Forks for hardtail...

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Adam, Mar 7, 2004.

  1. In article <[email protected]>,
    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > It was your post about the Maverick that made me think
    > > along the lines of getting a long-travel fork and a
    > > suitable frame, rather than trying to find a shorter
    > > travel fork to suit me and the frame I was thinking of.
    > > In particular, my latest fork is a Marzocchi MX Pro Coil
    > > - stunningly smooth and capable bump-eating, but very
    > > flexy - and I was hoping to find something much stiffer.
    > >
    > > Will the Maverick stand up to a Clydesdale? I mostly
    > > ride cross-country (I don't 'huck', I don't think - I'm
    > > still not entirely sure what 'hucking' is), but I am
    > > heavy and occasionally inelegant to the point of clumsy.
    > > Rock gardens, steep chutes and switch-back laden
    > > singletrack (plus the occasional berm) is more my thing
    > > than dropping off garages.
    > >
    >
    > Can someone explain to me how 5" of front travel helps on
    > a no rear travel hardtail?

    http://www.nsmb.com/trail_tales/hard_time_12_02.php

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected]
    http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
    Mazzoleni Fan Club
     


  2. Gazzer

    Gazzer Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > gazzer wrote:
    > > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<bD13c.7371
    > >
    > >>Because the rear only has the travel of your rear tire
    > >>to try to match the front.
    > >>
    > >>Greg
    > >
    > >
    > > When the rear wheel hits a bump, assuming your body is
    > > fairly central, the bike will pivot around the BB and
    > > compress the fork. Therefore adding front suspension
    > > also aids the rear.
    > >
    > > Does that sound plausible?
    > >
    >
    > Well, while the bike is pivoting around the BB and
    > compressing the fork your seat is still getting pounded up
    > your ass.
    >
    > Greg

    yeah, it's a bollocks idea.

    g
     
  3. Adam

    Adam Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    -8<- snip ->8-
    > Can someone explain to me how 5" of front travel helps on
    > a no rear travel hardtail?

    That's what I'd like to know too.

    I'm mainly considering longer travel (>100mm) because I'd
    like a burlier fork and they mostly seem to be long travel.
    I'd like to know whether it will upset the bike. Is there a
    relationship between rear travel (ie: none) and front
    travel? If so, why do we fit suspesion forks to hardtails at
    all? Is there a big difference between a 80mm fork and a
    130mm fork for a hardtail (other than 50mm)?

    Cheers - Adam...
     
  4. Adam

    Adam Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Pete Jones <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    -8<- snip ->8-
    > >
    I
    > > > personally think 6" is too much for a hardtail - but
    > > > then, a few years ago, people thought 3" was pushing
    > > > it, so it's your call.
    > >
    > > That's one of things I was hoping for more comments on.
    > > Why is 6" too much for a hardtail?
    >
    > Because the rear only has the travel of your rear tire to
    > try to match the front.

    Why does the travel at the rear have to match the travel at
    the front?

    Adam...
     
  5. Adam

    Adam Guest

    "spademan o---[\) *" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "spademan o---[\) *"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message new-
    > > > s:[email protected]
    -8<- snip ->8-
    > > That's interesting, because that's one of the
    > > combinations I'd thought of. It is heavy, but I'd
    > > figured the strength would make it worth while. What
    > > does the Shiver ride like? How stiff (torsionally)
    > > is it?
    >
    > Only had two shortish (< 2 hour) rides so far, but I've
    > been impressed. Immense mud clearance etc due to the
    > inverted design and Marzocchi suspension action - you know
    > its good. Stock springs are quite soft, if you're heavy
    > you may need to swap them. Torsionally I've not not
    > noticed any problem, this years 100mm version is
    > supposedly better than last years longer 120mm version.

    Sounds good. I ask mainly because the MX pro I currently
    ride is pretty flexy and I'm looking to avoid this.

