# modern forks for vintage bike frames



## momosgarage (Jan 11, 2010)

I know this has been posted many times over and I have heard a lot of the ideas about hazards of having travel that is more than 80mm. However, I want to know which modern and not so old forks that people here have used on vintage frames (including those with adjustable travel). If possible please post your rebuild component specs and a photo.


----------



## fat-tony (Sep 6, 2005)

please refer to post; 1" Steerer Fork what's available these days? *Obi=Obionepseedonly (Name changed) that is several post below yours.


----------



## momosgarage (Jan 11, 2010)

> please refer to post; 1" Steerer Fork what's available these days? *Obi=Obionepseedonly (Name changed) that is several post below yours.


My question is not limited to 1" steerer tubes, but I have followed that other thread. I was hoping just to get a list of what people have done already, so this thread should be different enough.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

The problem is that what one person thinks is an acceptable compromise may not be the same as what you think is acceptable.

Generally, longer travel forks have longer axle-to-crown measurements. Installing a longer fork lifts the front end, which slackens the head tube angle (potentially significantly), raises the bottom bracket height (less significantly), and slackens the seat tube angle. What is too much? No one will ever agree.

Also the handling of the bike will change with a longer fork, unless the fork has a greater offset (i.e. rake) - the measurement that defines this is called "trail." If you install a longer fork that has the same offset as the shorter fork, you'll make the bike more sluggish. However, if you install longer fork that has a greater offset the bike may handle similarly. The head tube angle of the frame will be a big determining factor in the equation.

How you ride the bike will make a big difference on how you like any changes. If you put a super long travel fork on an old frame and use it to only go downhill you'd probably think that it's rides fine. At high speeds a sluggish bike makes going straight a lot easier. However, if you climb a hill on that bike you may decided that you don't like it - out of the saddle climbing is where I really notice the effects of a bike's "trail" the most. If a bike is really sluggish it tends to wander while climbing and it's hard to make it go where you want. But what's acceptable, what's too slow, what's too fast? No one will ever agree.

So what others have done isn't that important. Understanding what you're trying to accomplish with your bike, how you plan on riding it, and what compromises you're willing to make are what you need to care about.


----------



## momosgarage (Jan 11, 2010)

> Generally, longer travel forks have longer axle-to-crown measurements. Installing a longer fork lifts the front end, which slackens the head tube angle (potentially significantly), raises the bottom bracket height (less significantly), and slackens the seat tube angle. What is too much? No one will ever agree.


I have heard these discussions before, understand the pros, cons and merits of the overall discussion, but I was not asking for such an explanation and stated so early on.



> So what others have done isn't that important. Understanding what you're trying to accomplish with your bike, how you plan on riding it, and what compromises you're willing to make are what you need to care about.


These detail are important to make a judgment call based on a large basket of facts and opinions. Yes, everyone has thier own reasons for doing one thing or another, but SEEING WHAT they have done is part of the evaulation process for some people. I am one of those.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

Reminds me of two weeks ago when I posted on a local list looking for an 80mm fork for my Phoenix - only in reverse. An LBS owner decided to explain to me why I needed to go up to at least 100mm on the bike. I've been told the exchange was a bit of fun for others on the list, but I personally do not enjoy the feeling of high blood pressure.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

momosgarge said:


> These detail are important to make a judgment call based on a large basket of facts and opinions. Yes, everyone has thier own reasons for doing one thing or another, but SEEING WHAT they have done is part of the evaulation process for some people. I am one of those.


What frame do you have? Given that there are thousands of old frames, and hundreds of old forks, the possible combinations are HUGE.

Given that there is a near infinite number of possibilities, understanding the underlying concepts is a lot more important than having a few data points.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

wv_bob said:


> Reminds me of two weeks ago when I posted on a local list looking for an 80mm fork for my Phoenix - only in reverse. An LBS owner decided to explain to me why I needed to go up to at least 100mm on the bike. I've been told the exchange was a bit of fun for others on the list, but I personally do not enjoy the feeling of high blood pressure.


I put an 80mm Fox on a '98 Phoenix and didn't like the way that it rode. A 100mm would be worse.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

laffeaux said:


> I put an 80mm Fox on a '98 Phoenix and didn't like the way that it rode. A 100mm would be worse.


Yep.

