Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 364
  1. #1
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,421

    Solo with beefy fork.

    Im very interested in a Solo but dont want to ride a 32mm fork. Is there any way to get a Fox 34 or Pike in a travel short enough to not screw up the bike's handling? The Fox site seams to mention a 34 is available at 140mm but i cant find one for sale anywhere. Am I just looking at the wronge frame?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    569
    I talked with Fox earlier in the week about what they did for Ibis to get a Fox 34 650B 140 for the HDR650B. Will be a neg base plate and spacer available in July that lets you reduce a 2014 34 Float to 140mm. Xfusion Sweep will be the other option. Can't get a clear answer from RS on reducing the Pike.
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
    - Arthur C. Clarke

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bandit350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    379
    Very interested in this as well. Coming from a Lyrik and Fox 36 I don't think I'd like the 32. I wrote SC about it and received "the Solo is designed for 120-140mm fork travel with 130mm being what we consider to be the sweet spot." Can't decide on the Bronson or Solo so weighing options.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Isnt the stock fork adjustable to 140 mm if you remove the spacer?

  5. #5
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,888
    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    Isnt the stock fork adjustable to 140 mm if you remove the spacer?
    Yes, but it has 32mm stanchions I believe.
    Alcohol may lead nowhere, but it sure is the scenic route!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by 007 View Post
    Yes, but it has 32mm stanchions I believe.
    What's that mean? Sorry, not well-versed in fork ligno.

  7. #7
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,888
    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    What's that mean? Sorry, not well-versed in fork ligno.
    For Fox, the numbers 32, 34 and 36 all refer to the diameter of the stanchions (the tubes that slide up and down) in millimeters. The thicker they are, the stiffer they are and the better handling and tracking you'll get out of your front wheel. Typically, more travel = thicker stanchions, which is why the Fox DH forks have 40mm stanchions and the burly all-mountain forks have 36mm stanchions, while shorter travel trail and cross country forks with shorter travel have thinner (32mm) stanchions. Its a weight savings issue mostly.

    OP (and myself for that matter) wants a short travel, thick stanchion fork - i.e., a 140mm x 34mm, which they don't typically make.
    Alcohol may lead nowhere, but it sure is the scenic route!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    So when you configure that fork to run at 140 mm does it just feel goofy or what? If Iget this bike I'd like to run it at 140 so I can get a bit extra bb height.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bandit350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by seleniak View Post
    I talked with Fox earlier in the week about what they did for Ibis to get a Fox 34 650B 140 for the HDR650B. Will be a neg base plate and spacer available in July that lets you reduce a 2014 34 Float to 140mm. Xfusion Sweep will be the other option. Can't get a clear answer from RS on reducing the Pike.
    I called SRAM just now and the tech stated the travel won't be adjustable due to the air spring that's in the fork. He said while it's possible they may offer other air springs in the future I shouldn't count on it happening. I mentioned the dual position offering and he said the lower setting it meant to get you up the hill. It's not necessarily meant to be ridden in that setting the entire time and will start to creep up when not weighted.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Znarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,040
    Specialized has a 2014 120mm Camber EVO with a 120mm Pike. 29er though, I believe.

  11. #11
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,667
    Someone will eventually tinker around with these (the new Pike forks) and figure a way to drop travel down...
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by seleniak View Post
    I talked with Fox earlier in the week about what they did for Ibis to get a Fox 34 650B 140 for the HDR650B. Will be a neg base plate and spacer available in July that lets you reduce a 2014 34 Float to 140mm. Xfusion Sweep will be the other option. Can't get a clear answer from RS on reducing the Pike.
    Did Fox say this conversion kit will not be compatible with a 2013?

