Don’t most things need so amount of flex built into it? I would assume (yes, I know what happens when you assume), that is things were built not to flex, very heavy and surprise, surprise, very stiff and uncomfortable. There is an old photo of a rampage rider landing a massive drop and his aluminum bar flexed so much people thought he must have broken it. It was fine from what I remember.
One could argue that stanchion flexing is not the best place for a flex to occur, but yes, some degree of flex is good for fatigue reduction. We are strapping new gizmos to our bikes to reduce vibrations after all. And to those people that think fore/aft flex is so detrimental to fork performance need to think about how fork bushing binds because of single sided spring/damper design instead.
Upside down forks are much stiffer front to back eg under braking and are slightly less stiff laterally. They are used by most high end motorcycles...
Upside down forks are much stiffer front to back eg under braking and are slightly less stiff laterally. They are used by most high end motorcycles for a reason! You should go listen to the latest PUSH interview about why lateral stiffness is overrated.
You should go listen to the latest PUSH interview where the rationalize why they made an inverted fork whilst avoiding talking about the fact they could'nt...
You should go listen to the latest PUSH interview where the rationalize why they made an inverted fork whilst avoiding talking about the fact they could'nt afford a lower leg casting production run.
Push are kinda boneheads. My friend got into it with them at the Sea Otter because they didn’t do a dynamic bushing in their inverted fork. They claimed it makes no difference and yet it binds up pretty badly when you lightly load it in torsion. (It’s a noodle torsionally too because it’s inverted)
There were rumors that WeAreOne were leaving the frame building business due to financial troubles. Now it looks like their website doesn't have a menu item for bikes/frames anymore. https://www.weareonecomposites.com/ Also their wheels have been discount on and off 20% for almost the whole year.
The new M Series wheels and Innderdrive MTB hubs from ENVE have finally launched. Gravity wheelsets are still 6 months out but I got my hands on a set of the lighter trail wheelset last week that feel surprisingly good for how light they are. I attached some first impressions to the PR below.
Push are kinda boneheads. My friend got into it with them at the Sea Otter because they didn’t do a dynamic bushing in their inverted fork...
Push are kinda boneheads. My friend got into it with them at the Sea Otter because they didn’t do a dynamic bushing in their inverted fork. They claimed it makes no difference and yet it binds up pretty badly when you lightly load it in torsion. (It’s a noodle torsionally too because it’s inverted)
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day in blind A/B testing, riders couldn't tell a difference so it was ease of service and manufacturing consistency that pushed us to fixed bushings. Mountain bikes are similar to motos in many ways but also different, so not every moto concept is a good fit for us. Sure, putting sliding bushings as a feature on our spec sheet would look cool, but if it isn't actually better we're not interested.
And yes, it is noodley in a bike stand in a sea otter parking lot. On the trail, you might feel differently.
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day...
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day in blind A/B testing, riders couldn't tell a difference so it was ease of service and manufacturing consistency that pushed us to fixed bushings. Mountain bikes are similar to motos in many ways but also different, so not every moto concept is a good fit for us. Sure, putting sliding bushings as a feature on our spec sheet would look cool, but if it isn't actually better we're not interested.
And yes, it is noodley in a bike stand in a sea otter parking lot. On the trail, you might feel differently.
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.
Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for pursuing an inverted layout over conventional?
Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Increased seal lubrication is nice but less important if you do regular service.
Cost savings because you don’t need to buy a cast part from a supplier?
I’m incredibly curious to see how the EXT DH fork turns out. We were talking to them at the sea otter and supposedly it will be using a dynamic bushing arrangement. I’d probably be lining up to throw my money at them if I hadn’t just put a 40 on my bike because I really wanted to try out the new Grip X2.
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day...
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day in blind A/B testing, riders couldn't tell a difference so it was ease of service and manufacturing consistency that pushed us to fixed bushings. Mountain bikes are similar to motos in many ways but also different, so not every moto concept is a good fit for us. Sure, putting sliding bushings as a feature on our spec sheet would look cool, but if it isn't actually better we're not interested.
And yes, it is noodley in a bike stand in a sea otter parking lot. On the trail, you might feel differently.
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for...
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.
Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for pursuing an inverted layout over conventional?
Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Increased seal lubrication is nice but less important if you do regular service.
Cost savings because you don’t need to buy a cast part from a supplier?
I’m incredibly curious to see how the EXT DH fork turns out. We were talking to them at the sea otter and supposedly it will be using a dynamic bushing arrangement. I’d probably be lining up to throw my money at them if I hadn’t just put a 40 on my bike because I really wanted to try out the new Grip X2.
