120mm or 100mm squish fork for my Crave SL?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    219

    120mm or 100mm squish fork for my Crave SL?

    Buying a new squishy fork for my Crave SL. What amount of travel is best, 120mm or 100mm?

    Thank you.

    Brandon

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,034
    why NOT 120? I started with a 100mm fork on my current frame, then bumped the fork to 120 and have not looked back.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    745
    If you can get the cockpit low enough with a 120, then I think that's a good choice. Personally, I'm struggling to get the cockpit low enough with a 100mm fork and reasonable stem lengths, plus my frames tend to have fairly high BBs to begin with. This is with racing performance as a priority though. If this is just a fun adventure type of bike, 120 is the droid you're looking for. I'd even consider the Pike 130, but a current Fox 34 at 120 is pretty damned sweet.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socaltrailrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    112
    I have a 100mm Sid sitting in my garage that I purchased for my Crave. I haven't put it on yet because I am liking the weight and responsiveness of riding the bike rigid. I have a suspended HT and a FS bike, so I have other options to ride when I know the trail is going to be real chunky. Even the 100mm fork is going to have a longer axle to crown for most brands. I think the Fox 32 is around 500mm vs 480mm for the chisel.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: economatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    421
    I agree with solo-x about getting the cockpit low enough, BB bracket height, and how you'll be using the bike. Something else to consider is if you'll even need or use the extra 20mm of travel and of course price. I see a lot of 120mm forks on the market for reasonable prices.

    My personal experience is I run a 120mm fork on the bike I use for endurance racing. It's more than I need and I've come close to using all that travel only once all season when I hit a whoop-dee-do thingy way too fast. I'm looking to move to a 100mm or 80mm next year if I can find one for a decent price.

  6. #6
    WillWorkForTrail
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,409
    For what it's worth, I say it depends a great deal on how you ride. I have a FS geared bike and my SS, which was initially set up rigid. My times on the same trails were very similar in some places, and varied greatly in other places. My FS bike is 100mm front and rear. When I decided I needed to put a suspension fork on the front of my SS it was because my elbows were tell me they were too old for the amount of abuse they were taking - not all of it from the bike, by the way - so I decided to go 120 just for the extra little bit of plush it could provide. Now the only place my times on the SS are slower on trails is where there's a lot of flat pedaly stuff. Everywhere else, including downhills to this point, the SS is faster, and I use most of the travel on the SS in a lot of places, and ALL of the travel on the FS bike in all of those places. My conclusion is I ride too fast for 100mm of travel to be "enough" - so, based on your experience, do you ride fast enough to need 120mm of travel, or just looking for the extra plushness maybe, or a little slacker head tube? Or do you prefer a sportscar feel where it's a little tighter all the way around?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,775
    I was helping him in another thread figuring out geometry and such.

    After I was done, I decided to overhaul both me and my wifes forks, Reba RL. (We have the same bike, 2012 Stumpjumper HT, which is pretty much identical in frame geometry to the OP's Crave) In mine, I took out the 20mm spacer and threw in the 10, bringing myself to 100 travel, and in the wifes, I took out the 10, leaving in the 20, bringing her to 90.

    As much as I think bumping up to a little more travel than that would be good, at least for us I don't think we'd like the bar position at that point. We're pretty much level with the seat height now. These frames have lower BB's than most others and so even with the stems slammed, on a short head tube, and with flat bars, this is the case. Our seats aren't low either. We are pretty average body stats.

    120 would be in nosebleed territory on these bikes.

    We're going to take the bikes on their maiden voyages with the new fork travel in a bit...

    It was interesting to find that our forks can be bumped up to 110. I was under the impression that it was 100. They came from Spec at 90 and 80 on our bikes respectively

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,775
    My recommendation for the OP would be to find a fork that can be travel adjusted. Suspension in general is going to feel pretty good, coming off a rigid fork.

    A Reba set at 90 or a fork with approx. 496 A2C is going to maintain your current geometry, and then like I said in the other thread, general rule of thumb is .5 degree decrease for every 10mm of travel added. You're bike sits at 71.5 head angle right now with the carbon fork.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,775
    Sorry, posting so much here, but wanted to mention one more thing. Check what your head angle is for yourself. I plan to. Reason I say this is, Specialized claimed that the headangle on our Stumpjumpers was 71.5 straight through the size run. But I know that that wasn't correct at least for the smallest one (the 15.5) OR for the rest of the sizes.

    The reason I know this is my wife and I have the same bike, the same year, just hers is a 15.5 and mine the 17.5. When the bikes are both on the roof rack, you could see that the angle of the two bikes next to each other was different. Hers sat a bit steeper in the fork mounts. So either hers was sitting at 72 head angle or there abouts, or the 17.5 and up sat at 71 or there abouts.

    Point being, Specialized, though they claim made a different frame geometry for the shorter fork speced on the 15.5, clearly didn't. They just put another spacer in the same fork, and shipped em. I surmise the same went for the Evo of that same year, that came with a 100mm Fox, and everyone scratched their heads as to whether they could put a 100mm fork on the regular Stumpjumpers based upon this, or if it would void the warranty. There were claims that the Evo had it's own geometry to accommodate the longer fork. Horse s*&t. It was the same frame as the regular Stumpjumpers. Yet they claimed that with a longer fork, it had the same head angle and geometry. Nope. Not possible.

Similar Threads

  1. 120mm squish for my Crave SL?
    By BadBoyRipper in forum Specialized
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-11-2016, 12:43 PM
  2. Going from 100mm to 120mm fork
    By cabralkev in forum Giant
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2014, 12:14 PM
  3. Jet 9 RDO - 100mm or 120mm fork?
    By drz400sm in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-14-2013, 07:33 PM
  4. 100mm vs 120mm Fork?
    By Ace5high in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-06-2011, 01:10 PM
  5. 100mm fork to 120mm
    By skierdood in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 09:09 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.