. UT.
    Interesting claims by Trust on the A-C differences, claiming the fork is good fork bikes designed for forks between 110mm-150mm. The Ripmo is outside of this though at 160mm.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,748
    That's a 17mm lower cup that is supplied with the Switchblade in order to run 27.5" wheels or just increase the A-C of the bike and give more BB height. I can totally see why they decided to run it on their Switchblade given the BB is already too low.

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    That's a 17mm lower cup that is supplied with the Switchblade in order to run 27.5" wheels or just increase the A-C of the bike and give more BB height. I can totally see why they decided to run it on their Switchblade given the BB is already too low.
    i just mounted one of these up on my following mb. i think it's pretty rad. i'll get some trail time this saturday on some slow tech northeast stuff and give you all my .02. the little riding i have done on it so far can be described as "very different," much like Mike has said. i think it is beter suited for a bike like the following mb vs the ripmo but i suppose time will tell. i was planning on moving to an offering here soon but who knows, maybe this will be a great combo. keep you posted.


  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,748
    Quote Originally Posted by R3D2 View Post
    i just mounted one of these up on my following mb. i think it's pretty rad. i'll get some trail time this saturday on some slow tech northeast stuff and give you all my .02. the little riding i have done on it so far can be described as "very different," much like Mike has said. i think it is beter suited for a bike like the following mb vs the ripmo but i suppose time will tell. i was planning on moving to an offering here soon but who knows, maybe this will be a great combo. keep you posted.

    Looks awesome, enjoy! Looking forward to hearing more...

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by ShredlyMcShredface View Post
    I remember my first ride on a 28mm RS Judy after spending a year riding a Cannondale Headshock. I stopped 3 times on my first descent because I thought my front wheel was loose and about to fall off

    The Headshocks were stiff AF, since it was basically a rigid fork. To your point it took tapered steerers, 35mm+ stanchions, 15 mm thru axels, larger bushing overlap, to make single crown forks acceptable.

    Overall you can't build a sub 4 pound single crown fork that is stiff enough to be fun. Remember back in the day the Mag 21 SL was 2.6 lbs. Talk about a noodle.
    Fox 34 is plenty fun on the right bike....

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    Fox 34 is plenty fun on the right bike....
    It's a fine fork, but once it goes to 140mm or 150mm travel, you can definitely feel the flex compared to a Lyric or 36.

    I've done a few dozen rides on my wife's Mojo 3 with a 140mm Fox 34. It's impressively well damped and controlled. But for my daily driver, I prefer something a bit more stable.

    I still don't know why the industry dumped the 20mm axle for trail bikes. Stupid Fox and Shimano just couldn't use the Rock Shox 20mm standard, so they built the 15mm, even though it didn't save any weight.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I had an Indy SL at one point ~20 years ago that was legitimately well under 3#. I used to weigh stuff on a non-digital old school postal scale so the accuracy is questionable but my recollection is that it was in the ballpark of 2.7# with a pretty long steerer.

    Now, it provided almost zero functional suspension in most conditions. But it was certainly light.

    I don't think the weight of the Trust fork is any kind of issue, personally. If it works as well as it's supposed to, an extra half pound of weight is the last thing I care about.

    -Walt
    I have terrible memories of the Indy. It didn't offer nearly enough suspension action to make up for the scary noodely steering.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,438
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    I'll take it next please.
    I would love to hear your impressions!
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,698
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Got 2 more hours on it yesterday. It's definitely different from anything else. This test mule had a few quirks that didn't seem quite right, so much so that I was concerned that maybe the damper had issues. I had a conference call with a few of the principals at Trust this AM, made some changes that they insisted would bring it in-line, then got 2 more hours on it this afternoon.

    And it's still very different.

    A good friend whom was once a card-carrying pro DH racer picked it up an hour ago. He'll set it up to his preferences and ride it in the AM. He and I couldn't be much more different in how we ride and what we like our bikes to feel like, so he seemed like the obvious choice to hand it to for a second opinion.

    More once I hear his report.
    What does MT think of it?
    Denver, CO

  127. #127
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    What does MT think of it?
    Still waiting to hear back.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: g.law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    143

    Review of the Trust Performance Message fork

    I installed the Message fork on a Rocky Mountain Instinct replacing a 140mm Rockshox Pike. The Message is 16mm shorter than the Pike axel-to-crown and I considered adding a 17mm head tube spacer to compensate, but based on the advice from Trust, I didn't add the spacer. After adjusting the spacers under the stem to get back to the same bar height I was running with the Pike, I measured multiple parameters. My BBH was within a quarter of an inch of the Pike set up, my front center and wheelbase were shortened by about 1/2 inch, and my STA was steepened by about 1 degree. The bike gained 7 oz over the Pike set-up.
    Trust has an excellent technical write up on the fork on the website. I'm not going to try analyze the technology, (I'm not qualified to do so anyway). I'll just try to describe how it "feels." If you haven't read the tech section on Trust website I suggest you do so now.

    Just riding in the street the bike felt the same as before with a couple of notable exceptions. First, rolling along and bouncing on the fork it feels very firm, firmer than my Pike. Next I tried something a little different, I rolled the bike up against a curb and pushed; VERY supple. Makes sense, it's a linkage fork, it can move in two directions, up and back. Again, read the tech stuff on the website, but it "feels" like when pushing down through the contact patch (vertical force) the fork is very firm. When you push against something (horizontal force) it is very "coil like" supple. The second notable difference is braking. I pedaled up to speed and grabbed the front brake hard. There is hardly any brake dive.

    Setting up and tuning the Message: The Message is an air spring fork and the set up includes; air spring pressure (there are two air springs, one in each fork leg) , Low Speed Compression, Rebound, and tokens for ramp control. I like to tune my forks for a plush, comfortable ride, but not so plush that they feel dead. I have been using a ShockWiz for the last year and I tune my forks with the "soft/poppy" setting. This gives me good small bump sensitivity and a less harsh ride but I usually end up with tokens in the fork to keep from blowing through the travel on bigger hits, and to give me something to push against to get some pop. The negative is that I give up some cornering performance due to brake dive. As a starting point for the Message I followed Trust's recommended setting for shock pressure, LSC, and Rebound. I weigh 190lbs geared up to ride, so my initial set up was: 190psi in both air chambers, 11 clicks from fully closed LSC, and 11 clicks from fully closed rebound. Front tire is a 2.5WT DHF on a 30mm internal width rim at 19psi. Right away it was clear that this setting was WAY too stiff for me. The ride felt very harsh, I was using very little travel, and the front end was deflecting off pretty much everything. I played around with setting but was having a difficult time getting what I wanted. At one point I had the fork set up where it felt very supple on small bumps, cornering felt good (better than my Pike set up), it had a little pop, but I was blowing through 100% of the travel on even moderate trails. I never felt any harsh bottom outs, but I knew I was bottoming the fork way too often. Adding a token might have helped, but currently this must be done by Trust and I didn't want to take my fork out of service. I ended up slowly increasing air spring pressure until I started to feel a little harshness in small bump sensitivity, and I was bottoming out less frequently, although I still bottomed out on bigger hits. Cornering still feels good, and the fork has a little more pop. This is the set up on which all of my comments are based.