    The Sweep looks like it will be very adjustable, though there have been a few delays with that one coming to market.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    38

    Solo 34mm or bronson

    Quote Originally Posted by bandit350 View Post
    Very interested in this as well. Coming from a Lyrik and Fox 36 I don't think I'd like the 32. I wrote SC about it and received "the Solo is designed for 120-140mm fork travel with 130mm being what we consider to be the sweet spot." Can't decide on the Bronson or Solo so weighing options.
    Hi fellas,
    yes I inquired to santa cruz if you can run a 34mm at 140 mm travel on the solo/5010 and not lose the owner warranty doing this, they said no problems as its designed like the other guy mention to travel between 120-140mm but 130mm being best.
    i am having trouble deciding between bronson & the 5010/solo but with the bigger fork on the 5010 i'm thinking it might slacken the head angle towards bronson head angle and climb better than the bronson and be able to take the canadian nth shore abuse we give our bikes just as good as the bronson.
    let me know/us your thoughts fellas

    ad

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    It definitely sounds like the RS Pike RCT3 can be converted to 140mm. There's a guy named WilliamK on the Solo post "Has anybody got their Solos yet?" (Has anybody got their Solos yet?) that mentions that the air spring from the 26" 150mm Pike can go into the Pike RCT3 27.5 replacing the 27.5 air spring. And it sounds like the lowers on the 27.5 Pike is 10mm longer that the 26" version, so by using the 26" air spring you get 10mm less on the travel making it the desired 140mm.

    I also looked at the axle to crown measurement on the Pike vs. the stock Fox Float 32 forks. According to the internets, the A-C on the 27.5 Pike RCT3 is 542mm and A-C on the stock Fox Float 32 27.5 130 CTD Axle to Crown: 519mm. I couldn't find the A-C on the stock Fox Float 32 27.5 at 140mm, not sure how it compares. My thoughts are that the 23mm difference will provide the 1° to slacken the head angle to more of the likes of the Bronson. From what I have read, the general rule is 1° on the head angle per 20mm of A-C. Although there's other potential factors at play here, the headset for example could also have an impact on the head angle.
    [Edit] What I still need to find out is what the A-C is on the converted Pike at 140mm. Presumably it's the same as the 26" 150mm Pike which has an A-C of 532mm. What we really need is some real world measurements done by guys on the forum [\Edit]

    I have recently ordered a 5010 C frame with the intent to put a Pike RCT3 150mm on it and convert it to 140mm. My LBS called the RS distributor and confirmed with them that it could be done.
    I still have some time to wait to find out how well this works because my frame hasn't arrived yet and apparently the Pike RCT3 isn't available in Canada just yet either (it's supposed to arrive at the end of the month). I will post the results when I get it.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Oh and I intend on getting a custom wheel build for my 5010 C. Was thinking a Stans Flow EX on Hope Pro 2 Evo with straight gauge spokes. My thoughts were that solid wheels with a beefier fork will make the 5010 more capable on the descents but with still having the climbing ability (best of both worlds hopefully).

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    A-C on the stock Fox Float 32 27.5 130 CTD Axle to Crown: 519mm. I couldn't find the A-C on the stock Fox Float 32 27.5 at 140mm, not sure how it compares.
    The A-C for the 140mm Float will be 10 mm more than the A-C for the 130mm Float.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Thanks. I guess that means that SC's travel range of 120mm - 140mm for the 5010 is based on A-C measurements of 509mm - 529mm provided that the 519mm A-C of the stock Float 32 is an accurate measurement.

    I got the 519mm measurement for SC's website (on the 5010 geometry page it says "Geometry based on 519mm axle-to-crown (130mm fork)"). Call me a skeptic but I'm not 100% convinced that the measurement is accurate so I posted in the Has anybody got their Solos yet? thread to get confirmation.

    I also asked if WilliamK could provide the A-C of his converted Pike. I am expecting the converted Pike's A-C to be around 532mm.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    38

    thx regular bob

    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    Thanks. I guess that means that SC's travel range of 120mm - 140mm for the 5010 is based on A-C measurements of 509mm - 529mm provided that the 519mm A-C of the stock Float 32 is an accurate measurement.

    I got the 519mm measurement for SC's website (on the 5010 geometry page it says "Geometry based on 519mm axle-to-crown (130mm fork)"). Call me a skeptic but I'm not 100% convinced that the measurement is accurate so I posted in the Has anybody got their Solos yet? thread to get confirmation.

