# rigid forks?



## steel is real (May 3, 2004)

I have a '93 or '94 bonty racelite. It is suspension adjusted I believe. I am wanting to switch to a rigid fork for a while. Do I really need a suspension adjusted fork? And whether I do or don't, what are the good brands of rigid forks for a 1" headset, if that's even relevant?

Thanks!!!


----------



## older guy (Mar 9, 2004)

I just switched to a Tange Switchblade for my Merlin (I don't know the exact year) but was bought new in '91. Originally it came with a Ritchey Logic fork. I am enjoying it more now.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

steel is real said:


> I have a '93 or '94 bonty racelite. It is suspension adjusted I believe. I am wanting to switch to a rigid fork for a while. Do I really need a suspension adjusted fork? And whether I do or don't, what are the good brands of rigid forks for a 1" headset, if that's even relevant?
> 
> Thanks!!!


If anything, it'll make your angles a bit steeper, but I don't think it'll throw things out of wack too much.

If its suspension adjusted, it was for a 63mm travel fork...80mm at best.

It'll be a quicker, harsher ride...but you'll learn to pick good lines and ride smoother in a hurry. 

Finding a matching Bontrager fork will be spendy, but a natural choice. Ritchey Logic forks are easier to find...or only Bridgestone 1" forks. Depends on how nice a fork you want. You could put an older Specialized Direct Drive fork on there. Somewhat heavier, but still a good fork...should be pretty cheap.


----------



## 95bonty (Oct 6, 2004)

*plenty of options, but not many in the stores*

i went for a custom Walt Works threadless fork for my race lite (see other posts by me for pics), you could try Vicious Cycles - they have a range of 1 inch forks in various lengths which cater for most frame generations.

Also Pace offer their Carbon straight blade rigid fork in a 1 inch threadless - but it's pr. way too long for a 93/94 frame...


----------



## top_ring (Feb 9, 2004)

How bout a Dekerf "Tuning Fork".

Question: I hear a lot about suspension correction for rigid forks. I understand that frames are designed for a particular suspension fork length, but what about "sag"? When I'm riding the bike the fork is no longer extended to it's full length; the length the frame was designed around. This effects my handling. Wouldn't the full extended length minus the sag equal the rigid length? Why do folks often purchase rigid forks that are 420mm - 430mm axle to crown length when a 395mm - 410mm would work fine? Does sag not play a roll in choosing a rigid fork? Why buy a suspension corrected one when sag is no longer present? Does this make sense?

I don't fully grasp this concept - perhaps you good people can set me straight. Thank you.


----------



## idiot (May 12, 2004)

In the days (mid '90s) where frames were "corrected" by a couple of centimeters for suspension forks there wasn't a lot of travel on offer, hence the concept of sag wasn't as widely considered as it is today. In those days sag was minimal - think the same sort of numbers you'd get running different bag diameter tyres, or even pumping your tyre up a bit more. The effect would have been minimal.

Nowadays all general hardtail frames are made for ~80-100mm of travel, and I imagine most modern rigid forks are made similarly.


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

not as exciting as others mentioned, but readily available is the tange fork (which is pretty similar to the specialized DD fork made by tange... I'm not sure what, if any, differences to the regular tange forks of that period.). 

It's ~$50 from places like aebike.com or bikeman.com. 
if I had the bucks, I'd go for a dekerf tuning fork, they look sweet! or in my dream world... custom built from someone like blacksheep.


----------



## gotdirt (Jan 17, 2006)

*cheap yet functional*



logbiter said:


> not as exciting as others mentioned, but readily available is the tange fork ...


agreed:










:thumbsup:


----------



## bidaci (Nov 7, 2005)

Suspension corrected forks must take into consideration the original travel, length and sag of the fork to be replaced. To simply say that the fork is suspension corrected does not tell you much. Kinda like saying a tire is round so it will work. The measurement between the axle and crown with sag should be close to the length of the rigid fork to keep all things equal. If you want to really keep things perfect you should also look at rake. 

However, depending on what you are trying to accomplish I am not sure that all these things are super critical. I recently put a Cannondale P-bone rigid on a Trek 8000 to replace a blown out Indy C with 63mm travel. The lengths where close but not perfect (The P-bone is shorter) and the biggest effect is that the steering is much quicker and it will not handle steep downhills as smooth. The quicker steering is, to me, an added benefit for slow single track. Realistically I am not taking a rigid super fast anywhere that the quicker steering is a hinderance. I must add that the rigid has fast become the bike I grab for a quick ride to and through the trails and not the FS or SS. It has brought back the challenge and fun in my trail riding. I can actually see the forest through the trees!


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Where did you find your Switchblade?


----------



## holden (Jul 27, 2004)

SicBith said:


> Where did you find your Switchblade?


i'm curious too. i've only seem them black.


----------



## older guy (Mar 9, 2004)

holden said:


> i'm curious too. i've only seem them black.


I got this on my recent trip from the Far East. The shop used to sell imported high end bicycles. Now the shop is full of low level bikes for the masses as according to the store manager, sells quicker. This fork is matched with a Mongoose Ti frame with steel stays. Both are NOS unassembled. I had to convince the manager to sell me just the fork saying everybody wants suspension nowadays. I believe they were imported from here. Here's a close up.


----------



## cajonezzz (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm coming late to this whole SS thing- but i'm wondering if I should spend any money on this Specialized Stumpy. it's about a 92, Tange tubing, and originally had a Specialized air fork... looked like a mag 21, but had specialized on it. 
it's a 1 inch steerer.... I'm fine with putting a rigid fork on it, but would also like to know if there are suspension forks currently made that would fit it, and be worth spending the $$$. 
maybe i should just start with the ridged? 

if so, do I need to go with a 'suspension corrected" fork?

cz


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

cajonezzz said:


> I'm coming late to this whole SS thing- but i'm wondering if I should spend any money on this Specialized Stumpy. it's about a 92, Tange tubing, and originally had a Specialized air fork... looked like a mag 21, but had specialized on it.
> it's a 1 inch steerer.... I'm fine with putting a rigid fork on it, but would also like to know if there are suspension forks currently made that would fit it, and be worth spending the $$$.
> maybe i should just start with the ridged?
> 
> ...


The Stumpjumper is a fantastic bike. Durable. Would be a good fit for an SS.

The fork you have on there should be a Specialized Future Shock. It's pretty much a Rock Shox Mag21 internally. I'm not sure if those forks were even getting 63mm of travel...most likely less.
That being the case, going to a rigid fork might make your geometry a wee bit steeper, but I don't think it'll throw off the way the bike rides all that much. Should be fine.

SS is all about simplicity. Personally, I'd go rigid. A 1" Specialized Direct Drive fork shouldn't be all that hard to get your hands on.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

RS-1s got 2" even, Mag-20s reduced that to 1.9" (48mm to be precise), Mag-21SL kept that number, the LT kit for the Mag-21 bumped it to 2.4" (60mm to be precise) but those who had the right rockshox bits could take it further. I had a Mag-21 customized to 78mm using new top-out sleeves, the lower bushings replaced with the longer bushings from the Mag-20, and a couple other alterations. 

The future shock forks were actually based off the RS-1 internals originally, not the Mag-20s, and later versions basically were closer to the Mag-20 than the 21s. Specialized basically had different valving in mind for their forks, and were happy with a full 2" of travel.


----------



## benja55 (Aug 10, 2005)

*Get a Potts Type II...*

Best rigid fork ever. Steve will make you one with a 1" steerer and whatever dimensions you want.

They ride better then anything else.


----------



## bruteforce (Aug 10, 2006)

Here's my 92-93 Stumpjumper. The serial number starts with 92 but I ordered it in 93. It's a hell of a bike. I've got it set up for training rides in these pics.


----------



## stan lee (Mar 5, 2006)

You should look to Steve...he knows what he's doing!


----------



## stan lee (Mar 5, 2006)

Here are a couple more examples of Mr. Potts's work...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

i have a vicious cycles 1in 410mm axle to crown. i also have a 1in specialized direct drive which is 390mm.
i have not ridden the visious yet but seems a nicely b uilt fork.


----------



## newsboymerlin (Jan 7, 2005)

stan lee said:


> You should look to Steve...he knows what he's doing!


does he still make typ I forks?


----------



## stan lee (Mar 5, 2006)

newsboymerlin said:


> does he still make typ I forks?


Yeah...at least I think he would make a type I. He's been pretty busy with Titanium, but he's happy to make a Type II and I know he still has some crowns for type I.


----------



## Fatmikeynyc (Jun 20, 2005)

stan lee said:


> Yeah...at least I think he would make a type I. He's been pretty busy with Titanium, but he's happy to make a Type II and I know he still has some crowns for type I.


StanLee,
What is the difference between a Type I and a Type II fork?
Thanks,
Michael-NYC


----------



## stan lee (Mar 5, 2006)

Fatmikeynyc said:


> StanLee,
> What is the difference between a Type I and a Type II fork?
> Thanks,
> Michael-NYC


The first two photos are of a typeI and the light blue fork is a typeII. In short a typeII is very rigid and a typeI has more flex. TypeII's are straight blade and more common.


----------



## Fatmikeynyc (Jun 20, 2005)

stan lee said:


> The first two photos are of a typeI and the light blue fork is a typeII. In short a typeII is very rigid and a typeI has more flex. TypeII's are straight blade and more common.


Thanks stan lee! Now I totally get it...What kind of bike is that Type I one??

Michael-NYC


----------



## taikuodo (Jul 3, 2006)

Are all forks the same? I want a rigid fork to go with my trek 820, do i need to look for one that fits with "direct pull" brakes?


----------



## stan lee (Mar 5, 2006)

The typeI is on an early 700c Potts...it's an amazing bike! I've never come across another one like it.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

stan lee said:


> The first two photos are of a typeI and the light blue fork is a typeII. In short a typeII is very rigid and a typeI has more flex. TypeII's are straight blade and more common.


Nice stuff! You must be Nate's friend?? If so, how's the Phoenix SS comin' along?

Is that 'cross bike with the Type I, Steve's personal bike? I know Ive seen that somewhere...

Mike, like stan said, the Type I is more of a casual fork with a softer ride and more leg movement. The Type II is a stiffer ride with excellent feedback and steering; hands down the best rigid fork Ive ever ridden. It doesnt have that flexy feel like the legs that taper down to 1/2" at the drop outs. Feels like a Koski fork but with a bit more meat on it. The Type I preceded the Unicrown (which was a Ritchey design in late 83 I think) and was designed by Charlie.


----------



## stan lee (Mar 5, 2006)

Yup, Nate's a good buddy. Last time I saw the SS it was still a frame above the bench...I'm sure something will come together sooner than later. Your also correct in that the Type I is off of Steve's bike...good memory! Have you come across any other bikes like his? I've never seen another one like it.


----------



## Fatmikeynyc (Jun 20, 2005)

stan lee said:


> The typeI is on an early 700c Potts...it's an amazing bike! I've never come across another one like it.


Wow, cool! I was asking because that Roller Cam brake looks rather longer and narrower then most do... :thumbsup:

Thanks for the info.

Michael-NYC


----------



## retrobikeguy (Oct 27, 2005)

I've got switchblades, 2 of em fitted to my kestrels and I think they are one of the best value for money rigid forks around, these came from europe from a guy that had a load left from miyata and was selling them through to clear some space.










originally they were a oily black but I had the second pair sprayed up to match the frame.










Just bought some old Rockshox RS1's with a bontrager crown and was gonna try em for a while instead


----------



## Beagle (Aug 8, 2005)

Also Pace offer their Carbon straight blade rigid fork in a 1 inch threadless - but it's pr. way too long for a 93/94 frame...[/QUOTE]

Hey. Pace do the Rc31 in different lengths with a one inch option. See this from the FAQ section of their site:

Q. What length can I get the RC31 rigid fork?
A. We now supply the RC31 in two different lengths. - 440mm, this suits most modern hardtails that would run a 100mm travel suspension fork. - 420mm, this is what we call the "shortie" and is most suited to older frames that pehaps run an existing rigid fork or a 60/80mm suspension fork. We also have a fork with 465mm fork called the "RC29" this is designed for 29" wheeled bikes but will work equally well if you want to build a light weight XC based on a 26" wheel frame designed for a 5" travel suspension fork.

Andy.


----------



## newsboymerlin (Jan 7, 2005)

some more information about the type forks.

















copy from the cunningham off road bike infopac, 1987

ashok


----------

