Is fitting suspension forks to a retro MTB a faux pas?

rumpfy":1aygesg9 said:

It was an aftermarket upgrade, not a factory option.

Click to expand...

Which was also my point. how many of our retro steeds are "factory spec" anyway? And a Diamond Back Axis is a fairly mass-produced bike anyway. owners always upgraded something on that kind of machine.

steveslow":1t6hcwzu said:

My view is that early suspension forks were pretty rubbish. I had Mag10s and RC35s BITD, and they were a world apart from my current RC41s. So it's for that reason I wouldn't put suspension on a retro bike. Modern forks would probably be too long and in any case won't look right.

Click to expand...

Yes. MAG10's were rubbish. But Marzocchi's or Manitous sorted the twitchyness on quite a few bikes because they actually worked IMO. Modern forks are ok as long as they are around the 80mm mark but you then loose the retroness of the build .

rumpfy":meb8wagw said:

Russell":meb8wagw said:

I think that a few people here are forgetting that unlike todays bikes, BITD suspension was an option at purchase.

Click to expand...

Not when I started riding it wasn't.

BITD, when suspension did become available, we put it on our bikes because it was innovation and suspension corrected geometry wasn't common place yet. It was an aftermarket upgrade, not a factory option.

Click to expand...

I don't know when you started riding, Suspension wasn't available when I started riding either but thats largely irrelevant. This guys talking about 1991, which for the purpose of this thread is therefore 'BITD' and in 1991, manufacturers were offering suspension forks as an option on their bikes. Want an example? Check out this link to a '91 Orange catalogue http://www.indiansummer.ch/orange_1991_brochure.pdf you could have your bike with rigid forks or Rockshox, same frame, no geometry correction. In 1992, Kona http://www.konaretro.com/articles/catal ... 2Page4.jpg offered the 'Future Shock' fork as an option on higher end frames, same frames as rigid designs, no geometry correction.I can't be bothered to go looking for more examples but I'm sure that there are a few.

rumpfy":meb8wagw said:

Even then, the suspension worked mediocre at best.

Click to expand...

So we should all ditch our cantilever brakes or thumbshifters aswell, because modern designs are more efficient should we?

rumpfy":meb8wagw said:

Even still, we're talking 53mm of travel forks that didn't really change the way the bike handled all that much.

Putting 80mm or more travel forks on old bikes, however, is asinine.

Click to expand...

Nobody said he was going to slap a pair of dual crowns on his bike. Whats wrong with a '91 frame, with a set of '91/'92 forks up front?

Not that anyone elses opinion really matters, after all they ain't gonna be riding the bike...

However, in the interest of sticking my oar in; if fitting a suspension fork means the bike gets ridden more or you find having them gives a better ride, then why not?

retro forx

I feel it's OK as long as the forks are retro too, but finding functionally good forks that are 10 years plus old is not easy: like these gems!

Wold Ranger...does that mean you want to sell.

XCR

Could be open to the right offer. They are air forks with twin schrader valves and rebound/speed damper adjustment on the front. Early Nineties design, pretty light with 50 mm of smooth usable travel. crown race to drop out is only 410 mm.

Ok...will have a think about making an offer....but whilst i do, check these out....

Phat Furx

They probably weigh more than the Apex, the Forx that is :twisted:

top heavy could be good in this instance....

What are the forks in your pic...mararocci XC's?