Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    299

    travel adjust fork on a rune

    my rune climbs pretty well with a fox 36 on the front. but with a slack-ish seat post angle and high-ish bb, it seems like an ideal candidate for a travel adjust fork. any opinions based on experience out there - anyone have a uturn lyric or talas that's going to waste on their rune? gratuitous mellow rune action shot for your troubles:


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    i have a lyrik u-turn in my rune...
    although i must say that with the angleset installed, the uphill part actually got easier (cause it steepens the seatangle a bit and lowers the bb) i always put the lyrik @130mm for uphill, and love it that way. that is also accaptable for short descents in between...

  3. #3
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,278
    Unlike my previous bikes, which all squatted like a constipated dog while climbing, I've never particularly felt the need to shorten the fork while climbing on the Rune.

    I don't do a lot of tech climbing on this bike though, mainly fire road ups to steep singletrack downs. YMMV!


  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    11

    rune adjust fork

    I agree. I have ridden with 36, totem, and revelation on front and never felt the need to lower the fork. It climbs really well regardless of the angles produced by these different forks. I will admit that the bike climbs in really steep (like saddle in your taint) terrain best with the rev. That being said, I feel that lowering it is useless.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    417
    I got the 170mm Lyric Coil and I don't think I would change a thing even when climbing

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ritopc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by bmxking45
    I got the 170mm Lyric Coil and I don't think I would change a thing even when climbing
    ^^^ agree
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    ...es como acomodarte los calzones, seguro lo puede hacer alguien pero es mejor que lo haga uno mismo

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    299
    interesting. my personal experience echos everyone else's - i've found the rune to be a very capable climber with a static height fork. the only thing holding it back are the weight of the build and the motor. anyone care to postulate why these things climb so well with big forks, when so many bikes seem to really benefit from dropping the front end on climbs?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    417
    I think It climbs so well simply because of its pedaling efficiency. I mean when you are sitting and spinning on this thing I think it feels like a hard tail and all the power is going forward instead of up and down. It really is an amazing bike that is near impossible for any other bike to live up to!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    dont idealize it too much.
    it climbs quite well for what it is, but other bikes in a similar class, like the trek remedy, even climb better...

    i find lowering the fork usefull on steep uphills... on fireroads, it doesnt really matter, that's clear...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    I am a big proponent of adjustable forks for trail and AM bikes at least, just as I am for an adj. seatpost, and have been using and adj. fork on the Rune for over a year now. But, I am all about comfort for the long, steep climbs to conserve my energy for attacking the descents and don't like doing any extended climbing with my weight on the rear wheel the whole time, especially since I am a saddle masher. But, I am also stoked to have a FD, so take my recs with a grain of salt. For me, it's all about the path of least resistance or strain to get to the goods. But, if one can get away comfort and pedal wise without any of those "extras" you are probably better off for it, especially since adj. stuff weighs a bit more and often times not as reliable as without. BTW, I rode my Rune with a solo air fork while waiting for a new 2-step cartridge and although it felt fine at first with climbing, I did have to work harder to get up the hill and I was stoked to have the adj. fork back when it was on, even after riding about 3 weeks of 3-4x/wk without one.
    Ride On!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    417
    ^ I can tentavley (sp?) agree with you simply because I have never used a travel adjust fork on the rune and I therefore dont really know if the grass is greener if you know what im sayin!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by bmxking45
    ^ I can tentavley (sp?) agree with you simply because I have never used a travel adjust fork on the rune and I therefore dont really know if the grass is greener if you know what im sayin!
    Well, non-adj forks are typically a tit more plush throughout the travels due to less parts internally, ei; Float vs Talas and Solo air vs 2-Step, but anytime you steepen the HTA for the steep climbs you are just in a better climbing position, it is simple as that. Unless you are doing "rolly, polly" climbs that aren't that steep then it is not required and you don't really need it I suppose or climb out of the saddle for the steeps.
    Ride On!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    417
    i find that I dont really climb as good out of the saddle and my rear tire tends to spin because it becomes unweighted....being on platforms too doesnt help the situation and it can completely break concentration and cadence!

