466g Carbon MTB Rigid fork!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 72 of 72
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    436

    466g Carbon MTB Rigid fork!

    This looks like a great fork for the money. Its 466g without studs, uncut, and disc ready. I do believe this puts it as lighter than the Ritchey WCS carbon fork. Actually for a MTB I have not seen anything lighter. The seller is top notch as well!

    http://cgi.ebay.com/TRIGON-CARBON-FI...QQcmdZViewItem

    I ended up buying a cheap Mosso Aluminum fork for a project I have. Carbon was a bit out of the pricerange for what I am trying to do.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,483
    That's the exact fork I have on my 13lb 6oz rigid Pedal Force commuter build. Oh, and I have bought from Wayne on a couple of occasions, and I agree that he's top notch.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    all the same...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bender
    This looks like a great fork for the money. Its 466g without studs, uncut, and disc ready. I do believe this puts it as lighter than the Ritchey WCS carbon fork. Actually for a MTB I have not seen anything lighter. The seller is top notch as well!

    http://cgi.ebay.com/TRIGON-CARBON-FI...QQcmdZViewItem

    I ended up buying a cheap Mosso Aluminum fork for a project I have. Carbon was a bit out of the pricerange for what I am trying to do.
    i have the 100% identical TOKEN fork on my winterbike . my disc-only weighed 447g uncut. cut to lenght it weighs only 408g as shown below german magazines tested it and it was even stiffer than a Fox fork....cool!

    these forks got a great reputation and more and more guys are using them with great success. they are stiff AND compliant at the same time. they convert your bike into a rocketship...its really insane how a simple fork transplant can add so much fun and speed. and i'm still amazed that you can get so much fun out of mountainbiking without all that suspension gimmicks. no spvterralogivremotelockoutantibob...whatever. just pure biking and a lot of fun.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    115
    Mine (V/Disc version) came in at 448g uncut.
    Now with 180mm column it weighs 418g

    This is definitely the best weight saving against cost
    I dont have any performance trouble either.

    There are two things that I don't like about them.
    One is their logo looks ugly.
    Other is Crown head has width of about 50mm!!
    (SID crown is about 42mm)
    So IMO they go well with integrated carbon frame but not ordinary a-head frames...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Slobberdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    934
    Ahhhh, ninos got the German tires

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,269
    Wow, that is crazy light. Does that fork have a weight limit?

    I would be afraid to ride off road on these. I already find my Pace RC31 (700g after cut) to be on the scary side of safety.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    well...

    Quote Originally Posted by Slobberdoggy
    Ahhhh, ninos got the German tires
    i once mounted the 2,3" Speedkings but these tires stink BIG time so they went off within 2 rides only. worst tires besides the Maxxlites i ever used !

    the only positive is the weight but for me a tire has to offer great performance otherwise it is useless...and that's what these contis are (for me)
    by the way - i have them for sale - only about 50km used - 410g!!!!! now they sit in a box in my basement and collect dust...
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by nino; 03-01-2008 at 07:56 AM.

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    Pace is no comparison...

    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    Wow, that is crazy light. Does that fork have a weight limit?

    I would be afraid to ride off road on these. I already find my Pace RC31 (700g after cut) to be on the scary side of safety.
    the Pace is weak and is no comparison! according to several guys who swapped the Pace for one of these Tokens (or Ritchey etc...) there is no comparison in the ride. much stiffer yet more compliant and much lighter as well. they are also not affected by powerful discbrakes which isn't the case with Pace and other look-a-like carbon forks.

    before i installed the Token i also tried a cheapo "Pace"-like carbon fork and all i can say it didn't perform the way i was hoping for. it would flex under heavy braking and it was much too long which made for too slow steering. anyway - so bad i swapped that fork for the Token and couldn't be happier. that was night and day better. i really love the way the bike handles with that fork. you don't miss the suspension fork at all. i think it is a big plus if you run your tires "tubeless" so you get some compliance out of the tires. it's mainly on the brakes that you suffer but otherwise good body english compensates for the lack of suspension and the added acceleration, the super precise steering and flickability of the front all make up for some lost comfort. that's 1 kilo less weight in the front...it's really suuuper fast!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by nino; 03-01-2008 at 08:39 AM.