On EXT's IG post of the inverted DH fork, someone asked when the single crown version drops and they confirmed that it's in the works.
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for...
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.
Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for pursuing an inverted layout over conventional?
Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Increased seal lubrication is nice but less important if you do regular service.
Cost savings because you don’t need to buy a cast part from a supplier?
I’m incredibly curious to see how the EXT DH fork turns out. We were talking to them at the sea otter and supposedly it will be using a dynamic bushing arrangement. I’d probably be lining up to throw my money at them if I hadn’t just put a 40 on my bike because I really wanted to try out the new Grip X2.
As mentioned earlier, the bend stiffness is greatly increased with an increase in tube diameter. Bushing overlap aside, the large upper tubes used on inverted forks will prevent bending and thus binding of the sliders in the bushings. I can image that the sensitivity from the 50%-80% travel zone would be much improved from this design choice. A sliding bushing could be better, but the jump from a conventional MTB fork design to an inverted one is likely large enough that the performance increase is immediately apparent to riders.
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for...
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.
Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for pursuing an inverted layout over conventional?
Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Increased seal lubrication is nice but less important if you do regular service.
Cost savings because you don’t need to buy a cast part from a supplier?
I’m incredibly curious to see how the EXT DH fork turns out. We were talking to them at the sea otter and supposedly it will be using a dynamic bushing arrangement. I’d probably be lining up to throw my money at them if I hadn’t just put a 40 on my bike because I really wanted to try out the new Grip X2.
To be honest, Fox and RS make really good conventional forks. We did feel that we could improve on the conventional fork a bit strictly on the low volume nature of our manufacturing, (i.e. more complex designs and tighter tolerances) but we also felt the whole industry is getting close to the ultimate performance limit of conventional forks. So we bought all the inverted forks we could find, rode them, modified them, rode them so more, etc. and at the end felt the inverted design was worth pursuing further.
Food for thought: You could do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork as well. But to answer your question, there's not really one advantage that's more important than others. We learned that everything (flex, alignment, lubrication, etc.) has to work in unison and the inverted design has a different set of parameters to allow that tuning.
Cost had no factor in the decision, and actually the opposite is true. A custom casting from Asia would certainly be cheaper than what were doing now. However, a factor we did consider, it would be near impossible to source that casting in the US.
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day...
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day in blind A/B testing, riders couldn't tell a difference so it was ease of service and manufacturing consistency that pushed us to fixed bushings. Mountain bikes are similar to motos in many ways but also different, so not every moto concept is a good fit for us. Sure, putting sliding bushings as a feature on our spec sheet would look cool, but if it isn't actually better we're not interested.
And yes, it is noodley in a bike stand in a sea otter parking lot. On the trail, you might feel differently.
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for...
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.
Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for pursuing an inverted layout over conventional?
Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Increased seal lubrication is nice but less important if you do regular service.
Cost savings because you don’t need to buy a cast part from a supplier?
I’m incredibly curious to see how the EXT DH fork turns out. We were talking to them at the sea otter and supposedly it will be using a dynamic bushing arrangement. I’d probably be lining up to throw my money at them if I hadn’t just put a 40 on my bike because I really wanted to try out the new Grip X2.
"Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Only valid for a dual crown fork. With a single crown, you have the same space in either an upside down or a right side up fork. With a dual crown, the surface that could be used to slide is clamped in the crowns with a right side up fork. With a USD dual crown fork, the 'dynamic' bushing can protrude past the lower crown so you get a genuine advantage of this layout.
The BIG negative is that besides having to deal with the surface finish of the outer surface of the stanchion (normal for all forks out there, besides the inner surface if you are using the stanchion as the air spring cylinder), you have to deal with the surface finish of the inside of the outer tube as well. You double the parts that need to be finished to a tight tolerance, have a high smoothness of the surface AND then be surface treated for hardness.
(I'd be happy to be proven wrong on these assumptions by someone who actually had a hand at designing a fork, I did no such thing ever after all, this is all just assuming how it's done.)
@whitesq regarding sourcing a casting in the US, is the industry that far gone or are there specifics when it comes to fork castings? Geometry specific, material specific, etc.? We can get proto cast parts from basically a garage here in Slovenia and there are a few suppliers of cast aluminium parts within a 20 kilometer radius around here. Not sure about the quality, that is true, but there are options at least. Plus there's always CNC milling
To be honest, Fox and RS make really good conventional forks. We did feel that we could improve on the conventional fork a bit strictly on...
