# 1996 chromoly Stumpjumper fork replacement?



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

Does anyone know where I can get a replacement rigid fork? Or can anyone tell me what the axle to crown distance is so I can get a comparable fork?.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

youngjun91 said:


> Does anyone know where I can get a replacement rigid fork? Or can anyone tell me what the axle to crown distance is so I can get a comparable fork?.


405mm but I think the rake is 43 or 40mm not 45 like most rigids then , but I could be wrong on the rake part.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Replacement should be easy to find on eBay.


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

How did you know that? Brochure, your own measurement, common knowledge? I hope it's a 43mm rake because 45 rakes seem common, and it'd only be off by 2mm which I don't think I'd notice. Getting something exactly at 405 seems pretty challenging too. For example, I'm finding:

Surly 1x1 - Rake: 45 mm, 413mm axle to crown. Weight 1030g.
Nashbar carbon fork - 385mm axle-to-crown height which they say "is just right for bikes that originally came with ridgid forks, or forks with less than 80mm" - seems kind of low to me
Kona P2 fork - 440a-c . Seems pretty high to me, maybe for a 100mm suspension fork replacement. Weight 1040g.
And possibly the creme de la creme for budget forks: Exotic (carboncycles.cc) Length 42.5cm, Offset/Rake 42mm. 830g

Which one would you recommend? Now I wish I had kept my original Specialized rigid fork and tried to fix it instead of tossing it. I'm currently running with a 1997ish Manitou SX which is OK, just heavy at 3.8 pounds.

I was leaning towards the Exotic but 20mm may be too big of a difference??? Maybe having it tall by 20mm (Exotic) is better than being low by 20mm?


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Replacement should be easy to find on eBay.


Well I can't seem to find an original Stumpjumper fork, but some of the forks I mentioned above can be found on ebay or somewhere else on the internet.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Were they 1" or 1 1/8" in 96?


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

1 1/8" in 1996


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

I found a bike hanging in the LBS for repair that had the original fork and then found a guy selling NOS specialized forks on ebay and picked his lightest Direct Drive fork that had the correct A-C measurement. By how the bike handles I would say I got the right fork. I have the fork off for repaint so I can see if I can get the rake for you . BTW mine is a 95 frame but they are the same as far as I know. There are lots of these forks around as most went to suspension and pulled the rigids off.







</a>


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

my '96 M2 stumpy came with a spinner cromo fork (at least the dropouts are stamped spinner). IIRC the A-C is 410-415. It's in my parts bin, if you want me to confirm exact measurement.


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

Fred Smedley said:


> I found a bike hanging in the LBS for repair that had the original fork and then found a guy selling NOS specialized forks on ebay and picked his lightest Direct Drive fork that had the correct A-C measurement. By how the bike handles I would say I got the right fork. I have the fork off for repaint so I can see if I can get the rake for you . BTW mine is a 95 frame but they are the same as far as I know. There are lots of these forks around as most went to suspension and pulled the rigids off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would love to get my hands on one. But there has not been one on eBay for awhile now, since I've been searching. Yes, please let me know if you can measure the rake, but I know it's not an easy measurement.


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

logbiter said:


> my '96 M2 stumpy came with a spinner cromo fork (at least the dropouts are stamped spinner). IIRC the A-C is 410-415. It's in my parts bin, if you want me to confirm exact measurement.


Please, yes! Also would you consider selling it???


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

youngjun91 said:


> Please, yes! Also would you consider selling it???


This thread was so promising.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

girlonbike said:


> This thread was so promising.[/QUOTE
> 
> Don't you hate it when that happens.


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

Nothing more unbecoming than desperation.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

haha. you guys crack me up.

I was hoping the begging would be kept to pms.  What the hell, it's the holidays!


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

Sorry. I'm assuming I broke some rule about transactions not happening on these forums? Please forgive me, I have not been on these boards for many years. If I broke rules, moderators please feel free to delete the post that crossed the line.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

youngjun91 said:


> Sorry. I'm assuming I broke some rule about transactions not happening on these forums? Please forgive me, I have not been on these boards for many years. If I broke rules, moderators please feel free to delete the post that crossed the line.


it's okay. Pm the guy, okay?


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

OK, thanks.

Now back to the thread... I also found another option. Trigon looks like the maker of the Ritchey WCS carbon MTB fork, but for less money. The Trigon fork is curved and lighter (~500g) than the eXotic fork. It looks more like a traditional curved, bladed road fork whereas the eXotic fork looks like a suspension fork except without the travel. It has an A to C measurement of something like 410-415mm, which seems good. The worst part about this fork for the 96 stumpjumper application may be the rake which seems huge at 48mm. That should make for some quick lively (maybe unstable?) steering???

Will the beefy round eXotic fork be stiffer/stronger than the bladed Trigon (looks more like the original stumpy rigid fork); while the Trigon fork may be more flexy, better absorbing of shocks, but has less margin in terms of strength on off-road big bumps?

Any thoughts? Is it sacrilege to put a modern fork on a classic?


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

The original type steel fork would preferable from a correctness stand point, but if you're just looking to get it ridable, anything with the proper geometry should be good.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

FWIW, I had a 96 bike with a carbon exotic fork while waiting for a type II to get built and it stunk compared to the type II. Go with the original.


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

muddybuddy said:


> The original type steel fork would preferable from a correctness stand point, but if you're just looking to get it ridable, anything with the proper geometry should be good.


Actually, I'd like to get the fork to be a part of a high performance machine. I know I may be asking a lot for a 1996 bike, but I wonder how badly I would be disadvantaged in a cyclocross race, which is something I'd like to try this season. I may at the end be 2 to 3 pounds heavier than the typical cyclocross bike with smaller wheels and less aero handlebar position. But I think it may do OK with the proper setup. I've switched out to V brakes already. I've got a lighter seatpost and saddle in mind. I've picked out some 26 X 1.35 CX tires. And I've upgraded the engine a lot lately  I think it'd be a sight to see this retro bike with some modern upgrades out there "competing" (hopefully) in the sea of carbon skinny bikes. I'm also keeping my old components to switch back to after CX season.


----------



## youngjun91 (Jun 11, 2004)

girlonbike said:


> FWIW, I had a 96 bike with a carbon exotic fork while waiting for a type II to get built and it stunk compared to the type II. Go with the original.


Sorry for the ignorant question but what is a Type II? Is it the 96 chromoly fork?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

It is a type of fork. I don't want to dissuade you from getting one but you obviously are looking for the cheapest option and when they are found or made, they aren't cheap. If I were you, I would look for the original. Like somebody said already, they are around and probably in abundance in people's parts bin when they went to suspension which was quite often in that mid 90's era.

Here is a cool thread on a 26" vintage bike as a cx bike: http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/cross-attitude-818448.html


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Try forum user D8. He has a huge stock pile of old forks. Also try a WTB add in the classifieds. Stay original.


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

youngjun91 said:


> Please, yes! Also would you consider selling it???


I should've known that was coming & posted not FS  You've got a PM yj91

For posterity's sake here's the my measurements for the direct drive (spinner) fork: AC=410 & rake ~43mm (somewhere between 40-45, eyeballing it on the workbench).

The bike handled great with a both a 63/70mm travel Judy & 80mm travel Marzocchi Bomber Z2. I didn't favor the handling w/ a 100mm travel bomber, though it was fine when pointed downhill . The "silver satin" color was my favorite color for a bike.


----------



## MichaelinOsaka (Jul 24, 2006)

I have a Ritchey WCS carbon MTB fork on my 1998 Kona and I love it.


----------