    I also asked if WilliamK could provide the A-C of his converted Pike. I am expecting the converted Pike's A-C to be around 532mm.

    hi reg bob,
    thx for all the info, sounds very douable the solo with a pike or fox adjusted to 140mm which i think would put it close to the bronson but better climber hopefully. Where you considering bronson or solo ?
    or always just going with the solo ?
    Are you riding the techy candian trails or more flowy trails elsewhere ?
    I'm still can't decide but need to get on it to order either the bronson or solo.

    thx

    ad

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by AdMoore View Post
    hi reg bob,
    Where you considering bronson or solo ?
    or always just going with the solo ?
    Are you riding the techy candian trails or more flowy trails elsewhere ?
    I'm still can't decide but need to get on it to order either the bronson or solo.
    I was struggling between the Bronson and the Solo/5010. I was really convinced I should get a Bronson and I ended up thrashing out the decision on this thread.. Bronson, Solo or Tallboy LT?. Towards the end of the thread there are some comparative videos of the different trails.

    Most of my riding (around 90% of my riding) is done in a valley 15 mins from my house in Toronto, Ontario and it's best described as rolling flowy technical XC with a number of freeride features. Some may argue that the 5010 is too much travel for these trails but I have seen some 6" bikes in there. I was looking into the Bronson specifically because I wanted the extra travel for some of the other more technical trails in Ontario. For example there is some DH trails in Blue mountain, Collingwood and some rocky technical terrain at Hilton Falls. However the descents are nothing like the ones out west and the elevation is such that I wouldn't really be doing any significant extended descents that would demand a longer travel bike. Don't get me wrong I could/would have tonnes of fun with the Bronson but the 5010 is better suited overall for all the riding I do here in Ontario. If I ever go out west, I could use my bike for the trail riding and I could hire a DH bike when hitting the lifts.

    Like I said, I'm definitely planning on building the 5010 up a little beefier than stock so I have a little more versatility on the DH-ish and technical trails of Ontario. And at the same time I want to have some growth room for my riding skills.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kreater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    782
    bob, i am also building a SOLO, 5010, for riding here in southern ontario, and i to live very close to the valley here in TO. THe 5010 will be perfect for most of the riding around here. in my build i will be using a 34 float set at 140mm. we talked with SC and they said it was ok to run such a fork. I wanted something a bit burlier than the 32.
    Product designer @RSDBikes.com

    "Live dangerously and you live right."
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by kreater View Post
    in my build i will be using a 34 float set at 140mm. we talked with SC and they said it was ok to run such a fork. I wanted something a bit burlier than the 32.
    Is it an OEM or after market Float 34? Or the 29" Float 34?

    I thought the shortest travel you could get with the 27.5 Float 34 was 160mm.
    Last edited by regularbob; 10-18-2013 at 01:02 PM.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Sorry, hijacking the thread a little here... but having a look at the numbers again it looks like you could do the following with the 5010/Pike combo:

    *This is based off the stock A-C of 519mm and assuming that SC's travel range of 120mm to 140mm for the 5010 is based on A-C measurements of 509mm to 529mm

    1) 5010 + Pike RCT3 150mm which would have an A-C of 542mm which is only 13mm over SC's recommended range (542mm - 529mm = 13mm) and this would set the head angle from 68° to a little over 67° (542mm - 519mm = 23mm and 20mm = 1°)

    or

    2) 5010 + Pike RCT3 150mm with 26" air spring bringing the travel down to 140mm which would have an A-C of 532mm which is only 3mm over SC's recommended range (532mm - 529mm = 3mm Note: this is assuming that the A-C would be the same as the 26" 150mm Pike) and this would set the head angle from 68° to to a little over 67.5° (532mm - 519mm = 13mm and 10mm = 0.5°)

