29er suspension fork, disk brake, and dropouts?

[dvt]

I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
meet these specs?

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:27:56 -0500, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
>a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
>that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
>meet these specs?

How much travel do you want? I haven't seen a 29er fork with a through
axle (yet - they will surely come) but if you can sacrifice some
travel a good suspension shop should be able to shorten the travel on
a Marzocchi Shiver SC by an inch or so (you might want to hunt for the
old 120mm travel model) to avoid tyre/fork crown interference, and
with no brake arch you don't have that problem to contend with It
should be as simple as adding a solid spacer under the bottom-out
bumper, although I've never had my fork apart to see exactly how easy
this would be.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[jim beam]

dvt wrote:
> I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
> a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
> that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
> meet these specs?
>
fear of the statistically irrelevant is irrational. if you have any
worries at all about standard dropouts, use a closed cam skewer and a
serrated face axle. and don't file off the lawyer lips.

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

"dvt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and a
> suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts that
> most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would meet
> these specs?

This is an inflammatory post, so please disregard it, but do you wear a
helmet in your car?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Chalo]

jim beam wrote:
>
> dvt wrote:
> >
> > I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
> > a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
> > that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
> > meet these specs?
> >
> fear of the statistically irrelevant is irrational. if you have any
> worries at all about standard dropouts, use a closed cam skewer and a
> serrated face axle. and don't file off the lawyer lips.

You know, even if you are unconcerned with wheel pullout, it is
annoying when you have chronic disc rub issues because hard application
of the brakes causes the axle to shift in the fork dropouts. I've had
this problem with my 8" front disc brake on two different forks, and
while it can be coped with, it seems like a needless thing to have to
tolerate considering the solution is so simple.

Chalo

 

[A Muzi]

dvt wrote:
> I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
> a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
> that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
> meet these specs?

As a matter of fact, I spoke with Answer/Manitou, Marzocchi
and Rock Shox about that only this morning.

None offer 700C shock forks for 2006. Answer is linked in
some way to some oem-only forks. No simple answer to your
quest. We suggested our customer use a handmade fork and a
wider tire.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Phil Lee, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> "dvt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and a
> > suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts that
> > most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would meet
> > these specs?
>
> This is an inflammatory post, so please disregard it...

What is wrong with long, on-topic discussions? So what if they get a
bit heated - that is what makes it interesting.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[dvt]

A Muzi wrote:
> dvt wrote:
>> I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes
>> and a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing
>> dropouts that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork
>> that would meet these specs?
>
> As a matter of fact, I spoke with Answer/Manitou, Marzocchi and Rock
> Shox about that only this morning.
>
> None offer 700C shock forks for 2006. Answer is linked in some way to
> some oem-only forks. No simple answer to your quest. We suggested our
> customer use a handmade fork and a wider tire.

Thanks for the answers, Andy and K. Cowboy. To Phil and jb, no thanks.

Andy, I think I misunderstand your note. I'm pretty sure that Rock Shox
is making one or two 700c suspension forks this year, but both have
downward facing dropouts. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean to say
that Rock Shox is discontinuing the 700c forks such as the Reba?

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[dvt]

Kinky Cowboy wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:27:56 -0500, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
>> a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
>> that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
>> meet these specs?
>
> How much travel do you want?

I suppose 80-100 mm. I've never had suspension, but I'm interested in a
cross-country style bike, and most of them come with 80-100 mm travel.

> I haven't seen a 29er fork with a through
> axle (yet - they will surely come) but if you can sacrifice some
> travel a good suspension shop should be able to shorten the travel on
> a Marzocchi Shiver SC by an inch or so (you might want to hunt for the
> old 120mm travel model) to avoid tyre/fork crown interference, and
> with no brake arch you don't have that problem to contend with It
> should be as simple as adding a solid spacer under the bottom-out
> bumper, although I've never had my fork apart to see exactly how easy
> this would be.

Interesting idea. So the keys to making this work are 1) ability to
sacrifice 20-40 mm travel, 2) no brake arch, and 3) a way to reduce the
travel. Of course, the other features are still important (disk tabs and
secure wheel attachment).