  14. #14
    Oh no you di'int
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    115
    I used travel adjust fork and never used the travel adjust feature, if that tells you anything. Wasn't worth the hassle since it climbed to well already. And there are plenty of steep climbs around here.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta
    anytime you steepen the HTA for the steep climbs you are just in a better climbing position
    dunno about that. in my experience it is the seat tube angle that really influences tech climbing - stick my ass way back out over my rear wheel and i have a hard time applying power, keeping the front end down, centering my weight, etc. the rune doesn't have a steep seat tube, but it does have a relatively compact cockpit for its class - ponying up over the front of a the saddle and hammering, it climbs pretty well.

    not to say i haven't sipped the travel adjust coolaid. when i put a ta fork on my hardtail, it was a total epiphany - made the bike, which had previously been biased way more towards descending, much more versatile and a very good climber. what i'd like to do is try a frame like the spitfire or a ragley, which have a really steep seat tube angle and a slackish hta, to put my notion to the test

    but i've never felt like i was missing something without having ta on the rune - which is why i posted this thread

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal
    dunno about that. in my experience it is the seat tube angle that really influences tech climbing - stick my ass way back out over my rear wheel and i have a hard time applying power, keeping the front end down, centering my weight, etc. the rune doesn't have a steep seat tube, but it does have a relatively compact cockpit for its class - ponying up over the front of a the saddle and hammering, it climbs pretty well.

    not to say i haven't sipped the travel adjust coolaid. when i put a ta fork on my hardtail, it was a total epiphany - made the bike, which had previously been biased way more towards descending, much more versatile and a very good climber. what i'd like to do is try a frame like the spitfire or a ragley, which have a really steep seat tube angle and a slackish hta, to put my notion to the test

    but i've never felt like i was missing something without having ta on the rune - which is why i posted this thread
    I think anytime you drop the front end, the STA steepens some along with the HTA and is noticeable some when staying in the saddle and in the same ride position while pedalling uphill? At least that is what it feels like to me and pushes my weight forward some to match the incline of the terrain better when the fork is dropped and feel like I am using my legs muscles differently and more effectively with glutes/hamstrings engaging more, but I am longer in the legs than torso and my legs benefit more from this on long, steepish climbs (2-3k' in 3-5miles).

    But yeah, just my experience with the Rune with TA fork and terrain I ride it on a lot of the times in the PacNW. Where a lot of climbs start at sea level and can go up to 4-5k' if you've got the legs for it in the Gorge. But, if you are capable and comfortable on the Rune without a TA fork, by all means I would go that route for sure. Use a TA fork only if need to or have a use for it, if not then it is pointless. Your body type/size, terrain and riding needs, conditioning will more than likely dictate this. I just found for me, that anytime I can change the geometry of the front end and raise the seatpost during a ride it puts less stress/fatigue on my body than when being in a fixed position for long periods of time and one of the reasons I don't care to road ride, nor have any interest in doing Triathlons anymore.
    Ride On!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    255
    I first used a Van RC2 and longed for some sort of travel adjust, as most of my trails involve some sort of steep climbs (long and short) and found the front wandered alot with the Van.

    Bought a TALAS 36 RC2 and love it now. Makes the climbs so much easier and manageable though I do miss how plush the Van felt compared to the TALAS.

    I would say if you're riding like I have to, a travel adjust fork is beneficial.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    "but i've never felt like i was missing something without having ta on the rune - which is why i posted this thread"

    Just caught this, missed it before from your last reply. Sounds to me like there is no point to run a TA fork on the Rune for you then, and really no need to pose the question in the first place. If it works for ya, then why change it, out of curiousity? If that is the case, then just hop on a bike with said fork to check it out for yourself and the terrain you like to ride on if possible. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    Ride On!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: monstertiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    710
    You could always use a dog collar or some type of strap on your fork. Ghetto travel adjust, just to see if you like it. There was a recent thread in this in the DH forum. Cove even made a special strap for this purpose.