To be honest, Fox and RS make really good conventional forks. We did feel that we could improve on the conventional fork a bit strictly on the low volume nature of our manufacturing, (i.e. more complex designs and tighter tolerances) but we also felt the whole industry is getting close to the ultimate performance limit of conventional forks. So we bought all the inverted forks we could find, rode them, modified them, rode them so more, etc. and at the end felt the inverted design was worth pursuing further.
Food for thought: You could do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork as well. But to answer your question, there's not really one advantage that's more important than others. We learned that everything (flex, alignment, lubrication, etc.) has to work in unison and the inverted design has a different set of parameters to allow that tuning.
Cost had no factor in the decision, and actually the opposite is true. A custom casting from Asia would certainly be cheaper than what were doing now. However, a factor we did consider, it would be near impossible to source that casting in the US.
You can totally do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork, but conventional lowers construction doesn’t really facilitate that. You’d need to add a harder sliding surface inside of the mag casting. With an inverted fork you just have to do some extra machining inside your upper tubes.
Me and a friend have actually been toying with the idea of trying to do a sliding bushing conventional frankenfork to test the concept. We would use 40 lowers and cut/bond 40 stanchions inside to act as the exterior sliding surface. Then modify 35mm Boxxer stanchions to run inside.
The main reason we haven’t tried it is parts cost. Scrapping two forks for a pet project is hard to justify.
Edit: @Primoz On a single crown dynamic bushing setup you don’t gain increased bushing overlap at full extension but you do still gain bushing overlap everywhere else. If upper bushing is attached to the stanchion and your fork sags by 20mm, you have 20mm extra bushing overlap.
You can totally do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork, but conventional lowers construction doesn’t really facilitate that. You’d need to add a harder sliding...
You can totally do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork, but conventional lowers construction doesn’t really facilitate that. You’d need to add a harder sliding surface inside of the mag casting. With an inverted fork you just have to do some extra machining inside your upper tubes.
Me and a friend have actually been toying with the idea of trying to do a sliding bushing conventional frankenfork to test the concept. We would use 40 lowers and cut/bond 40 stanchions inside to act as the exterior sliding surface. Then modify 35mm Boxxer stanchions to run inside.
The main reason we haven’t tried it is parts cost. Scrapping two forks for a pet project is hard to justify.
Edit: @Primoz On a single crown dynamic bushing setup you don’t gain increased bushing overlap at full extension but you do still gain bushing overlap everywhere else. If upper bushing is attached to the stanchion and your fork sags by 20mm, you have 20mm extra bushing overlap.
Someone at RS did that with an old Totem single crown and maybe RS1 bits. It was very cool.
You can totally do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork, but conventional lowers construction doesn’t really facilitate that. You’d need to add a harder sliding...
You can totally do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork, but conventional lowers construction doesn’t really facilitate that. You’d need to add a harder sliding surface inside of the mag casting. With an inverted fork you just have to do some extra machining inside your upper tubes.
Me and a friend have actually been toying with the idea of trying to do a sliding bushing conventional frankenfork to test the concept. We would use 40 lowers and cut/bond 40 stanchions inside to act as the exterior sliding surface. Then modify 35mm Boxxer stanchions to run inside.
The main reason we haven’t tried it is parts cost. Scrapping two forks for a pet project is hard to justify.
Edit: @Primoz On a single crown dynamic bushing setup you don’t gain increased bushing overlap at full extension but you do still gain bushing overlap everywhere else. If upper bushing is attached to the stanchion and your fork sags by 20mm, you have 20mm extra bushing overlap.
Sounds really heavy just to have some moving bushings.
I think one of the things that's most difficult for consumers, and even inside the bike industry pro-sumers to understand is how difficult and expensive the tolerances are for mountain biking products. This is likely the other big factor in the cost gap and perception gap between moto parts and full vehicle costs (other than the other large one that is economics of scale). Any time you are specifying a tolerances that is tighter then +/- 1mm, things start costing way more, and the amount of suppliers that are capable/willing of taking that on plummet. Beyond that, the amount of people that are capable of doing that, at a reasonable volume with the proper qa/qc, plummet even further.
For example, Just from my own experience replacing sliding bushings on moto forks, It's immediately obvious that the stanchion and bushing tolerances are on a completely different planet. I'd venture to guess that you could have .5 - 1mm more bushing clearance on a moto without perceiving bushing knock.
