Currently have a 130mm Revelation on my Summer Season but I'm thinking of switching to a 100mm fork.
Anyone else done this & how does it ride now? Worth a punt or missing the point?
Isn't the Summer Season designed to have a 100m fork anyway? I thought it was supposed to have a shortish fork but still be slack.
I could be wrong of course.
I only ever use 100mm or less forks on hardtails, for me longer would be missing the point.
Why not just wind in the revs (maybe raise the stem a touch) and see what you think?
the summer season is designed for long travel forks. Worst case it'll be really twitchy, best case it'll be really nimble 🙂
its fine, i ran 105mm bombers on mine for a while.
felt good 🙂
have actually modded them out to 120, but havent tried that yet as i lost the rear wheel :'(
The summer season is designed for 100 to 130 mm forks. To get nice slackness without divey forks on slow tech stuff. Somewhere along the line it has been marketed as being for big forks.
I bought a SS rather than normal 456 as I had 100mm forks and wanted a slacker bike. It works well with them. When I got the forks serviced I put them to 115mm which made a surprisingly noticeable difference, but is better on the downs.
even with 100mm forks I would never describe it as twitchy, not even nimble. It's not the choice for blasting forest singletrack but for peak district etc I really like it.
Oh - in reply to the op - just space the revs to 100 in case you don't like it.
Underhill - Member
Worth a punt or missing the point?
it's exactly [i]the[/i] point.
slackness, with cheap, short forks.
do it, it's meant to be.
FWIW, i had 150mm bombers on mine for a bit too.
it was GOD AWFUL on the ups, but hilarious good fun on proper steep stuff
stuff i took cautiously on my trance, i didnt tend to brake for on the 456, more fun just to smash through it 😉
looking forward to getting it back in one piece with 120s on.
As above, the original idea behind the frame (this was in the original sales spiel) was to give people with short forks, a slacker head angle. The 456 didn't mean that it was meant for 4",5" and 6" forks tho, like the original 456, It just uses 456 geometry I believe (except the HA, of course).
Good job then, must get it switched over this weekend. Have a set of 4" Recons to put on, hopefully get the overall weight down too.
Cheers
My riding buddy ran rigid forks for a while on his, he liked it.
As previously said, its designed for short forks.
I had 100mm Reba's on mine and hated it, felt way to steep, swapped for 140mm Vanilla's which made a massive difference, great fun going down, no probs climbing either.
Run 105mm MX Comps on mine. Built up with cheap bits and stuff I had lying around and its massive fun. Does have its limitations though with 105mm forks on things like REALLY steep roll ins where an extra inch of travel might have been nice to raise the front end a little. As per a mention above, going to pull mine apart and remove the spacer to get 120mm out of them. That could be perfect. Not as 'whippey' as my old Soul. More a basic, uncompliant, cheap, bombproof thrasher. Ride it exactly the same way as I ride my full sus - point and shoot. You just need to hold on a bit tighter!
My only issue with short-travel forks is the lack of tyre clearance. My 2.4 advantages need bags of it when it's a bit muddy and most ST forks lack the space. Fox 36 Talas is ideal in my experience.
BTW I've not used RS forks for several years so the above might not apply. Marzocchi, Manitou, Pace and rigids.
2.35" Maxxis in a set of 8 year old MX Comps = fine.
But as you probably know the advantages are massive, much larger than HR's.
If OP wants RS than I won't comment - haven't used any since Judy SL.
DaveyBoyWonder - Member
2.35" Maxxis in a set of 8 year old MX Comps = fine.
But then 2.35 Maxxi aren't 2.35s.
mx comps are also quite tall (ie axel-to-crown) for the travel aren't they?
[edit] ...just popped out to check as i have a mate's mx pro in the back: 505mm for 120mm travel, so only 5mm longer for the travel than rockshox reba or rev. So not that long, really.
100mm on mine, was rubbish at 140mm.
130mm Magura Laurin on mine. I had a Pike on it previously but it was a bit too slack for climbing and heavy. I think 130mm is spot on but it's worth spending time sorting out your seat and bar position. You need to 'work the fork' on a long travel hardtail. So seat forward on the rails to get your knees positioned over the pedal spindles and bars no higher than the saddle. I'm 5'11" and ride an 18" frame with a 70mm Nukeproof stem and Warhead 760mm riserbars. Brilliant fun for a thrash around the woods.
But then 2.35 Maxxi aren't 2.35s.
Sorry but that interested me so as I was in the cellar last night, got the tape out and had a measure. 2.35" Maxxis Bling Bling comes in at slap bang 2.35". 2.35" Minion exactly the same... both on Mavic XM321s.
How are you measuring those then? Round the circumference of the tread instead of the width? That's the only way a Minion gets anywhere close to its claimed size (2.7 ironically measures 2.5 and 2.5 measures 2.35).
Width. As thats what the '2.35"' is measured as.
I'm running 100mm Marzocchi Shivers. It works very well.
The frame has quite a short top tube compared to what I'm used to but it works better than I thought it would.
Great bike, well happy with mine.
you lot are funny!
Somewhere along the line it has been marketed as being for big forks.
some wierd place like the manufacturer's website. They wouldn't know would they?
that's from on-one's website456 Summer Season = Super Slack Steel Steed.Slacker head angle for pointing [b]Long Travel[/b] Forks downhill.
Started with 120 marz bombers, bike was excellent. Swapped for 140 fox RL even better on all but really steep ups. Climbs really well in general but you do need to weight the front wheel on the really steep climbs.
As good as the heckler on the downs.
Bassspine, I suppose you are correct, if they say that on the website then people can experiment with it for their intented use. I've no idea if any geometry tweeks have been made to the frame since Brants departure, but what has been said above is correct IMO, regarding it's original design and concept. I recall from the on one website, Brant wrote a bit of a story behind why/how it came about. It was originally a slight redesign of the 456 frame, for those running shorter forks, but who desired the slacker HA.
I recall Brant wrote a bit of a story behind why it came about and it was originally designed with shorter forks in mind.
^^^this^^^
It was originally intended to achive a slack head angle without the need for 160mm+ forks (which is what people were doing with their 456s). Brant took the standard 456 geometry and changed the head angle, so you only need a short fork.
Somewhere along the line, people got the idea that "slack angles = long forks required", but that's not the summer season concept.
If you look through these forums long enough, you'll find Brant has said this himself.
Edit - i just found this:
brant - Member
The Summer Season was initially conceived on the little drop/step off the edge of the millpond wall, towards the bottom of mmmbop in Ragley Woods, when Benji was trying to sort of hop a Cotic with 160mm forks around a techy corner and the fork was just soaking up all his techy moves. It sort of looked like a trials motorcyclist, sort of pumping the fork to move the wheel.Me, Ed, Timk and Benji then went to Mooch afterwards, and over a grilled halloumi sandwich, I decided to make some frames that were 2degs slacker than normal, so you could get the same slackness as a normal 456 frame, but with a lower, shorter fork.
The summer season wasn't really "designed", it was kind of just a modified 456. "Make that, but with 2degs off the head angle". There also exists two frames, one 16in, and one 18in, which were ANOTHER 2degs slacker still, but I've never ridden either. Timk has one I think.
At that time I was riding a rigid, geared on-one 29er.
When the frames landed, I fitted mine with 130mm Revelations, and left them on full travel, cos it seemed rude not to. Then I got into sticky dual ply tyres, and stuff.
It was this experiment with slack head angles that led to me doing more slack head angle stuff with Ragley.
I have no idea whether on-one have changed any of the geometry since I left, which is now 2yrs ago
The on-one website has changed - I agree with matthew h and the others, and remember the On one website used to say it was designed for people wanting slacker head angles but without the higher bars and diving/wallowy travel of lng travel forks. This was when the raw version first came out.
Its just a slacker version of a 456, so 4,5 and 6 inch forks should all be possible, and it will just be slacker than a regular 456. Long travel forks are just fashionable and probably suit the heavy/basic construction of the frame.
I have a 100mm fork on my regular 456 and it is fine. I had a 120mm fork on a summer season and that was fine too, if a bit wandery on the climbs and like a barge on twisty stuff.
Snap? 😉
Yes Duffer, that's as I remember it. If the frame has had a complete redesign, fair enough. But the new on one 'team' remarketing it as something else beyond it's original concept, but not completely redesigning it, well good luck, try it out.
Obviously, what it was originally designed around and what you can do with it, are different.
Bassspine, sorry but you're wrong, and so are On-One if you and them both think that the Summer Season was [b][i]designed[/i][/b] for long travel forks. On-One as is now, didn't design the frame, for a start.
As someone says above, it's somewhere along the line that On-One have obviously decided to market it as a frame specifically for long forks. Missing the point a bit. Possibly intentionally, I don't know.
don't feel that you have to apologise, Ash. I've clearly come into the history of the 456 summer season too late.
my 456 works really nicely with fox 36 forks on it, but I've never had a chance to play with a summer season.
(remember when 100mm forks were regarded as long travel?)
(remember when 100mm forks were regarded as long travel?)
A fair point, possibly the same justification On-One might now quote. I'm not convinced it's going to give you a good bike to ride tho, but I suppose that depends on what you intend to do with it.
Slight derail...
DaveyBoyWonder - Member"Width. As thats what the '2.35"' is measured as."
I'd say check your measurements tbh, it's very nerdy but I stuck the calipers on mine (on a 729 rim so not pinched) and they're not even close to 2.35. And smaller than a 2.25 Ardent.
Maxxis rubber usually comes up quite small anyway.