Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    947

    HD 140 Question?

    Does the HD 140 back end sit at the same height as the 160? The difference being how far the rear wheel travels?

    Just wondering because I was thinking of converting to 140 for better speed and was thinking of just swapping the fork to a 150 32 and leaving the rear in 160 mode.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mazspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    964
    From what I remember Hans telling me, yes.
    One of my issues at the time was that I was blowing though the travel a bit at times on the 140, and a few of them said, just to put the 160 shock on. I asked if it changed the head angles and what-not and they said nope. This all happened about a month ago. Unless I was hearing it wrong, they told me I could run the 160 in the back, and the 150 fork and it would not change anything other than having more travel.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    947
    Perfect....That's what I thought.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    947
    OK.......so what's the point of running 140 in the rear?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,049
    It sure looks like it's lowers the BB ~0.25" and slackens HA ~1/2deg to me, but I haven't measured it yet. It also changes the behavior of the rear suspension in other minor ways. I thought my buddy's HD140 felt way more progressive in it's stroke with less chance of bottoming out the shock while the 160 mode feels more like it has a pedaling sweet spot and then is quite easy to get the rest of the travel out of it and bottom out. At least with the stock RP23 shocks.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    947
    From what I understand the shorter fork changes the geometry not the rear shock.

    Basically going to the smaller shock will probably firm up the rear and make it pedal easier.

    One could go with the 150 fork to change to a more aggressive geometry and decide later if they wanted to change out the rear shock.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mazspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by canuck_tacoma View Post
    OK.......so what's the point of running 140 in the rear?
    Not sure, never asked that question at Ibis, but I do know, they like the HD at the 160 level.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mazspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by canuck_tacoma View Post
    From what I understand the shorter fork changes the geometry not the rear shock.

    Basically going to the smaller shock will probably firm up the rear and make it pedal easier.

    I would think this is very much true.


    One could go with the 150 fork to change to a more aggressive geometry and decide later if they wanted to change out the rear shock.
    I love the 150 fork. Although I do think I will get another HD or SL and make this one a 160 at some point. I have been told to make this a 160mm. The problem is, I love this bike so much as it is right now, I cannot think of another bike that would be this good at this travel level, and I have tried a bunch. But the plan is to get another SL or HD, and I may be doing this soon. I need a flickable trail bike, and the HD is close, but the SL fits that need for me.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardboiled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    469
    the geo change is in both the fork and the rear shock/limbo chips. the bb gets progressively lower as you go from 160/160 to 160/140 to 150/140. the head angle is slackest in 160/140 mode, then 160/160, then 150/140. those are all based on my own measurements.

    it's easier to push a harder gear in 140 mode, not to mention I think the 1 lb difference between a 160 fork and 150 is significant. the feel of the bike is quite noticeably different switching between 150/140 and 160/160. both setups rock depending on what you're looking for, more of a snappy pedaling, burly trail bike or cushier all-mountain ride. which is basically what you would expect.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    44
    I started with 140mm forks on my hd140 but recently bought some van 36s off eBay. The difference is quite stark. The longer forks give the bike a slack mini dh feel but the bike still pedals amazingly. As mentioned above the weight difference is very noticeable between the 36 and 32, so I'm saving the 36s for certain riding. For most of my riding the 140mm fork is the best compromise.
    Running the 140mm rear I've never encountered any of the travel blow through others mention on here and I've never felt the need for more travel even with the longer fork.
    The ability to run a longer fork is the reason I chose an hd over the slr.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by hardboiled View Post
    the geo change is in both the fork and the rear shock/limbo chips. the bb gets progressively lower as you go from 160/160 to 160/140 to 150/140. the head angle is slackest in 160/140 mode, then 160/160, then 150/140. those are all based on my own measurements.

    it's easier to push a harder gear in 140 mode, not to mention I think the 1 lb difference between a 160 fork and 150 is significant. the feel of the bike is quite noticeably different switching between 150/140 and 160/160. both setups rock depending on what you're looking for, more of a snappy pedaling, burly trail bike or cushier all-mountain ride. which is basically what you would expect.
    This is right on from my experience as well. Also, I think that part of the feeling of the 140mm set up "pedaling better" is due to the low volume air sleeve, vs high volume on the 8.5x2.5 shock.

  12. #12
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    Quote Originally Posted by canuck_tacoma View Post
    Does the HD 140 back end sit at the same height as the 160? The difference being how far the rear wheel travels?

    Just wondering because I was thinking of converting to 140 for better speed and was thinking of just swapping the fork to a 150 32 and leaving the rear in 160 mode.
    With the same fork, my HD set up with HD140 mounting chips and shorter rear shock measures 1/4 inch lower BB height unweighted, compared to set up with the HD160 longer shock and mounting chips.

Posting Permissions

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