i'm talking about geometry of course, not brake hose length, brand, power grips or the render on the wall behind etc etc 🙂
[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7042/6782139402_953cd393cb.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/30020519@N08/6782139402/ ]ridgey forks smaller[/url]
it feels not bad. on screen protractor gives me a not specially accurate HA of 67.5 to 68 deg. (not unusual) and a STA of 68.5 ish. BB height is 13" un-sagged so 12-13".
STA and BB seam to be the weirdest but reach is good.
frame is quite wee toughy, though of course not designed 130mm forks and seems well reinforced around the head-tube.
so i guess i'm just asking, [i]apart[/i] from all that, why shouldn't i run these forks with this frame?
Because the headtube might snap off with the extra leverage?
Nowt wrong with power grips, I used them for years, plus the angles look just like my HJ with a Fox 140mm fork on it. 🙂
whats going on with those pedals? are they the above mentioned "powergrips"
cant see that fork change making much difference to be honest
nice rear brake
wwaswas: yes
timthetinyhorse: yes those are powergrips. i like 'em but i think they're better on regular cage pedals than flatties.
float: thanks
It might be a bit wandery on climbs, but will be great fun on downs, been running various 130mm forks on a 2001ish stumpyjumper HT that I think was only desgined for 80mm since about 2004, and it's still fine.
Have you fitted bar end plugs? Hard to tell from the picture.
Yep, someone has DEFINITELY nicked your rear caliper.
And 'ridgeback' should have a capital R. 🙂
Looks like damn good fun, 😀
Always liked Ridgeback, part of British MTB history, innit?
looks like your weight will be a bit far back, might need an inline seatpost.
is that a rolled-up magazine you're using as a front mudguard?
be careful of looping out, looks like you're quite far over the back wheel