Correct. I helped lay out the new tune names etc. We had the issue where a M tune on a Super Deluxe did not match the...
Correct. I helped lay out the new tune names etc. We had the issue where a M tune on a Super Deluxe did not match the M tune on a Deluxe and that did not match the M tune on VIVID... Also- we had a shock with extra L1, L2, L3 and L4 tunes (in addition to normal L, M and H), they were not spaced evenly and no one could remember if L1 was lighter or heavier than a L2 tune. So we went to numbers that meant something on the dyno.
We wanted OEMs to be able to test on one shock model (and dial in their tunes), then be able to spec by price up/down the range without having to translate tunes for them on the various different models and price points. Also the ability to do a custom named C36 tune was there- and it makes sense and easy for everyone to know C36 is a tiny bit lighter than a C37.
So a C37 VIVID (with Comp adjustments in the middle settings) should very closely ride like a C37 Deluxe. Of course a VIVID has extra features and adjustments and probably works a bit better, but the general idea was if you pick the tune on one shock- the same tune on other models will work nicely (provided the air springs are also close to equivalent).
Similar thing on Rebound- but wanted to get away from the names as we thought some PMs were being influenced by the names (progressive, linear, digressive). Also again having the ability to make a new tune based on force and curve shape and have a logical name that makes some sense.
Quick question, assuming a 4 lockout force is higher/firmer than a 2. Is that about it or any other differences?
There were rumors that WeAreOne were leaving the frame building business due to financial troubles. Now it looks like their website doesn't have a menu item...
There were rumors that WeAreOne were leaving the frame building business due to financial troubles. Now it looks like their website doesn't have a menu item for bikes/frames anymore. https://www.weareonecomposites.com/ Also their wheels have been discount on and off 20% for almost the whole year.
They said last year in @sspomer 's excellent podcast with the WAO crew, that they were getting out of the frame game because they didn't make much on them once they finished making sure it was perfect. Dustin loved making it and they learned a lot but it wasn't worth continuing and they were doubling down on components.
To be honest, Fox and RS make really good conventional forks. We did feel that we could improve on the conventional fork a bit strictly on...
To be honest, Fox and RS make really good conventional forks. We did feel that we could improve on the conventional fork a bit strictly on the low volume nature of our manufacturing, (i.e. more complex designs and tighter tolerances) but we also felt the whole industry is getting close to the ultimate performance limit of conventional forks. So we bought all the inverted forks we could find, rode them, modified them, rode them so more, etc. and at the end felt the inverted design was worth pursuing further.
Food for thought: You could do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork as well. But to answer your question, there's not really one advantage that's more important than others. We learned that everything (flex, alignment, lubrication, etc.) has to work in unison and the inverted design has a different set of parameters to allow that tuning.
Cost had no factor in the decision, and actually the opposite is true. A custom casting from Asia would certainly be cheaper than what were doing now. However, a factor we did consider, it would be near impossible to source that casting in the US.
Im under the assumption that you do work for PUSH, and if so I want to say I appreciate you contributing to the forum. It is really cool to see the insights of companies through those that actually built or worked on developing the products. A lot more comforting too. In all honesty, Im broke and I just downgraded to a Chromag hardtail (Actually an upgrade in some aspects), but your comment alone really makes me reevaluate PUSH as a company in a good way. Not rehashing the same products as everyone else. I think thats cool. But thank you for contributing!
Big new today from Öhlins, as the Swedish suspension specialist is acquired by Brembo (from Tenneco). We reached out to Öhlins for comments regarding the future of MTB products under the new ownership, although it's obviously early days yet. They have informed us that for the time being, they are continuing to manufacture and support their products as per usual, with stable demand observed from their customer base. They also have new products in the pipeline that will be unveiled "over the coming months", so that all sounds like they will continue to build their presence on the MTB side of things going forward.
[editor's note: Tenneco acquired Öhlins for $160M in 2018, so the brand must have been doing well under their ownership as they have now been able to sell it for $400M.]
BREMBO ACQUIRES ÖHLINS, LEADING MANUFACTURER OF PREMIUM SUSPENSION TECHNOLOGY
Bergamo (Italy), October 11th 2024 – Brembo today signed an agreement with Tenneco, a portfolio company of funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, Inc., for the acquisition of a 100% stake in Öhlins Racing, the leading manufacturer of premium, high performance suspension technology for motorcycles and cars in the Original Equipment, Motorsport, and Aftermarket segments.
