For those of you on hardtails with long travel forks above 150mm travel how do you find them?
Some of the magazines seem to think that much more than 140mm travel on a hardtail leads to an unbalanced bike because the changes in geometry when the fork compresses can make the bike feel unstable.
Mind you, I’m pretty sure that back in the day they used to say that about old school hardtails with more than about 100mm of travel.
Obviously slacker head angles do alleviate the impact of fork compression.
I can see how they’d be great fun when you’re on it on steeper gnarlier stuff, but how do you find them for day to day riding?
What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Pros: Huge amounts of fun.
Cons: errrr...
I know what folks say about hardtails with long forks, and I'd say most folks haven't ridden hardtails with long forks on them. In reality does the geometry change? Yes probably, the physics seems sound. Does it make any difference? No, not in my experience.
Mind you, I’m pretty sure that back in the day they used to say that about old school hardtails with more than about 100mm of travel.
A chap in a car park in Watlington once told me with a straight face that I was stupid for running a HT with a 100mm Manitou back in the late nighties, he was very convinced that you've never be in a position where you ever need more than half that, and that 100mm was only for DH bikes.
I don't think it's as simple as there being a fixed amount of travel that is too much. How hard/soft do you run your fork, how slack is your head angle, how long is your wheelbase. They will all influence how a hardtail rides.
Only slight disadvantage is the backend feels a bit more stiff (or rigid?) probably. But that's only when I come from riding a nice comfy full sus for a bit. I guess if the forks were longer (they are 150mm) it would lift the BB up a bit, instability may ensue, but the Meta HT is designed for long travel. I like it as it is anyway.
[img] 
[/img]
I’ve got a 36mm fork that I’ve used over many thousands of km on three modern hard tails (SolarisMax, Switch9er and Rad bike co.). It’s adjustable between 140,160 and 170mm.
None of the frames have been designed around more than a 140 fork. So I guess it’s not surprising they’ve all worked really well with 140. I did try the Stanton with 160 for a while. It wasn’t hugely different, but I would say that on steep technical climbs it wandered a bit more. You can adjust your riding to reduce that, but the advantage downhill wasn’t sufficient for me to bother so I went back to 140.
“Some of the magazines seem to think that much more than 140mm travel on a hardtail leads to an unbalanced bike because the changes in geometry when the fork compresses can make the bike feel unstable.”
The weird thing is that none of these reviewers seem to have realised that a full-sus bike’s geometry changes even more whilst riding: Point a 160mm hardtail and a 160mm Horst-link full-sus down something steep and then brake and the full-sus’s fork squishes down as the back end rises whilst on the hardtail at least the back end stays put!
Yes, on bigger landings a big fork hardtail gets steeper for a brief moment on time but it’s a non-issue. The classic mistake though is setting the bike up with the bars too low so you get pulled forwards when you get deeper into the travel.
Also, the hardtail needs to be designed for that long axle to crown length - in terms of geometry, not just strength. Jacking the front end up raises the BB, shortens the reach and slackens the seat angle, none of which are usually good things. My Moxie is designed for 140-170mm forks and before getting it I figured out that 160mm would put the geometry exactly how I wanted it, and based on the last 18 months of riding it was the right choice.
This is my current hardtail.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53322655694_2c8835f85d_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53322655694_2c8835f85d_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2peWxNE ]Autumn Dust[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/stu-b/ ]StuartBrettle[/url], on Flickr
Marino custom geometry i had built for not a lot of money.
62 degree head angle with a 160 fork on there ATM.
Do everything on it from ride to the pub to most of the steep trails we have here in the TV.
Does everything I expect a bike to do just kicks the crap out of me more than my other bikes on really rough trails...
I've never once been unable to ride something on this that i can ride on full sus bike because of the change in geometry.
It just doesn't even come into it in the real world.
