# Is this THE xc race fork for 2007??



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Is this THE xc race fork to have for 2007??*

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2...urobike06/eurobike062/Pace_Cycles_RC39_C-Type


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

Of how about this one:

Down this page:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=218932

Supposed to be 3.1 lbs.

BM


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Nice*



bmadau said:


> Of how about this one:
> 
> Down this page:
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=218932
> ...


Not as sexy - but it comes with the best service and support of any fork manufacturer. And it may have that buttery travel Marz is known for.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

It may be for americans who can't source Spinner Aeris forks domestically anymore.


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Spiiner alive and Well in USA*



DeeEight said:


> It may be for americans who can't source Spinner Aeris forks domestically anymore.


Spinner is now working with a new USA distributor - full support warranty etc..

I assume that you own a Aeris - would it be acceptable (flex wise) for my 158lb weight on a Turner Nitrous. ??


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I don't own one though I was a dealer thru their previous canuck distributor. I'm heavier than you and pondered one for my Amp but then again, I already have a noleen megaair on it so an aeris wouldn't be really cost effective... $500 to lose a half pound.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*1640g incl. RL !!!*



bmadau said:


> Of how about this one:
> 
> Down this page:
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=218932
> ...


"supposed" sounds good

i went to the Marzocchi booth at Eurobike to weight that fork but simply had a big laugh when it was so damn heavy (ca. 1640g if i remember right. not even worth taking a picture!). the M-guy yelled at me "if you want a flexy for go over there!" pointing with the finger to the Rock-Shox booth but at 1600g i definitely wouldn't call this a lightweight racing fork at all. sorry - you have still a looooong way to go my italian brothers.


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

jtc1 said:


> Is this THE xc race fork to have for 2007??


I guess that depends how much it weighs?


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Some Guy said:


> I guess that depends how much it weighs?


And on how it handles...We already saw many carbon made components that are actually heavier than the alloy/magnesium versions...


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Somethings never change*



nino said:


> "supposed" sounds good
> 
> i went to the Marzocchi booth at Eurobike to weight that fork but simply had a big laugh when it was so damn heavy (ca. 1640g if i remember right. not even worth taking a picture!). the M-guy yelled at me "if you want a flexy for go over there!" pointing with the finger to the Rock-Shox booth but at 1600g i definitely wouldn't call this a lightweight racing fork at all. sorry - you have still a looooong way to go my italian brothers.


Marz seems to have the best feel and support of any fork i have owned - but they are ALWAYS way havier than advertised.

Nino - did you get to see the PACE fork in person?? The new Type C is pecifically made for XC race with more Ti, etc.. to reduce the weight.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

jtc1 said:


> Marz seems to have the best feel and support of any fork i have owned - but they are ALWAYS way havier than advertised.
> 
> Nino - did you get to see the PACE fork in person?? The new Type C is pecifically made for XC race with more Ti, etc.. to reduce the weight.


some Ti-bolts don't save that much. yes i have seen it. it looks nice but all new forks are much heavier than i would like. this might be useful for long travel bikes and for those using discbrakes....not for me.


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Nino - Still prefer the Aeris??*



nino said:


> some Ti-bolts don't save that much. yes i have seen it. it looks nice but all new forks are much heavier than i would like. this might be useful for long travel bikes and for those using discbrakes....not for me.


Sounds like you still prefer the Spinner Aeris and its true weight of 1230 grams. OR is there another XC fork that would be your XC pick??


----------



## AndrewTO (Mar 30, 2005)

nino said:


> ..... damn heavy (ca. 1640g if i remember right. .....


Nino, what the heck is "_ca._"?????? Best I can come up with is Claimed Average.


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

*Circa*

Ca means circa.

Ole.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

I'm going for the German Answer Kilo Carbon. Really 1080g, 80mm travel, and a constant trail. Felt amazingly stiff too.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*lenght!!!*



Cloxxki said:


> I'm going for the German Answer Kilo Carbon. Really 1080g, 80mm travel, and a constant trail. Felt amazingly stiff too.


the german-a has a very low weight BUT, and this is a very important but, it is much much longer! it will raise your front dramatically. 3-4 cm more than other forks with the same amount of travel!! this slackens your headangle and will ruin your bikes handling completely. german magazines tested the german-a fork and were please by it's performance BUT the axle-crown lenght is comparable to a 120mm travel fork. it not only makes for a slacker angle, slower steering, more push in corners,higher bottom bracket, seatangle changes as well...center of gravity is up...a complete desaster.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

nino said:


> the german-a has a very low weight BUT, and this is a very important but, it is much much longer! it will raise your front dramatically. 3-4 cm more than other forks with the same amount of travel!! this slackens your headangle and will ruin your bikes handling completely. german magazines tested the german-a fork and were please by it's performance BUT the axle-crown lenght is comparable to a 120mm travel fork. it not only makes for a slacker angle, slower steering, more push in corners,higher bottom bracket, seatangle changes as well...center of gravity is up...a complete desaster.


Not an issue with this: :thumbsup:  Swap out the steel bolts for Ti and you really have something.


