DVO Suspension - Emerald Inverted DH Fork

[nigelhicks]

"Likely the biggest talking point of the Emerald will no doubt be the carbon fiber, bolt-on CTA unit that serves to not only protect the stanchions from damage and as a fender, but also to tie the lower legs together to increase torsional rigidity by a claimed 50% over the same Emerald fork without the CTA in place. The basic idea isn't new - riders who have been in the sport since the mid-90s will likely recall the inverted, elastomer-sprung and air-damped Halson fork that had its lowers joined together via a brace that traveled vertically by way of slots machined into the fork's uppers. The CTA's execution looks to be much more impressive, but we'll need some trail-time on the Emerald to see just how effective it actually is."

 

http://lp1.pinkbike.org/p4pb8895360/p4pb8895360.jpg

[nigelhicks]

so it is carbon and they "SAY" it increases stiffness by 50% ... but this still needs to be tested ...

[ThePubSA]

Fox

http://gp1.pinkbike.org/p5pb7694404/p5pb7694404.jpg

[ThePubSA]

Maverick

http://www.maverickbike.com/cms_images/file_181.jpg

[ThePubSA]

Only 160mm, but ye

http://lp1.pinkbike.org/p4pb8590345/p4pb8590345.jpg

[ThePubSA]

Unless - they have been able to make it so that it bolts on to the throughaxle base and is SUPER stiff - that could help with the lateral flex - looks like it has 2 archs one in the front and one in the back.

 

But in this instance why not then just make a normal DH fork??

Fox

http://gp1.pinkbike.org/p5pb7694404/p5pb7694404.jpg

Ye hiding kashima lowers

lol

[patches]

Fox

http://gp1.pinkbike.org/p5pb7694404/p5pb7694404.jpg

 

why on earth did fox leave the adjustment dials on the bottom? I hope there are protective coverings for them... or it's like saying "here rocks, mud and gravel, come stuff up my fork"

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

And none of those have any cross-braces.

[droo]

Whichever way you slice it, you'll never get a bridge onto the lowers so inversion forks will always be heavier / have more flex (delete one) than conventional forks because the stanchions can move independently of each other. The best (worst?) you'll see of this is under braking.

 

If you make the axle stiffer, you can do the same to a conventional fork and you're back to square one.

 

IMO upside-down forks belong in the same category as Girvin flexstems and suspension seatposts - file 13. But marketing is marketing, so there will always be someone trying to be different...

 

As Nigel said, just make a normal fork.

[ThePubSA]

Only 160mm, but ye

http://lp1.pinkbike.org/p4pb8590345/p4pb8590345.jpg

why on earth did fox leave the adjustment dials on the bottom? I hope there are protective coverings for them... or it's like saying "here rocks, mud and gravel, come stuff up my fork"

Always my 1st concern with inverted,the x-fusion lowers would get pretty abused on rocks

[Flowta]

Most "lack of stiffness" problems in inverted forks comes from the stantions twisting wrt to the thruaxle.

 

Maverick got round this by have the "thru-axle" on the hub as opposed to through, having a 24mm axle and having knurling on the axle.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Whichever way you slice it, you'll never get a bridge onto the lowers so inversion forks will always be heavier / have more flex (delete one) than conventional forks because the stanchions can move independently of each other. The best (worst?) you'll see of this is under braking.

 

If you make the axle stiffer, you can do the same to a conventional fork and you're back to square one.

 

IMO upside-down forks belong in the same category as Girvin flexstems and suspension seatposts - file 13. But marketing is marketing, so there will always be someone trying to be different...

 

As Nigel said, just make a normal fork.

 

Unless you do something like the DVO okes have done and attach them with a bridge, as shown in the pics. Agreed that the forks will never be as stiff without a bridge, and that you cannot attach one to the body of the fork due to the wheel moving up and down, but you can attach a bridge to the dropout section and raise it up and over the wheel, a la DVO's attempt.

[nigelhicks]

IMO upside-down forks belong in the same category as Girvin flexstems

 

Girvin Flexstem now there was a classy piece of engineering!! It worked like a bomb ... dont know why it never took off!

 

http://mombat.org/192Flexstem.jpg

[nigelhicks]

hahahahahaah titanium stem and bar combo - only half a kg!!! hahahahahahahaha

[Guest Omega Man]

Unless you do something like the DVO okes have done and attach them with a bridge, as shown in the pics. Agreed that the forks will never be as stiff without a bridge, and that you cannot attach one to the body of the fork due to the wheel moving up and down, but you can attach a bridge to the dropout section and raise it up and over the wheel, a la DVO's attempt.

I'm no engineer but logic tells me the following.

 

That bridge is attached to plastic covers that are there to deflect mud and dust. If that is supposed to be used to stiffen up the fork then the dust cover goodies are gonna have to be stiff as ****. And even then there will still be a kaaaakload of flex cos there's 8 inches of plastic between the arch and the axle where all the flex comes from.

 

And it's the color of phlegm.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Omega Man

[droo]

Unless you do something like the DVO okes have done and attach them with a bridge, as shown in the pics. Agreed that the forks will never be as stiff without a bridge, and that you cannot attach one to the body of the fork due to the wheel moving up and down, but you can attach a bridge to the dropout section and raise it up and over the wheel, a la DVO's attempt.

 

= more weight over a normal fork, and more moving parts...

 

I'm a sceptic by nature, and therefore suspicious as hell of any company that tries to sell me something without a clear advantage. Much the same as my opinion on wheel sizes - not judging anyone who wants one, but until I can see the advantage for myself I just don't see the point.