Only drawback is someone once told me not to put XC tyres on it if the fork was over 120 travel. 😉
I'm running a 110mm fork on my (80mm corrected) Kona - although that doesn't go off road, but used to and it was fine
Running 170mm forks on my 26" wheeled Shan and that's been fine - although that will no doubt get retired now I have the Big Al
150mm on the Big Al
160 on a bfemax. It’s designed for it and partly the reaso. I chose the frame. I tend to hammer it less than the full suss so it naturally uses less travel/ doesn’t get out of shape. But it’s there when you need it. It’s a brilliant thing
I’ve never once been unable to ride something on this that i can ride on full sus bike because of the change in geometry.<br />It just doesn’t even come into it in the real world.<br /><br />
Agree. The geometry definitely doesn’t affect that. Ability to not destroy a rear wheel is my limiting factor.
I have run my Meta HT with 170mm because thats what the Lyrics I had were, and while I was planning to reduce to 150mm or 160mm I never did. I got a 160mm Fox 36 which had a similar AtC to the RS anyway.
The bike was super fun. The only downside was on very steep climbs where the front end was a bit vague particularly on a 2.8+ tyre Vs shallower rear tyre.
That was resolved by lowering the bars by 15mm or so.
I've got a 150mm Pace HT and as has been said above, it's just a bike that can ride all the same trails my FS can. I like the fact that the shorter chain stays make getting the front end up easier and like the feedback you get from a rigid frame. Defo feel more beat up the day after but don't notice it at the time.
If you're not running a wildly unsuitable fork or a incredibly badly set up fork, it's not too bad.
I ran a long fork on an early "heavy duty" HT frame designed around a 100mm fork. It was awful, wandery, crap climber etc
Put the same long fork (and everything else!) on a newer version of the same frame, but designed around a longer fork (proper head angle etc) and the only time it gets weird was steep, gnadgery, stepped descents where the fork would try to tuck under sometimes when it was further through it's travel. Think it might only have been 140 actually.
Also, i put a 100mm fork on my 60mm XC HT, and it was bloody awful, wandered around in a straight line, climbed like sith, was wandery as hell on descents.
I think with the slacker head angles that are becoming more common on hardtails, it is less of an issue that it used to be. The geo still changes as you press into the travel, but not as much, and certainly not enough to throw you forward. Couple this with bikes being longer, and putting the rider more central, over forking is not such a big thing any more.
Didn't stop my shying away from putting 150mm on my cheap marley frame though.
I ran a NS eccentric cromo with a 150mm fork for a while. Just couldn't get used to the difference in head angle change so didn't really like it.
However, I do think that it depends largely on the fork, and the frame. 150mm for the NS was at the upper end of travel, plus the fork was a RS reba, solo air and MC damper, so known for being a little bit 'divey'.
Having since then ridden bikes with the charger dampers with way more mid travel support, I've little doubt that a suitably slack bike with a long fork would ride fine.
I think with the slacker head angles
I had a Shan with a 67deg head angle that had a 160mm fork on it, and s well a head angle the overall geo was pretty old school. I've also used a Chameleon mk8 as a XC bike in the Chilterns and that had a 140mm fork on it.
the geo does get worse just when you need it not to. This makes it harder to ride steep, rough stuff. Not impossible, but also not any easier than riding it on, say, a 120mm fork, so given there's little advantage I don't see any reason to long-fork a hardtail
Ra bikes have a different take on this with their .410 hardtail...
"The geometry is designed around a 160mm fork running 40% sag. Or a 140mm fork running 20% Sag
The reason for the 40% (64mm) sag on a 160mm fork is that it gives a much larger dynamic range to the small bump capabilities of the front end which really helps calm everything down and generate more front end grip as the wheel can stick to the ground much more effectively. This set up allows you to really drive from the front and let the super short back end follow. The faster you go the more noticeable this becomes."
I know nothing about the handling, the longest fork I've had on a HT is 130mm but I can say they look daft, like they've got the wrong fork on. I always think they look like Halfords or Asda built them with the wrong components
I think for riding in a certain way, pivoting around the back wheel and if you're able to pump/hop/jump well with flats, a long travel HT can be great and the added travel is then just a preference rather than good or bad. Damping and spring rate probably more important than +/-20mm of travel. Basically as long as the bike still feels ok in those Oh Sh-- moments bottomed out on a steep section it's ok. It just gets a bit trickier to balance the geometry well as both fork travel and the range of riding you want it to be good for increase.
