Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    you go ahead
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    709

    suspension corrected??

    What does this mean exactly?

    Thank you

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    354

    kinda definition

    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBearings
    What does this mean exactly?

    Thank you
    Suspension corrected on a rigid fork means that the fork should be a similiar lenght to a sertain suspention fork. Old mountain bikes just used forks that were long enough to fit the tire, not really any need for many different lenghts. When suspension forks came out the newer frames were made to compensate for the longer lenght of the suspension fork so that the suspension fork wouldn't chopper out the head angle, Just think about what would happen if you put a DH fork on a XC bike head angle, for a extreame example. If you could find a older non suspension corrected fork and put it on a frame that was set up for a 80mm or 100mm fork, you would get a steeper Head angle and a quicker, perhaps twitcher ride.
    Most rigid forks now adays are set up to be suspension corrected for an 80mm fork, but different companies use a different axle to crown height when they call it suspension corrected, most of the axle to crown heigths are between 410-435mm in lenght, a shorter lenght will make for a quicker steeper head angle and a longer fork will mellow out and make the handleing more stable, a longer fork will also have more clearance for giant front tires, like a 3.0 gazzalodi. Some people like Red haze even use a 29er fork to mellow the head angle some and have giant tire clearance.
    hope this kinda helps ya out

  3. #3
    you go ahead
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    709
    The frame I'll be putting the fork on is a '95 frame. I suppose I don't want it suspension corrected then... the head tube is really long btw.

    Thanks for the help

    Quote Originally Posted by single1x1
    Suspension corrected on a rigid fork means that the fork should be a similiar lenght to a sertain suspention fork. Old mountain bikes just used forks that were long enough to fit the tire, not really any need for many different lenghts. When suspension forks came out the newer frames were made to compensate for the longer lenght of the suspension fork so that the suspension fork wouldn't chopper out the head angle, Just think about what would happen if you put a DH fork on a XC bike head angle, for a extreame example. If you could find a older non suspension corrected fork and put it on a frame that was set up for a 80mm or 100mm fork, you would get a steeper Head angle and a quicker, perhaps twitcher ride.
    Most rigid forks now adays are set up to be suspension corrected for an 80mm fork, but different companies use a different axle to crown height when they call it suspension corrected, most of the axle to crown heigths are between 410-435mm in lenght, a shorter lenght will make for a quicker steeper head angle and a longer fork will mellow out and make the handleing more stable, a longer fork will also have more clearance for giant front tires, like a 3.0 gazzalodi. Some people like Red haze even use a 29er fork to mellow the head angle some and have giant tire clearance.
    hope this kinda helps ya out

  4. #4
    "Mr. Britannica"
    Reputation: roadiegonebad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBearings
    The frame I'll be putting the fork on is a '95 frame. I suppose I don't want it suspension corrected then... the head tube is really long btw.

    Thanks for the help

    You can't just measure HT length to determine whether the frame was built for a suspension fork. That 95 *might* be built for a suspension fork, but at that time even the best xc forks has limited travel (63mm?). You might try to contact the mfger, otherwise check out this link (para at the bottom): http://viciouscycles.com/forks.php3

  5. #5
    brother on a mission
    Reputation: Greenfix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    553
    Rusty.

    If you have the original fork for the frame, measure the axel to crown height of the fork, and try to match that. I put a 100mm fork on an older Trek 930 frame, and it raked it out considerably. It bombs down the hill, but it is not a very nimble climber. Whatr kind of frame are you building up?

    GF

  6. #6
    you go ahead
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenfix
    Rusty.

    If you have the original fork for the frame, measure the axel to crown height of the fork, and try to match that. I put a 100mm fork on an older Trek 930 frame, and it raked it out considerably. It bombs down the hill, but it is not a very nimble climber. Whatr kind of frame are you building up?

    GF
    1995 Marin Pine Mountain.

    The Kona Project 2 I think has 230 mm.
    I took a rule and measured 230 mm between the wheel axel and the bottom of the headtube to see how the hypothetical fork would make the geometry.

    Seemed ok... but I'll check again.

  7. #7
    "Mr. Britannica"
    Reputation: roadiegonebad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBearings
    1995 Marin Pine Mountain.

    The Kona Project 2 I think has 230 mm.
    I took a rule and measured 230 mm between the wheel axel and the bottom of the headtube to see how the hypothetical fork would make the geometry.

    Seemed ok... but I'll check again.

    Re-check your measurements... the xc P2 is 410mm axle to crown

  8. #8
    brother on a mission
    Reputation: Greenfix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    553
    Check out the FAQ they have axel to crown measurements for a bunch of forks. Axel to headtube may add a couple of mm to your measurement.

  9. #9
    you go ahead
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by roadiegonebad
    Re-check your measurements... the xc P2 is 410mm axle to crown
    wow I was way off... but yeah.. after posting I went to bikeman.com and got the correct measurement. Seems fine. I think I'll go for the Surly 1x1 (cheaper) which is still pretty short.

Similar Threads

  1. Trade-offs in anti-squat suspension theory
    By derby in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-24-2010, 03:46 PM
  2. If you need to know this.
    By KevinVokeyJ24 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-24-2004, 09:40 AM
  3. more mistaken 4-bar analysis
    By derby in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 03-11-2004, 05:20 PM
  4. Please explain the difference between ICT and HorstLink
    By BanzaiRider in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-28-2004, 12:55 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2004, 10:52 PM

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
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.