Seems they're going to use this on XC forks.
https://bikerumor.com/spotted-new-fox-32-reverse-arch-xc-fork/
However, if it's stiffer surely only a matter of time before they use it on burlier forks?
And I always wondered on bigger forks why no-one copied Magura and Pace to have twin arches.
And I always wondered on bigger forks why no-one copied Magura and Pace to have twin arches.
Tooling costs? Way cheaper to make one arch deeper and stronger/stiffer than add a second arch. Even though the weight/stiffness is better with two than one (beyond a certain point)
I guess this is to do with the in-arch air chamber patent?
Even though the weight/stiffness is better with two than one (beyond a certain point)
When does stiff become too stiff? End of the day forces have to go somewhere.
Still got my Manitou Sherman in the shed. A reminder that reverse arch can work for burly forks as well.
When does stiff become too stiff? End of the day forces have to go somewhere.
We've barely even achieved the "stiff enough" telescopic fork yet, think too stiff is a fair way off yet.
Is an arch of equal size/design not as stiff front or back? And you'd think that a company like Fox who have used front arches for 20ish years would have that idea of good/bad and experimented with reverse arches in the past... so why now?
so why now?
BNG, 5% bettah, big new thing for 2024 etc from the marketeers.
How many of us actually threaten the integrity of any fork arch, front or back; will 1-2% stiffer be noticeable by almost any of us..?
The rear arch on the chunky Mastodon attached to my fatty works just fine. So does the front arch on the Helm on my bouncer. Marketing BS, probably.
Why now?
- current buyers have forgotten (or never even saw) past use of reverse arch, so it doesn't look like copying other brands, or admitting you were wrong... or super cynically, what Matt says... it looks like the "latest thing" all over again
- we had a period of trying to squeeze the maximum travel out of a limited axle to crown length, while also increasing tyre clearance for fatter rims and tyres, and reverse arch made that harder rather than easier because of frame clearance... that time is over... forks are now longer for their travel than they once were (at both the short and long travel ends of the market anyway)
- tech allows for better comparison of different arches now... and can even grow more optimal arches for you if you fancy (although they tend to look awful in my opinion, but can be tidied up by humans while keeping a lot of their advantages, which I suspect is what Fox are up to here)
Marketing BS, probably
I think this ^ too.
Front or back an arch of the same size, mass and shape will have the same stiffness. This just 'looks' different and hence garners attention for the launch etc....
BANG: real reason as to "why now"... RA patent has expired in the USA
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6607185B2/en
I didn't even realise there was a patent. Thanks for the thread OP. Some proper breakfast bike chat.
Definitely nothing new. Round our way Halfords have been supplying bikes with reverse arches for years 😉
At the very least there will be less mud stuck in the fork arch!
And I always wondered on bigger forks why no-one copied Magura and Pace to have twin arches.
Old PACE forks were brilliant - way ahead of their time.
However the twin arch used to clog completely with mud and stop the wheel spinning (at least they did in Yorkshire clay) At least a single arch is less likely to clog.
Should've included the side view pic, that's one funky looking arch, the crown is different too, worth having a look on bikerumor, maxxis high roller 3 article too.
I like the look of it, but always reckon a twin arch would be better for side to side stiffness (and hopefully make the forks legs move closer to the same time) - I suspect this is more marketing stuff, but I like the look of it.
why no-one copied Magura and Pace to have twin arches.
I had a pair of Magura Thor 140mm forks. They looked really cool, but I can honestly say that the twin arch made zero difference to the riding experience. Plus at the time they were a utter PITA to get serviced/find service parts for, so they went tits up way before they should've for lack of distributor in the UK. Lesson learned.
RA patent has expired in the USA
Who is RA?
Ah, reversed arch, I get it!
Sorry, “Reverse Arch”… link shows the Answer patent for it… presumably that was passed on to Hayes when they bought Manitou.
I suspect this is more marketing stuff, but I like the look of it.
Well most stuff is these days.
The advantage to me of a reverse arch that it helps stop getting mud on the stanchions and getting passed the seals.
maxxis high roller 3 article too.
Now you're talking.
Looks similar to Schwalbe's new Tacky Chan eh? Are they both copying the successful Continental tread pattern?
Next someone is going to go crazy and use a "new" larger axle size to increase stiffness with no real weight penalty - maybe something like 19.99m +0.01
As per Daffy could be better for mud shedding, but conversely, also hard to find a mudguard for.
Can't easily see why it would be stiffer compared to a front arch?
also hard to find a mudguard for
That'll be solved with 5 minutes of launch. It was just hard to get them for Manitous as they are a smaller player in the market. RRP, Muckynutz, etc will be all over it in no time
This is why Manitou say it's better: https://hayesbicycle.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/360055903834
Basically is just the the arch can be smaller (as mentioned above) and lighter for the same stiffness, or stiffer whilst still being a bit lighter. And it also works better with mud. Not really earth shattering stuff
mashr
Full MemberNext someone is going to go crazy and use a “new” larger axle size to increase stiffness with no real weight penalty – maybe something like 19.99m +0.01
Posted 2 minutes ago
Zero chance of that happening mate.
(It will be 20.5)
Pace used it originally because they reckoned it dealt with brake forces better, pushing away rather than pushing against if you know what I mean? That was in the canti brake days though so not really relevant now.
I'd be interested to see a front to back cross arch - so, rear left leg to front right & rear right leg to front left.
Would probably look a bit 'challenging' and be a bit of a mud-trap, but I think you could get some pretty stiff lowers doing that.
Would hit the crown without some major engineering. Could work with a double crown where the lower crown is low profile.
That’ll be solved with 5 minutes of launch. It was just hard to get them for Manitous as they are a smaller player in the market. RRP, Muckynutz, etc will be all over it in no time
RRP Rear guard works well on reverse arch forks.
kelvin
Would hit the crown without some major engineering.
🙂
Ah yes. I suppose that would be a bit problematic.
Is an arch of equal size/design not as stiff front or back? And you’d think that a company like Fox who have used front arches for 20ish years would have that idea of good/bad and experimented with reverse arches in the past… so why now?
key thing is the rear arch implementation as per Manitou is not the the same size, as the arch can be lower (therefore overall smaller) as needs less clearance to the tyre at the rear vs front due to the differing wheel position relative to the fork.
nixieFull Member
Surprise surprise that other brands jump on this now the patent has expired 😄.It’s an ugly implementation though.
It's just ugly period. no amount of "it's a bit better" will make me buy a RA fork. Manitou went from making one of the best looking forks ever (X-Vert) to making something they struggled to give away. A real shame as by all accounts the damping is pretty good.
I had some Magura Menja's (130mm travel QR) with the dual arch. They were noticeably stiffer than similar contemporary forks. Maybe bolt through minimizes some of that difference but they were definitely stiffer.
And personally, I've always liked the look of Manitou forks, although that FOX reverse arch is almost as ugly as the current skiny semi-circular conventional arches.
When does stiff become too stiff? End of the day forces have to go somewhere.
We're nowhere near that point yet though, and there's different parts that need to be stiffened.
-Making the lowers move together in tandem and keeping the stanchions parallel prevents bushings binding.
-Any 'good' flex would occur sideways at the crown/steerer. And I don't think anyone's got anywhere near making that joins stiff enough yet, otherwise we wouldn't sill use dual drown forks. It would probably be easier to build that flex into the Head/top/downtube area and work on making the forks stiffer which his how motorbikes have worked on that problem.
I guess this is to do with the in-arch air chamber patent?
That's in the crown, not the lowers. I don't think anyone's attempted hollow arches?
Is an arch of equal size/design not as stiff front or back?
Front or back an arch of the same size, mass and shape will have the same stiffness.
The arch itself has the same stiffness, it's effectiveness in the system changes though. It's all about the distance to the axis of the applied bending loads.