I swear that a longer fork (more sag, softer for a given amount of travel) helps the back wheel lift over bumps too if you're riding light on a rough trail. The rear lifts and the frame rotates around the BB, compressing the fork a bit.
Agree. The geometry definitely doesn’t affect that. Ability to not destroy a rear wheel is my limiting factor.
I think this is what I feel - and I am only on 130mm/140mm forks!
I agree that FS can 'change' geometry a lot more in use than a HT - and the change in a HT is more easy to understand / deal with as it pivots around the rear axle.
But, it is the battering of a rear wheel that limits things. The only time I am slower on a HT is when it gets properly repeated bigger hits that I cannot float over as easily and cannot hop far enough!
the geo does get worse just when you need it not to. This makes it harder to ride steep, rough stuff.
I am not so sure with a well set up fork. I choose to run my (crappily damped) RS Yari with less focus on small bumps. But that gives far more support when I really do batter into things, or have a combination of steep down and brakes going on.
And, as said before, what is the difference of a FS when on the same ground? The same fork will dive the same amount, and arguably the rear end can come up more in it's travel, so making it worse on a FS.
Set up is key.
I used to run 160 forks on my 27.5 Kindom Vendetta. I didnt like the excessive change in geometry especially under braking or on steeps which I think was exacerbated by the fairly short wheelbase of the older frame. I converted to 29 Mullet and dropped the travel to 130 to keep the height the same. Much prefer it now. I haven't noticed the dip in travel. with no suspension on the back I could never ride fast enough on lumpy trails to use the 160 on the front - maybe others can..?
“the geo does get worse just when you need it not to. This makes it harder to ride steep, rough stuff. Not impossible, but also not any easier than riding it on, say, a 120mm fork, so given there’s little advantage I don’t see any reason to long-fork a hardtail”
This Canadian chap explains why more travel can be a good thing on a hardtail:
https://m.pinkbike.com/news/chromag-doctahawk-a-nerdy-geometry-explanation.html
I tried the short travel slack hardtail thing and it didn’t work as well for me as longer travel. Have done 100-160mm across four frames, three wheel sizes and with various angle-adjusting headsets too. It clearly depends on how you ride a bike but the “geometry getting worse at the worst moment” is mostly bad (over-simplistic) science.
160mm on my BFEMax as well. Built it with a 140mm Pike, then I had a 'spare' 160mm Lyrik available. Plan was to put a 150 or 140mm airshaft in, but i never bothered. Can't honestly tell that much difference, maybe turns in a bit slower, but that's probably just perception!
I do run a lot of sag tho. Maybe 35%. No downsides against the shorter fork. Agree back end does feel quite harsh with all that plushness up front even with a 2.6 tyre/rimpact/low-ish pressures.
This Canadian chap explains why more travel can be a good thing on a hardtail:
https://m.pinkbike.com/news/chromag-doctahawk-a-nerdy-geometry-explanation.html
/blockquote>person selling a bike tries to make it sound good shocker. Anyway, at no point does he state more travel is good, just that he's designed the geo to try and work around the limitations of a long forked hardtail.
the “geometry getting worse at the worst moment” is mostly bad (over-simplistic) science.
ok, educate us, when do you think a slack head angle is most useful on a bike? Going down steep rough stuff, or at some other time?
Bird Forge here with 150mm Domains.
Had a terrible time at first on rougher tracks with recommended fork sag/pressure, as the fork kept on smashing into the ramp up at the end of the stroke; also wasn't a fan of the fork getting caught on rocks/roots on steeper stuff, diving deep into its travel and lurching my weight over the front.
Now at around ~18% sag with a short Trutune and it's perfect. Handles big hits/chatter nicely and front end stays up nice and high in the midstroke on steeper bits. Anecdotally, it feels like the firmer fork marries better with the very firm back end.
Why in all the races are the HT classes slower than the rest ? (fairly a generalisation, but pretty much always/everyone the case) 1st is slower than the other classes, 5th place is slower than 5th in the others, etc.
Only two rides in on my Scout. I've a 160 Pike on it, I thought I'd have to fit a 150 shaft that I've got in my spares box but it pedals along nicely. The BB feels low enough as it is.
ok, educate us, when do you think a slack head angle is most useful on a bike? Going down steep rough stuff, or at some other time?
