Results 1 to 46 of 46
  1. #1
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093

    2001 vs. 2002 RFX Specs

    I'm trying to figure out these specs as precisely as possible before I make a move on components. Particularly the fork. So I have a few questions.

    Does anyone know if the geometry of the 2001 and 2002 RFX's stayed the same? The reason I'm asking is because I've got a copy of the 2001 RFX specs in 5" mode...


    ...and I'm trying to decipher a few things. First off, is "fork length" referring to Axle to Crown length? If so, Turner was recommending that you run a fork with an A-C between 465mm and 485mm. That seems very short, almost equivalent to modern 4" travel forks (my Marz Dirt Jam is 488mm A-C w/100mm travel and my RS Reba is around the same with 115mm travel). I also realize that the forks from 5 years ago were quite different from what we have today.

    The reason I ask is because if I can use what I currently own I will just build the bike up with what I've got (so at least I can ride it) and deal with upgrading later. It would seem (according to the above specs) that the HA would end up being just below 69* with a 19.1" (485mm a2c) fork. The specs also indicate a fairly low BB, but I'd be running a slightly taller fork than is indicated there and 2.4 tires rather than 2.1's. That should result in a slightly higher BB, probably around (I'm guessing here): 5 Spot territory (13.2" - 13.3"). What do ya' think, could this work?

    And I know that several of you prefer to run longer (up to 538mm a2c) forks, even in 5" mode and I think that's probably the direction I want to go. This set-up would only be temporary until I get a chance to upgrade.

    If 2001 and 2002 specs are not the same or "fork length" is not synonymous with a2c then set me straight and disregard all the preceding babble .

    Sorry about starting another thread, I figure this question would get noticed more if it had it's own title. Thanks in advance for any info.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 07-12-2006 at 09:57 AM.

  2. #2
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    Here is the 02 spec sheet. Fork length does = a-2-c.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by SSINGA; 07-12-2006 at 09:59 AM.
    Nothing to see here.

  3. #3
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Here is the 02 spec sheet
    I've actually got that one also, but those specs are for 6" mode. And I believe the fork specs are utilizing some of the DC's from back in the day. I'd be speculating (well...guessing, really) if I tried to extrapolate the 5" travel geometry form the 6" specs.

    Patrick

  4. #4
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    I've actually got that one also, but those specs are for 6" mode. And I believe the fork specs are utilizing some of the DC's from back in the day. I'd be speculating (well...guessing, really) if I tried to extrapolate the 5" travel geometry form the 6" specs.

    Patrick
    I did a post quite some time ago about my measured geo with the 66 at 5" (535mm a-2-c) and the 5" rockers. I don't remember what the numbers were but maybe you can find it in the search. Granted the 02 RFX and the 05 Pack might have not been identical but it should get you quite close.
    Nothing to see here.

  5. #5
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    Ok

    I found some info. Remember these measurements were done with a construction angle finder and a measuring tape. There is a degree or 2 of error.

    With the fork set at 130mm these are the geometry numbers I measured:

    HTA - 68
    STA - 71
    BB - 13.75
    SO - 31.5
    WB - 42.5
    Nothing to see here.

  6. #6
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    I found some info. Remember these measurements were done with a construction angle finder and a measuring tape. There is a degree or 2 of error.
    I found it also. A degree or two? That could be the difference between technical descent bliss and going OTB and smashing my face open!

    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    With the fork set at 130mm these are the geometry numbers I measured:

    HTA - 68
    STA - 71
    BB - 13.75
    SO - 31.5
    WB - 42.5
    OK, we're talking bout the 66sl, right? Which has an a2c of 535mm @ 150mm travel. So at 130mm it's around 515mm a2c. If we drop that to about 485mm (the a2c of the forks I've got on hand) the HA would probably be 69* - 69.5*. That's a bit steep, but about what I'm currently running on my HT. So it may actually work.

    Although, it's not an apples to apples comparison (as you said earlier) b/c you've got the 05 Front (which I believe has an inherently more slacked HA) and Rear (which has a slightly longer CS and maybe SS). So now I'm more confused than before.

    I could always just build it up and see how it rides. But then again, that would cost me some $ b/c I haven't the skillz nor the toolz to do it myself. Oh, well. Thanks for the info.

    Patrick

  7. #7
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    i have all the #'s from my 5" and 6" modes here somewhere as i said in pm's but between the food poisoning and the work im back to doin on my biz plan before meetings the next 2 days, im way behind. if you can be patient, i think i can answer many of yer questions. dont get bummed pal. weve got ya covered.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  8. #8
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    I found it also. A degree or two? That could be the difference between technical descent bliss and going OTB and smashing my face open!



    OK, we're talking bout the 66sl, right? Which has an a2c of 535mm @ 150mm travel. So at 130mm it's around 515mm a2c. If we drop that to about 485mm (the a2c of the forks I've got on hand) the HA would probably be 69* - 69.5*. That's a bit steep, but about what I'm currently running on my HT. So it may actually work.

    Although, it's not an apples to apples comparison (as you said earlier) b/c you've got the 05 Front (which I believe has an inherently more slacked HA) and Rear (which has a slightly longer CS and maybe SS). So now I'm more confused than before.

    I could always just build it up and see how it rides. But then again, that would cost me some $ b/c I haven't the skillz nor the toolz to do it myself. Oh, well. Thanks for the info.

    Patrick
    My a-2-c is actually 4mm taller due to the tall crown race needed for downtube clearance.

    Get the Zinn book out and build it up.
    Nothing to see here.

  9. #9
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    Paul, get a 66sl and you'll be covered for both rocker sets and your weight, and you'll be able to fine tune the ride height.
    Good deals are already showing up on them.

    With the 5 inch rockers you'll be able to set it up with the same geo as a five spot.

    Also, look through the Rfxiation thread, for lots of classic RFX info. You'll see my '02 RFX in there and I've tried many different fork and rocker combos. 5 inch rocker setup worked great with a 125 Vanilla and I've even tried a 150 Z1 with the 5's just to get a feel for that head angle. For my tastes the a2c of a 130 Marz (or 140 Pike) is perfect.

    Things get more interesting with the six inch rockers...

  10. #10
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942

    you want #'s? i got yer damn #'s!

    i was in the middle of workin on my biz plan when my cpu overheat warning kicked and shut off my comp. im afraid to see what happened but i save continually so i think its not gonna be a big loss. so durrin the down time for the drive to cool down, i cooled off by cleanin up my desk and found my geo cheat sheet. here ya go!

    1st, some ground rules: without a digi angle finder i did my best with good but old methods. no need for a tall lower race. and the followin:

    g = ground
    cl = centerline
    wb = wheelbase
    hta = head tube angle
    sta = seat tube angle

    6" mode of '02 rfx w/ '05 6 pack rear and rockers, '06 dhxc, '05 66 rc w/ fsa pig pro h/set, 2.5 kenda nev/bg tires, blahblahblah.

    g to axle cl = 13 3/8"
    g to b/bkt cl = 14 9/16"
    a to c = 22 1/2"
    w/b = 45 9/16"
    hta = 67.5
    sta 73

    5" mode with same frame and h/set, '00 rfx "A" 5" rockers, '05 ava, '05 am sl, 2.35 maxxis minion dhf tires, yaddayaddayadda.

    g to axle cl = 13 1/4"
    g to b/bkt cl = 13 1/4"
    a to c = 19 1/2"
    w/b = 45 1/4"
    hta = 68.5
    sta 74

    and if anyones really that interested, heres some rocker #'s. all measurements are done on bolt ceterline w/ a 7 1/2" shock i2i:

    mp = main pivot
    ss = seat stay
    sm = shock mount

    6" '05 6 pack rockers:
    mp to ss = 7 1/2"
    mp to sm = 3 1/16"
    sm to ss = 9 15/16"

    5" '00 rfx "A" rockers:
    mp to ss = 5 13/16"
    mp to sm = 3"
    sm to ss = 8 3/8"

    have fun workin out the triangulation. i dont have the mind nor the time today.
    Last edited by cactuscorn; 07-12-2006 at 05:20 PM.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  11. #11
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    very nice CC, only thing is Paul most likely has the 2002 6" rockers and stays which would mean a 14.75 BB height. I would suggest seeing if Turner can provide a six pack seat stay and rockers, they seem to be more open to this, a couple years ago when the six pack came out I asked if I could update my 02 rfx rear to bring the BB down and got a no for an answer...

  12. #12
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    im sure yer right about his rockers and yer #'s. id have to compare his pic to my bike to confirm. good news is if he ever decides to make the update to a newer rear, hes golden. dont know why ya got the answer ya did. maybe their ideas have evolved along with our experimentation.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  13. #13
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    have fun workin out the triangulation. i dont have the mind nor the time today.
    I hope you don't expect me to do any trigonometry?

    Thanks for posting what you have. The HA in 5" mode is pretty steep, 72*, am I reading that right? I'm hoping that I get different #'s than you, b/c I sure don't want it to be that steep (that's 3* steeper than my HT ). The 6" mode looks pretty good, but IIRC the '05 66RC is really tall, so that would result in a slacker HA and higher BB height than the current crop of 66's.

    My feeling is that my rear and rockers are different enough from your that direct comparisons may not be reasonable. Although it gives me a good idea of what to expect in terms of "geometric tendencies". Thanks again for taking the time to post.

    Patrick

  14. #14
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    very nice CC, only thing is Paul most likely has the 2002 6" rockers and stays which would mean a 14.75 BB height. I would suggest seeing if Turner can provide a six pack seat stay and rockers, they seem to be more open to this, a couple years ago when the six pack came out I asked if I could update my 02 rfx rear to bring the BB down and got a no for an answer...
    Who is this Paul fella you keep talking about?

    My wife's name is Paula, but if that's who you're referring to, "Whachu talkin' 'bout my wife fo'?"

    I don't plan on experimenting with the 6" rockers anytime soon. I'm gonna set the bike up first to perform well as a trail bike that can take hits (whatever that means ). I'm going to have to get some "counseling" from suspension experts (Push or Avy) if I plan on running a 3:1 leverage ratio (with 6" travel) at my bodyweight. It remains to be seen if I will like the BB that high or not.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 07-12-2006 at 04:48 PM.

  15. #15
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    sorry I keep getting confused with Paul who is setting up the 5 pack.

  16. #16
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    I hope you don't expect me to do any trigonometry?

    Thanks for posting what you have. The HA in 5" mode is pretty steep, 72*, am I reading that right? I'm hoping that I get different #'s than you, b/c I sure don't want it to be that steep (that's 3* steeper than my HT ). The 6" mode looks pretty good, but IIRC the '05 66RC is really tall, so that would result in a slacker HA and higher BB height than the current crop of 66's.
    re edit!: ya caught me tryin to fool ya. acctually i dorked it up. its really 68.5. sorry for the bad fingers and eyes. and yeah, that rc is a friggin skyscraper and will be for sale. too much for me and what i ride. makes a great dh fork im sure which was the original intent before i found colorado and our d/h series got cut.
    Last edited by cactuscorn; 07-12-2006 at 05:19 PM.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  17. #17
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    check my #'s again pete, or whoever the hell ya really are. i think i have em down now that ive reread my copious notes and remeasured the 5" bike. i got myself all turned around and i suck. sorry for all the confusion. chalk it up to feelin half human and seein double today. fockin food poisoning and spreadsheets. which will kill me 1st?
    No, I'm NOT back!

  18. #18
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    fockin food poisoning and spreadsheets. which will kill me 1st?
    Spreadsheets.

    The numbers look good, I like 'em. The 5" numbers are almost "Spot-like" which is fine with me. You know, you can take care of your bizness before you get back to me, I can wait.

    I hope ur tummy feels better.

    Patrick

  19. #19
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    no sh!t! just finished a few more pages. (thud!)

    its cool man. i gotta take a break now and again. today i started at 9:30am and at 11:30pm just finished my part. when candycorn gets home soon, its her turn to massage the bastages to reflect totals. i told myself i woudnt work this long but i lost 2 days in bed and had little choice with a deadline looming tomorrow am. thanx for givin me reason to divert my eyes from a page of numbers with yer.... oh. nevermind. maybe that explains why i had such a brain fart gettin those angles right.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  20. #20
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    You know, I don't think anyone knows the true answer to my original question. Which was: are the 2001 and 2002 RFX specs the same?

    Because if they are, I should be able to put my RS Reba (which has a 19.1" a2c when set at 115mm travel) on the RFX in 5" mode and get a 69* HA, 73.5* STA and a BB of ~13.2". Basically, those are Spot geometry #'s. In fact, they are exactly the same as the Spot. Which is just fine with me.

    Does anyone have an opinion on whether this will work are not? Am I missing something here and screwing these number up somehow?

    BTW, here are the recommended fork choices (in 2001) for the 2001 RFX in 5" mode:

    • Manitou, SuperNova
    • Marzocchi, Z-1 MCR 130mm, QR20 Plus,
    • RockShox, Psylo XC, Psylo SL, both are available with Tulio thru axle.
    • White Bros FR-3.


    Does anyone have any info about any of these forks. A-C heights, amount of travel, etc.? I'd just like to be able to compare their specs to modern forks, including the ones that I own. Thanks, guys, for responding if you've got info to share.

    Patrick

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drumstix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,291
    Dont take this wrong Patrick but just by the dang Pike!

  22. #22
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    lemme ask the man tomorrow. i owe him a call anyway. ill have a answer for ya sometime in the late afternoon. as im booked most of the day away from home. and me without a laptop and a wireless card. hang tight buddy. ill get ya yer answer.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  23. #23
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    Quote Originally Posted by drumstix
    Dont take this wrong Patrick but just by the dang Pike!
    Patrick - Hold off on that Pike purchase.

    A guy I ride with got a used 02 RFX this past winter and he purchased a Pike for it also. After months of riding it and making all kinds of adjustments he discovers that the Pike is just too darn short. He later replaced it with a 66 and runs it at 160mm with 6" in the back. It's all good now.

    Similer set-up for me. I have my Pack running 5" plates in the back and have my fork set at 150mm.



    The good thing about the 66SL is that you can test various a-2-c heights, from 515mm to 555mm, and see which one works for you.
    Nothing to see here.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drumstix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,291
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Patrick - Hold off on that Pike purchase.

    A guy I ride with got a used 02 RFX this past winter and he purchased a Pike for it also. After months of riding it and making all kinds of adjustments he discovers that the Pike is just too darn short. He later replaced it with a 66 and runs it at 160mm with 6" in the back. It's all good now.

    Similer set-up for me. I have my Pack running 5" plates in the back and have my fork set at 150mm.



    The good thing about the 66SL is that you can test various a-2-c heights, from 515mm to 555mm, and see which one works for you.

    That would be more like it in my world too but after I saw that Patrick was looking at old Psylo's and other 130mm forks thats when I threw in the towel and said go for the Pike.
    I think one of the best forks for guy's like me and Patrick is going to be the new Lyric, can you wait about 2-3 months Patrick?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,737
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Patrick - Hold off on that Pike purchase.

    A guy I ride with got a used 02 RFX this past winter and he purchased a Pike for it also. After months of riding it and making all kinds of adjustments he discovers that the Pike is just too darn short. He later replaced it with a 66 and runs it at 160mm with 6" in the back. It's all good now.

    Similer set-up for me. I have my Pack running 5" plates in the back and have my fork set at 150mm.



    The good thing about the 66SL is that you can test various a-2-c heights, from 515mm to 555mm, and see which one works for you.

    Was the fork too short with 5" or 6" at the back?

  26. #26
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Was the fork too short with 5" or 6" at the back?
    Good question. I would've expected the Pike to work just fine in 5" mode. Maybe not the best for downhilling, but for regular trail riding (with climbing) it seems like it should work fine. I can certainly see It being a bit short (and steep) with 6" in the back. Just as many people don't like Pikes on the 6 Pack or Modern RFX. Inquiring minds want to know.

    Patrick

  27. #27
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by drumstix
    Dont take this wrong Patrick but just by the dang Pike!
    Quote Originally Posted by SSinGA
    Patrick - Hold off on that Pike purchase.
    Quote Originally Posted by drumstix
    I think one of the best forks for guy's like me and Patrick is going to be the new Lyric, can you wait about 2-3 months Patrick?
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    maybe a 66 SL would be a good fork for you
    Quote Originally Posted by SSinGA
    The Z1 light ETA would fit your needs and look bad-ass an that white and black frame.
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ...actually the 66SL is the perfect fork for what you need
    Quote Originally Posted by Boone
    That 66sl is callin you bro.....
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    I recommend the Pike coil
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    Don't forget about the 06 66rc2x. I've got one and I absolutely love it.
    Ahhh, you guys are driving me crazy!

    I'm so confused. See:

    It seems like the numbers that I'm getting on paper are not jiving will everyone's real world experience (which is really more important anyway).

    I really need to do this right the first time, so that's why I'd like to iron out these Geometry numbers first. Plus, if it'll work with a fork I currently own, then I can start riding immediately (even if it's a little steep - remember, I'm currently riding a 69.5* HT).

    Patrick

  28. #28
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Was the fork too short with 5" or 6" at the back?
    Too short for 6". I still prefer my fork set at 150mm with 5" in the back also. Deals on the 06 66SL should start popping up all over soon.
    Nothing to see here.

  29. #29
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    [quote=SSINGA]Too short for 6". I still prefer my fork set at 150mm with 5" in the back also.[quote]

    but you're talking about a sixpack with 5" rockers, didn't we decide that the 6pack, with the longer seatstays than the original rfx, does not produce a comparable geometry?

    Patrick, IMO a reba is too short, I will confirm the geo later today for you. I can crank a Pike down to 115 and take the measurements.

  30. #30
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Too short for 6". I still prefer my fork set at 150mm with 5" in the back also.
    but you're talking about a sixpack with 5" rockers, didn't we decide that the 6pack, with the longer seatstays than the original rfx, does not produce a comparable geometry?
    Yeah, I agree with this. Almost everyone has a Franken-Turner, and those differing dimensions are not going to produce the same geometry. I guess that's what you just said.

    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    Patrick, IMO a reba is too short, I will confirm the geo later today for you. I can crank a Pike down to 115 and take the measurements.
    Alright, now we're getting somewhere. I agree with you, my instincts would say that the Reba would be too short. But if the geometry specs I have are correct, it seems like it will work. If you can, crank it down to 110mm. I think the Pike is 518mm a2c at 140mm travel, so dropping it 30mm will give it the same 488mm a2c as the Reba at 115mm travel.

    I appreciate you taking the time to check it out.

    Patrick

  31. #31
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    Alright, now we're getting somewhere.
    but I'm still going to suggest a 66sl...

  32. #32
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    [quote=airwreck][quote=SSINGA]Too short for 6". I still prefer my fork set at 150mm with 5" in the back also.

    but you're talking about a sixpack with 5" rockers, didn't we decide that the 6pack, with the longer seatstays than the original rfx, does not produce a comparable geometry?

    Patrick, IMO a reba is too short, I will confirm the geo later today for you. I can crank a Pike down to 115 and take the measurements.
    Partially. The too short comment referred to a Pike on a 6" rockered 02 RFX.

    Regardless - get a 66SL and pick your own ideal a-2-c.
    Nothing to see here.

  33. #33
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Regardless - get a 66SL and pick your own ideal a-2-c.
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    but I'm still going to suggest a 66sl
    Dammit people, I'm still going to get the 66sl (or something like it) eventually. But if I go out and buy one today (like this new one that's on sale for a great price...not that I've been looking ), my wife will divorce me for blowing part of our vacation budget. So right now have to choose: stay married, or have a 66sl.

    The reason I'm asking about the wimpy little Reba is because that's what i got, and if it'll work ok, then I can start riding immediately.

    Do I want a big, fat, honkin' fork that I can drop off my roof with (a la Crazy Fred)? Absolutely.

    Do I want to stay married? Absolutely.

    So, there's the full explaination. I hope now I'm clear on my intentions (and familial limitations).

    Patrick

  34. #34
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    allow me to help. you can stay at my place till ya find a new girl to shack up with. i hear this ones available.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  35. #35
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    you think that Reba is wimpy now wait till your RFX gets done with it .

    go ahead and set it up with the reba, put a larger front tire and smaller rear tire on to help.
    also try more rear shock sag and less fork sag.

    It'll be okay.

  36. #36
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    you think that Reba is wimpy now wait till your RFX gets done with it .

    go ahead and set it up with the reba, put a larger front tire and smaller rear tire on to help.
    also try more rear shock sag and less fork sag.

    It'll be okay.
    Are you saying that because you checked out the #'s on your bike and it looks OK, or your just trying to get me to shut up and to stop asking questions?

    I thought of some of those things you mentioned. My thoughts:
    • Big front tire - I'm already running a 2.4 and I don't think that my girl Reba can take any thing bigger...you know what I mean
    • Smaller rear tire - I can do this, but I would want to stick with a fairly beefy tire. How small would I have to go in order for this to make a difference in the geometry?
    • Lotsa rear shock sag - OK, but combined with the smaller rear tire I'd be concerned about the BB being to low. Our riding around here is pretty technical. Lots of rock gardens. I mean lots. Spot-like BB height would probably be fine. My buddy rides a Spot and it seems to work just fine. Under 13" might be a problem, though.


    Ideally, I'd like to know exactly what the numbers would be before I built it up. Remember, I have no wrenching experience. So if I were to take this on, even enlisting some help, it's going to be a huge, time-consuming, project. I'd have to cannibalized the components from my HT to do it. If it doesn't work-out (iow, if the geometry is f'd up or it just rides like poo) then I have to reverse the process to build my HT up so that I can ride (another major ordeal). Alternatively, I could have my LBS do the build, but here we are back to spending $. I'd rather save that money and put it towards "proper" components.

    Ah, I don't know what to do. For now, anyway, I'm just gonna ride my HT and pretend it's a Turner.

    Patrick

  37. #37
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    I'm several time zones west of you so by the time you check back in in the morning saturday I should have the numbers.

  38. #38
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    I'm several time zones west of you so by the time you check back in in the morning saturday I should have the numbers.
    Ok. No rush on this, of course. I appreciate all your help with it.

    Patrick

  39. #39
    3 "fiddy" for short
    Reputation: be350ka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,741
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    My buddy rides a Spot and it seems to work just fine.
    Patrick
    You can bet your arse that it works just fine!!!

    Now, let me tell you that your search for parts is only adding to my UGI, which is more dangerous and spreads much faster than the bird flu.

  40. #40
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,879
    Patrick,
    I come up with 70 degrees HT angle, and that's with a 2.3 front and 2.1 rear nevegal, that's consistent with what would be expected when reducing the front fork ride height from 125 to 115 travel. The bottom bracket remains close to 13.25. It's going to have a body forward bias when combined with the now steeper seat tube also (another reason to firm up the fork). Of course you'll get used to it, but it is a detraction from the way the bike was intended to handle. I've been rolling around on a choppered out setup now for so long that even a 69 degree HT angle feels weird to me.

  41. #41
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    I come up with 70 degrees HT angle...It's going to have a body forward bias when combined with the now steeper seat tube also...it is a detraction from the way the bike was intended to handle.
    Hmmm. 70* is pretty steep. I think I'd probably be disappointed with the bikes handling in that set-up. I don't think I'm gonna try this. I'm just gonna hold out until I can piece together the build that I really want. Thanks for checking that out.

    Patrick

  42. #42
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    i never heard back from dt. ill call again tomorrow. just didnt want ya to think i forgot about ya.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  43. #43
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    i never heard back from dt. ill call again tomorrow. just didnt want ya to think i forgot about ya.
    No biggie. I'm waiting on a "part" from them, hopefully it'll show early this week. That's a small saga (not really, though), I'll share the story when it's over.

    Hey, if do get to speak with him and you're able to ask, find out what he thinks about the '02 RFX in 6" mode at my bodyweight (265lbs + gear = 280lbs). Is there a spring (Vanilla RC) that could handle it? Jarett told me the chart said 750lb coil in 5" mode. I'm guessing it'll be up near 1000lbs. That's just a guess, though.

    Cool if you can, no problem if you can't.

    Patrick

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jon Edwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    439
    OK, I've not read all the way through this (too many numbers!), but if I undertstand right, you have an '02 5" RFX??

    I have an '02 6" RFX, and have been through a few forks. I like bikes that handle pretty quick.

    I started with a125mm Talas (what i had). Scary steep.

    I went to a Pike. Great general trail handling, but after a fortnight in the Alps, I came to the conclusion that it was still a hair too steep - I was having to back off because I couldn't keep the front end under control when it got properly steep.

    I now run an '05 Z1 FR1, which is just a hair slacker, and its lovely (although I am now running a shorter stem)

    If I had 5" plates, with no real plans to upgrade to the 6" ones, I'd stick with the Pikes. If I KNEW I was going to be going to 6", and KNEW that I wanted to go big on a regular basis I'd wait for the lyrics.

    If herself is gonna give you grief, get the damn thing built with the Rebas. It'll work. It won't be great, but it WILL be rideable, which is what actually matters.

    (oh and FWIW, the geo chart for the 6" '02 has different figures to the measurements I took off my frame)

  45. #45
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    OK, I've not read all the way through this (too many numbers!), but if I undertstand right, you have an '02 5" RFX??
    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    I have an '02 6" RFX, and have been through a few forks. I like bikes that handle pretty quick.

    I started with a125mm Talas (what i had). Scary steep.

    I went to a Pike. Great general trail handling, but after a fortnight in the Alps, I came to the conclusion that it was still a hair too steep - I was having to back off because I couldn't keep the front end under control when it got properly steep.

    I now run an '05 Z1 FR1, which is just a hair slacker, and its lovely (although I am now running a shorter stem)
    Good info, thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    If I had 5" plates, with no real plans to upgrade to the 6" ones, I'd stick with the Pikes. If I KNEW I was going to be going to 6", and KNEW that I wanted to go big on a regular basis I'd wait for the lyrics.
    I have 6" plates also (in fact the 6" plates are on the (unbuilt) frame right now). I may choose to go to 6" mode in the future. Or maybe right away, if PUSH tells my they can tune my Vanilla RC to handle my bodyweight at the RFX's high leverage ratio. Ideally, I would like to get a fork to suit both the 5" and 6" travel settings, hence my interest in the Lyrik.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    If herself is gonna give you grief, get the damn thing built with the Rebas. It'll work. It won't be great, but it WILL be rideable, which is what actually matters.
    All this talk about super-steep HA's is making me nervous, I'm gonna hold off unless I get a definitive reason to try it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    (oh and FWIW, the geo chart for the 6" '02 has different figures to the measurements I took off my frame)
    Yeah, that's annoying. In the end it'll come down to how it feels to me, but I want to try to get the "right feel" with the first build.

    Thanks for your reply.

    Patrick

  46. #46
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    oh and FWIW, the geo chart for the 6" '02 has different figures to the measurements I took off my frame
    Just curious, what are the measurements you pulled off your frame?

    Patrick

Posting Permissions

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