Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    62

    160mm fork on release 3?

    Has anyone put a 160mm fork on a release? I think I saw a orange/black release on the thread with a 160, I could be wrong tho.

    In a month or two I want to put a fox float x2 in the back and a 160 fox 36 in the front.

    My release three came with a high stack, I think if I slammed the bars down and gave it a 160 that the bike would not change a whole lot.
    Do you guys think otherwise?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    72
    I think you can also convert the Pike RTC3 that comes on the r3 to 160 so I'd be interested to hear about this as well.. from what I understand, the frame *should* be able to handle it, but this is what you're going to do:

    1. slacken the head angle
    2. raise the bb slightly
    3. shift your weight more onto the back tire
    4. slacken your seat tube as well I guess
    5. theoretically put more stress on the frame, mainly the head tube welds to the main triangle
    6. possibly un-balance the bike more because it will now be 160F/135R

    That being said those are mostly neutral or potentially bad things that could happen. If you're looking for more travel this might be your answer, and it might be a really fun bike! I know designers have things in mind when they carefully plan and design a bikes geometry, not sure if you'd be screwing with it or just giving the bike a different feel/specialty for a certain type of riding.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by seattleUpPartner View Post
    I think you can also convert the Pike RTC3 that comes on the r3 to 160 so I'd be interested to hear about this as well.. from what I understand, the frame *should* be able to handle it, but this is what you're going to do:

    1. slacken the head angle
    2. raise the bb slightly
    3. shift your weight more onto the back tire
    4. slacken your seat tube as well I guess
    5. theoretically put more stress on the frame, mainly the head tube welds to the main triangle
    6. possibly un-balance the bike more because it will now be 160F/135R

    That being said those are mostly neutral or potentially bad things that could happen. If you're looking for more travel this might be your answer, and it might be a really fun bike! I know designers have things in mind when they carefully plan and design a bikes geometry, not sure if you'd be screwing with it or just giving the bike a different feel/specialty for a certain type of riding.
    Very good thoughts, the only thing that I would care about it is the change in the seat tube. I'm running the seat right in the middle at the moment, meaning I still have the room to slide it forward and drop the nose if I need to.

    I'm going to look into raising the pike to 160

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: watermonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,093
    I would consider running the fattest tire that will fit in the back end if you go 160mm up front. That's a pretty big difference in travel, and the front with be writing checks the back can't cash. The extra rubber may help to offset that somewhat.
    I would advise not taking my advice.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by watermonkey View Post
    I would consider running the fattest tire that will fit in the back end if you go 160mm up front. That's a pretty big difference in travel, and the front with be writing checks the back can't cash. The extra rubber may help to offset that somewhat.
    You've got a point but one could also argue that hard tails commonly have a mis-match of 120F/0R for their suspension.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by seattleUpPartner View Post
    You've got a point but one could also argue that hard tails commonly have a mis-match of 120F/0R for their suspension.
    Yup, I'm not worried about 10mil.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by watermonkey View Post
    I would consider running the fattest tire that will fit in the back end if you go 160mm up front. That's a pretty big difference in travel, and the front with be writing checks the back can't cash. The extra rubber may help to offset that somewhat.

    I really don't think the front will become a different animal that the back cant keep up with. I never get to the bottom and think about how my legs have been thrashed.

    But yes a bigger tire in the back will and does help, that why she already has a 2.6 out back

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinReno View Post
    I really don't think the front will become a different animal that the back cant keep up with. I never get to the bottom and think about how my legs have been thrashed.

    But yes a bigger tire in the back will and does help, that why she already has a 2.6 out back
    What 2.6 are you running?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by avc8130 View Post
    What 2.6 are you running?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    Magic Mary

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinReno View Post
    Magic Mary
    Nice. Front and rear? Any review of the setup? Any pics?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by avc8130 View Post
    Nice. Front and rear? Any review of the setup? Any pics?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    Yes front and rear, addix orange(soft) compound. The increased contact patch on the ground is very noticeable under braking, cornering and climbing technical features. The added air volume in the tire has really made the bike feel like it has 10mm more suspension. I actually don't have any pics of the set up and the frame is in many pieces at the moment or I would go snap one.

    I have only had the bike out in "hero dirt" situations since I mounted them. But I can already tell than I'm never going back to a 2.3. I will also say that I've spent a fair bit of time on the salsa pony rustler, and I don't like the plus size tire.

    Better review and thoughts in a month or two. I've been running the 2.6 for 3 weeks.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    72
    if you had a chance could you post a picture of the rear clearance with the 2.6" MM? these HD's had a good run.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    624
    Anyone think about a Rock Razor for the rear to go with an MM up front?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Yeah, I'm that a$$hole.
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,885
    Here is a large Release 5C with a 160 RS Pike RCT3.

    I will be purchasing a 5C this week, will be upgrading the Fox 36 to 160 and adding a Fox Dhx2.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    #THELEGENDMTB
    2016 RSD Mayor
    2018 Diamondback Release 5C
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo Trail

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9
    I just modified my Pike fork to 160mm on my Release. This improved the bikes ability to descend quite a bit. The little extra travel really helped with hand fatigue on long rough sections and the bike felt a little more stable at high speed.

    I don't feel that it changed the bikes ability to climb much. I moved the seat forward slightly to stay over the pedals a little more and had no problems.

    Overall I have been very pleased with how this bike rides and will be keeping the fork at 160mm in the future.

  16. #16
    Yeah, I'm that a$$hole.
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,885
    Agreed this bike deserves a 160mm fork, it's descending prowess is equal to the task. I'd say unless your strictly using your Release as an XC rig and not really pushing it, 150 is fine, but if you really want to push it 160 is #WINNING.
    #THELEGENDMTB
    2016 RSD Mayor
    2018 Diamondback Release 5C
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo Trail

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9
    With 150mm this is a fantastic all around bike. The geometry let's it do everything decently well. With the 160mm fork I was really able to turn it up a notch on the descents. This mod may keep me riding this bike for another year (currently on my 3rd season with this bike).

    For the $50 in parts and 45min of work took to change the forks travel I definitely think it was worth it.

Similar Threads

  1. How difficult to transition from Shimano multi release to single release?
    By legitposter in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-17-2016, 07:46 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-14-2016, 12:53 PM
  3. Which 2016 Fork? 160mm Pike or 160mm Lyric for 650b
    By JNG in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-07-2015, 11:36 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2014, 01:20 PM
  5. Downsizing rotors from 185mm/160mm to 160mm/140mm
    By xterrafreak in forum Brake Time
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-26-2013, 12:03 PM

Members who have read this thread: 36

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.