Am I the only one who wants a fork that adjusts from 150-170 easily?

artnshel · Apr 25, 2006

I'm looking for a new AM frame and fork. I'm thinking of an Intense 6.6 and I want a fork that adjusts easily and is fully rideable in both settings. I'd like a 150mm setting for better steering on single track and good climbing. I'd like the 170mm setting for longer steep descents so I have a more slack head angle and my bars higher. I know the 36 Talus adjusts but it seems to only go to 150 and I hear they keep losing travel from there, maybe they'll fix the loss of travel for next year. The Marz 66SL sort of fits the bill but you have to adjust the air pressure to make the travel change. I want a simple lever to throw not a dial to turn lots of times. Someone will mention the double crown Boxxer ride but it seems like overkill at over 7lbs. Next years RS lyrik sounds promising but I want the shorter setting to be rideable, not just for climbing and that was how I interpreted their set up.

Am I the only one, it seems like the ideal AM fork for 6" travel frames.

kapusta · Apr 25, 2006

artnshel said:
I'm looking for a new AM frame and fork. I'm thinking of an Intense 6.6 and I want a fork that adjusts easily and is fully rideable in both settings. I'd like a 150mm setting for better steering on single track and good climbing. I'd like the 170mm setting for longer steep descents so I have a more slack head angle and my bars higher. I know the 36 Talus adjusts but it seems to only go to 150 and I hear they keep losing travel from there, maybe they'll fix the loss of travel for next year. The Marz 66SL sort of fits the bill but you have to adjust the air pressure to make the travel change. I want a simple lever to throw not a dial to turn lots of times. Someone will mention the double crown Boxxer ride but it seems like overkill at over 7lbs. Next years RS lyrik sounds promising but I want the shorter setting to be rideable, not just for climbing and that was how I interpreted their set up.

Am I the only one, it seems like the ideal AM fork for 6" travel frames.

I think that if you are really needing 170mm on the way down, than a 7+ lb fork is about right.

Of course, I might not be the best one to ask. I can't see ever needing or wanting over 150mm on an all mountian rig that I have to grind up a hill. Heck, I've yet to run into a situation that my Pike at 140mm did not seem more than enough for. Anything bigger and I'd want a FR bike anyway.

But I am sure a 150-170mm single crown fork with a TALAS or U-Turn adjest will come around as peopl are wanting more and more and more and more travel.

gonzostrike · Apr 25, 2006

kapusta said:
I think that if you are really needing 170mm on the way down, than a 7+ lb fork is about right.

Of course, I might not be the best one to ask. I can't see ever needing or wanting over 150mm on an all mountian rig that I have to grind up a hill. Heck, I've yet to run into a situation that my Pike at 140mm did not seem more than enough for. Anything bigger and I'd want a FR bike anyway.

But I am sure a 150-170mm single crown fork with a TALAS or U-Turn adjest will come around as peopl are wanting more and more and more and more travel.

exactly.

it was only a matter of time before people started making tank-a$$ "all mountain" bikes in an attempt to "out-burl" each other.

"hey look at me, I have a $5000 all-mountain 7"/7" travel bike!"

Mark Weir is about the only person who could really make such a huge bike a real "all mountain" contender.

SSINGA · Apr 25, 2006

artnshel said:
I'm looking for a new AM frame and fork. I'm thinking of an Intense 6.6 and I want a fork that adjusts easily and is fully rideable in both settings. I'd like a 150mm setting for better steering on single track and good climbing. I'd like the 170mm setting for longer steep descents so I have a more slack head angle and my bars higher. I know the 36 Talus adjusts but it seems to only go to 150 and I hear they keep losing travel from there, maybe they'll fix the loss of travel for next year. The Marz 66SL sort of fits the bill but you have to adjust the air pressure to make the travel change. I want a simple lever to throw not a dial to turn lots of times. Someone will mention the double crown Boxxer ride but it seems like overkill at over 7lbs. Next years RS lyrik sounds promising but I want the shorter setting to be rideable, not just for climbing and that was how I interpreted their set up.

