# inverted vs regular



## phib1134 (Dec 20, 2006)

whats the main dffrance from a normal triple clamp and and an inverted triple clamp. is inverted better?


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

inverted means upside down....like here is a Shiver and 888...the Shiver is upside down

inverted forks are smoother but they are not as stiff as a regular fork


----------



## DeepSouthBuilder (Jan 4, 2007)

The only thing inverted forks do better is keep the seals lubed.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

I think he means in terms of performance Bob...


----------



## phib1134 (Dec 20, 2006)

tacubaya said:


> I think he means in terms of performance Bob...


yah i know the phsical diffrerance i ment in terms in peformance.


----------



## Cru Jones (Aug 10, 2006)

inverted tables are way more steezy....


----------



## suicidebomber (Feb 10, 2007)

How is the inverted fork smoother than a conventional fork?


----------



## b12yan88 (Jun 28, 2004)

they keep them lubed better because gravity pulls down on stuff the lubricant. Lubricated stanchions are smoother than unlubricated stanchions. Therefore, inverted forks are smoother.  ? _?


----------



## suicidebomber (Feb 10, 2007)

Smoother on the bumps, perhaps?


----------



## rocketmanmtb1 (Feb 17, 2007)

Small point, but if you do blow a seal on an inverted while riding, you are done. Where as with traditional if the same were to occur, the fluid would not all drain out.


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

inverted forks can be stiffer fore/aft (larger upper tubes), but are often less stiff tortionally (twisting forces) due to the lack of fork brace.


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

in theory... less unsprung weight on the inverted fork, leading to better suspension action and less for the damper to control...


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

I was just about to chime in about the unsprung weight, but BikeSATORI beat me to it.


----------



## Zaphoid (Apr 1, 2005)

my friends 888RC2X is actually much smoother then my shiver and i just rebuilt the thing


----------



## MattyBoyR6 (Sep 18, 2004)

Yeah what BikeSatori wrote. Didn't see that till after I posted.

Inverted forks reduce unsprung weight at the wheel. The suspension can then be more efficient and reactive with less weight to deal with.


----------



## revmonkey (Jun 5, 2005)

to be totally honest, i have no idea what the true performance differences are, but if you think in terms of street motorcycles, the low-end ones have the traditional type while all the high-end 600's and literbikes, even race bikes run inverted.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2007)

the obvious weight difference.....


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2007)

The other difference is the point of flex where the stanchions meet the lowers
On an inverted fork, that point is lower, thus putting less sideways force on the bushings inside, which makes less stiction. 
This of course somewhat irrelevent while absorbing ahead bumps, this is more true to front wheel landings.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

rocketmanmtb1 said:


> Small point, but if you do blow a seal on an inverted while riding, you are done. Where as with traditional if the same were to occur, the fluid would not all drain out.


Probably why no one buy marzocchi (and just a few others) ever made/make inverted forks, because marzocchi knows how to make seals, and knows how to seal forks. If RS or fox attempted it we'd be laughing all the way back to 1993. As the pressure increases, the oil seals seal tighter against the stanchions, hence why you can't adjust the oil level in fox forks, because the seals will shoot out the top.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

BikeSATORI said:


> in theory... less unsprung weight on the inverted fork, leading to better suspension action and less for the damper to control...


Not really,

x-post;

No, not if you do the math and add up stuff like the dropouts, oil in the bottom of the fork, lower internals, fork guards, and so on. Standard fork lowers made of magnesium or cast aluminum are VERY light, and account for a fairly small percentage of the total weight. Then add the axle, hub, disc brake caliper, rotor, spokes, nipples, rim, rim strip, DH tube, and tire, and your "unsprung weight difference" with an inverted fork is going to work out to be 5% or so, and so irrelevent that it won't matter.

What's a quarter pound of ~8 pounds? Virtually nill.

