"the world's first gravel fork"

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

The argument is the lack of oil damper makes it junk because short travel forks in the 1990s weren't good (apparently). Looking at the disassembled view and the various schematics available for the AD systems and other systems without oil damping I think it's clear the damping is provided by the air spring system in addition to the seals/rings and surface treatments.

IMO "undamped" is incorrect terminology for this type of fork.

This blurb is not an explanation([] mine):

I didn’t make that argument. Although early short travel forks do feel surprisingly terrible compared to modern forks. I think the Marzocchi bomber was the first fork that kinda felt like a modern fork. Smooth, low stiction , etc

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

Has air damper not oil damper, as noted earlier by mickey d. Once we get a service manual we’ll see what they decided to call it. I think this was a marketing mistake. Suspension forks don’t need an oil damper to function acceptably, Suntour has several air damper only forks that are indistinguishable from oil damper forks at the mid/low end. How well this works for the CC compared to other gravel forks is up for debate but if they said riders couldn’t tell the difference I find that compelling. I’d have a hard time believing they don’t already have the performance metrics for all the other gravel forks on the market to compare.

We don't have the cut-aways to show all the internal workings of the parts on the right side, but it's a pretty good bet that it is a damper. Adding to that is the lockout switch is on the same side, and the standard way to lock out a fork is to lock the damper ports shut.

I'll throw my guess here that the engineers said something like, "It's all done with air, there's no oil damper", and the ad copy writers assumed there was no damper at all.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

We don't have the cut-aways to show all the internal workings of the parts on the right side, but it's a pretty good bet that it is a damper. Adding to that is the lockout switch is on the same side, and the standard way to lock out a fork is to lock the damper ports shut.

I'll throw my guess here that the engineers said something like, "It's all done with air, there's no oil damper", and the ad copy writers assumed there was no damper at all.

It is a good guess, but nothing in the website or pdf manual? Just all seems strange to me either way

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

We don't have the cut-aways to show all the internal workings of the parts on the right side, but it's a pretty good bet that it is a damper. Adding to that is the lockout switch is on the same side, and the standard way to lock out a fork is to lock the damper ports shut.

I'll throw my guess here that the engineers said something like, "It's all done with air, there's no oil damper", and the ad copy writers assumed there was no damper at all.

From the Bikerumor write up https://bikerumor.com/cane-creek-inv...spension-fork/

The space above the piston is the negative air spring, and below it is the positive air spring. On the right side of the fork is the Climb Switch lockout mechanism, which I describe below. It’s not a damper, and here’s why:

Cane Creek tested prototypes with and without a compression/rebound damper inside and found that none of the test riders noticed any real difference in performance. If anything, the compression damping limited how responsive the fork could be because, with just 30-40mm of travel, a damping circuit barely has time to actuate, anyway.

Before you dismiss it, remember that this is a fork designed to be as light as possible, as simple as possible, and be completely focused on gravel racing and riding from a drop-bar rider’s perspective. Losing the damper lets it react better to the small stuff typically found on gravel roads and trails…and now no one needs to explain what a damper is to a roadie.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by prototoast

From the Bikerumor write up https://bikerumor.com/cane-creek-inv...spension-fork/

Confirmed? No damper then ?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Confirmed? No damper then ?

No damper. And the Bikerumor review (separate article) gets into more details about how it rides with no damper. https://bikerumor.com/cane-creek-invert-review/

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by prototoast

No damper. And the Bikerumor review (separate article) gets into more details about how it rides with no damper. https://bikerumor.com/cane-creek-invert-review/

Not even an air damper? Surprising

[duff_duffy]

They can’t compare it to other gravel forks, theirs is the first

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

Has air damper not oil damper, as noted earlier by mickey d. Once we get a service manual we’ll see what they decided to call it. I think this was a marketing mistake. Suspension forks don’t need an oil damper to function acceptably, Suntour has several air damper only forks that are indistinguishable from oil damper forks at the mid/low end. How well this works for the CC compared to other gravel forks is up for debate but if they said riders couldn’t tell the difference I find that compelling. I’d have a hard time believing they don’t already have the performance metrics for all the other gravel forks on the market to compare.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by Talrand

Oh good, another amateur philosopher watched Idiocracy for the first time

Agree.
There is a time and a place for talking about the decline of modern man. A cycling forum post about gravel suspension is not it

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by Talrand

Oh good, another amateur philosopher watched Idiocracy for the first time

I am convinced that generalized referencing of Idiocracy is the modern version of generalized referencing 1984 in prior decades.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by vespasianus

How much different is it really? 40mm of undamped travel versus 60mm of oil damped, air travel.

