Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JNKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    392

    46mm or 56mm offset on Pike RCT3?

    Hi guys-

    I'm considering upgrading my fork on my SB95c to the Pike RCT3. I'm looking at 140 mm travel but not sure about the offset. Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Ka-coo-ka-cha!
    Reputation: snigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    542
    51mm offset
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live. ~Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"

  3. #3
    Ka-coo-ka-cha!
    Reputation: snigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    542
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live. ~Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"

  4. #4
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,208
    Yeah I think you mean 46mm or 51mm. 51mm is way more common for most bikes.

    If this is the same principle as triple clamps for MX bikes, the 46mm would bring the fork closer to you, shorten the wheelbase and make the bike handle quicker. But probably not in a good way. 51mm heads in the other direction and does the opposite.

    And the cool thing about the Pike, if you buy it at 140mm, you can easily swap it from 120mm all the way to 160mm with a pretty easy Airshaft change, which is about $35.

    I've experimented with mine a lot; it's a great feature of the fork. I settled at 140, btw.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    --------------------------
    Rokworth.com
    MTB Reviews & Tests - for the love of writing and riding

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JNKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    392
    Whoops! I didn't realize my typo. Sorry, everyone. Thanks for the replies, too.

  6. #6
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,745
    I'd say go with Yeti's 51mm offset recommendation.

    Art's article is cool up until he states how it is "too much of a good thing", then it becomes a bit controversial and opinionated. Basically, he's stating his personal preference for low offset for bikes with a HA slacker than 68.5 (specifically Carbine29 and Enduro29), especially after he got rid of the preconceived notion that a bike should steer like what old smaller wheeled bikes used to. Don't read that as me saying it's wrong; I'm saying it's up for debate. Right and wrong depends on individual riders and what their personal preference. He seems to value a shorter wheelbase, and thinks shaving up to 5mm off his wheelbase pays off with its proportionally tighter turning radius, and believes that the benefits in the steeps and rocks isn't worth it if it compromises handling in tight switchbacks. At this point, I'm treating his opinion as "trust but verify", as he's supporting his argument basically with less than 5mm of wheelbase difference (the 5mm offset is angled perpendicular to the fork's length) and a preference for slower steering on flatter trails. I'm still running the stock 46mm on my E29 and 51mm on my other 29ers, and curious what other E29 owners think about swapping the fork out for a Fox 36 (51mm offset only). I don't come across *tight* switchbacks, but there's no shortage of switchbacks that have been widened by the sheer volume of riders trying to ride these switchbacks running worse setups.

    Here's some info I wrote up on it from another thread, that will demystify it and perhaps allow you to make an educated decision yourself.

    48 to 51mm fork offset?

    More food for thought if you like controversial opinions (from the other extreme end):

    https://youtu.be/6NjWB66QAhQ?t=38
    We're all on the same ship, and it's sinking.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JNKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    392
    Ah. If Yeti recommends 51mm, I'll stick to that. Now, to find one on sale!

  8. #8
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,745
    More on the offset subject:

    Rake and Trail

    Seems to support how I summed it up in my post in the other thread. They just call the "wheel flop" effect as "self-steering when leaned". The more flop/self-steering, the more it turned the wheel to the inside when at a deeper bank/lean angle, overpowering the self-centering effect from going fast.

    I believe that where geo is at now, it's acceptably optimized for weight and safer upright fitment. Slack head angles allow for shorter frame tubes, lower front end, bigger wheel, and longer travel fork, and/or prevent brake judder and "tuck" from frontal impacts. It can bend when landing a somewhat flat from a jump, if too slack (bushing bind prevents effective use of travel). The slack angle front end provides stability and more self-centering. They don't call it the "safety bike" for nothing. Once fork rake/offset becomes more customizable, rather than locked between 1-2 choices from susp fork manufacturers (forcing bike designers to optimize around it), some revolution can start, but where they are right now gets a decent balance between stability and precise responsiveness.
    We're all on the same ship, and it's sinking.

Similar Threads

  1. 46mm or 51mm offset
    By brotheronwheel in forum Evil Bikes
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-13-2017, 01:28 AM
  2. 2015 New Rockshox Pike RCT3 29" 160mm Solo Air 51mm offset
    By CoyoteRun in forum 29er Components
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-13-2015, 10:20 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 09:38 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 02:12 PM
  5. 51mm offset vs. 46mm
    By Tex78 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 09:37 AM

Members who have read this thread: 9

Posting Permissions

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