Am I the only one, it seems like the ideal AM fork for 6" travel frames.

FWIW...my friend had a 6.6 and due to it's steep head-angle he found that it pedaled fine with the 66SL in the 170mm setting.

artnshel · Apr 25, 2006

A big part of my situation is that I want my bars higher for steep descents but that set up doesn't weight the front end enough for the flats. I want the fork travel to make the bar height adjustment for specific situations. Perhaps I should invent an inverted 'gravity dropper' stem. Unfortunately Alsop and some other inventions I can't quite name from the past come to mind and scare me off. I just remembered there is a Syntace adjustable stem but I'm not quite confident in that plan.

Ssinga,

I think the 6.6 has a 68.5 HA, only .5 steeper than an RFX, but it's good to hear that it works well with an 66SL at 170mm

gonzostrike · Apr 25, 2006

artnshel said:
A big part of my situation is that I want my bars higher for steep descents but that set up doesn't weight the front end enough for the flats. I want the fork travel to make the bar height adjustment for specific situations. Perhaps I should invent an inverted 'gravity dropper' stem. Unfortunately Alsop and some other inventions I can't quite name from the past come to mind and scare me off. I just remembered there is a Syntace adjustable stem but I'm not quite confident in that plan.

Ssinga,

I think the 6.6 has a 68.5 HA, only .5 steeper than an RFX, but it's good to hear that it works well with an 66SL at 170mm

you don't need higher bars.

you need to get your weight back farther when you descend.

you are just imagining that the 7" fork will make your life better. I am willing to bet you a sixer of Anchor Liberty Ale that if you put a 7" travel fork on your bike, you will pretty much cease all climbing of any serious nature.

scrublover · Apr 25, 2006

gonzostrike said:
that if you put a 7" travel fork on your bike, you will pretty much cease all climbing of any serious nature.

i agree with the higher bars thing (go for a shorter stem, or try rotating your bars back a bit maybe, or just get your butt behind the seat more on descents), but the 7" fork and climbing? depends on the rider.

i do a lot of rides with long climbing on them with my 7" fork, and know quite a few others who do the same. yeah, i can drop the travel down, but about the only time i do is on long non-technical climbs. for the techy one, i prefer, and am used to having the slacker/longer front, and find i climb better that way, then having it steeper.

it's all in what you get used to. YMMV.

all that said, to artnshel: i love the boxxer ride i've got now, but if the lyric comes in at a lesser weight that would be noticable (no idea yet) at a price i can afford, i'd probably swap for it. only 8mm less travel than i have now. i really doubt i'd notice that minimal difference. granted, the fork is probalby going to be hideously expensive, meaning i'll wait a year or so and just stick with the boxxer.

gonzostrike · Apr 25, 2006

uh, a Boxxer Ride isn't a 7" fork when you are going uphill is it?

I didn't say that NOBODY can ride 7" forks up hills.

my point is that if you are chasing an image of a burly trail bike rider on a burly trail bike, but haven't spent any time actually XC riding on a big burly 7" fork (no ETA, no travel reduction) then it's likely you're going to have a rude awakening when you take your 7" rear travel "all mountain" bike on a few trail rides.

yes, I know that people ride trails on DH bikes. for the most part those people are in phenomenal shape (World Cup DH racers) or people who intend to ride the trail very slowly with lots of walking/pushing on the uphills.

just trying to warn the asking poster about the problems he may have, that's all. not trying to define a standard or anything.

scrublover said:
i agree with the higher bars thing (go for a shorter stem, or try rotating your bars back a bit maybe, or just get your butt behind the seat more on descents), but the 7" fork and climbing? depends on the rider.

i do a lot of rides with long climbing on them with my 7" fork, and know quite a few others who do the same. yeah, i can drop the travel down, but about the only time i do is on long non-technical climbs. for the techy one, i prefer, and am used to having the slacker/longer front, and find i climb better that way, then having it steeper.

it's all in what you get used to. YMMV.