    It might be worth trying the 5010 with the 150mm Pike first before attempting the air spring conversion to see what the handling is like as the 13mm might be negligible. Would be interesting to see if the climbing ability is impacted by this.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,412
    I put a 32/150mm White Brothers Loop on my Bronson and am loving it. 539mm A-C. I'm 180 lbs ride ready. I think it would be a stellar fork for a 120-140 trail bike. FWIW.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Picking up my Solo tomorrow with fork extended to 140 mm on the CTD. Will report how it feels after my first ride.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kreater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    782
    it is an OEM Float 34, set at 140mm.
    Product designer @RSDBikes.com

    "Live dangerously and you live right."
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hoban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    417
    Both having a Nickel and a Butcher, in my opinion, if you are hitting stuff hard enough to feel the need for a 34 or 36, size up and get the Bronson. The Solo will feel like a hardtail on the hard hits.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    116
    I had a alloy Blur Tr (basically a 26" solo!) I had the same problem wanted that short travel aggressive bike but without putting a weak 32 fork on the front. I contacted Santa Cruz about putting a 150 34 on this model, which they didn't have a problem with so that's how I built it. The bike was spot on and a lot of fun and had no complaints about it at all. Then these new 650b bikes come out and it got me thinking to change.
    I had a go on a Bronson with 150 34 fork and it road a lot like the Tr but with just a little bit more travel. But what surprised me the most was that it climbed as well if not better. I put this down to the fact that even though both bikes had a 150 fork, the Bronson was designed around it so this didn't through the seat angle out. The 150 fork on the Tr had slackened the seat angle by quite a bit, which makes a big difference when climbing.
    So I was stuck with the Bronson or solo question. I thought the solo would be spot on as it was a very similar idea to the Tr, but I would end up building it the same way with a 150 for (if Santa Cruz were to say it was ok to do so). Then I thought if I got a solo or Bronson I would build it up with the same kit wheels, tyres, brakes and gears. So the only weight savings would be in the frame which isn't a big difference and both are light anyway! So I have ended up a ordering a Bronson, not really for the extra travel but so that the geometry will be better with a long travel fork.
    But I agree if you could build a solo with a 130mm Pike it would be an amazing trail killing bike!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Razzer View Post
    I had a alloy Blur Tr (basically a 26" solo!) I had the same problem wanted that short travel aggressive bike but without putting a weak 32 fork on the front. I contacted Santa Cruz about putting a 150 34 on this model, which they didn't have a problem with so that's how I built it. The bike was spot on and a lot of fun and had no complaints about it at all. Then these new 650b bikes come out and it got me thinking to change.
    I had a go on a Bronson with 150 34 fork and it road a lot like the Tr but with just a little bit more travel. But what surprised me the most was that it climbed as well if not better. I put this down to the fact that even though both bikes had a 150 fork, the Bronson was designed around it so this didn't through the seat angle out. The 150 fork on the Tr had slackened the seat angle by quite a bit, which makes a big difference when climbing.
    So I was stuck with the Bronson or solo question. I thought the solo would be spot on as it was a very similar idea to the Tr, but I would end up building it the same way with a 150 for (if Santa Cruz were to say it was ok to do so). Then I thought if I got a solo or Bronson I would build it up with the same kit wheels, tyres, brakes and gears. So the only weight savings would be in the frame which isn't a big difference and both are light anyway! So I have ended up a ordering a Bronson, not really for the extra travel but so that the geometry will be better with a long travel fork.
    But I agree if you could build a solo with a 130mm Pike it would be an amazing trail killing bike!
    I hadn't even thought much about the seat tube angle but yeah if you lowered the Pike to 140mm the seat tube angle would probably be somewhere near 72.4 - 72.5° which is similar to the Blur TRc.

    Question is would a 5010 at 140mm with these angles climb better or worse than the Bronson. The Bronson has a longer wheelbase so even if it climbed better on long straight ups, it would probably give up a little to the 5010 on twisty climbs.

