Headshok or not?

My old (y2k) f600 had a grinding old Headshok setup (Fatty M) with a dizzying 65-70mm of pogo action. Yet I stuck with it, mostly locked out. I also had an F900SL with Fatty Ultras in good order - and they worked well enough.

As someone who happily gets along with rigid forks it's still nice to have a bit extra for rough sections (general XC riding) to take the sting out and keep in a line - but these days is it worth just putting a pair of 80-100mm forks (w/lockout) on a noughties CAAD or worth persevering with the (sometimes expensive) servicing issues of the Fatty to keep the faith and stiff/solid tracking?

(Not to mention the Fatty just looks so right on it's original frame)

What's your experience?

Well as a recent owner of a 2001 f600 i am in the process of overhauling the headshock.... in fact the main reason behind the purchase was the headshock.

Plan it to use it as the commute bike, the headshok being more robust, lighter and out if the way of mud compared to telescopic forks.

Hopefully the only new part ill need is the boot
... so im voting headshock, i reckon youd be looking at 200 quid for a decent fork to replace it.

I'd vote headshock for the same reasons, but still trying to obtain a cheap headshock tool / find time to make my own, whole bike is coming up pretty light but still not actually ridden it as bought with knackered forks ..

I'd go 100% the other way. I think they are pretty limited forks, and second hand, a pair of 100mm tora's or the like are easy to service and would cost you £40-50 for a decent pair.

Re:

My view is stay with the Headshok. They are quite easy to service and get working well provided you read up on them and understand how they work before you start(unlike some other people who have added to this post). I have fixed up three sets this summer and the spare parts were reasonably cheap.

The specific headshok tools to remove the cartridge were the most expensive items but worth it in my book. There are plenty of horror pictures on the web of the results of not using the right tool to remove the cartridge.

I have been riding with out suspension since my first bike back in the late 80's and this summer the headshoks were my first try of suspension forks. Was always put off them as I thought they were expensive to maintain. They are more expensive to look after than rigid but the fact I can look after them myself ticks the box for me.

I am sure there are better suspension forks out there in terms of performance but for me the headshok is pretty good to me.

The other two good points for me is the look of the bike and the lock out. I really don't like the appearance of normal suspension forks. The lock out on them is very good and the fact it is on the top of the stem avoids the need for a remote lock out lever.

Bruce

Learn how to maintain them yourself and stay with the Headshok. Normal suspension forks look lost and wrong in a Cannondale 1.5" headtube. Besides the main plus on the Headshok (once you serviced them) is that they are way lighter and stiffer than a Tora for example.

I agree, maybe I'll look about for a toolkit - collecting my replacement CAAD3 bike tomorrow, we'll see how the shoks are although have been assured they are working smoothly, I know the day will come

But a tora you could have one of a million stems in any shape or size for peanuts. If the headshock has 1.5" steerer (not sure if they do) then that's not so easy or cheap.

Anyway, entirely up to you. I dont dislike headshocks just think they are quite limited suspension unless you want something basic. Maybe I just rode a bad pair once.

Not trying to disagree with anyone (!) how are they stiffer to ordinary forks? Are the legs bigger sized?

"how are they stiffer to ordinary forks? Are the legs bigger sized?"

Now I'm not a Cannondale fanboy per se, but the principle of the Headshok is actually quite clever. All your suspension and damping parts sit inside of the oversized headtube which runs on 4 needle bearings inside the 1.5" steering tube which means the steering precision of the unit is unmatched (square interface between the moving parts means no twisting). Then the lower part is basically just like a regular oversized aluminum rigid fork and those legs are really stiff. I remember reading comparison tests between regular telescopic forks and Headshok and when it came down to stiffness to weight comparison the Headshok was light-years ahead of the telescopic forks. The main drawback with the headshok system is the fact that you're quite limited with the amount of suspension travel you can get without screwing up the geometry of the bike. Also the headshoks were perceived as being a little harsh and unresponsive compared to some regular telescopic forks (mainly due to their internals? maybe with better dampers they might perform better). As a short travel light and stiff cross country fork I think they do a wonderful job but you can't really compare the travel and smoothness to a modern 100 mm fork.

I have 100mm Toras on my Lava Dome SS, but keep them locked out 90 percent of the time unless it gets really rutted or rocky, but the lockout on a headshok is a different league - could be TOO rigid ;-). It really is horses for courses but for smoothing out regular trails (and roads) it does the job does right enough for me, just the pesky faff of servicing is the price I pay for such a rigid/lightweight front sus system. I like the Toras too, but heavy cornering on a 9mm QR there is flex that I don't get on the HS.

Question, do any Headshoks have (or can be made to have), say, 10mm compression when locked out, if only to save my fillings from hurting so much?