“Öhlins is a strong fit for Brembo. It is a world-renowned brand, with a solid business and an unrivaled reputation, both on the racetrack and the road,” said Matteo Tiraboschi, Brembo Executive Chairman. “We welcome Öhlins to our Group as a great opportunity to expand our offerings for the automotive market. With this addition, we take another step forward in our strategy to provide integrated intelligent solutions to our customers, leveraging synergies across key technologies in the vehicle’s corner.”
Founded in 1976, Öhlins Racing is based in Upplands Väsby (Stockholm), Sweden, and has a strong international footprint. Öhlins employs approximately 500 people across two production facilities located in Sweden and Thailand, two R&D centers in Sweden and Thailand, and four distribution and testing branches in the U.S., Germany, Thailand and Sweden.
Öhlins’ suspension technology is renowned for precision, performance, and innovation. With decades of expertise and advanced engineering, Öhlins Racing offers an extensive range of products, including shock absorbers, front forks, steering dampers, software and algorithms, and accessories for the OEM and aftermarket segments. The company also has a strong racing heritage and presence in major motorsport championships, supplying MotoGP, Formula 1, World Superbike, NASCAR, and others. Öhlins Racing is projected to close 2024 with a turnover in the range of USD 144 million, with an expected adjusted EBITDA margin between 21% and 22%.
“We’re confident that Brembo is the right partner to take Öhlins Racing to the next level,” said Jim Voss, CEO of Tenneco. “This sale not only positions Öhlins and its employees for continued success under Brembo’s leadership in the market, but it also supports Tenneco’s strategy of streamlining our business portfolio and strengthening our balance sheet as we continue to execute on our long-term vision.”
"As we join forces with Brembo, we are excited to unlock new growth opportunities and leverage our respective strengths and assets to drive innovation and deliver even greater value to our customers and employees,” said Tom Wittenschlaeger, CEO of Öhlins Racing.
Öhlins Racing is committed to developing the next generation of mechatronic suspension technology for both road and track. This innovation-driven approach will reinforce Brembo’s mission to be a Solution Provider for future mobility.
This deal marks the largest acquisition in Brembo’s history. The purchase price is USD 405 million, (corresponding to 370 million at today’s exchange rate), on a cash free / debt free basis, subject to customary price adjustment mechanisms. The acquisition will be paid using available cash. The acquisition is subject to customary regulatory approvals and is expected to close in early 2025.
This acquisition continues Brembo’s investment in the motorcycle and motor racing area. In 2021 the Group acquired SBS Friction in Denmark and J.Juan in Spain, completing the offer of braking system solutions dedicated to two-wheelers. In February of this year, Brembo announced its entry into Thailand with a new production site dedicated to braking systems for motorcycle manufacturers. Brembo also controls Marchesini, the leading brand in the design and production of light alloy wheels for racing and road motorcycles. The two-wheeler business is today worth approximately 13% of Brembo’s total revenues.
BofA Securities is acting as financial advisor to Brembo. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and BonelliErede are acting as legal advisors. Jefferies LLC is acting as lead financial advisor to Tenneco. Barclays is also acting as financial advisor and Sidley Austin LLP as legal advisor. 2 / 3About Brembo Brembo leads the world in the design and production of high-performance braking systems and components for topflight manufacturers of cars, motorbikes and commercial vehicles. Founded in 1961 in Italy, Brembo has a longstanding reputation for providing innovative solutions for OEMs and aftermarket. Brembo also competes in the most challenging motorsport championships in the world and has won over 600 titles. Guided by its strategic vision – “Turning Energy into Inspiration” – Brembo’s ambition is to help shape the future of mobility through cutting-edge, digital and sustainable solutions. With over 16,000 people across 15 countries, 32 production and business sites, 9 R&D centers and with a turnover of 3,849 million in 2023, Brembo is the trusted solution provider for everyone who demands the best driving experience.
Don’t most things need so amount of flex built into it? I would assume (yes, I know what happens when you assume), that is things were built not to flex, very heavy and surprise, surprise, very stiff and uncomfortable.
There is an old photo of a rampage rider landing a massive drop and his aluminum bar flexed so much people thought he must have broken it. It was fine from what I remember.
One could argue that stanchion flexing is not the best place for a flex to occur, but yes, some degree of flex is good for fatigue reduction. We are strapping new gizmos to our bikes to reduce vibrations after all. And to those people that think fore/aft flex is so detrimental to fork performance need to think about how fork bushing binds because of single sided spring/damper design instead.
