Results 1 to 79 of 79
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358

    Propose a fork for a new EG v3

    Hello guys.
    I a few clicks away of buying the new EG.
    Can you propose me a fork. I was thinking something around 170 with a 20mm axle and preferably not tappered so I could put the headset with the slackset (-1 degree).

    Any suggestions?
    Do you think 170 would be too much and I should go with 160 (or a 2 position 160)?.
    I would prefer something with reasonable price... (around 700-800$).

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    X-fusion Vengeance @ 170mm and 20mm axle fit exactly what you want.
    can consider the DLA version for travel adjust if you like.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    X-fusion Vengeance @ 170mm and 20mm axle fit exactly what you want.
    can consider the DLA version for travel adjust if you like.
    A link please!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    A link please!
    Google or GTFO!!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Come on, I thought you had a link of a bargain that's why I asked!
    Of course I can google it! I did! Thanks, nice fork.
    I don't have any experience with X-fusion. Do you?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    Come on, I thought you had a link of a bargain that's why I asked!
    Of course I can google it! I did! Thanks, nice fork.
    I don't have any experience with X-fusion. Do you?
    I love both my Vengeance forks, Air and Coil.. but Im probably bias...
    Here.. some measurement and info on my site

  7. #7
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    Coil veng @ 160 + mk3 look tasty

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,357
    I'm not really sure is the new EG needs anything longer then a 160mm fork. I'm not sure what A2C brant used when the geo was measured but a 170mm fork with a 1 degree slackset going to put you at like 65 degrees and drop the bb to around 12.75". Way too low and slack for its intended purpose IMO. I'd go with a 160mm fork with an external cup. My MKII with a 160 Fox RLC and external cup headset measures just under 67 degrees.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr View Post
    I'm not really sure is the new EG needs anything longer then a 160mm fork. I'm not sure what A2C brant used when the geo was measured but a 170mm fork with a 1 degree slackset going to put you at like 65 degrees and drop the bb to around 12.75". Way too low and slack for its intended purpose IMO. I'd go with a 160mm fork with an external cup. My MKII with a 160 Fox RLC and external cup headset measures just under 67 degrees.
    Thanks craigstr, which is the external cup headset? I was thinking of this one. http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/HSOOSSSE...ck___10_degree
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    So 160 with the slack set headset will be what, 66?
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,357
    I have a CC40 bottom cup and a smoothie top cup, I'm guessing 66 with a slackset and 160mm fork but again, I'm not sure what fork length Brant is measuring the geo with?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,940
    Fox float 160 rlc or fox float 180 rc2. If I was building myself another one with the v3 frame I would do the 180 for the extra BB clearance with a standard king headset. From the numbers I've seen those BB hights are kind of low for the rocks, roots and trees around here.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  13. #13
    Off the back...
    Reputation: pinkrobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,058
    180mm FLOAT RC2 - very smooth.
    @pinkrobeyyc
    #pinkrobeyyc

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    47
    Anyone put 140mm on the new EG? I have 140mm 1"1/8 Fox left over and though about giving it a try as money is a bit tight atm and can't afford new fork just yet. Didn't EGs come with 140mm fork few years back?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    I think fox is over budget...

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by opnykanen View Post
    Anyone put 140mm on the new EG? I have 140mm 1"1/8 Fox left over and though about giving it a try as money is a bit tight atm and can't afford new fork just yet. Didn't EGs come with 140mm fork few years back?
    Look, Titus suggests 150/160 fork. 140 I think is way too small... But you can start with it and upgrade. But I don't think it will fill good.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    What is the difference between internal and external bottom cups?
    If you put a 180 fork with internal caps the front geo remains the same as if you put a 170 with external?
    I am a bit confused...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,357
    All depends on the axle to crown (A2C) measurement of your fork and the measurement of the bottom external cup.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    I am a bit confused, but I think I am going to order the slackset (-1 degree) headset for 1,1/8 and put a 160 and a 170 fork to see how it climbs. Which is my first concern. You think that the BB will be that lowered that I will have a problem with pedal strokes? (I have 175mm crankset)

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,357
    Brant says the slackset only lowers the bb a few mm's so you should be good. I personally run 170mm cranks to help minimize pedal strikes but I live in a very rocky area.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    What is the difference between internal and external bottom cups?
    If you put a 180 fork with internal caps the front geo remains the same as if you put a 170 with external?
    I am a bit confused...
    depending on the maker/brand of the headset