  9. #9
    pedal pusher
    Reputation: f3rg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,712
    This is the sexiest bike pic I've ever seen.


  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: barratana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    62
    Hi,

    Wich kind of terrain do you guys ride with these forks?

    Nino put your contiīs to sell and let me know... LOL

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikerboyj17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    454
    Is it worth it to change to a rigid from a suspension fork? do you notice all the weight that you lose from upgrading to a rigid??

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: barratana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    62
    Weight I understand the amount of gain but on a BTT bike that is supossed to get everywhere and uphill and downhill isnīt there a limitation....

    If I wated such a limitation I would buy a road bike those are lighter...

    Donīt get me wrong but what Iīm trying to get is with those setups the terrain that you ride isnīt limited? Do you get the same control on a descent with rocks and roots?

    I also like to light my bike, but thereīs a limit for me based on price/safety/ and limitation on the terrain.

    So the questions remains. Wich kind of terrain do you guys ride with these forks?

  13. #13
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,861
    410mm Axle to Crown? That's damn short. Ok for a early to mid-90s restoration when geometry was based on 50-70mm travel forks, but for anything modern designed around a 80-100 range, welcome to steeper angles and lower BB heights.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    48
    I put a Mosso Carbon fork on my winterbike(73degree seat tube angle). It's 41,7cm axle to crown.The frame is designed for a 80mm suspension fork. It made the seat tube angle so steep that I couldn't get my seat as far back as I like. I am still 10mm short of the 100m(BB to the tip of the seat). The seatpost has about 20mm of setback. My seat height is 840mm.
    I haven't really tested the handling of the fork yet because my full length fenders with extensions limit my riding to flat smootish singletrack and road. But I can say that my race bike with a 85mm suspension fork handles much better offroad. The Mosso fork has held up fine so far.

    Here it is with a 226mm steerer
    Attached Images Attached Images

  15. #15
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by barratana
    Weight I understand the amount of gain but on a BTT bike that is supossed to get everywhere and uphill and downhill isnīt there a limitation....

    If I wated such a limitation I would buy a road bike those are lighter...

    Donīt get me wrong but what Iīm trying to get is with those setups the terrain that you ride isnīt limited? Do you get the same control on a descent with rocks and roots?

    I also like to light my bike, but thereīs a limit for me based on price/safety/ and limitation on the terrain.

    So the questions remains. Wich kind of terrain do you guys ride with these forks?
    i do all trails i do with the supsension as well. limitation is the technical ability of yourself....and the amount of punishment you are willing to take. at first you will be thrown around as you are used to ride over obstacles rather than around or soaking them up with your body....but within a short time you really come to live. as i already wrote above you need body english, a well trained eye to "read" the terrain, to see the smoother line and loose arms and legs to soak up everything that is in the way. it's really fun how little bike you need to go fast also in really techical terrain. what helps big time is the handling characteristics of such a bike. because of the little weight and great stiffness the bike is so much more nimble and easy to flick around than it is with a heavy fork installed...it's all the difference.

    i see it different again: why would i need all the suspension to level out all irregularities of the trails? if i don't feel what i ride then i could as well use a roadbike on paved roads...so for ME the fun is in having to "battle" the terrain i'm riding in. to be able to master the difficulties also without all the technical gimmicks. i might get a FS in a couple of years (when really old...) but riding a HT and riding the full rigid during winter helps me keeping my senses fresh, my riding ability is trained and i'm faster on my suspended bike as well after i rode full rigid. i have many friends who use FS bikes that are unable to ride the rigid bike offorad! they get thrown all over the place because they have forgotten how to soak up the bumps.

    anyway - i'm using this bike during the muddy winterseason only. it gets used in mud and snow so rather soft soil. ok, some iced and frozen trails as well but during the biking season i also love my suspension fork in the other bike

    @D8:
    i also thought that 41cm would be too short BUT as it turns out it is awesome. there's more and more guys that enjoy it and over here these forks are very popular. as already posted above i first used another fork with 45 cm lenght (suspension corrected) but it transformed my bike in a sleeper. it was dead slow handling pushing over the front and worst of all not stiff enough...the Token was like installing a turbo. the bike became alive instantly.
    Last edited by nino; 03-01-2008 at 10:30 PM.

