Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 364
  1. #1
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,425

    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
    573
    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
    382
    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
    2,677
    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
    6,181
    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
    2,677
    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
    6,181
    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
    2,677
    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
    382
    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
    1,041
    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
    8,770
    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
    380
    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
    200
    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
    200
    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
    1,038
    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
    200
    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
    200
    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
    200
    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
    200
    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
    1,465
    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
    2,677
    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
    200
    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
    501
    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
    2,677
    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
    200
    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
    2,677
    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
    545
    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
    2,677
    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:	3529 
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
    131
    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
    2,677
    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
    501
    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
    131
    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
    131
    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
    2,701

    Re: Solo with beefy fork.

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

Name:	Solo 3.JPG 
Views:	3529 
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
    501
    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
    1,582
    @ WillianK - you really shouldn't let your equipment hold back your riding...

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    545
    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
    2,677
    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
    545
    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
    200
    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
    131
    Yes, maybe run a little extra sag.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    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
    131
    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
    200
    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!)

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    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!)
    lol @ the middle finger response. I can say that even running the 140 mm CTD fork has changed the behavior of the bike significantly. To me 140 mm is a lot and the fact that it pedals so well still makes the bike seem perfect for about anything. Long trail rides, and gnarly/tech trails.
    I have heard someone say on here they checked the tolerances of the 140 rear travel idea and it checked out. I'd be hesitant to try it before a guinea pig takes a go at it first though.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,701

    Re: Solo with beefy fork.

    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    lol @ the middle finger response. I can say that even running the 140 mm CTD fork has changed the behavior of the bike significantly. To me 140 mm is a lot and the fact that it pedals so well still makes the bike seem perfect for about anything. Long trail rides, and gnarly/tech trails.
    I have heard someone say on here they checked the tolerances of the 140 rear travel idea and it checked out. I'd be hesitant to try it before a guinea pig takes a go at it first though.
    It was WilliamK using a Bos Kirk shock.
    I think he runs it at 125mm but tried to remove the internal spacer and got about 137mm of travel without clearance issues. I am not sure which tires he runs though...
    Solo with beefy fork.-uploadfromtaptalk1382464551271.jpg
    Edit:
    It looks like Maxxis HR2

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzanova View Post
    It was WilliamK using a Bos Kirk shock.
    I think he runs it at 125mm but tried to remove the internal spacer and got about 137mm of travel without clearance issues. I am not sure which tires he runs though...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	uploadfromtaptalk1382464551271.jpg 
Views:	335 
Size:	78.8 KB 
ID:	840958
    So if you removed the spacer in the stock shock could you get more travel? Whats the benefit of the Kirk shock?

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,701

    Re: Solo with beefy fork.

    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    So if you removed the spacer in the stock shock could you get more travel? Whats the benefit of the Kirk shock?
    Based on what WilliamK says, yes, you will get more travel with the Kirk with the spacer removed.
    The benefit is higher adjustability of the Kirk compared to the stock Fox shock. Probably better small bump compliance, better behaving on the downs.
    The disadvantages are higher weight and price and not to be able to use a bottle in the triangle.
    He also mentions he did not have access to a custom shock tuning, like PUSH, so he decided to go with the Kirk.

  55. #55
    Golden Bears United
    Reputation: TeeKay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    ... I can say that even running the 140 mm CTD fork has changed the behavior of the bike significantly. To me 140 mm is a lot and the fact that it pedals so well still makes the bike seem perfect for about anything. ....
    Question for GnarBrahWyo, since you had a similar problem as mine with your fork:

    Did you get a chance to measure your fork now, with a replaced air cartridge, to see if you in fact got all the 130mm or 140mm travel you supposedly got? That means let out all air and measure the compressed stanchion length.

    I did that and only got about 110 mm out of my supposed 130. Fox said "oil migration" problem and has asked for my fork since last week. I should get it back, hopefully fixed, this week.

    Thanks.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by TeeKay View Post
    Question for GnarBrahWyo, since you had a similar problem as mine with your fork:

    Did you get a chance to measure your fork now, with a replaced air cartridge, to see if you in fact got all the 130mm or 140mm travel you supposedly got? That means let out all air and measure the compressed stanchion length.

    I did that and only got about 110 mm out of my supposed 130. Fox said "oil migration" problem and has asked for my fork since last week. I should get it back, hopefully fixed, this week.

