Overview Chat Bike Members News Women
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • 160 forks – do i need them?
  • BillyBull
    Free Member

    Or is it just fork envy because friends have put them on their 5 spots? Got 140 revs

    Posted 13 years ago
    chakaping
    Free Member

    Won’t one of them let you have a go so you decide for yourself?

    Posted 13 years ago
    rootes1
    Full Member

    yes/no

    Posted 13 years ago
    _tom_
    Free Member

    I don’t think that an extra 20mm will make a huge amount of difference, think about how small that is. At least this is what I’ve been telling myself so I don’t have to splash out on a set of Lyriks for my BFe 😛

    Posted 13 years ago
    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Probably not, JonTaylor off this forums faster than me and his forks are a wopping 10mm less travel than mine (about 2″ shorter mind you, ’09 Pikes Vs my ’07 Z1’s).

    Posted 13 years ago
    agentdagnamit
    Free Member

    I’ve got fairly old 140mm Pikes and am thinking about 150mm this year, slightly more travel and much lighter. 140 to 160 is going to be a fairly big change in geometry most likely.

    Posted 13 years ago
    GEDA
    Free Member

    Just put a pair of 160mm forks on my DB Alpine instead of 140 Pikes. It is a bit too snowy here to test but it does feel a bit gate like. Not sure if I am going to like them. 140 was totally enough travel I just picked up nice forks and thought I would give it a go. Unless you are always bottoming out I would stick with smaller forks.

    Posted 13 years ago
    Northwind
    Full Member

    I don’t need them but my bike rides better with 160mm forks in than 150mm. It’s not just about travel.

    Posted 13 years ago
    steve_b77
    Free Member

    It’s all about the a2c when you’re talking about geo changes, a fork would have to be a full 25.4mm longer in static to produce a slacker HA of around 0.75deg, and slight rise in BB height.

    Once you take into consideration sag @ a given 25% you’ll end up with 15mm more travel. Is that going to make a massive difference to the ride of your bike, or will it be the inevitable 36mm/35mm dia stanchions that make a difference due to increased stiffness of the 32mm of your current forks

    Posted 13 years ago
    agentdagnamit
    Free Member

    If I wind my 140mm forks down to 120mm, my bike climbs completely differently. Stands to reason that if I increased 140mm to 160mm that could have a similar effect on the way the bike rides, regardless of any trigonometry.

    If I did go for 160mm I’d make sure I had u-turn or 2-step (if I thought it was reliable enough).

    The extra weight of bigger forks might off set the detrimental effect on climbing though, if that’s a worry?

    Posted 13 years ago
    shindiggy
    Free Member

    My pace RC41 fighters (150mm) were to same axle to crown height as my old Fox RLC 125’s.

    So as long as you go for short forks, long travel is a perfectly viable option with out upsetting the bike geometry

    Posted 13 years ago
    BillyBull
    Free Member

    Think I may stick with what I have and spend the money going abroad to ride.

    Posted 13 years ago
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

The topic ‘160 forks – do i need them?’ is closed to new replies.

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women