    Who uses a Dog collar to lower fork when climbing ?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta
    If it works for ya, then why change it, out of curiousity?.
    partly i'm hoping to do this race in whistler again this summer, on which there are sure to be some very long and grueling climbs, and am thinking about the most strategic/effective upgrades i could make to what, improve performance? reduce the beating i take? dunno.

    partly i'm wondering what i'm missing. i had a travel adjust fork on my last fully (a norco fluid) and unlike with the hardtail i didn't find it helped much with climbing - and the static length fork i had was a better performer, so i went back to that

    a buddy with a lyrik two-step just had an operation and won't be riding for a month - maybe i'll borrow his fork and figure this out for myself

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal
    a buddy with a lyrik two-step just had an operation and won't be riding for a month - maybe i'll borrow his fork and figure this out for myself
    That's a good idea, willl give you a good feel for it to see if you like or have a need for it on the Rune and the places you ride most, especially before you lay down about grand on today's TA fork if you do.

    I have the Lyrik 2-step, and besides a blown 2S cartridge in the past year, the fork has been great for me, especially for my first air fork in about 8 yrs (only coil before the 2S). And RS are awesome if you have any problems, one of the only manufacturers that will replace parts without even seeing the fork when going through a dealer. I know it's a pain to have a product not last a least a year, but LBS popped in a solo air cartridge in my fork while I waited for the new, supposedly improved 2011' 2S unit and RS got the new unit to LBS within a week and a new DH rebound unit thrown in for free as well! So, I feel like I made out on the deal with a 2011 2S DH fork now and would recommend converting the 2-step to DH version with removal of floodgate and installation of DH rebound dampener if you go that route and able to do so. This made the fork come alive in the rough (much better small bump with more linear feel at beginning of travel, but stays nice and consistent throughout without blowing through mid-stroke or towards the end like the cushy coil forks I have had in the past or being too harsh or progressive towards the end). All while still getting the benefits of TA fork for the grind up
    Ride On!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ride the biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal
    interesting. my personal experience echos everyone else's - i've found the rune to be a very capable climber with a static height fork. the only thing holding it back are the weight of the build and the motor. anyone care to postulate why these things climb so well with big forks, when so many bikes seem to really benefit from dropping the front end on climbs?
    its the (relatively) long chainstay. the suspension design helps a lot, obviously, too, but i think that longer chainstay keeps the front end planted no matter how steep it gets. that's my postulation, anyway

    ive been riding a 180 float on mine with a regular stack headset since mid summer, so mine is pretty high. even so, its been an amazing climber. i'm going to drop it to 170 really only to make the bike balance slightly better in general, but it's nothing to do with the way it climbs. the bike has been awesome at 180 or else i would have changed it much sooner

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    272
    Got a 2-step Lyrik on my Rune now (photos coming soon). Originally had it spec'd with a Totem 180mm, then a 160mm Lyrik SA (no travel adjust), and now the 2-step.

    While I agree that the Rune definitely does not NEED a travel adjust fork if you're doing primarily AM climbing, fire roads, double track etc., I think it definitely benefits the bike when doing steeper technical climbs (turns it into an XC climbing machine!).

    I have routinely found that on steeper, technical stuff, I have wanted the front end lower just to keep some stability. Don't get me wrong, I definitely was able to ride these trails with the solo air lyrik (and the Totem for that matter), the 115mm travel option definitely made these climbs much more manageable and efficient (for me at least).

    And on that note, I have a regular cup headset (not zero-stack), and I found the bike too raked with the Totem. Descending it was great, but as soon as I had to do any uphill, it just became a chore (which is why I went to the Lyrik, and now to the 2-step).

    Realistically, I think the perfect fork for this bike would be a Totem 2-step (180-130) if it weren't for the 2-step issues RS was having with these cartridges in the Totems it seems. If you were able to get a new and improved Totem 2-step, then it'd be a no-brainer, or the Talas 180 I guess too.