----------



## Stuart B (Mar 21, 2005)

I think the non c type is about 1400g. my rc41 130mm is 1600g.

My rc41 is stiff.I don't see why the 39 would be significantly flexier if it is at all.

Pace are very experienced at making carbon forks. They have been doing it for years....us brits must ahave been keeping them to our selves or something till now hehe 

Stu


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



Axis II said:


> Not an issue with this: :thumbsup:  Swap out the steel bolts for Ti and you really have something.


Axis, if you would have the possibility to actually ride one you would eventually stop posting this fork. i rode the Fournales and it was bad back then and didn't get any better. i don't know why people still invest so much effort in doing forks different than what you see on motorcycles. if there would be ANY benefit they would do it there as well. there have been a couple of small companies trying to figure out how parallelogram forks could be made to actually perform on par to a regular telescopic fork but NONE hase excelled or you would see more of them...interesting that especially the french are doing such designs. i remember the 500cc ELF grandprix machine that had such a fork installed. British rider Ron Haslam rode that bike in the GPs around 1985 or so before it vanished because they couldn't make it work.

and the Fournales got tested back then by german magazines as well and didn't shine in stiffness as well...so the only benefit you might see, the added rigidity, wasn't there. they all have longer axle to crown measurements compared to the same travel telescopic forks. your frame needs to be designed around such a fork otherwise your geometry gets ruined. we all remember the Horst Leitner designed AMP bikes. those were designed around the linkage fork and performed well for the time beeing.


----------



## Roger G (Feb 10, 2005)

*Kilo rules*



nino said:


> the german-a has a very low weight BUT, and this is a very important but, it is much much longer! it will raise your front dramatically. 3-4 cm more than other forks with the same amount of travel!! this slackens your headangle and will ruin your bikes handling completely. german magazines tested the german-a fork and were please by it's performance BUT the axle-crown lenght is comparable to a 120mm travel fork. it not only makes for a slacker angle, slower steering, more push in corners,higher bottom bracket, seatangle changes as well...center of gravity is up...a complete desaster.


*BULL-****!*
Nino keeps repeating this myth over and over without ever testing it. :nono: 
He really seems to hate this manufacturer because they don't give him special
prices or something like that.

I'm racing a '06 Kilo and my bike handles _very _well. 
I know what I'm, talking about because I also have two very low rigid forks,
one of which I use in the same frame as the Kilo and I like them both.

The new carbon fork has a crown to axle length of 18.3 in (46,5 cm) - that is only
0.59 in more than a "normal" fork with 80mm travel and even less than a 100mm fork. 
With the new remote rebound lockout (effectively locking it out in a compressed state) 
this fork absolutely rules!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



Roger G said:


> *BULL-****!*
> Nino keeps repeating this myth over and over without ever testing it. :nono:
> He really seems to hate this manufacturer because they don't give him special
> prices or something like that.
> ...


the "new" has 46,5cm? cool, but a "normal" 80mm SID has still 44,5...my math says that's 20mm less. and we are talking about 80mm of travel, not just 70mm which german "Bike Sport News" tested as maximum travel on the German-A.

and if the "new" has 46,5cm , the old was even higher and testers commented they didn't like the fact that a 70mm travel fork has more axle-crown lenght than a 120mm fork.

if you can't tell the difference bewteen a short rigid fork and your chopper German-A you just disqualified yourself.

sorry - no more comment

oh - i just found that fork test with the measurements on stiffness of the Look/Fournales fork. it's even flexier than a SID...can please someone tell me what the advantage of a parallelogram fork was?


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

nino said:


> Axis, if you would have the possibility to actually ride one you would eventually stop posting this fork. i rode the Fournales and it was bad back then and didn't get any better. i don't know why people still invest so much effort in doing forks different than what you see on motorcycles. if there would be ANY benefit they would do it there as well. there have been a couple of small companies trying to figure out how parallelogram forks could be made to actually perform on par to a regular telescopic fork but NONE hase excelled or you would see more of them...interesting that especially the french are doing such designs. i remember the 500cc ELF grandprix machine that had such a fork installed. British rider Ron Haslam rode that bike in the GPs around 1985 or so before it vanished because they couldn't make it work.
> 
> and the Fournales got tested back then by german magazines as well and didn't shine in stiffness as well...so the only benefit you might see, the added rigidity, wasn't there. they all have longer axle to crown measurements compared to the same travel telescopic forks. your frame needs to be designed around such a fork otherwise your geometry gets ruined. we all remember the Horst Leitner designed AMP bikes. those were designed around the linkage fork and performed well for the time beeing.


OK, you may be correct but, plenty of people are reporting very good experience with this fork on the WW MTB board. So far you are the only one who has objected to it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting your concerns but I think it's worth a closer look based upon other people's positive experiences. The one obvious benefit that I'm looking forward to is the absence of any brake dive. This means that I can ride harder into corners and on technical downhill sections and not worry about braking so hard that I end up in an endo. I think this will make me faster. It's also a light fork that can get plenty lighter, I suspect, with some bolt tuning. The crown to axle issue isn't to much of a concern for me. If it's a little long I'll opt for a longer travel front end frameset like the Extralite F2. Let me also say I'm a sucker for something different and I think it's a cool looking fork. In the end, if I get it and it sucks I'll be the first to admit my mistake and then if Spinner-Usa has their poop together I'll go for the Aeris.


----------



## Roger G (Feb 10, 2005)

*Contortionist*

Nino, I _did not_ say I didn't feel a difference between a short rigid and the Kilo.
I said I _liked_ both. Big difference. As I said - I can tell if a bike handles well or not.

Concerning maximum travel - it's the _quality_ that counts and the Kilo
sucks up bumps in just the right way, moving ackwards first and _then_ up.
Since the Kilo has nearly no brake dive, it actually has _more _travel than 
a 100mm fork on a steep downhill, when you need it most.

I won't race another fork anytime soon.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Nino, that test has two measurements of stiffness... lateral (which would be the wheel flopping over side to side looking down from the top and source of most cases of brakepad rub with rim brakes) and rotational (which would be the wheel trying to twist sideways when viewed front to back, as in twisting the left leg backwards and the right leg forwards).

The Sid was worse than the Look in rotational rigidity and better in lateral. But looking at the graph, the difference between the two in lateral stiffness is barely noticeable, while the difference in rotational stiffness is much more pronounced.


----------



## hollerbachMTB (Jul 17, 2005)

well since were all picking on nino.... you smell like freshly cut lemons and your bikes are lighter than mine and it isnt fair...

there, i vented. but seriously, regardless of height or performance, those "parallelograms," as nino put it, just look goofy.

and its cool that a headshock was number 1 and 2. on a side note, the new Carbon Lefty weighs a scant 2.8 lbs.... furthering the fact that headshock/lefty is amazing. and perfect. it makes me feel even better than coming home from school to read JakePay's funny comments


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> I've never ridden the LOOK fork (nor would I care to because I like a little brake dive to help set the bike up for a corner) but Roger Decoster is on record as stating (you know who he is right Nino?) that the best fork he ever tested was a linkage fork when he was with I believe Suzuki (the testing occured in the late 70's). Suzuki (like I said I think he was still with Suzuki, there is a remote chance it may have been Honda at this point though) bought the rights and shelved the fork (for unkown reasons). So it may or may not work, but since you are so hung up on motorocycle designs, current MX trend for a fork is USD. Neither the SID or the Spinner is this...


upsidedown forks need discs....and they are used in motorcycles for added rigidity which we usually don't need on our featherweight MTBs.

i said above that several motorcycles used linkage forks in the past BUT those bikes were all designed around such a fork. special designed frames to accomodate these forks. they sure can perform quite good BUT there is a reason you don't see them anymore...if that brakedive feature was such a big advantage who do you believe would need it? correct, in motocross we have over 300mm of travel and much bigger bumps than you will ever see in xc-racing i had a good laugh thinking of "bombing" down into deep ruted corners with braking bumps of the size of real whoops on my MTB...

well - like back in my motocross days i have to accept that VERY few people actually have a feeling for suspension or know what it's all about. most would pull out a screwdriver and make their suspension as plush as possible thinking it would soak up the bumps better. all they do is push on the handlebars... i can understand that most people really don't have that much of experience to be able tell what really works and what doesn't. anyway - i never said the bumps absorption was bad on the Kilo . but there's a change in geometry which ruins your bikes handling. but maybe you don't notice? that's ok. these same guys also don't notice when a integrated XT crankset is 15mm wider than regular MTB cranks, or that eggbeater pedals add 8mm in Q-factor....minor changes which for a sensible guy are worth changing the parts, others simply don't notice.

but in the end it is quite simple: the Kilo is still 20mm higher than "normal" forks which raises your front end and makes for slower steering by as much as 1 degree. maybe you don't care what your head angle is all about, maybe you don't like the nervousness of your crosscoutry rig...well then go ahead.


----------



## Roger G (Feb 10, 2005)

*he won't stop*



nino said:


> well - like back in my motocross days i have to accept that VERY few people actually
> have a feeling for suspension or know what it's all about. most would pull out a screwdriver and make their suspension as plush as possible thinking it would soak up the bumps better. all they do is push on the handlebars... i can understand that most people really don't have that much of experience to be able tell what really works and what doesn't.


After this illumnating explanation I see the error of my ways and admit
that I, a mere XC racer who has had no motocross experience whatsoever,
am unworthy of judging the quality of a suspension fork. 


*Say, Nino - we are talking about XC racing here - have you ever taken part in a XC race?*



nino said:


> but there's a change in geometry which ruins your bikes handling. but maybe you don't
> notice? that's ok.


It may ruin the handling of _your bike_, but it works fine on my frames. 
I'd have to be very insensitive to mistake a "ruined geometry" for a great handling bike
which makes me considerably faster on downhills, handles very nimbly in hairpin bends 
and doesn't bother me even on steep uphills.



nino said:


> changes which for a sensible guy are worth changing the parts


Don't call yourself sensible, please. Sensitive you may be (overly so?)



nino said:


> but in the end it is quite simple: the Kilo is still 20mm higher than "normal" forks which raises your front end and makes for slower steering by as much as 1 degree.


Well, actually most modern frames are designed for 100mm forks and in that case,
the Kilo is even 5mm lower than other forks - and you can safely compare it to a 100mm fork.
"slow steering" much depends on handlebar width and stem lenght, by the way.

Completely forgot about the headshocks! 
Those are great XC racing forks as well.
:thumbsup:


----------



## dcb (Sep 19, 2005)

nino said:


> upsidedown forks need discs....and they are used in motorcycles for added rigidity which we usually don't need on our featherweight MTBs.


Nino,

Isn't one of the other advantages less unsprung weight? Most of my motocross experience goes back to bikes with conventional forks, but my last bike did have upside down Kayaba's and I seem to remember Kawasaki making that claim.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Roger G said:


> but it works fine on my frames...


i repeat once more for those who still have no clue here:
if your frame is designed around a fork with 100-120mm travel then the kilo will sure work.

BUT who in hell would install a fork with just 70mm of usable travel when others have 120mm..anyway - if you like it it's ok.

we are talking about XC-bikes and the only ones that accept 100mm fork are some FS bikes. most HTs are designed around 80mm forks and that's what i was talking about. just don't tell me your frame is designed around a 100mm fork and the short rigid fork you told about above made no difference...short rigid forks measure from 415mm-440mm


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Both the SID and Look are a couple noodles.. You see more and more racers switching to 32mm forks, becuase lighter weight doesn't always make sense. I know this is a WW forum, but come guys, add a half pound and get a real fork.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> Both the SID and Look are a couple noodles.. You see more and more racers switching to 32mm forks, becuase lighter weight doesn't always make sense. I know this is a WW forum, but come guys, add a half pound and get a real fork.


I'll go the other way on that...

To me the Fox F100X is the almost perfect fork.  Stiffness, EFFICIENCY, reliability. The only thing they could improve really? The weight. Fox if you're listening.. if you can drop 200-250g off that fork (carbon legs?)

My point is there really isnt a sweet spot fork out there between lightweight/efficiency and stiffness... is there?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*sag...*



Mr. Scary said:


> My frame is designed for a 80mm fork, but I have a Maverick SC32 on it (120mm travel). Did I notice a difference? A little, I do have to consciously weight the front end a little more on sweeping corners but the bike is much more stable in the rough. Overall, I prefer it (and I didn't have a problem setting my saddle into position with a 5mm offset seatpost). For Nino, I would liken it to going from a Honda to a Yamaha. Might not corner quite as good (very small difference), but feels alot better overall (at least I always preferred the Yamaha/Kawasaki handling to Honda/Suzuki).


well - with a Maverick you can have plenty of sag as well which compensates for some of the added lenght. if you only have 70mm of usable travel like the German-A you won't set it up with 20mm of sag, right? and you don't race the Maverick in XC-races as well...we are talking XC not dual or any other "jumping" style riding.

i already said if you like slower steering you might like a longer fork.

i on the other hand prefer a "nervous" handling which allows me to flick my bike around whenever i want. i am a capable rider and have no problems to go fast. but to go around berms on a thighter line i always preferred the quicker steering of the Hondas or Suzis and i even ran my forks up in the triple clamps...if your suspension is set up correct your bike will also handle the fast choppy straights.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> an inch of sag).


that's what i mentioned above. if you set it up with an inch of sag you won't have that much more lenght.

by the way - i rode the 2007 KTM 250 fourstroke 2 weeks ago and was really impressed. that thing is fast and it has a very sharp handling. much Hondasuki-like it will allow you to do inner lines you couldn't reach with a Yami. at least not the ones i rode back when i was still actively racing ( until '98). these new generation 250s are sure plenty fast and much easier to ride than a 125cc twostroke but i still like the more agressive riding style of the 2stroke better. it's kind of boring with the thumpers and the twostroker is like riding a turbocharged engine. the massive hit in the powerband is electrifying...thumpers have better traction and don't pull your arms out while going fast quite easily. i was able to ride much longer on the Katoom than on my own 125 Honda.


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

I recently read an article about the linkage MX forks, and it goes along the lines of what Nino is saying about too much axle to crown lengths for a given travel. I work at a motorcycle suspension company (mostly road going motorcycles) but the guys I work with are older and know tons about almost every obscure bike ever made (almost). The artice I read stated the linkage MX fork worked amazingly well, and was like by many, but it was being used in the beginnings of 12" travel telescopic forks, and this linkage for only had 8" travel. It (supposedly) worked great under braking, and on whoops and stuff, but just didn't have the travel to compete with how big the jumps were getting. To make a linkage for get longer travel, you need longer linkages, to control the amount of angular dispacement of the links. 

I also had the pleasure of working with an engineer from WP suspension for a short while (a little less than a year). He worked in the R&D dept. mostly doing race and aftermarket suspensions. He told me one of the main disadvantages of a telescopic fork is under braking. When braking hard, it puts a great deal of side load on the DU bushings in the fork legs. This bind makes the fork's sticktion increase dramatically, resutling in poor suspension performance. This doesn't happen wiht linkage forks. Also, with linkage forks, you can dial in how much brake dive or extension, or neutral behaviour you want. The guys actually told me of a mfg. that made linkage motorcycle forks a long time ago that had the brake infuance on the suspension adjustable (you could dial in how much dive or anti dive you wanted).

BM


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

My Spinner feels surprisingly stiff considering my 194lbs - (dependent also on wheelset and skewers). Only in the quickest of corrections around dog turds can you really feel the flex. The The Spul works nicely - I'm running very low pressure and should continue to tune it BUT I'm only getting 58mm of travel! My Aeris seems to be a 60mm fork with a rock of a 20mm bumber  . It's not plush unless you go with a big big tire but it bobs very little even when I run lower psi's. 

I'm a weight weenie - I have my Claviculas sitting on the desk next to me but I might go with a heavy Fox because I think it will make me faster. When stuff starts coming towards me fast I have to really concentrate with the Aeris fork. 

Any comments on the RC39?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

MBA did state that the aeris was noticeably stiffer than a Sid Carbon/Team.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

Slobberdoggy said:


> My Spinner feels surprisingly stiff considering my 194lbs - (dependent also on wheelset and skewers). Only in the quickest of corrections around dog turds can you really feel the flex. The The Spul works nicely - I'm running very low pressure and should continue to tune it BUT I'm only getting 58mm of travel! My Aeris seems to be a 60mm fork with a rock of a 20mm bumber  . It's not plush unless you go with a big big tire but it bobs very little even when I run lower psi's.
> 
> I'm a weight weenie - I have my Claviculas sitting on the desk next to me but I might go with a heavy Fox because I think it will make me faster. When stuff starts coming towards me fast I have to really concentrate with the Aeris fork.
> 
> Any comments on the RC39?


d00d, no offense but you have a bell on that bike?


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

bhsavery said:


> d00d, no offense but you have a bell on that bike?


Yeah man are you crazy?


----------



## eurorider (Feb 15, 2004)

Roger G said:


> Completely forgot about the headshocks!
> Those are great XC racing forks as well.
> :thumbsup:


Hey Roger, what is your opinion of the Kilo compared to a Lefty or Headshox?

I ask because I was already thinking that my next bike would be a Cannondale (Taurine). I was starting to think that if you run discs, the new Lefty Speed Carbon SL is the fork to be riding.

Pros: High STW, very low unsprung mass, low stiction due to needle bearings, good looks (IMO), stiffness comparable to Headshox?

Cons:


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Pros: High STW, *very low unsprung mass, *low stiction due to needle bearings, good looks (IMO), stiffness comparable to Headshox?

Cons: [/QUOTE]

 Can someone explain what unsprung mass is and why this is a good thing in a shock?


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Slobberdoggy said:


> My Spinner feels surprisingly stiff considering my 194lbs - (dependent also on wheelset and skewers). Only in the quickest of corrections around dog turds can you really feel the flex. The The Spul works nicely - I'm running very low pressure and should continue to tune it BUT I'm only getting 58mm of travel! My Aeris seems to be a 60mm fork with a rock of a 20mm bumber  . It's not plush unless you go with a big big tire but it bobs very little even when I run lower psi's.
> 
> I'm a weight weenie - I have my Claviculas sitting on the desk next to me but I might go with a heavy Fox because I think it will make me faster. When stuff starts coming towards me fast I have to really concentrate with the Aeris fork.
> 
> Any comments on the RC39?


Slob, it's bad form to post your WW rig looking like it's actually ridden. The Scale cries for a bath.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I run bells on ALL my bikes... 20 some grams vs $100+ fine in these parts... 

Unsprung mass is just like it sounds, the mass not supported by the suspension springs. Everything that moves up and down as the suspension compresses, is considered unsprung mass. The lower the unsprung mass, the faster the suspension can respond to bumps. That's why motorcycles use inverted forks. The lowers are lighter than with regular forks and thus the overall unsprung mass (which includes the wheel and tire) is lower.


----------



## Duckman (Jan 12, 2004)

Naw man. That can't be a bell. Thats prolly some type of exotic lockout or something.

In an xc race last year, a rival came up behind me with one of those little electronic deals that makes a half dozen siren sounds. Can you imagine as your suffering up a climb..theres this police siren/fog horn/etc about 1 bike length back taunting you.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*back then...*



Mr. Scary said:


> I haven't raced MX in over ten years but back then to see one KTM here was surprising.
> I haven't ridden any of the new race four strokes either (unless an old XR qualifies and I highly doubt that). I'd be curious to ride one, do you feel the extra weight?


back then Katooms were still rated unreliable. they had awkward geometry and a typical euro-handling (now that was log and wouldn't turn, right?). i couldn't imagine that one day i would be all smiles when riding a KTM. the new 250 F is really a great bike. and it feels soo light! it handles easier than my CR125!! i could do sharpest turns and the front would just stick. the rear as well as there is almost no wheelspin with these bikes. as i already mentioned they seem much slower without that agressive hit in the powerband but you actually go forward instead of sliding sideways. they demand a different riding though. where i was attacking berms like a mad man on my 125 you can actually take the flat inside on these as well. there is a constant pull throughout the powerband whether down low or up in the revs. you can basically do whatever you want on these bikes. my friends 250 CRF felt much heavier in comparison. i never liked the Honda 250 thumper ( i was riding my friends 2005). it felt to slow and much heavier than my 125. the KTM is definitely faster and lighter. but i still would get a 125 if i had to get a new bike. just for the fun of riding in the attack style. i really miss the power on those thumpers. if it was to be a thumper it had to be a CRF 450 which is just the best bike out there. as smooth as it can be OR very fast and agressive with a tip on the clutch. that bike would allow you to run fast lap times even when you are hanging on the handlebars like a wet noodle...and it handles so nice. incredible. alomst like a 125 as well. by the way - the suspensions on those new bikes improved quite a bit. i was able to run the KTM plenty fast without adjusting a click near front or aft. it was a brandnew bike, i didn't even adjust the handlebar and controls...it felt just right.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

By my own measurements:

- My Fox F80 RLT is 445 mm long, but even with a bigger air chamber it needs serious abuse to reach full travel.
- My '02 Marathon (plushest fork yet) at 80 mm is a whopping 465 mm, same as a Fox F100.
- Rebas come in at about 455 around 80 mm.

Just to join the pissing match here: how much sag you're riding for the fork to feel 'right' will depend on the spring curve of the fork. I run my Marzo - which is set up very progressive - with 20 mm sag, while my Fox can do with only 15 mm. So the effective ride height is only 15 mm different, not 20 mm.

Secondly, a lot of frame manufacturers, particularly in North America, do design their frames around 455-465 mm forks, and we're not talking full sussers here. Take Kona and Voodoo as examples....

This said, the trend seems to be toward slacker head angles anyway. Both my HT and FS are slacker than originally designed (both have 70 degree head angles) and I can't say I can actually tell the difference over when they had shorter forks. It's something you adjust to very easily.

Regarding the build height of the German-A, if this is around 465 mm, it will slacken the head angle on frame built for a 445 mm fork (80 mm) by at most 1 degree. A slight adjustment of your seat angle and one less spacer under your stem will compensate for the raised front end, and I dare say you won't notice much of a difference.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

GermanA told me 470mm for the 80mm 26" fork.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> I run bells on ALL my bikes... 20 some grams vs $100+ fine in these parts...
> 
> Unsprung mass is just like it sounds, the mass not supported by the suspension springs. Everything that moves up and down as the suspension compresses, is considered unsprung mass. The lower the unsprung mass, the faster the suspension can respond to bumps. That's why motorcycles use inverted forks. The lowers are lighter than with regular forks and thus the overall unsprung mass (which includes the wheel and tire) is lower.


Yes, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

Axis II said:


> Slob, it's bad form to post your WW rig looking like it's actually ridden. The Scale cries for a bath.


I think it is kind of cool dirty - this was just before a big bath (also trying to give an idea of the travel on the fork if there are other Aeris riders out there). But, it's no fun to have a dirty bike when your about to add some new fancy part - that kind of hurts, especially after the mud has dried.

About the bell, I just wanted to say I don't taunt people when I come up behind them I just let my freewheel do that. I use the bell for tight single track corners where you cannot see other people coming the other direction.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Slobberdoggy said:


> I think it is kind of cool dirty - this was just before a big bath (also trying to give an idea of the travel on the fork if there are other Aeris riders out there). But, it's no fun to have a dirty bike when your about to add some new fancy part - that kind of hurts, especially after the mud has dried.
> 
> Just kidding. It looks like you get about two inches of travel by looking at the dirt! Get rid of that "bummer" valve!


----------



## doccoraje (Jan 12, 2004)

Slobberdoggy said:


> I (also trying to give an idea of the travel on the fork if there are other Aeris riders out there).)


You are lucky, I'm only getting 44 mm, I changed the oil to 5w and there was no change in travel. I sent Spinner an e-mail, let's see what they say.


----------



## Tag1 (Mar 17, 2006)

It got mentioned briefly, but any experience with this yet?

https://www.cannondale.com/suspension/07/









Quite appealing at 2.72 lbs!...


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

oh yeah! they work great!

If you own a cannondale
And only want discs
and want to use crossmax wheels


----------



## Tag1 (Mar 17, 2006)

bhsavery said:


> oh yeah! they work great!
> 
> If you own a cannondale
> And only want discs
> and want to use crossmax wheels


Sorry, I don't anything about the Lefty's...why would they only work with cannondales? Also why only crossmax wheels?


----------



## Terkel (Jul 17, 2005)

The Lefty designs use a 1.5 inch headtube against the XC norm of 1 1/8 inches. I think you misunderstood bhsavery when he said that stuff about only Crossmax because there are "plenty" of other front hub that one can use...


----------



## skifastchad (Mar 30, 2004)

bmadau said:


> Of how about this one:
> 
> Down this page:
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=218932
> ...


Marzocchi's website now says 2.53lbs.


----------



## Tag1 (Mar 17, 2006)

Terkel said:


> The Lefty designs use a 1.5 inch headtube against the XC norm of 1 1/8 inches.


Ahhhhhh...that would explain why I don't see them on too many other bikes besides Cdale...


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

and by plenty of other front hubs you mean what? 

Industry 9? 
Cannondale house brand? 
Are there any others? No so good for a WW


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*I have a bud...*



Tag1 said:


> It got mentioned briefly, but any experience with this yet?
> 
> https://www.cannondale.com/suspension/07/
> 
> ...


... Aosty in fact, that took one, reduced the travel with a spacer from 120mm to 100mm to use witha 29" front wheel, and using a custom made head tube thingy, installed it on his Niner hardtail 29" frame built as a singlespeed. Works great. Buttery smooth, fast to react to bumps. Stiff as heck.

He had it built up with a Mavic X819 (I think) rim as a custom build. He loves it. I rode it and it felt great for the bit I spun it around.

If you check around the 29er board, you can prolly find pix.

*edit*

Found some, Photo credit 1 and 2: Aosty Photo Credit #3, unknown


----------



## hollerbachMTB (Jul 17, 2005)

wow.. i guess there arent too many cannondale WW's around here.  

the headshock is called 1.5, but the headtube is actually like 1.55 or something, so it wont work on most headtubes. 

and as for crossmax only, horse manure. they can easily be built up WW respectable. plus, the lefty hub only weighs 130g. AND its like 60 bucks on ebay. i just built up a brand new set for my F800 with the old hub, 717s and DT SuperComps (Chris King Iso Rear hub) that beats crossmaxs which weigh about 1630 (??). plus the lefty is the bomb. 

and finally you could easily make a WW worthy wheelset for the lefty:

Stans ZTR 347g * 2
Lefty Hub 130
Extralite SPD Hub 199g
DT Alloy Nipples 25g
Sapim CXRays 278g

--1326g

GO Cannondales!


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

well I stand corrected on the lefty hub thing, buuuuuuttt you still need to have a cannondale. Minor issue. I've seen those conversion steerer tubes on ebay, but seems a bit sketchy. And as nino mentioned somewhere else here it probably would raise your front end something aweful

Either way doesnt seem that good an option unless you already have a cannondale.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Cannondales were the only framemaker that was ready to accept Manitou's 1.5 steerer size when it was first proposed because for a Cannondale, it just meant a different headset cup size.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

bhsavery said:


> well I stand corrected on the lefty hub thing, buuuuuuttt you still need to have a cannondale. Minor issue. I've seen those conversion steerer tubes on ebay, but seems a bit sketchy. And as nino mentioned somewhere else here it probably would raise your front end something aweful
> 
> Either way doesnt seem that good an option unless you already have a cannondale.


Don't want to endorse a Lefty, but I've seen mods to run 'em on Titus (Seen this one in person), on a Turner, and a Ventana. So they're out there, if only a few.

JmZ


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Not really...*



bhsavery said:


> well I stand corrected on the lefty hub thing, buuuuuuttt you still need to have a cannondale. Minor issue. I've seen those conversion steerer tubes on ebay, but seems a bit sketchy. And as nino mentioned somewhere else here it probably would raise your front end something aweful
> 
> Either way doesnt seem that good an option unless you already have a cannondale.


Anybody who knows Al, knows he breaks stuff, including himself. He's not a heavy guy, he's just so frickin fast and rides a lot... a lotta lot..

He has not broken any of his Lefty rig.

Terminaut even had one on his Turner RFX and hucks it.




























Dig this:

https://www.tampham.com/videos/suspension.wmv

Original thread Linked here:

https://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=104828

It's really a pretty simple conversion. It's just a machined alu shaft in place of the bigger Cdale shaft. Heck, the steerer tube of my Reba is prolly a lot thinner than the conversion tube.


----------



## totally_fixxated (Aug 24, 2005)

*321*



bhsavery said:


> I've seen those conversion steerer tubes on ebay, but seems a bit sketchy.


Not sketchy if you use these!
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=1489896&postcount=6
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=1799145&postcount=21

And lefty hubs.
http://www.woodmancomponents.com/catalog/categorie.php?cat=hub&lang=en&art=hub3


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

thats fine and all with the conversion too but there's a couple problems:

A. Voids any kind of warrantee.
B. As I understand it that superlight lefty that the original poster posted has an integrated steerer that is not replacable, even if you could find one. Therefore the mods wouldnt work.


----------



## totally_fixxated (Aug 24, 2005)

*a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day*

Warranty!  http://www.cannondale.com/policies/bike_warr_policy2.html 

Integrated clamps, not the steering tube!


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Its not integrated...*



bhsavery said:


> thats fine and all with the conversion too but there's a couple problems:
> 
> A. Voids any kind of warrantee.
> B. As I understand it that superlight lefty that the original poster posted has an integrated steerer that is not replacable, even if you could find one. Therefore the mods wouldnt work.


A: Waaaaaaah! You buy one used, you prolly have no warranty anyway.

B: Look at the pic. Its held in with clamps. The only part that is different is the steerer tube.

C: Yeah, buying one new, they're stupid expensive, and they are full of watch-like parts, so its a PITA to work on apart from simple oil changes. I sat on my bud's garage couch, drank beer and watched him do an oil change on one, an that wasn't too bad. IMO, its too expensive for me to experiment with as a new shock, but if I find one used in decent shape for cheap, I may try it.

Basically, you're saying it won't work and such, and I'm telling you, its solid and works great.


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

skifastchad said:


> Marzocchi's website now says 2.53lbs.


I've read that Corsa has two versions: 80mm & 100mm... Might be the shorter travel, what you think? So, the 3.1 lbs would be the 100mm travel.

Keep me posted then... Please..?

TIA!


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Marzocchi has often listed fork weights WITHOUT the steerer tube... and at a time when they were replaceble that was fine, but since they're press-fit now, its not really a reasonable way to do things.


----------



## WAZCO (Apr 5, 2004)

Roger G said:


> *BULL-****!*
> Nino keeps repeating this myth over and over without ever testing it. :nono:
> He really seems to hate this manufacturer because they don't give him special
> prices or something like that.
> ...


Hey Roger,
I'm getting back into Mtn biking after 4 year layoff. I've been in roadie business in Colorado and can't seem to get back on the trail. I'm training for Leadville 100 next year. 100 miles trail ride at 10,000 feet elevations. My goal is get 9hours. The record is 7hours and 5 minutes. I need a new fork and Kilo is one fork I'm considering. What's the weight and also is it available in the US? Where can I buy online? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

you can buy from starbike (see my footnotes below).

They are in Germany (the online shop) and have handled replacement parts for me and corrected packing errors no questions asked but shipping from Germany seems to take longer then anywhere else - two weeks or so.


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

JmZ said:


> Don't want to endorse a Lefty, but I've seen mods to run 'em on Titus (Seen this one in person), on a Turner, and a Ventana. So they're out there, if only a few.
> 
> JmZ


Me either. Have seen one on a Giant NRS if I'm not commiting any grave mistake though.


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

Stuart B said:


> I think the non c type is about *1400g*. my rc41 130mm is 1600g.
> 
> My rc41 is stiff.I don't see why the 39 would be significantly flexier if it is at all.
> 
> ...


Hi, Stuart.

Am still on the look out for a lighter but reliable fork (not as flexy as Sid) for my WW project. Actually, I have been eyeing on the C-Type but for reasons that it might not hold up well b'cuz of its 28.6mm stanchions. But I'm no clydesdale just weighing 'round 158-160lbs the most(w/ trail gear & stuff) & I'm not into aggro. Just XC & light trail riding. Neither do I jump.  Hope that gives you a picture. I mean would it fit my applications.

Anyhow, I'd just like to verify the 39XC is just 1400g w/ 265mm steerer tube. As in real weight..?

TIA! :thumbsup:

Ride inspi®ed!


----------



## 20.100 FR (Jan 13, 2004)

I have a Look/Fournales fork.

I can tell you that this fork is very rigid. Were it really shine / telescopic fork is in torsionnal rigidity. (i have a reba as a comparison).

With this fork, you can really make a very late hard brake inside a guy, very nice 

Axis : the fournales is not designed to prevent dive induced brake (same as the german A). You have to look at the USE fork for this Feature


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

20.100 FR said:


> I have a Look/Fournales fork.
> 
> I can tell you that this fork is very rigid. Were it really shine / telescopic fork is in torsionnal rigidity. (i have a reba as a comparison).
> 
> ...


Thanks for some real life info. on the Fornales. BTW, have you done any tuning on yours? If so, got any ideas on where I can find M8 x 1.0 Al nuts for the linkages? Also, where can I find some Ti or Al M6 canti posts? This is a very odd size. Most are M8 up front and M10 in back. I'm still waiting for the frame to arrive to mount this fork so I'm working on it now. Can't wait to get it up and running.


----------



## debock.robby (Jan 20, 2008)

I'm sorry to refresh this topic but I can't find any info on other fora..

The guys whose are very pleased with their German-a, how often is maintenance required? I read some people did not need to do anything in two years, others tell me the damper gets broken every now and then. 
For 2008 the bildingheight would even decrease I read and there will also be a lighter damper offered.

Thanx in advance !


----------



## flupke73 (Feb 10, 2007)

just bought a (secondhand) 2007 alu KILO
it just got a full rebuild (says the seller )
i'll weigh it, mesure it and mesure the effect on the bike

had to order the Vbrake-adaptors,
hope they arrive this month 

will judge it on my trails
with sufficient km's
and if it's fine: I'm thinking of ordering the carbon KILO
for a new real Ti WW-bike


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

Jesus christ! this is some ridiculous thread-necromancing!


----------



## flupke73 (Feb 10, 2007)

alu version
build-in height: 47cm
weight without lock-out, disc-only: 1kg315

lifts the front of the bike with 1cm (compared to '99 Sid XC)
lifts the bracket with 0,5cm
_would this change the attitude of the bike???_


----------