ALL bikes with suspension though will have the head angle change as you go through the travel.
It seems that many people suggest this is only a HT thing. When in fact it is FS thing as well...
“person selling a bike tries to make it sound good shocker. Anyway, at no point does he state more travel is good, just that he’s designed the geo to try and work around the limitations of a long forked hardtail.”
The history of that bike is that he likes riding gnarly stuff on a hardtail, which is how the bike came about. He’s a medical doctor, he doesn’t work for Chromag, they just made a new model inspired by what he wanted. Maybe he gets paid something for it but his arguments tally with my experiences.
This is what he says about having the big fork and long slackness:
“This bike is a monster truck on descents, and it's far more comfortable at speed and in rough terrain than my previous hardtails.”
“ok, educate us, when do you think a slack head angle is most useful on a bike? Going down steep rough stuff, or at some other time?”
A slack head angle is most useful when going fast over rough stuff. A long front centre is most useful when going down steep stuff. A big fork is most useful when going over rough stuff or trying to get maximum front-end grip.
A common mistake when looking at bike geometry and its behaviour as the bike goes through the travel is to assume that the bike is pivoting on the suspension like it’s on flat ground (be that angled or horizontal). When we hit a bump with our front wheel the front end of the bike goes up, not down, so measured against the direction of travel a hardtail gets slacker when it hits a bump which the fork partially absorbs.
I know some people prefer how a short fork feels on a hardtail. Inspired by BTR’s 120mm Ranger I modded a bike to be very like that. I tried that bike with a range of fork lengths and anglesets and found that for how I ride the longer travel worked better for me. My current hardtail is 10mm longer travel with bigger wheels and longer slacker (but not lower) geometry and it works even better for how I want to ride.
Why in all the races are the HT classes slower than the rest ? (fairly a generalisation, but pretty much always/everyone the case)
I don't think we are arguing that they are or aren't slower than an equivilent travel/geo full suss.
Just whether they have compromises/issues relating to having lots of travel at one end and none at the other.
As always, my suggestion is look on a ruler at the difference between 150mm "long travel beast" and 120mm "modern xc". The amount of travel is not the issue, the geo, setup and components are.
person selling a bike tries to make it sound good shocker.
You're probably judging others by your own standards of narrowmindedness.
A 160mm HT can work as well as a 120mm HT for the intended use, it's also about geo, set up, damping etc...
No need to over simplify and eliminate other variables just because you have a bee in your bonnet as you run the risk of ending up with a sophism.
I did a back-to-back BPW trip and swapped between my 150mm Enduro FS bike and my 140mm Cotic BFeMax HT (A-2-C almost the same across the forks mind).
The usual geometry argument didn't stack up for me. Did plenty of reds on the HT and it felt absolutely fantastic. The blues where actually more fun on the HT too. I was more beaten up at the end of each run though. Tempted to up the travel on the HT to 150 or 160, but I use it a lot for mondain flatter local loops and wonder if the even slacker HA might numb the ride on the flats and long climbs.
Pros: more fun at slow speeds, winter friendly & forces you to read the trail more and pick your lines so you enhance your riding skills
Cons: Noticeably more fatigue, can get caught out on big features & faster trails.
my suggestion is look on a ruler at the difference between 150mm “long travel beast” and 120mm “modern xc”. The amount of travel is not the issue, the geo, setup and components are.
Exactly.
A common mistake when looking at bike geometry and its behaviour as the bike goes through the travel is to assume that the bike is pivoting on the suspension like it’s on flat ground (be that angled or horizontal). When we hit a bump with our front wheel the front end of the bike goes up, not down, so measured against the direction of travel a hardtail gets slacker when it hits a bump which the fork partially absorbs.
True to a point, though if the fork is supporting weight that's heading fwd and down it's inevitable you'll get some compression that pitches you fwd a bit. When you're going down something steep and rough or steppy the fork can compress into the backside of a bump and potentially feels stally, or over a rolling drop where there can be that trapdoor feeling. But if you spec the bike for that kind of riding I expect you'd get bar height, fit and fork set up right to cope with it.