The answers lead me to believe that anything I put together will be
completely custom. That is, I can't buy an entire bike with the features
I want. In that case, the price may be higher than I'm willing to pay.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[jim beam]

Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>dvt wrote:
>>
>>>I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
>>>a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
>>>that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
>>>meet these specs?
>>>
>>
>>fear of the statistically irrelevant is irrational. if you have any
>>worries at all about standard dropouts, use a closed cam skewer and a
>>serrated face axle. and don't file off the lawyer lips.
>
>
> You know, even if you are unconcerned with wheel pullout, it is
> annoying when you have chronic disc rub issues because hard application
> of the brakes causes the axle to shift in the fork dropouts. I've had
> this problem with my 8" front disc brake on two different forks, and
> while it can be coped with, it seems like a needless thing to have to
> tolerate considering the solution is so simple.
>
> Chalo
>
so how come that neither i nor about 20 disk mtb riding buddies who i
know well enough for them to let me mess with their bikes, have ever
seen or heard of this problem? [some of them are pretty hardcore riders
too.] i'm not denying you've had issues with your machine, [you often
report things the rest of us have never encountered], but seriously,
where's the beef? there are hundreds of lurkers on rbt, so are they
just too lurk to report?

 

[jim beam]

dvt wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
>
>> dvt wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes
>>> and a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing
>>> dropouts that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork
>>> that would meet these specs?
>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact, I spoke with Answer/Manitou, Marzocchi and Rock
>> Shox about that only this morning.
>>
>> None offer 700C shock forks for 2006. Answer is linked in some way to
>> some oem-only forks. No simple answer to your quest. We suggested our
>> customer use a handmade fork and a wider tire.
>
>
> Thanks for the answers, Andy and K. Cowboy. To Phil and jb, no thanks.

how does the probability of disk braked wheel ejection compare to that
of flying or driving dave? do you drive or fly? is your home protected
against meteorite strike too?

>
> Andy, I think I misunderstand your note. I'm pretty sure that Rock Shox
> is making one or two 700c suspension forks this year, but both have
> downward facing dropouts. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean to say
> that Rock Shox is discontinuing the 700c forks such as the Reba?
>

 

[RonSonic]

On 20 Feb 2006 23:22:35 -0800, "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>>
>> dvt wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
>> > a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
>> > that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
>> > meet these specs?
>> >
>> fear of the statistically irrelevant is irrational. if you have any
>> worries at all about standard dropouts, use a closed cam skewer and a
>> serrated face axle. and don't file off the lawyer lips.
>
>You know, even if you are unconcerned with wheel pullout, it is
>annoying when you have chronic disc rub issues because hard application
>of the brakes causes the axle to shift in the fork dropouts. I've had
>this problem with my 8" front disc brake on two different forks, and
>while it can be coped with, it seems like a needless thing to have to
>tolerate considering the solution is so simple.


Like mounting the caliper off the front of the fork instead of behind.

Why don't they do that?

Ron

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:39:12 -0500, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

>Kinky Cowboy wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:27:56 -0500, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
>>> a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
>>> that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
>>> meet these specs?
>>
>> How much travel do you want?
>
>I suppose 80-100 mm. I've never had suspension, but I'm interested in a
>cross-country style bike, and most of them come with 80-100 mm travel.
>
>> I haven't seen a 29er fork with a through
>> axle (yet - they will surely come) but if you can sacrifice some
>> travel a good suspension shop should be able to shorten the travel on
>> a Marzocchi Shiver SC by an inch or so (you might want to hunt for the
>> old 120mm travel model) to avoid tyre/fork crown interference, and
>> with no brake arch you don't have that problem to contend with It
>> should be as simple as adding a solid spacer under the bottom-out
>> bumper, although I've never had my fork apart to see exactly how easy
>> this would be.
>
>Interesting idea. So the keys to making this work are 1) ability to
>sacrifice 20-40 mm travel, 2) no brake arch, and 3) a way to reduce the
>travel. Of course, the other features are still important (disk tabs and
>secure wheel attachment).
>
>The answers lead me to believe that anything I put together will be
>completely custom. That is, I can't buy an entire bike with the features
>I want. In that case, the price may be higher than I'm willing to pay.