The last response I remember getting was something like "hey if you don't want to hear how you can make that old bike ride better, it's your loss" By that point I'd already progressed through  to :madmax: and to :madman:


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 31, 2006)

momosgarge said:


> My question is not limited to 1" steerer tubes, but I have followed that other thread. I was hoping just to get a list of what people have done already, so this thread should be different enough.


might be pretty short too considering most people think it's a bad idea. Kinda like putting high heels on a ten year old girl, just doesn't function well.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

I just put a 80mm Magura Durin SL in my 1996 Ibis Mojo. Will post pics and a ride report after the weekend.


----------



## momosgarage (Jan 11, 2010)

> What frame do you have? Given that there are thousands of old frames, and hundreds of old forks, the possible combinations are HUGE.
> 
> Given that there is a near infinite number of possibilities, understanding the underlying concepts is a lot more important than having a few data points.


Just wanted to see what others have done and if they have photos. I will rely on the seachy function to get the info I seek, I know instances like what I have described are scattered around the board, so I have learned that I need to look and not ask questions on MTBR.

Thanks to those that understood what I was getting at. I just was wandering into the "what if" category. I don't have any projects going right now, so I don't have a specific frame I am interested in researching.

I wasn't asking for opinions, just wanted to see what other have done, successful or not. Like I said its already on the board, I just thought it would be reasonable to start a thread about this topic. But I guess I should have known that sometime folks on MTBR just want to be confrontational and judgemental even when the topic is "what-if" "hypothetical" or "post what you have done". MTBR is kinda frustrating, but I should have learned the last time I posted a topic people here that members thought was "stupid". This is my last post on MTBR; not a horrible experience, but enough bad taste in my mouth to know not to do anything but to "lurk" here for ideas and answers. Posting for ideas or concept responses is too hit and miss and many members are extrememly narrow minded. This community should be a little ashamed as there are new folks who come on post get dumped on and then never come back again. I am not angry or upset, nor am I a snowflake, just tired of the round about nature of responses here. Thanks to those who tried, I know you are not at fault. There are plenty of other boards on Mountain Biking, no monopoloy here. Feel free to continue to live in your "wikipedia style" utopia (some of you should know what I mean).


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Tongue in cheek response: 

Just because I have enough skill to put a Marz Monster T on a GT Zaskar, and take a pic of it, doesn't help, any more than if I put a Mag 21 on a DH rig from last year, and posted a pic.

We don't know how you ride, or where, or what. 

Just sayin....

Nice guy response:

Sorry you found it frustrating, it certainly can be, but as you've seen just in response styles alone, there are many ways to see the same thing, and all are likely found around this neighborhood. 

Throw spaghetti on the floor in a public spot. A kid sees spaghetti, his mom, a mess, the public safety officer, a safety hazard, a dog, DINNER!  

So by asking a super vague question, which sounds much like a rehash of several previous recent discussions, and you'll likely get a range of odd responses. Not saying you did anything wrong, mind you. 

You'll likely get better info with better questions. Garbage in garbage out as computer programmers say. 

I have a (-----) or am thinking of picking up a (----) and it has a blown fork. I know the HTA is (--) and I like things a tad slacker personally for the way I ride, etc. Anyone ever try this, or have a fork they liked, or would recommend? Etc etc etc. 

Just asking for pics of such a random selection of items, never goes well. The locals get antsy if there's no obvious point.... 

Hope you'll understand, and lurk, and see how things run around here. It's a fun group, but they are prone to eating their young if you aren't careful around dinner time


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

wv_bob said:


> Yep.
> 
> The last response I remember getting was something like "hey if you don't want to hear how you can make that old bike ride better, it's your loss" By that point I'd already progressed through  to :madmax: and to :madman:


I love bikes, and--generally speaking--enjoy talking to fellow cyclists. But, after all these years, I still can't believe how many idiots and fvckwits there are in this sport.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

wv_bob said:


> Reminds me of two weeks ago when I posted on a local list looking for an 80mm fork for my Phoenix - only in reverse. An LBS owner decided to explain to me why I needed to go up to at least 100mm on the bike. I've been told the exchange was a bit of fun for others on the list, but I personally do not enjoy the feeling of high blood pressure.


Wow. Don't go to that LBS.

I'm personally a fan of running the travel on a fork that the frame was designed around, no mas.

