Rigid fork question
frankspencer1979
Posts: 525
My frame had a 120mm rockshox recon, axle to crown is 490mm.
Looking at the options of rigid forks I can see either an a to c length of 465mm, which is geometry corrected for 130mm, or an a to c length of 445 which is corrected for 100mm suspension.
Am I best going for the 465mm fork, I feel this would be about right taking into account the sag the old fork would be under when I sit on the bike.
There doesn't seem to be a specific option for replacing a 120mm fork.
Looking at the options of rigid forks I can see either an a to c length of 465mm, which is geometry corrected for 130mm, or an a to c length of 445 which is corrected for 100mm suspension.
Am I best going for the 465mm fork, I feel this would be about right taking into account the sag the old fork would be under when I sit on the bike.
There doesn't seem to be a specific option for replacing a 120mm fork.
0
Comments
-
Either would be fine, the shorter for snappier handling, the longer for more stability.0
-
I'm confused, your 120's have a much longer a2c than a normal 130? By 25mm?Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0
-
The Rookie wrote:I'm confused, your 120's have a much longer a2c than a normal 130? By 25mm?
I'm confused too. My understanding is it's a geometry adjusted measurement, taking sag into account?0 -
And often a bit less too. But is not an exact science. You are in the right range, just depends on the characteristics you want.0