    Just my opinion though. I love steep technical climbs, and I love to be able to ride them efficiently, so I love a low front end, but I can understand (having ridden the bike with non-adjustable forks) how some people wouldn't find a need for it and still have an awesome ride.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ExCactus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    570
    I have a lyrik u-turn and I don't think I've ever dropped my front end. I find that on climbs at times the front end feels a little skittish, but thats also nice for when I come up on a root because its easy to get the front wheel off the ground. Maybe its because of all of the risers I have below my stem... Usually where I ride though it would just be a pain in the ass to sit and crank it down to climb then crank it back up, but maybe I'll dick around with it just to see how it climbs with the travel decreased. I can definitely see the advantage with fire road climbing though.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dunerinaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,342
    I had considered going with an adjustable fork but in the end I went with a lyrik RC2DH. I don't have the frame yet to see how I like it but it's nice and comforting to hear that people say the rune climbs well even with a semi-tall front end.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    272
    Yeah, you'll love it. With the Totem at 180 with a standard headset, it was a bit too tall, and climbing was ok, but weight a bit too far back I found (personal preference though, it was still a great climber!!).

    With the Lyrik, it was much better, and everything was still very manageable (even the steeper more technical stuff)... in fact I never once thought any other than "this thing rocks", I guess it's just the XC in me that wants a lower front end for some of those climbs.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dunerinaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,342
    As far as the lower headset cup, I seem to not have much of an option according to Cane Creek's website. The fork I went with is tapered and I went with a zero stack upper and standard lower. This is my first tapered fork and I was under the assumption that the lower race on a tapered fork was the same as a 1.5 steerer. I would have liked to go zero stack on upper and lower since the fork is 170mm.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmike9699
    Got a 2-step Lyrik on my Rune now (photos coming soon). Originally had it spec'd with a Totem 180mm, then a 160mm Lyrik SA (no travel adjust), and now the 2-step.

    While I agree that the Rune definitely does not NEED a travel adjust fork if you're doing primarily AM climbing, fire roads, double track etc., I think it definitely benefits the bike when doing steeper technical climbs (turns it into an XC climbing machine!).

    I have routinely found that on steeper, technical stuff, I have wanted the front end lower just to keep some stability. Don't get me wrong, I definitely was able to ride these trails with the solo air lyrik (and the Totem for that matter), the 115mm travel option definitely made these climbs much more manageable and efficient (for me at least).

    And on that note, I have a regular cup headset (not zero-stack), and I found the bike too raked with the Totem. Descending it was great, but as soon as I had to do any uphill, it just became a chore (which is why I went to the Lyrik, and now to the 2-step).

    Realistically, I think the perfect fork for this bike would be a Totem 2-step (180-130) if it weren't for the 2-step issues RS was having with these cartridges in the Totems it seems. If you were able to get a new and improved Totem 2-step, then it'd be a no-brainer, or the Talas 180 I guess too.

    Just my opinion though. I love steep technical climbs, and I love to be able to ride them efficiently, so I love a low front end, but I can understand (having ridden the bike with non-adjustable forks) how some people wouldn't find a need for it and still have an awesome ride.
    Cool, that's how I run my Rune as well and find I it allows me to ride just about everything up and down with it too, from most any XC to lite FR/DH. I was going to get a 170 solo, but just got some custom HS cups that slacked the front end -1.02 degree and glad I kept the 2-step to lower the front end for the long, steep climbs, or most any climbs for that matter (just is more comfortable for me with any sustained climbing while sitting especially). Just be sure to get the 2011 2-step cartridge, remove the floodgate and replace the rebound with the DH rebound unit if you haven't already. RS has been totally cool and has hooked me up with new 2-step, DH rebound and 11' lowers all on free replacement through my LBS this past year! The fork is just so much better this way and just a smidge less plush in the small bump chatter than the solo cartridge that I ran for a while after I blew my original 2-step up last year.