I think a lot of the 'trapdooor bike' perceptions some had (myself included) BITD were from riding 140-150mm forked trail HTs that weren't optimised for DH in geometry or set up. Whereas now I don't think as many of us would build a HT with a 150mm fork for general all-round riding (could be wrong - I see fewer about anyway), or if you did the geometry is better to start with.
My Hello Dave has a 150mm fork and is my general use mountain bike. I'd pick my lightweight 120mm full sus for all-day/multiday riding or maybe if I wanted to go fast between two points over rough terrain but for everything else, I take the Dave.
It's raison d'etre is steeper off-road but with a quicker rolling rear tyre (with a knobblier one up front) it's great.
If I could only have one mtb though I'd go for a lightweight hardtail with about 120 fork, something like the Yeti ARC.
Note that I have never been tipped over the bars on my Hello Dave, maybe it's 62 degree head angle has something to do with it.
I know nothing about the handling, the longest fork I’ve had on a HT is 130mm but I can say they look daft, like they’ve got the wrong fork on. I always think they look like Halfords or Asda built them with the wrong components
Conversely i think they look really aggressive and purposeful and that shorter travel / xc race style hard tails look massively outdated now.
A long travel hardtail is not the most efficient bike off-road but they're generally:
- Cheaper to buy than a full sus
- Cheaper to maintain than a full sus
- Lighter than a full sus
- More predictable to ride than a full sus
- Easier to clean than a full sus
- Better looking than a full sus 😉
- More engaging to ride than a full sus 😜
- Better at downhill than a rigid or short travel hardtail 😎
- Annoys chunky folk people on full sus e-bikes when you keep up with them on the descents 😬
- Destroy rear rims and tyres 😏
- Teaches you good riding habits especially when ridden with flat pedals. 🤟
- Makes their riders be amazing at using emojis 🦦
All bikes are compromises, just some are more compromised than others.
True to a point, though if the fork is supporting weight that’s heading fwd and down it’s inevitable you’ll get some compression that pitches you fwd a bit.
Not entirely true either though.
If you shift your weight onto the front wheel, then the front fork compresses - yes
If you shift your weight onto the front wheel, then the rear shock extends - yes, but only on a FS.
So a hardtail get's steeper going downhill, but not by as much as a FS. There's some interplay of the relative axle paths which probably means the fork compresses more than the shock extends, but that applies to both bikes.
I saw the title and knew @chiefgrooveguru would have a view 🙂
But I've just learnt something...
a full-sus bike’s geometry changes even more whilst riding: Point a 160mm hardtail and a 160mm Horst-link full-sus down something steep and then brake and the full-sus’s fork squishes down as the back end rises whilst on the hardtail at least the back end stays put!
I'd always just taken it in as a disadvantage of a hardtail vs full suss but this makes complete sense.
It’ll depend on how modern the geometry is and how good the forks are. 10-15 years forks tended to either blow through their travel or be too stiff to use all the 160mm and bikes were shorter and steeper. A fork with decent midstroke support will help. The only real downside is the front writing cheques the back can’t cash, but a lot of that will come down to technique.
I’m currently riding a Ragley Marley with 140mm travel. To be honest I’m still getting used to it and getting it dialled in.
It’s great for hooning around on and makes riding in the UK much more fun. I’ve ridden some reasonably gnarly enduro trails on it.
But so far I’m struggling to use all the travel at the front, so I was wondering whether 160mm travel plus added anything to the recipe?
It all depends on what you like doing, I had this S!ck Wülf set up with 27.5+ wheels, 2.8” tyres and 170mm Yaris and it was an absolute riot,
I very much liked pointing it downhill and smashing into stuff.
whereas I also had this Big Dog set up with 150mm lyriks and I didn’t enjoy it nearly as much because as much as I tried just to be a middle aged mountain biker with “an edge” I kept riding it like I was on a DH bike and didn’t get much out of it. It wasn’t even especially average with the 130mm forks that came on it.
So basically some are good and some are bad, but if you get the chance to ride a 62° head angle hardtail with a low Bb and long back end, and long forks give it a go because they’re epic
I don't like long travel forks on hardtails. Or more accurately, I don't like soft forks on hardtails.
I think I'm currently running somewhere between 10 and 15% sag on 140 forks and realistically get 110ish of travel.
Any softer or longer and the bike feels unbalanced and I get sent forwards when I push hard into fast steep berms or compressions. On a bouncy bike the whole bike compresses and stays balanced in these situations. On a hardtail the back isn't moving and the bike feels wrong with long saggy forks.
Bad technique, personal preference, riding style, dunno. I ride pretty much exclusively hardtails for everything from xc to dh and that's where I've ended up.
(edit - I find most bouncy bikes sluggish and unresponsive unless they're pointing down something steep, so it's probably just me.)
I find most bouncy bikes sluggish and unresponsive unless they’re pointing down something steep, so it’s probably just me.
I’ve got an awesome full sus, and a cheap(ish) hardtail. It’s the hardtail that I’m getting excited about riding in the UK.
I had 170mm on my last hardtail and didn't like it, just felt way too much and really unbalanced and divey. Could be a setup issue but even set up with more support I didn't love it. Kept meaning to reduce it to 150mm but never got round to it. It was also a kind of older geometry hardtail so wouldn't mind trying it on a newer one to see how that changes things.
Generally I like the more balanced feel of a FS but I can't help but keep going back to HTs for the simplicity and more direct feel.
I had a Cove Stiffee with forks from 100 to 130mm. It worked best with 110mm.
My current Sick Shrike- the one that was rebadged and the On One Hello Dave- is awesome with 160mm. I've tried it at 150mm, but there are even more pedal strikes and it just wasn't as fun.
I've done a lot of sliding round my local woods, the odd 50 mile ride in the peaks and the odd bike packing ride. Mostly on 2.6 tyres.
So for me, there are no downsides to 160mm forks on the right frame.
The cove was awful going up on 130mm forks and ace on the way down. I solved that with adjustable recon coils.
a full-sus bike’s geometry changes even more whilst riding: Point a 160mm hardtail and a 160mm Horst-link full-sus down something steep and then brake and the full-sus’s fork squishes down as the back end rises whilst on the hardtail at least the back end stays put!
only on a horst link or some other sus design with a floating rear brake caliper. On 4-bars, single pivots and the like the braking forces on the rear of the bike work to compress the rear shock, and in fact anything with a rear-ward axle path (even horst link) will also try to compress the shock due to forces pulling the rear wheel rear-ward.
even on a full sus bike with a horst link, I'm not sure what you stated is true, assuming you run the same amount of spring rate/damping in the fork. On a hardtail your weight can only pivot around the rear axle, as that's the fixed point. on a full sus bike, it pivots around some vitual point in the middle of the bike as both wheels move independently. However, for a given amount of braking force and a given amount of gravity, the cog of the rider supported by the suspension will be at the same height. So *if* a full sus bike raised its rear up, it should be that the fork compresses less (same amount of force, but levered over a smaller point as the pivot point is further forwards), thus giving you more fork travel remaining to deal with bumps.
“only on a horst link or some other sus design with a floating rear brake caliper. On 4-bars, single pivots and the like the braking forces on the rear of the bike work to compress the rear shock, and in fact anything with a rear-ward axle path (even horst link) will also try to compress the shock due to forces pulling the rear wheel rear-ward.”
The rising of the rear suspension is only counteracted by the anti-rise generated by the torque at the rear caliper - it’s highest with a high single-pivot and lowest with a traditional Horst link but whatever you do, the front brake is doing more of the braking work when it’s steep, particularly when it’s loose or slippery, so there isn’t enough torque at the caliper to pull the rear end down. And if your weight shifts onto the fork, either because you’re going down something steep or because you’re braking, or both, then the laws of suspension means that the rear suspension will try to extend. Hardtails don’t extend at the back!
I’ll have a think about your other point…
But more relevant is the fact that nowadays I swap between two MTBs - a Levo electric full-sus that does commuting (fun and boring ways), lapping steeper stuff and away trips, and my Moxie singlespeed that does most of my local riding. This is the first time I’ve ever been able to hop between a full-sus and a hardtail and be totally comfortable and I think a lot of that is down to me making them as similar as possible. The sagged geometry is near identical bar the Levo swapping ~20mm less reach for ~20mm more chainstay and they’re both running a 160mm Lyrik RC2.