    > > Was the steerer swap much of a pain?
    >
    > I sent it off to windwave, took about a week, cost about
    > 50 quid.

    That's not too bad...

    > > > Dialled bikes 'morning glory' is very nice indeed, if
    > > > I needed another bike...
    > >
    > > As an alternative to the setup above, I was thinking of
    > > the Morning Glory mated to a Z1 FR. It's about the same
    > > weight of fork, and it should be about as strong.
    >
    > I'd go for the morning glory/Z1 option.

    Why?

    > > Pete Fagerlin's review has got me interested in the
    > > Maverick, now, though...
    >
    > Well its your money...

    That implies you don't think much of it - why?

    Cheers - Adam...
     
  6. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    [email protected] (Adam) wrote:

    >"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >-8<- snip ->8-
    >> Can someone explain to me how 5" of front travel helps on
    >> a no rear travel hardtail?
    >
    >That's what I'd like to know too.
    >
    >I'm mainly considering longer travel (>100mm) because I'd
    >like a burlier fork and they mostly seem to be long travel.
    >I'd like to know whether it will upset the bike. Is there a
    >relationship between rear travel (ie: none) and front
    >travel? If so, why do we fit suspesion forks to hardtails
    >at all? Is there a big difference between a 80mm fork and a
    >130mm fork for a hardtail (other than 50mm)?

    A longer fork raises the front end, which changes the
    effective head tube angle (makes it slacker). In the case
    above, changing from 80mm to 130mm, you'd reduce the
    effective head tube angle by 3 degrees. That will tend to
    make the steering "slower" and more stable - both a good and
    bad thing, depending on whether you're carving your way
    through a tight, twisty slolom course of trees, or bombing a
    long, steep descent.

    I put a Psylo on my own bike to test the extremes (it's
    adjustable from 80-125mm). It DOES certainly change the feel
    of the bike, but FWIW I don't really think it handles all
    that bad in 125mm mode.

    Is there an advantage to a longer travel fork on a hardtail?
    Of course - it does the same thing an 64mm fork does - just
    more of it. I find that cranking the fork down is better for
    fast and twisty sections, and cranking it up works great for
    rock gardens and descents (no surprise there).

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of
    the $695 ti frame
     
  7. Pete Jones

    Pete Jones Guest

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:06:29 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
    blathered:

    >>forks to hardtails at all? Is there a big difference
    >>between a 80mm fork and a 130mm fork for a hardtail (other
    >>than 50mm)?
    >
    >A longer fork raises the front end, which changes the
    >effective head tube angle (makes it slacker). In the case
    >above, changing from 80mm to 130mm, you'd reduce the
    >effective head tube angle by 3 degrees. That will tend to
    >make the steering "slower" and more stable - both a good
    >and bad thing

    Probably a bad thing if you're averse to shearing off your
    head tube. I could be wrong, but I don't think Brant will
    warrant Inbred frames that have been used with forks
    >100mm travel.

    Pete
     
  8. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Pete Jones <[email protected]> wrote in
    > > > message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > -8<- snip ->8-
    > > >
    I
    > > > > personally think 6" is too much for a hardtail - but
    > > > > then, a few
    years
    > > > > ago, people thought 3" was pushing it, so it's your
    > > > > call.
    > > >
    > > > That's one of things I was hoping for more comments
    > > > on. Why is 6" too much for a hardtail?
    > >
    > > Because the rear only has the travel of your rear tire
    > > to try to match
    the
    > > front.
    >
    > Why does the travel at the rear have to match the travel
    > at the front?

    Because if you're hitting 5" bumps fast enough that your
    front suspension will soak them up, your rear end is going
    to be all over the place because it can't soak them up. If
    you're just riding around doing stunts and jumps you can
    take that into consideration during your landing. But if
    you're just riding rough trails a long travel fork on a
    hardtail is a waste of time.

