Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    554

    Mach 5.7 + fox 36 = ????

    Needless to say the wifes next bike is the 5.7. How would a 160 fox 36 do on there?
    Would it need to be shimed to 150?

    What cha think?
    Bad rep!!! That's right SON!!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    There were a few guys loving their original Mach 5's with a 160. You could also get a low stack HS like we were talking about on the Fbirds since it's got a tapered HT... or an angleset.
    "It looks flexy"

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    554
    ah yes. the low stack. it shall be done.
    Bad rep!!! That's right SON!!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by gticlay
    There were a few guys loving their original Mach 5's with a 160. You could also get a low stack HS like we were talking about on the Fbirds since it's got a tapered HT... or an angleset.
    Evil Patrick did this for a while on a mach 5 and liked it very much. The problem was the stiff suspension of the 5 not keeping up, which looks like the 5.7 corrects. A 160 on this bike should be great.

  5. #5
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,207
    + 1 on the Zero Stack lower cup, it will steepen up the front, allowing use of the long fork = PartyBoy
    beaver hunt

  6. #6
    Paterfamilias
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE
    Needless to say the wifes next bike is the 5.7. How would a 160 fox 36 do on there?
    Would it need to be shimed to 150?

    What cha think?
    Officially 160mm is above what the bike was designed for, and would void the warranty.
    "The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face".
    Jack Handy

  7. #7
    I do what I want
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by dan23
    Officially 160mm is above what the bike was designed for, and would void the warranty.

    Well thats an awesome design flaw you built into the bike!!

    Never occurred to you fine fellows over at Pivot that with 5.5-5.7" of travel (Im not sure what the 5.7 actually gets) people might be inclined to toss a 36 160mm fork? Brilliant!!

  8. #8
    Paterfamilias
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Ford
    Well thats an awesome design flaw you built into the bike!!

    Never occurred to you fine fellows over at Pivot that with 5.5-5.7" of travel (Im not sure what the 5.7 actually gets) people might be inclined to toss a 36 160mm fork? Brilliant!!


    No flaw, just precise design...

    I'll run mine with a 150mm and I'm sure I won't miss a thing.

    Really if you need more, get on a Firebird with 170mm.
    "The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face".
    Jack Handy

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    Interesting conumdrum... because technically with a low stack headset the distance from the centerline of the axle to the bottom of the head tube could be less with a 160mm fork than if you ran a 150mm fork with, for example, a Chris King headset that has a very big stack height and given both forks are set up with 25% sag. This would be especially true with the Marzocchi 55 160mm forks that have a shorter ATC than Fox. So the 160mm fork would have less leverage and more ability to soak up bumps etc riding over the same trail actually being easier on the frame. I could do the numbers but...
    "It looks flexy"

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by dan23
    Officially 160mm is above what the bike was designed for, and would void the warranty.

    Why ya gotta go and PI$$ in my cornflakes?

    Perhaps a Turner 5Spot would be the better choice.
    Bad rep!!! That's right SON!!

  11. #11
    Knollician
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,338
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE
    Why ya gotta go and PI$$ in my cornflakes?

    Perhaps a Turner 5Spot would be the better choice.
    Or a Knolly Endo or Chilcotin

    Seriously, how can this bike not be designed to take a 160 fork????
    "Three balls at once...who knew?" - Cotton McKnight

  12. #12
    Knollician
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gticlay
    This would be especially true with the Marzocchi 55 160mm forks that have a shorter ATC than Fox.

    Not so sure about that. The 2011 Fox Van 160 has an a2c of 545 and the 2011 55RC3 Ti Evo has an a2c of 546 according to the website, and I believe the Lyrik is 545 as well.
    "Three balls at once...who knew?" - Cotton McKnight

  13. #13
    Black Lion
    Reputation: yogreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrwhlr
    Evil Patrick did this for a while on a mach 5 and liked it very much. The problem was the stiff suspension of the 5 not keeping up, which looks like the 5.7 corrects. A 160 on this bike should be great.
    I am running a lyric 160 on my 2010 Mach 5. With a 2011 Boost Valve rp23 rear, the bike is very balanced and smooth.
    Voltron

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    I stand corrected. The 32 series forks are super short. Even with the king hs on the 150mm 32 and the 3mm flush hs on the 36, the 36 is still 13mm longer! Only 10mm travel difference but atc is 24mm different.
    "It looks flexy"

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: crank1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,563
    The 5.7 has a shorter head tube length than the Mach 5 as well doesn't it?

    I saw my first 5.7 yesterday, a small (my size) in black. It looked good. I like the new seat collar.

  16. #16
    I do what I want
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,015
    Hmmmm... what does Pivot think now? Oversight?? Flaw??

    I think the public has spoken.

  17. #17
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,984
    Not a headset guru here, but if you put a spacer on a 150 fork, aren't you getting close to the a2c of a 36, and therefore the same geo (i.e. less than 68 STA)?
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  18. #18
    Paterfamilias
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    419
    Maybe VOID was too strong of a word...
    Here are the words of Chris Cocalis.