    Integral have the bearing inside of the headtube with thinner stack height of usually lesser of 5mm

    external cup have the bearing outside of the headtube with stack height of around +-15mm

    having said so. using the same fork with different headset cup will slightly affect the geometry. so with different fork length and brand.. then you need to look at the overall axle to crown height. a Fox 160mm fork have around 545mm a2c and a 170mm is around 565mm even though the fork travel is different of only 10mm.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    I would use an Dual Air Lyric

  23. #23

  24. #24
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    Ben (old titus dude) used to say external headset w/ 545mm axle to crown is the intended design. When I asked, said EG can handle the slackset, also said internal headset and longer A2C would void warrantee FWIW

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    Ben (old titus dude) used to say external headset w/ 545mm axle to crown is the intended design. When I asked, said EG can handle the slackset, also said internal headset and longer A2C would void warrantee FWIW
    I have no idea what Ben was talking about as the drawings from that era that I have make little sense with those numbers.

    Axle to underside of headtube is dimensioned 529.4mm, at head angle 68deg.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Propose a fork for a new EG v3-p80153m00.pdf-1-page-.jpg  


  26. #26
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    I have no idea what Ben was talking about as the drawings from that era that I have make little sense with those numbers.

    Axle to underside of headtube is dimensioned 529.4mm, at head angle 68deg.


    Actually I typed it wrong, he said 160mm fork not 545mm a2c.. anyway that is old news, just some of the questions from when the slackset came to market

  27. #27
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    Brant, would love to know your interpretation of the actual geometry. It would help us chose which new make of EG to buy.. *No secret that era el Guapo geometry numbers are funked up.. Your way of measuring seems much more accurate

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Right now I am in the bath, drinking red wine. Never a good combo.
    I will get out shortly and put some numbers into bikecad and see where things end up like for like.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Right now I am in the bath, drinking red wine. Never a good combo.
    I will get out shortly and put some numbers into bikecad and see where things end up like for like.
    Can't wait. I think it would be very useful!
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Right now I am in the bath, drinking red wine. Never a good combo.
    I will get out shortly and put some numbers into bikecad and see where things end up like for like.
    Ok - out of the bath. Bit of a disaster - as I spilt half a glass of red on the floor. Thankfully it's all cleaned up fine.

    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Whilst I remember, and before I log off (it's 10pm here)...

    Seat angle is something I get quite uptight about. Tall riders should probably pay more attention than short riders. Short riders don't notice seat angle as much as they're shorter. If you see what I mean. Less extension, so less over the back wheel.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Nice numbers! So with v3 and 160 fork with slack set you get about 65.5 HA!!
    Correct?
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    Nice numbers! So with v3 and 160 fork with slack set you get about 65.5 HA!!
    Correct?
    Correct.

    Ed Oxley is running a 2deg slackset and a 180mm fork in a V2 :-)

    One can only imagine where his head angle is at :-)

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Correct.

    Ed Oxley is running a 2deg slackset and a 180mm fork in a V2 :-)

    One can only imagine where his head angle is at :-)
    I think is a 170 marz 55 ti something...
    And this guy is something else!
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    397
    Brant, would a 150mm fork with a slackset be weird? I'm thinking the slackset would correct for the shorter axel to crown but would steepen the seat angle and lower the BB - perhaps too much? Thoughts?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by gravityfreaky View Post
    Brant, would a 150mm fork with a slackset be weird? I'm thinking the slackset would correct for the shorter axel to crown but would steepen the seat angle and lower the BB - perhaps too much? Thoughts?
    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but a shorter fork would steepen the head angle and lower the bottom bracket by default. Slackset would correct for the head angle and bring it back towards the 160mm geo, but would also further lower the BB. Axel to crown would remain the same regardless because your fork is a set axle to crown length, but you would correct for the steeping of the head angle. Seat angle will steepen as well.

    To me it seems like a legit plan. Might be worth splurging and buying a Cane Creek angleset that lets you dial things in a bit more closely. aka the ones that do a degree, half degree, and - degree/half degree
    X-prezo Super-D, 26in style.

  37. #37
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.
    The exact info we need far as i'm concerned, now no one can bitch and moan over the geo!!

    Your new seat tube angle and extended tt are welcome changes, definitely a step forward on the large size I am used to

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    941
    The one things that confuses me is the "external cup" stipulation. I understand what an external cup means, but I don't understand what the geometry works out to in my V2 quapo with a slackset...because the slackset lower is an internal cup. I understand that the internal cup will "steepen" the headtube angle and seattube angle compared to an external cup, but then the slackset offsets that by adding -1.5 degrees.

