[Closed] Slack head angle myth, geometry voodoo and the inevitable Cotic Soul

OK, so am I the only one who doesn't get the "long travel slack head angle" magic?

No. Running a hardtail with a 140mm fork pretty much ruins it as a bike that you can ride properly.

I have a Cotic BFe (it has the same geometry as a Soul) and I run it around 100 - 110mm. It rides really nicely. The ideal bike for shortish forks. Go for it.

Plus you have the option of being able to change the forks to 140mm and ruin your bike if you feel the need to 😉

Sounds like you hang off the back rather than load the fork; that'll make the front end wandery. I had a Soul and it felt perfect with 120mm forks, wound down to 100mm they would tuck way too quickly. I've got a Simple now with 440 rigid forks on and it feels okay (but only because there's no dive); ideally I'd like a longer rigid fork.

I dont think I've ever found the "tucking under" a problem with mine at 100mm. I think my forks are pretty hard though so that could be why?

I ride a soul.

It rides best at around 120mm, I rarely run it at 140mm as it fells dead on most but the steepest techfests (where I'd prefer my FS anyway) 😀 . Rides perfectly well at 100mm though.

what width bar do you use? a wider bar will pull your weight forward with a short stem, putting more weight back over the front wheel. i just ask because if you've been riding xc for a long time you may be very accustomed to narrow , <650mm, bars.

Recently started riding a Soul, currently with lightish 100mm forks and 75 stem. Not twitchy at all, in fact perfect for the very tight and twisty singletrack I largely ride at the moment.

hock - Member

I am asking out of interest and because I could get my hands on a Cotic Soul frame. People say it has it's sweet spot with 120mm (69.5° HA), is OK for cross country racing with 100mm (70° HA) and would be far too twitchy with 80mm (71° HA?!).

What's your experience with 100mm travel on a Cotic Soul?
Do you reckon it would still feel too "slack" for my type of tight'n'twisty singletrack riding?

Well, for racing the first obvious comment is that it's not all that light. I loved my Soul, but I wouldn't really consider it a sensible base for an XC race bike (I did race XC on it, but I'm slow and unfit so it didn't really matter)

At 100mm it was certainly agile but I almost never ran it so short, 120 was much more to my taste. It's not a slack angled bike but you obviously like steep bikes so it's [i]possible[/i] you won't like it for that reason.

you may as well describe your favourite food as curry, then ask the internets if you will enjoy a kebab.
any of the above combinations will work to one degree or another. I think you just needs to try them & see what you actually get on with.

You've not ridden a slack bike for one thing... 68.5 is not slack. Slack starts at 67... 65 would be slack!

Hi there,

today I finally came to grips with what I don't like about short-travel steep head angle hardtails.
BUT I still want to understand what the hype is all about. Maybe I missed the point. 🙄

First of all quick background: I am a northern, trail-riding type of rider but want it to be TERRIFYING rather than just a mere exercise. I love a 2h blast of rocky, steep techy stuff up on the moors. It's just great to pop the bike over bed-rock steps and finesse my way down steep, rocky, staircases. I don't mind a bit of flat, twisty singletrack, but I'm not an XC racer and I don't have a clue what a wood looks like. I want a bike to be stable and robust with real composure on steep stuff, be good on steep, technical climbs and capable of blasting down rubble fields without heading for the scenery. I'm used to slack head angles and steep seat angles with a long-ish top tube and a short stem. In theory I like the sharp-steering bit of racer-ish hardtails as I might be able to go round tighter corners if I find any.

THE STEEP HEAD ANGLE PART

Testing a 71?, 80mm front travel 120mm stem hardtail (and yes I know that all other variables of the geo are important too, too) I found it it - once again - fairly irritating that the front-end felt so ridiculously unstable on anything steep, over-reacting to steering input and feeling incredibly nervous. For my liking the front wheel was tucked too far in, not "in front of" me, not under control, hitting loose rocks knocked it sideways way too easily and on anything steep, the combination of twitchiness and short travel made the bike quite unstable feeling.

OK, so am I the only one who doesn't get the "short travel steep head angle" magic?
Or is the 66/73° convention just better suited for my type of riding?

