- Short travel "Long Travel/AM" frames?
Right bear with me…
As far as I remember when the On-One summer season came out it was designed to use 120mm forks but still be slack and capable pointing downhill.
Since then it seems to have morphed into a cheap 160mm frame because people didn’t understand and wanted to put bigger forks on? Presumably the angles changed to reflect this.
As I’m in the process of designing a Ti frame I’ve just thought of the idea of doing the short-forked long travel type frame and was wondering if my assumptions are true, namely:
If a frame running 120mm has the same geo as a frame running 140/150mm I can get a slack, stable frame built with lighter Reba style forks which are putting less stress on the frame?
Or have I completely misunderstood?Posted 8 years ago
yes, that’s the current version but I seem to remember the old one being designed to be the 6in version of the 456 but using lighter 4in forks with less drastic fork dive?
Brant went on for ages about how you didn’t need big forks etc etc but everyone ignored him and stuck 160s on regardless – was the frame redesigned to reflect this or is it the same geo as the first edition?Posted 8 years ago5labMember
150mm forks put just 5-10% more force through a frame than 120mm forks. I think the fork ratings are more due to the amount of abuse you’re likely to put through the rear of the frame, and angles, than leverage on the front
so if you’re doing xxx riding, the beefiness of the frame is the same regardless of the lenght of forks attachedPosted 8 years agomessiahMember
To my mind, you need to match the geo when the forks are at full compression. That would give you a comparable angle, and that’s when you need your geo to be “right”.
Disagree – when your forks are likely to be at full compression you’ll be hanging on for a white-knuckle-ride… set the geometry for how the bike will be when ridden… but make sure that when at full compression the head angle isn’t so steep as to feel like it’s going to tuck under and throw you over the top (this where slack head angles come in), and that the BB isn’t going to hit the ground! Where the saddle is at this time is unimportant as your ass won’t be on it 😆Posted 8 years agovinnyehSubscriber
I think Ivan’s pretty much got it right..
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”.Posted 8 years ago
I know what 456 means, what I don’t know was whether the SS is the same as it’s always been.
If it is then it’s “intended use” as stated by Brant has gone from being designed specifically for use with short forks but still have slack angles to using pretty much any size forks as per the other 456 variants.
If it isn’t, and the original was different, then the new frame isn’t as short fork friendly and it’s stated use has been changed – presumably due to how people were actually using/wanted to use the frame.
If only there was someone who’d actually helped design it who’d help clarify this…Posted 8 years agocruzerMember
seems like a sensible idea, bikes seem to be getting slacker now-a-days as the riding styles change.
i reckon a 120mm hardtail with a 67/68deg head angle on it would be perfect.
You might want to look at something like the charge blender for inspiration. Yes i know its designed as a 4x bike, but its such a good alrounder. im still gutted that i sold my ti one 🙁Posted 8 years ago_tom_Member
You might want to look at something like the charge blender for inspiration. Yes i know its designed as a 4x bike, but its such a good alrounder. im still gutted that i sold my ti one
What forks did you use it with and how did you find it for DH and “freeride”? I was considering replacing my Trailstar with one but was put off after hearing it’s not that stable for DH due to a high bb?Posted 8 years agocruzerMember
What forks did you use it with and how did you find it for DH and “freeride”? I was considering replacing my Trailstar with one but was put off after hearing it’s not that stable for DH due to a high bb?
I ran it with Fox F100s which i felt suited the frame perfectly, however you could quite easily get away with a 120mm fork on there just to relax the head angle a bit more.
ive taken it down cwm carn DH run, chicksands, UK bike park, and serval others and loved it. I never felt that the bottom bracket was that high thou, but when it corners like its on rails you cant really complain.
Definately dont think your be disappointed with one if you decide to buy a blender. it might be worth having a check on southerndownhill as theres quite a few topics on there about them, and never heard of anyone say a bad word against themPosted 8 years ago
The topic ‘Short travel "Long Travel/AM" frames?’ is closed to new replies.