Push are kinda boneheads. My friend got into it with them at the Sea Otter because they didn’t do a dynamic bushing in their inverted fork. They claimed it makes no difference and yet it binds up pretty badly when you lightly load it in torsion. (It’s a noodle torsionally too because it’s inverted)
There were rumors that WeAreOne were leaving the frame building business due to financial troubles. Now it looks like their website doesn't have a menu item for bikes/frames anymore. https://www.weareonecomposites.com/ Also their wheels have been discount on and off 20% for almost the whole year.
The new M Series wheels and Innderdrive MTB hubs from ENVE have finally launched. Gravity wheelsets are still 6 months out but I got my hands on a set of the lighter trail wheelset last week that feel surprisingly good for how light they are. I attached some first impressions to the PR below.
https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/enve-releases-fifth-generat…
😅 We stubbornly wanted to make the sliding bushing work so bad, probably delayed the whole project by a year. At the end of the day in blind A/B testing, riders couldn't tell a difference so it was ease of service and manufacturing consistency that pushed us to fixed bushings. Mountain bikes are similar to motos in many ways but also different, so not every moto concept is a good fit for us. Sure, putting sliding bushings as a feature on our spec sheet would look cool, but if it isn't actually better we're not interested.
And yes, it is noodley in a bike stand in a sea otter parking lot. On the trail, you might feel differently.
I’d still be willing to give one a fair shake on trail. I’m always open to being proven wrong.
Out of curiosity, what was the reasoning for pursuing an inverted layout over conventional?
Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Increased seal lubrication is nice but less important if you do regular service.
Cost savings because you don’t need to buy a cast part from a supplier?
I’m incredibly curious to see how the EXT DH fork turns out. We were talking to them at the sea otter and supposedly it will be using a dynamic bushing arrangement. I’d probably be lining up to throw my money at them if I hadn’t just put a 40 on my bike because I really wanted to try out the new Grip X2.
On EXT's IG post of the inverted DH fork, someone asked when the single crown version drops and they confirmed that it's in the works.
https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/upside-down-push-nine-one-fork-finally-here
Consider listening to the interview Vital did with Push when the fork dropped. Covers many of these questions.
As mentioned earlier, the bend stiffness is greatly increased with an increase in tube diameter. Bushing overlap aside, the large upper tubes used on inverted forks will prevent bending and thus binding of the sliders in the bushings. I can image that the sensitivity from the 50%-80% travel zone would be much improved from this design choice. A sliding bushing could be better, but the jump from a conventional MTB fork design to an inverted one is likely large enough that the performance increase is immediately apparent to riders.
To be honest, Fox and RS make really good conventional forks. We did feel that we could improve on the conventional fork a bit strictly on the low volume nature of our manufacturing, (i.e. more complex designs and tighter tolerances) but we also felt the whole industry is getting close to the ultimate performance limit of conventional forks. So we bought all the inverted forks we could find, rode them, modified them, rode them so more, etc. and at the end felt the inverted design was worth pursuing further.
Food for thought: You could do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork as well. But to answer your question, there's not really one advantage that's more important than others. We learned that everything (flex, alignment, lubrication, etc.) has to work in unison and the inverted design has a different set of parameters to allow that tuning.
Cost had no factor in the decision, and actually the opposite is true. A custom casting from Asia would certainly be cheaper than what were doing now. However, a factor we did consider, it would be near impossible to source that casting in the US.
"Opportunity for increased bushing overlap via a dynamic bushing is the main upside I see inverted offering.
Only valid for a dual crown fork. With a single crown, you have the same space in either an upside down or a right side up fork. With a dual crown, the surface that could be used to slide is clamped in the crowns with a right side up fork. With a USD dual crown fork, the 'dynamic' bushing can protrude past the lower crown so you get a genuine advantage of this layout.
The BIG negative is that besides having to deal with the surface finish of the outer surface of the stanchion (normal for all forks out there, besides the inner surface if you are using the stanchion as the air spring cylinder), you have to deal with the surface finish of the inside of the outer tube as well. You double the parts that need to be finished to a tight tolerance, have a high smoothness of the surface AND then be surface treated for hardness.
(I'd be happy to be proven wrong on these assumptions by someone who actually had a hand at designing a fork, I did no such thing ever after all, this is all just assuming how it's done.)