    Kinda wish I could see a video of someone climbing with the Bronson, especially on technical winding climbs.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    483
    Razzer.. I think you hit the nail right on the head
    Quote Originally Posted by Razzer View Post
    I had a alloy Blur Tr (basically a 26" solo!) I had the same problem wanted that short travel aggressive bike but without putting a weak 32 fork on the front. I contacted Santa Cruz about putting a 150 34 on this model, which they didn't have a problem with so that's how I built it. The bike was spot on and a lot of fun and had no complaints about it at all. Then these new 650b bikes come out and it got me thinking to change.
    I had a go on a Bronson with 150 34 fork and it road a lot like the Tr but with just a little bit more travel. But what surprised me the most was that it climbed as well if not better. I put this down to the fact that even though both bikes had a 150 fork, the Bronson was designed around it so this didn't through the seat angle out. The 150 fork on the Tr had slackened the seat angle by quite a bit, which makes a big difference when climbing.
    So I was stuck with the Bronson or solo question. I thought the solo would be spot on as it was a very similar idea to the Tr, but I would end up building it the same way with a 150 for (if Santa Cruz were to say it was ok to do so). Then I thought if I got a solo or Bronson I would build it up with the same kit wheels, tyres, brakes and gears. So the only weight savings would be in the frame which isn't a big difference and both are light anyway! So I have ended up a ordering a Bronson, not really for the extra travel but so that the geometry will be better with a long travel fork.
    But I agree if you could build a solo with a 130mm Pike it would be an amazing trail killing bike!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Had my stock CTD fork bumped up to 140 mm. Definitely noticeable. Not the fanciest fork by any means but after removing the spacer and replacing the air spring assembly, the bike is feeling really good.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Solo with beefy fork.-140mm.jpg  


  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    Had my stock CTD fork bumped up to 140 mm. Definitely noticeable. Not the fanciest fork by any means but after removing the spacer and replacing the air spring assembly, the bike is feeling really good.
    How's the handling? I'd imagine the new head angle would make it a bit more confident inspiring on the descents but how's the climbing? Do you notice the slacker seat tube angle?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    How's the handling? I'd imagine the new head angle would make it a bit more confident inspiring on the descents but how's the climbing? Do you notice the slacker seat tube angle?
    I have only ridden it around the LBS parking lot and on the my street but handling is still great (especially to me since I am coming off of a 29er). Just from popping off of curbs and such I can tell I like the little bit of extra travel it got me. By no means a Bronson but I like how it feels. If my local trails warm up and the snow melts soon, I will report back after I get a ride in. I only got it back today.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    504
    I have been very happy with my Pike at the 140mm mark. For me, the conversion was well worth it. I was interested to see your calculations on this regularbob, thanks.

    Solo with beefy fork.-solo-3.jpg

    I feel that the market has a little catching up to do, and I am sure more forks will come with this travel range.


    I should measure my A to C. I usually do, but in this instance I just knew I wanted the thicker stanctions and the Pikes are the best option IMO. And I was happy the BB stayed low enough. Although the new Marz are coming and no doubt others. But the Pike has the weight advantage which is attractive and in keeping with the bikes lighter end of the AM spectrum.

    I feel that it climbs better than a Bronson, it still feels spritely for sure and up hill switch backs are fine to me. But that's me, I am happy to slide forward on the saddle a little. I definitely slide forward less on this than on my TRc, so for me, it is a climbing improvement.

    Maybe some of this is down to the bigger tread patch of a 27.5 tyre too, but with the Solo a little slacker, it is still very well mannered IMO.

    I feel that the Pike is smooth as silk and that this thing, with it's low slung design, tracks like a mono rail.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Solo with beefy fork.-solo-4.jpg  


  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamK View Post
    I have been very happy with my Pike at the 140mm mark. For me, the conversion was well worth it. I was interested to see your calculations on this regularbob, thanks.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Solo 3.JPG 
Views:	3002 
Size:	234.0 KB 
ID:	840501

    I feel that the market has a little catching up to do, and I am sure more forks will come with this travel range.


    I should measure my A to C. I usually do, but in this instance I just knew I wanted the thicker stanctions and the Pikes are the best option IMO. And I was happy the BB stayed low enough. Although the new Marz are coming and no doubt others. But the Pike has the weight advantage which is attractive and in keeping with the bikes lighter end of the AM spectrum.

