Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:16 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:55 pm 
Old School Hero

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:43 am
Posts: 189
Location: North East
For some time iv been playing with the idea of putting a rigid fork on my HT, iv got a full suss as well so will be doing it fo nothing more than a bit of an experiment really.

I was going to get a carbon one but had some reservations about it because im quite heavy and ride fairly hard, now the carbon would probably be fine but it would probably play on my mind.

My HT is a 2010 Saracen Kili titanuim which has more of a trail geometry rather than an out and out XC race geometry, it is designed for a 120mm fork and currently has a fox F120 on it. Ideally I want to maintain this geometry as I like the way it rides so based on my calculation I would need to run a rigid with an axel to crown of 470mm to do this. That is based on the fox having an a/c of 490mm and running 20mm sag would give me a dynamic a/c of 470.

I was thinking of these as a good subsitute to the carbon ones:
http://www.winstanleysbikes.co.uk/produ ... 29er_Forks? gclid=CMeV6dP1zLcCFSXHtAodQUIAsQ

They seem to be an ideal length and the steel should give a nice ride, finally i like the idea of running a pace fork on a saracen frame for the whole british thing. Those forks cant of been out that long as iv not seen them before and have been pondering this for a while?

Thoughts/ opinions please?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:24 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:33 pm
Posts: 507
Location: Bolton
You need to take into account fork sag, I fitted a set of the exotic ally forks ( bought off ajantom ) which you can get off eBay, and have to admit that they're a cracking piece of kit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:15 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:11 pm
Posts: 8479
Location: Fircombe.
Is you bike 26" or 29" wheel?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:29 am 
Old School Hero

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:43 am
Posts: 189
Location: North East
26" its just a std 2010 kili titanium atm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:15 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
Carbon forks won't be a problem. It's hard to find a decent modern road bike that doesn't have carbon forks, and riders of all weights fail to break them. Failure or a metal steered is far far more common than failure of carbon fork blades


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:19 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:11 pm
Posts: 8479
Location: Fircombe.
Chopper1192 wrote:
Carbon forks won't be a problem. It's hard to find a decent modern road bike that doesn't have carbon forks, and riders of all weights fail to break them. Failure or a metal steered is far far more common than failure of carbon fork blades

THough Pace have a weight limit of 85kg on their carbon forks.
The Pace in the OP's link have an offset of 50mm while 38-41mm is more usual for 26" wheels. This may lead to funky handling...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:07 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:11 pm
Posts: 874
Maintaining the geometry because of 'the way it rides' would surely be a moot point when you put a set of rigid forks on it and... totally change the way it rides.

If it's rigid you might find that a lower front end will be more beneficial as it may allow you to steer around objects you normally run over, or will allow you more room to lift the front over things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:55 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:23 pm
Posts: 938
go 29 at the front?!?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:03 pm 
Section Moderator & South West AEC
Section Moderator & South West AEC
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:33 pm
Posts: 8163
Location: new forest
just rebuilt my 2007 clockwork, removed the 100mm travel reba world cup forks (460a-c) as they were dead, replaced them with an Exotic carbon fork (440a-c) feels fine and dandy and looks nice aswel. i'm also about 14 stone, so far from light!


Attachments:
07cwexotic2.jpg
07cwexotic2.jpg [ 118.86 KiB | Viewed 489 times ]
07cwexotic.jpg
07cwexotic.jpg [ 177.97 KiB | Viewed 489 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:42 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:09 am
Posts: 799
Location: Runcorn
Chopper1192 wrote:
Carbon forks won't be a problem. It's hard to find a decent modern road bike that doesn't have carbon forks, and riders of all weights fail to break them. Failure or a metal steered is far far more common than failure of carbon fork blades


Carbon has great strength per weight and fatigure resistance. The problem for a mountain bike is delamination. This means that after a crash a fork can look fine, but the bonding between layers has weakened and that at some point in the future the fork will suddenly snap, usually while under stress. This is a problem for crit riders too and there is some guidance for diy checking here (I suspect many bike shops will always tell you to buy a new fork, because the legal risk of doing anything else is too high - plus, sell fork = good):

Quote:
http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index ... 70450.html

08-10-10, 11:57 AM
If there's no obvious cracking damage showing there's still the issue of internal delamination that is hard to find. Two methods of checking it yourself come to mind. First off hold the fork by the steerer and using a screwdriver handle tap the legs all over and listen to the sound. Taps on each leg in the same place should sound the same. Any sort of drastic change in the sound is likely caused by some delamination. Assuming the fork passes the sound check then I'd move on to a flexing check. For this you need to grip the steerer in some manner that will hold it very firmly. Something like a block of wood with a 1 1/8 hole that is sawn through and then the blocks and fork are clamped to a door frame or in a vise attached to a heavy immovable bench. Once secured I'd flex the legs inwards, outwards, to the front and to the rear. What you're looking for is for both legs to flex equally. If one flexes more than the other then again there's very likely internal delamination. And if it snaps like a dry turkey wishbone then again you have your answer. Don't be gentle with it. You should be using enough pressure to flex the legs by about 1/2 inch to properly simulate the sort of load it'll see on the road. This will be quite a bit of tension and it may be hard for you to do this and still look for even flexing in both legs. So it may help to have a spotter watching and measuring things.

...As BCRider explained there's no reliable way to test. If it were anywhere else on the bike, I'd follow his methodology and make a judgment call, but it's a fork and I hold those to the highest standard


So basically, understand the issues - if you don't really need the weight saving and are an aggressive rider who pushes it and has the odd off, consider staying away from carbon unless you're willing to either chance snaps or replace forks. Otoh if you never crash and are loaded, much more attractive!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BikerB and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group