What is different is the average rider has gone from 145 lbs to 200lbs. As a people, we have gotten fat - and stupid.

Everything old is new again. Even Fox's new 32mm, reverse arched, spring backed IFP piston fork - is basically a Manitou with an Intrinsic damper from 2005.

What I don't doubt is that the new stuff is much better made.

When was the average weight for all adult cyclists 145 pounds?
I am not saying you are wrong because I admittedly have 0 idea what the average weight for all adult cyclists was at any point in history, but 145 pounds just seems so far from current reality that it is difficult to even conceptualize.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by vespasianus

How much different is it really? 40mm of undamped travel versus 60mm of oil damped, air travel.

What is different is the average rider has gone from 145 lbs to 200lbs. As a people, we have gotten fat - and stupid.

Everything old is new again. Even Fox's new 32mm, reverse arched, spring backed IFP piston fork - is basically a Manitou with an Intrinsic damper from 2005.

What I don't doubt is that the new stuff is much better made.

Lack of an oil damper is not equivalent to "undamped". The fork has an air-damper as well as internal damping from the seals and inertia damping from the entire structure.

In addition a modern fork has the benefit of straighter stanchions that are more concentric with significantly better surface treatments. The rubber in seals and rings is better, the air chambers and pathways are designed following more applicable theory and spring curve tuning the same.

A Vittoria Corsa Pro Speed is basically a Continental Gatorskin with slightly thinner rubber -> This isn't logical framing for the discussion.

[thermalattorney]

The weight is excellent plus inverted forks look cool. While Cane Creek is a competent suspension mfg I have my doubts based on this recent review where a modified RS-1 couldn't cut it on a gravel bike designed around the longer A-C. The RS-1 weighs 50% more *and* uses a proprietary hub to increase stiffness.

[mstateglfr]

I really like seeing brands continue to innovate and offer changes to products. If those changes reach the intended audience in a meaningful way(cost, weight, features, etc), then those things maybe latch on and get adopted by others in the market.

And with gravel bike front ends being so wide ranging(suspension fork and slacked HTA <-> small suspension fork <-> headset or stem suspension <-> fully rigid), it seems like there is room to try something out like this and see if it takes off.
- The carbon upper half looks nice and the inverted suspension is both unique and less obtrusive looking compared to traditional suspension forks.
- The crown especially looks nice, when considering it has suspension stanchions.
- The hidden thru axle look is not something I immediately saw, but now that I see it, I keep looking at it. And the way the flatmounts are designed is neat.



But for me personally? Hard pass.
I dont want to pay $1200 for a fork that weighs 1113g when a year's worth of gravel bike roads equals 50% gravel road miles, 45% paved road miles, and 5% tame twisty river bottom singletrack miles.
The gravel roads I ride just arent wild enough for me to wish for a suspension fork to smooth the bumps or provide more steering control.
And with a lot of my rides being 40-60' of climb/mile where the climb is a bunch of punchy out of creek and river valleys, I constantly stand to climb and dont want a fork bouncing under me or a fork I need to continually engage then disengage the lockout.

[Mark McM]

Well, if we ignore the various springer forks found on previous generations of balloon tire and stingray bikes, the RockShox Ruby (as used in Paris-Roubaix) could probably be considered the prototype for a gravel fork. The direct descendent of the RS Ruby is the current RockShox Rudy fork, explicitly designed to be a gravel bike fork. In addition to other gravel forks like the Lauf fork, the Cane Creek for is far from the "the world's first gravel fork".

As far as an inverted fork: There are clearly some advantages to inverted forks, but because they can't use braces like non-inverted forks, they rely on using very stiff hub axles. Does the typical gravel wheel (usually used with rigid forks) have a stiff enough axle to guarantee proper performance of an inverted fork?