Possibly a stupid question but....

Alpha1653

Dirt Disciple
....does anyone remember the hoo-har when forks with 100mm travel first came out and people were claiming that if you put them on a hard tail that wasn't designed for them, you'd rip the head tube off?

Has anyone actually seen this happen? Reason I ask is that I'm building up a 97 steel Kona at the moment and have some 120mm forks to go on it with the travel (and therefore a2c) reduced.

Question is, if the a2c is that much longer than the original P2's, what is the likelihood of a catastrophic failure? A2c of the forks reduced to 100mm with 30% sag is 440mm by my reckoning. P2's were 410mm.

Random question but I'm quite new to this retrobike stuff. Thanks!
 
I don't think that putting longer travel forks on a frame that wasn't desgined for them will wreck the frame but it will effect the way the bike handles - well that was what I was told!

The problem I think you might have if you run the forks with more sag that you should really be is if you hit something hard you might bottom out the forks.

I've got a modern full susser which is designed to run 100mm forks but I had a pair of 130mm and I asked the frame maker if I could use them. They said no because it throw the angles out and adversely effect the handling and in my case void the warranty.
 
I've used 100mm travel forks on a '95 Explosif and 120mm forks on a '95 Kilauea and didn't feel that either adversely affected the handling.
The 120mm forks (Marzocchi Marathon) have ETA, so for climbing you can run them further into their travel to steepen the head angle and go to 120mm for the descents.

20mm change on axle-crown dimension alters frame angles by around 1 degree.

As I understand it, the attitude that some manufactures have towards running longer travel forks than recommended is not so much about the extra leverage that slightly longer forks will exert on the frame but more about the perceived application - ie, if you use longer travel forks you're seen as someone more likely to hit things harder and faster and drop further than someone who uses short travel or rigid forks.
This is, of course, not necessarily true and besides, how would they know what forks you were using in the event of any frame warranty issue occurring (which needn't be head tube related, of course).
You could tell them anything :wink:.

It's the same as these ratio restrictions (if they even exist) for geared hubs - how is anybody ever going to know what gearing you were using??

Anyway, there's no reason why you can't run forks further into their travel to reduce effective a/c, there's actually a lot to be said for using quite a lot of negative travel, especially on hard, loose terrain with lots of stutter bumps as it keeps the front wheel in contact with the ground for more of the time, especially during fast, loose cornering.

People often assume that a low pre-load means a low overall spring rate but it doesn't - the two are pretty much separate components of fork function and even if you run more static sag than is considered "normal" for a short-ish travel fork (ie more than 20-25%) it's still possible to set a fork or shock absorber up so that it doesn't blow through all of it's travel at the slightest provocation.

Just try it - do the usual cable tie around the stanchion thing to see how much travel you're using on a typical ride. If you're using full travel once or twice then that's fine, if less than that, then the forks could be set up to be more linear and use more of their capacity more of the time, or if they're bottoming out too much and too often then set them up to be a bit more progressive.

What forks are they BTW?
 
Sorry to sound stupid, but have you reduced the travel from 120mm to 100mm? if so I don't see much problem with 100mm forks, obviously handling will be effected, especially if you're running the standard stem. Put on a shorter one and the bike will ride the same. I own two 1998 steel Konas and personally wouldn't put a 120mm fork on them but that's because I don't like long travel (yes that's right I still consider anything over 100mm long travel!) forks as I mainly ride XC and my 63mm Sid's are more that ample for that.
 
Thanks for the replies guys. My concern was not so much about the handling - I realise that it will be affected but I can play mix and match with stem length & bars to compensate; it was more paranoia about ripping the head tube off as per the rumours when I was riding it back in the late 90s!

As you say Andy, in my mind the extra leverage should not put extra pressure on the head tube as surely the greatest pressure would be exerted at the moment of maximum travel ie. when the fork's at its shortest. It's probably more about perceived use of the frame i.e. longer forks = mental riding (which would probably break the frame no matter how long or short the fork).

They're Fox Float RLs from 2007 set at 120mm which I am planning to reduce to 100mm and run about 30% sag taking it to about 440mm. I've got another set on my other bike and have found that I prefer running them pretty soft.

Looks like I'll be giving it a go and if the head tube falls off then I know who to blame! :wink:
 
@markwashington: my other plan was to reduce the travel to 80mm which is far more in line with what it was designed for in the first place!
 
Back
Top