I like the "long top tube/long stem" part of the UK hard tail concept as I expect it to deliver pints of semi-skimmed milk regularly and maybe the odd box of eggs.

THE COTIC SOUL PART

I am asking out of interest, but if I put a Boxer on a Cotic Soul would it still be too steep for my type of riding? What if I stuck a 29er carbon race fork on the back end, grew flowers from the head tube and called it Agatha? Has anyone done that? Would it feel ideal for my type of riding or would it make more sense to simply buy a frame designed to do what I want it to?

Ultimately I shall find out for myself, but it might save me a few trips to the florist if anyone else has already tried it. Why would anyone put a pug-ugly dog on a steel bike anyway?

Many thanks for any input!

Cecil

ps: Is there a fun and agile luggage trolley for my case?

Many thanks! Summary of the above steers me to give Soul with 100mm a go.
(one should have ridden a Soul at least once anyway and if it's just to be able to have a halfway qualified opinion on what seems to be a third of the forum topics)
Would still be interested in 80mm (or rigid) fork experience!

@seanock: a 440mm rigid fork resembles travel adjusted 80mm suspension fork, right? So if that rides OK (is that quite OK or actually just bearable?) but 100mm suspension fork was too twitchy you must have had a lot of dive?

@Del: I do ride 600mm on my trusty old Xc steed indeed 🙂 bike tested had 670mm though but I will take into account that wide bars can pull me a little forward for future set-up

@Northwind: 2kg Soul is absolutely OK light by my standards and while I don't mind racing once in a while that's not the priority for the set-up, same here: level of fitness doesn't justify fine-tuning the bike for race results 🙂

@crotchrocket: well, if I like curry chances are that I'm fine with kebab (both spicy/oriental) while bored with bangers and mash so I might actually get steered into the right direction 🙂

Cheers so far!

Hendrik

I've run my soul at 100mm and in some ways that's my preference. Currently riding at 120mm coz I'm too lazy (or scared to take the forks apart) to drop them (F120's).

It's certainly not what i would call twitchy at 100mm. I find even at 120mm that it's wandery on steep ups, so no may I'd run higher than that personally. This might be coz I'm 6' riding a medium with layback pin and 70mm stem.

Ive never run it below 100mm as I haven't had forks that small for over 10 years...

Hi there,

today I finally came to grips with what I don't like about short-travel steep head angle hardtails.
BUT I still want to understand what the hype is all about. Maybe I missed the point.

First of all quick background: I am a northern, trail-riding type of rider but want it to be TERRIFYING rather than just a mere exercise. I love a 2h blast of rocky, steep techy stuff up on the moors. It's just great to pop the bike over bed-rock steps and finesse my way down steep, rocky, staircases. I don't mind a bit of flat, twisty singletrack, but I'm not an XC racer and I don't have a clue what a wood looks like. I want a bike to be stable and robust with real composure on steep stuff, be good on steep, technical climbs and capable of blasting down rubble fields without heading for the scenery. I'm used to slack head angles and steep seat angles with a long-ish top tube and a short stem. In theory I like the sharp-steering bit of racer-ish hardtails as I might be able to go round tighter corners if I find any.

THE STEEP HEAD ANGLE PART

Testing a 71?, 80mm front travel 120mm stem hardtail (and yes I know that all other variables of the geo are important too, too) I found it it - once again - fairly irritating that the front-end felt so ridiculously unstable on anything steep, over-reacting to steering input and feeling incredibly nervous. For my liking the front wheel was tucked too far in, not "in front of" me, not under control, hitting loose rocks knocked it sideways way too easily and on anything steep, the combination of twitchiness and short travel made the bike quite unstable feeling.

OK, so am I the only one who doesn't get the "short travel steep head angle" magic?
Or is the 66/73° convention just better suited for my type of riding?

I like the "long top tube/long stem" part of the UK hard tail concept as I expect it to deliver pints of semi-skimmed milk regularly and maybe the odd box of eggs.