    Air Spring pressure: 140psi
    LSC: fully open
    Rebound: 12 clicks from fully closed
    Front tire:17psi

    Test environment: So far I have 125 miles and 15 hours on the Message. I've ridden a variety of trails in Tahoe/Truckee, Downieville, and Mills Peak. The conditions have been very dry. The trails are mostly loose sandy, gravelly, or talcum powder over hardpack with lots of rocks. Traction has been sketchy. So far no hero dirt or muddy conditions. I'm running a Maxxis DHF 2.5WT on a 30mm internal rim up front.

    Climbing: The Message has 3 modes: open, trail, and locked out. On all of the climbs I have done so far, I have not seen any reason to change from open. When seated or standing on relatively smooth climbs the fork feels firm with very little bobbing. On technical climbs with roots and square edge rocks that impart a horizontal impact force on the front end, the Message smoothly absorbs the impact and the tire rolls up and over. It is a very noticeable difference from a traditional fork. Hitting obstacles that previously robbed me of forward momentum, or knocked me off line were smoothly handled. The combination of firmness on smoother sections and plushness on the technical sections makes climbing with the Message less "energy-sucking" than on a traditional fork.
    Small bump compliance: The Message has a unique "feel" on the trail. Hitting small tightly spaced bumps at speed, (imagine riding across a piece of corrugated steel) it feels like the tire is just skimming across the tops of bumps and the suspension is hardly moving at all. It feels a little harsh. Spread the bumps out a little and all of a sudden it's like they disappear. You really notice the difference between the Message and a traditional fork on trails with lots of small square edge hits. You still feel the bumps, but much less harsh, and the front end tracks it's line much better. The bike feels "calmer".
    Bigger bumps and hits: As the bumps, rocks, and roots get bigger the benefits of Message just amplify. I still felt the hits, but bone jarring impacts transmitted through the bars to your upper body and momentum robbing "hang ups" are both GREATLY reduced. The front tire doesn't get deflected easily and it feels like it is glued to the ground. Again bike just feels "calmer". I found I stayed more relaxed and had must less upper body fatigue at the end of rides.
    Cornering: The design goal of the Message, according to Trust, was to improve cornering performance versus a traditional fork. I'd say they succeeded, it is better than a traditional fork in a weird way, but in a good weird way.
    As I said earlier, I like my fork set up toward being plush. As a result, I get a fair amount of brake dive and fork travel movement in corners. I know this means the geometry of the bike is constantly changing which alters the steering, and bumps, holes, roots, and rocks are always trying to knock the bike off line and steal much needed traction. In all the chaos my brain is working hard trying to anticipate and compensate for all the changes. Most of the time successfully, but sometimes not. I think the Message deals with cornering MUCH better than a traditional fork. First, the Message doesn't "dive" under braking, either entering, or in a corner. The front wheel just feels like it is tracking the ground much like it does in a straight line. Nothing much feels like it is changing through the corner. The steering feels consistent and the bike still has that "glued to ground" feeling. At first it felt "weird". My brain kept trying to anticipate changes, and I was a twitchy mess wanting to make corrections. Finally I just relaxed, and steered through the corner. Easy peasy. Next I started to really appreciate that "glued to the ground" feeling. In corners where I used to constantly try to pick the smoothest line I just started looking for the best line to through.

    Other things that feel different: I mostly focused on how the Message feels going fast, but I also learned a lot about how it feels going slow. On slow speed technical features, like step ups or boulders, the Message absorbed the initial hit better than any traditional fork I have ridden. My front tire just felt like it made contact with the obstacle and rolled up and over. No push back. Another difference is how the Message handles slow speed smaller (12 inch-ess) drops. You land on the contact patch and the fork hardly compresses, no dive. It feels a little harsh, but you hardly lose any momentum. It really comes in handy when you're dropping into a hole. Instead of getting stopped dead, the bike just rolls right on through.

    Bottom line: Riding the Message has been an a learning experience. Until the Message I never realized just how much my fork was fighting the trail and how much the trail was fighting back. Every time a fork hits an obstacle the obstacle hits back at you through the bars and tries to rob you of momentum. The result for the rider is more energy expended and fatigue. While the Message doesn't eliminate the trail's fighting back, it GREATLY reduces it. The consistent feel of steering through corners and the "glued to the ground" feeling is very confidence inspiring. On trails I have ridden many, many, times my bike with the Message feels calmer and smoother, and I feel fresher and less fatigued at the end. It doesn't feel that much faster, but my Strava times on many segments say I am faster. Overall, I happy with the Message, but I think there is still room for improvement in my set up. I think adding a token will help, which I plan to do.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-message-fork.jpg  


  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by g.law View Post
    I installed the Message fork on a Rocky Mountain Instinct replacing a 140mm Rockshox Pike. The Message is 16mm shorter than the Pike axel-to-crown and I considered adding a 17mm head tube spacer to compensate, but based on the advice from Trust, I didn't add the spacer. After adjusting the spacers under the stem to get back to the same bar height I was running with the Pike, I measured multiple parameters. My BBH was within a quarter of an inch of the Pike set up, my front center and wheelbase were shortened by about 1/2 inch, and my STA was steepened by about 1 degree. The bike gained 7 oz over the Pike set-up.
    Trust has an excellent technical write up on the fork on the website. I'm not going to try analyze the technology, (I'm not qualified to do so anyway). I'll just try to describe how it "feels." If you haven't read the tech section on Trust website I suggest you do so now.

    Just riding in the street the bike felt the same as before with a couple of notable exceptions. First, rolling along and bouncing on the fork it feels very firm, firmer than my Pike. Next I tried something a little different, I rolled the bike up against a curb and pushed; VERY supple. Makes sense, it's a linkage fork, it can move in two directions, up and back. Again, read the tech stuff on the website, but it "feels" like when pushing down through the contact patch (vertical force) the fork is very firm. When you push against something (horizontal force) it is very "coil like" supple. The second notable difference is braking. I pedaled up to speed and grabbed the front brake hard. There is hardly any brake dive.