  16. #16
    pedal pusher
    Reputation: f3rg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,712
    I have the 7005-series AL version of gert's fork above. Weight is similar, as is the axle-to-crown. When I put it on, my front end dropped about a half-inch, but it never bothered me. For one thing, I flipped my stem back over to increase my bar height (I had been running it negative-rise). As for the sharper steering, I couldn't be happier with it. I'm already a twitchy sum'***** as it is, so no reason my bike shouldn't be as well. The BB drop was minimal, and I haven't hit it or my pedals on anything yet.

    I still need more ride time to get used to the rigid front end, but I don't see it being a real problem. So far, the only bumps/dips that send a jolt up my arms are from seams and small holes on the roads. Of course, any negatives that might come from riding a rigid fork are completely countered once you head uphill. Rigids climb like nothing else!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,269
    nino: much stiffer yet more compliant and much lighter as well

    That would be an oxymoron ... a complete contradiction of terms to describe the same thing. Frankly it seems a little too good to be for real. I race with my fork and have seen plenty of rigid racers with them.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  18. #18
    Single Speed Junkie
    Reputation: crux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    the Pace is weak and is no comparison! according to several guys who swapped the Pace for one of these Tokens (or Ritchey etc...) there is no comparison in the ride. much stiffer yet more compliant and much lighter as well. they are also not affected by powerful discbrakes which isn't the case with Pace and other look-a-like carbon forks.
    How does that compare to the WB Rock Solid? Looks like the same fork with polished bits.

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    crabon!

    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    nino: much stiffer yet more compliant and much lighter as well

    That would be an oxymoron ... a complete contradiction of terms to describe the same thing. Frankly it seems a little too good to be for real. I race with my fork and have seen plenty of rigid racers with them.
    it seems you missed the point of good carbon manufacturing. stiffer yet more compliant if done right.

  20. #20
    himom!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    nino: much stiffer yet more compliant and much lighter as well

    That would be an oxymoron ... a complete contradiction of terms to describe the same thing. Frankly it seems a little too good to be for real. I race with my fork and have seen plenty of rigid racers with them.
    How about laterally stiffer and vertically more compliant? That'd be a good thing, right?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hand/of/Midas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by dmcgoy
    How about laterally stiffer and vertically more compliant? That'd be a good thing, right?
    yes exactly, just like the ideal road bike rear end.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,269
    dmcgoy: How about laterally stiffer and vertically more compliant? That'd be a good thing, right?

    Yes, that would make sense. I suppose the curved construction accounts for some vertical compliance, but would it be much compared to tire flex?
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  23. #23
    himom!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    dmcgoy: How about laterally stiffer and vertically more compliant? That'd be a good thing, right?

    Yes, that would make sense. I suppose the curved construction accounts for some vertical compliance, but would it be much compared to tire flex?
    I'm no engineer, but I imagine HOW the carbon is laid out also makes a big difference - it's not a homogenous blob. The direction of the carbon filaments/sheets will affect the compliance/stiffness.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,483
    I just hammered on my rigid Pedal Force today for about 2 hours, and I am shocked. The bike weighs exactly 14lbs with the 2.3 Speed King Supersonics on it, and I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to ride, how well it climbed the short hills on the course I ran, and in the end, how comfortable it turned out to be. Maybe FS is not all its cut out to be? I will be building the Giant Anthem Advanced when I finally get my replacement frame, but it'll be a toss up as to what bike I ride when I go out. I was also please about how well that front fork tracked. I normally ride the Lefty Speed Carbon SL (a very rigid front end), and this thing worked nearly as well as the lefty.

