| |
Main
Date: 24 Sep 2007 17:52:48
From: Jon_C
Subject: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
Hi,
Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've seen) have the
stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
part) at the bottom?
Two reasons why this is backwards:
-The max stress occurs at the top of the fork so this would be the
logical place to put the larger dia, stiffer slider.
-The bottom half of the fork is unsprung weight, which needs to be
minimized to help the suspension work well, so this is the ideal place
for the lighter stanchion.
I know it's a bit easier to manufacture them with the stanchions at
the top but that should only concern low-end manufacturers.
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 04:40:02
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
On Sep 30, 8:46 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote:
> mail2jul...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Cannondale Lefty?
> > Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
> > sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
> > way (I never did)
>
> How can something with only one leg be a fork?
A fork with one tine is a skewer, but in
bicycle usage that word is already taken.
I'm still waiting for Cannondale to invent
a brake with a pad on only one side.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 22:37:49
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:46 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>> mail2jul...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Cannondale Lefty?
>>> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
>>> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
>>> way (I never did)
>> How can something with only one leg be a fork?
>
> A fork with one tine is a skewer, but in
> bicycle usage that word is already taken.
>
> I'm still waiting for Cannondale to invent
> a brake with a pad on only one side.
>
> Ben
>
ever heard of vespa?
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2007 07:49:11
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
mail2jul...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Cannondale Lefty?
> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
> way (I never did)
It still has to have a funny axle and hub. And brake, if you consider
disc brakes funny.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 10:49:06
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
Chalo Colina wrote:
> mail2jul...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Cannondale Lefty?
>> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
>> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
>> way (I never did)
>
> It still has to have a funny axle and hub.
Are you calling the four (4) single-sided Phil Wood hubs I have funny?
> And brake, if you consider disc brakes funny.
Quite a few tadpole trikes have single-side mounted drum brakes.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2007 00:21:30
From:
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
Cannondale Lefty?
Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
way (I never did)
|
| | |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 10:46:11
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
mail2julian@gmail.com wrote:
> Cannondale Lefty?
> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
> way (I never did)
How can something with only one leg be a fork?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 15:55:41
From: John Dacey
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
"Ego sum rex Romanus, et supra grammaticam." - Sigismund
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:46:11 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote:
>How can something with only one leg be a fork?
and then on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:21:21 -0500, also wrote:
>"Hey, one of your forks fell off" - yelled at me while riding one of my
>bikes with a mono-strut connecting the front hub to the headset.
If one scrutinizes the difference between fork and forks so closely,
does not the term "mono-strut" suffer a similar defect?
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996
http://www.businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 16:04:46
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
> mail2julian@gmail.com wrote:
>> Cannondale Lefty?
>> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
>> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
>> way (I never did)
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> How can something with only one leg be a fork?
In the olden days, a bicycle had 'forks'. The term became singular at
some point, obviously more singular with that thing.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 21:21:21
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
Andrew Muzi mused:
>> mail2julian@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Cannondale Lefty?
>>> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
>>> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
>>> way (I never did)
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> How can something with only one leg be a fork?
>
> In the olden days, a bicycle had 'forks'. The term became singular at
> some point, obviously more singular with that thing.
"Hey, one of your forks fell off" - yelled at me while riding one of my
bikes with a mono-strut connecting the front hub to the headset.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 05:32:17
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
In article <47004dc2$0$26431$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote:
> Andrew Muzi mused:
> >> mail2julian@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Cannondale Lefty?
> >>> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
> >>> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
> >>> way (I never did)
> >
> > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >> How can something with only one leg be a fork?
> >
> > In the olden days, a bicycle had 'forks'. The term became singular at
> > some point, obviously more singular with that thing.
>
> "Hey, one of your forks fell off" - yelled at me while riding one of my
> bikes with a mono-strut connecting the front hub to the headset.
The shouter was clearly illiterate, Tom. The missing part was a "tine".
All down with the mono-struts,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 08:57:40
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> mail2julian@gmail.com wrote:
>> Cannondale Lefty?
>> Upside down fork, no issue with left-right connection (spring/damper),
>> sealing and brakes (disk only). Pretty smart if you look at it this
>> way (I never did)
>
> How can something with only one leg be a fork?
>
there's hope for you yet!
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:50:45
From: Zog The Undeniable
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
Jon_C wrote:
> Hi,
> Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've seen) have the
> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
> part) at the bottom?
>
> Two reasons why this is backwards:
> -The max stress occurs at the top of the fork so this would be the
> logical place to put the larger dia, stiffer slider.
> -The bottom half of the fork is unsprung weight, which needs to be
> minimized to help the suspension work well, so this is the ideal place
> for the lighter stanchion.
