Forum menu
Is this common with full sus bikes? I rode with a guy the other day who had 160mm on the back, and 120mm on the front (I think). Seemed a bit odd to me, I've heard of more on the front then back, but not the other way round. What's the point?
I've seen tuff with 160 up front and 170/180 out back, and 180 single crown forks on 200 DH bikes. What bike was it?
Santa Cruz V10. I'd say the vast majority run them with less travel on the front...
Was a marin something. Definitely wasn't a dh bike, more lightweight trail/heavyweight xc (in marketing speak).
haemorrhoid compensator?
I take it this is an odd setup then.
I had a scott that came with 125mm on the back and 90-120mm on the front, which i would usually wind in to about 100.
I suppose the angles are more important. Theoretically, if you bottom out 120mm on the front and 160mm on the back at the same time, but your head angle was just right when you were just sat on the bike, then your head angle becomes a little bit slacker at full squish both ends. Which doesn't sound like a bad thing.
I am sure the new breed of short back long front travel slopestyle bikes will also have slightly different angles to go with the movement of the fork and back end in compressions and big hits.
Definitely common with DH bikes, not seen it on a trail bike yet.
Yeah tends to be more common with bikes that you want to track well at speed down hill... but not so fussed about being fast pedalling up hill.
I run my Bullit (about 175mm out back) with a Lyrik on the front. At most that's 160mm... but I quite often dial it down to 145 for less steep, trail riding.
I have 100 on the front and 160 on the back. Thats what happens when you put the wrong shock and 29er forks on a perfectly good 5 1/2" frame...
Ok I have 120 on the back as the shock currently fitted is even wronger and the new one is in the post and probably wont fit
Dancake - that's some pretty crazy sounding frankenbike you got there... what is it ?
At a bike museum in Cornwall a couple of years ago there was an early mountain bike with rear suspension and a rigid fork. Might have been a British Eagle but I'm not certain.
Dancake - that's some pretty crazy sounding frankenbike you got there... what is it ?
Its A Commencal Meta.
Currently with a "Toughshock " at the back (10mm too short and rebound does what it wants)
Up front are Manitou Drakes - 100mm 29er. About 20mm higher than standard with the 29er wheel.
Doesnt ride as bad as it sounds. Waiting for a proper length shock for the rear. (A fox Van R which might not fit..) which will bring the back up a bit. I never got on with the RP2 so it is gone
Stem is too short too...
Just a bit of fun
i used to have shivers on my demo9 .
i got rigid forks on my bottle rocket!
only kidding 🙂
My Patriot's got 170 or 180mm on the back (I forget which), and I run 160mm Vans on the front. I moved the sliding shock-mount forward to slacken the head angle and lower the bb. The bike feels amazing, and very balanced. If I wanted to go more DH, I could stick a 180mm fork on it, but it climbs well and descends brilliantly as it is.
Blur XC and Scott Spark are 115mm, with the top Sparks and plenty of Blurs running 100mm forks.
Old news!
team sheep were doing this way back, 4" front (courtesy of some marz bombers) and 23" rear (kirk revolution frame chopped up pivoted and sprung) unfortunatley their website seems to have been hacked and is now some porn/malware haven so I won't link to it. They did sound rather mental fellas, are they around these parts?
Rigid front, sus rear? That'll be an early proflex then.
Sorry 23" rear travel? REALLY
now with Fox Van R and a more comfortable stem
[img] 
[/img]