Structure Cycleworks

Ackland

chats d'élevage
I'd want to give one a solid shuttle day to try it


Of course I'd never buy one but that's because I'm into XCM
 

madstace

Likes Dirt
TBH I'm not sold on this one, which makes me feel like a bit of a hypocrite given how much I love proper innovation. Main issues I have with it is how much you're locked into the platform (although more control over how the whole bike rides could be seen as a good thing I guess) and the fact that the axle path extends/goes forward, which goes against the idea of moving the wheel away from an impact. The Trust and Motion forks seem to get this concept while still providing more control over the head angle and dive than a standard fork.

Also, rear suspension seems way too old school for what this bike is otherwise, and should have been a gearbox bike. The idea of two shocks providing all the squish does appeal though.
 

Haakon

Keeps on digging
Huh, totally missed this conversation way back when. I stand by my original comments - do want!

Its a $10k bike once built up though... That I can’t justify. Would love to have a go though!
 

Scotty T

Walks the walk
I just feel like the bar would be noodly when you need to push on it to maneuver the bike. Maybe I'm over estimating how much force I put into the bars and underestimating the stiffness of the fishing rod top tube.

Linkages maintenance agree totally. That's why this shit isn't mainstream in 2 wheel motorsport I reckon, the performance gains not worth the maintenance loss. Forks are pretty forkin good already.
 

Structure_Loni

Cannon Fodder
We now have real performance data.

While at Sea Otter, two racers in attendance separately asked to ride the Structure SCW1 in three races: Cat2 men's dual slalom and DH, and Cat1 men's DH. The results - with less than an hour of practice aboard the bike for each racer - were gold, silver, and bronze podiums. Two weeks later the bike entered the Marin Wildside Enduro in BC and won gold under another rider, who had five minutes of practice on the bike.

Three weeks ago, under Pete Zablotny, the bike earned KOM on Upper World Cup at Silver Star Resort, BC, by 5 full seconds.

Our bikes are doing everything they were designed to do. They remain quiet, tight, and very easy to set up after months of the hardest riding and racing the Rocky Mountains can deliver.

As for the question of being noodly or maintenance-intensive, our linkage system is 25% stiffer laterally than a bike with a comparable (enduro) telescoping fork, and is immensely strong in real-world testing (big air, drops to flat, crashes). We have had to replace no bearings to date, in part because each of the main pivot bearings has an x-ring seal on the bearing caps to keep water out, bearing seats are connected by internal alloy sleeves and have wide offset, and the bearings are quite large at 30mm, with 17mm colleted axles.

We recommend a regular annual maintenance inspection of the bike, with bearing inspection at 250 hours. Shock service at 150 hours (recommended by DVO) sets the lower limit on required teardown of any component.

Importantly, the wheelbase of the SCW1 does not elongate (you can easily see this on our website). It's a common misimpression that our front centre grows during suspension travel, but it does not. Unlike the Trust Message and early Motion Ride forks (note that Motion is now using an axle path similar to Structure's), our front axle path starts out more vertically than that of a telescoping fork before curving back deep in the travel. Wheelbase doesn't shorten as much as it does on a bike with a telescoping fork, but it also never gets longer than its static measurement.

Because the linkage system rotates on bearings and never experiences stiction as telescoping fork bushings and seals do, and because the shock is most compliant early in the stroke, medium to big hits are absorbed with less impact to a rider than with tele forks, but the front axle does not tuck under in line with the force vector -- as it does with a number of other linkage systems, including Trust's. In the real world, we find that preventing the front centre from rapid shortening is much better for stability and rider confidence than tucking the front wheel in a "J-hook" path, as other linkage systems have often done / do.

Similarly, because we can control fork steering angle - which is entirely separate from handlebar steerer angle on the SCW1 - throughout suspension travel, we are able to do something linkage replacement forks cannot: slacken fork steerer angle throughout suspension heave. Static head angle is 66°; at full compression it slackens to 58.3°, which increases the trail measurement (wheel self-centering) deep in the travel when riders need stability most.

Finally, we have an eccentric at the downtube end of the upper front control arm that sets the brake anti-dive properties of the bike -- at a reduction in dive (vs. tele fork) of 17°, 22°, 33°, or a whopping 41°, allowing riders to choose between suspension compliance that ranges from plush under braking to downright racy / harsh. It's up to the rider how much resistance to dive they're willing to tolerate to prevent an OTB. Net effect: you can ride faster and brake harder - particularly with the front brake - with a meaningful reduction in brake dive and OTBs, and this shows in race results.

We're very proud of the SCW1, which has met or exceeded our expectations in every way. The bike is extremely fast and confident, easy to set up ride quickly every time, and is quiet and maintenance-light (you'll never do a fork service again, shock service kits are cheap, and all of our bearings can be knocked out from the opposite side of the frame).

We stand behind all of the above with a lifetime warranty on frame and bearings for the original owner, and we stand behind race results that demonstrate that the SCW1 is a podium bike that represents a revolution for our sport.

Here's hoping you get the opportunity to try one for yourself!


Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk
 

Haakon

Keeps on digging
Serious question though - how does the acceptance and sale success need to go before they can be produced in a more mass production manner and bring the price down significantly?

At this point I have as much chance of justifying the dollars on this than I do on a new Model 3 Performance with a bike rack on it... And I badly want both!!
 

Structure_Loni

Cannon Fodder
Serious question though - how does the acceptance and sale success need to go before they can be produced in a more mass production manner and bring the price down significantly?

At this point I have as much chance of justifying the dollars on this than I do on a new Model 3 Performance with a bike rack on it... And I badly want both!!
That deserves a serious answer.

While we work to improve economies of scale for each part of a linkage front end (how expensive does a mass-produced seat stay have to be these days?), we still have to produce bikes with extreme precision to ensure accurate movement and long service life. Structure bikes will not cost as little to produce as frames that use telescoping forks - at least not for quite some time - but they will also be worth it, just as the added complexity of double-wishbone front suspension deserves to exist in a world full of MacPherson struts.

Widespread adoption of the SCW1 requires conversations like this. People need to see why a big design leap in MTB is desirable after 30 years of incremental improvements; they need to understand how our front works, and they need to see race-winning performance, longevity, and good reviews -- all of which take time and a constant eye on the ball.

Sorry for the long answer. The short answer is that we're selling and racing bikes. Bikes are out to magazines for long-term review. We're here to stay, but we need support from people who understand what we're doing and will take the leap with us now.

You could buy the Model 3...but wouldn't it be fun to say, "I supported Structure when they first launched, and I set a new personal best today?"

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk
 
Top