    Greg
     
  9. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Adam) wrote:
    >
    > >"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > >-8<- snip ->8-
    > >> Can someone explain to me how 5" of front travel helps
    > >> on a no rear
    travel
    > >> hardtail?
    > >
    > >That's what I'd like to know too.
    > >
    > >I'm mainly considering longer travel (>100mm) because
    > >I'd like a burlier fork and they mostly seem to be long
    > >travel. I'd like to know whether it will upset the
    > >bike. Is there a relationship between rear travel (ie:
    > >none) and front travel? If so, why do we fit suspesion
    > >forks to hardtails at all? Is there a big difference
    > >between a 80mm fork and a 130mm fork for a hardtail
    > >(other than 50mm)?
    >
    > A longer fork raises the front end, which changes the
    > effective head tube angle (makes it slacker). In the case
    > above, changing from 80mm to 130mm, you'd reduce the
    > effective head tube angle by 3 degrees. That will tend to
    > make the steering "slower" and more stable - both a good
    > and bad thing, depending on whether you're carving your
    > way through a tight, twisty slolom course of trees, or
    > bombing a long, steep descent.
    >

    I think he's already thought that through and is hoping to
    get a frame suitable for a long travel fork.

    Greg
     
  10. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Adam) wrote:
    >
    > >"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > >-8<- snip ->8-
    > >> Can someone explain to me how 5" of front travel helps
    > >> on a no rear
    travel
    > >> hardtail?
    > >
    > >That's what I'd like to know too.
    > >
    > >I'm mainly considering longer travel (>100mm) because
    > >I'd like a burlier fork and they mostly seem to be long
    > >travel. I'd like to know whether it will upset the
    > >bike. Is there a relationship between rear travel (ie:
    > >none) and front travel? If so, why do we fit suspesion
    > >forks to hardtails at all? Is there a big difference
    > >between a 80mm fork and a 130mm fork for a hardtail
    > >(other than 50mm)?
    >
    > A longer fork raises the front end, which changes the
    > effective head tube angle (makes it slacker). In the case
    > above, changing from 80mm to 130mm, you'd reduce the
    > effective head tube angle by 3 degrees. That will tend to
    > make the steering "slower" and more stable - both a good
    > and bad thing, depending on whether you're carving your
    > way through a tight, twisty slolom course of trees, or
    > bombing a long, steep descent.
    >

    I think he's already thought that through and is hoping to
    get a frame suitable for a long travel fork.

    Greg
     
  11. "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > -8<- snip ->8-

    > > > As an alternative to the setup above, I was thinking
    > > > of the Morning Glory mated to a Z1 FR. It's about the
    > > > same weight of fork, and it should be about as strong.
    > >
    > > I'd go for the morning glory/Z1 option.
    >
    > Why?

    Seems like a better balanced option, the inbred is a superb
    bike but the morning glory is geared more towards heavy
    knocks etc.

    > > > Pete Fagerlin's review has got me interested in the
    > > > Maverick, now, though...
    > >
    > > Well its your money...
    >
    > That implies you don't think much of it - why?

    Never ridden it so couldn't possibly comment. However its
    a double-crown fork with a non-standard front axle thats
    very light.

    Steve.
     
  12. Adam

    Adam Guest

    Pete Jones <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:06:29 -0700, Mark Hickey
    > <[email protected]> blathered:
    >
    > >>forks to hardtails at all? Is there a big difference
    > >>between a 80mm fork and a 130mm fork for a hardtail
    > >>(other than 50mm)?
    > >
    > >A longer fork raises the front end, which changes the
    > >effective head tube angle (makes it slacker). In the case
    > >above, changing from 80mm to 130mm, you'd reduce the
    > >effective head tube angle by 3 degrees. That will tend to
    > >make the steering "slower" and more stable - both a good
    > >and bad thing
    >
    > Probably a bad thing if you're averse to shearing off your
    > head tube. I could be wrong, but I don't think Brant will
    > warrant Inbred frames that have been used with forks
    > >100mm travel.

    Indeed. I don't intend to match the Inbred with a Z1 (or
    similar), but the Dialled Bikes Morning Glory is
    specifically built to take a 125mm fork (both in term of the
    strengthened head tube - there's a big gusset on each side
    linking down tube, head tube and top tube - and in having a
    modified geometry).

    So that's the question - all other things such as price
    being equal, is it the Morning Glory with a 125mm fork or
    the Inbred with a 100mm fork?

    Cheers - Adam...
     
  13. Adam

    Adam Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    -8<- snip ->8-
    > >
    > > Why does the travel at the rear have to match the travel
    > > at the front?
    >
    > Because if you're hitting 5" bumps fast enough that your
    > front suspension will soak them up, your rear end is going
    > to be all over the place because it can't soak them up. If
    > you're just riding around doing stunts and jumps you can
    > take that into consideration during your landing. But if
    > you're just riding rough trails a long travel fork on a
    > hardtail is a waste of time.

    Good point, but surely a suspension fork offers more than
    just the ability to roll over bumps: it improves braking (by
    dispersing more kinetic energy as heat than brakes can do
    alone) and improves lateral traction of the front wheel
    (particalarly in rough corners). Would these make longer
    travel worthwhile?

    [I'm not actually disagreeing with you, Greg - just trying
    to work out the whys and wherefores]

    Cheers -Adam...
     
  14. Adam

    Adam Guest

    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    -8<- snip ->8-
    > A longer fork raises the front end, which changes the
    > effective head tube angle (makes it slacker). In the case
    > above, changing from 80mm to 130mm, you'd reduce the
    > effective head tube angle by 3 degrees. That will tend to
    > make the steering "slower" and more stable - both a good
    > and bad thing, depending on whether you're carving your
    > way through a tight, twisty slolom course of trees, or
    > bombing a long, steep descent.

    I'm considering frame/fork combinations. Specifically, there
    are very few hefty forks (and I'm definitely a hefty rider,
    in body and style!) in less than 125mm travel and there are
    now a number of frames that have geometry and headtube
    reinforcment to take a long fork.

    > I put a Psylo on my own bike to test the extremes (it's
    > adjustable from 80-125mm). It DOES certainly change the
    > feel of the bike, but FWIW I don't really think it handles
    > all that bad in 125mm mode.
    >
    > Is there an advantage to a longer travel fork on a
    > hardtail? Of course - it does the same thing an 64mm fork
    > does - just more of it. I find that cranking the fork
    > down is better for fast and twisty sections, and cranking
    > it up works great for rock gardens and descents (no
    > surprise there).

    No suprise, but it is interesting to hear that you're happy
    with the way the bike handles in 125mm mode. I also imagined
    that it would shine in rock gardens and steep chutes - in
    fact anywhere where I currently have to hang my arse over
    the rear wheel I should be able to stay more centred with a
    longer fork.

    Cheers - Adam...
     
  15. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > -8<- snip ->8-
    > > >
    > > > Why does the travel at the rear have to match the
    > > > travel at the front?
    > >
    > > Because if you're hitting 5" bumps fast enough that
    > > your front
    suspension
    > > will soak them up, your rear end is going to be all over
    > > the place
    because
    > > it can't soak them up. If you're just riding around
    > > doing stunts and
    jumps
    > > you can take that into consideration during your
    > > landing. But if you're just riding rough trails a long
    > > travel fork on a hardtail is a waste of time.
    >
    > Good point, but surely a suspension fork offers more than
    > just the ability to roll over bumps: it improves braking
    > (by dispersing more kinetic energy as heat than brakes can
    > do alone)

    I don't think that's a factor at all.

    > and improves lateral traction of the front wheel
    > (particalarly in rough corners).

    On smooth corners a rigid fork is best. On modestly rough
    corners some travel is better. On really bumpy corners
    what's your rear end doing?

    Greg
     
Loading...
Loading...