    Setting up and tuning the Message: The Message is an air spring fork and the set up includes; air spring pressure (there are two air springs, one in each fork leg) , Low Speed Compression, Rebound, and tokens for ramp control. I like to tune my forks for a plush, comfortable ride, but not so plush that they feel dead. I have been using a ShockWiz for the last year and I tune my forks with the "soft/poppy" setting. This gives me good small bump sensitivity and a less harsh ride but I usually end up with tokens in the fork to keep from blowing through the travel on bigger hits, and to give me something to push against to get some pop. The negative is that I give up some cornering performance due to brake dive. As a starting point for the Message I followed Trust's recommended setting for shock pressure, LSC, and Rebound. I weigh 190lbs geared up to ride, so my initial set up was: 190psi in both air chambers, 11 clicks from fully closed LSC, and 11 clicks from fully closed rebound. Front tire is a 2.5WT DHF on a 30mm internal width rim at 19psi. Right away it was clear that this setting was WAY too stiff for me. The ride felt very harsh, I was using very little travel, and the front end was deflecting off pretty much everything. I played around with setting but was having a difficult time getting what I wanted. At one point I had the fork set up where it felt very supple on small bumps, cornering felt good (better than my Pike set up), it had a little pop, but I was blowing through 100% of the travel on even moderate trails. I never felt any harsh bottom outs, but I knew I was bottoming the fork way too often. Adding a token might have helped, but currently this must be done by Trust and I didn't want to take my fork out of service. I ended up slowly increasing air spring pressure until I started to feel a little harshness in small bump sensitivity, and I was bottoming out less frequently, although I still bottomed out on bigger hits. Cornering still feels good, and the fork has a little more pop. This is the set up on which all of my comments are based.

    Air Spring pressure: 140psi
    LSC: fully open
    Rebound: 12 clicks from fully closed
    Front tire:17psi

    Test environment: So far I have 125 miles and 15 hours on the Message. I've ridden a variety of trails in Tahoe/Truckee, Downieville, and Mills Peak. The conditions have been very dry. The trails are mostly loose sandy, gravelly, or talcum powder over hardpack with lots of rocks. Traction has been sketchy. So far no hero dirt or muddy conditions. I'm running a Maxxis DHF 2.5WT on a 30mm internal rim up front.

    Climbing: The Message has 3 modes: open, trail, and locked out. On all of the climbs I have done so far, I have not seen any reason to change from open. When seated or standing on relatively smooth climbs the fork feels firm with very little bobbing. On technical climbs with roots and square edge rocks that impart a horizontal impact force on the front end, the Message smoothly absorbs the impact and the tire rolls up and over. It is a very noticeable difference from a traditional fork. Hitting obstacles that previously robbed me of forward momentum, or knocked me off line were smoothly handled. The combination of firmness on smoother sections and plushness on the technical sections makes climbing with the Message less "energy-sucking" than on a traditional fork.
    Small bump compliance: The Message has a unique "feel" on the trail. Hitting small tightly spaced bumps at speed, (imagine riding across a piece of corrugated steel) it feels like the tire is just skimming across the tops of bumps and the suspension is hardly moving at all. It feels a little harsh. Spread the bumps out a little and all of a sudden it's like they disappear. You really notice the difference between the Message and a traditional fork on trails with lots of small square edge hits. You still feel the bumps, but much less harsh, and the front end tracks it's line much better. The bike feels "calmer".
    Bigger bumps and hits: As the bumps, rocks, and roots get bigger the benefits of Message just amplify. I still felt the hits, but bone jarring impacts transmitted through the bars to your upper body and momentum robbing "hang ups" are both GREATLY reduced. The front tire doesn't get deflected easily and it feels like it is glued to the ground. Again bike just feels "calmer". I found I stayed more relaxed and had must less upper body fatigue at the end of rides.
    Cornering: The design goal of the Message, according to Trust, was to improve cornering performance versus a traditional fork. I'd say they succeeded, it is better than a traditional fork in a weird way, but in a good weird way.
    As I said earlier, I like my fork set up toward being plush. As a result, I get a fair amount of brake dive and fork travel movement in corners. I know this means the geometry of the bike is constantly changing which alters the steering, and bumps, holes, roots, and rocks are always trying to knock the bike off line and steal much needed traction. In all the chaos my brain is working hard trying to anticipate and compensate for all the changes. Most of the time successfully, but sometimes not. I think the Message deals with cornering MUCH better than a traditional fork. First, the Message doesn't "dive" under braking, either entering, or in a corner. The front wheel just feels like it is tracking the ground much like it does in a straight line. Nothing much feels like it is changing through the corner. The steering feels consistent and the bike still has that "glued to ground" feeling. At first it felt "weird". My brain kept trying to anticipate changes, and I was a twitchy mess wanting to make corrections. Finally I just relaxed, and steered through the corner. Easy peasy. Next I started to really appreciate that "glued to the ground" feeling. In corners where I used to constantly try to pick the smoothest line I just started looking for the best line to through.

    Other things that feel different: I mostly focused on how the Message feels going fast, but I also learned a lot about how it feels going slow. On slow speed technical features, like step ups or boulders, the Message absorbed the initial hit better than any traditional fork I have ridden. My front tire just felt like it made contact with the obstacle and rolled up and over. No push back. Another difference is how the Message handles slow speed smaller (12 inch-ess) drops. You land on the contact patch and the fork hardly compresses, no dive. It feels a little harsh, but you hardly lose any momentum. It really comes in handy when you're dropping into a hole. Instead of getting stopped dead, the bike just rolls right on through.

    Bottom line: Riding the Message has been an a learning experience. Until the Message I never realized just how much my fork was fighting the trail and how much the trail was fighting back. Every time a fork hits an obstacle the obstacle hits back at you through the bars and tries to rob you of momentum. The result for the rider is more energy expended and fatigue. While the Message doesn't eliminate the trail's fighting back, it GREATLY reduces it. The consistent feel of steering through corners and the "glued to the ground" feeling is very confidence inspiring. On trails I have ridden many, many, times my bike with the Message feels calmer and smoother, and I feel fresher and less fatigued at the end. It doesn't feel that much faster, but my Strava times on many segments say I am faster. Overall, I happy with the Message, but I think there is still room for improvement in my set up. I think adding a token will help, which I plan to do.
    Wonder if it just has a bit of a break in period? Maybe you will be back up to recommend psi after 10hrs or so.

    50 psi less than recommend sounds like a red flag. I did read another review that said it felt more harsh than a regular fork.. maybe thatís just the way it rolls

    You have probably read this
    ďItís rather firm, but also extremely planted and controlled. Those seeking a pillowy-soft ride wonít find it here ó at least not with how Trust has tuned things currentlyĒ

    https://cyclingtips.com/2018/10/trust-performance-message-fork-review/

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: g.law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    143
    Don't think it's break in issue. I think their base tune is probably geared toward more aggressive riders than me. I'm a 50+ sorta middle of the pack kinda guy, not a EWS racer. I doubt I'm hitting things nearly as hard as the riders who helped develop the damper tune. It's sort of a shame because guys like me are probably a bigger market segment for the fork than those guys. Hopefully Trust will get enough feedback and develop a softer compression tune version.

  131. #131
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Also, not being able to run any LSC is another red flag.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: g.law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    143
    I do tend to run my forks plush. On both Pikes and Lyriks I run LSC completely open. I'm sure if you're running more than a couple of clicks of LSC on your current fork you'd probably be doing the same on the Message.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,610
    thanks for the write up....very informative!
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tbmaddux's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,142

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,217
    Quote Originally Posted by tbmaddux View Post
    What's that I hear?