    So, yes I agree in that an adjustable fork makes a bike like the Rune even more versatile of a machine and think the ideal fork would be a 120-170 DH Lyrik. Now if Banshee could make those pivot axles a little more durable and longer wearing which would minimize any tendency for pivot slop when they get worn down a bit. This bike would truly be the ultimate AM machine
    Last edited by jgusta; 04-09-2011 at 10:15 PM.
    Ride On!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    the lower race of a tapered fork steerer IS the same as a 1.5 steerer race...
    and those cannot be mounted with a zero stack as well (unless you have a 55mm ID headtube, like on some giant, or liteville lately...)

  30. #30
    is RAD
    Reputation: Van Cuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    183
    I have ridden my Rune with a Fox VAN 36 RC2 and a RS Revelation 140mm, and find that the rune is much more climb friendly with the shorter fork.

    When climbing I haven't experienced any trouble with the front wheel lifting, or difficult steering with the longer fork , I find that the shorter fork increases the seatube angle, allowing more efficient power transfer for long and short climbs.

    I don't like adjusting things out on the trail, because some trails are just to fun to stop on, which is why I have been considering a compromise to the OP's question. Instead of running a TA fork, you could run a FLOAT or SOLO AIR with the travel reduced internally to 150mm, coupled with a CC angleset aet to -1.0.

    This would decrease your stack height by around 20mm, which would steepen the seat angle (to approx ~72.?), and the angleset would return your head angle to ~67.

    It's something I would like to try out, but I have a few things to sell before I can make that happen.

    Has anyone else done this?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dunerinaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Cuz
    I have ridden my Rune with a Fox VAN 36 RC2 and a RS Revelation 140mm, and find that the rune is much more climb friendly with the shorter fork.

    When climbing I haven't experienced any trouble with the front wheel lifting, or difficult steering with the longer fork , I find that the shorter fork increases the seatube angle, allowing more efficient power transfer for long and short climbs.

    I don't like adjusting things out on the trail, because some trails are just to fun to stop on, which is why I have been considering a compromise to the OP's question. Instead of running a TA fork, you could run a FLOAT or SOLO AIR with the travel reduced internally to 150mm, coupled with a CC angleset aet to -1.0.

    This would decrease your stack height by around 20mm, which would steepen the seat angle (to approx ~72.?), and the angleset would return your head angle to ~67.

    It's something I would like to try out, but I have a few things to sell before I can make that happen.

    Has anyone else done this?
    A 150mm fork with an angleset at -1.0 is going to lower the BB a lot.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    5mm less than a 160mm fork with anleset... and that is still enough...
    could imagine quite well that this is a good setup for general trail riding...

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    20
    i ride my rune with a 36Float @150mm and -1,5° angleset.
    BB high is measured at 347mm, which is a good number in my opinion.
    The bike is a very good climber, i have no problems with a lifting front wheel.
    ( which was a problem with my 5Spot and the same Fork )

    sorry for bad english

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Cuz
    I have been considering a compromise to the OP's question. Instead of running a TA fork, you could run a FLOAT or SOLO AIR with the travel reduced internally to 150mm, coupled with a CC angleset aet to -1.0.

    This would decrease your stack height by around 20mm, which would steepen the seat angle (to approx ~72.?), and the angleset would return your head angle to ~67.
    interesting. i happen to have a float rc2 AND an angleset on hand - though i'm happy with the rune's hta with the float, i was going to try out the angleset to play with the hta and was counting on a bit of a drop in bb height and increase in sta... but based on playing with this it didn't look like either of bb or sta would be affected much. but reducing travel on the float AND using the angleset would probably produce a far greater effect on both those measurements - for the better, imo...

    based on my calculations, it will decrease the hta by 1 degree, increase the sta by .75 degree, and drop the bb by 6mm. that sounds pretty f'in rad

    thanks! i will try this out soon and report back!

  35. #35
    is RAD
    Reputation: Van Cuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal

    based on my calculations, it will decrease the hta by 1 degree, increase the sta by .75 degree, and drop the bb by 6mm. that sounds pretty f'in rad

    thanks! i will try this out soon and report back!
    Yeah, I used the same calculator and came about with around the same numbers when I was day dreaming about this. I just wish I had an accurate angle-measurer-thingy at home so I could do some exact measurements of my current set-ups.

Posting Permissions

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