I rode my 4" travel designed Ventana around at 5" for years and finally updated to a bike designed to handle the longer travel...night and day.

Some people might not be so 'in tune' with their bikes though.

As a Phoenix owner, I can only assume you are.


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

Momo, you give up too easy. You just happened to post on a topic that's been covered a couple of times recently (and many times in the past) so you should be able to understand how people may get mildly irritated. And I think a little more specificity would have gotten better responses.

If it helps, I'm running a 2009 Sid set at 80mm on my '95 Trek 9900 and am very happy with that setup. It's always been an amazing climber and I was concerned I would lose some of that, but I'm happy to say it still climbs great with the new fork. The Trek 9900 is a great frame and the suspension available in the 90s really wasn't on par with the quality of that frame. I think it finally has the fork it always deserved.



Vlad said:


> I love bikes, and--generally speaking--enjoy talking to fellow cyclists. But, after all these years, I still can't believe how many idiots and fvckwits there are in this sport.


Having held a low opinion of my fellow man for many years, I can assure you that the ratio of idiots and fvckwits in this sport are right in line with that of those in the general population. Although, if you look at those that post in the 29er forum as a subgroup, you clearly see a spike in the number of idiots


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

The only reason to put a modern fork on a vintage ride is because you want modern fork performance. If you want modern fork performance there's no point getting something cheap or crappy. You really want something new from Fox (RL/RLC series), Rockshox (SID) or Manitou (R7), White Brothers ???

Here's my recommendation: get a fork that you can easily change the travel of. That way you can properly experiment with what amount of travel works for you/your frame/your type of riding.

I don't know of any current production forks that you can adjust travel below 80mm with the turn of a knob but:

- Fox air forks can have travel reduced by relocating the retaining pin on the air spring rod. There won't be holes for less than 80mm but you can put them in yourself if you are mechanically inclined;

- Rockshox air forks like the SID can have their travel reduced by adding internal spacers. Although they start at 80mm there is no mechanical reason why you can't put in extra spacers to reduce it further. The standard spacers are 10mm each, but you can make up your own out of plastic or alu or buy extra spacers as a spare part. For details on the SID travel spacers see here.

- Manitou R7s - I am not sure how you adjust the travel on these. A post in the suspension forum will probably get the info you need.

If you run v-brakes then your choices for a new fork are severely limited. At least in 2010 you could still get a SID with v-brake bosses and possibly some Manitou R7s from 2009. I don't think there was anything from Fox with v-brake bosses but an earlier set of lowers are supposed to fit on even the most recent Fox 32mm stanchion forks.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

momosgarge said:


> This is my last post on MTBR; not a horrible experience, but enough bad taste in my mouth to know not to do anything but to "lurk" here for ideas and answers. Posting for ideas or concept responses is too hit and miss and many members are extrememly narrow minded. This community should be a little ashamed as there are new folks who come on post get dumped on and then never come back again. I am not angry or upset, nor am I a snowflake, just tired of the round about nature of responses here. Thanks to those who tried, I know you are not at fault. There are plenty of other boards on Mountain Biking, no monopoloy here. Feel free to continue to live in your "wikipedia style" utopia (some of you should know what I mean).


Hahahahaha! Laaaaaaters.


----------



## da'HOOV (Jan 3, 2009)

momosgarge said:


> . But I guess I should have known that sometime folks on MTBR just want to be confrontational and judgemental even when the topic is "what-if" "hypothetical" or "post what you have done". MTBR is kinda frustrating, but I should have learned the last time I posted a topic people here that members thought was "stupid". This is my last post on MTBR; not a horrible experience, but enough bad taste in my mouth to know not to do anything but to "lurk" here for ideas and answers. Posting for ideas or concept responses is too hit and miss and many members are extrememly narrow minded. This community should be a little ashamed as there are new folks who come on post get dumped on and then never come back again. I am not angry or upset, nor am I a snowflake, just tired of the round about nature of responses here. Thanks to those who tried, I know you are not at fault. There are plenty of other boards on Mountain Biking, no monopoloy here. Feel free to continue to live in your "wikipedia style" utopia (some of you should know what I mean).