THE COTIC SOUL PART

I am asking out of interest, but if I put a Boxer on a Cotic Soul would it still be too steep for my type of riding? What if I stuck a 29er carbon race fork on the back end, grew flowers from the head tube and called it Agatha? Has anyone done that? Would it feel ideal for my type of riding or would it make more sense to simply buy a frame designed to do what I want it to?

Ultimately I shall find out for myself, but it might save me a few trips to the florist if anyone else has already tried it. Why would anyone put a pug-ugly dog on a steel bike anyway?

Many thanks for any input!

Cecil

ps: Is there a fun and agile luggage trolley for my case?

What an idiot

@BWD 🙂

What an idiot

Cheers for your insightful comment. It was just a long-winded way of saying that maybe expecting a slack hardtail to work well on tight, twisting singletrack was unrealistic.

I don't quite understand why people can't just accept that some people like and suit one type of bike, depending on their riding style, terrain etc and others like another. There's no magic bullet. No right answer. Just what's right for you.

But why use common sense when black and white thinking is so more helpful?

?No. Running a hardtail with a 140mm fork pretty much ruins it as a bike that you can ride properly.

Can you please expand on that comment?

been running 140mm on one c 456, really good on the wall and whites level, same set up for the gap and my usual 22mile round Pontstick res all fine and dandy. maybe i'm easy pleased 😀

What a[s]n idiot[/s] legend!

I run my Soul with On One rigid 26er carbon forks. As has been said above, one mans twitchy is another mans very responsive ride. I used to run it with 130mm revelations but much prefer the rigids.

Or is the 71/73° convention just better suited for my type of riding?

Yes. If I was you I'd be looking at something like an Enigma Ego ST (something like being similar geometry but less pricey!) I had a Boardman HT Pro (100mm forks) which although 70/73 static is more like 71/74 or 71.5/74.5 at ride height due to fork sag. Switching all the parts onto a Soul I noticed the extra stability of the marginally slacker geometry but I wouldn't say it was detrimental to the nimbleness.

Despite the right honourable Taylforth's views I've since delighted in sticking on 140mm forks (and other bigger/stiffer components) and I much prefer it like that but you have to ride it more aggressively or it does all the bad things you've noticed with slacker angles. I ride a straight post with the saddle forward on the rails so it goes uphill remarkably well and descends and corners with appropriate attitude.

That is something I've noticed in moving from my 69 degree 120mm XC hardtail to the 67 degree 160mm Lapierre Spicy is that you've got to get more other the front and really push the bike to get the most out of it. When you do and the speeds get high, it comes to life.

I think the best thing to do is ride a 100mm hardtail "aggressively" and "over the front end" - best of both worlds. At least you're not stuck in an extra 40mm worth of travel and riding aggressively.

I have a Spesh S-Works hardtail with 100mm fork and a Soul I run with 140mm Thors.

The thing is, you have to ride them very differently. With the Spesh, I ride it in almost a road bike position with my weight on the saddle and the pedals. It feels fast steering but stable within the limitations of the fork. The Soul needs to be ridden more in the "attack" or "ready" position with my weight much more on the hands. Then the bike works round the fork with the back end a bit more "skippy". You learn to just throw it around trusting the front, knowing the back will slip and slide but follow.

Both are a lot of fun and work really well. At first the differences feel noticeable and beed getting used to but now I just get on a ride them and adapt automatically the same as I do when I get on my FS bike.

So which is better? Well neither! I suspect the S-Works is faster for any given effort, but the Soul is a hooligan and what I ride most of the time - even in twisty woodland singletrack.

So maybe if you've been riding one type of bike for a long time it will take a while to adjust, but the thing with the Soul is you can run any fork from 100-140 so it can be whatever you want it to be!

The 440 rigid fork is okay only because it's a rigid fork and is ridden as a rigid fork; I can't really get away with smashing it into rooty berms and expect the same outcome as a compression/rebound damped suspension unit....as soon as a rigid fork takes a wallop the front wheel is off the ground so it's not tracking, gripping or steering.

I don't think my irks were particularly divey but I guess my riding position may be completely different to yours, I've always been happy to weight he front wheel and let the rear end do its thing.

I'm adament that 120 is th Soul sweet spot for me though.