>
> I know it's a bit easier to manufacture them with the stanchions at
> the top but that should only concern low-end manufacturers.
>
It's been done the other way too, but I think stiffness becomes the problem.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:45:11
From:
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:50:45 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
<hrothgar19@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Jon_C wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've seen) have the
>> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
>> part) at the bottom?
>>
>> Two reasons why this is backwards:
>> -The max stress occurs at the top of the fork so this would be the
>> logical place to put the larger dia, stiffer slider.
>> -The bottom half of the fork is unsprung weight, which needs to be
>> minimized to help the suspension work well, so this is the ideal place
>> for the lighter stanchion.
>>
>> I know it's a bit easier to manufacture them with the stanchions at
>> the top but that should only concern low-end manufacturers.
>>
>It's been done the other way too, but I think stiffness becomes the problem.
Most high end forks I've had apart have the spring on one side and the
shock on the other. Some have the piston acting INSIDE the upper tube
making it "rightside up" even though it looks "upside down".The large
lower "outer" needs to be stiffly connected side to side when the
spring is only on one side and the damper only on the other.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:14:34
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
<clare at snyder.on.ca > wrote in message
news:vfrlf392mug4936n2fs70p9gpckdasi67q@4ax.com...
> Most high end forks I've had apart have the spring on one side and the
> shock on the other. Some have the piston acting INSIDE the upper tube
> making it "rightside up" even though it looks "upside down".The large
> lower "outer" needs to be stiffly connected side to side when the
> spring is only on one side and the damper only on the other.
Which is why Maverick use a 24mm axle front wheel for their forks.
cheers,
clive
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 21:47:56
From: Jon_C
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
I searched around and found these too:
the Groove by White Brothers Cycling
http://www.whitebrotherscycling.com/images/items/groove_200.jpg
Still, it seems like right-way-up forks are incredibly rare in the MTB
world which is odd when u consider that just about every sports
motorbike uses them. Road, moto-X and even trials bikes..
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:44:39
From: Kinky Cowboy
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:47:56 -0000, Jon_C <JonCCrouch@gmail.com >
wrote:
>I searched around and found these too:
>the Groove by White Brothers Cycling
>http://www.whitebrotherscycling.com/images/items/groove_200.jpg
>
>Still, it seems like right-way-up forks are incredibly rare in the MTB
>world which is odd when u consider that just about every sports
>motorbike uses them. Road, moto-X and even trials bikes..
You might do us all a favour and stick with the accepted convention;
sliders inside the stanchions is UPSIDE DOWN.
For a bicycle, USD forks only really make sense if you solve the brake
and side to side connection problems, which means you must have a disc
brake and a clamped hub axle, commonly a 20mm.
For XC bikes with QR 9mm axles and optional rim brakes, USD forks
won't fly. USD designs also pretty much have to have cartridge
dampers, whereas an open bath design can be lighter.
I have Shiver SC (100mm) on my play bike, but it's nearly 2lb heavier
than a good 100mm XC fork, so only an option if you want plenty of
stiffness and don't care too much about weight.
Fashions change in motorcycles too; after USD forks became all but
universal, Showa/Honda switched back to RWU for, for example, the
Fireblade, because they were able to get a better balance of
stiffness, unsprung weight and steering inertia that way.
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 14:19:35
From: Stephen Greenwood
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
On Sep 24, 12:56 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net >
wrote:
> "Jon_C" wrote: Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've
>
> seen) have the> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
> > part) at the bottom? (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Several years ago a friend of mine installed a set that are right-side-up
> according to your standards. )I have forgotten the brand.) They used
> elastomer inserts of various "constants" to adjust the springiness--he
> carried an assortment in his pocket, but seldom found a need to change them.
>
> I agree with you that the tubes should be on top. As I recall, though, this
> involves complications in mounting caliper brakes, since you can't attach
> them to the lower stantion. (I'm really fuzzy on this part.)
There are various forks like the OP describes, and I think I know
which fork Leo's friend had: the Halson Inversion. I've never seen it
myself, but I do recall seeing magazine ads for it in the early- and
mid-1990's, years before disc brakes were generally available for
MTBs. I don't know if Halson is still in business, but I on Ventana's
website I found this snippet describing the way that this fork solved
the brakes-must-move-with-wheel problem:
"An inverted suspension fork is a great idea on paper. The strongest
part of a fork needs to be at the top, next to the crown. It makes
good engineering sense to use the large-diameter alloy part on the
top, and put the smaller-diameter, moving part on the bottom. Not only
is this a better use of materials, supporting the bearings and sealing
its moving parts is made easier with an inverted arrangement. Known as
"upside-down forks," the idea has been borrowed from motorcycles (even
though professional motorcycle racers are returning to right-side-up
forks).
The fly in the ointment of upside-down forks is the brakes. They must
be close to the rim, and that means ten inches above the front axle.
Since the upper part closest to the rim of upside-down forks doesn't
move, it's hard to get the brakes to follow the rim. This problem has
sidetracked most inverted fork concepts into the waste can. Halson
Inversion forks solved this problem by slotting the upper alloy
section of its fork. The cantilever bosses move up and down inside the
vertical slots without having to depend on a disc brake. You get
superb bearing overlap, increased rigidity and less unsprung weight
(the part of the suspension that follows the ground on upside-down
forks)."
The link below has the full article from the April 1995 issue of
Mountain Bike Action:
http://www.ventanausa.com/mba0495.html
Stephen Greenwood
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 13:28:57
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
Stephen Greenwood wrote:
> On Sep 24, 12:56 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>> "Jon_C" wrote: Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've
>>
>> seen) have the> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
>>> part) at the bottom? (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Several years ago a friend of mine installed a set that are right-side-up
>> according to your standards. )I have forgotten the brand.) They used
>> elastomer inserts of various "constants" to adjust the springiness--he
>> carried an assortment in his pocket, but seldom found a need to change them.
>>
>> I agree with you that the tubes should be on top. As I recall, though, this
>> involves complications in mounting caliper brakes, since you can't attach
>> them to the lower stantion. (I'm really fuzzy on this part.)
>
>
> There are various forks like the OP describes, and I think I know
> which fork Leo's friend had: the Halson Inversion. I've never seen it
> myself, but I do recall seeing magazine ads for it in the early- and
> mid-1990's, years before disc brakes were generally available for
> MTBs. I don't know if Halson is still in business, but I on Ventana's
> website I found this snippet describing the way that this fork solved
> the brakes-must-move-with-wheel problem:
>
> "An inverted suspension fork is a great idea on paper. The strongest
> part of a fork needs to be at the top, next to the crown. It makes
> good engineering sense to use the large-diameter alloy part on the
> top, and put the smaller-diameter, moving part on the bottom. Not only
> is this a better use of materials, supporting the bearings and sealing
> its moving parts is made easier with an inverted arrangement. Known as
> "upside-down forks," the idea has been borrowed from motorcycles (even
> though professional motorcycle racers are returning to right-side-up
> forks).
>
> The fly in the ointment of upside-down forks is the brakes. They must
> be close to the rim, and that means ten inches above the front axle.
> Since the upper part closest to the rim of upside-down forks doesn't
> move, it's hard to get the brakes to follow the rim. This problem has
> sidetracked most inverted fork concepts into the waste can. Halson
> Inversion forks solved this problem by slotting the upper alloy
> section of its fork. The cantilever bosses move up and down inside the
> vertical slots without having to depend on a disc brake. You get
> superb bearing overlap, increased rigidity and less unsprung weight
> (the part of the suspension that follows the ground on upside-down
> forks)."
>
> The link below has the full article from the April 1995 issue of
> Mountain Bike Action:
>
> http://www.ventanausa.com/mba0495.html
>
> Stephen Greenwood
>
Good link, thanks. Another bunch of user reviews:
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Front_Shock/product_21662.shtml
People seemed to find it nice and stiff.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 20:48:35
From: D T W .../\\...
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
http://www.maverickbike.com/main/do/Fork_Technology
why all MTB forks (all the ones I've seen)
Now you've seen one
--
DTW .../\.../\.../\...
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 20:03:29
From: Jon_C
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
On Sep 24, 2:56 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net >
wrote:
> "Jon_C" wrote: Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've
>
> seen) have the> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
> > part) at the bottom? (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Several years ago a friend of mine installed a set that are right-side-up
> according to your standards. )I have forgotten the brand.) They used
> elastomer inserts of various "constants" to adjust the springiness--he
> carried an assortment in his pocket, but seldom found a need to change them.
>
> I agree with you that the tubes should be on top. As I recall, though, this
> involves complications in mounting caliper brakes, since you can't attach
> them to the lower stantion. (I'm really fuzzy on this part.)
Yup brakes need to move with the wheel so mounting caliper brakes
would be a real problem. Disc brakes wouldn't be an issue as they
mount right at the bottom of the fork on the unsprung part. (It's a
real shame to use disc brakes tho cos they add unsprung weight)
I don;t see a big issue with caliper/axle mountings. It would only
take a small casting on the end of the fork so you'd be saving
unsprung some weight for sure. It might not be a massive saving but
any saving is good and saving unspring weight is way more important
than saving overall weight.
I agree about the problem of damage to the stanchion chrome. Dirt
could be kept off with flimsy bellows type covers but if you ride
amongst rocks then you;d need something more substantial. However,
guards can at least be mounted to the sprung section of the fork.
I dont know much about seal design but i'd imagine gravity to be a
negligible force compared to the pressure during compression so I
doubt seals would be an issue.
One other benefit is overall weight saving. By putting the naturally
larger part of the fork where the stress is, you end up needing less
material to withstand a given load.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 12:16:28
From:
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Jon_C <JonCCro...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi,
> Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've seen) have the
> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
> part) at the bottom?
>
> Two reasons why this is backwards:
> -The max stress occurs at the top of the fork so this would be the
> logical place to put the larger dia, stiffer slider.
> -The bottom half of the fork is unsprung weight, which needs to be
> minimized to help the suspension work well, so this is the ideal place
> for the lighter stanchion.
>
> I know it's a bit easier to manufacture them with the stanchions at
> the top but that should only concern low-end manufacturers.
Sliders on the bottom allows the support arch between the legs to stay
closer to the mid span between the axle and the crown. For non thru-
axle forks this is essential for maintaining rigidity. Also, the
stanchion isn't necessarily lighter than the slider. The larger
slider tube can be made with a thinner wall than the stanchion.
Assembling the fork the other way around would also be very hard to do
in a way that's lighter than casting the lower legs, support arch,
dropouts, and disc tab all out of a single piece of magnesium.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 21:53:26
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
unforgiven99@juno.com wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Jon_C <JonCCro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've seen) have the
>> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
>> part) at the bottom?
>>
>> Two reasons why this is backwards:
>> -The max stress occurs at the top of the fork so this would be the
>> logical place to put the larger dia, stiffer slider.
>> -The bottom half of the fork is unsprung weight, which needs to be
>> minimized to help the suspension work well, so this is the ideal place
>> for the lighter stanchion.
>>
>> I know it's a bit easier to manufacture them with the stanchions at
>> the top but that should only concern low-end manufacturers.
>
> Sliders on the bottom allows the support arch between the legs to stay
> closer to the mid span between the axle and the crown. For non thru-
> axle forks this is essential for maintaining rigidity. Also, the
> stanchion isn't necessarily lighter than the slider. The larger
> slider tube can be made with a thinner wall than the stanchion.
> Assembling the fork the other way around would also be very hard to do
> in a way that's lighter than casting the lower legs, support arch,
> dropouts, and disc tab all out of a single piece of magnesium.
>
hit the nail on the head - it's all about rigidity.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 18:56:41
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
"Jon_C" wrote: Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've
seen) have the
> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
> part) at the bottom? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Several years ago a friend of mine installed a set that are right-side-up
according to your standards. )I have forgotten the brand.) They used
elastomer inserts of various "constants" to adjust the springiness--he
carried an assortment in his pocket, but seldom found a need to change them.
I agree with you that the tubes should be on top. As I recall, though, this
involves complications in mounting caliper brakes, since you can't attach
them to the lower stantion. (I'm really fuzzy on this part.)
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 18:49:04
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Why are front forks all upside down??
|
In article <1190656368.995678.5080@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Jon_C <JonCCrouch@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi,
> Can anyone tell me why all MTB forks (all the ones I've seen) have the
> stanchions (chrome inner part) at the top and the sliders (cast outer
> part) at the bottom?
>
> Two reasons why this is backwards:
> -The max stress occurs at the top of the fork so this would be the
> logical place to put the larger dia, stiffer slider.
> -The bottom half of the fork is unsprung weight, which needs to be
> minimized to help the suspension work well, so this is the ideal place
> for the lighter stanchion.
>
> I know it's a bit easier to manufacture them with the stanchions at
> the top but that should only concern low-end manufacturers.
Motorcycle forks go both ways, depending on the design preferences, with
a strong trend in performance bikes towards "inverted" (chrome bit at
the bottom) forks.
On bicycles, the biggest issue is probably keeping dirt and scratches
off the vulnerable chrome part. Also, there's some non-trivial sealing
issues with having downward-exposed slider seals, I'm guessing.
Inverted-fork dirt bikes deal with this using really big plastic slider
guards. If you have to add a half pound of plastic slider guard to save
a quarter pound of fork weight....
Note that one way or another, you need a fancy bottom mount for stuff
like the axle and the brake caliper, so inverting the fork probably
saves less weight than you would hope.
That said, there's the Marzocchi Shiver if you're really eager to go
inverted. It's a downhill-specific (and very race-oriented; not really
for freeriders) fork:
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/2004_front_shocks/product_122903.shtml
Note the complaints in the reviews that as nice as it is, there are a
lot of DH forks out there that are lighter.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
|
