Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    9

    Spitfire V2 with 170mm fork

    Hi, Anyone tried 170mm fork on your Spitfire? Yes I know Spitfire spec is meant. for 140-160 travel fork. But are there any riders who had experience it? What's your feedback?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    215
    I did it. With a Manitou Mattoc in 26'' configuration,170mm.
    It felt OK. A bit high and hard to put a lot of weight on the bar, but the BB was also higher, so less pedal strikes.
    The bottom line is that when I passed the form to 160mm, the bike felt more planted, more stable, easier to throw around.
    So for me OK but if you can modify the travel and the height of your fork, do it.
    And don't forget, the travel is one thing, more important is the a2c length.


    Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    9
    But my spitfire V2 is on 650b setup. Currently riding with a fox 36 160 travel fork. I have a fox 36 170 travel too. Thought of trying it out. How is the A2C lenght?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andrewslice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by darkcrow View Post
    But my spitfire V2 is on 650b setup. Currently riding with a fox 36 160 travel fork. I have a fox 36 170 travel too. Thought of trying it out. How is the A2C lenght?
    I had a pike 160mm in my spitfire, it had 552mm A2C. The fox 36 has 549 at 160mm and 559 at 170mm. So its 7mm higher than a Pike 160 and haven't had any problems with the 552mm

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    56
    Sounds horrible.
    I ride Rune on 26'' wheels and have just put on 27.5 fox 36 at 180mm. I raked out the front around the same as you are planning. Since i ride around in slack mode, HA is 63.5-63.8 and that is a propper b*tch to ride around. I have to constantly wrestle the bike to keep the front planted. I'm dropping the travel down to 160 as soon as the travel spacers arrive.
    If you feel the need to bump up the front travel that much, you need a bigger bike.
    10mm more than stock is ok IME, anything more is not. Alters bike too much.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Spitfire warranty only covers up to 160mm fork, geometry doesn't work well with longer forks. As said above, if you are finding that your riding style is changing and demands more tarvel, then you need a bigger tarvel frame and should be looking at a rune.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 02:34 AM
  2. 170mm fork too much for gt force
    By fatwheels in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-13-2011, 07:48 PM
  3. paid spam: Fork for Firebird 170mm
    By gticlay in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 06:08 AM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 06:24 PM
  5. 170mm fork on a slayer sxc
    By stef j. in forum Rocky Mountain
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 02:44 PM

Members who have read this thread: 39

Posting Permissions

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