@whitesq regarding sourcing a casting in the US, is the industry that far gone or are there specifics when it comes to fork castings? Geometry specific, material specific, etc.? We can get proto cast parts from basically a garage here in Slovenia and there are a few suppliers of cast aluminium parts within a 20 kilometer radius around here. Not sure about the quality, that is true, but there are options at least. Plus there's always CNC milling
You can totally do a sliding bushing in a conventional fork, but conventional lowers construction doesn’t really facilitate that. You’d need to add a harder sliding surface inside of the mag casting. With an inverted fork you just have to do some extra machining inside your upper tubes.
Me and a friend have actually been toying with the idea of trying to do a sliding bushing conventional frankenfork to test the concept. We would use 40 lowers and cut/bond 40 stanchions inside to act as the exterior sliding surface. Then modify 35mm Boxxer stanchions to run inside.
The main reason we haven’t tried it is parts cost. Scrapping two forks for a pet project is hard to justify.
Edit: @Primoz On a single crown dynamic bushing setup you don’t gain increased bushing overlap at full extension but you do still gain bushing overlap everywhere else. If upper bushing is attached to the stanchion and your fork sags by 20mm, you have 20mm extra bushing overlap.
Think it’s a lot easier to get high quality surface finish on the OD of a tube with centerless grinding vs honing the ID. Certainly easier to inspect.
I never understood the benefits of trombone type bushing- minimum overlap when the fork is at its longest length. Maybe it aligns the assembly better?
Fork castings are magnesium. there’s only a few suppliers doing that in Taiwan, maybe less in the USA. Never looked.
Someone at RS did that with an old Totem single crown and maybe RS1 bits. It was very cool.
In a production environment, wouldn’t you just machine on a lathe and then use a roller burnishing tool?
IIRC that’s the way shock bodies were done when I was in the Fox machine shop. I don’t know if the process has limitations with larger diameters.
😂 I mean that’s what you put on the drawing
Tool maintenance, inspection and repetition over millions of parts is another thing
Yeah this fork that was ridden at 35mm stanchions for years is suddenly hot garbage because reasons. (marketing depts told me this is the truth)
Sounds really heavy just to have some moving bushings.
There wasn't much said in terms of specifics but the "park" version apparently will have more rear travel.
I think one of the things that's most difficult for consumers, and even inside the bike industry pro-sumers to understand is how difficult and expensive the tolerances are for mountain biking products. This is likely the other big factor in the cost gap and perception gap between moto parts and full vehicle costs (other than the other large one that is economics of scale). Any time you are specifying a tolerances that is tighter then +/- 1mm, things start costing way more, and the amount of suppliers that are capable/willing of taking that on plummet. Beyond that, the amount of people that are capable of doing that, at a reasonable volume with the proper qa/qc, plummet even further.
For example, Just from my own experience replacing sliding bushings on moto forks, It's immediately obvious that the stanchion and bushing tolerances are on a completely different planet. I'd venture to guess that you could have .5 - 1mm more bushing clearance on a moto without perceiving bushing knock.
Quick question, assuming a 4 lockout force is higher/firmer than a 2. Is that about it or any other differences?
They said last year in @sspomer 's excellent podcast with the WAO crew, that they were getting out of the frame game because they didn't make much on them once they finished making sure it was perfect. Dustin loved making it and they learned a lot but it wasn't worth continuing and they were doubling down on components.
Think that’s it
Im under the assumption that you do work for PUSH, and if so I want to say I appreciate you contributing to the forum. It is really cool to see the insights of companies through those that actually built or worked on developing the products. A lot more comforting too. In all honesty, Im broke and I just downgraded to a Chromag hardtail (Actually an upgrade in some aspects), but your comment alone really makes me reevaluate PUSH as a company in a good way. Not rehashing the same products as everyone else. I think thats cool. But thank you for contributing!
How can we blame the industry for going in circles regarding development if we can't even keep our forum topics straight.
This must be the 5th generation of USD fork discussion.
Big new today from Öhlins, as the Swedish suspension specialist is acquired by Brembo (from Tenneco). We reached out to Öhlins for comments regarding the future of MTB products under the new ownership, although it's obviously early days yet. They have informed us that for the time being, they are continuing to manufacture and support their products as per usual, with stable demand observed from their customer base. They also have new products in the pipeline that will be unveiled "over the coming months", so that all sounds like they will continue to build their presence on the MTB side of things going forward.
