What's wrong with 150-160mm forks?
- Thread starter Sherman
- Start date
2WheelsNot4
E*POWAH Master
Some might suggest some riders have little technical skill and are unable to read the trail and pick a line where huge boulders aren't a problem....
One surmises
One surmises
Nothing provided they are decent forks! So why go for greater travel? Well largely because someone bought a trail bike when they actually want to ride enduro trails. Im not sure there is much difference between 150 and 160 if the fork is set up to use all its travel on 150. Its likely the same use of the bike will leave at least 10mm travel unused at 160.............meaning the fork is mostly operating in a higher position of its travel.....but that is up to the rider to sort!Seems like everyone wants to raise the travel to 170mm. Why? Or why do manufacturers always put 10-20mm too short forks on their bikes?
Me, I ride 180mm fork, should I go 190mm
That said I don't think the brands always get it right with their specifications and the Gen 2 Levo for example was always a far more capable bike with 160 rather than 150 front travel. Difficult to tell in that case though because the early Gen 2 base and Comp Levos had very poor standard forks!!
I have 180mm Fox 38s on my Enduro bike............I would not want that weight or travel on a trail bike though.
steve_sordy
Wedding Crasher
I have been happy with 100mm on my hardtail, back in the day, and my first FS (XC). I was happy with 150 on my "All Mountain", 140 on my light trail bike and 130 on an aggressive Trail bike, I was happy with 160 on an Enduro bike, back to 150, then to 160. I rode my mate's 200mm and I was happy with that too. But on all of the ones for the last ten years, I have set the %sag and all the other settings to suit me, played around with air volume spacers etc. But in terms of "using all its travel" I have preferred to leave 10% on the table. That 10% is my "get out of jail" travel. It saves me when I make a mistake, or when I am taken by surprise - even trails I know well can surprise me from time to time - or when some bastard (or Mother Nature) has altered the trail to my detriment. I am concerned that if I ever use all the travel, I might end up breaking something. And that might be me!
I fitted a 180 shaft to my 160 Yaris cos the 2020 Debonair shaft is known to sit low in travel even without loading the bike. So I wanted to change it anyway and thought I may as well go the whole hog. So in reality its a 'true' 170 now, so not obscenely over the bikes design.
But yeah, still deffo an element of what 2WheelsNot4 quoted above for me
But yeah, still deffo an element of what 2WheelsNot4 quoted above for me
the 2021 Debonair air shaft resolved the problem of sitting down by 10mm.I fitted a 180 shaft to my 160 Yaris cos the 2020 Debonair shaft is known to sit low in travel even without loading the bike. So I wanted to change it anyway and thought I may as well go the whole hog. So in reality its a 'true' 170 now, so not obscenely over the bikes design.
But yeah, still deffo an element of what 2WheelsNot4 quoted above for me
Doug Stampfer
Well-known member
I still can't work out the difference between having the earlier air shaft & having 30% sag & having the upgraded air shaft & having 30% sag. With the earlier airshaft surely it would just mean you have slightly less air pressure to achieve sag (ie. only enough really to achieve 20% sag due to the inherent 10mm drop... or do you have to add more air pressure than you should to achieve 30mm sag because the air pressure gets misplaced somewhere.
Sag is for the wheel dropping into holes. Is this done via gravity or does the air pressure in the fork affect it too?
jbv
Member
you guys might enjoy this. his entire series is mind expanding.
Yeah I know, but after much deliberation and reading of reviews, I didn't like the overall reports of harshness that the 2021 shaft gives when deeper in the stroke. Several people had gone back to the 2020 shaft as a result. It's horses for courses, depending on your ride style/terrain. Very much like the MegNeg (which I also don't want for the same reasons).
It's very similar to how the MegNeg works - the 2021 shaft upped the neg chamber volume and places the piston in a different location to the port relative to the 2020 shaft. So yes you are right, you have to up the pos pressure to compensate for the increase in neg, which as a result affects the curve later in the stroke. It's the additional support later in the stroke which I don't need (or want) so I stuck with the 2020 option even though both shafts were the same price. I also wasn't fighting for travel - the bike was 160 stock so going for the 180 spring leaves me with around 170 useable compression which works well for me. If I needed the full 180 I may have gone for the 2021 spring and lived with the additional harshness.
I was surprised ro read that a bout the 2021 Lyric Ultimate and it certainly was not the case on my Fork so may be it has to do with how it is tuned and set up. I used quite a bit less pressure than recommended. The fork was super plush off the top and invariably used c 90% of its ravel ( 160mm) on my normal forest trails and descents ramping up nicely but never harsh. Sounds like too much air pressure or to many tokens to me!
A lot of people can't ride their bike very well. They read the forums, and like all the other lemmings, buy into the notion that bigger components will make them better riders. The fact is, more travel doesn't make anyone a better rider. A good rider will ride your 150 well. A bad rider will ride a 170 badly.
bigdaddy46
Member
We have ebikes, why not have a little extra travel and a little slacker bike in most cases?