    Oh, just my wallet clamping shut!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  136. #136
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Quote Originally Posted by g.law View Post
    I do tend to run my forks plush. On both Pikes and Lyriks I run LSC completely open. I'm sure if you're running more than a couple of clicks of LSC on your current fork you'd probably be doing the same on the Message.
    Again, that's usually a red-flag that the HSC is too stiffly valved and the LSC can't be dialed in without making it harsh. We usually do this because we find dialing LSC makes it harsh. Pike is a great example of that, way over-damped on HSC, we have to run the LSC open to get enough flow on sharp edged hits.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation: g.law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    143
    I agree, I find most forks (and shocks) have too much compression damping for my taste, skill set, or whatever. On the rear I've gone back to a coil and still have both LSC and HSC wide open. Again, I think most suspension (and bike) designers target more aggressive riders as the sweet spot of the market. Makes sense, more aggressive riders are usually better riders and know what they want in the suspension performance. Most of the rest of their customers either don't know enough to complain, or don't want to admit that they're not pushing hard enough to need a stiffer compression tune.

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by tbmaddux View Post
    We now know it's better than a F34 and Float rear shock.

    Quote Originally Posted by g.law View Post
    I do tend to run my forks plush. On both Pikes and Lyriks I run LSC completely open. I'm sure if you're running more than a couple of clicks of LSC on your current fork you'd probably be doing the same on the Message.
    Stock pike and lyrik dampers are terrible. They choke on fast compression so everyone runs them with wide open LSC to help.
    The result is wallow and spike.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    393
    Does seem like for the price it should Include a custom tune for the buyer.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    What's that I hear?

    Oh, just my wallet clamping shut!
    What? A super shredding fast rider on minion 27.5 plus tires... but.. but I thought they were only for beginners.. and and women!

    Great review

  141. #141
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by seamarsh View Post
    What? A super shredding fast rider on minion 27.5 plus tires... but.. but I thought they were only for beginners.. and and women!
    Well... they are. Maybe not for all women though, let's not be sexist.

    That's a local trail, and a favorite trail. I'm top .01% that trail on strava- i know it really well. It's super demanding of a fork in some regards, and not at all in others. It's smooth as silk. It's steeper than most 'all mountain' trails. It has wuss lines for everything. There are 0 expert rock gardens or proper expert+ features.

    It's a fantastic trail for testing suspension, and will reveal suspension foibles you'd never see enough to identify ordinarily. ...But a review based exclusively on that loop only says that the suspension is worthy of consideration. It will overemphasize some suspension attributes while completely ignoring others.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  142. #142
    SISSIF
    Reputation: TheCanary's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by R3D2 View Post
    i just mounted one of these up on my following mb. i think it's pretty rad. i'll get some trail time this saturday on some slow tech northeast stuff and give you all my .02. the little riding i have done on it so far can be described as "very different," much like Mike has said. i think it is beter suited for a bike like the following mb vs the ripmo but i suppose time will tell. i was planning on moving to an offering here soon but who knows, maybe this will be a great combo. keep you posted.

    Wondering if you've found time and weather to get some riding in and give your impression of the fork?
    It would be great to get another consumer review with a bike set up that's closer to stock geo.
    Big Wheels and Fat Skis keep me young.

  143. #143
    otb club member
    Reputation: Chris2fur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,902
    Quote Originally Posted by BunniBoi View Post
    Full disclosure: I have 2 Motion E18's on order and can't wait to put them through the wringer. Their reasoning and design choices make sense to me and I believe they've hit the sweet spot for performance and price. The Message, not so much. Odd reasoning, seems to try and fill a niche that doesn't exist and the price. $$$$$ Maybe it works, but people were already balking at the E18 at $1400.
    Thanks for that disclosure! I think the E18 fork is actually more intriguing than than the Message. I hope you are going to start a post when you get/ride your new forks!

  144. #144
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    I think what these guys did was merely break the ice on this market. Similar to how Enve created a ridiculously new high price point for rims/wheels as a high tech upgrade.

    Once these things gain recognition, perhaps through awards and pro race wins, the floodgates will open up, similar to how the interest for carbon rims of all sorts of price points shot up after Enve sort of demonstrated that carbon wasn't a terrible idea for an impact-prone area like a rim.

    It's basic economics to present a limited-quantity "halo product", to drives sales of mid-priced offerings (which were previously premium tier offerings). I wouldn't be surprised if Motion France is benefiting from a sales drive, being compared to this Trust fork (I know Bunni ordered their Motion fork shortly before this was revealed).

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: g.law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    143
    Finally got a chance to ride the Message on some flowy smooth trails with hero dirt today, (Pioneer trail, Hoot, & Scotts Drop in Nevada City, CA). Gotta say in these conditions the differences between the Message and a traditional fork are much harder to see and feel. In these conditions any decent fork works pretty well. If you get a chance to test ride a Message try to do it on rougher trails that have some corners with bomb crater braking bumps, rocks, roots, and sketchy traction. That's where you'll really get an appreciation for it.

  146. #146
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    I think what these guys did was merely break the ice on this market.
    You mean unlike the 11-billionty linkage forks that have already come before?


    My body aches from mistakes.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  147. #147
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    You mean unlike the 11-billionty linkage forks that have already come before?


    My body aches from mistakes.
    I recall respectable motorsports suspension companies pulling out of the MTB industry, because riders demanded suspension that *didn't move*. It's taken decades to open the buying public up to the idea that suspension should move freely for the purpose of confident control, rather than comfort.

    Perhaps your aches are part caused by the "mistakes" of early suspension designs. Those are mere cracks in the surface. We're swimming in plenty of telescopic forks that far exceed past standards, which seemingly don't have much to improve on, other than catering to the mainstream public's ever changing demands. Fox has seemingly been going tick-tock between firm designs and plush designs (CTD). Now it seems that they made the 34 lots plusher than a 36, to serve the trail bike market (not really made for racing).

    This Trust fork has the promise to be the next step up. The hype of having these names behind it means that it's serious this time. I mean, how many ways can you work an alloy rimmed wheel to be better, before carbon showed up? Mavic put out a good effort. This linkage fork has the potential to the same with forks.

    Linkage Fork the Future of Suspension?

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    You mean unlike the 11-billionty linkage forks that have already come before?


    My body aches from mistakes.
    Yeah, but technology changes in ways that make things possible today that were not in the past. Look at electric cars, they have been around for over a hundred years, just recently (Tesla) have they actually gained traction in the market.

    These forks I see similarly. Maybe not as technologically advanced as a car, but the use of current carbon tech to keep weight down and compact dampers assemblies were not something that existed then as they do now.

  149. #149
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,221
    make it cost less than 1 grand then it'll maybe gain traction

    right now, such high zoot cost for little return, and an abomination on the sleek visuals of a telescopic fork....don't forecast this being more than a footnote in MTB history unless it starts winning on Sundays

    oops.
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    make it cost less than 1 grand then it'll maybe gain traction

    right now, such high zoot cost for little return, and an abomination on the sleek visuals of a telescopic fork....don't forecast this being more than a footnote in MTB history unless it starts winning on Sundays

    oops.
    I think somewhere in the $1400-$1500 seems reasonable based on how much guys throw at $900 forks like Avy cartridges, Push tunes, etc.....as long as this can compete performance wise.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,401
    "The sleek visuals of a telescopic fork" ?