    Oh, and by the way, the KCNC V brakes worked marvelously as well (dry conditions today). I'm sure in the wet and mud, the discs would have the upper hand, but with the light bike and the short downhills, the V brakes were fine.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,465
    I swap between rigid forked bike (weak and horrible Pace RC-31 LOL ;-)) and a choice of two FS bikes with 5" and 6" travel.

    What Nino says about riding the rigid bike is absolutely true. You have to work with the bike over the terrain. If your energy levels are a bit low, you end up getting knocked around a lot. If you are on the case it is very fulfilling. I can get myself down reasonably technical terrain in pretty good form and pretty fast on the rigid bike, but it is nowhere near as fast as running suspension.

    I took a ten year break from MTBing, but back in the day my best race results were on a rigid fork. My current rigid forked bike is the same bike I used to race back then, but refreshed with a new fork and new more laid back bar and stem setup. My technical and descending skills are light years ahead of where I was way back then. I've learnt new techniques and confidence from riding suspension, but I've kept in touch with the basics of riding by keeping the rigid bike. The main change is that I've ditched the stretched out XC riding position for a more balanced wide riser bar type setup. That change has been transformational.

    This last year, I've been entering races on my 5" travel FS bike and it is hilarious to watch the sheer terror of the lycra-wearing/arse-up/nose-down/tires-at-60psi types on the descents. I will obviously have to wheel out the old bruiser for a race to see if my smug satisfaction in my riding skills carries over...

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,269
    BlownCivic: The bike weighs exactly 14lbs

    Huh? You ride a 14lbs mountain bike? As in XC riding?
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    Huh? You ride a 14lbs mountain bike? As in XC riding?
    Real XC riding. No rock gardens (yet), but honest to goodness roots, drops, log crossings, rocks, etc... And I weigh 195 lbs.

  28. #28
    pedal pusher
    Reputation: f3rg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,712
    Quote Originally Posted by BlownCivic
    Real XC riding. No rock gardens (yet), but honest to goodness roots, drops, log crossings, rocks, etc... And I weigh 195 lbs.
    I believe you, but still.... PIC!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,269
    BlownCivic,

    You weigh 195lbs and you do roots, drops, log crossings, rocks, etc on a 14 lbs mountain bike (which would be below legal weight for a road bike).

    Seems awfully risky to me.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by serious
    BlownCivic,

    You weigh 195lbs and you do roots, drops, log crossings, rocks, etc on a 14 lbs mountain bike (which would be below legal weight for a road bike).

    Seems awfully risky to me.
    OK, I'll take a few pics sometime in the next day or 2. The bike needs a good wash anyways. I was as surprised as you when I did the current build's 1st off road ride on Sunday. I half expected to break something, but it held together perfectly. The build is super lightweight, but still sensible. I'm also not a hack when it comes to riding. Some would even suggest that I'm a little slow because I ride smart. Ask my buddy that was riding with me on his 26lb Giant NRS how slow I was .

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6
    That fork is exactly as my Matrix, which is exactly a Ritchey WCS. It's a great fork, I sold my SID WC,sick and tired of its problems and continuous servicing, saved 800g and my bike flies. Here it is, my 7.07 kg rigid bike


  32. #32
    1 bike per day + 1 or 2
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    264
    14 lbs is easy to achieve. In the picture below, the build is at 14 lbs and since the picture was taken, I have removed the tensioned, I have some very custom carbon parts on the way and I will be removing my KCNC brakes from my XC build and adding them to this build. Top that off with some lighter tubes, new grips and I would be right in around 13.5 lbs I hope. I can still go with a straight bar if I want and I might go with either Nokon's or some ALLIGATOR i-LINK to lighten up the housings a bit more. Ultimately I could but will not get some lighter wheels. I do however thing that I will switch over my American Classic MTB350 wheels and add on some new KCNC skewers.

    Weight on the fork cut for mine was 475g.

    Oh I did forget that I just switched out the bolts on the stem to Ti which saved me 7g I believe. Also forgot that I picked up a Tune Gum Gum compression device and will be matching that with a Fibre-Lyte carbon topcap and an aluminum bolt to save a bit more weight.

    I would love to get this down to 13 lbs total weight but we will see.


