Why do Rockshox make ugly forks?
concorde
Posts: 1,008
Fox forks are far better looking! Now it can't take much to design the aesthetics of a Rockshox better can it?
Because Rockshox forks perform better than fox, require less maintenance so if they looked equally as good they'd be laughing.
They do seem to be improving though! But still a long way off Fox in the looks department!
Because Rockshox forks perform better than fox, require less maintenance so if they looked equally as good they'd be laughing.
They do seem to be improving though! But still a long way off Fox in the looks department!
0
Comments
-
Shouldn't this be in Crudcatcher?I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
They all look the same to me, just different stickers0
-
Fox are def nicer!0
-
Because boobies.
About as sensible an answer as you're going to get in this thread.0 -
Better but even more belongs in Crudcatcher.ilovedirt wrote:Because boobies.
About as sensible an answer as you're going to get in this thread.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Don't see why I can't get an answer. It's a fair enough question. Belongs in the buying section because aesthetics influence buying, obviously! But as per, can always expect Cooldad to act the cunt.0
-
Ah yes you're right, sorry. I forgot that everyone on the planet has exactly the same taste in everything.0
-
The obvious answer for shallow prospective purchasers is...Buy an RS shock, remove stickers, attach fox stickers.0
-
Dodgy network double post0
-
-
Not something that had ever crossed my mind, how forks 'look'.0
-
They are just forks. I have both Fox and RS and both work as I want them to. I'm not overly bothered what thy look like.0
-
I think the big fox tail stickers look a bit daft. But then if the fork was great, I'd just remove the stickers. Pace carbons are very sexy though ;D
I once had Paul smith shoes which had pictures on the soles - but nobody paid any attention when I pointed out how cool that was. I soon realised that its the one bit of a shoe where function over form is essential.Family, Friends, Fantastic trails - what else is there
viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=12898838
viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=128973740 -
It's fine for people to say Orange 5s are pig ugly but then 'never notice' that the look of forks?! Give it a break, everything in life you judge aesthetically, it's part of being a human. Every woman's vagina works the same but you don't pick a right munter do you?! Same with forks. Just asking why rockshox designs are not as aesthetically pleasing as Fox, that's all.0
-
I prefer the look of rockshox forks.Concorde wrote:It's fine for people to say Orange 5s are pig ugly but then 'never notice' that the look of forks?! Give it a break, everything in life you judge aesthetically, it's part of being a human. Every woman's vagina works the same but you don't pick a right munter do you?! Same with forks. Just asking why rockshox designs are not as aesthetically pleasing as Fox, that's all.
Why don't fox make their fork look like rockshox?0 -
If you strip the decals they are really rather similar.0
-
I prefer RS for looks, they are mostly black or white lowers and coordinate better with the frame colours than Fox's funny silver.
I have a purple frame, neither RS nor Fox make forks with Purple lowers like my Manitous......
But really, it's not that relevant!Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
I can't believe the amount of serious answers in this thread. :roll:0
-
Concorde wrote:It's fine for people to say Orange 5s are pig ugly but then 'never notice' that the look of forks?! Give it a break, everything in life you judge aesthetically, it's part of being a human. Every woman's vagina works the same but you don't pick a right munter do you?! Same with forks. Just asking why rockshox designs are not as aesthetically pleasing as Fox, that's all.
Zesty 514 Scott Scale 20 GT Expert HalfwayupMTB0 -
Concorde wrote:It's fine for people to say Orange 5s are pig ugly but then 'never notice' that the look of forks?! Give it a break, everything in life you judge aesthetically, it's part of being a human. Every woman's vagina works the same but you don't pick a right munter do you?! Same with forks. Just asking why rockshox designs are not as aesthetically pleasing as Fox, that's all.
Not all 'yous' are the same.
Like a badly packed kebab.0 -
Unlike you, I don't have sex with my bike.Concorde wrote:Every woman's vagina works the same but you don't pick a right munter do you?! Same with forks.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
-
Concorde wrote:Fox forks are far better looking! Now it can't take much to design the aesthetics of a Rockshox better can it?
Because Rockshox forks perform better than fox, require less maintenance so if they looked equally as good they'd be laughing.
They do seem to be improving though! But still a long way off Fox in the looks department!
0 -
Though saying that, the red stanchioned boxxers look nice:
0 -
-
i really wouldnt say theres anything so stand out diffirent about both fox and rockshox forks. in fact pretty much all forks are of similar style. its hardly like comparing frame designs. theres not exactly a lot fork companies can do to make such a visual diffirence to make them more appealing. the only major diffirence ive ever saw in fork design is manitou with their brace at the back rather than the front which kinda makes it look like there on the wrong way round and i dont really like that look. but other than that rs or fox. nothing diffirent!!0
-
Concorde. Go and join another kind of forum. Maybe a fashion forum?0