I had an orange crush that has 140 mm hated it and quickly sold it. rode my mates soverign and loved it. some ride with longer forks better than others

I think the best thing to do is ride a 100mm hardtail "aggressively" and "over the front end" - best of both worlds. At least you're not stuck in an extra 40mm worth of travel and riding aggressively.

Or ride a 60mm hardtail similarly and not be 'stuck' in an extra 40mm worth of travel compared to the 100mm...

I've got about 50mm of travel in my tyres and 400mm of travel in my legs - is there anything more special about 100mm forks than it being a nice round number?

Cheers for your insightful comment. It was just a long-winded way of saying that maybe expecting a slack hardtail to work well on tight, twisting singletrack was unrealistic.

I don't quite understand why people can't just accept that some people like and suit one type of bike, depending on their riding style, terrain etc and others like another. There's no magic bullet. No right answer. Just what's right for you.

But why use common sense when black and white thinking is so more helpful?

Yeah you're right, I take it back.

There's definitely a knack to riding a long travel hardtail; I've found you have to 'ride the fork' more. That is, make the fork work harder for you. Also, I found running a bit more sag helps too, but not in all situations.. A lot of us don't regularly ride the stuff that warrants masses of travel, but it's nice to have when you need it. In contrast it can be a chore too. For example, it's more work to lift the front over trail obstacles such as tree trunks as you end up pulling the fork out of it's sag, leaving the wheel still on the deck.

There's nothing to 'get' about it. I actually think you're complicating matters and just thinking too much about It; It's different & may not be for you. Some Mags & web forums would have us believe that more and bigger is better, but as many will testify on here, that's not the case. It's simply a case of horses for courses.

Jamesy - Member
I had an orange crush that has 140 mm hated it and quickly sold it. rode my mates soverign and loved it. some ride with longer forks better than others

I'm amazed you found this; I've had both and thought the Orange to be way better at everything. Sure, the Sov' was beautifully built (except the woeful, allergic to steel paint job), but the Orange was an absolute blast to ride. I wish I'd never sold mine.

is there anything more special about 100mm forks than it being a nice round number?

cos it makes them so oldschool that it hurts.. that and they're possibly being paid to market the next niche..

I had a decent 3-4 hour run out on my 456 SS with 150mm forks on it a few days back. On One say the head angle is 65.5 with 120mm but i've no idea what it is at 150, but i guess it falls into the 'slack' category.

The trails themselves (all natural) included pretty tech, tight, twisty stuff, a few steep climbs along with all the usual ups, downs and natural features with a few jumps and berms threw in for good measure. It did feel a little odd at first on the slow twisty stuff, but it just took a little change in riding style to get it to work. Same story for the climbs where getting the balance right for front and rear grip took a bit of arse shuffling and elbow bending. No biggie really. Checked the little rubber doofer on the fork leg after 10 minutes and discovered i'd used all 150mm of travel too.

So in summary, don't get too bogged down with numbers and angles, just ride the bloomin thing. If it feels wrong, change how you ride it 'til it works.

cos it makes them so oldschool that it hurts.. that and they're possibly being paid to market the next niche..

Mebbe we're just so old school that we still think that 100mm IS a long travel fork 😀

My Soul has Revs set at 130mm - think it would be better (faster) at 120 but frankly can't be bothered to change it because its such good fun :-).

Didn't read most of this so here is my uninformed post:

I am a cross country type of rider but want it to be FUN rather than just a mere exercise. I love a 2h blast of tight and twisty singletracks in the local woods.

Short travel/steep head angled bikes are just skill compensators for those who can't steer.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned U-Turn yet! Plug one into a Soul and you can have all the cakes and eat them whenever you want to.

There are too many variables to justify that LTHT is not an option, but then again it doesn't matter if it isn't.

I loved my Dialled PA with 140mm Revs with a short stem. I was a lot more capable than my mate on a 130mm travel genesis with a medium-long stem, but that's experience not fork travel or stem length. When riding his bike it felt too steep and slow to steer (stem length) on the rough stuff, however it was a generally more comfortable position.

