Originally Posted by hokiefyd

The two bikes I ride most often have suspension forks, and I enjoy them, but to be fair to rigid forks, a locked suspension fork is about as rough as it possibly gets. They're hollow circular tubes that are designed to be dimensionally stable (because parts slide within them) and there is no give at all when locked. None.

This is not comparable to a high quality rigid fork. I have a '90s Trek 750 with a fully butted chrome-molybdenum frame and fork, and the fork is so compliant, it's nearly like having a suspension fork. Not quite, but it's far more comfortable than a locked suspension fork. In fact, you can just lean on it with the brakes on and see the fork blades deflect. Even more comfortable than this is my 1969 Peugeot, which has a huge fork offset (blades that really reach forward) -- this fork is super compliant on rough surfaces.

Many lower end hybrids with rigid forks are fully aluminum -- frame and fork. This doesn't give a very comfortable ride, but modern chrome-molybdenum and carbon fiber forks both offer a pretty nice ride. Nearly all modern so-called "gravel" bikes have these types of forks. Not suspension forks, but comfortable chrome-moly or carbon forks.

As I said earlier, I'm not against suspension forks, and ride them regularly. But it's also misleading to suggest that rigid forks would be like riding around on a locked suspension fork all the time. Depending on the type of fork, it's likely much more comfortable than that.