Don't give up, most of the folks here are decent. pretty easy to spot (and ignore) the "other" ones.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

momosgarge said:


> This community should be a little ashamed as there are new folks who come on post get dumped on and then never come back again. I am not angry or upset, nor am I a snowflake, just tired of the round about nature of responses here. Thanks to those who tried, I know you are not at fault. There are plenty of other boards on Mountain Biking, no monopoloy here. Feel free to continue to live in your "wikipedia style" utopia (some of you should know what I mean).


You were kind of rude (IMHO) to laffeaux who took the time to give you a polite, considered reply to your somewhat vague question, a question that has been done to death on these forums (did you do a forum search?). Now you're threatening to deprive us of your scintillating input because you didn't get the exact response you were looking for - boo ****ing hoo.

On-topic; I had an 80mm 1997Judy SL in my Xizang (which I race) and it felt wrong (and if aesthetics are your concern, looked wrong too. I reduced travel to 63mm and it improved things but was a harsh ride. I now have a correct year (1998) 63mm SID in the bike and it feels (and FWIW, looks) right. I know of a couple people running Fox F80s in the same frame who say it feels fine, obviously a recent fork will have much better compression/rebound control. Only you can really decide what the best fork for you is though.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

TigWorld said:


> Here's my recommendation: get a fork that you can easily change the travel of.


Something I wondered when considering a modern fork, is if I reduce the travel, does it reduce the A-C also? Having less travel but still a chopper length fork doesn't really help on a bike designed around a shorter fork.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> Wow. Don't go to that LBS.


I don't. The twit missed an opportunity to get on my good side by asking some questions about the bike, while he's finding his best price on a modern 80mm fork to sell to me. But I'm just a working stiff, not a shop owner.

Anyway, back on topic ... I've got an 80mm SID on the bike now, and it rides just about like it did with the old Z-2 BAM, which makes sense because the BAM was 75mm. At least I think the SID's 80mm, I haven't had it apart yet to see if there's a reducer installed or not. But I can definitely feel the difference in steering between the 80mm fork and the shorter A-C rigid fork.

I have no doubt that another inch going to 100mm would drive me crazy with wheel flop and slower steering, but other people may have less trouble with that to begin with so it wouldn't bother them. As for something even longer than that, well if I wanted a chopper I'd call these guys


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

wv_bob said:


> ... if I reduce the travel, does it reduce the A-C also?


It sure does. By reducing the travel you are reducing how far the fork will extend at full extension. 20mm less travel = 20mm less A-C.

Have a look here for a big chart of A-C lengths I put together from scrounging around forum posts.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

TigWorld said:


> It sure does. By reducing the travel you are reducing how far the fork will extend at full extension. 20mm less travel = 20mm less A-C.
> 
> Have a look here for a big chart of A-C lengths I put together from scrounging around forum posts.


Thanks :thumbsup: Even though I found the SID cheap, I'm still keeping an eye out for a deal on a Fox that can be used at 80mm.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

wv_bob said:


> Thanks :thumbsup: Even though I found the SID cheap, I'm still keeping an eye out for a deal on a Fox that can be used at 80mm.


Not that you shouldn't go after whatever makes you happy, but most telescoping forks can be dropped to anything, if you're willing to deal with slight spring rate differences and the like, air forks are somewhat exempt of course. It's most often accomplished with a little plastic slug that goes on the damper and spring shafts, pretty eay to one anyones work, for almost any other.

Also, not that it helps you, but changing a Leftys travel, does not affect a to c.

My two cents FWIW.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

Understood. The SID I've got goes either 80mm or 63mm by using a spacer, but it involves rotating a shaft too (per the documentation).

The reason I'm interested in a Fox is to get the 32mm stanchions for less flex. After riding that Z2 for so long, it might not feel right if the fork didn't flex around though.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

wv_bob said:


> I don't. The twit missed an opportunity to get on my good side by asking some questions about the bike, while he's finding his best price on a modern 80mm fork to sell to me. But I'm just a working stiff, not a shop owner.
> 
> Anyway, back on topic ... I've got an 80mm SID on the bike now, and it rides just about like it did with the old Z-2 BAM, which makes sense because the BAM was 75mm. At least I think the SID's 80mm, I haven't had it apart yet to see if there's a reducer installed or not. But I can definitely feel the difference in steering between the 80mm fork and the shorter A-C rigid fork.
> 
> I have no doubt that another inch going to 100mm would drive me crazy with wheel flop and slower steering, but other people may have less trouble with that to begin with so it wouldn't bother them. As for something even longer than that, well if I wanted a chopper I'd call these guys


Ah, gotcha.