It sounds like your riding doesn't need the burliness of a LTHT, but then again a bike which adapts well to it may expand your horizons. I reckon a rigid would fair well on the terrain you've described, maybe a 0mm travel carbon feather with a long stem suits you more?

😀

Great example for what forums are good for:
- good advise if you can read around the babble
- good fun if you don't
- best if you enjoy both, the advise and the babble

And despite the curry/kebab example I do think that you can get valuable advise if you describe what you want and (at least as important) what you don't want because some people might think "Hey, this is what I like/don't like and this how/where I ride and this is what worked for me." Sometimes it would be easier if the others who clearly like different things and ride in different places back off for a moment, but hey!

What was actually quite helpful for me (and maybe obvious for others) was the remark that you have to ride a long travel hardtail (LTH?!) more aggressively. Because this is clearly what I don't want! I want to flow with the trail not push the front into the dirt in each bend. (And in that way I might need the steep angles as a skill compensator, nick1962! Just like you need the long travel. :P)

I also appreciate BWD's hint that the Soul might not be my cup of tea after all as it was and is designed as a longish travel hardtail. Maybe I am just too much in love with the idea of owning a Soul. So thanks for the long-winded reply to my long-winded question, BWD! 😉

And thus I will actually go with CCG's advise and look for a 71/73° steel frame optimized for 80mm suspension forks that allows me to have an even weight distribution and a short stem. Maybe a short wheelbase thrown in for good measure.
But are there any left apart from the mentioned Enigma?
Any recommendations? Similar in price and "appeal" to the Cotic?

Apart from that I will try to get some more understanding of how the Soul copes with 80-100mm forks and if that's light-footed enough for me. The statistics of this thread suggest so: 2 people said 80mm rigid works fine, 6 people wrote that 100 is fine, agile and not twitchy, only 1 said that 100mm tucks under.

One guy wrote that 65° is the new slack. 😯

Someone wrote that someone else is an idiot whereas others said he's not but a legend and in the end someone took the idiot back.

What a merry bunch! 🙂

Cheers!

Hendrik

hock - Member
And thus I will actually go with CCG's advise and look for a 71/73° steel frame optimized for 80mm suspension forks that allows me to have an even weight distribution and a short stem. Maybe a short wheelbase thrown in for good measure.

Mine runs great with 80mm forks and a short (50mm) stem.

Still pretty much my benchmark for a tough quick handling HT (now my off-road commuter - would probably still be riding it regularly everywhere if the back end wasn't a bit borked).

[img] [/img]

slainte 8) rob

or maybe try an On one Inbred, you can usually pick them up quite cheaply in the classifieds/e bay.

Hm, thought about the 26er Inbred, too but had the impression that its geometry is quite similar to the Cotic's.

On One 26 Inbred in M
- 70/73° Head Angle based on fully extended 80mm fork
- 589mm (effective, i.e. horizontal) top tube
- 105mm head tube
- 425mm chainstay

Cotic Soul in Medium (17.5)
- 70/73° Head Angle with 25mm sagged 100mm fork
- 590mm top tube (effective or "non-effective"?)
- 110mm head tube
- 420mm chainstay

So from a front triangle point of view the two should be very similar in terms of:
- agility
- suitability for 80mm respectively 100mm forks

On One states that it is suitable for max 120mm forks on their homepage, but that's probably rather down to CEN Health&Safety stuff than actual difference to the recommended 100mm to 140mm span of the Soul.

And if they are that similar (ARE THEY? ANY EXPERIENCE IN COMPARISON?) I'd rather have the Cotic.

Quite like the idea of converting the DMR Trailstar into a fun 80mm cross country bike but that's probably again trying to force one's own projections onto a frame rather than doing it justice. Or creating a new niche: 4XC.

Let's see!

And many thanks for all the input!

Hendrik

hock - Member
Or creating a new niche: 4XC.

slainte 🙂 rob

Trailstars are awesome do it all bikes but unless you have a short body/arms then the top tube isn't really long enough for "xc" without a long stem. Unless you manage to find an 18" version, but then it's probably not as fun for everything else.

_tom_ - Member
Trailstars are awesome do it all bikes but unless you have a short body/arms then the top tube isn't really long enough for "xc" without a long stem. Unless you manage to find an 18" version, but then it's probably not as fun for everything else.

slainte 😀 rob

Hendrik, I have a small Soul with Revs that go between 100 and 130mm. I'm in Surrey. If your height and location are nearby, you are welcome to take it out and try for yourself. Email in profile, I likely won't see a response here.

well if its any help, im running a Cotic Soul @ 120mm, and I love curry [b]&[/b] kebabs.

I've got some really good condition fox fl80 forks if you need.

Slimjim, if you love curry AND kebab I will most probably love a Soul with 120s, too! 🙂
Thanks mattjg! I will need a Medium frame and Surrey is a little far off for me.
Bob, I will test the Soul with 470mm rigids and/or an adjustable travel suspforks first.

Best regards
Hendrik

P.S.: The frame I can get comes in the rather "interesting" custard colour. I'm tempted to give it a "trifle themed" colour treatment with a few white and red bits (as icing/cream/cherry on the cake/pudding so to speak) but shall stick to my more stealthy black/grey componentry.

i love the idea of a 'trifled' soul.

to be fair, the recent maiden ride on my soul was the best ive ever had on a new bike. they certainly do feel eager and turn in fantastically, my cornering improved instantly.

I like Trifle, kebabs and Curry (chinese, indian and the asian subcontinent).

I'm not overkeen on supplements tho - esp. glutamine.
Anyone got a way of making Glutamine more acceptable to the tastebuds? Perhaps a long travel fork.
or spoon?

Don't think I will add anything to what's already been said, but hey it's Friday afternoon and I'm bored.

Just to confuse things, I ride (among others) an On-One 456 Ti with a Fox 32 Talas 150 fork. The static (unsagged) angles with the fork at 150 are head-66 Seat 67. These figures sound totally wrong but it works great. I set the fork a little soft. The important bit is to have your saddle forward enough to allow you to place enough weight on the fork. The original idea was to run it 130 for normal, 150 for downs and 110 for ups. Seems to work well that way.

Thanks, MarkiMark!

I have the Soul meanwhile, running it with 100/120/140 Talas.
While it's OK I miss really trusty point-into-the-bend-and-track front end grip.
It feels as if the front wheel is going wide sometimes.

I will try a longer stem (currently 70mm) and more sag.
(Never seems to engage in the 100mm position- is this a common problem?)
And then maybe a proper 100mm or a 80/100/120 fork or a rigid 440mm fork.

Hmm, having just come back from Rogate DH all this talk of short forks and the myth of slack head angles has made me smile.

Its horses for courses folks....while i 'could' ride most of Rogate with my 100mm forked Hardtail i wouldnt feel particularly safe doing it, instead i took a 140mm FS with a slacker head angle and had a ball.

It feels as if the front wheel is going wide sometimes.

Whilst i'm sure all your relatives know how to suck eggs, are you running enough rebound?

I wouldn't put a longer stem on, I'd just get your weight more forwards when cornering. I ride a Soul with a 140mm fork and less than typical sag and spend my time ragging it round very tight twisty woodland singletrack - get lazy and it ploughs on in an straight line, get on top of the bars and it charges round the bends.

Hi chiefgrooveguru,

thanks for your reply!

I'll give the "weight forward when cornering"-advise a little more tries and time but it's quite a shift in riding-style for me (not necessarily a bad thing).

I'm used to ride tight and twisty singletracks seated while pedalling to keep the speed up, only coasting in very tight apexes, as it's pretty flat round here. I can imagine that a "weight forward" approach works better when you can coast down most parts of a singletrack while standing.

The longer stem (e.g. 90mm instead of current 70mm) would help me to shift weight forward while still sitting and pedaling.

Anyway, I'll try both: weight forward and more sag=shorter fork before switching stems (or ultimately the frame).

Thanks again for your advise, makes me try new things! 😯 😮 😕 😉 🙂 😀

Hendrik

By the way: does anyone know what kind of travel and head angles 4x bikes have? Then again they are probably standing most of the time... 😐

my brooklyn has a 69* head angle with a 100mm fork. but the seat tube is to slack for all day rides.
i just like playing in the woods on it, real good on single track but i have to stand.

[IMG] [/IMG]

nice bike, pastcaring!!
---------------------------------
I've been out with low pressure in the Talas in an attempt to mimic a shorter fork (yeah, not ideal...).
Now I know at least what some people here meant with "it tucks in". 😕

Anyway: it still confirmed to me that I prefer the steering with a shorter fork - it gets rabid rapid!
And the tucking in was probably more to being silly short when pushed into turns with the lack of pressure. 😳

Let's see where I can take it from here.. slightly longer stem... ... different fork... ...just short and taut... or short and rigid..? Will see! 🙂

The best thing you can do is buy an adjustable travel fork and have a play around with what suits YOU best. Horses for courses, everyone is different.

thanks kudos!

Talas is adjustable but with 100/120/140 at the tall end for my liking.
Will look into 80/100/120 forks though.

- update and back to square one question -

History so far:
did run my Soul with a Talas that were stuck in 120mm or + position, didn't like it for my flat tight'n'twisty singletrack riding, couldn't achieve/enjoy the recommended "aggressive over the front" style; 100mm stem and a lot of sag helped but had obvious unwanted side-effects (bobbing, geometry change through long available travel, tucking-under when compressed in tight turns)

So I switched to 440mm rigid carbon forks (Kinesis?!) and love it! In combination with 70mm stem they provide the agile, nimble, nippy steering that I want from a bike - great!

But... well.. the Soul is too good to be limited to a fully rigid existence. I want to get a suspension fork for it to make it more versatile.

Question:
- which suspension travel and which forks would you recommend in my case?
- forum wisdom suggests that sagged 100mm travel suspension handling comes closest to 440mm rigid while 80mm suspension would be too short under compression and "tuck under" as a result
- I'm not afraid of steep headangles (it's flat around here, I don't do anything gnarly) and wouldn't mind to run my forks pretty stiff to avoid too much travel induced geometry changes while riding - so maybe 80mm would still work for me?!
- I thought about a 80/100/120 Rebas as a do it all solution which would be nimble in 80mm lock-out and 100mm suspended form while having a spare 20mm should I ever venture into "gnarlier" territory
- if Rebas, which should I get, I want them light, stiff, cheap and ideally travel adjust available on the run w/o tools - the different R/RL/RLT... versions available confuse me big time!
- or are there better forks for my case? SIDs, Magura, X-Fusion...
- on a slightly different note: are there 26" suspension fork around which have more/less trail than standard, maybe that's a different route to find suspension for my bike that doesn't ruin the nimbleness

I know, I know, it's all horses for courses and some will say 100mm is fine, while others say 120mm is sweet (not for me, thanks!), but maybe someone here did the step from 440mm rigid to 80mm or 100mm suspended and can share their experience.

Many thanks!

You want "U-turn" Rebas for on the fly adjustment. I don't know if there are any in the line-up at the moment, but I'm sure someone (or google) will confirm.

If it says 80/100/120 "all travel adjust", then it's referring to changing the travel by taking the fork apart and adding/removing spacers. Pretty straightforward, but not exactly a trail-side job!

P.S.: Or is there a fun and agile 80mm travel steel frame alternative for my case?

Thanks nedrapier! U-Turn for on the fly travel adjustment.

Can someone explain the difference between current RL and RLT Rebas?
The only difference I can spot from the SRAM hp is Motion Control RL vs Motion Control RLT (very helpful..).
Weight and rest seems to be the same. RLT is mentioned as only RS fork with u-turn but it doesn't say in the Reba RLT specs but on the u-turn technology page...

I like the Charge Duster a lot, but it has a terribly short top tube, doesn't it?

Anybody experience with X-Fusion Velvet forks?

RLT has a threshold adjuster for the compression knob, RL has an allen key adjust for same. I got the RLs - RLT and/or RCT3 struck me as a waste of time.

Have a look at the Sanderson Life, it is steel and, i think, has steeper geo than a lot of other frames.

http://sanderson-cycles.com/content/sanderson-life