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    Yeah, but technology changes in ways that make things possible today that were not in the past. Look at electric cars, they have been around for over a hundred years, just recently (Tesla) have they actually gained traction in the market.

    These forks I see similarly. Maybe not as technologically advanced as a car, but the use of current carbon tech to keep weight down and compact dampers assemblies were not something that existed then as they do now.
    Well if they are similar then you are saying a good marketing campaign is all it takes along with an expensive product that the wealthy buy. Tesla used almost nothing besides off the shelf technology in the roadster, but it worked because it was good and b/c they appealed as a luxury item unlike other electric cars which were expensive still, but seemed cheap b/c they were trying to hit a low price point. So maybe you are more right than you meant to be.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velodonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    "The sleek visuals of a telescopic fork" ?
    Said no one ever- before today.

  154. #154
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,221
    Į\_(ツ)_/Į
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    I just mapped out the geometry of this fork from top-out through 60mm compression. The results match the test rider observations.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BqvbvnsF4hp/

    Dave weagle linkage "Enve" fork: Trust Performance - "Message"-2018-11-29-trust-linkage-fork-graphical.jpg

    The axle path centre (green circle) is high but not far forward. Which is why this fork reacts better to front hits than vertical movements.

    The instant centres are what dictates brake reaction. They are down around ground level which means this fork has almost no dive or jack reaction to front braking.

    No surprises really. But the results were taken from photos so some parrallax errors will exist that skew the result.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    Looks awesome, enjoy! Looking forward to hearing more...
    i'm not a review guy but here goes. i got to sedona about a week ago and now have 5 rides on it and i am pretty blown away. putting a 36 on the FMB made it a much more capable bike but the message, in my opinion, takes it to a completely different level. i worked directly with trust on setting up the fork and haven't touched it since.
    when setting up you really need to throw everyting you think you know out the window. nothing we've learned over the years from telespopic forks applies to the message.

    i think what trust is doing is what Elan did with shaped skis. they were not the first but they arguably were the first to do it right and mass produce them. maybe that's not a great comparison but that's the way i see it. teloscopic forks = straight skis, trust message = parabolics? 3, 2, 1 riot begin...

    what i like about this fork most is that you can literally place your front wheel anywhere and it simply tracks. i never realized how much my teloscopic fork bounced around no matter how great i thought i had it set up, it dove under hard braking and when i was mashing up tech climbs, it flexed a bunch and it didn't love square edges. the message doesn't dive in corners or when mashing the pedals or under hard front braking and your geo isn't constantly changing. the just eats terrain up, espcially square edge stuff. we have seen a lot of incremental advances in teloscopic forks since they were introduced, elastomers to coils spirngs to air springs, compression adjustments etc etc but i never really though we'd see something that changed the way a bike rides this much. i don't know if i can go back now...

    trust is onto something here and i'm excited for longer travel options for bigger bikes.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougal View Post
    I just mapped out the geometry of this fork from top-out through 60mm compression. The results match the test rider observations.
    Dougal, thanks for doing this, it's really interesting. Any chance you could do the same for the Motion E18?

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,748
    Quote Originally Posted by R3D2 View Post
    i'm not a review guy but here goes. i got to sedona about a week ago and now have 5 rides on it and i am pretty blown away. putting a 36 on the FMB made it a much more capable bike but the message, in my opinion, takes it to a completely different level. i worked directly with trust on setting up the fork and haven't touched it since.
    when setting up you really need to throw everyting you think you know out the window. nothing we've learned over the years from telespopic forks applies to the message.

    i think what trust is doing is what Elan did with shaped skis. they were not the first but they arguably were the first to do it right and mass produce them. maybe that's not a great comparison but that's the way i see it. teloscopic forks = straight skis, trust message = parabolics? 3, 2, 1 riot begin...

    what i like about this fork most is that you can literally place your front wheel anywhere and it simply tracks. i never realized how much my teloscopic fork bounced around no matter how great i thought i had it set up, it dove under hard braking and when i was mashing up tech climbs, it flexed a bunch and it didn't love square edges. the message doesn't dive in corners or when mashing the pedals or under hard front braking and your geo isn't constantly changing. the just eats terrain up, espcially square edge stuff. we have seen a lot of incremental advances in teloscopic forks since they were introduced, elastomers to coils spirngs to air springs, compression adjustments etc etc but i never really though we'd see something that changed the way a bike rides this much. i don't know if i can go back now...

    trust is onto something here and i'm excited for longer travel options for bigger bikes.
    Thank you for taking the time to put a review together. Sounds really interesting, I wonder if anyone has tried one on a hardtail yet?...

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    906
    I would think that this fork would be exceptional on an Evil bike. I would think the Delta system with this fork would be spectacular. I'm sure Dave Weagle took the same approach with this as he did with the Delta link. I'd love to try one on my Following.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by BunniBoi View Post
    Dougal, thanks for doing this, it's really interesting. Any chance you could do the same for the Motion E18?
    Sure can. Just not sure when. If you have a suitable photo to start on, please email it through.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    206
    Iím super excited about this fork, then again I like new ideas and donít care much for tradition.

    Iím surprised by how much ďcost warfareĒ there is against these.

    1. Who I cares if it costs $2700, no one is compelled to buy it, and frankly in the world of fetish toys that is not really a lot of money. People already spend near enough that amount on rims.

    2. Its only the $1700 more expensive than a high end fork, for many thatís worth it. Trying new tech is also a part of the hobby for many.

    3. In a world of $7000 plus bikes, its not really surprising that a component as important as suspension could/would be a expensive too. Especially considering how much it affects the way a bike rides.

    4. If you hate it or donít think its worth it, you can save a ton and just buy a telescopic fork.

    5. Consider yourself lucky you ride a bike, back in the days when I used to track cars, $2700 wouldnít even register as an expense

    Iím looking to hear more first hand experiences with the fork and Iím hoping to have one this summer season. The issue is, Iím looking to buy a Ripmo and Iím not sure its a good fit as that bike has a 160 mm fork.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    206
    Miksee

    Looking forward to hearing more.
    1. Iím very interested in this fork
    2. I ride a lot of technical rock and it appears to do well there
    3. Iím considering purchasing a Ripmo to replace my HD3. Is there a better choice?

  163. #163
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPenquinn View Post
    Iím super excited about this fork, then again I like new ideas and donít care much for tradition.

    Iím surprised by how much ďcost warfareĒ there is against these.