Ya, my SID is at 63mm. It is a light flimsy fork. Smooth, but flexy. I bet an 80mm Fox would be great for you then. I've liked the Fox forks I've owned.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

da'HOOV said:


> Don't give up, most of the folks here are decent. pretty easy to spot (and ignore) the "other" ones.


Can you compile a list of the people I should ignore?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

photos and specs too or else I'm going to pout and go back to just lurking.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

TigWorld said:


> The only reason to put a modern fork on a vintage ride is because you want modern fork performance. If you want modern fork performance there's no point getting something cheap or crappy. You really want something new from Fox (RL/RLC series), Rockshox (SID) or Manitou (R7), White Brothers ???
> 
> Here's my recommendation: get a fork that you can easily change the travel of. That way you can properly experiment with what amount of travel works for you/your frame/your type of riding.
> 
> ...


The new Magura Durins have a model that's 80mm with canti bosses


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

jtmartino said:


> The new Magura Durins have a model that's 80mm with canti bosses


Good info jtmartino. Anyone know whether / how-to lower travel below 80m on the Durins?


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

wv_bob said:


> Understood. The SID I've got goes either 80mm or 63mm by using a spacer, but it involves rotating a shaft too (per the documentation).
> 
> The reason I'm interested in a Fox is to get the 32mm stanchions for less flex. After riding that Z2 for so long, it might not feel right if the fork didn't flex around though.


The new Sids are much stiffer than the old Sids. They have 32mm stanchions are share more similarities with the Reba than with the old Sids. They're not designed to be reduced below 80mm though, so I'm not sure what happens if you try to add an extra spacer. Brake bosses were available on some models for 09 and 10, but I'm not sure what's going on with the 2011s, RS has really confused things with their 2011 lineup. If anyone's considering a modern fork with brake bosses for one of their rides, they better move quick because they're getting much harder to find with each new model year.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Whats a "garge"?


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

TigWorld said:


> Good info jtmartino. Anyone know whether / how-to lower travel below 80m on the Durins?


I know very little about fork internals, but from what I've read, reducing the travel on the 80mm may result in rebound issues and a "clunky" ride.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

trailville said:


> ...They're not designed to be reduced below 80mm though, so I'm not sure what happens if you try to add an extra spacer...


The following comments relate to the newer 32mm stanchioned SIDs and Rebas (not sure if applicable to older "flexy" SIDs):

- a reduction to 70mm or 60mm should work without mechanical or damping issues;
- no part of the SID damping circuits (rebound or compression) is "position" sensitive so the damping curves are the same whatever initial travel you start with
- the moco / black box compression dampers are "speed" sensitive for the platform/floodgate so it will work at any initial travel
- for a travel reduced fork you could change from the 5wt damping fluid to 10wt or some mixture in between if your tuning results in full comp settings. Less travel will probably require firmer comp damping to keep the fork riding higher in an already shortened stroke.

As trailville says the only SIDs I'd bother with are the 09 and later versions. You could use earlier Reba's as well. If you need v-brake bosses only the 09/10 SID Race 80mm had them.

I've also put together a big list of Axle to Crown (A-C) lengths from a bunch of different sources (including some of the posts in this thread).


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

I wanted to add that with the dual air on the Sid (and other dual-air forks), you can sort of reduce your travel and A2C a little by increasing the psi in the negative air chamber. I've only played with this a little, so it's a bit of speculation on my part. When you increase the negative pressure, the fork starts to compress. It makes the fork more active and increases your overall sag, but not the same as just increasing sag by reducing + pressure, in that it doesn't seem to make you bottom out the fork as easily as you would by just decreasing + pressure. If this makes the fork too active for your tastes, you can control that some by the compression settings. I'll again mention that I'm speculating a bit here, so if someone has a better understanding of relationship between + and - spring pressures combined with compression settings, feel free to correct me.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

jtmartino said:


> I know very little about fork internals, but from what I've read, reducing the travel on the 80mm may result in rebound issues and a "clunky" ride.


Shouldn't affect damping at all. What it does do is affect the progressivity of the spring. It'll be more inclined to hit bottom, or, in other words, ramp up less than it would have previously, as the bottom of the stroke is reached.

