Longer travel fork for Anthem X4

TrekTom

Has anyone changed the Fox 100mm fork on the Giant Anthem X4? I'm interested to know how much travel the bike could reasonably take.

Advice would be great!

torgey33

Why do you want to increase the front travel?

TrekTom

Why does anyone want more travel?!

bennett_346

For a host of different reasons. He's asking why YOU want more travel, not other people.

torgey33

Far enough.
The anthem x4 is a 100mm xc speed machine, upping the front travel may upset what its best at.

TrekTom

Well I've started riding a lot more terrain where a longer travel bike would make more sense. I've ridden other longer travel bikes and prefer them, so rather than buy something new, I was interested to see if anyone had upgraded.

TrekTom

That's exactly what I thought. It's a great bike, but it turns out that an xc speed machine isn't really right for the sort of riding I am now interested in. Still a fantastic machine don't get me wrong.

cooldad

Sometimes increasing the travel is a really bad idea.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KONA-STAB-deluxe- ... 43a36b7ffd

torgey33

OK, can see why now. Changing the front will still leave the rest a 100mm xc bike. Can also lead to frame warranty issues
Is selling and buying second hand not a possibility ? Might be better ?

bennett_346

You know what's getting me at the minute, TONS of people are being advised to buy XC racing bikes that just arent ever going to be right for the riding they do. People progress to harder stuff as they get better but theyre being told to buy short travel bikes to get the technique right before buying long travel AM style rigs.

I don't think it does help in a way, theyre so different to what people end up progressing to that within a year they need a new bike. XC race bikes should never be given to beginners if they arent going to use them for XC race into the forseable future.

thel33ter

The A-C (axle to crown) height is much more important, but on average a 10mm increase in length slackens the head angle by 1 degree. I'd put a max of 110mm on that frame, but 120mm *probably* wouldn't break it.

cooldad wrote:

Sometimes increasing the travel is a really bad idea.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KONA-STAB-deluxe- ... 43a36b7ffd

That almost definately ain't a Kona, and if it is, it's a very failed prototype. If anything a Marzo Supermonster 300mm fork would improve it.

torgey33

bennett_346 wrote:

You know what's getting me at the minute, TONS of people are being advised to buy XC racing bikes that just arent ever going to be right for the riding they do. People progress to harder stuff as they get better but theyre being told to buy short travel bikes to get the technique right before buying long travel AM style rigs.

I don't think it does help in a way, theyre so different to what people end up progressing to that within a year they need a new bike. XC race bikes should never be given to beginners if they arent going to use them for XC race into the forseable future.

Good point, exactly why with the money i had, i chose the spesh fsr xc pro over the anthem x4, 20mm more travel to extend the bikes possible usage.

TrekTom

You've summed it up perfectly. I was a beginner (ok arguably still am!), but now after lots of miles I've progressed to harder stuff and riding an Orange 5 Pro recently realise how much more suitable a bike like that would be (for the riding I now do).

Shame, cos I can't afford an AM rig at the mo!

Pudseyp

bennett_346 wrote:

You know what's getting me at the minute, TONS of people are being advised to buy XC racing bikes that just arent ever going to be right for the riding they do. People progress to harder stuff as they get better but theyre being told to buy short travel bikes to get the technique right before buying long travel AM style rigs.

I don't think it does help in a way, theyre so different to what people end up progressing to that within a year they need a new bike. XC race bikes should never be given to beginners if they arent going to use them for XC race into the forseable future.

Disagree, recomendations are made as to what people want now...otherwise I would say go out and buy a Glory incase you progress to DH...a 120mm bike will handle any UK trail centre...the 100mm anthem will also...it is not all about the travel you see on paper it is how the bike delivers it throughout the stroke and the Meastro system is great..

Also not all want to progress on to long travel AM machines, short travel bikes are great for learning core skills...if your saying long travel bikes are the way forward why are so many trail bikes built around 120mm...I would rather ride a 120mm bike around Glentress than a 160 AM bike !!!

I have ridden DH and ride the Llandegla red and black on my trusty Marin whizzing past long travel bikes both uphill and down...

bennett_346

Choosing a bike with 120mm forks is more suitable these days, some people when advising others on what bike to choose tend to be a bit cranky and consider longer travel to be for experienced riders only, when really these days the average rider is learning faster and trying more difficult terrain.

EDIT: ok the above sums up my point exactly, why learn on 100mm when its only going to limit what you do? No matter what ANYONE says, 120mm bikes are more fun at trail centres than 100mm bikes, especially for newcomers to the sport. This is exactly the kind of elitism i mean.

thel33ter

I learnt on an old single pivot 100mm Marin, then started doing more on a lighter, more racy 100mm Kona (biggest was an accidental 9ft gap jump - actually went very well ) I now ride a 160mm Enduro. It doesn't really feel like it has 60mm more travel, but I am much less worried about the whole frame collapsing underneath me on the bigger stuff.

I preferred the 100mm for learning on, as you didn't rely on the sus as much as on a bigger bike, but I've never ridden anything in between for more than a few metres.

For almost everything around here I reckon 120-140mm is perfect, but the Enduro was a bargain I couldn't resist.

bennett_346

thel33ter wrote:

I learnt on an old single pivot 100mm Marin, then started doing more on a lighter, more racy 100mm Kona (biggest was an accidental 9ft gap jump - actually went very well ) I now ride a 160mm Enduro. It doesn't really feel like it has 60mm more travel, but I am much less worried about the whole frame collapsing underneath me on the bigger stuff, but for almost everything around here 120-140mm is perfect, but the Enduro was a bargain I couldn't resist.

I preferred the 100mm for learning on, as you didn't rely on the sus as much as on a bigger bike, but I've never ridden anything in between for more than a few metres.

I agree with a lot of this.

I just think that most people who get into mtb have a fairly decent starter bike that will teach them the basics, then once they reach a decent level of proficiency should buy something in the 120-140mm range that will last them into the future. No point in spending a grand on a racy 100mm bike that wont be much fun after half a year and will have most likely been ragged after a year.

Northwind

bennett_346 wrote:

You know what's getting me at the minute, TONS of people are being advised to buy XC racing bikes that just arent ever going to be right for the riding they do.

The Anthem X is NOT an XC racing bike, that's the plain Anthem. The X is a brilliant allrounder, there's very little I've ever ridden that a halfway decent rider couldn't do on an Anthem X. Just that a bigger, slacker bike will make it easier. Now that's fair enough but saying they're not "right", that's total mince.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with getting a big bike as a skill compensator, I have one after all! But some people seem completely delusional about what bikes are or aren't. capable of. And if you're getting into harder riding but totally dependant on the bike, you're pretty likely to come a cropper sooner or later. It's almost never the rider running out of bike that causes a crash, it's the bike running out of rider and that'll happen even if you ride a DH bike everywhere.

bennett_346

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

You know what's getting me at the minute, TONS of people are being advised to buy XC racing bikes that just arent ever going to be right for the riding they do.

The Anthem X is NOT an XC racing bike, that's the plain Anthem. The X is a brilliant allrounder, there's very little I've ever ridden that a halfway decent rider couldn't do on an Anthem X. Just that a bigger, slacker bike will make it easier. Now that's fair enough but saying they're not "right", that's total mince.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with getting a big bike as a skill compensator, I have one after all! But some people seem completely delusional about what bikes are or aren't. capable of. And if you're getting into harder riding but totally dependant on the bike, you're pretty likely to come a cropper sooner or later. It's almost never the rider running out of bike that causes a crash, it's the bike running out of rider and that'll happen even if you ride a DH bike everywhere.

Well, agreed but i was speaking in general, not just the anthem X. But i stand corrected.

Its just the fact that within a year, your 1k bike will need replaced as inevitably you progress to harder riding. I disagree wholeheartedly that 100mm is enough for all uk trail centres, it just isn't fun. Yes you can ride it, but mtb is for fun.

cooldad

thel33ter wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Sometimes increasing the travel is a really bad idea.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KONA-STAB-deluxe- ... 43a36b7ffd

That almost definitely ain't a Kona, and if it is, it's a very failed prototype. If anything a Marzo Supermonster 300mm fork would improve it.