Logically I think this bike is absolutely stupid but in reality I think it’s bloody marvellous!
I'm back on a 150mm one (Titus Loco Moto, ie titanium Big Dog) after a spell on a solarismax and tbh if I could wave the magic wand, I'd make it 130 or 140, I think it'd just simply be better for me. I didn't think the extra travel was bringing any benefits for me, mostly because a good 140mm coil fork is so damn effective anyway. But equally it's not causing any big problems.
Solution I reached was to tune the fork so that it's just not using the full travel- I have the full range of performance I want in the top 130mmm or thereabouts, and it doesn't bottom out (perhaps it will at some point). Not an option with all forks of course and it took some effort but it's definitely the best the bike's ridden, it's gained a little predictabity and composure at speed and on hard braking (most noticable when I screw up!) and I don't really feel like it's lost anything of worth.
Not really sure if there's any useful takeaways from this! Obviously it'd be better to get to the end result I'm at just with less fork, it's stress the frame less and it'd be achievable with a less tunable fork. I mean, even if I had my lovely modded 36s from the other bike in it I would not be as happy, since they're great but I couldn't do this sort of setup hack with them. I guess it boils down to "this bike is more demanding of forks than it has to be". Or maybe even "it only works as well as it does for me because of pure luck in my fork choice"
It is bloody brilliant though. Even if I was making do with a Pike or something, I'd be way less happy with it but it'd still be really good.
Still tinkering with the Lyriks on the Big Al, but have set them up slightly firmer than I normally do. Will be adding a token or two as well to ramp them up at the end of the stroke.
So I was out on my hardtail earlier today (not early enough because I was in the dark most of the ride) and I got thinking about how a hardtail works (and my 160mm Moxie singlespeed was working really well!)
We’re only touching the bike at four points when we’re riding downhill, the two grips (ok, and brake levers) and the two pedals. The grips are roughly the reach ahead of the BB, so in the case of my Moxie that’s about 470mm (the stem pushes them away but the spacers and bar shape brings them back). So if we look at how the rider’s hands and feet feel the forces, we could say we’ve got:
160mm of suspension at the front axle
118mm of suspension at the grips (305mm back from the front axle with a 1230mm wheelbase)
57mm of suspension at the BB - ie pedals (435 forward from the rear axle)
0mm of suspension at the rear axle
(Basing that on the rear axle being our pivot point - although it’s more accurately the rear contact patch).
So that’s from the rider’s perspective. From the wheels’s perspective we could think of the bike being a seesaw around the BB as that’s where most of our weight is applied, so the front wheel has 160mm of suspension whilst the rear wheel has 57mm of suspension (rear wheel goes up, bike rotates forwards around BB squashing fork down).
I know this is all quite imprecise but I think it gets closer to the truth of how a hardtail behaves (and feels!) than thinking a big fork hardtail has lots of suspension at the front and none at the back. It’s important to note that wherever the effective travel has been shortened, the suspension stiffness for that travel has been proportionally increased.
I've got a bandshee paradox in XL with 150mm on 29 wheels. I think for this size frame it's great and feels good but I wonder what that set up would be like on a smaller frame. It climbs well despite wondering if it might be a bit wandery when I first got it.
Assuming the frame is more or less designed for the length then IMO the only real disadvantage is possibly not having the ability to lock out the fork when hucking up a climb
From the wheels’s perspective we could think of the bike being a seesaw around the BB as that’s where most of our weight is applied, so the front wheel has 160mm of suspension whilst the rear wheel has 57mm of suspension (rear wheel goes up, bike rotates forwards around BB squashing fork down).
Agreed, as in my earlier post I do think this happens and to a more noticeable extent if you have a longer fork and a more neutral rider position. The 'looser' the bike is underneath you when riding through the rough the more it happens.
Logically I think this bike is absolutely stupid but in reality I think it’s bloody marvellous!
Looks like a lot of fun.. SS is great when you enjoy the flow of using the bike to generate or keep speed and aren't as focussed on absolute speed. I know clutch mechs have solved a lot of the old chainslap issues now but for a long time I also really appreciated the totally quiet drivetrain compared to the alternatives.