Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    592

    Mach 5 with 120mm fork?

    hey, I'm coming off an FSR 2007 titus motolite II, I found the travel to be acceptable but am looking for the apparent improved pedaling performance of a DW-link bike.

    I'm about 6' 200 and would be riding a large, does anyone ride their mach 5s with 120mm up front, I notice a lot of people in the forums looking to remedy some of the XC feeling of their M5, will a 120mm fork be too much?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    865
    you mean mach 4? 120mm is popular on that bike.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    592
    no mach 5, the extra inch in the rear is important. I guess I'm trying to make something fit that just won't.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: guswa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23
    Well I have a Mach 5 with a 150mm talas fork so can wind down from 150 to 130, 110. Does feel funny having it that low though!
    South West Mountain Bike Club
    www.swmtbc.asn.au

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    592
    thanks, It looks like my f120 RLC fit has to go, it's just such a good fork

  6. #6
    Not just famous; infamous
    Reputation: coolhandluchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,073
    Not sure why, I lowered my Pike to 120mm and the handling went from OK to amazing. Didn't have to account for my front tire sliding around any more, the bike just goes where I point it. I can never figure out how people are putting 150-160mm forks on this bike and still climbing anything and not sliding off the trail on every turn.

    My belief (validated by DW in a previous post) is that the M5 was originally designed around a 120mm Fox fork. Give it a try, you've got nothing to lose.

    Edit: link to previously mentioned thread. Go down to the 5th post.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: onegymrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by timms
    no mach 5, the extra inch in the rear is important. I guess I'm trying to make something fit that just won't.
    I believe it's really only 0.7" (18mm) difference since the rear is actually 138mm.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    592
    I am not sure why the numbers are so hard to find, but I was under the impression that mack 5 had 127mm (5") of rear travel but has 140mm in the front.

    does anybody find the BB heaght to be a little excessive, does it seemingly effect handing? as well as give the impression that one is too high on the bike.

    although almost everything I've read about the mach 5 is positive. The negatives that I read include a wallowy feel in the granny ring, the characterisics of the suspension make it better suited for more unduslating trails as opposed to ones with quick and steep ups and downs. aslo its apparently not ideal for tight uphill switchbacks.

    has anybody noticed these issues.

  9. #9
    I am Doctor Remulak
    Reputation: AZ Mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by timms
    I am not sure why the numbers are so hard to find, but I was under the impression that mack 5 had 127mm (5") of rear travel but has 140mm in the front.
    The Mach 5 has 140mm (5.5) of rear travel. Go to the Mach 5 page and then click on the Bike Info. Current spec fork on the Mach 5 is a 140mm Fox Float.
    MTBR wants you to know that I work here

  10. #10
    Black Lion
    Reputation: yogreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by timms
    I am not sure why the numbers are so hard to find, but I was under the impression that mack 5 had 127mm (5") of rear travel but has 140mm in the front.

    does anybody find the BB heaght to be a little excessive, does it seemingly effect handing? as well as give the impression that one is too high on the bike.

    although almost everything I've read about the mach 5 is positive. The negatives that I read include a wallowy feel in the granny ring, the characterisics of the suspension make it better suited for more unduslating trails as opposed to ones with quick and steep ups and downs. aslo its apparently not ideal for tight uphill switchbacks.

    has anybody noticed these issues.
    mach 5 is a 140mm bike.
    I find the BB height to be perfect for the terrain I run.
    Can't comment on how the bike feels in the granny gear, as the bike is so ripper and efficient in the 32 tooth.
    In the North East all we ride are short and steep with little to no run ups, the bike shines in this situation.
    Voltron

  11. #11
    Black Lion
    Reputation: yogreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by coolhandluchs
    Not sure why, I lowered my Pike to 120mm and the handling went from OK to amazing. Didn't have to account for my front tire sliding around any more, the bike just goes where I point it. I can never figure out how people are putting 150-160mm forks on this bike and still climbing anything and not sliding off the trail on every turn.

    My belief (validated by DW in a previous post) is that the M5 was originally designed around a 120mm Fox fork. Give it a try, you've got nothing to lose.

    Edit: link to previously mentioned thread. Go down to the 5th post.

    The bike was originally designed within a range of 120 to 140mm.
    Voltron

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    164
    I ride a Mach 5 with a 150mm fork and it works great. When I first got it I had a 140mm fork on it and it rode great too, just different. It seems like going all the way down to 120 would be overkill. The bike would likely climb steep stuff pretty well but you would give up a lot on the downhills and bumpy flat sections.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    12
    I was originally concerned about the BB height as well. However, I now prefer this height as I can tackle some new terrain I would have previously avoided due to high center. Doesn't seem to affect handling for me one bit.

    Severum

Posting Permissions

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