    The Mach 5.7 was designed to be used with a 140-150mm travel fork. This gives the bike the best balance, handling and performance and also keeps the bike within the realm of its intended use. Some riders are asking about the use of a 160mm travel fork on the bike and if it will void the warranty. From the standpoint of front triangle strength, it should not be a problem as the tubing on the Mach 5.7 closely resembles that of our Firebird model. That said, a 160mm travel fork affects the front/rear balance of the bike, raises the bottom bracket height, and generally will make for a set up that we would not recommend. From a warranty standpoint, running a 160mm travel fork in and of itself will not automatically void the warranty. However, the warranty on ours and any other manufacturer’s frames is there to protect against manufacturing defects. Trying to turn the 5.7 into a park bike or taking it into the realm of long travel trail is outside of its intended use. If you just like the confidence of a little more travel on the front and like to run a lot of sag into your fork, then something like Fox’s light chassis 36 might work fine for you. However, for those of you who have not tried the 5.7 yet (which is most everyone), a 150mm travel fork will slow down the handling considerably to the point that even our most aggressive testers don’t feel the need for a longer travel front fork. If the intention is to allow you to build a sub 26lb freeride bike then look elsewhere as that is not the intent of the 5.7. We have the Firebird that is not far off in weight and allows you to have a 6.6” travel bike that matches up well with the 160mm travel fork and can be ridden on anything from a 24 hour race to moderate DH courses. We have riders who have built their Firebirds up as low as 25lbs so if you’re looking for the best lightweight long travel trail bike option that can really make the most of the longer travel fork, we would recommend the Firebird.


    Sincerely,

    Chris Cocalis | President/CEO, Pivot Cycles/BH USA LLC.
    "The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face".
    Jack Handy

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    Quote Originally Posted by dan23
    Maybe VOID was too strong of a word...
    Here are the words of Chris Cocalis.

    The Mach 5.7 was designed to be used with a 140-150mm travel fork. This gives the bike the best balance, handling and performance and also keeps the bike within the realm of its intended use. Some riders are asking about the use of a 160mm travel fork on the bike and if it will void the warranty. From the standpoint of front triangle strength, it should not be a problem as the tubing on the Mach 5.7 closely resembles that of our Firebird model. That said, a 160mm travel fork affects the front/rear balance of the bike, raises the bottom bracket height, and generally will make for a set up that we would not recommend. From a warranty standpoint, running a 160mm travel fork in and of itself will not automatically void the warranty. However, the warranty on ours and any other manufacturer’s frames is there to protect against manufacturing defects. Trying to turn the 5.7 into a park bike or taking it into the realm of long travel trail is outside of its intended use. If you just like the confidence of a little more travel on the front and like to run a lot of sag into your fork, then something like Fox’s light chassis 36 might work fine for you. However, for those of you who have not tried the 5.7 yet (which is most everyone), a 150mm travel fork will slow down the handling considerably to the point that even our most aggressive testers don’t feel the need for a longer travel front fork. If the intention is to allow you to build a sub 26lb freeride bike then look elsewhere as that is not the intent of the 5.7. We have the Firebird that is not far off in weight and allows you to have a 6.6” travel bike that matches up well with the 160mm travel fork and can be ridden on anything from a 24 hour race to moderate DH courses. We have riders who have built their Firebirds up as low as 25lbs so if you’re looking for the best lightweight long travel trail bike option that can really make the most of the longer travel fork, we would recommend the Firebird.


    Sincerely,

    Chris Cocalis | President/CEO, Pivot Cycles/BH USA LLC.
    That sure is a reasonable explaination.
    "It looks flexy"

  20. #20
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,984
    More important, when are you doing a demo in the SF bay area?
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    Throw this headset on with a tapered steer for more stack height...

    http://www.canecreek.com/articles/fi...20Assembly.PDF
    "It looks flexy"

  22. #22
    Paterfamilias
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by gticlay
    Throw this headset on with a tapered steer for more stack height...

    http://www.canecreek.com/articles/fi...20Assembly.PDF
    Clayton,
    You are confusing the issue here. The Mach 5.7 has a tapered head tube, that headset won't work. You are confusing it with Mach 5 that has a standard zero stack head tube, where the XX 44 does work, and we have been using for the past few months.
    "The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face".
    Jack Handy

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    Quote Originally Posted by dan23
    Clayton,
    You are confusing the issue here. The Mach 5.7 has a tapered head tube, that headset won't work. You are confusing it with Mach 5 that has a standard zero stack head tube, where the XX 44 does work, and we have been using for the past few months.

    Ah, yes. I forgot it's been taperized.
    "It looks flexy"

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    983
    Chris makes a good point.

    Why build up a bike beyond its intended use when you can buy the bike for the intended use with no compromise and more benefits.

    I rode the 5.7 at MBO in August. It was a great bike and even with the 150mm fork I felt it would be capable on a lot of technical terrain.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    Actually, I think the 5.7 might be the perfect bike for where I ride. Even the most jump ridden trail we have on our mountain is probably best done on a shorter travel bike. It would be nice to ride a 25lb 150mm travel bike instead of my 32 and 34lb beasts. I had a Heckler before but that's not very high quality travel.
    "It looks flexy"

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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