  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by bdc88
    14 lbs is easy to achieve.

    Ya, but, but, but... my 14 lbs is with the Conti Speed King 2.3 Supersonics. With my Maxxis Maxxlites, the bike is 13.375 lbs. Oh, and that's a 2x9 transmission .

    The bike's clean now. I'll take and post some pictures in the morning.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    I'm posting just to see the pics and any new thoughts on the axle to crown height.

  35. #35
    1 bike per day + 1 or 2
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    264
    BlownCivic,

    You will have to post a build list and pictures for sure so that we can see what you used to get that low. I know how much it took to get my single speed that low so you have to be using some very high end parts which I might be interested in seeing to get my build lower. How much tuning did you have to do to all the parts to get it that low?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,483
    Sorry some of the pics are a little dark. It was mid-day, but overcast and the camera flash didn't kick in.

    PF MT 19" frame
    1/4" long nylon bolts in bottle cage holes
    Stan's ZTR 355 rims
    DT Revolution 2.0 - 1.5 spokes 28 - 3 cross front 32 - 3 cross rear
    DT alloy nipples
    Extralite Ultra SF and SM hubs
    Tune Skyline MTB skewers
    Maxxis Maxxlite tires
    Stan's yellow tape, valves and goop
    Trigon carbon disc/vbrake fork
    PF headset
    2 - 10mm carbon spacers
    1 - 15mm alloy spacer
    Syntace F99 120mm stem w/Ti bolts
    Koobi Alloy stem cap with alloy bolt
    Extralite Ultra Star starnut
    KCNC Scandium bar cut to 560mm
    KCNC Bar ends
    ESI Chunky silicone grips cut for gripshift
    KCNC VB-1 Vbrakes and levers
    SRAM X0 gripshift with alloy clamp bolts
    Alligator I-link cable housings for both brakes and shift
    Steel RD cable and Powercordz FD cable
    Steel brake cables
    Extralite Ultraclamp seatpost clamp
    Ax-Lightness Daedalus 31.6 seatpost cut to approx 310mm
    Tune SpeedNeedle seat
    '07 Campy Record Titanium CT FD 32mm clamp
    - opened up to 34.9, clamp slotted for weight reduction
    - carbon clamp bolt, knuckle modified for top pull
    - alloy cable clamp bolt
    THM Clavicula DP68 crankset
    Extralite Octaramp 44t and 30t rings
    Extralite chainring bolts
    KMC X10SL 102 link chain
    '07 SRAM X0 med cage RD with alloy clamp bolt
    - carbon pulley wheels
    Nino 11-30 SL Titanium cassette
    EggBeater 2Ti pedals with short Ti spindles

    6.08kg/13.375 lbs. I just spent a few more bucks for some more lightweight bits. We'll see how much lighter I can get it.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by BlownCivic; 03-08-2008 at 11:06 PM.

  37. #37
    pedal pusher
    Reputation: f3rg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,712
    Damn, I'm, jealous... Nice build.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Slobberdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    934

    Cool-blue Rhythm

    Bravo BlownCivic. Respect.

    A bike worthy of it's own forum honestly.

  39. #39
    1 bike per day + 1 or 2
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    264
    BlownCivic, I will second what Slobberdoggy mentioned. Respect. I thought my single speed was light but that is just crazy light for a geared bike.

    I am in the process of ordering the I-link housings and as mentioned have a few light weight parts on the way.

    I will PM you in a bit.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cranked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    375
    Good god thats retarded. In a good way though! I think between your cranks and seatpost alone your at 3-4 times the frame price. Great attention to detail, you are commited. Or should be.

  41. #41
    Team Captain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Now just imagine what it would be like if you SS'd it out...

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbyker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    I've been hammering on that Trigon fork for more than a year. I have an 18.5lb steel 29er (1x9) http://photo.xanga.com/Single_track_...167/photo.html and a 16.9# scandium SS 29er: http://photo.xanga.com/Single_track_...818/photo.html . The SS has the Matrix version of this fork on it. I had both frames custom built around these forks. So, ya', 29ers, hydro disc, tubeless. Pretty sweet racing machines. I've ridden both of them in the SE (TN, AL, SC) this Winter with no problems at all.

    Having that super light front end is great, so easy to lift up or just unweight the front end to avoid hits.......

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    What do you mean you had the frames custom built around the fork? You had the frame built to accommodate the short axle to crown height?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbyker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by limba
    What do you mean you had the frames custom built around the fork? You had the frame built to accommodate the short axle to crown height?
    Yes, exactly what I mean.........

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    117
    Does anybody know if theres any plans for these forks with a longer axle to crown length?

    410 is crazy low, I'd love to swap the 100mm fox's on my Taurine to one of these as I love riding rigid (oo err!) but that length would destroy the great geometry on this bike I reckon.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by wiiija
    Does anybody know if theres any plans for these forks with a longer axle to crown length?

    410 is crazy low, I'd love to swap the 100mm fox's on my Taurine to one of these as I love riding rigid (oo err!) but that length would destroy the great geometry on this bike I reckon.
    I thought the same, since the PF frame is designed around a 465mm A/C height. It rides like the wind. Even offroad, it was a joy. The handling was razor sharp, and as already mentioned, it made a huge difference having little or no weight to lift over obstacles.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by wiiija
    Does anybody know if theres any plans for these forks with a longer axle to crown length?

    410 is crazy low, I'd love to swap the 100mm fox's on my Taurine to one of these as I love riding rigid (oo err!) but that length would destroy the great geometry on this bike I reckon.
    Wait a year. If these things sell more companies will start making them.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SuspectDevice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by limba
    Wait a year. If these things sell more companies will start making them.

    Not quite unfortunately. 2008 Ushered in mandatory CEN testing for all steering componets, it will take a major investment in technology and research to make a longer axle-crown fork of a similar weight which will past the testing. The Current design, as used by the 3 factories in Taiwan/China that all look very similar is limited to about 410 at the super light weight and 425mm at about 520 grams. http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/homepage.htm

    I am pretty sure that a US-based composites manufacturer will be the first to be able to produce a sub 500 gram 440mm AC fork. Perhaps ridable prototypes even exist at the moment and are being destructively tested?

    I currently have samples here of forks from 3 of the major asian vendors. They all ride extremely well, but in this day of XC race hardtails being designed around 100mm suspension forks, to really make use of one of them requires designing a frame specifically around the short length (and since they are all modified from Cyclocross and Trekking forks, the large amount of rake).

    And unfortunate dillema, as in my opinion, they pretty much eliminate the need for suspension for most xc tracks.

    NY 2009 will certainly be interesting...

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4

    Research Bump

    Bump for a newbie's research. I've read all those threads, and the one question that I still have is this: What is the biggest tire you can put on a Trigon fork? I like everything I have read on the ride quality, but I would like to put a 2.5 tire on this to take some of the edge off the rigid-ness. I'm riding in Tucson and El Paso, and the trails are not exactly buff. I know, adds weight, but a big front tire makes me happy - how big can I go? Thanks!

  50. #50
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by HobieTony
    Bump for a newbie's research. I've read all those threads, and the one question that I still have is this: What is the biggest tire you can put on a Trigon fork? I like everything I have read on the ride quality, but I would like to put a 2.5 tire on this to take some of the edge off the rigid-ness. I'm riding in Tucson and El Paso, and the trails are not exactly buff. I know, adds weight, but a big front tire makes me happy - how big can I go? Thanks!
    2.5" won't fit.

    I'd say 2,2"-2,3" depending on the manufacturer will fit.

    Anyway - My suggestion for a HT would be the Conti RK 2," Supersonic.Fast,grippy and super comfortable.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4
    Thanks - I'll need to look for something a bit wider

    T

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hand/of/Midas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by HobieTony
    Bump for a newbie's research. I've read all those threads, and the one question that I still have is this: What is the biggest tire you can put on a Trigon fork? I like everything I have read on the ride quality, but I would like to put a 2.5 tire on this to take some of the edge off the rigid-ness. I'm riding in Tucson and El Paso, and the trails are not exactly buff. I know, adds weight, but a big front tire makes me happy - how big can I go? Thanks!
    A 650Bx 2.3 fits. then you'll get larger wheel for rolling and a large tire.