    1. Who I cares if it costs $2700, no one is compelled to buy it, and frankly in the world of fetish toys that is not really a lot of money. People already spend near enough that amount on rims.
    I think one thing we'd like to know is how good it is from someone who got it for free and was given the choice to keep it or use their 36/lyrik. The fact that someone is going to shell out $2700 is going to probably make them pretty attached to it and often times the "real story" only comes out much later. That may not be the case at all, but I doubt the objectivity at these price levels until at least there are far more in circulation and reviewed.
    2. Its only the $1700 more expensive than a high end fork, for many thatís worth it. Trying new tech is also a part of the hobby for many.
    Given that I can put together a custom-tuned Yarilanche for around 1K, that makes me extremely skeptical that this will be that much better. Bicycles are hard to tune suspension-wise because the sprung mass is relatively low and rider weights vary greatly, so the damping has to be able to be modified accordingly. Ultimately, this takes custom tuning to be the most effective, so while it may offer a bunch of benefits, so does custom tuning. For that price, it damn sure should have custom tuning to match the rider/weight/bike/riding...
    3. In a world of $7000 plus bikes, its not really surprising that a component as important as suspension could/would be a expensive too. Especially considering how much it affects the way a bike rides.
    See my message above. Should come with custom tuning at least for that price. I factor custom tuning into the cost of a bike/frame these days and it's relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of the bike or frame. It's not a good thing that suspension components are going well north of 1K, unless you have human skin over your reptilian scales.
    4. If you hate it or donít think its worth it, you can save a ton and just buy a telescopic fork.
    Maybe, we also want parts that will last season after season and not just be done, given how hard it is to service some of the stuff internally (the damping carts) it creates a barrier to do so and stuff ends up somewhat "disposable". Hopefully that is not the case.
    5. Consider yourself lucky you ride a bike, back in the days when I used to track cars, $2700 wouldnít even register as an expense
    You aren't a Dentist by chance are you?
    Iím looking to hear more first hand experiences with the fork and Iím hoping to have one this summer season. The issue is, Iím looking to buy a Ripmo and Iím not sure its a good fit as that bike has a 160 mm fork.
    Agreed.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPenquinn
    Iím looking to hear more first hand experiences with the fork and Iím hoping to have one this summer season. The issue is, Iím looking to buy a Ripmo and Iím not sure its a good fit as that bike has a 160 mm fork.
    Agreed.
    I'm super interested in the various linkage forks out there and truly believe that they're the wave of the future, but the simple fact is that an extra 30mm of travel is going to soak up big hits and hard landings better. 90% of the time the message is probably going to ride better than your XYZ 160mm telescopic fork but that 10% of the time is going to hurt.

    And that's assuming the change in axle to crown measurement doesn't completely screw up the geometry of your bike.

  165. #165
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    One of the applications that makes a lot of sense to me is fatbikes. We don't need a lot of travel, but we need wide fork legs. Linkage forks are a natural for this.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    206
    Agreed on many points.

    Iím not too concerned about who paid for the shock, I just want an honest review. For some people $2700 isnít a lot of money, others are irrationally drawn to new tech (even if its free). Its often really hard to know a persons bias.

    Iím not a dentist

    I did spend years at the track with cars (time attack etc), so Iím biased to performance at any cost. The world of track cars is many magnitudes more expensive than MTBís, and the depreciation is at least as brutal.

    The smiles per miles are the same, so I kept riding and sold off the cars.

    It is interesting to see how the two cultures have a very different relationship with time, technology, money and understanding physics.

    The car guys are looking for tenths of a second and will do whatever it takes to get them. In fact they have so much data logging and the mechanics are usually engineers. Most ďTrack RatsĒ would spend $2700 in the blink of an eye (not just the well heeled drivers either). Be that on tires, suspension, brakes, testing, performance chips, exhausts, rims or even instruction. How many riders even spend money on instruction?

    That said, Iím not really looking for MTBís to get into that price per mile arms race. The return on investment is just no there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    I think one thing we'd like to know is how good it is from someone who got it for free and was given the choice to keep it or use their 36/lyrik. The fact that someone is going to shell out $2700 is going to probably make them pretty attached to it and often times the "real story" only comes out much later. That may not be the case at all, but I doubt the objectivity at these price levels until at least there are far more in circulation and reviewed.

    Given that I can put together a custom-tuned Yarilanche for around 1K, that makes me extremely skeptical that this will be that much better. Bicycles are hard to tune suspension-wise because the sprung mass is relatively low and rider weights vary greatly, so the damping has to be able to be modified accordingly. Ultimately, this takes custom tuning to be the most effective, so while it may offer a bunch of benefits, so does custom tuning. For that price, it damn sure should have custom tuning to match the rider/weight/bike/riding...
    See my message above. Should come with custom tuning at least for that price. I factor custom tuning into the cost of a bike/frame these days and it's relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of the bike or frame. It's not a good thing that suspension components are going well north of 1K, unless you have human skin over your reptilian scales.
    Maybe, we also want parts that will last season after season and not just be done, given how hard it is to service some of the stuff internally (the damping carts) it creates a barrier to do so and stuff ends up somewhat "disposable". Hopefully that is not the case.

    You aren't a Dentist by chance are you?

    Agreed.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    I think one thing we'd like to know is how good it is from someone who got it for free and was given the choice to keep it or use their 36/lyrik. The fact that someone is going to shell out $2700 is going to probably make them pretty attached to it and often times the "real story" only comes out much later. That may not be the case at all, but I doubt the objectivity at these price levels until at least there are far more in circulation and reviewed.

    Given that I can put together a custom-tuned Yarilanche for around 1K, that makes me extremely skeptical that this will be that much better. Bicycles are hard to tune suspension-wise because the sprung mass is relatively low and rider weights vary greatly, so the damping has to be able to be modified accordingly. Ultimately, this takes custom tuning to be the most effective, so while it may offer a bunch of benefits, so does custom tuning. For that price, it damn sure should have custom tuning to match the rider/weight/bike/riding...
    See my message above. Should come with custom tuning at least for that price. I factor custom tuning into the cost of a bike/frame these days and it's relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of the bike or frame. It's not a good thing that suspension components are going well north of 1K, unless you have human skin over your reptilian scales.
    Maybe, we also want parts that will last season after season and not just be done, given how hard it is to service some of the stuff internally (the damping carts) it creates a barrier to do so and stuff ends up somewhat "disposable". Hopefully that is not the case.

    You aren't a Dentist by chance are you?

    Agreed.
    For every guy that spends $2700 and is attached there are 1000 nay-sayers who have never ridden it, never held one and are against it....because it's expensive, not pointing any figers. How many times have we seen this? Carbon frames...now everybody rides them, carbon rims....common place, custom fork cartridges / coil kits.....seems like the cool thing to do.

    There are a LOT of guys dropping $1k on a FOX36 then getting Avy cartridges, Push Coils, Luft, etc without even blinking....easily up to the $1500+ mark all in.

    I think what your missing with all this is....it's not about a telescopic fork working the best it can but rather exploring the engineering TRADEOFFS that can't be solved by any wunder tuner on a traditional telescopic fork.