    Thanks.
    My stanchion length is about 6 inches (150 mm) now, which is what I would expect after the spacer removed and since we know that Fox makes the stanchions a bit longer than the actual travel. I am getting closer to 140 mm mark now than I was getting closer to the 130 mm mark then. Still not complete travel, but more...and I have yet to tinker with PSI and such. I also haven't taken it off anything taller than a 1 foot cement drop near my house.
    The new air spring assembly and removal of spacer makes my bike feel like its on steroids. Partly because the fork was defective before and partly because I have been riding a 37 lb Moonlander while the bike was in the shop! =)
    I will try to post some pics this evening of my stanchions and o-ring post overhaul.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    So in response to your question about my 140 mm ctd:
    I just rode around my neighborhood, popped off curbs, and did a couple ~1ft drops and it looks like this. A bit more than 5 inches of effective travel given the circumstances of how I just used it. You will notice the stanchions are about 6 inches.
    Just curious what others are getting with their stock 130 mm set ups and pikes?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Solo with beefy fork.-2013-10-22_18-26-02_149.jpg  


  58. #58
    Golden Bears United
    Reputation: TeeKay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    367
    Great! Thanks for the info and pix. I hope that mine will come back with something close to the 130 promised.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    I think you will be pleasantly surprised when you get your fork back. I really think 140mm is the sweet spot not 130mm.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,038
    Gnar, how does the fork handle on the trails? Sure would be nice to use more of the stanction than it does. Have you tried letting all of the air out of the fork or removing the top cap while compressing it fully?

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by wheatgerm View Post
    Gnar, how does the fork handle on the trails? Sure would be nice to use more of the stanction than it does. Have you tried letting all of the air out of the fork or removing the top cap while compressing it fully?
    I am planning to take it out on a real trail ride tomorrow after work. From what I have gathered on the web, and this may not be correct, either you won't get full travel, or the last 15 mm or so is only for big big hits. I was only getting 100 mm of effective travel with it set at 130, so this feels a lot better. Handling isn't an issue but I will report back tomorrow after my ride.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    (btw...if I remove all air there is only about 10 mm of stanchion exposed)

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    79
    I too thought about getting the Solo and putting a reduced pike (150mm reduced to 140mm), I-9 enduro wheels, XX1, dropper, etc on it. In the end, the bike to me would be very similar to the stock Bronson. The increased HA of the solo with a 34/140mm fork due to bigger crown (A-C measurement) would be similar to the Bronson with a stock 150mm fork pike or fox. To me the seat angle tube would be angled back also on the solo since the front was now lifted up which would bring you do a slightly disadvantage. It seemed like if you were going to go through the trouble to make the solo (5010) a little longer travel you might as well build a Bronson.
    I rented a solo (XT build with I-9 laced with Nobby Nics) and rode 27 miles on Saturday. It was a hoot and a howl coming off my worn Yeti ASR-5 with a 120 fork on it. the solo was very efficient. Suspension felt great coming from my Yeti. I use Mnt bikes to cross train for racing motorcycles in enduro, hare scrambles, and enduro-X events. In East Tennessee we have the smokies with some XC riding, rock stuff, bluffs, lots of up and down...
    Also did a demo day a few weeks ago and rode the Bronson first then the solo and did not tell a whole lot of differences after I put up the bronson tire pressure from 17 to about 28 (I'm 225lbs)... I did notice that the solo was slightly more agile and suspension was stiffer. The bronson soaked up a little more of the bumps and railed at down hills..
    Having said all of this, I think I'm just going to get a Bronson with the Pike 150.... My build would be the same besides the fork if I were to get a solo but I don't think I would put a 34 fork on there. For me I would get the solo for the shorter suspension and firmer XC feel. Not trying to convert it to a Ibis HDR or short stroked Bronson..

