thecannibal":3aj4kq31 said:We_are_Stevo":3aj4kq31 said:There's a lot of debate on here re the foibles of fitting too long a fork to a retro frame; but there's only 20mm difference between a period Judy and the fork you have...
...how bad can it be?
If you like the way it looks and rides then it's okay in my book![]()
This is a modern 100mm fork. It's a lot more than 20mm longer than a 63mm Judy.
We_are_Stevo":19t3bzem said:thecannibal":19t3bzem said:We_are_Stevo":19t3bzem said:There's a lot of debate on here re the foibles of fitting too long a fork to a retro frame; but there's only 20mm difference between a period Judy and the fork you have...
...how bad can it be?
If you like the way it looks and rides then it's okay in my book![]()
This is a modern 100mm fork. It's a lot more than 20mm longer than a 63mm Judy.
10mm sag on the 80mm travel fork would equate to around 20mm for a 100mm travel fork, ergo your 100mm fork is only around 20mm longer than the period fork...
...and perfectly useable![]()
We_are_Stevo":3hhpywpu said:There's n'owt wrong wi' the 'modified' geometry of the bike in the OP's photo's; the angle the initial photo' was taken from has exaggerated the angle of the seat post, but other than that the bike is fine...
...If Chas Roberts says you can fit a 100mm fork to one of his '90s frames then I'm inclined to take more notice of him, being as how he built it!
Which should give an A-C of 435mm @ 25% sag, or 431mm @ 30% sagdvatcmark":312sa7oz said:Those measurements sound about right, with a long ruler measuring the forks on the bike (i.e some error) the reba has an a to c of around 470mm and my judy 430mm. Three next trial is the reba dropped down to 80mm.