    Im lacing up some 650b stans 355 rims to put on my bike with this fork.

  53. #53
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,275
    Chris King makes the +5mm headset baseplate that could be used to lengthen the A-C.
    Keep the Country country.

  54. #54
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    For bikes designed around 80mm forks the lenght is perfect! If your bike is designed for 100mm then you need to look for a longer one.

    AND another way to level things a bit if you really think it's too short is to mount a fatter tire up front and a slimmer one in the rear.This has a similar effect in simply raising the front (while also giving a bit more cushion)

    BUT as said many,many times before: These forks are perfect replacements for up to 80mm forks!!

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    For bikes designed around 80mm forks the lenght is perfect! If your bike is designed for 100mm then you need to look for a longer one.

    AND another way to level things a bit if you really think it's too short is to mount a fatter tire up front and a slimmer one in the rear.This has a similar effect in simply raising the front (while also giving a bit more cushion)

    BUT as said many,many times before: These forks are perfect replacements for up to 80mm forks!!
    I'm running a Trigon too now by the way, and I agree with everything Nino has said about it. It's about the correct length when compared to a sagged 80mm fork. Also, it's quite stiff compared to the Saso fork I was using, but stiff absorbs more vibration than an aluminum fork. I'm happy I made the switch. By the way, my Nobby Nic 2.4 fits with a few mm clearance on each side.

    Now if only it was post mount... then it would be perfect.
    Rigid bikes FTW!

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17

    axle to crown.

    Has anyone used a fork this short wth a 21inch (26 wheeled) frame?

    I have a giant xtc carbon with a saso 445mm carbon fork. I'd love to lose some easy weight off the bike but since I already run riser bars to lose 40mm on the front sounds pretty extreme, or do I have to do a large amount of body work just to make it fit? I figure on a 17 or 19 it obviously works for some but on larger frames?

    Or is it a case of

  57. #57
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by tileman
    Has anyone used a fork this short wth a 21inch (26 wheeled) frame?

    I have a giant xtc carbon with a saso 445mm carbon fork. I'd love to lose some easy weight off the bike but since I already run riser bars to lose 40mm on the front sounds pretty extreme, or do I have to do a large amount of body work just to make it fit? I figure on a 17 or 19 it obviously works for some but on larger frames?

    Or is it a case of
    i did. Works great !! Those forks transform your bike into a rocketship.Also don't forget the sag every suspension fork has and also that while cornering a suspension fork compresses making it even shorter.Those forks are a perfect match! You won't regret-best rigid forks out there!!

    the frame size has no effect here.it's just the overall lenght that changes but as explained already many times it is just perfect.IF ever it should be a bit too nervous throw on a bigger size front tire and all is good.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    i did. Works great !! Those forks transform your bike into a rocketship.Also don't forget the sag every suspension fork has and also that while cornering a suspension fork compresses making it even shorter.Those forks are a perfect match! You won't regret-best rigid forks out there!!

    the frame size has no effect here.it's just the overall lenght that changes but as explained already many times it is just perfect.IF ever it should be a bit too nervous throw on a bigger size front tire and all is good.
    Ok, so I understand this correctly, since the frame had in original form a f100x (470mm) the fork would run with some sag, say 25mm, which would make the normal riding fork length 445mm. This is why I got a 445mm fork as it was I figured closest to the normal original riding fork length.

    Except for a second that you have a 440mm seattube length versa 530mm on mine, from what I can figure a much greater seat handlebar drop. I have about 220mm of seatpost exposed v yours which looks longer. Ontop of that an extra 40mm drop over the front end which, accepting would look cool, would be a lot.

    So therefore is it as much a case of changing the geometry as strengthening myself to be able to ride a bike with such geometry? (probably my real question)

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    351
    While I'd never expect you fellas to countenance going up in weight by 90g, the Niner rigid carbon fork is 550g and 470mm axle to crown.