Bumping up air pressure helps a lot, but changing the volume of the air chamber with elastomers, corks, something, or, whatever official method the manufacturer recommends, will bring it back to normal.

For the record, I have no idea on the Magura forks, never even ridden one, just seen a few from the outside. I'd safely assume they are not unlike their competitors in general approach though.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

Nice to see actual content after the flood of tears @ the top of this thread.

Marzocchi z1/z2 w/ bolt in steerer. Best bet.


----------



## ed h (Jul 25, 2010)

The 2009 SID Team was available in 80 mm suspension and canti brake bosses, I just picked one up for a 2000 Trek that came came with a 63mm Jett. For 2011, none of the SID forks are available with canti brake bosses.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

I think some folks are over-complicating this. The most important thing is to have your fork working in the optimum way that suits your riding style. It is a waste of the fork's capabilities to mess about with that optimum set up, just so as to finesse the a-c length, and it isn't necessary anyway.

Often times people try a longer fork and immediately say it ruined the handling, without giving themselves a chance to get accustomed to it. OK, the bar is higher than they're used to, and that's off-putting. Maybe they need to flip the stem to reduce the height, or maybe they just need to give themself a couple of rides to see whether the new height suits them.

But almost nobody does what you always ought to do, which is to use a shorter stem. Stems are not for fit, they're primarily for tuning the steering/handling. If you fit a 2cm longer fork, you will make the steering/handling less lively. If you fit a 2cm longer fork plus a 2cm shorter stem, the shorter stem will act to preserve your existing steering/handling (not exact, but near enough).

This is really just borrowing modern design to make a vintage bike work better. But that's not really surprising, as we're trying to make it work better with a modern fork.

Any 'suspension-adjusted' frame should work well with a fork of up to 100mm travel, provided you are happy with a short stem. By and large frames prior to the onset of 'suspension-adjusted' were designed for forks around 2cm shorter, so I would suggest a limit of 80mm travel for them.

If you share my view of the importance of aesthetics though, you might agree that most modern forks would look terrible on a vintage frame, because the styles of paintwork etc clash quite painfully. If you really want a 2010 fork, surely it could just mean that you want a modern bike and not a vintage bike?


----------



## StanleyButterfly (Nov 4, 2009)

Whatever happened with this? Which forks did you try?


----------



## modifier (May 11, 2007)

A2C is different on different forks, and sometimes a longer travel fork can have the same or shorter A2C than an older short travel fork. Plus at times slacker angles from a greater A2C isn't a bad thing. I took an old 3.5" travel fork off of my 95 FSR and installed a Fox 125mm fork on it and it made the bike fun to ride again. I have a 120 Terralogic on order for it so I don't have to deal with always fussing with the lockout as it is now a ss and I stand up a lot. The way the bike was I had no desire to ride it. No fun too twitchy too harsh hard to hold a line etc. Now it's one of my favorite bikes to ride. I'm also going to try a 650B on the front.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

StanleyButterfly said:


> Whatever happened with this? Which forks did you try?


I'm wondering what happened to this threat: "This is my last post on MTBR"


----------



## ed h (Jul 25, 2010)

*which forks to go with ?*

I wound up finding a 2009 SID Team for my 2000 Trek. Wasn't easy to find, less high end forks now being made for canti brakes. No 2011 SIDs available for canti brakes.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

ed h said:


> I wound up finding a 2009 SID Team for my 2000 Trek. Wasn't easy to find, less high end forks now being made for canti brakes. No 2011 SIDs available for canti brakes.


Yikes, putting that fork on that bike is like dropping a Corvette engine into a Honda Civic. It's worth more than the rest of the bike combined...


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Lol!*



Rumpfy said:


> I'm wondering what happened to this threat: "This is my last post on MTBR"


He's too morally strong to follow through


----------



## Killer V 900 (Oct 3, 2010)

I have been really wanting to put an 80mm lefty on my Cannondale Killer V.


----------



## pint (Oct 6, 2008)

Fork looks great! However, I think your bar-ends need to be raised a little more...I find they work best at 90 degrees.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

chefmiguel said:


> Whats a "garge"?


It's the big box at the end of the durvvway


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Killer V 900 said:


> I have been really wanting to put an 80mm lefty on my Cannondale Killer V.


What's stopping you? Buy one, and a P321 adaptor, and get to it.


----------



## apat13 (Jun 19, 2006)

When I wanted to find a modern shock for my Phoenix, a certain Mr. Potts reccomended an 80mm Float. When I asked him about my concerns over the extra 15mm Axle to Crown over most of the 63mm forks that are period correct he laughed and said something to the effect of, "It's only 15mm, with sag and everything it will barely change the geometry and certainly not in a noticable way, and the modern fork will perform so much better that you shouldn't care!" 

Since I now how two kits for my phoenix (one old 8 speed with the atom bomb, the other all m952 with kings hubs and the Float) I have been able to do a lot of comparison between the forks, and hands down, the whole bike performs better with the Fox. Not that there is anything wrong with the Atom Bomb (great fork overall), it just can't match the steering precision, lateral stiffness, and damping control of the modern fox.


----------



## loudawwg56 (Apr 6, 2009)

Im probabyly gonna get some hate on this but I am using a 2010 Rock Shox Tora 318 on my 1994 Procaliber. Im running it at 85mm , I like it. Its heavy as hell but does the job.


----------



## Williwoods (May 3, 2004)

nice chopper


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

apat13 said:


> When I wanted to find a modern shock for my Phoenix, a certain Mr. Potts reccomended an 80mm Float. When I asked him about my concerns over the extra 15mm Axle to Crown over most of the 63mm forks that are period correct he laughed and said something to the effect of, "It's only 15mm, with sag and everything it will barely change the geometry and certainly not in a noticable way, and the modern fork will perform so much better that you shouldn't care!" .


Actually a modern 80mm fork is a good 30mm taller than the old 63mm Judys, so it's a little bigger difference than just the 17mm travel change. But sag will account for some of this and there's no arguing the performance improvement. Plus, a lot of people end up preferring the slightly slacker head angle.

The problem comes in when people assume that a bike with a 63mm Judy was designed for that travel and therefore it's not a big deal to just run a modern 80mm. A lot of Judys were put on aftermarket replacing rigid forks. And even bikes that came with 63mm Judys were sometimes actually designed a few years earlier with a 50mm fork in mind (or even rigid). So now you could be 50mm taller than the original design.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

We're assuming apat's Phoenix is a suspension corrected frame from 94/95?

Lets see pics!


----------



## brent878 (Apr 17, 2007)

I have a 92 GT xizang that I am running 125mm RS psylo's on. I hated the way it handled with the RS mag20 that came with the bike and tried everythning between 80-125mm (u-turn), and settled on 125mm. It just handles su much better (to me) with the longer fork. I was concerned with added stress from the longer fork on the frame but I think I put the fork on in 2002 and its been doing fine since. Biggest drop I have done on them is 10ft and I take it to mammoth downhill every year and so far no problems.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

brent878 said:


> I have a 92 GT xizang that I am running 125mm RS psylo's on. I hated the way it handled with the RS mag20 that came with the bike and tried everythning between 80-125mm (u-turn), and settled on 125mm. It just handles su much better (to me) with the longer fork. I was concerned with added stress from the longer fork on the frame but I think I put the fork on in 2002 and its been doing fine since. Biggest drop I have done on them is 10ft and I take it to mammoth downhill every year and so far no problems.


I'm surprised your Psylo lasted that long! And I'd like to see you take that bike on a 10 foot drop and not have the wheels fold upon impact. 

But at least the seat angle is perfect for maximum penetration.


----------



## brent878 (Apr 17, 2007)

jtmartino said:


> I'm surprised your Psylo lasted that long! And I'd like to see you take that bike on a 10 foot drop and not have the wheels fold upon impact.
> 
> But at least the seat angle is perfect for maximum penetration.


psylo is due for a rebuild, bushings are shot. I have rebuilt it before so its not on the orginal seals. I had different wheels when I was doing the drops but same fork and frame. Wish I had video of when I was doing those as I the last one I tried I got 2 broken ribs from not making it. Would have been an awesome video, haha. Haven't tried any huge drops since. But surpisingly I haven't folded any wheels, but there has been many times where I thought for sure I would taco a wheel or break the frame. But its still going, I am building a new bike so this bike will finally be retired or built up as a rigid bike.

And the seat angle is like that beucase I stripped that seat post, that pic was right before changing the seat and seat post. But I was riding it at that angle for a alittle while. Feels like your wheeling anytime your sitting on the bike, haha.


----------