all that said, to artnshel: i love the boxxer ride i've got now, but if the lyric comes in at a lesser weight that would be noticable (no idea yet) at a price i can afford, i'd probably swap for it. only 8mm less travel than i have now. i really doubt i'd notice that minimal difference. granted, the fork is probalby going to be hideously expensive, meaning i'll wait a year or so and just stick with the boxxer.

scrublover · Apr 25, 2006

gonzostrike said:
uh, a Boxxer Ride isn't a 7" fork when you are going uphill is it?

umm, well, it is when you don't use the travel dropping function. which was my point. most of the time i don't and it works for me. i pretty much resign myself to not climbing fast on it. it climbs well, and i can get it up pretty much everything i can get my hardtail up (so far), it just takes me a little longer......

i'm getting your point as well; just thought you were using too broad a brush to paint the picture.

no worries either way.

matthew · Apr 25, 2006

artnshel said:
I'm looking for a new AM frame and fork. I'm thinking of an Intense 6.6 and I want a fork that adjusts easily and is fully rideable in both settings.

I ended up putting a fox 36 VAN on my 6.6 with a flush head set to steepen it up a bit.
Its not adjustable but its climbs pretty damm well. I'm not going to win any XC races at 33lbs but all I'm looking to do is get to the top any way. I regularly climb mt Lowe on this bike which is a 3000 foot climb over 8 miles and I'm not missing the travel adjustability I had on my old ride.
As for descending I'm stoked on the ride although I wouldnt go as big on this bike as my demo 9. The marz 66 would give you a 170 mm travel bike with ETA and the MAN Travis has 170mm travel with the same A-C as the fox.
I found that a shorter stem and better body english helped with the climbing and diablos DH bars (wider and stiffer) and cranks stiffened the bike up and gave me the confident feeling that longer travel forks do. ( Ive ridden a friends 6.6 with van 36 and xtr cranks, narrow carbon bars and it didnt feel any where near as solid or stable- at 30 lbs)
My point is that the travel adjustment would be a solution but with the right components and body possition you can get an AM bike that feels like a light DH bike on descents but climbs like a heavy XC bike.
I personly wanted more weight and stability, I've never hurt myself climbing!.... apart from the mental scarring of now bringing up the rear.
just ny 2 cents, youre going to love the 6.6

artnshel · Apr 25, 2006

gonzostrike said:
you don't need higher bars.

you need to get your weight back farther when you descend.

you are just imagining that the 7" fork will make your life better. I am willing to bet you a sixer of Anchor Liberty Ale that if you put a 7" travel fork on your bike, you will pretty much cease all climbing of any serious nature.

You guys are all good. Started this by saying I wanted to be able to adjust travel on the fly because I know I don't want to climb with a 170mm fork. That said I can climb most things I try with 150. My climbing skills are ok, it's feeling confident on steep descents where I'd like to be more comfortable.

I think the weight back suggestion is probably spot on as well.

artnshel · Apr 25, 2006

matthew said:
artnshel said:

I'm looking for a new AM frame and fork. I'm thinking of an Intense 6.6 and I want a fork that adjusts easily and is fully rideable in both settings.

I ended up putting a fox 36 VAN on my 6.6 with a flush head set to steepen it up a bit.
Its not adjustable but its climbs pretty damm well. I'm not going to win any XC races at 33lbs but all I'm looking to do is get to the top any way. I regularly climb mt Lowe on this bike which is a 3000 foot climb over 8 miles and I'm not missing the travel adjustability I had on my old ride.
As for descending I'm stoked on the ride although I wouldnt go as big on this bike as my demo 9. The marz 66 would give you a 170 mm travel bike with lock out and the travel has 170mm travel with the same A-C as the fox.
I found that a shorter stem and better body english helped with the climbing and diablos DH bars and cranks stiffened the bike up and gave me the confident feeling that longer travel forks do. ( Ive ridden a friends 6.6 with van 36 and xr cranks, narrow carbon bars and it didnt feel any where near as solid or stable- at 30 lbs)
My point is that the travel adjustment would be a solution but with the right components and body possition you can get an AM bike that feels like a light DH bike on descents but climbs like a heavy XC bike. I personly wanted more weight and stability, I've never hurt myself climbing! apart from the mental scarring of now bringing up the rear.