That’ll be solved with 5 minutes of launch. It was just hard to get them for Manitous as they are a smaller player in the market. RRP, Muckynutz, etc will be all over it in no time
Trimmed down double ended muckynutz works fine on reverse arch forks, so they should be able to sort a new one out pretty quickly.
Bike frame geo is basically perfect nowadays so the industry has to keep playing with insignificant stuff to keep us all buying.
Makes fitting mudguards a pain.
Manitou supply theirs with a mudguard that fits fine.
[url= https://i.ibb.co/3WkRxh7/IMG-1495.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/3WkRxh7/IMG-1495.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Maybe they've gone as technologically as far as they can with materials, etc and this is as above something to keep us buying.
I bet Manitou are feeling rather smug right now.
Ah yes. I suppose that would be a bit problematic.
Just remembered this...
Specialized dual crown fork, where the arch is smack bang in the middle.
I bet Manitou are feeling rather smug right now
They'll be rolling around in their plies of cash and laughing their bums off, just like the folks who invented betamax or hd-dvd.
Specialized dual crown fork, where the arch is smack bang in the middle.
The worst of all options. How any self respecting engineer signed that off I'll never know.
Just remembered this…
Sunn did it with the fork on the old Dual too - even Google is struggling to find a decent photo of that though
They do break sometimes.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52465918584_4ff2cbb62e_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52465918584_4ff2cbb62e_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2nWexHb ]2022-10-30_09-11-18[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/152318156@N08/ ]Steve Weeks[/url], on Flickr
just like the folks who invented betamax or hd-dvd.
As far as im aware* they have been credited in inventing the concept and making the first mtb suss fork.
Not a history buff, but prior to Manitou there wasnt anything else about
Quite possibly. I'm not sure that anyone feels smug about not being able to sell a better product though.
That said the better product is the one that sells, even if it's the worst idea. So despite a move by fox to RA on this fork, it doesn't vindicate Manitou it just shows that Manitou weren't very good at their job, probably because they got hung up on boring stuff like function and performance instead of what colour they should be.
Don't over-think it.
They've probably just done this because they can get it 4g lighter and the patent was up.
They aren't that good at marketing.
@kelvin That's interesting!
@benpinnick The Pro Guard also works very well if you cut new holes. I guess the good thing with Fox going arse-about-face is that next time I might not need to.
@rootes1 Exactly, the arch is lower for the same clearance. It keeps the mud off nicely too. It stopped looking weird to me on day 2, but on day 1 it looked utterly bizarre.
They aren’t that good at marketing.
*cough* QR15 *cough*
Suprise suprise that other brands jump on this now the patent has expired 😄.
i was reading an old manitou review just yesterday with an argument in the comments where one poster ironically suggested that if reverse was better everyone would copy it when the patent expired.
life imitates pinkbike comments section!
Manitou went from making one of the best looking forks ever (X-Vert)
Had some - still have. X-Vert Supers no less 😉
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52053031297_38f9efe682_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52053031297_38f9efe682_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/59L84S6m1Y ]DSC00408[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
Specialized dual crown fork, where the arch is smack bang in the middle.
Had one of those too
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52022740578_af0a7a0de8_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52022740578_af0a7a0de8_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/M005K3p3T2 ]2022-04-23_12-12-51[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
The stanage boulder jump 👍 I nearly launched myself over the bars on that with a textbook nosedive.
probably because they got hung up on boring stuff like function and performance instead of what colour they should be.
They had a lot of issues.
They stuck with 28/30/32mm stanchions long after everyone else dropped them.
SPV was just awful both to ride and for reliability.
They bet on 1.5"steerers over tapered.
They had faffy bolt-through (but again, much stiffer in principal).
To be fair it makes sense. It can be lower on the back meaning a better weight to stiffness ratio can be achieved and it does protect the stanchions so why wouldn't you? Small benefits maybe but what's the downside? I think aesthetics is only because people aren't used to it.
TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTRFull Member
Manitou went from making one of the best looking forks ever (X-Vert)
Had some – still have. X-Vert Supers no less 😉
I was thinking of these:-
Finally Halfords will fit a set of forks the right way round. Thank Fox!
oh great a whole new generation of halfords/ Smyths employees will now fit forks backwards
(i actually saw kid on a new BSO riding through the park with his torks backwards- disc calipers the wrong way & everything, but he was going to fast for me to lecture him)
Can't say I've noticed a difference in stiffness between my two 34mm forks, one with reverse arch, the other conventional.
There's a few little details about Manitou forks I like. The HBO and dual air chamber on their pro dampers has been around for years while you had to modify other brands forks for similar functionality. The Pro dampers are excellent, (pretty much silent in operation) gobble up big hits and are up there with the best. The only downside is they are not as easy to setup until you get the hang of their quirks!
They also have a deeper crown steerer interface (think it's about 5mm) than most of the competitors. Whether that helps keep steerer creak at bay I don't know, but you don't hear many complaints about it with Manitou forks. It could of course just be the fact hardly anybody has them!
I only service my forks as and when absolutely necessary (I do use fork oil to pull dirt out of the seals and occasionally PTFE polish the stanchions) and I've found my Manitou and X-fusion forks have stayed more consistent and need less attention over time. They don't seem to suffer problems like the compression dial not doing anything after a while like you get with some Fox forks. I do like an RS Lyric though, such a well sorted fork!
Manitou supply theirs with a mudguard that fits fine.
I found the Manitou-supplied mudguard to be only marginally better than having no mudguard at all.
Trimmed down double ended muckynutz works fine on reverse arch forks
Ass Savers work quite well too:
I found the Manitou-supplied mudguard to be only marginally better than having no mudguard at all.
I've been reasonably impressed with the one included with my Mezzer TBH, horses for courses I suppose. I guess the main point is that fitting a fender/guard with a reverse arch is entirely possible.
Speeder
I was thinking of these:-
Yeah they are pretty tbf
They are. The graphics remind of the ones on my Dorado SC.
Old PACE forks were brilliant – way ahead of their time.
They looked good, but didn’t actually work very well.
Looks like the US patent expired in 2021, so they waited a while
I don't care how good the engineering arguments are, it looks weird and I doesn't like it.
(I have one of those MRP forks where the arch is on the front but it looks like they fitted it back to front, and that's freaky enough)
Old PACE forks were brilliant – way ahead of their time.
They looked good, but didn’t actually work very well.
Agreed. RC-35s were a revelation compared to rigid forks on my Rockhopper but were wobbly, easily gummed up, and distinctly not anything like a Revelation or subsequent fork.
You are comparing a near first generation fork with a 4th or 5th generation fork in that statement though...comparing them with the forks around at that time - Manitou (Ones, I think?), Rock Shox Judy (actually Judy wasn't first generation either) and the Marzocchi forks - they were very good and as reliable as the others, just had their own issues - like all the others.
RS judy's were the turning point for rockshox I reckon.
My old RC35AB's worked well, my RC36 Evo proclass worked well, but had bushing knock from new. my RC36 Evo3's were great, reliable and easily servicable. RC36 stealth were OK, but performance was a bit iffy, RC 38 air force were also a bit funny feeling.
by far the best forks I've had were a set of manitou tower pro's, with the 20mm bolt thru. well damped and just felt right. weirdly similar ride feel to fox float 32's from around 2002 ish, before they went a bit rubbish.
but now, forks feel vastly different, even to ones only a decade old. less on the spring for support and more reliant on damping to control the fork.
Pace RC40 and RC41 (proper reverse arch) forks were actually very good when in use, easily comparable to a Fox 32 and especially to a Reba, but they weren't exactly reliable.... The DTs that replaced them went a long way to fixing some of this.
Off topic a bit but the dual arch RC-36 was a fine bit of kit for its era.
You could dismantle it with a 3mm and 5mm Allen key, it was plush and had little grease ports for the wiper seals.
I remember it being a lot less twangy and a lot more reliable than a number of other brands of the day.
The RS Judy's were a lot better than the Indy's.