    To take full advantage of these forks I think we are going to have to optimize frames for these forks and likely change our riding style to suit. I'm sure when these first start hitting the street with unbiased reviewers the reviews (like everything thats new) will be polarized.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPenquinn View Post
    The car guys are looking for tenths of a second and will do whatever it takes to get them.
    That said, Iím not really looking for MTBís to get into that price per mile arms race. The return on investment is just no there.
    There are some similarities with bikes, people love the latest tech, however bikes suffer from a distinct lack of cheque book racing. And that's simply because the bike is such a small portion of the total (weight) package. Whereas spending $10k chasing a few more kW when the driver is well heeled but overweight makes more sense. On a bike it doesn't help.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArizRider View Post
    I think what your missing with all this is....it's not about a telescopic fork working the best it can but rather exploring the engineering TRADEOFFS that can't be solved by any wunder tuner on a traditional telescopic fork.

    To take full advantage of these forks I think we are going to have to optimize frames for these forks and likely change our riding style to suit.
    I think most people admire anyone who buys the first run of anything, linkage forks weren't adopted for racing because riders had got so used to the weight shift when turning the bike in. Don't get my wrong I've always had a soft spot for linkage forks and lusted after a Whyte PRST 1 since they came out. But I agree, it can be hard to be subjective when you've handed over the money.
    I've met riders with the 11/6 who have enjoyed the shock enormously, but in the tiny sample I've talked to, all basically leave the shock in one setting rather than switching between the two options. But none regretted the purchase.

  169. #169
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by BunniBoi View Post
    I'm super interested in the various linkage forks out there and truly believe that they're the wave of the future, but the simple fact is that an extra 30mm of travel is going to soak up big hits and hard landings better. 90% of the time the message is probably going to ride better than your XYZ 160mm telescopic fork but that 10% of the time is going to hurt.

    And that's assuming the change in axle to crown measurement doesn't completely screw up the geometry of your bike.
    I'm hoping they will be a true advancement, and we really won't know until they're out in the wild and the hoopla/honeymoon wears off. While I agree that the high price is a deterrent, I think the "One travel suits all" and "One damping suits all" concepts are going to turn people off. I think it would have been smarter to offer custom tunes, or at least made it user tuneable, and have stated that the fork was designed for X - Y travel bikes, and other longer travel models would follow.

  170. #170
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,774
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html

  171. #171
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html
    Thanks for the thoughts.

    Reminds me a bit of my 34 SC from last season, I just couldn't get the thing to feel good at all, tried all sorts of damping adjustments, spring configs, etc., my 32 SC actually felt better overall, and that's with 20mm less travel. It was simply harsh everywhere. Ended up sending it to Push to get re-tuned and their summary was the thing was way-overdamped from the factory and it was no wonder I was running like 20psi less than recommended in an attempt to get it to feel better. They diagnosed my settings correctly (as in why I was running it that way) and the issue. It's what I suspected, but for some reason they were even a little surprised how stiffly these were damped from the factory, high speed compression I'm assuming. Just goes to show that a suspension fork is a total package, it needs a good chassis, good damping, good spring, etc. If one area is lacking, other areas do not make up for it.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  172. #172
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,306
    Ripmo is a bad choice for this fork. The whole it will work on any bike is BS. I hope tht this review is a one off as I want more forks like this to come to market. Linkage forks should be better, but need to be serviceable.
    I would have loved to try this fork on my tallboy 3 or on a Ripley.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Thanks for the thoughts.

    Reminds me a bit of my 34 SC from last season, I just couldn't get the thing to feel good at all, tried all sorts of damping adjustments, spring configs, etc., my 32 SC actually felt better overall, and that's with 20mm less travel. It was simply harsh everywhere. Ended up sending it to Push to get re-tuned and their summary was the thing was way-overdamped from the factory and it was no wonder I was running like 20psi less than recommended in an attempt to get it to feel better. They diagnosed my settings correctly (as in why I was running it that way) and the issue. It's what I suspected, but for some reason they were even a little surprised how stiffly these were damped from the factory, high speed compression I'm assuming. Just goes to show that a suspension fork is a total package, it needs a good chassis, good damping, good spring, etc. If one area is lacking, other areas do not make up for it.
    I found one F34 FIT4 with the shim stack in upside down. Made for massive amounts of shim preload and a very harsh ride.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html
    That was a good write up. And your thoughts on the lowering the pressure and trying to open the rebound, mirrors my experience on my Pike RC. Lower and lower pressure to trying to use all the travel, rebound already wide open and just getting stuck with a fork that only worked at high speed.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dougal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html
    Wow.

    I would very much like to see the damper curves on that fork or it's dampers. I'm not talking <1m/s either. I'm talking 5 m/s.
    Owner of www.shockcraft.co.nz, Mech Engineer, Tuner, Manitou, Motorex, Vorsprung EPTC, SKF, Enduro
    www.dougal.co.nz

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html
    Thanks for that info.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  177. #177
    Perpetual Hack
    Reputation: mykel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,162
    Cheers Mike.
    Hatched in '64
    A Dirtbag since '69
    A Knomer since '07

    Knolly Fugitive
    Knolly Podium
    Knolly Endorphin
    Knolly Delirium

  178. #178
    WAWE
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,429
    ...

  179. #179
    WAWE
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,429
    I recently tried one for a brief 10 minute spin... I did the very basic setup for my weight and rode it over a short rolling rocky section. I really wanted to like it but was also very disappointed. I figured I had not tuned it adequately but I felt it was not even close to what I would call plush or comfortable.

    Hi Mike! 👋

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wooly88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    527
    Thanks Mike. Trust better hope there are way more overwhelmingly positive reviews to counter Mikeís. I was curious about this fork but not any longer.

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html
    Great write up. Thanks!

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,698
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html
    Had a feeling this was going to be the case with the delay... bummer.
    Denver, CO

  183. #183
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    One thing bothers me about their tone deaf response. Are they... just testing the shock absorption on a jig, and that's the primary measure? Supposing there are confounding factors that their test does not measure, such as intense friction from faulty bearings? I should think it wise to lab test and ride test the units that come back to them.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (officialy in 2016, functionally in 2020).

  184. #184
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    28,817
    yikes. I have a feeling they're not going to be sending their fork out for any more un-guaranteed reviews like yours.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,748
    Wouldnít the world be a much better place without un-guaranteed reviews though? Itís what should be instead of what actually happens.

  186. #186
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    One thing bothers me about their tone deaf response.
    Me too. It's one thing to send out what multiple riders thought was a wonky fork, it's another to say "You guys just don't get it" instead of trying to figure out why those multiple riders didn't like it. I have no issue with a tester being sent an early production run fork that doesn't ride well, and then they send out a corrected one that does. Things happen in manufacturing.

    Guess you have to be special to feel "the Trust Effect".

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    Wouldnít the world be a much better place without un-guaranteed reviews though? Itís what should be instead of what actually happens.
    It works in this situation because no one has the fork but make a negative review of a bike thatís already available to the public and watch how defensive people get. Just look at the Yeti forum
    Denver, CO

  188. #188
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    WTF is up with the random jerk comments about the steerer tube, too? Like, even if it was cut pretty short, that really has nothing much to do with what MC/other testers didn't like about the fork. Why even mention it? Whoever is in charge of PR should be fired immediately.

