Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    555

    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?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,620
    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
    555
    ah yes. the low stack. it shall be done.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,491
    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
    3,212
    + 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
    480
    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
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    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
    480
    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
    6,620
    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
    555
    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.

  11. #11
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,429
    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????
    Employed by Pivot Cycles - www.pivotcycles.com

  12. #12
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,429
    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.
    Employed by Pivot Cycles - www.pivotcycles.com

  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
    6,620
    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
    1,704
    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
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    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
    8,715
    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
    480
    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
    6,620
    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
    8,715
    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
    6,620
    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
    480
    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
    6,620
    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
    984
    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
    6,620
    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"

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    555
    Sorry to revive a thread but wouldn't the added stiffness of the 36 over the 32 make the bike handle that much better? Shim it to 150 and it would make one he'll of a nice trail bike.

  27. #27
    Pivotal figure
    Reputation: kenbentit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    6,113
    I just spent the entire weekend on one (just over 50 miles total) and I had no issues at all with the stiffness of the stock 32 Float RLC. IMO, the added weight of the 36 just isn't necessary on this bike. My biggest change was to put a short stem on it and dual ply tires. I rode everything I ride on my Firebird, just not quite as aggressively
    Desert Sunset Calls/Upward, Pain, Perseverance/Welcome Solitude

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE
    Sorry to revive a thread but wouldn't the added stiffness of the 36 over the 32 make the bike handle that much better? Shim it to 150 and it would make one he'll of a nice trail bike.
    These are my thoughts as well, it's not the travel but Fox 32 / 150mm is flexy fork compared to 36. Well, I'll have to make do with 32mm fork this season anyway.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    81
    Sorry to resurect an old thread for the 2nd time but I'd rather the continuity than just sticking random new threads out there.

    Anyway, just to add to the above that am also a bit disappointed on the limited support for 545mm A-C forks in this design.

    My requirement for an everyday bike, is trail bike manners for pedalling and a burly front end for ploughing through and landing whatever.

    On the one hand, the Fox 32 just isn't stiff enough (for my liking). I have no doubt you "can" ride it down all sorts, however down that same all sorts, the Fox 36 will perform better.

    And on the other hand, I'm sure you can pedal a 160-170mm bike very nicely, but it's not going to pedal as well as a Mojo SL, which is my benchmark for trail bike pedalling manners. Lugging a Fox36 is enough of a compromise in this direction; but better to compromise with the front end than the back end.

    It seems like the Dixon is a little more friendly in this regard? So am favouring this as a result. Perhaps I'm just interpreting Chris's words a bit too pessimistically, and over estimating the Dixon's capability; but that's the way I'm seeing it currently.

    *I should say the reason I'm in the market for a new bike is because I rode in to the end of a log night riding, and as a result managed to a) separate my shoulder and b) push the lower headset cup of my Mojo SL/ Fox36 setup inside the headtube. It was a freak accident and I don't expect (& hope not!) to be doing the same on a regular basis but at the same time, I'd prefer to have a metal frame that is a little more butch up front than that.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    36
    If you're after a stiffer Fox 32 that isn't a Fox 36, perhaps a BOS Deville would suit? 34 mm stanchions and very tall for their travel. 140mm fork has an A-C of 529mm ~20mm more than a 140mm fox 32.

    If you're after a taller Fox 32 that isn't a Fox 36 and isn't as tall as the Deville, perhaps a RS Revelation would suit? the A-C on the Revelations is ~10mm more than the 32s for the same travel

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,620
    If you pushed the headset up in your Mojo headtube, the alumium would likely have elongated or simply cracked.
    "It looks flexy"

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    81
    Zotan: I already have a 160mm Fox 36 RC2. In my experience 545mm A-C length forks are fairly popular for Enduro. My comment was that this sort of fork wasn't recommended for the 5.7

    GTIclay: I hear ya! Don't want to start a Carbon vs Alu thread. What I was trying to say was that I was looking for a bike with a slightly stronger build than my SL. The HD would probably fit the bill (though HT looks quite short!) but is priced stupid in the UK currently.

    Perhaps I am better off looking at the FB.. just sensing from some threads on this forum that it might be a tad steep with a 160 fork (and really would prefer not to be tied to an angleset), and I've a slacked out Uzzi VPX with 66's if I want to go bigger anyway.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,491
    Do it! The geometry and front-end stiffness will improve.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    865
    Quote Originally Posted by twebeast View Post
    And on the other hand, I'm sure you can pedal a 160-170mm bike very nicely, but it's not going to pedal as well as a Mojo SL, which is my benchmark for trail bike pedalling manners.
    The firebird pedals exceptionally well. I would say that the pivot bikes put more emphasis on pedaling efficiency than the ibis bikes. I would definitely demo the FB before making a decision, you may be surprised.

  35. #35
    it's the ride....
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    530
    I am happy with this set up. No problem at all on pedaling even climbing steep hill.
    And the fork is internally adjustable 140 - 180mm, currently at 160mm.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Mach 5.7 + fox 36 = ????-durolux-rca-160mm-front-5.7-rear.jpg  

    Ulating blencong sejatine tataraning lelaku...

Posting Permissions

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