Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 51
  1. #1
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38

    Can i use 170mm fork on Trek Bruiser 1 ?

    or Specialized Hardrock .... both ~ 2007 model

  2. #2
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    Definitely not on the Hardrock.
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

  3. #3
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    how can you tell ? and how safe is it on the Bruiser ? what can go wrong with the wrong fork ?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    866
    No.

    OE Fork travel for the Spec. is 100mm
    OE Fork travel for the Trek is 120mm

    A 170mm travel fork would put too much leverage on the headtube on both of those frames. The frame would fail at the headtube/downtube area.

  5. #5
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    You'll be able to tell when the head tube snaps off and you eat your wheel.

    The extra leverage, as mentioned, is bad news bears.
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

  6. #6
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,410
    And it would handle like crap anyways.

  7. #7
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    .... should i put the 170mm on the Bruiser 1 ?

  8. #8
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    can i put a 140mm fork on the Bruiser ?

  9. #9
    newless cluebie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    537
    120mm to 140mm won't be as much of a stretch, but what's your intention anyways as far as the bike is concerned? Putting a long travel fork on a DJ hardtail seems counter productive.

  10. #10
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    I went from an 80 mm to a 140 mm on a trek and have beat the crap out of it with no problems. Just my .02

  11. #11
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by vaelin
    120mm to 140mm won't be as much of a stretch, but what's your intention anyways as far as the bike is concerned? Putting a long travel fork on a DJ hardtail seems counter productive.
    the stock fork bottoms out on small jumps, i am a big guy (98kg) ... i like to hop/jump my bike on the trails i ride

  12. #12
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    you may want to think of getting a coil sprung shock. They can take bigger hits.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ktse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by kaos42
    the stock fork bottoms out on small jumps, i am a big guy (98kg) ... i like to hop/jump my bike on the trails i ride
    That means you need a stiffer spring, not a longer travel fork.

  14. #14
    24v
    24v is offline
    Scratch That Itch
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    375
    Is this your bike?
    http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/B...er+1&Type=bike

    If so, I would not buy a new fork, and I definitely would not add a longer travel fork to it.
    A decent new fork will run you in the $250-500 range. If you look around (craigslist, ebay. etc), you could probably find a used hardtail with a decent fork already on it for that money.

  15. #15
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by 24v
    Is this your bike?
    http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/B...er+1&Type=bike

    If so, I would not buy a new fork, and I definitely would not add a longer travel fork to it.
    A decent new fork will run you in the $250-500 range. If you look around (craigslist, ebay. etc), you could probably find a used hardtail with a decent fork already on it for that money.
    Yeah, that is the bike ... i bought two forks (i have two bikes) a 100-140mm RockShok Dual Air 409 and a 170mm Manitou Spice ( i think ) waiting for them, i got them at bargain prices 40-160$ each. Though it would be a nice upgrade for the stock forks.

  16. #16
    24v
    24v is offline
    Scratch That Itch
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    375
    The dual air is ok, I would not put a 170mm fork on that bike though.]

  17. #17
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    I guess I would max at 150mm for your bike.

  18. #18
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by 24v
    The dual air is ok, I would not put a 170mm fork on that bike though.]
    What is a good dollar/value full suspension frame that can house this fork ?

    Where can i get springs for my weight ( 98kg ) for 170mm Manitou Spice ?

  19. #19
    24v
    24v is offline
    Scratch That Itch
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    375
    I think the fork is a Splice, not a Spice?
    Not sure where to get the springs. As for a full suspension frame, just look for a frame that has at least 150 or 160mm of rear travel. Which one is going to depend on what you can find near you.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ExCactus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    570
    The best bang for the buck frames that will be built for a 170mm travel fork would probably be kona stinkys and a few other kona frames, but those are going to be getting into a more freeride category... They can be had for a few hundred dollars though, just make sure you know what you're getting and avoid former-rental frames.

  21. #21
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoMtb20
    I guess I would max at 150mm for your bike.
    Still wayyyy too much travel. The bike was NOT designed around it, both geometry-wise and structurally.
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

  22. #22
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    Again I put a 140 mm on a bike that came with an 80 mm and have had zero issues. Just talking from my experience.

  23. #23
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    I'm speaking from the Hardrock end of things. I've never ridden a Trek Bruiser, so I'm not that familiar with it. I do have a 2005 Hardrock, which I have built up in various configurations from 27 to 32lbs. The 05 is a pretty burly frame, especially compared to the newer ones. The most I've put on that frame is 120mm. I wouldn't go more than 130mm. If I put a 150mm fork on that frame, I'm sure I would have broken it by now, and it probably would have ridden like crap. The head angle would be 67.5 and the seat angle 70.5. That might sound good, but the wheelbase would also be an inch longer and the top tube would grow as well. I figured it out using this calculator: http://bikegeo.muha.cc/

    Plus, when you go from 470mm a2c (typical 100mm fork) to 520 a2c (150mm Fox float), you're talking about a 10% increase in a2c height which translates to much more leverage on the head tube than stock. A 170mm fork is super long, most likely around 555mm axle to crown. Over 3" taller than 100-120mm fork.

    Some might be able to get away with running longer forks, but it's not a good idea in general, especially for someone who hits jumps and drops. At one point I ran a 130mm fork on my 05 Stumpjumper and I was paranoid every time my wheels left the ground. As mentioned before, the key isn't always travel, it's setting up your suspension right (spring rates, rebound, etc.). If you're bottoming too much, then you may need a stiffer spring or more air pressure. If the geo isn't right and you're still bottoming, then it may be time to start shopping for a new bike.

    My $.02
    Last edited by Berkley; 03-03-2010 at 10:17 PM.
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

  24. #24
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    could i than take the stock shocks and upgrade them with better springs / internals ?

    where do i get upgraded springs for the sotck Specialized HardRock and Trek Bruiser socks ?

    i do not even know what they are ... i took off all the stickers i could when i get my bikes.

  25. #25
    GAME ON!
    Reputation: saturnine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,968
    a splice is not 170mm, it is 130mm and it is garbage.

  26. #26
    Ride the dream
    Reputation: EnglishT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,381
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoMtb20
    Again I put a 140 mm on a bike that came with an 80 mm and have had zero issues. Just talking from my experience.
    Which makes you uninformed at best. If you already knew that it would be unsuitable for that frame it makes you a reckless idiot.

    To suggest that others make similar stupid decisions is beyond stupid.

  27. #27
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    just to clarify things, here is what i got:

    - 2006 Rock Shox Revelation 409 Dual Air MTB Fork ( 163$ )
    - Manitou Stance Single Crown 170mm Fork 1.5" Steerer ( 120$ )

  28. #28
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    Seriously, how many bikes have busted because a person put on a longer fork? Increasing 1.5 degrees of head angle won't do crap on the torque around the head tube. Force goes more into the fork not across it so even then length isn't an issue. We are taking about metal and reinforced welded joints here guys not glued together balsa wood. The main things affected are just steering and weight distribution. And to come on here just to call someone an idiot and then leave with out any further support for your claims makes you look like an a-hole. I may be wrong but chill out.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoMtb20
    Increasing 1.5 degrees of head angle won't do crap on the torque around the head tube
    Then why do frame mfgs limit liability by stating the acceptable range for A2C/travel/crown style?
    Just because they want you to buy another bike?
    Or is it because they want you to like riding, trusting their work and buying their stuff INSTEAD of paying medical bills?


    The bike will ride worth **** with a 170 with no real benefit. It won't last forever, and most likely will have a much shorter life than if outfitted with something within reason.

  30. #30
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    Because there is a potential increase in risk. Exactly what you mentioned, it's just liability. Look all I am saying is that people are flipping out too much over a small head angle increase just because its a tad outside manufacture specs. Its a bike not a rocket, tolerances can be extended a little. Just because it is a little outside doesn't mean the frame is going to break the instant you try to take it down a hill. Some bikes can accept longer forks just because of design. For example if the head tube is longer, the mount points for the top tube and bottom tube are further apart which increases twisting resilience around that pivot point.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoMtb20
    Because there is a potential increase risk.
    Thanks for the schoolin, bud.

    OP: how is your luck? Want to find out?

  32. #32
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    Never mind, apparently you didn't read the rest of what was written. Forget it. I am done with this.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoMtb20
    Never mind, apparently you didn't read the rest of what was written. Forget it. I am done with this.
    Oh, I read it and understood what you are saying.

    You made your best point in the first sentence though, so that is what I quoted.

    Long story short, it has been made clear that it increases the risk of frame breakage. It is up to the OP to evaluate the costs and benefits thereof.

    Go ride!

  34. #34
    Ride the dream
    Reputation: EnglishT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,381
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoMtb20
    Seriously, how many bikes have busted because a person put on a longer fork? Increasing 1.5 degrees of head angle won't do crap on the torque around the head tube. Force goes more into the fork not across it so even then length isn't an issue. We are taking about metal and reinforced welded joints here guys not glued together balsa wood. The main things affected are just steering and weight distribution. And to come on here just to call someone an idiot and then leave with out any further support for your claims makes you look like an a-hole. I may be wrong but chill out.

    Ok, lets put it this way.

    "Ive been racing my ferrari for years with no seatbelt on and I'm OK, so you should be fine to drive F1 with no helmet or harness"
    This a pretty accurate analogy for your advice in this thread - you've effectively said "I've done something foolish, so yes its perfectly safe for you to go and do something more extreme in a similar vein" - sorry, it just doesnt work that way.

    It might work (for a while) but its going to fail much sooner than it would otherwise (possibly very very soon indeed), have you ever had a serious crash due to a part failing?
    Picking a relatively common extreme-failure (ie: one which causes a total loss of control and almost certain crash), for example... have you ever snapped a set of handlebars? A crash where the headtube shears off completely is a situation in which you have no control, and the chances of severe injury are high.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    866
    ColoMtb20 - Think of leverage like trying to remove a stubborn bolt - a very short wrench will not move it, but a longer one, or a long breaker-bar will.

    It's the same with a fork. Think of the concept of grabbing the axle of the fork and trying to rip the headtube off - the longer the fork(lever) the easier this would be able to do.

    Now every frame is designed with a certain overall fork length in mind. Will adding a longer fork break it immediately? Nope, but it will be stressing the frame in a way it was not designed for, and it will eventually fail.

    Adding a 170mm fork to a frame designed for a 100 to 120mm is just asking for trouble - not will it fail, but when.

  36. #36
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    lets get over the safety issue .... the point has been made, say i reinforce the head with some plates on the sides so that it would not break the frame.

    how will the bike handle ? will it really be that bad ?

  37. #37
    A Mountainside=My Therapy
    Reputation: ColoMtb20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    136
    It would require to turn the handlebars more to get the same turning radius as before. Yes it would be worse than stock set up. Ground contacts the wheel at a different point. Plus you sit back farther on the bike.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by kaos42
    how will the bike handle ? will it really be that bad ?
    Handling is a very subjective thing, and it is possible to get "used-to" handling characteristics by just riding for a length of time, no matter how bad they are.

    Adding a too long fork to a frame will slacken the head angle, raise the bottom bracket height, and lengthen the wheelbase.

    It will feel subjectively too tall in the saddle, and corner for crap.
    But, the flip side is that you may like how it handles, slowly riding over rocks and obstacles.

    Oh, and the safety "issue" is a really big deal - don't do it.

  39. #39
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    help me find a frame for this fork ....

    i do not like the way the Hardrock feels compared to the Bruiser, it could be that i got used to the Bruiser cause i ride it more, it is bigger, beefier .... the Hardrock feels almost like a BMX compared to the Bruiser ( so i wanted to do something to the Hardrock not to make it feel so crappy )

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: string's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by kaos42
    lets get over the safety issue .... the point has been made, say i reinforce the head with some plates on the sides so that it would not break the frame.

    how will the bike handle ? will it really be that bad ?
    I could be wrong but do not think the Bruiser frame has a 1.5 head tube. That rules out the 170mm stance. Bad idea as discussed.

    That leaves the '05 revelation. If my memory is correct (not a guarantee) it is a 130mm fork. Bikepedia lists the stock fork on the Bruiser as 120mm. You will be fine going from 120mm-130mm. The handling may be little slower but will descend marginally better.

    (I am assuming you have covered the fact that the revelation is likely disc brake specific which may be an issue with a stock Bruiser)

    To answer your question about reinforcing the head tube...why? It seems like a lot of effort to try and make something into something it is not. If you are riding at a level that needs a longer travel fork, you need a frame to fit your style. If budget is an issue, shop for a used bike that fits the bill, but get the right tool for the job.

    With the forks, remember that there is more to the quality of the ride than fork travel. The quality of the travel is equal to and maybe more important than the actual travel. (I have ridden 4 inch forks that ride better than some 6-8 inch travel forks. It is not a fair comparison but I will take my 2006 RS pike 454 over a similar year Marz drop off OEM dual crown). Bigger is not always better...

    To the OP, just out of curiosity why did you order two forks?
    Last edited by string; 03-04-2010 at 03:09 PM.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: string's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,551
    The Hardrock is generally a solid fame. It is not a great substitute for fork dampening, but you might try meatier tires (wider). They may give you a little bit more stable feel.

    What is your budget?

    Pricepoint.com has the Sette Fligt AM frames for $429. There are a few companies that make hardtails designed for longer travel forks, but they may not be much less unless you can find deal on something used.

  42. #42
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by kaos42
    lets get over the safety issue .... the point has been made, say i reinforce the head with some plates on the sides so that it would not break the frame.
    This will do more harm than it will good. It will probably break sooner, and it's not something you want to try.

    Unless anyone here is an engineer, they're not qualified to tell you how much fork you can put on your bike. The "I did it and my bike has been fine" line of reasoning doesn't work, nor does the "it's all marketing." Contrary to popular belief, not everything bike companies do is based on marketing and profits. A 4.5lb frame cannot take the abuses that a 170mm bike would dish out and you should generally stay within 20-25mm of the original fork's axle to crown height. If you really want/need more travel, look into a new frame.
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3
    yeah seriously dude, listen to all the people that have already said it. Don't do it!! You will either really hurt yourself or worse, crash infront of me on a trail! lol. You need to just simply replace the fork with a pair that can be stiffened up. Forget these 170mm fork on special from your mate or where it is that you will get them from. And if someone has told you they will be ok, which is why you have this odd fixation on the forks, just don't listen this time. And 98kilos doesn't have a direct baring on what length travel you should use, just what pre-load you need.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkley
    This will do more harm than it will good. It will probably break sooner, and it's not something you want to try.

    Unless anyone here is an engineer, they're not qualified to tell you how much fork you can put on your bike. The "I did it and my bike has been fine" line of reasoning doesn't work, nor does the "it's all marketing." Contrary to popular belief, not everything bike companies do is based on marketing and profits. A 4.5lb frame cannot take the abuses that a 170mm bike would dish out and you should generally stay within 20-25mm of the original fork's axle to crown height. If you really want/need more travel, look into a new frame.

    Listen to this guy, I have worked proffessionally on bikes for quite a few years now and if you want a definate, no quibble reply to your question then just email the companies or phone them. They will tell you straight out whether you can or not. Or talk to a decent dealer that specialises in those brands.

  45. #45
    GAME ON!
    Reputation: saturnine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,968
    this sounds like a bad case of trolling.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drsmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    190
    Kaos, I hate to be the bearer if bad news, but all this debate about wether it is OK to use that Manitou fork is pointless. Both of your frames have 1 1/8" headtubes, if the steerer on the Stance is 1.5" it isn't going to wrk on either of your frames no matter how big a hammer you use.

    You could put the Revalation on the bruiser, but everyone else here are partially correct. Not a great idea, but you might be OK, hell you might even like it, but I wouldn't count on it.

    My advice? Unload both forks and bikes, save money while you get a little bit more educated about bikes, than pick up a decent used 5 or 6 inch bike.

    DRS

    P.S. If you do as I advise I suggest asking folks here BEFORE purchasing.

  47. #47
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by string
    The Hardrock is generally a solid fame. It is not a great substitute for fork dampening, but you might try meatier tires (wider). They may give you a little bit more stable feel.

    What is your budget?

    Pricepoint.com has the Sette Fligt AM frames for $429. There are a few companies that make hardtails designed for longer travel forks, but they may not be much less unless you can find deal on something used.
    maybe you are right .... the Bruiser does have bigger tires .... i will swap the tires and give it a go and see if that is what makes the difference.

    i want to spend 300-400$ on a good frame

  48. #48
    boom boom boooom
    Reputation: kaos42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38
    ha ha ... i just realized the tube on the 170mm fork is 1.5" not going to work on my bikes

    :-)

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by kaos42
    ha ha ... i just realized the tube on the 170mm fork is 1.5" not going to work on my bikes

    :-)

    Go to your local metal shop and have them cut down the thickness of the 1.5 in. steerer to make it fit your head-tube......

    Or if you are careful, pound the 1.5 in. steerer into the head-tube....you'd be surprised how elastic and malleable aluminum is.....

    then go to your local gravity park and ride the hell out of the bike.....make sure you take some good 4 to 5 foot jumps to flat....and have your friends bring video cameras to document how you successfully proved the naysayers wrong by putting a long travel fork on a short travel bike.....

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,762
    just use the fork without a headset. bearings are for noobs anyway.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •