Why has fork height grown so much?
Dan_xz
Posts: 130
So I'm a little confused here. I have a Yeti asr, 2003 model. Originally I built it up using my old Pace evo ii's from about 1999 with 100mm travel which gave the bike a classic XC race position.
Last year I decided I wanted to upgrade to disk brakes and therefore had to change forks to accommodate. Having been happy for 7 years with my old forks I went for pace again - RC39's 100mm. Despite these being the XC race specific model the bike suddenly became more lively yet less pedal efficient. On measuring the for height i found the RC39 was about 3.5cm taller than my old ones.
Then i sold the forks as I decided the Pace's were too race specific and I need something more robust (which didn't flex so much under braking from an 8" disc) So i traded them for 100mm Magura Laurins (I could only spent the price I sold my Pace's for and the Mags were almost half price - at full price they maybe wouldn't be my first choice but I do like them a lot)
The Mags are even taller than the RC39's, yet again, they are billed as XC/trail forks.
The bike now feels like a hackable trail bike rather than an XC racer, which to be honest I like. But I'm just just wondering whats going on here. If I was buying 100mm forks made for 4X I could understand the change, but these are all XC specific forks with the same travel.
So do racers now prefer a more upright riding style over pedalling efficiency? Has there been some major revoulutionary change to short travel XC frame geometry that i've missed?
Last year I decided I wanted to upgrade to disk brakes and therefore had to change forks to accommodate. Having been happy for 7 years with my old forks I went for pace again - RC39's 100mm. Despite these being the XC race specific model the bike suddenly became more lively yet less pedal efficient. On measuring the for height i found the RC39 was about 3.5cm taller than my old ones.
Then i sold the forks as I decided the Pace's were too race specific and I need something more robust (which didn't flex so much under braking from an 8" disc) So i traded them for 100mm Magura Laurins (I could only spent the price I sold my Pace's for and the Mags were almost half price - at full price they maybe wouldn't be my first choice but I do like them a lot)
The Mags are even taller than the RC39's, yet again, they are billed as XC/trail forks.
The bike now feels like a hackable trail bike rather than an XC racer, which to be honest I like. But I'm just just wondering whats going on here. If I was buying 100mm forks made for 4X I could understand the change, but these are all XC specific forks with the same travel.
So do racers now prefer a more upright riding style over pedalling efficiency? Has there been some major revoulutionary change to short travel XC frame geometry that i've missed?
0
Comments
-
My beef with long travel forks is that they extend too much when you manual/hop off stuff and ruin your balance. Makes flat landing harder.0
-
I'm sure someone will have an official answer to your question, I guess the equipment has changed to suit the demand of the riders and the terrain they have to cope with.
This is just out of interest, but can I ask why you're running an 8" disc on an XC bike?0 -
Sorry, it's a 185mm rotor, not quite 8" - I guess i was having a 'moment' there! :roll:
I run 160mm on the back and 185mm on the front. Got them in a 30% sale and they ran out of 160mm stock so I went bigger because I was too impatient to wait. I'm not likely to be racing anytime soon and I like the extra power so I'm not fussed about the extra weight.0 -
you should look at the specs of forks to see the crown height, my rock shox reba SL's are shorter than other 100mm xc forks!0
-
harry_jones1984 wrote:you should look at the specs of forks to see the crown height, my rock shox reba SL's are shorter than other 100mm xc forks!
not really.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12563493"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0
