Forum menu
If you say had 150mm forks and rear travel of 6 inches but decided to reduce the fork travel to 130mm would this throw the bike/suspension balance out?
rather obvious answer
Its not the normal way round. Goin less on the rear isnt too bad but less on the front will be a very strange feeling. Along with lower BB, quicker steering etc
I know someone with some weird marin with 160mm at the back, and 120mm at the front I think. Only bike I've ever heard of/seen apart from some DH bikes that has that unbalance.
Give it a go, but it probably won't work. What frame is it?
It depends more on the dynamic geometry of the bike I guess, but 120mm front and 160mm at the back sounds a trifle off balance.
My AM bike has 146mm at the back and 160mm at the front which feels just fine. My xc bike is (allegedly) 132mm at the back but it feels spot on with my forks wound down to match.
Was just wondering out loud really how differing ends affect each other, so rear looks ok to run lower travel than forks but not really other way round. How does that work then with the Uturn/Talas forks which can go from 95-140mm or more even?
I rode the last stage of an enduro race with my front at 115mm and the rear at 165mm. Never realised apart from my hands taking a pounding.
My old G Spot (2005 I think) was designed around a 130 fork sweet spot. That had 150mm on the rear
Rode it with 130 and 150 forks and I preffered with 130's