You might get better lubrication out of an (well designed with a good oil bath) inverted fork, and IMO that would have a far greater effect on the performance, even if it isn't a huge one. Compared to the "unsprung weight" myth, I think there might at least be something to the improved lubrication.


----------



## XSL_WiLL (Nov 2, 2004)

Inverted forks also don't have that additional arch.


----------



## suicidebomber (Feb 10, 2007)

revmonkey said:


> to be totally honest, i have no idea what the true performance differences are, but if you think in terms of street motorcycles, the low-end ones have the traditional type while all the high-end 600's and literbikes, even race bikes run inverted.


Wait, Marzocchi STLL makes the Shiver, but it is built for MX and Supermoto,

check this out:https://www.marzocchi.com/System/9061/shiver50.jpg

And it's still inverted. I wonder what does MX have that they get the Shiver?


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

suicidebomber said:


> Wait, Marzocchi STLL makes the Shiver, but it is built for MX and Supermoto,
> 
> check this out:https://www.marzocchi.com/System/9061/shiver50.jpg
> 
> And it's still inverted. I wonder what does MX have that they get the Shiver?


I think one main advantage to the inverted design in the moto world must be the immensely larger tire/mud clearance... but seriously, why are there like zero high-end non-inverted forks made for MX/SX/offroad/50's/etc... same with sport/cafe bikes... but then you move over to cruisers and choppers and they're back to traditional style... there must be some things from the engineering/manufacturing standpoint that we aren't seeing.


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

Inverted forks are gh3y.......................................


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

suicidebomber said:


> Wait, Marzocchi STLL makes the Shiver, but it is built for MX and Supermoto,
> 
> check this out:https://www.marzocchi.com/System/9061/shiver50.jpg
> 
> And it's still inverted. I wonder what does MX have that they get the Shiver?


Marzocchi suspension for MTB is a Xover -- the Shiver was originally an MX fork, and they used the branding to push an MTB version!


----------



## jimi1114 (Jun 27, 2005)

Here is something from Motocross Action that may help a little.

QUESTION FOUR: WHY ARE FORKS UPSIDE-DOWN?

Make no mistake about it, motorcycle forks prefer to be right-side-up (with the sliders on the bottom and the fork legs on the top). This layout puts the oil in a large reservoir at the bottom. It is held in place by gravity and pressurized to where it is needed by fork movement.

So, why are modern forks upside down? In order to make a right-side-up fork stiff enough to absorb the loads created by modern doubles and triples, the fork tubes would have to be enormous (at least 50mm in diameter). There came a point where making the steel fork legs bigger was counter productive. The forks got very heavy. Inverting the fork gave the triple crown a larger area to clamp, gave more room for valving, lessened flex by having the largest structure at the top of the fork, eliminated underhang and saved weight.

QUESTION FIVE: WHAT'S BAD ABOUT INVERTED FORKS?

Lots of things. Hydraulically they are all wrong. With right-side-up forks you have a vast reservoir of oil to use, but with upside-down forks, the oil has to be pumped up to the top of the fork to be used. Additionally, inverted forks are often so stiff that that transfers forces to the chassis. If you make one part stiffer, you spread the load to the next piece in line. Without fork flex to provide a forgiving ride, valving, damping, spring rates and frame design had to be refined.

Over the past 15 years, there have been many more misses with inverted forks than hits.


----------



## suicidebomber (Feb 10, 2007)

Now that is a good explanation. 

But then, why does SMT regard his Shiver as "plush" when in reality, inverted ones are often stiff?


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

jimi1114 said:


> Here is something from Motocross Action that may help a little.
> 
> QUESTION FOUR: WHY ARE FORKS UPSIDE-DOWN?
> 
> ...


nice info... almost as quality as huck banzai's post above... 

thanks for posting that... but still leaves plenty of mystery here in the bike world...


----------



## MxFlyer43 (Mar 20, 2004)

Any fork can do pretty much anything in the hands of someone that is competent. My hare scrambles(xc dirtbikes) fork is plenty plush and its inverted.


----------

