What were the nicest-looking decent suspension forks?

Re: sus forks

yo-Nate-y":d3ihs5na said:
johnnypie13":d3ihs5na said:
Girvin vectors are always head turners


....cuz they're fugly ;)

yep but people like em cause they is different and this site is testament to this alot of the stuff we hold dear was considered ugly or useless at the time they were made
 
Whilst I REALLY like the 'dead-end' forks (amp, Girvin, Lawill etc), I can't help but feel we need to know the frame and style of build? :D :D

But FWIW, 95-97 were the Judy years for me.

HTH

My new forks; :roll: :roll:

DSC01517.jpg
 
Yes, the Rond are good forks.

The fork under the link is a nice example, but better avoid the silver crowns. There have been a recall for them and the black ones are the one you want.

The fork under the link can not be combined with Shimano V-brake, as therefore you would need adapters.

Ronds are beautifully made, stiff and they do their job without you realizing you're riding with a suspension fork. You get the good, not the flaws. Initially there were some reliability issues with leaking oil, but by '94 they were sorted too. A circa 1995/96 Rond with black crown is a trusty partner on the trails.
 
Marzocchi DH3 & RondWP Rebel >>>

314159477_fcf8dd23d5_b.jpg


Imo tiny bummer with the Rebel is the coating, as I prefer to see the nice machining, as with the earlier HydroPros.
 
Pace 35's are the best looking I think most people would agree about that, later twin metal brace [Monobox?] more so than earlier tube braced ones, apart from that I'd say Specialized FSX or the similar looking but carbon free RST400's [1994 vintage] are also good lookers but maybe not outstanding quality.
 
If you could bend the rules a bit to include '98, Look Fournales are amazing looking and constructed forks, - work really well too, apparently. (I still haven't tried mine yet though)
 
Back
Top