    Despite being intended for 29ers, it should be a geometry correct drop in for the squishy forks that the majority of us use.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: limba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Has anyone actually tried the Niner carbon fork with a 26" wheel?

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Fullrange Drew
    While I'd never expect you fellas to countenance going up in weight by 90g, the Niner rigid carbon fork is 550g and 470mm axle to crown.

    Despite being intended for 29ers, it should be a geometry correct drop in for the squishy forks that the majority of us use.

    Fair point, the saso I think is 900g which is a diff but the problem with the idea for me is that I am going to keep the V's which means no disc brake only forks

    I just like V's, I have spec epic for longer rides or somewhere I need a bit of bounce, 24hrs solo on a full rigid is not something I enjoy the whole time. The giant I have is more of an enjoy, update, lightweight, trail specific bike, the epic is for everything else so I willing to trade some compromises, which is why this fork is at the moment an option.

    I'll do the geometry difference on Cad and see what the result is.......

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by dmcgoy
    How about laterally stiffer and vertically more compliant?
    That must be the all time marketing drivel champion term. Along with "flickable", and "performance tuned".

  63. #63
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,275
    Quote Originally Posted by tileman
    So therefore is it as much a case of changing the geometry as strengthening myself to be able to ride a bike with such geometry? (probably my real question)
    It's as if you're forgetting that head tubes increase in length along with seat tubes and headset spacers and stem angles can be adjusted to give the bar height you want. All this talk of axle-crown height is really just relevant to head tube angle.

    This fork is noticeably shorter than stock since most XCers don't run their fork soft enough to get 25mm sag or significant dive in turns so you have to decide if the resulting steeper HT angle is okay.
    Keep the Country country.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,736
    I would think that if you put these forks on the carbon frames that they were designed for, the short AC length would be a non issue.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    i have the 100% identical TOKEN fork on my winterbike . my disc-only weighed 447g uncut. cut to lenght it weighs only 408g as shown below german magazines tested it and it was even stiffer than a Fox fork....cool!

    these forks got a great reputation and more and more guys are using them with great success. they are stiff AND compliant at the same time. they convert your bike into a rocketship...its really insane how a simple fork transplant can add so much fun and speed. and i'm still amazed that you can get so much fun out of mountainbiking without all that suspension gimmicks. no spvterralogivremotelockoutantibob...whatever. just pure biking and a lot of fun.
    What frame is that in the picture??

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,736
    I'm loving mine!

  67. #67
    Low Rep Count
    Reputation: 1SPD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,958
    Love the fork but have not found one for a 29er yet. Still rolling on my White Brothers as a result.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,193
    I heard that the Ritchey fork was super stiff...so stiff that an aluminum fork would offer more compliance....

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Yogii
    I heard that the Ritchey fork was super stiff...so stiff that an aluminum fork would offer more compliance....
    The Ritchey fork that looks like the Trigon fork above is the same fork. They just charge twice as much for it. Oh, and it says Ritchey on it.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,193
    Thanks,
    How come the Trigon offers compliance and the Ritchey fork(from what I have heard) does not? Really from what I have heard, the Ritchey is uncomfortable to ride...

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Yogii
    Thanks,
    How come the Trigon offers compliance and the Ritchey fork(from what I have heard) does not? Really from what I have heard, the Ritchey is uncomfortable to ride...
    I don't know. It could be a matter of opinion. I guess it could be the Ritchey forks have a different carbon layup, but I don't think that is the case. I am pretty sure they are the same. They are also sold under the Token name.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Bender
    This looks like a great fork for the money. Its 466g without studs, uncut, and disc ready. I do believe this puts it as lighter than the Ritchey WCS carbon fork. Actually for a MTB I have not seen anything lighter. The seller is top notch as well!

    http://cgi.ebay.com/TRIGON-CARBON-FI...QQcmdZViewItem

    I ended up buying a cheap Mosso Aluminum fork for a project I have. Carbon was a bit out of the pricerange for what I am trying to do.
    That auction is closed. What was the price?

Members who have read this thread: 3

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.