According to my manual, the max tyre radius for a Shiver SC is 345mm,
while a 60-622 tyre will be about 371, so you'd have to lose 26mm of
travel. If you get a second hand Shiver SC 120mm (they cut the travel
to 100mm from 2004MY, so you're unlikely to find a NOS one), that
still leaves 94mm, ideal for XC. A fork of that age will want a
rebuild anyway, so new seals and bushes can go in while you add the
travel shortener. If you're lucky on e-bay, have a friendly machine
shop and a local Marzocchi service centre, you might bring the whole
customised fork in for under $300 and it will be as good as new.

http://www.trails-edge.com/retail/bikeparts/forks-mtb29er.htm shows a
Maverick 29er fork, which also meets your 29er/disc/through axle spec,
at $620

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[Chalo]

jim beam wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > You know, even if you are unconcerned with wheel pullout, it is
> > annoying when you have chronic disc rub issues because hard application
> > of the brakes causes the axle to shift in the fork dropouts. I've had
> > this problem with my 8" front disc brake on two different forks, and
> > while it can be coped with, it seems like a needless thing to have to
> > tolerate considering the solution is so simple.
>
> so how come that neither i nor about 20 disk mtb riding buddies who i
> know well enough for them to let me mess with their bikes, have ever
> seen or heard of this problem?

Perhaps your less demanding relationship with your machine extends to
how wide open you set your brake's pads. I need lots of braking, so I
set the pads close to the rotor. Perhaps your hub's clamping faces
have more bite to them than mine do. (My Diatech Swinger hub has
smooth anodized aluminum faces).

I also use bolted skewers, which I fasten very tightly (I have broken a
couple of them on installation). In my estimation, the skewers do not
have to move at all for the wheel to be able to shift a small amount,
if the hub axle has any play on the skewer.

Chalo Colina

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Kinky Cowboy wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:27:56 -0500, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm interested in a 29er (622 mm rim) mountain bike with disk brakes and
> >a suspension fork. But I'd like to avoid the downward facing dropouts
> >that most of the forks seem to have. Do you know of a fork that would
> >meet these specs?
>
> How much travel do you want? I haven't seen a 29er fork with a through
> axle (yet - they will surely come)

Mavrick

but if you can sacrifice some
> travel a good suspension shop should be able to shorten the travel on
> a Marzocchi Shiver SC by an inch or so (you might want to hunt for the
> old 120mm travel model) to avoid tyre/fork crown interference, and
> with no brake arch you don't have that problem to contend with It
> should be as simple as adding a solid spacer under the bottom-out
> bumper, although I've never had my fork apart to see exactly how easy
> this would be.
>
> Kinky Cowboy*
>
> *Batteries not included
> May contain traces of nuts
> Your milage may vary

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On 21 Feb 2006 13:14:21 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Kinky Cowboy wrote:
>> I haven't seen a 29er fork with a through
>> axle (yet - they will surely come)
>
>Mavrick
>

I was there 4 hours ahead of you, with a supplier and a price. I fancy
it will prove too rich for the OP's blood.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

RonSonic wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2006 23:22:35 -0800, "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
> >You know, even if you are unconcerned with wheel pullout, it is
> >annoying when you have chronic disc rub issues because hard application
> >of the brakes causes the axle to shift in the fork dropouts. I've had
> >this problem with my 8" front disc brake on two different forks, and
> >while it can be coped with, it seems like a needless thing to have to
> >tolerate considering the solution is so simple.
>
>
> Like mounting the caliper off the front of the fork instead of behind.
>
> Why don't they do that?

Beats me (though we just had this discussion on another thread).

Kentucky bourbon man "jim beam" claims front mounted calipers will not
work due to the poor fatigue properties of cast metals in tension,
though this would be easily resolved by using a forged lower fork leg
and/or increasing the material thickness to reduce stress (at the cost
of only a few grams of weight).