    Tons of rich people with more money than sense (or riding ability) bought Mavericks with DUCs on them, though, and those were objectively pretty terrible. So maybe the "if it's a turd make it look cool and cost a fortune" model will work here too.

    -Walt

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flipnidaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,205

    My $.02 after riding the Trust on my Evil Calling

    Quickie Trust fork review after a shakedown ride at Skyline (Napa). The Trust fork was a demo from my LBS in Boise (Bauerhaus Bikes) so I left the steerer uncut and did not modify the air spring or damper in anyway (which is usually my first step when getting any new fork). I did not pay for the fork so I have no skin in the game. The bike I used for the test is a small Evil Calling (130mm bike) with a 150mm Pike RCT3 that had a lighter oil in the damper and an ACS3 coil.

    Setup:
    Do not follow the recommended air pressure for each leg. It's too high. I started with 130psi (body weight) but settled on 110 psi for each leg.
    The sag meter is basically useless. Set the fork based on feel instead of sag.
    I used the recommended rebound and compression settings based on weight.
    Putting a wheel in requires a little bit of patience. It's not as intuitive as a regular telescopic fork.
    Skip the parking lot bounce test. It will feel over-damped and harsh.
    The Trust weighs about 4.6 lbs with axle and uncut steerer. Almost exactly the same as the Pike with the ACS3.
    The front brake guides are simple and elegant.

    Riding:
    Surprisingly, the fork is plush in the trail and open mode over trail chatter.
    It's not as linear on the big hits as the 150mm Pike with ACS3 that was on the bike before. I think I can remove additional tokens from the air spring to make it more linear but since this is not my fork, I did no dare modify it in any way.
    The fork was very rigid. I climb quite a bit standing up and the fork was rock solid (granted, I weigh 130-135 lbs).
    It was a little bit harder to launch the front end on lips, rocks but I think that is just a matter of adjusting my timing.
    On fast, chunky downhills, the Trust absorbed the fast hits pretty well but it also ramped up too quickly. Removing the tokens would've helped make it more linear. This is the same problem I have with every air sprung fork which is why I've converted all my forks to coil.

    Verdict:
    I give this fork a 2 thumbs up. I think it makes a great trail fork (not that I would replace my 36, Pike or Lyrik with it). Things that can be improved are:
    Better guides for wheel installation
    Coil option.
    Working sag indicator.
    Greater LSC adjustment range.
    Affordability.

    Today, I'll take the bike to USCS/Wilder to test it on some loamy goodness. I reduced the air pressure to 100psi and left the LSC wide open.

    Did I mention that the fork is so ugly that it's beautiful?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Dave weagle linkage &quot;Enve&quot; fork: Trust Performance - &quot;Message&quot;-7ae6de05-9ce5-4050-968f-c0d68ddc6744.jpg  

    Dave weagle linkage &quot;Enve&quot; fork: Trust Performance - &quot;Message&quot;-2176842f-4d49-44e2-b0ee-c8e33c903528.jpg  

    Dave weagle linkage &quot;Enve&quot; fork: Trust Performance - &quot;Message&quot;-calling-trust-fork.jpg  


  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    8,762
    Looks to me like the geo of the linkage and shock attachment exacerbates the airspring's rising rate.
    What, me worry?

  191. #191
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,504
    Quote Originally Posted by flipnidaho View Post
    Quickie Trust fork review after a shakedown ride at Skyline (Napa).
    An update if you don't peruse the other boards: it started leaking :

    https://forums.mtbr.com/evil-bikes/c...l#post13932302
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    1

    Good Fatbike Trust Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    One of the applications that makes a lot of sense to me is fatbikes. We don't need a lot of travel, but we need wide fork legs. Linkage forks are a natural for this.
    There's a great, candid review of the Trust fork by a fat bike wizard at Big Wheel Building. He was an Outside Bike Test tester.

  193. #193
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by JDMTB View Post
    There's a great, candid review of the Trust fork by a fat bike wizard at Big Wheel Building. He was an Outside Bike Test tester.
    That's mikesee on the forum here. We've been discussing that review.

    Welcome to mtbr!
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: g.law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Finally had some time to organize my thoughts, and Trust's responses to them.

    Read it here:

    https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2018...rk-review.html
    I also weigh 190lbs geared up and my initial experience with the Message was the same as yours. I sent the fork back to Trust and had 2 tokens installed on each leg and now run 150psi, with LSC fully open. It's a compromise, fork is still over damped but workable. Running the fork at 140psi it felt fantastic but it blows through the travel on even modest hits.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,096
    When they make a 180mm fork that's a similar weight to my fox 36. I'm interested.

  196. #196
    Captain Trail Head
    Reputation: lars@thc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    353
    Wow, I read all the posts up to now in one go... Which felt like binging on some Netflix show to get caught up, lol. I figured it would be good to see what folks were saying here for a few reasons.
    1. I rode Lee McCormack's bike for a couple weeks.
    2. I installed one of these on my Yeti SB5LR.
    3. I removed a Float 36 RC2 160mm to make room.
    4. I ride the shit out of my bikes on rowdy trails.
    5. I am a stocking dealer.

    I've gotta work on a proper review to share from my perspective, but will hold off until I get a few more rides in. For now it's suffice to say I believe this fork feels amazingly different. My wrists are very happy with the difference.

    Oh and I purchased a couple more for the shop. One is for demo so some these fancy typing folks who don't want to spend the dough can get a proper intro on trailing linkage forks v.2019
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Dave weagle linkage &quot;Enve&quot; fork: Trust Performance - &quot;Message&quot;-trust-web.jpg  

    ďEverything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.Ē
    -John Lennon

  197. #197
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Well if one were to ignore the customer service aspect, the physical reviews of these forks appear to be very binary. They're either terrible or they're freaking awesome. That suggests to me that there is some quality assurance work yet unfinished.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (officialy in 2016, functionally in 2020).

  198. #198
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,306
    I want to see one of these torn apart and a service manual showing how to do it. At this price point it need to be servicable and not have a csu with a none replace damper or bushings.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    571
    Interesting to see what is old is new again like coil overs. I used to love my Noleen forks they steered awesome and worked great for the time. But at what the prices seem to be for these new linage forks no thanks.

    Now on a fat bike give me a linkage fork with 80mm of travel and I would be a happy camper.

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Well if one were to ignore the customer service aspect, the physical reviews of these forks appear to be very binary. They're either terrible or they're freaking awesome. That suggests to me that there is some quality assurance work yet unfinished.
    That may be true, or it's that it works very well for some conditions not so much for others. It seems like it's awesome at general trail riding, but for big drops to flat it is not as good as a telescoping fork.

    At least that's what I'm reading between the lines of the reviews.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dave Weagle's new Suspension Design
    By mtb_biker in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 09:08 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-16-2007, 11:17 AM
  3. Uber suspension guru Dave Weagle interview...
    By Speedub.Nate in forum Riding Passion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 08:22 AM

Members who have read this thread: 172

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.