Pages: 1 [2] 
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: 2009/10 Fox 180mm single?? (Read 1307 times)
|
|
|
Lucky
Full Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 164
Look At Me, I'm Sam Hill
|
That's hardly a fair statment. I for one hardly read MBUK. But my bike, along with many others are designed around long travel single crown forks.
And for the statment regarding are they hitting jump's pulling fully clicked X-up's and Tail Whips? Sure they might not be, but neither are rider's who equip BoXXer's or 888's or 40's racing Dh tracks that need such a fork? And i highly doubt any of those users are fully using their forks to their advantage.
Biking is all about Marketing, as with anything. Good for you if your old enough to realise that, but don't feel you have the right to go and tell younger riders what they do and don't need. And if you read MBUK. You'de find that although yes, they do rate some 180mm forks highly. They often proclaim for the weight, 20mm travel increase. It isn't justifiable. Go with 160mm forks.
But personally, i bought my Commencal Furious as i read the reviews. Liked Commencal, didn't want to have to ride with dual crown forks, but wanted to try 8inches of travel. Not because i felt like i needed to equip my knackered HalFORDS bike with the longest pogo sticks i could. If i felt the need for that, i'de have gone with Some 10/12" stupid forks and got my self a Tank Zeus. And half of the 8" Single crown bikes out their, when set up correctly. Pedal and feel as if there is alot less, that is untill you hit the rough stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"it's true, wish hard enough and you can have anything, look at me. I'm a drunken Santa with my lovely lady elves"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
garethfriend
Senior
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
SHU Cycling
|
There are plenty of good reasons to have a 180mm SC. For a start theres the geometry issue, Ive got an SX trail and I found that 160mm on the front wasn't quite right, the bb was too low and the head angle too steep, I put a totem on it and its absolutely perfect now IMO. Then theres the weight issue, they are USUALLY lighter overall than DC forks but with similar performance. In addition to this for me its about weight distribution also; my mate has an SX trail with 40's, same year, same size frame, same spec. He ran them at 180mm travel so the geometry was the same and I was priveliged enough to ride them back to back. What I noticed was that because with a SC fork all the mass is relatively low down the bike it feels a little less top heavy and a little handles a little better. Argue all you want, I noticed a tangible difference and can directly attribute that to the fork. Ok not everyone who owns a long travel SC fork is gonna do x-ups but then again you can if you want, is that a bad thing? I will admit that fox has better reliability and the roughly the same performance to RS but in my situation the 36 would not have been long enough and the 40 would have voided my warranty. I think that if Fox made a 180mm SC I would choose that over both the totem and the 40 for my particular bike, but they don't so I cant  bring it on for 09/10. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mxlemming
Junior
Offline
Posts: 56
|
25mm, or one inch, added to a fork with an axle to crown length of 550mm (is that typical, I haven't looked it up, but since it's in the denominator it makes little difference...) gives a percentage length change:
25/550*100 = 4.55%.
This means a moment increase of.... 4.55%, plus whatever stupid big stunts that extra inch makes you do...... It isn't likely to cause it to snap, if the structure (tubes, crown etc) remains the same
Deflection is proportional to the third power of length for a given beam stiffness, thus for a 4.55% increase in length, deflection increases by
(1.0455)^3 = 1.143, or a 14.3% increase in flexure, or
1/1.143 = 0.8752, a 12.5% decrease in stiffness.
That's a pretty rough calculation, not even meritting the 3sf I quoted, it's not FEA tailored to a specific fork, and I haven't even looked up the length of a Fox 36, since it doesn't really matter. It also assumes the head angle doesn't change, i.e. you are using it on an appropriate frame. It does suggest it wouldn't be hard to beef it up a bit to make it strong enough though.
Another point, when manufacturers only say the frame is suitable/warrantable for a certain length of fork, this SHOULD be acknowledged, since the effect is multifold - longer=more leverage and slackens the head angle, which increases moment on the head tube quite a lot.
Been revising your A Level maths recently??  The fact is, travel lengths on single crowns are getting longer and Fox is getting overtaken (IMO) by Marzocchi and Rockshox in terms of travel and performance. I just wondered if anyone had heard if there was anything in the pipeline as Fox are generally very good at setting market trends rather than following them. Thanks for the "information" though! "Revising" second year cambridge Engineering actually..... pretty trivial stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Looking for: xc frame, light xc wheels, offers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
calla_tha_one
Freeborn Bikes / Esher Shore / Mythic Bikes
MTB Company
God Like!
Offline
Posts: 1723
|
I have just spent the past week riding an Ellsworth Moment with a set of 2009 Fox 36 Talas RC2 forks on there and have come away with a big grin  the forks felt very very good, even on the 100mm setting being steered through the dirt jump trails with some big 'ol double jumps I would say without a doubt they felt less flexible than my Lyrics, especially at full 160mm extension, and the fork action was very supple yet controlled I have owned Totem Coil, Totem Solo Air, Lyric 2-step and Domain 318 U-Turn in the past 2 seasons I have found the smaller 160mm SC forks to be 90% as capable as the bigger 180mm SC forks for my riding, and a much better choice for the UK as they make the bike feel way more nimble and with adjustable travel much more versatile for downhill, freeride, dirt jump, trail riding, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