    So I think I will massively enjoy the slackset (steepens the seat tube up), I don't know what it will do to the headtube angle compared to an external cup setup. I am also hoping it doesn't too severely drop the BB height.

    Could you plug those numbers in brant?
    X-prezo Super-D, 26in style.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,357

    He needs it that slack

    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Correct.

    Ed Oxley is running a 2deg slackset and a 180mm fork in a V2 :-)

    One can only imagine where his head angle is at :-)
    Otherwise he runs over his beard.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,357

    Hmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Ok - out of the bath. Bit of a disaster - as I spilt half a glass of red on the floor. Thankfully it's all cleaned up fine.

    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.
    I'm taller (6 ft), I run the seat pretty far forward on the rails to get over the cranks a bit more on my V.2. With my android app, I get 66.7 if I measure by placing the phone on the headtube or 66.9 by placing on the fork lowers. I currently run a 70mm stem and was actually thinking about getting an 80mm. Maybe I should just get a V.3?

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Ok - out of the bath. Bit of a disaster - as I spilt half a glass of red on the floor. Thankfully it's all cleaned up fine.

    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.
    very interesting...
    with the v3 and the drop of -1.8mm. a negative drop value here, does that mean the bb height got raised by 1.8mm ?? a little confuse here

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by y0bailey View Post
    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but a shorter fork would steepen the head angle and lower the bottom bracket by default. Slackset would correct for the head angle and bring it back towards the 160mm geo, but would also further lower the BB. Axel to crown would remain the same regardless because your fork is a set axle to crown length, but you would correct for the steeping of the head angle. Seat angle will steepen as well.

    To me it seems like a legit plan. Might be worth splurging and buying a Cane Creek angleset that lets you dial things in a bit more closely. aka the ones that do a degree, half degree, and - degree/half degree
    Exactly. It's what I've done with my Intense Tracer and it works great (I don't need / want the extra height and weight of a 160mm fork). I'm running my Tracer with a CCDB and Marz 44 RC3 Ti and it's a great combo (coil / coil)

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    ...The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    Hope this helps.
    Came to the same conclusion too-- after few years experimenting with longer travel bikes.. need a steep STA... esp for those inseam challenged and lack enuf upper torso to put more weight forward...like me.


    The first bike that got me to thinking what makes a long travel slack HA bike be able to climb incidentally was another of your design...a hardtail "with a 67HA measured sagged with a 74 STA"

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    very interesting...
    with the v3 and the drop of -1.8mm. a negative drop value here, does that mean the bb height got raised by 1.8mm ?? a little confuse here
    Drop is a dimension the BB sits below the centreline of the wheels.
    Therefore a -ve drop is a distance ABOVE the BB centre.

    So the V3 has a 4mm lower BB than the V2 (due to me correcting and setting the head tube at the correct height, rather than "lifting the frame up")

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: VR6ix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    179
    I had a 170mm Marz 66 on my mk1 EG, super-good on dedicated downhill trails but way too tall for all the "aggressive XC-ish" type riding I do 98% of the time... scored a great deal on a used Fox Vanilla 36 RC2 160mm fork and it's way better for that 98% riding I do, going back to the same DH trails next weekend and I bet I'll be fine with the shorter fork. EG mk1 frame is steeper anyway...

    Van is way plusher/adjustable than the 66, too... not giving-up on the Marz, just never got it dialed-in right.

    Point is... OP never told us what kind of riding he's doing, so, speculating on A2C and HA numbers is kind of moot... no?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Look, if you're referring to me, the most trails I do are steep rocky trails some with rock gardens. The think is that I have to pedal up to get to those trails... I don't have a lift of any kind.
    So you say with just 10mm your problem was solved?
    Have in mind that I ordered V3 with the -1 degree slack set so with 160 the HA will be around 65.5! And with 170 around 64.5!!!
    What do you think?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: VR6ix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    179
    Sounds like we have the opposite problem: my trails only have short steep climbs, your trails are steep rocky and more downhill, but you have a long climb to the top first.

    My 66 was 565 atc, the Fox 36 is 545 atc, my typo, it's a 20mm difference, and the shorter fork feels way better for what I ride. For you, I'd think the longer fork would be best, but how you deal with the climbing with the longer fork is I guess what I was getting at, because I found even short climbing with the tall Marz 66 sucked!

    I'm out of the loop on new forks, but, for travel-adjust models, can any of the current forks be customized for the amount it drops at the lower setting? A big drop in fork height (TALAS is 40mm or 1 9/16") with an already low BB might not be fun on the climbs with 175mm cranks.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    I found a Marzocchi 170 that drops to 130 with 20mm axle and 35mm boots!
    I think it will do the trick. Don't you?
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    I found a Marzocchi 170 that drops to 130 with 20mm axle and 35mm boots!
    I think it will do the trick. Don't you?
    How long is the a2c for the marz 170mm?

    Also am wondering if we need travel adjust fork on EG?
    The place i ride too do not have bike lift. Lots of singletrack rooty and ruty technical climb section. To get to the down, we need the up.

    So i am torn with whether go with travel adjust or not. Travel adjust seem to lower the bb too much. Dilemma.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    How long is the a2c for the marz 170mm?

    Also am wondering if we need travel adjust fork on EG?
    The place i ride too do not have bike lift. Lots of singletrack rooty and ruty technical climb section. To get to the down, we need the up.

    So i am torn with whether go with travel adjust or not. Travel adjust seem to lower the bb too much. Dilemma.
    I don't know about the a2c, I haven't got it on my hands yet.
    With my setup (-1 degree slackset) I think I will have a problem climbing with a 170 that's why I went for the 170-130/
    Regarding the BB if you read a couple of posts earlier you will see Brant proposing to change the rocker mount to the front position to raise the bb a bit...

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    I don't know about the a2c, I haven't got it on my hands yet.
    With my setup (-1 degree slackset) I think I will have a problem climbing with a 170 that's why I went for the 170-130/
    Regarding the BB if you read a couple of posts earlier you will see Brant proposing to change the rocker mount to the front position to raise the bb a bit...
    Let us know when get the fork.

    Yea, read brant comment on the mount position. The raise is only on static,he did mention it sag further down too. Seated will be very much similar i guess.

    Would be great to hear from existing rider. Like to try with xf vengeance 555mm a2c for 160mm lowered . But the travel adjust dla version is heavy. ~2.5kg vs 2.2kg for the hlr .

    Hear good stuff bout xf and buddy swear it. Just don't have confident on the climb ...

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Marzocchi is 55cr switch is 2326gr.
    I prefer to be a bit heavier than not able to go uphill...

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shatmepants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    How long is the a2c for the marz 170mm?

    I just picked up a Marz 55 RC3 EVO Ti and the axle to crown measurement is 558mm. I have seen 555mm stated before, but I literally just measured mine and it's definitely 558mm.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: riiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    481
    Would the geo still work with a 150mm fork, 534mm Axle to Crown measurment, and a 650b front wheel and 26" rear?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by riiz View Post
    Would the geo still work with a 150mm fork, 534mm Axle to Crown measurment, and a 650b front wheel and 26" rear?
    There are no words... ;-)

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by riiz View Post
    Would the geo still work with a 150mm fork, 534mm Axle to Crown measurment, and a 650b front wheel and 26" rear?
    Why would you ever want to try this???
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,357
    Some people think 650B is like the holy grail.

  58. #58
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    Quote Originally Posted by riiz View Post
    Would the geo still work with a 150mm fork, 534mm Axle to Crown measurment, and a 650b front wheel and 26" rear?
    Those current tires are puny for eg
    ...

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    How long is the a2c for the marz 170mm?
    Just got it!
    The a2c is 556mm.


  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by riiz View Post
    Would the geo still work with a 150mm fork, 534mm Axle to Crown measurment, and a 650b front wheel and 26" rear?
    did my math... it would probably feels like putting on a 160 fork. With a bigger 160 it would feel close to ~170-180.
    But not too sure how the resulting turning/ handling of such a chimera-- would probably feel a little sluggish on slow techie terrain, hence shafted the idea.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    don't get this. not going to be as sluggish as a true 29er is it?

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: riiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    Why would you ever want to try this???
    I have a nice 650b wheelset and a WB Loop @ 150mm sitting on a shelf that I picked up when I got the itch to try 650b. But with how cheap the El guapo w/ RS is atm, thinking this might make a really inexpensive trail bike, since I wouldnt have to buy another fork either.

  63. #63
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    55 murdered out version sexy as hell

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,940
    Yeah too bad they stuck that one gold adjuster on there. I think I'd pull it off d-ano it with some oven cleaner and them polish it (assuming it's aluminum)
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  65. #65
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiff View Post
    don't get this. not going to be as sluggish as a true 29er is it?
    No, but it increases trail. It makes the steering a little slower. You may see this as a benefit offering more stability, though.

    Agreed with Brant that Seat Angle being the go to thing. I found out that anything below 72 degrees feels harder to push uphill.

    An often overlooked dimension is crank length. Short cranks make me feel "over" the bike particularly in turns no matter what the BB height is. I prefer to run 175mm cranks and pay the price in rock strikes.

    I'm not tall at all or long legged (5'8.5" - 32.25" inseam). Must be old bad habits.
    Check my Site

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    Yeah too bad they stuck that one gold adjuster on there. I think I'd pull it off d-ano it with some oven cleaner and them polish it (assuming it's aluminum)
    Yeah, the gold dial is something...
    I'll see what I can do with it.

  67. #67
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    Yeah, the gold dial is something...
    I'll see what I can do with it.
    one word for you... sharpie.
    Check my Site

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    one word for you... sharpie.

    Won't it wear off?

  69. #69
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post

    Won't it wear off?
    add more sharpie...
    Check my Site

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    add more sharpie...
    OK, got it!

  71. #71
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590
    3m controltac, comes in matte or glossy

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    3m controltac, comes in matte or glossy

    I don't think it would be possible to apply it on the dial. It was some rough edges...

  73. #73
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den View Post
    I love both my Vengeance forks, Air and Coil.. but Im probably bias...
    Here.. some measurement and info on my site
    Not to be a jerk... but on the middle-right picture, it looks as if the Coil is same A2C as the Air??




    See the line at 21.5" as reference. So maybe the picture is from the Air one or X-Fusion packed 176mm into 567 A2C (which would be just sweet).

    How do you find the spring rating? Accurate? A little off as per X-Fusion recommendations?

    Thanks and sorry for the many questions.
    Check my Site

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    Not to be a jerk... but on the middle-right picture, it looks as if the Coil is same A2C as the Air??



    See the line at 21.5" as reference. So maybe the picture is from the Air one or X-Fusion packed 176mm into 567 A2C (which would be just sweet).

    How do you find the spring rating? Accurate? A little off as per X-Fusion recommendations?

    Thanks and sorry for the many questions.
    I was juggling the camera in one hand and stretching the tape across to show.. hand probably move and camera gone off centered a bit and makes the coil A-C. Parallex error captured in pic

    The tabulated numbers above the pic on the diff in crown and travel should have no more than +/- 1mm diff. Using these few measurements I was able to counter check the differences which kinda verify the actual A-C measurement as well.

    A slightly longer wheelbase is definitely real-- didn't measure but when racked up to car, the front sits a tad away from before.

    Spring
    Frankly I have not read Xfusion's recommendation on being a little off when considring which spring to use.

    Mine came loaded with the medium as default. The light and heavy are still brand new in their packaging...

    Initially thought a swap to the light for my ~175 lb feared weight was necessarily but turns out its not needed.

    I read here this guy is 200+ lb on a light spring. Reckon it has a lot to do with overall bike design and riding style. Also his seems to be heavily modified on the damper side so that might have totally changed the fork's characteristics.

    I don't have other coils to compare with but this thing allows me to use the front travel much more effectively than all my previous 36mm air forks. Saved me from a potentially nasty gap down recently... would have catapulted otherwise

    The only thing I would like to see them put on there is a preload in the next revision.

  75. #75
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den View Post
    Initially thought a swap to the light for my ~175 lb feared weight was necessarily but turns out its not needed.

    I read here this guy is 200+ lb on a light spring. Reckon it has a lot to do with overall bike design and riding style. Also his seems to be heavily modified on the damper side so that might have totally changed the fork's characteristics.

    I don't have other coils to compare with but this thing allows me to use the front travel much more effectively than all my previous 36mm air forks. Saved me from a potentially nasty gap down recently... would have catapulted otherwise

    The only thing I would like to see them put on there is a preload in the next revision.
    "Brake dive is not a problem under my 200+ ride weight using a soft rated coil, the sealed high volume stanchions make a nice progressive rising rate to undetectable bottom travel, as marked by the o-ring I put on one stanchion. I'm seeing full travel sometimes landing small jumps and drops to flat but have felt no bottom. LSC can be adjusted firmer without harshness or sacrificing buttery smoothness. And changing the LSC adjustment has no affect on big or sharper hits. LSC is very isolated, while HSC adjustment does noticeably affect LSC in proportion."

    "The Vengeance comes standard with a "Medium" coil weight, and can be ordered with firmer or softer coil options. The Vengeance "Medium" coil was nearly the same compliance as the "Soft" rated Lyrik coil. The X-Fusion top quality damping favors a softer rated spring, air or coil."

    "It took some trial and error to accomplish. I had to drill a hole in the thick aluminum Vengeance coil side top cap to accept the u-turn knob. I used off the shelf washers for spacers, drilled out plumbing rubber seals made for faucets, and used a metric threaded stud that fit the u-turn's lower rod (an exhaust stud left over from my days of car racing). Almost by magic, the Lyrik's preload spring and rod guide from the lower end of the stanchion fit perfectly where the Vengeance compression rod's guide had been. Finally I was successfully sealing the top and bottom for designed rising rate compressed air volume spring assist. And eliminated a compressing coil knock with some 1" diameter electrical shrink-wrap plastic tubing (that barely fit without shrinking)"

    ____________________________

    Thanks, man!!

    From the paragraphs above, I can't tell if he tried the fork with the Soft X-Fusion spring or the Soft Rock Shox spring. It is known that RS's springs run a little hard on the Lyrik.

    Now... on this other post X-Fusion Vector HLR coil - Can a shock be too good? , he mentions running a 400# spring and with intentions of going to 350# (that's what I run on a 2.6:1 leverage bike and I'm 140#!!), so he may prefer to run softer springs.
    Check my Site

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post

    Now... on this other post X-Fusion Vector HLR coil - Can a shock be too good? , he mentions running a 400# spring and with intentions of going to 350# (that's what I run on a 2.6:1 leverage bike and I'm 140#!!), so he may prefer to run softer springs.
    Yea soft front spring (even if its the relatively harder RS ones) and 400lb coil in the rear for a big guy sounds like a setup for traction to max out on the down with min braking...

    I was mostly running 400lb with my Dueler on the EG for the last 3 yrs... made the switch to a 350 this year initially just to see how much I can "push" the limits of the progressivity of the linkage design and a bit to get a little better at traction. Seem to match up pretty well with the coil Veng now. In fact with a little more optimization-- the climbs actually got easier. No win-the-xc type sprinting up but in techie rough ascends over ledges and roots, more than a few was gawking at how a "180" coil is outdoing them. Certainly not in my best riding form this year so it has to boil down to having the bike optimized with the right parts and setup

    Havent had a chance to try the HLR shock but did looked at one closeup. The much thicker damping rod relative to the cannister size seems interesting is all I can say till there is a chance to slap one on.

  77. #77
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den View Post
    In fact with a little more optimization-- the climbs actually got easier. No win-the-xc type sprinting up but in techie rough ascends over ledges and roots, more than a few was gawking at how a "180" coil is outdoing them. Certainly not in my best riding form this year so it has to boil down to having the bike optimized with the right parts and setup
    I think pretty much alike. I like my suspension set at the soft side on early travel to caterpillar the way up on nasty climbs. However, then I like a firm mid travel to avoid the chassis wallowing in turns and such.

    I tend to spin rather than mash the pedals, so a soft suspension is not really a hinder for me and HL suspension keeps me happy. Maybe if I was the kind of rider who pedals a lot off the saddle, I'd look at a minilink design.

    I can't tell you much about the Vector Coil HLR... I own but have little riding time on a Verctor Air HLR and it is right up there with shocks like the Romic Coil, way better than the Monarch it replaced.
    Check my Site

  78. #78
    J:
    J: is offline
    i can smell yur litesaber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,590

    Great info in here, good to hear the

    damper can be modded.. a must to lite up the coil

    Second the mid coil support comment (and chassis stiffness), there is no other way on steep loosie goosie where you must commit.. seen many w/ too lite spring just plow a lean hard to the bushes. . most stock tune r just doesnt recover quick enough


    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    I don't think it would be possible to apply it on the dial. It was some rough edges...
    I like terrible's idea if dial isn't plastic? 180 series has a library of diff product,, very good and reversible if you plan on selling later.. let us know how that 55 holds up
    Last edited by J:; 07-31-2012 at 05:24 PM.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    I think pretty much alike. I like my suspension set at the soft side on early travel to caterpillar the way up on nasty climbs. However, then I like a firm mid travel to avoid the chassis wallowing in turns and such.
    Based on what I gotten out of it so far, if the quality of their forks and spring are consistent through their productions, when u get one, I think you will love how the mid stroke feels

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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