Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,670

    Warden geometry question w/160 fork

    So, I noticed the specs on the website is with a 549mm axle to crown with with headset. Since a lower internal headset cup, like CC's are only 4mm, then should I be able to run a 545mm fork (Lyrik 160) and achieve the same geometry as listed with 66 deg front, 13.3" BB in slack/low setting? I know Noel mentioned geometry was based around a 150 fork, but sounds I can get away running a 160 with same geometry with internal headset. Is this so? If I can't run my Lyrik DH 160-130 fork due to clearance issues with 650b wheel, then will likely go Pike 160-130 as needed since I am not a Fox lover. Thanks
    Ride On!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cfrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta View Post
    So, I noticed the specs on the website is with a 549mm axle to crown with with headset. Since a lower internal headset cup, like CC's are only 4mm, then should I be able to run a 545mm fork (Lyrik 160) and achieve the same geometry as listed with 66 deg front, 13.3" BB in slack/low setting? I know Noel mentioned geometry was based around a 150 fork, but sounds I can get away running a 160 with same geometry with internal headset. Is this so? If I can't run my Lyrik DH 160-130 fork due to clearance issues with 650b wheel, then will likely go Pike 160-130 as needed since I am not a Fox lover. Thanks
    For sure, as long as the axle to crown measures up the same as knollys spec, then your geo will be as they intended. The next job will be to choose a shock that has very similar damping / compliments the fork you choose to make sure the bike stays balanced (balanced bounce). E.g. one scenario: if you were to overgun the forks (stiff) and use a shock that sinks into its travel (less stiff / supportive) this will do more damage to the ride characteristics / intended geo, as the bike would still end up 'raked' out. This is the mistake many make unrealisingly when they put shocks like rp23s on their bike when their ready to ride weight + bike weight is over and above the what the shock can cope with. So two points on geo: 1) Its always best to try to build in spec (why? ..knollys computer simulations during the design stage say so), 2) Its a necessity to also balance a bikes suspension, so when choosing the fork make sure you choose a shock that can match it.
    2013 Knolly Endorphin | 2013 Knolly Chilcotin | 2014 Knolly Podium.
    Tweed Valley, Scotland.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,670
    Quote Originally Posted by cfrench View Post
    For sure, as long as the axle to crown measures up the same as knollys spec, then your geo will be as they intended. The next job will be to choose a shock that has very similar damping / compliments the fork you choose to make sure the bike stays balanced (balanced bounce). E.g. one scenario: if you were to overgun the forks (stiff) and use a shock that sinks into its travel (less stiff / supportive) this will do more damage to the ride characteristics / intended geo, as the bike would still end up 'raked' out. This is the mistake many make unrealisingly when they put shocks like rp23s on their bike when their ready to ride weight + bike weight is over and above the what the shock can cope with. So two points on geo: 1) Its always best to try to build in spec (why? ..knollys computer simulations during the design stage say so), 2) Its a necessity to also balance a bikes suspension, so when choosing the fork make sure you choose a shock that can match it.
    Thanks and makes total sense and what I try my best to achieve with current bike on every ride with optimal sag/feel both ends for best balance and performance. I am running a RS Monarch RC3+ shock with Lyrik DH fork on Rune V2 and suspension works pretty predictive in all terrain/conditions for me. This is why I think a frame/no shock option would be nice to be offered since I have never fully jived with RP3/CTD due to being >200lbs that push my bikes kind of hard, and local bros on CCDBA's have had many issues running that on their Chilcotin's that makes me want to steer away from that as well. Thanks again for the thoughtful feedback since suspension set-up can greatly affect geometry like you mentioned regardless of static dimensions/lengths.
    Ride On!

Similar Threads

  1. El Mar Rigid Fork Geometry Question
    By goldenplum in forum Salsa
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 09:15 AM
  2. on one fork length/geometry question
    By asunder in forum On One
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 10:13 AM
  3. RZ 140 5 fork question? will standard mess up geometry
    By akiracornell in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 09:52 AM
  4. Fork & Geometry question
    By RWGreen in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-25-2011, 02:15 PM
  5. Frame/Fork Geometry question
    By Bernard3rd in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 08:33 AM

Posting Permissions

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