    I feel that it climbs better than a Bronson, it still feels spritely for sure and up hill switch backs are fine to me. But that's me, I am happy to slide forward on the saddle a little. I definitely slide forward less on this than on my TRc, so for me, it is a climbing improvement.

    Maybe some of this is down to the bigger tread patch of a 27.5 tyre too, but with the Solo a little slacker, it is still very well mannered IMO.

    I feel that the Pike is smooth as silk and that this thing, with it's low slung design, tracks like a mono rail.
    Hey WilliamK, is your rear travel still at 125 mm? I see how you have modified it. Curious as to what you did.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    I hadn't even thought much about the seat tube angle but yeah if you lowered the Pike to 140mm the seat tube angle would probably be somewhere near 72.4 - 72.5° which is similar to the Blur TRc.

    Question is would a 5010 at 140mm with these angles climb better or worse than the Bronson. The Bronson has a longer wheelbase so even if it climbed better on long straight ups, it would probably give up a little to the 5010 on twisty climbs.

    Kinda wish I could see a video of someone climbing with the Bronson, especially on technical winding climbs.
    I think the seat tube angle is measured relative to the bottom bracket which stayed constant as you pivot the bike around the rear axel.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    I think the change in the geometry with the 140mm fork won't change pedaling performance too much at all. Front end feels a smidge taller (and it is) but you forget about it after a while.
    Seems to give it a more playful attitude. I feel a bit of the Bronson in it now, but I am sure the new HTA is still steeper than the Bronson model. Still pedals great also. I think the bike feels great with the adjustment.
    I ride at two locations primarily. One is more XC, long distance rides and the other (Curt Gowdy State Park) is more technical and designed for bikes. Lots of drops and rock gardens, so this modification will be a good one.
    If you don't wanna shell out the $ for the Pike (like me), it's a relatively easy thing to do and you are not voiding any warranty by doing so!

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    483
    The seat tube angle is measured at the bottom bracket
    But, it's measured in relation to a horizontal line through the center
    As you raise the bottom bracket by lengthening the fork. The bottom bracket turns in relation to the horizontal line through it. So the seat tube angle becomes more slack the same way the head tube angle becomes more slack relative to a horizontal line (the ground)

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by flyinmike View Post
    The seat tube angle is measured at the bottom bracket
    But, it's measured in relation to a horizontal line through the center
    As you raise the bottom bracket by lengthening the fork. The bottom bracket turns in relation to the horizontal line through it. So the seat tube angle becomes more slack the same way the head tube angle becomes more slack relative to a horizontal line (the ground)
    Oh...cool.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    117
    Looking at the carbine 275's site it has a "actual" and "effective" seat tube angle. Seems to be the difference in our two interpretations. SC's webs site makes no distinction.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,543

    Re: Solo with beefy fork.

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamK View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Solo 3.JPG 
Views:	3002 
Size:	234.0 KB 
ID:	840501
    I am sure you have posted the weight of your bike before, but could you please remind me?

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    483
    that would be referring to how the seat tube is offset or bent.
    the further the seat post is extended the slacker the seat tube angle would be
    So.. it would be the seat tube angle if you measured where the top tube would intersect (if it was not bent)
    it would be the effective seat tube angle if you measured horizontal to where the top tube and the head tube intersect
    Both of those would become more slack as you increase front ride height
    Quote Originally Posted by zootsuitbass View Post
    Looking at the carbine 275's site it has a "actual" and "effective" seat tube angle. Seems to be the difference in our two interpretations. SC's webs site makes no distinction.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,570
    @ WillianK - you really shouldn't let your equipment hold back your riding...

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    504
    I'll try not to roadie, more riding is always good riding...

    I'll get an A to C measurement for you guys (someone asked somewhere). I note the geo discussion, and figure that the HA would be about 67.5 maybe a fraction less.