--
Tom Sherman

 

[dvt]

Kinky Cowboy wrote:
> According to my manual, the max tyre radius for a Shiver SC is 345mm,
> while a 60-622 tyre will be about 371, so you'd have to lose 26mm of
> travel. If you get a second hand Shiver SC 120mm (they cut the travel
> to 100mm from 2004MY, so you're unlikely to find a NOS one), that
> still leaves 94mm, ideal for XC. A fork of that age will want a
> rebuild anyway, so new seals and bushes can go in while you add the
> travel shortener. If you're lucky on e-bay, have a friendly machine
> shop and a local Marzocchi service centre, you might bring the whole
> customised fork in for under $300 and it will be as good as new.

Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye on ebay and the like. If I do
decide to pursue it further, I think I'll call or write Marzocchi to see
if it's even possible to limit the travel of the Shiver. Of course, they
might cover their butts and say it can't be done.

> http://www.trails-edge.com/retail/bikeparts/forks-mtb29er.htm shows a
> Maverick 29er fork, which also meets your 29er/disc/through axle spec,
> at $620

As you said in your other post, that's a little rich for my blood.
Especially when you add in a $140-150 hub, since an ordinary hub won't
work with that fork. I can get a whole 29er bike for a few more $ than
that fork and hub!

I just found another, similar option: White Brothers Magic 29 Fork for
$800. http://www.speedgoat.com/product.asp?part=115444&cat=160&brand=329

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[jim beam]

Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>Chalo wrote:
>>
>>>You know, even if you are unconcerned with wheel pullout, it is
>>>annoying when you have chronic disc rub issues because hard application
>>>of the brakes causes the axle to shift in the fork dropouts. I've had
>>>this problem with my 8" front disc brake on two different forks, and
>>>while it can be coped with, it seems like a needless thing to have to
>>>tolerate considering the solution is so simple.
>>
>>so how come that neither i nor about 20 disk mtb riding buddies who i
>>know well enough for them to let me mess with their bikes, have ever
>>seen or heard of this problem?
>
>
> Perhaps your less demanding relationship with your machine extends to
> how wide open you set your brake's pads. I need lots of braking, so I
> set the pads close to the rotor.

my hydraulic disk calipers are not adjustable. i can change their
center, but that's it - i no option for having the pads run
closer/further to/from the disk than the manufacturer's spec.

> Perhaps your hub's clamping faces
> have more bite to them than mine do. (My Diatech Swinger hub has
> smooth anodized aluminum faces).
>
> I also use bolted skewers, which I fasten very tightly (I have broken a
> couple of them on installation). In my estimation, the skewers do not
> have to move at all for the wheel to be able to shift a small amount,
> if the hub axle has any play on the skewer.
>
> Chalo Colina
>

 

[jim beam]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
>
>>On 20 Feb 2006 23:22:35 -0800, "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>You know, even if you are unconcerned with wheel pullout, it is
>>>annoying when you have chronic disc rub issues because hard application
>>>of the brakes causes the axle to shift in the fork dropouts. I've had
>>>this problem with my 8" front disc brake on two different forks, and
>>>while it can be coped with, it seems like a needless thing to have to
>>>tolerate considering the solution is so simple.
>>
>>
>>Like mounting the caliper off the front of the fork instead of behind.
>>
>>Why don't they do that?
>
>
> Beats me (though we just had this discussion on another thread).
>
> Kentucky bourbon man "jim beam" claims front mounted calipers will not
> work due to the poor fatigue properties of cast metals in tension,
> though this would be easily resolved by using a forged lower fork leg

duuude! have you any idea how much that would cost for a magnesium
alloy??? [and you know that magnesium can only be worked at elevated
temperatures, right?]

> and/or increasing the material thickness to reduce stress (at the cost
> of only a few grams of weight).

but why? rear mounting works fine. /and/ it's not just the fork but
the caliper has to be considered also. suddenly, cost/weight has risen
alarmingly and with no benefit.