Agreed but lets face it, a pro rider could likely take any old shitter with zero travel front or rear down a run faster than most of the riders out there on 170 full sus. Same with those proles that feel the need for 230mm brakes. However, in the meantime us mere mortals who are smashing the shit out of our bumpstops or cooking our brakes can upgrade components so as not to break anything whilst we work at being better riders.
I appreciate the immediate comeback to this would be for us to keep our bikes as they are and just hone our skills on the less knarly runs but sometimes its nice to know that you are over-specced, so that if anything goes wrong on a say a green then you know 100% it isn't the bike! And then theres people like me who have already accepted they will never be a 'proper' rider so I am happy to be sloppy and complacent, relying on my 170mm travel and 230 brakes to dig me out when I blast down a red a Morzine because the greens have become boring, no matter how many times I try to get better at doing them quicker. My riding time is extremely limited and valuable, so sometimes I will trade the honing of my skills to just have a blast on something that gets the old adrenaline going (doesn't happen very often at 50 years old).
You could take the argument further and say that if I was skilled my bike is capable of doing blacks...but where do you stop? Should we all go back to 120mm travel/160mm brakes etc and not upgrade anything until we can confidently do reds without breaking anything? It is what it is, and is the reason why I would never scoff at anyone who clearly can't ride to the spec of the bike they are riding. Sometimes it's just a laugh to pull off a hairy run knowing you are crap but still end up without breaking anything.
But after all that, yes, fundamentally you are right
Sorry I waffled a bit there.
It's ok. You're right, in an "all encompassing" sort of way. I think my point was in response to a lot of what I'm sure we all see: a guy buys a bike, throws a ton of money on upgrades, and doesn't really derive any benefit from the investment. The Forum "Experts" perpetuate this. And just so you don't get the wrong idea, I have also thrown a lot of money at parts. Some parts have made the bike more capable, and others have just been a waste.
..if your anology were true we would all be riding downhill bikes and none of us would be able to ride back up!!Agreed but lets face it, a pro rider could likely take any old shitter with zero travel front or rear down a run faster than most of the riders out there on 170 full sus. Same with those proles that feel the need for 230mm brakes. However, in the meantime us mere mortals who are smashing the shit out of our bumpstops or cooking our brakes can upgrade components so as not to break anything whilst we work at being better riders.
I appreciate the immediate comeback to this would be for us to keep our bikes as they are and just hone our skills on the less knarly runs but sometimes its nice to know that you are over-specced, so that if anything goes wrong on a say a green then you know 100% it isn't the bike! And then theres people like me who have already accepted they will never be a 'proper' rider so I am happy to be sloppy and complacent, relying on my 170mm travel and 230 brakes to dig me out when I blast down a red a Morzine because the greens have become boring, no matter how many times I try to get better at doing them quicker. My riding time is extremely limited and valuable, so sometimes I will trade the honing of my skills to just have a blast on something that gets the old adrenaline going (doesn't happen very often at 50 years old).
You could take the argument further and say that if I was skilled my bike is capable of doing blacks...but where do you stop? Should we all go back to 120mm travel/160mm brakes etc and not upgrade anything until we can confidently do reds without breaking anything? It is what it is, and is the reason why I would never scoff at anyone who clearly can't ride to the spec of the bike they are riding. Sometimes it's just a laugh to pull off a hairy run knowing you are crap but still end up without breaking anything.
But after all that, yes, fundamentally you are right
Sorry I waffled a bit there.
If YOU feel a difference in the performance of your bike whether its quantifiable or merely in your head, I can not see the point of whining about what other people are riding. Ride your own bike. As mentioned before, if you can buy "confidence" to improve your enjoyment then why not? It will always be better to improve your skills by taking a lesson or getting more practice but if better brakes or suspension stops you from getting injured, that is well worth it to me. Then again, I do struggle with the poser who has to have the best of everything (SWORK
) , but can not ride anything beyond a blue trail, but that is on me.
Pauliemon
Active member
YES!!!Seems like everyone wants to raise the travel to 170mm. Why? Or why do manufacturers always put 10-20mm too short forks on their bikes?
Me, I ride 180mm fork, should I go 190mm
Pauliemon
Active member
When I started riding off road it was on a moto. All we cared about was it had knobbys and a throttle BAAARAP. When I started racing it was about horsepower. We didn't give a shit about suspension. If you got the holeshot you had a chance. Then in rolls the suspension revolution. In the space of just 5 or 6 years suspension travel goes from a couple of inches to 12 inches. BAM! Mountain bikes did the same thing. So I say more is better, I'm loving life at 160/150. If I could justify more I'd have it. Personally I'm waiting for robodrive. That's where you sit on your bike and a robot drives it. You just hold the handlebars and spew out commands. "Grab air, rail that berm, go faster, DON'T CRASH!" Merry Christmas ya'll!
EMTB Forums
Latest articles
-
The most reliable motor brand (in Norway)
A poll was posted on a big Norwegian emtb facebook group. There are... -
2025 Canyon Spectral:ONfly CF Ltd review
We were quite surprised to read about the new lightweight Canyon...- Knut Nes
- 7 min read
- Views: 859
- Comments: 1