    When I do get around to trying 140 on the rear, I also figure I will be running less air in the shock, I will run the sag as per 140 and this will also give me a slightly slacker stance. Should be very interesting.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamK View Post
    I'll try not to roadie, more riding is always good riding...

    I'll get an A to C measurement for you guys (someone asked somewhere). I note the geo discussion, and figure that the HA would be about 67.5 maybe a fraction less.

    When I do get around to trying 140 on the rear, I also figure I will be running less air in the shock, I will run the sag as per 140 and this will also give me a slightly slacker stance. Should be very interesting.
    Will you be doing that by removing the internal spacer? Keep us posted, we are all very curious!

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    504
    I'm not sure who asked for the A to C measurement, but here it is: I get a measurement of 540mm.

    Oh, and sorry Jazzanova, I forgot to answer your Q. It came in at exactly 12kgs (26.4lbs). I am happy with that considering the fork shock combo on the bike.

    I hope that helps

    Cheers

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamK View Post
    I'm not sure who asked for the A to C measurement, but here it is: I get a measurement of 540mm.
    Thanks WilliamK, it was me who asked for the A-C measurement. Also, thanks for the report back on the riding characteristics. It helps a lot because just looking at the numbers doesn't really paint an accurate picture of what it will ride like.

    So the original A-C measurement of a new 27.5 150mm Pike is quoted to be 542mm. Sounds as if changing the air spring doesn't actual lower the fork but maybe just shortens the travel on the stanchions. Which means the head angle would probably be around 67°.

    So I guess the question on my mind is... if the A-C measure is the same, then when I finally get my 5010 frame and Pike, maybe it would be worth trying the Pike without changing the air spring and see how the full 150mm travel rides.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    117
    Yes, maybe run a little extra sag.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    Thanks WilliamK, it was me who asked for the A-C measurement. Also, thanks for the report back on the riding characteristics. It helps a lot because just looking at the numbers doesn't really paint an accurate picture of what it will ride like.

    So the original A-C measurement of a new 27.5 150mm Pike is quoted to be 542mm. Sounds as if changing the air spring doesn't actual lower the fork but maybe just shortens the travel on the stanchions. Which means the head angle would probably be around 67°.

    So I guess the question on my mind is... if the A-C measure is the same, then when I finally get my 5010 frame and Pike, maybe it would be worth trying the Pike without changing the air spring and see how the full 150mm travel rides.
    Be prepared for a ton of finger wagging on here if you run the 150 mm fork. Last time I brought up running 140 mm in the rear and removing the spacer, I was met with resistance and the "Shoulda got a Bronson then" replies.
    I will be interested to see how that pans out though. Mountain bikes were born from tinkering and I don't see why you shouldn't tinker if you know what you are doing.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    117
    I'd be way more hesitant to mess with running the rear over spec. Those linkages all have progression curves designed into them.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    Be prepared for a ton of finger wagging on here if you run the 150 mm fork.
    Hahaha, no worries... my middle finger is ready to wag back

    I agree, I thought one of the many purposes of having a forum was to be able to discuss the possibilities when it comes to tweaking and tinkering.

    Funny thing is, if a few years ago, I asked anyone's opinion on putting a 120mm travel fork on my hardtail (which I have done btw) I am sure that I would have received a certain amount of finger wagging. I am sure the response would be... why would you want that much travel on a hardtail, if you need that much travel get a full suspension bike, blah, blah, blah. Nowadays though, it's not uncommon at all to have such a long fork on a hardtail, especially if you have freeride tendencies.

    My thoughts are that a 5010 + 150mm Pike would make a freeride-ish feeling trail bike. And I am thinking of adding even more crazy talk to my build by using predominately Saint stuff including the crankset and the brakes. Not to mention a Flow EX/Hope custom wheelset (I know ay - who is this guy! such crazy talk!)

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dual Position Air spring in a Solo Air fork
    By Floor Tom in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 11:28 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2013, 05:55 AM
  3. Who likes a beefy rear tire?
    By Slow Danger in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-01-2011, 04:42 PM
  4. Beefy 29er
    By texasnavy05 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 07:39 PM

Posting Permissions

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