It is, just with a longer shock (and maybe forks) that has raised the bb height. And turned it into the most useless heaviest XC bike ever. I think it's supposed to be a DH bike - but with that head angle possibly suicide.

thel33ter

The Anthem X is pretty racy and would be out of its comfort zone on drops over 2-3ft IMO. The head angle is 71 degrees, compared to an average 120mm bikes 69-68 degrees.

I completely agree with the bike running out of rider though, thats why I spend most of the time on my face

thel33ter

cooldad wrote:

thel33ter wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Sometimes increasing the travel is a really bad idea.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/KONA-STAB-deluxe- ... 43a36b7ffd

That almost definitely ain't a Kona, and if it is, it's a very failed prototype. If anything a Marzo Supermonster 300mm fork would improve it.

It is, just with a longer shock (and maybe forks) that has raised the bb height. And turned it into the most useless heaviest XC bike ever. I think it's supposed to be a DH bike - but with that head angle possibly suicide.

Turns out it was actually made, in 1999, and it always looked like that :roll:

Quite a fun thread to go though actually http://tabla.mtb.si/viewtopic.php?t=79326



Anyway, sorry about the OTness

bennett_346

thel33ter wrote:

I completely agree with the bike running out of rider though, thats why I spend most of the time on my face

Can i just add my credentials to the table, i have second hand experience, a mate of mind bought a 100mm bike and after half a year he'd outdone in in skill and it was severely stopping his fun. Its been looked after but hard riding has ended up with a lot of damaged components including a dangerously wobbly set of suspension bearings. He's ended up spending a fair amount of money on something thats lasted a year, and taken a lot of damage.

Northwind

bennett_346 wrote:

Its just the fact that within a year, your 1k bike will need replaced as inevitably you progress to harder riding. I disagree wholeheartedly that 100mm is enough for all uk trail centres, it just isn't fun. Yes you can ride it, but mtb is for fun.

Of the 3 people I know with Anthem Xs, and the guy who sold an Alpine and got a Boardman FS... every one has had longer travel bikes. "Your bike will need replaced", no offence but that is simply crap. Fair enough, you obviously wouldn't enjoy it (assuming you've tried it, which I guess you have) but that's your own personal taste, which you're assuming is for everyone.

And with respect to your mate- his skill hasn't exceeded the bike's capability, unless he's taking it downhilling- more likely his lack of skill has exceeded it.

bennett_346

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Its just the fact that within a year, your 1k bike will need replaced as inevitably you progress to harder riding. I disagree wholeheartedly that 100mm is enough for all uk trail centres, it just isn't fun. Yes you can ride it, but mtb is for fun.

Of the 3 people I know with Anthem Xs, and the guy who sold an Alpine and got a Boardman FS... every one has had longer travel bikes. "Your bike will need replaced", no offence but that is simply crap. Fair enough, you obviously wouldn't enjoy it (assuming you've tried it, which I guess you have) but that's your own personal taste, which you're assuming is for everyone.

If you read carefully i'm suggesting that most people end up replacing within a time period i would consider too short to warrant getting the bike. All im suggesting is that 120mm these days has become advanced enough to make it more suitable as an early serious mtb. More versatile and turns out cheaper in the end, as you say 120mm is enough for all uk trail centres. I am NOT suggesting new people go out and buy orange 5 pros before they learn to repair a tube puncture.

Northwind

bennett_346 wrote:

If you read carefully i'm suggesting that most people end up replacing within a time period i would consider too short to warrant getting the bike.

I completely understand your point, but no amount of careful reading will change this:
"Its just the fact that within a year, your 1k bike will need replaced as inevitably you progress to harder riding." Into anything but mince.

Most people do replace bikes very quickly. Most people who start out on big bikes do it too. My Idrive lasted a month The problem comes when you mistake "want" with "need", and "what I want" with "what you need".

bennett_346

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

If you read carefully i'm suggesting that most people end up replacing within a time period i would consider too short to warrant getting the bike.

I completely understand your point, but no amount of careful reading will change this:
"Its just the fact that within a year, your 1k bike will need replaced as inevitably you progress to harder riding." Into anything but mince.

Most people do replace bikes very quickly. Most people who start out on big bikes do it too. My Idrive lasted a month The problem comes when you mistake "want" with "need", and "what I want" with "what you need".

Point taken :roll:

Pudseyp

bennett_346 wrote:

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Its just the fact that within a year, your 1k bike will need replaced as inevitably you progress to harder riding. I disagree wholeheartedly that 100mm is enough for all uk trail centres, it just isn't fun. Yes you can ride it, but mtb is for fun.

Of the 3 people I know with Anthem Xs, and the guy who sold an Alpine and got a Boardman FS... every one has had longer travel bikes. "Your bike will need replaced", no offence but that is simply crap. Fair enough, you obviously wouldn't enjoy it (assuming you've tried it, which I guess you have) but that's your own personal taste, which you're assuming is for everyone.

If you read carefully i'm suggesting that most people end up replacing within a time period i would consider too short to warrant getting the bike. All im suggesting is that 120mm these days has become advanced enough to make it more suitable as an early serious mtb. More versatile and turns out cheaper in the end, as you say 120mm is enough for all uk trail centres. I am NOT suggesting new people go out and buy orange 5 pros before they learn to repair a tube puncture.

But I have known people go out and buy a big travel bike (160mm) because they look "cool" only to find they struggle up hill, end up most of the time over the bars simply because they they cannot ride them...in any sport you start out small and move on...Lewis Hamilton started in carts...most pro DH riders start on BMX etc etc..there is no harm in starting on a 100mm...if you want to progress then fine, ok it costs money but it will make you a more accomplished all round rider.......end of

Northwind

But don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with where you're going with this, I just think you're going a bit too far. I love my big bike, and I don't own a short travel full suss myself (I have a Hemlock with Lyriks in... And a carrera with no suspension at all ) Hmm. Maybe I should get an Anthem

But I reckon that for every person that starts out with a shorter travel bike and feels a strong need to go bigger, there's a couple of people on big bikes that are just making the climbs harder Not to mention the Glentress Superheroes- sat at the Hub cafe with their Fives and Spicys complaining that the red route isn't hard enough.

But as long as it's fun, it's all good.

bennett_346

Pudseyp wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Its just the fact that within a year, your 1k bike will need replaced as inevitably you progress to harder riding. I disagree wholeheartedly that 100mm is enough for all uk trail centres, it just isn't fun. Yes you can ride it, but mtb is for fun.

Of the 3 people I know with Anthem Xs, and the guy who sold an Alpine and got a Boardman FS... every one has had longer travel bikes. "Your bike will need replaced", no offence but that is simply crap. Fair enough, you obviously wouldn't enjoy it (assuming you've tried it, which I guess you have) but that's your own personal taste, which you're assuming is for everyone.

If you read carefully i'm suggesting that most people end up replacing within a time period i would consider too short to warrant getting the bike. All im suggesting is that 120mm these days has become advanced enough to make it more suitable as an early serious mtb. More versatile and turns out cheaper in the end, as you say 120mm is enough for all uk trail centres. I am NOT suggesting new people go out and buy orange 5 pros before they learn to repair a tube puncture.

But I have known people go out and buy a big travel bike (160mm) because they look "cool" only to find they struggle up hill, end up most of the time over the bars simply because they they cannot ride them...in any sport you start out small and move on...Lewis Hamilton started in carts...most pro DH riders start on BMX etc etc..there is no harm in starting on a 100mm...if you want to progress then fine, ok it costs money but it will make you a more accomplished all round rider.......end of

Oh do stop being rediculous, 160mm? Who the hell mentioned that.

Pudseyp

Northwind wrote:

Not to mention the Glentress Superheroes- sat at the Hub cafe with their Alpines and Spicys complaining that the red route isn't hard enough.

But as long as it's fun, it's all good.

Perhaps they should bugger off to Innerleithen and do the black then !

I am not saying everyone should start on a Anthem, I was just saying they are great to start on, and in many mags and reviews they all seem to say that a 120 stretching to 140 is a great alround platform for most UK riding..OK if I had the money I would love a Spicy, however would I use all it's capacity..no not in the UK no...