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    Took the 140 mm Solo out for it's first trail ride since removing the spacer. I would say that there is a slight difference in handling, but nothing drastic. I couldn't say there was any situation where the difference slowed me up any. Overall handling is still great and I am happy with the setup.
    On steep descents the more slack head tube angle is definitely noticeable and gave me more confidence that I wasn't gonna go otb. I have no reason to want to change the fork back to the way it was. I am really happy with the 140 mm fork.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    454
    Fox 36 lowered to 140 is totally $$$$ on the Solo. Can't believe how awesome it rides - feels like its right in between the stock setup solo (which was a bit too XC for my preferences) and the bronson (which didn't have that carve-y feeling, but pedaled great).

    longer fork still carves and stiffness is incredible for chunk. I'm sure the new pike and 34 forks are nice, but I already had the 36, and it feels better than anything else I've ever tried, plenty of clearance, and is bombproof!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by jayoutside View Post
    Fox 36 lowered to 140 is totally $$$$ on the Solo.
    Dude, you can't tell us you put a 36 on your Solo and not post pics! That's just mean!
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  67. #67
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,425
    I hadn't checked this thread in awhile. Lots of great info here. I had given up on the Idea of a Solo because of fork selection and ordered a Bronson but now i'm questioning that decision. I am replacing a Firebird and wanted something lighter and popier. A few of my friends have switched from Nomads to TRs with 36 forks and have been thrilled with the change. I was hoping for a similar switch but with the bigger wheels.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    Dude, you can't tell us you put a 36 on your Solo and not post pics! That's just mean!
    Agreed.. please post some pics

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,677
    +1. Pics or it never happened...

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac View Post
    I hadn't checked this thread in awhile. Lots of great info here. I had given up on the Idea of a Solo because of fork selection and ordered a Bronson but now i'm questioning that decision. I am replacing a Firebird and wanted something lighter and popier. A few of my friends have switched from Nomads to TRs with 36 forks and have been thrilled with the change. I was hoping for a similar switch but with the bigger wheels.
    Have you demo'd the Bronson and Solo? I did and actually loved the Solo a little more than the Bronson. They're very similar, but the Solo just felt a little lower and a little more nimble. I couldn't find a medium SoloC anywhere, but came across a used BronsonC X01 at a price that I couldn't pass up so I bought it. I have no regrets.

    The weird thing is that the Bronson I bought has the new Fox 34 Talas on it. I was reading up on it and it's a completely new hydraulic design that's actually meant to be run hard in either setting. It might be a good match for the Solo. Run it at 130 for trail carving, then extend it to 150 for some downhill fun. Josh Bryceland raced the Enduro World Finals on a Solo with what looked like a 34, but I can't tell what travel he had it at. The only detailed pic I can find doesn't have a fork on it.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    131
    Could you post pic?

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    267
    A good Video about the SC Syndicate racing the final round of the EWS, there is some good footage of the Bryceland on the 5010, maybe someone with a discerning eye can figure out exactly what his setup was.


  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by DYI01 View Post
    A good Video about the SC Syndicate racing the final round of the EWS, there is some good footage of the Bryceland on the 5010, maybe someone with a discerning eye can figure out exactly what his setup was.

    Good find, I somehow missed that video. Looks like he's rocking the 32 at 140mm. Crazy!

    Solo with beefy fork.-josh5010fox2.jpg
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    I was recently asked if I thought it was possible to lower a Pike to 130 to stay as close to the stock geometry as possible (which is brilliant by the way). While I don't have a Pike (yet) to take apart and confirm, I did spend a little time looking at the exploded diagrams and I believe it's possible to cut and re-tap the threads on the bottom of the air shaft. You would probably want to have a machinist do this for you unless you have a lathe and the proper tap.

    If anyone plans on trying this, you should probably buy a new air shaft to experiment on.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    I was recently asked if I thought it was possible to lower a Pike to 130 to stay as close to the stock geometry as possible (which is brilliant by the way). While I don't have a Pike (yet) to take apart and confirm, I did spend a little time looking at the exploded diagrams and I believe it's possible to cut and re-tap the threads on the bottom of the air shaft. You would probably want to have a machinist do this for you unless you have a lathe and the proper tap.

    If anyone plans on trying this, you should probably buy a new air shaft to experiment on.
    You don't by chance have the link to the exploded diagram.. curious to have a look.

    I remember reading somewhere that due to the demand, RS is planning on supplying the Pike airspring in a larger variety of sizes. Still not 100% sure what that means and if they will do sizes as low as 130mm.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    http://cdn.sram.com/cdn/farfuture/pG..._spc_rev_a.pdf

    Page 46 for the Pike. You can also see that the air spring is similar to the Revelation and the Rev has available air shafts from 100mm up to 150mm in 10mm increments.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    http://cdn.sram.com/cdn/farfuture/pG..._spc_rev_a.pdf

    Page 46 for the Pike. You can also see that the air spring is similar to the Revelation and the Rev has available air shafts from 100mm up to 150mm in 10mm increments.
    Thanks, hopefully RS will do the same with the Pike. It's only in everyone's best interest to do so. Means the fork would be available to be used by more riders who are looking for a specific length of travel, which also means more potential customers for RS.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Trojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    Thanks, hopefully RS will do the same with the Pike. It's only in everyone's best interest to do so. Means the fork would be available to be used by more riders who are looking for a specific length of travel, which also means more potential customers for RS.
    Does anyone know if fox are making the 34 in a 140mm length?
    As i can only see 160mm on the fox site.
    I just went to look at my Solo built at the LBS (waiting on tyres) and for some unknown reason it has been built with a 34, measured stanchions and they are 140mm!
    I had asked for a 130mm CTD fork, so expected they would have received a 140mm and then needed to lower it.

    All photos/builds on the SC site show Solo with a 32.
    Shop said they can either lower it with a spacer to 130mm, or change fork to a 32 if thats what i want, but its now got me thinking if i should stick with the 34 or not.... another spanner in the works, as struggling to get the 27.5 tyres here in UK.
    Reading this thread it seems the dis-advantages maybe a slacker head/seat angle due to the 20mm higher A/c height. I have a nomad and specced the solo as an xc bike, 685mm easton carbon bars and carbon seat post from my blur xc.
    But it doesn't appear anyone has confirmed the actual, a/c height of a 34 140mm fork yet?
    Solo C 32@140
    Nomad 3 C, Pike.
    Cube Stereo Hybrid 140 (recovery rides & grin inducing blasts/uplifts)

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    131
    If it can be modified to 140 I'd keep it and get push to go through it. It's a route I'm likely to go myself.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Trojan View Post
    But it doesn't appear anyone has confirmed the actual, a/c height of a 34 140mm fork yet?
    Can't remember where I found it but I noted in my Evernotes that the Fox Float 34 CTD 27.5 150mm has an A-C measurement of 544mm. So my guess would be that the Float 34 at 140mm would be 534mm. (just guesswork for now unfortunately)

    <btw <font="" color="#333333">BTW > stock Fox Float 32 27.5 130 CTD Axle to Crown: 519mm according to 5010 specs details on SC website</btw>

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Trojan View Post
    Does anyone know if fox are making the 34 in a 140mm length?
    As i can only see 160mm on the fox site.
    I just went to look at my Solo built at the LBS (waiting on tyres) and for some unknown reason it has been built with a 34, measured stanchions and they are 140mm!
    I had asked for a 130mm CTD fork, so expected they would have received a 140mm and then needed to lower it.
    Ummmm, why didn't you ask the people building your bike?
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    I think Fox is only offering the Float 34 in 160mm for after market. However, there are some varying configurations as stock factory forks (I remember someone mentioning this somewhere is one of the threads I was reading). So maybe the 140mm Float 34 are from another bike in the shop?

    From what I understand it's just down to the internals/air spring and if Fox offers them in the desired size in their parts catalogue for the Float 34.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    X-Fusion Sweep with the 5010 could be a very good option. It is an AM/Trail fork with 34mm upper tubes so it's comparable to Float 34 and Pike. It can have the travel adjusted internally in 20mm increments from 100mm - 160mm. And apparently it can be adjusted further with spacers to get 10mm increments. So you may even be able to get the Sweep down to 130mm. Interesting video.. .

    Here are the specs (as per the vid):

    RS Pike
    Travel: 160mm
    <strike>Trail</strike> Offset: 42mm
    Axle to Crown: 552mm
    Weight: 1861g

    XF Sweep
    Travel: 160mm
    <strike>Trail</strike> Offset: 46mm
    Axle to Crown: 551mm
    Weight: 1905g

    [Correction > The video incorrectly states the offset measurement as trail. I confirmed from the RS and XF websites that the Pike offset is 42mm and Sweep offset is 46mm]

    Wasn't too familiar with the affect of rake and trail in relation to head angle until I did a bit more research into it this morning and it sounds like you can combat the sluggish handling of a slacker head angle with using a fork that has a larger trail? I have probably over simplified this a little, anyone with a better understanding is welcome to share some insight into how the fork geometry and head angles work together.

    So for example, if I wanted to a have a 140mm fork on my 5010 but the A-C creates a slacker head angle by 1° would the Sweep be a better for handling because of the larger trail? Or would the Pike be better with a smaller trail?

    (This is assuming that the Pike @ 140mm has A-C of 532mm and Sweep @140mm has A-C of 531mm)</strike></strike>
    Last edited by regularbob; 10-31-2013 at 05:36 AM.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    131
    I'm sorry this is not a answer to your question.

    What the trail of the Fox?

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Trojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by zootsuitbass View Post
    I'm sorry this is not a answer to your question.

    What the trail of the Fox?
    Someone mentioned why not ask the shop-because i get the feeling the guy is trying to shift something off the shelf onto me & as I was expecting a 32, I want to do my own research to check what I am being told is a)true b) what I really want, as it's a £800 fork it's an expensive mistake.
    I seem to have gotten my head around the benefits.
    The negative being an increase in 0.55lbs/250g.
    A 32@140 has a 519mm a/c, not sure on the trail (we call it offset here)
    A 34@160 has a 550mm a/c & 44mm trail.
    So if I go the 34 route & lower to 130mm, it appears there is a 9mm difference in the a/c Vs a 32, this means 1/2 a degree on the headangle.
    Anyone know the trail for a 32@140? Will this affect handling?
    Solo C 32@140
    Nomad 3 C, Pike.
    Cube Stereo Hybrid 140 (recovery rides & grin inducing blasts/uplifts)

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Trojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    96
    I forgot to mention I wondered if it was a 160 they had just lowered to 140 to shift it & the shop said it is an OEM fork sent from SC at 140, on a build they stripped, hence why the spec ain't on the fox site.
    Solo C 32@140
    Nomad 3 C, Pike.
    Cube Stereo Hybrid 140 (recovery rides & grin inducing blasts/uplifts)

  87. #87
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,265
    There is a 6mm difference in a-to-c between 32 and 34 models.

    140mm 32 is 528mm
    140mm 34 is 534mm
    Rake is 44mm on both.

    The information is on Fox's site.
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - Brand Manager
    Pivot Cycles - Team Rider

  88. #88
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,770
    My TRc has been sweet with a 150mm Pike up front ~20mm taller a2c. Yes, slackens the front AND the seat tube angle. I'm not at all worried about the frame integrity, but it's a geometry and fit issue - some people may like it, some not. I'm also running my bar/stem slammed down for the slightly taller front end. Bike is money! Love it this way.

    I plan to drop it to 140mm somehow, sometime.

    Otherwise, I'm running a couple of the bottomless tokens on the air spring side - this is letting me run a touch more sage than in the past, yet not have the fork be divy or wallowy in the mid-stroke, and I'm not bottoming on shit. Anyhow, so when on the bike, my sagged geo isn't too far off from what it would be with a 130-140mm fork.

    C'est la vie, YMMV, whatever floats your boat.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Trojan View Post
    I forgot to mention I wondered if it was a 160 they had just lowered to 140 to shift it & the shop said it is an OEM fork sent from SC at 140, on a build they stripped, hence why the spec ain't on the fox site.
    It's possible that the 34 they received from SC has the older style of air spring that can be lowered with clip in spacers like this:
    2002-2012 & 2013 80 - 120 FLOAT/F-Series Travel Adjust

    The newer style of air spring uses a "shuttle bumper" that is for a specific travel like this:
    2013 Float 130 - 180 Travel Adjust

    Some OEM forks (like on my Yeti) still come with the old style if the bike company wants a specific travel not offered by Fox. It's also possible that Fox now makes a shuttle bumper that lowers a 34 27.5 to 140mm. You could call or email Fox and ask them.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    There is a 6mm difference in a-to-c between 32 and 34 models.

    140mm 32 is 528mm
    140mm 34 is 534mm
    Rake is 44mm on both.

    The information is on Fox's site.
    Leave it to the industry guy to find it. Way to go Noah! The drawing clearly says there is a 140mm 34 27.5.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nightofthefleming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    607
    As far as I know, the 140mm 34 is a 160mm lowered with a different shuttle bumper. Also, as far as I know, the 34 will not go lower than 140 in either 26" or 27.5"
    2013 Medium Santa Cruz Blur Trc in Matte/Silver, full XT kit, 1x10 with 32T wolftooth ring, 25 pounds 7 ounces

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    I made a slight correction above. The Pike vs. Sweep video incorrectly states the offset measurement as trail. I confirmed from the RS and XF websites that the trail measurements are actually the offsets. So the Pike offset is 42mm and Sweep offset is 46mm.

