Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lonbalz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    196

    Pitch climbability w/160mm fork

    Did a search with the ever so great search button and didn't really turn up much without having to spend hours going through threads. Figured it would be easier to just ask here...I've got a pitch pro and have been running the stock pike fork and it has been fine so far. After seeing a lot of people putting 160mm travel forks on their pitches, I'm considering doing the same. The pitch is my trail bike and so it gets pedaled uphill a lot. I have another bike dedicated specifically for freeride and don't use the pitch for that. A little more travel in the front seems ideal for how I ride and would most likely match up with the rear a little better too. My main concern is how the bike would pedal uphill with a non adjust travel 160mm fork. Because of this, I'm not sure if I should get an adjustable travel fork or not. I don't want to sacrifice the uphill pedability of the bike. Is the adjustable fork the way to go or is a non adjustable fork fine? For those of you who have put the 160mm fork on and ride all mountain, what are your thoughts?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrob1775's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by lonbalz
    Did a search with the ever so great search button and didn't really turn up much without having to spend hours going through threads. Figured it would be easier to just ask here...I've got a pitch pro and have been running the stock pike fork and it has been fine so far. After seeing a lot of people putting 160mm travel forks on their pitches, I'm considering doing the same. The pitch is my trail bike and so it gets pedaled uphill a lot. I have another bike dedicated specifically for freeride and don't use the pitch for that. A little more travel in the front seems ideal for how I ride and would most likely match up with the rear a little better too. My main concern is how the bike would pedal uphill with a non adjust travel 160mm fork. Because of this, I'm not sure if I should get an adjustable travel fork or not. I don't want to sacrifice the uphill pedability of the bike. Is the adjustable fork the way to go or is a non adjustable fork fine? For those of you who have put the 160mm fork on and ride all mountain, what are your thoughts?
    I ride a 2010 Enduro with a 160mm Lyrik Solo Air R (no U-Turn) fork. This is my only mountain bike and gets used for xc riding and sometimes for chair lift runs. The terrain I ride is extremely technical with lots of rocks and roots so the extra travel helps negotiate the tough obstacles and saves some wear and tear on the body. I don't do a lot of extended climbing since the trails I ride are rolling with lots of short steep pitches. As I have switched from xc bikes to all mountain, I now ajust my riding style to take advantage of the bike. On my Enduro, I have to lean farther forward to keep the front down on climbs. When I had my Epic the front end was lower so I was already in an efficient climbing position. The trade off is the Enduro is a lot more balanced for steep descents and technical sections. No bike is going to be perfect for everything, but I would much rather adjust my riding style for the longer travel bike. If I were still racing and riding smoother trails then it would be a different story.
    Specialized BG FIT Master Technician

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    171
    I'd get an adjustable travel 160 just because it matches the pitch's capabilities so well. I've got a talas 36 on mine and it is nice to be able to click it down to stock geo with one flick of my finger.

    Climbing with the fork set in the 160 setting is not bad but it does cause the front end to wander and lift occasionally in very techy ascents. You get used to it and as a result you'd start to sit further forward on your seat and put more pressure into the bars.

    My suggestion is to get a u-turn or talas setup. Of course the pitch is my XC and AM bike so that fits what i do better. ymmv.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lonbalz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    196

    What I was kinda thinking... Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by minimusprime
    I'd get an adjustable travel 160 just because it matches the pitch's capabilities so well. I've got a talas 36 on mine and it is nice to be able to click it down to stock geo with one flick of my finger.

    Climbing with the fork set in the 160 setting is not bad but it does cause the front end to wander and lift occasionally in very techy ascents. You get used to it and as a result you'd start to sit further forward on your seat and put more pressure into the bars.

    My suggestion is to get a u-turn or talas setup. Of course the pitch is my XC and AM bike so that fits what i do better. ymmv.

    This is kind of what I was thinking. I rode my freeride bike on the trails for awhile and know what it's like to climb a bike with a pretty slack head angle. Wasn't sure how the pitch would ride with a taller fork and didn't really want to go back to fighting to keep the front end planted while climbing. It's extra work that I would assume not do. The pike climbs great in 140mm mode and I never use the u-turn on it. I'll probably try to find a u-turn lyrik or talas 36.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    647
    I put an '010 Revelation Dual Air Team U Turn 150 on mine, I liked the idea of keeping weight off the front end and with the 32mm legs etc nothing else is quite as light for the travel.
    Dropping the front is a huge help on gnarly climbs but it IS a pain to set and unset
    Also I'm about 140 pounds ready to ride so huge fork legs arent necessary...
    Hard to beat a sub 29 pound AM bike...
    2011 Canfield ONE 200mm DH 35 pounds
    2010 Specialized Pitch 100% non stock 29 lbs
    Wife: 2009 Canfield ONE also 29 lbs

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    397
    I'm on a Lyrik soloair. Honestly, I don't mind climbing at 160 at all. Sometimes on steep switchbacks it's a little squirrely. When I had the pike I never adjusted the travel once (except when it was brand new).

    I think it really depends if you are the type to use the travel adjust or not. Some guys love it and I know some who have it and never use it. I almost never turn on the propedal on my shock either. Also, I think the fox travel adjust is nicer to use. The Uturn seems to take forever. The 2-step would be great if not for the reliabilty issues.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    120
    I have 2010 36 Talas RC2 FIT on my 08' Pitch pro. My bike noticeably climbs better with 130mm position compared to pike's 140mm position. Superb on descending. I always thought pitch's front-end was somewhat weaker than its back-end, but with Talas installed, bike is now more balanced.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hitek79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,300
    My wife's Pitch has a Talas 36 on it and she climbs all over the Front Range of Colorado. A pitch with anything less is for wusses!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,208
    The front tire wanders at 160mm, but the bike stays planted. So long as you can keep it in a straight line you can climb anything.

    Long fire roads, would be very annoying climbing at 160mm, but doable. Singletrack takes a bit more finess, its not point and shoot and super steep stuff...well I think that would be more you than the bike.

    I would get a travel adjusting fork, I have a Lyrik Coil. Never touch the travel adjustment on my local trails but was grateful I had it climbing the 4000ft up to Packer's Saddle in Downieville.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    82
    I've got a 36 van on mine, and it does make the front end noticeably more wandery on steep techy climbs, but it's not that bad really. More than makes up for it on the downs though. I also put a slightly longer stem on which improved things quite a bit.

Posting Permissions

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