Forum menu
Just pondering the above question.
I have a 26" bike with 160mm front and 140mm rear.
It's at the extreme end of what the frame is designed for, but would a slacker HA result in more stable geo?
my previous frame had 140mm at the rear and 170mm up front...it was a hoot to ride. very stable on the descents and climbed pretty well...only problem was on really steep stuff because the fork wasnt travel adjustable
160mm up front should be fine
Do you mean that if you have two bikes and one is equal travel front and rear, whilst the other is longer travel at the front than the rear, then the latter should have a slacker head angle?
If so, I'd say maybe! 😉
What really matters is the sagged geometry - now if both bikes feel best (under a given rider) with equal sag front and rear then the one with the longer fork or shorter travel rear will end up a bit steeper sagged than the matched travel bike.
However, most riders prefer less fork sag than shock sag - I'm at about 20% fork, 25% shock, so my 160F/140R bike maintains its static angles when sagged. The Spitfire is a bike that rides will with relatively low shock sag - some bikes needs more like 35% shock sag, so if the fork is still at 20% sag the bike will end up about a degree slacker once sagged.
Of course the sagged geometry is an oversimplification too - the geometry changes constantly when riding, especially with poorly matched damping or spring rates or less than brilliant riding ability (like leaning on the bars when braking on steeps etc)
Thanks chief,
That was what I meant. Just pondering that and if it would be sensible to take another degree or so off the head angle