Click to expand...

That is helpful info about your 6.6 set up. I am currently running a 50mm stem and 27" wide Easton EA70 bars so I think I've got that part set reasonably. While I'm only 6' , I have long legs so I think I'm a little positionaly challenged.

Did you have your 6.6 set up differently previously and not like it as much?

matthew · Apr 25, 2006

Did you have your 6.6 set up differently previously and not like it as much?[/QUOTE]

I had an Ellswth ID with a 29lbs cross country build with large tires,Easton carbon XC bars, longer top tube, longer stem, XTR cranks.
Wtih the 6.6 I went with wider /heavier/stiffer feeling bars, heavier, stiffer cranksw/ bash guard and beefier whell set.

RESULT, 4 pounds heavier, through axle front - much stiffer, two inches shorter cock pit ( seems to help me body english climbing and descending) , taller bars by about 1+ inch and slightly larger tires- 2.4 to 2.5 front, 2.35 to 2.4 rear with much more clearance.
The 6.6 rides like a light version of my dem0 9 while the ID climbed well but gave me significanly less confidence descending, even with the marz AM1 (which was a huge improvement over the talus)
the ID rode lighter- felt like I was bouncing around and skimmed / felt light through corners. Always felt like I was right on the edge of losing it, I had to steer more with my ands verses leaning the bike through stuff

I rode a friends 6.6 briefly and he had it set up much like my ID and it weighed in just under 30lbs. It didnt feel any where near as solid even though he also has the fox 36 van and cross max wheel set. I figured the wider stiffer bars and cranks make a huge difference. Well worth the extra weight IMHO.

airwreck · Apr 25, 2006

gonz, we got to hook up for a ride sometime, it would be cool to get Weir along too (he doesn't answer my emails though

)

.

Anyway, I don't think on the fly adjustable travel for "big" forks is going to be happening any time soon since adding that feature would likely compromise the strength and integrity of a fork that is intended to take serious abuse. Take a close look at the mechanisms that are currently in use for on the fly adjustment and consider the possible failure points, and think about being the test pilot...

scrublover · Apr 25, 2006

airwreck said:
gonz, we got to hook up for a ride sometime, it would be cool to get Weir along too (he doesn't answer my emails though ) .

Anyway, I don't think on the fly adjustable travel for "big" forks is going to be happening any time soon since adding that feature would likely compromise the strength and integrity of a fork that is intended to take serious abuse. Take a close look at the mechanisms that are currently in use for on the fly adjustment and consider the possible failure points, and think about being the test pilot...

Depends on how the company does it I suppose. The U-turn on my Pike and Boxxer forks is pretty stupid simple to use, and when I've had the spring stack out looking at the mechanism, it's stupid simple in execution too. I can't figure any easy way that it's going to break.

The downside to that simplicity is that while it is useable "on the fly" it also isn't isntantaneous. Takes 6 full turns to raise or drop travel all the way. Not bad, but it results in me only using it for longer/lungbuster/non-technical climbs. Fine by me, since that is pretty much what I wanted out of it.

misctwo · Feb 10, 2007

RS's u-turn feature is pretty killer. now that Marz' ATA is out you can finally get the travel change you need!

Radical_53 · Feb 10, 2007

The newer 36 Talas should normally be fine. 160mm full travel, first lower adjustment is 130mm I think. I guess 20mm less doesn't make too much of a difference when climbing, at least not in a negative way. Also, the newer Talas 2 system should not loose travel like the 06 Talas did.

Am I the only one who wants a fork that adjusts from 150-170 easily?

artnshel

kapusta

gonzostrike

SSINGA

artnshel

gonzostrike

scrublover

gonzostrike

scrublover

matthew

Attachments

artnshel

artnshel

matthew

Attachments

airwreck

scrublover

misctwo

Radical_53

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities