I've wondered that as well but was never that motivated to look it up. You motivated me! Here is an explanation that seems straightforward enough - http://tinyurl.com/y5j5a4hl
You managed to just get that in before me.The rest of the theory, as the article at the link says, is that unsprung weight is reduced, resulting in better damping and control. Looking at photos of inverted forks, I wonder if there is really that much difference in moving mass. I've read that 1 ounce of usprung weight equals 7 ounces above the springs for damping control, so a little weight loss could help, I guess.
Well I would think if anything, the heavier tops now being on the bottom would cause slightly more resistance on dampening but could you even measure it? Like a heavier weight oil. I doubt it. But that might be the only benefit I can see with reversed fork tubes. I personally think people just bought into a fashion craze.The rest of the theory, as the article at the link says, is that unsprung weight is reduced, resulting in better damping and control. Looking at photos of inverted forks, I wonder if there is really that much difference in moving mass. I've read that 1 ounce of usprung weight equals 7 ounces above the springs for damping control, so a little weight loss could help, I guess.
Yes, kind of like holes in brake rotors to improve braking, or extra-wide tires on street bikes (for unknown reasons). I'd have to see measurements of similar inverted vs. normal forks to trust that there is really less moving mass.Well I would think if anything, the heavier tops now being on the bottom would cause slightly more resistance on dampening but could you even measure it? Like a heavier weight oil. I doubt it. But that might be the only benefit I can see with reversed fork tubes. I personally think people just bought into a fashion craze.