    I dug into the differences a bit further and it looks like Offset = Rake. The product of head angle and fork rake gives you the trail measurement. So if you draw a line from the head tube to the ground following the head angle. The offset is the amount the front axle sits off of this line. Then if you draw a line vertically from the axle to the ground, then the difference between the two lines would be the trail. Therefore increasing the offset will decrease the trail and decreasing the offset will increase the trail.

    To The Point - Rake and Trail - Pinkbike

    And it sounds like Trail is a measurement that will reflect how fast a bike actually steers. More trail means slower steering, less trail means faster steering. So with larger wheels particularly with 29ers and to some degree 27.5ers, less trail is more desirable to make the low speed steering of the larger wheel size a little more manageable. But at the same time you need trail to offer some stability to the bike. Without it, the front wheel would behave like the wheels on a shopping cart.

    So if we consider the 5010 with a longer beefier fork (say 140mm) that now has an increased A-C and as a result has an increased HA, then using a forks with a larger offset may offer better steering because the shorter trail might offset the increased HA.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    573

    Solo with beefy fork.

    I talked to Fox when the 140mm 34 was first announced on the HDR. It's a 160mm with the bumper and a neg base plate. The base plate wasn't ready for non OEM sales in the summer when I first called them, but should be available by now. Now way to go lower than 140mm was their answer.
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
    - Arthur C. Clarke

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: quickneonrt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    582
    The Pike 27.5 can be lowered to 140 with the 150mm 26 air shaft about $40 retail for the part.
    axle to crown is measuring 530.
    Have not ridden it yet just did the work today, silly easy to do.
    2014 Santa Cruz Solo c.

    Moving on to better things

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by quickneonrt View Post
    The Pike 27.5 can be lowered to 140 with the 150mm 26 air shaft about $40 retail for the part.
    axle to crown is measuring 530.
    Have not ridden it yet just did the work today, silly easy to do.
    Do you know if you need just the air shaft or do you need the spring assembly too?

    - "Air Shaft 2014 Pike 150/120mm 26/29" (BTI part #: RS-3675 RS#: 11.4018.026.003 - BTI | Rock Shox Air Shaft 2014 Pike 150/120mm 26/29")

    - "SoloAir spring assembly, 2014 Pike (26") 150mm" (BTI part #: RS-3366 RS#: 11.4018.010.106 - Bicycle Technologies International

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by regularbob View Post
    Do you know if you need just the air shaft or do you need the spring assembly too?

    - "Air Shaft 2014 Pike 150/120mm 26/29" (BTI part #: RS-3675 RS#: 11.4018.026.003 - BTI | Rock Shox Air Shaft 2014 Pike 150/120mm 26/29")

    - "SoloAir spring assembly, 2014 Pike (26") 150mm" (BTI part #: RS-3366 RS#: 11.4018.010.106 - Bicycle Technologies International
    And does anyone know any on-line dealers that will sell these parts?

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Just the air shaft. Just Google the part number. First one that popped up was this:

    Bikeman RockShox Pike Air Shaft Solo Air 150mm Travel 26/120mm Travel 29 A1
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regularbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    Just the air shaft. Just Google the part number. First one that popped up was this:

    Bikeman RockShox Pike Air Shaft Solo Air 150mm Travel 26/120mm Travel 29 A1
    Thanks! Looks like Bikeman also has the Pike 0-W30 suspension oil and the 3wt damping fluid too.

    Presumably, I would need to take the lowers off to change the air spring?

    Can't seem to find anything more than the oil charts and the parts list on the SRAM/Rockshox service resources page. The parts list does show an exploded view but it's not easy to see what goes where.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    583
    Rockshox has been lagging on releasing a service manual for the Pike, but the 2013 Revelation is very similar. You will need to remove the lowers and you will need a snap ring tool to do the job.

    http://cdn.sram.com/cdn/farfuture/_j...ice_manual.pdf
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    545
    And as a side note, you can get a Pike for a 29er down to 130mm as well, applying similar principles. FWIW.

Page 1 of 4 1234 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, 08:39 PM

Members who have read this thread: 19

Posting Permissions

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