ADH – having used the term "headstock" I can no longer take you seriously in technical matters. See also "cross-bar"

Oh lordy, there really is no hope for me now. I must end it all forthwith 😐

Would it be the headtube that cracked/split/snapped in half though? Or would a weld pop, or would a toptube and/or downtube split? Bend? Deform? Ripple? or would a headtube reinforcing ring ovalise, or pop?

Ergo: headstock.

:finger:

Quite soon there will be an anti-slack backlash. People will start saying how good it is to have a bike that flicks into turns without having to be hauled and manhandled.

If you think your riding style favours a slacker beefier bike then buy a slacker beefier bike, is my recommendation. That way the seat angle, bottom bracket, front centre and frame strength are optimised for that kind of work. If you slap a big fork on an all-round xc/trail bike you are just piling compromise on top of compromise and are not likely to get the same well researched blend that the manufacturer offers off the shelf.

when fork brands vary by about +/- 10mm in stated axle-to-crown measurements for the same travel, i don't see why you should limit a bike to a travel setting. max static fork length makes more sense. a bike can run fractionally lower with a 140mm fox than with a 130mm rockshox if sag % were the same, so longer doesn't always mean higher / worse handling.

ADHD no idea WTF you are on about but stay off the coffees I was only kidding.

So was I really 🙄

I suppose my point was that fitting longer forks wouldn't necessarily just bugger the headtube, it could be anything that end of the frame that fails.

glenp – my frame was a steep angled old skool but nice frame – the longer forks make it a bit slacker and give more travel – and unless I wind it out to ridiculous lengths dont damage the handling that I can tell.

Whats not to like? Can you get 80m good modern forks? or as it rides fine with 110 on it is that not acceptable?

Not really talking about keeping an old frame going, TJ. And anything is acceptable with your own money I suppose. I'm just railing against this whole slacker must be better thing, which is ill thought out (in my opinion).

Some people are putting good money into brand new forks which chopper-out their previously sweet handling bikes. And since several hundred pounds of hard-earned have gone into it perhaps they are reluctant to admit that they might not have done the best thing. Trail bikes these days are already well designed for all-round fun riding and more travel is not necessarily better.

I did it partly as an experiment – hence the u turn fork – I was surprised by the results in that the slacker head angle made little obvious difference but he alteration in weight distribution did make a huge difference.

When I have some spare pennies I'll probably put a100 / 110 mm fork on it as a decent compromise

Some people are putting good money into brand new forks which chopper-out their previously sweet handling bikes. And since several hundred pounds of hard-earned have gone into it perhaps they are reluctant to admit that they might not have done the best thing

Yep, I agree. Loads of people are stuck in self-delusion ATM.

I have a slack-ish bike which is fun for some stuff, and a very unslack bike which is fun in other ways.

The delusion is that one or other is intrinsically 'better'.

The point though, is that if you took some of the slack one and put it on the steep one that it would not make it better – or certainly it is unlikely to.

I agree completely; I fondly remember making this mistake with a kona explosif and some triple clamps. No lasting damage ensued, but said explosif currently sports the shortest rigid forks I can find and has done for the past 10 years.

However, many people are riding bikes thinking 'if this bike was a tinsy bit slacker, it's be better in scenario x, and worse in scenario y, yet I don't really care much about scenario y'.

…sticking with the Pikes.

150 Rev u-turns on my 120 Mount vision. Absolutly love it! I'm just short of 15st and 6ft, so the extra inch of travel is very welcomed, allowing me to run slightly more sag and less pressure without my lardy arse bottoming the forks out, improving both the tracking and the handeling.

perhaps climbing ability of a longer fork effects short light riders more than tall heavy ones? It sure as hell makes little difference on my bike for me 8)

I've kind of gone the other way. Gone from 130mm Phaons on my Soul to 100mm Rebas. Might be shorter fork, newer fork, stiffer fork or any combination of the above but Soul feels better for the type of riding I do on the Reba

I have 160 vans on my evil soveriegn,2010 and I have 140 vanillas on my '07 cotic soul,

the soul was supposed to be 120max and the sov is 140 max,

i spoke to evil before i brought the frame, they know plenty of peeps that run 160's, i love this bike like this, it doesn't climb as steadily as the soul, but ar5e forward on the saddle, elbows under bars,keeping the pedal load even and it will climb everything my soul climbs 😛

at connock's monkey it was a doodle to ride up all those switchback climbs and i was passing plenty of other riders who didnt have huge pogo sticks up front.

the frame seems quite happy as well, in fact it's incredibly sure footed and confidence inspiring and i don't worry about the headtube snaping and poking my eyes out 😛

Quite soon there will be an anti-slack backlash. People will start saying how good it is to have a bike that flicks into turns without having to be hauled and manhandled.

my chameleon with 140mm forks is nicely flicky. Properly designed bikes is the answer not recidivism

perhaps climbing ability of a longer fork effects short light riders more than tall heavy ones

sure does My Ventana now runs a new set of Rev 150mm teams (u turns) and the extra 10mm of travel appears to have buggered up it's ability to climb. (they only drop to 120mm now as opposed to the Pikes dropping to 110)

Yesterday in Grizedale on some of the rocky steep climbs the front end would lift at the slightest hint of a step up, it did this slightly with the Pikes on before hand, but it felt awful and noticeably worse yesterday.

BTW i'm only 11 stone and 5ft 4" so I can tell you it does affect short light folk.

Now to go away and figure out what to do about it ❓

sure does My Ventana now runs a new set of Rev 150mm teams (u turns) and the extra 10mm of travel appears to have buggered up it's ability to climb.

But is the a-c/ride height only 10mm different?

I think manufacturers don't just say "Xmm only" coz of the A-C length and leverage but also due to how hard it's gonna get smashed into stuff.

A long time ago I put my 100mm bombers on a frame designed for 63mm forks, which is a lot more diference than 140-160. I was going to say the frame lasted for years but then I remembered, the replacement frame (80mm design with gusseted front end) lasted for years, the original cracked on the top tube just behind the headtube.
Oops

and yes the handling on the flat was a bit pants and flipfloppy in corners but it was pretty good downhill and on steep (down) stuff.

edit "Now to go away and figure out what to do about it" you can swap them for my 125 revs 🙂

Yes the A-C is 10mm different, but I think the original Pike was getting close to the frame limit so the extra 10mm and the 3/4lbs less in weight seem to have made a noticeable difference in it's climbing on Rocky steeped steep stuff.

A forward seat move and drop the stem may go some way to getting the bike back to how it was.