[editor's note: Tenneco acquired Öhlins for $160M in 2018, so the brand must have been doing well under their ownership as they have now been able to sell it for $400M.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BREMBO ACQUIRES ÖHLINS, LEADING MANUFACTURER OF PREMIUM SUSPENSION TECHNOLOGY
Bergamo (Italy), October 11th 2024 – Brembo today signed an agreement with Tenneco, a portfolio company of funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, Inc., for the acquisition of a 100% stake in Öhlins Racing, the leading manufacturer of premium, high performance suspension technology for motorcycles and cars in the Original Equipment, Motorsport, and Aftermarket segments.
“Öhlins is a strong fit for Brembo. It is a world-renowned brand, with a solid business and an unrivaled reputation, both on the racetrack and the road,” said Matteo Tiraboschi, Brembo Executive Chairman. “We welcome Öhlins to our Group as a great opportunity to expand our offerings for the automotive market. With this addition, we take another step forward in our strategy to provide integrated intelligent solutions to our customers, leveraging synergies across key technologies in the vehicle’s corner.”
Founded in 1976, Öhlins Racing is based in Upplands Väsby (Stockholm), Sweden, and has a strong international footprint. Öhlins employs approximately 500 people across two production facilities located in Sweden and Thailand, two R&D centers in Sweden and Thailand, and four distribution and testing branches in the U.S., Germany, Thailand and Sweden.
Öhlins’ suspension technology is renowned for precision, performance, and innovation. With decades of expertise and advanced engineering, Öhlins Racing offers an extensive range of products, including shock absorbers, front forks, steering dampers, software and algorithms, and accessories for the OEM and aftermarket segments. The company also has a strong racing heritage and presence in major motorsport championships, supplying MotoGP, Formula 1, World Superbike, NASCAR, and others. Öhlins Racing is projected to close 2024 with a turnover in the range of USD 144 million, with an expected adjusted EBITDA margin between 21% and 22%.
“We’re confident that Brembo is the right partner to take Öhlins Racing to the next level,” said Jim Voss, CEO of Tenneco. “This sale not only positions Öhlins and its employees for continued success under Brembo’s leadership in the market, but it also supports Tenneco’s strategy of streamlining our business portfolio and strengthening our balance sheet as we continue to execute on our long-term vision.”
"As we join forces with Brembo, we are excited to unlock new growth opportunities and leverage our respective strengths and assets to drive innovation and deliver even greater value to our customers and employees,” said Tom Wittenschlaeger, CEO of Öhlins Racing.
Öhlins Racing is committed to developing the next generation of mechatronic suspension technology for both road and track. This innovation-driven approach will reinforce Brembo’s mission to be a Solution Provider for future mobility.
This deal marks the largest acquisition in Brembo’s history. The purchase price is USD 405 million, (corresponding to 370 million at today’s exchange rate), on a cash free / debt free basis, subject to customary price adjustment mechanisms. The acquisition will be paid using available cash. The acquisition is subject to customary regulatory approvals and is expected to close in early 2025.
This acquisition continues Brembo’s investment in the motorcycle and motor racing area. In 2021 the Group acquired SBS Friction in Denmark and J.Juan in Spain, completing the offer of braking system solutions dedicated to two-wheelers. In February of this year, Brembo announced its entry into Thailand with a new production site dedicated to braking systems for motorcycle manufacturers. Brembo also controls Marchesini, the leading brand in the design and production of light alloy wheels for racing and road motorcycles. The two-wheeler business is today worth approximately 13% of Brembo’s total revenues.
BofA Securities is acting as financial advisor to Brembo. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and BonelliErede are acting as legal advisors. Jefferies LLC is acting as lead financial advisor to Tenneco. Barclays is also acting as financial advisor and Sidley Austin LLP as legal advisor. 2 / 3About Brembo Brembo leads the world in the design and production of high-performance braking systems and components for topflight manufacturers of cars, motorbikes and commercial vehicles. Founded in 1961 in Italy, Brembo has a longstanding reputation for providing innovative solutions for OEMs and aftermarket. Brembo also competes in the most challenging motorsport championships in the world and has won over 600 titles. Guided by its strategic vision – “Turning Energy into Inspiration” – Brembo’s ambition is to help shape the future of mobility through cutting-edge, digital and sustainable solutions. With over 16,000 people across 15 countries, 32 production and business sites, 9 R&D centers and with a turnover of 3,849 million in 2023, Brembo is the trusted solution provider for everyone who demands the best driving experience.
$400 million seems kinda cheap when you consider Rad Power is reportedly worth $1.4 billion.
Yeah but the ohlins market is much smaller and number of units sold way lower. Not really a surprise there