Motion Ride just managed to slice almost 30% off the high price tag of their unique E18/E18+ mountain bike forks. Originally selling for 1590€, the French design engineers always knew it was an expensive sell. They say they’ve always worked to make their tech more accessible, so they went back to the drawing board…

How did they do it?

More affordable Motion E18 leaf spring, linkage mountain bike forks

In fact, they sent the their accounting team back to the drawing board and left the engineering of the wild-looking, up to 170mm travel fork alone. In response to customer feedback that the fork price was just prohibitively expensive since they started delivering the first production forks earlier this year, Motion have decided to cut out the middle man.

Motion E18 linkage fork, dynamic linkage leaf-spring enduro all-mountain bike fork
c. Motion Ride

From now on they will eliminate the traditional distribution chain and only sell the forks direct to select partner dealer shops, as well as direct to consumers.

Motion E18 linkage fork, dynamic linkage leaf-spring enduro all-mountain bike fork

The result is that the Motion E18 (27.5″) & E18+ (27.5+ or 29er) linkage forks will now retail for just 1140€ in Europe and $1250 in the rest of the world. That still keeps it up there as a premium enduro fork. But if the no brake dive, reduced maintenance & supple, tunable performance claims of this linkage fork deliver, it could be a much easier sell at a 1/3 lower price.

Motion Flow Evo Coil shock, inside the innovative Motion Ride coil & hydraulic rear mountain bike shock

We also suspect that the new, more direct sales model should also drop the retail price of the innovative Motion Flow Evo Coil rear shock when it goes into production soon, as well.

Motion-Ride.com

13 COMMENTS

  1. They canceled that shock twice already and refunded everyone. I don’t think it will be released any time soon, if ever.

  2. Does ‘anti-dive- mean anti work when brake is applied? Seems to ride high in the front a lot, which sounds good on paper, but if it is anything like the Trust I put several hours on, you can keep these mouse traps, at any price. This is by far the best looking link fork on the market though.. even over the last 20 years.

    • All anti-dive forks are going to stiffen the front effective spring rate. With the rider’s CG being so high, braking forces are going to cause dive unless the system increases effective spring rate, damping, or both.

    • Yeah, as Langhorne said, while both the Motion and Trust forks are linkages, they go about it in very different ways, which can result in totally different rides. It’s very much like with rear suspension systems, where the length and location of the linkage arms could lead to one design having the opposite behavior of another under braking or drive forces.

      In an interview with the guys behind Structure (which is a linkage fork integrated into their own frame), I recall them saying that they’d found there was a sweet spot in “anti-dive” as too much will, as you point out, somewhat deactivate the suspension. The sweet spot was less than 100% (I seem tor recall somewhere around 60%) so, while their design will dive less than a telescopic fork, it will still dive a bit.

      Trust, on the other hand, was prioritizing maintaining trail via a rearward axle path, so that is what they seem to have optimized for. Structure, since they have the advantage of frame integration, actually is able to increase trail, not by axle path but by a dynamic lower head tube which gets slacker as the fork compresses.

      Not sure where the Motion stacks up in those regards though, either in % anti dive, or altering trail figures. I’d love to see a real head to head comparison, not just in terms of subjective ride quality, but also kinematic analysis.

      • I feel that StructureCycles linkage front is in a different league than these and goes about it in the right way. If your going to add complexity, just go all the way. I’m hoping they can overcome people’s reluctance to changes in design and looks as its a great design. I’d buy one but can afford it!

  3. Sadly, this along with Trust’s cost cut, is the beginning of the end for both these companies & on a macro scale the end (for the foreseeable future) of innovative suspension parts.

    I believe that the major reason for their failure in the market is in large part, that ..they just don’t LOOK right, not their functionality & the high price was just another nail. 1990 Rockshox forks were a joke but they sold enough to subsidize further development, why do these forks HAVE to be MUCH better to sell?

    Like ugly sunglasses & helmets, why should you care what they look like…its the function that should be the reason a product succeeds or not in a sport where better performance (at least to me) should be the biggest concern.

    • @DQ- Yes, when a company cuts prices like this, it makes you wonder where it’s heading. I wouldn’t give up on them yet, though.
      In the 90s, linkage forks had several advantages going for them that they don’t have anymore: 1. suspension forks of any type were still novel, so there was less of an idea of what they should or shouldn’t look like; 2. the linkage forks of the day (AMP F1/2/3/4, Girvin Vector, Lawwill Leader, IRD TL5) cost 400 bucks, just like a MAG21, Manitou 4 or early Judy; 3. one of them, the Girvin Vector, was made by a well-respected high-end bike maker, and another, AMP, was made by a well-respected very high-end maker; 4. linkage forks looked crazy, but not as crazy as new linkage forks do; 5. the standard for reliability back then was lower (think broken CNC brakes, cranks, stems, etc. that people kept buying just because they weren’t Shimano), which benefited the less reliable linkage forks (like AMP).
      None of these things are true today- people are used to the look of ordinary forks, the price gap between the fork types is enormous, there are no established brands selling them, current linkage forks all look like insane contraptions, and everyone expects stuff to last a long time (and are afraid linkage forks will fail to do just that). And to add to all these woes, linkage fork makers nowadays have to deal with the prediction that their products will not sell. Finally, there’s a tendency among reviewers now to ask whether these expensive forks in fact reduce their lap time, and the answer I have always seen is “no”. (Of course, there are other things in the world than lap time, like for example performance and control on steep, technical downhill terrain, something that anti-dive forks should shine at.)
      As to your comment that people should buy things based on performance, and not on looks, I agree. But it’s reality that people want their bikes to look cool. I for one I have a limit- you won’t see me on a Marin Wolf Ridge.

      • There is also the thing that even if they are better performing, by how much? Is a 5% or 15% gain in suspension performance worth the extra cost, the chance the company won’t exist next week, or an unknowable amounts of unknowns from buying something completely unknown? Current suspension is just too good these days to take that kind of risk for most people. There is one group of people that would and could take that risk and that is racers. When you see people that get paid to ride either buy these or be willing to ride them against a clock even if they are paid to then some average joeys might take notice.

COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.