Overview Chat Bike Members News Women
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • 460 or 465mm carbon forks on a 26″ wheeled bike
  • james
    Free Member

    I realise the on-one’s 460mm carbon fork has the rake set for 29″ bikes, which I believe most manufacturers do not bother and use a typical 26″ wheel rake on the fork intended for 29″ wheel bike use.

    So

    Given that a 440 or 445mm carbon fork is still pretty low, lower than a real 100mm fork sagged 25% (reba, recon ..) why wouldn’t it be a good idea to run a 460 or 465mm (intended for a 100mm 29″ wheeled bike (one without the correct rake for a 29″er) on a 26″ wheeled bike?

    Posted 15 years ago
    reggiegasket
    Free Member

    extra 20mm adds approx. 1 degree to the head angle.

    why do you want to do it?

    Posted 15 years ago
    reggiegasket
    Free Member

    sorry, what I mean is it reduces the head angle by 1 degree 😉

    Posted 15 years ago
    Nicknoxx
    Free Member

    Typical 100mm forks have and axle to crown distance of 480mm which equates to 360mm with 25% sag.
    Typical 130mm forks have and axle to crown distance of 510mm which equates to 382mm with 25% sag.

    Posted 15 years ago
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Nick – you might want to rethink that calculation – 25% of travel not axle to crown distance 🙂

    And rake angle is set by the frame – not fork. Offset is on the fork which may be done by the fork leg and steerer not being parallel

    Posted 15 years ago
    james
    Free Member

    “And rake angle is set by the frame – not fork”

    I was going off on-one’s 26″ fork using 38mm of rake and the 29″ one using more. Somewhere on there they say other manufacturers compromise the 29″ bikes by using 26″ rake on the long fork intended for 29″ wheeled bike use

    “why do you want to do it?”
    The front end is low enough with a tall(sort of) 120mm fork on it and don’t really want to get it much lower
    (It came with a tall (As high as the 120mm fork would be at 115mm) 100mm fork so not overly tall for it I’m thinking

    I’d like to try a rigid fork on it as I like the steel one on my commuter when off-road. It doesn’t have any suspension correction or disc mounts so don’t really want to swap it across

    Posted 15 years ago
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    38 mm of rake? *shakes head* That’s offset. Rake is an angle

    Posted 15 years ago
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    It xalls it fork rake in this diagramme but I think that is very misleading

    Posted 15 years ago
    Ogg
    Full Member

    The front end is low enough

    The ‘height’ of the front end can be changed with stem and bars, length of fork changes head angle.
    What frame is it? I’m running a 445mm carbon fork on a Orange P7 (originally supplied with a 130 or 140 fork) and it’s feels fine.

    Posted 15 years ago
    Nicknoxx
    Free Member

    TJ – You’re right of course:-
    100mm fork equates to 455mm
    130mm fork equates to 477mm

    Posted 15 years ago
    james
    Free Member

    So what is this much hyped geometry?

    26in forks have 440mm axle-crown dimension, with 38mm rake.
    29in forks have 470mm axle-crown dimension, with 47mm rake

    I’d assumed they meant offset then

    Posted 15 years ago
    james
    Free Member

    an ’06 Giant XTC SE

    Just fancy the slacker head angle and thought I’d ask for some opinion on running a longer fork on a 26″ wheeled bike

    Posted 15 years ago
    wee-al
    Free Member

    You people really know some “stuff” eh?

    Posted 15 years ago
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

The topic ‘460 or 465mm carbon forks on a 26″ wheeled bike’ is closed to new replies.

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women