[Reformed4Life]

Like many have posted before, it's paid for and familiar. It does look a little odd when viewed from the side on my xl frame compared to newer bikes with bigger wheels and slacker head angles. I love that look though.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

 

[richj8990]

The only issues with coil compared to air is weight and less adjustability. You may need to purchase different springs to match your weight, and even then you might not get it as dialed as an air spring. Coil forks have less seals, so they are usually a bit more plush and require less maintenance. If an air fork and coil fork have the same damping and rebound cartridges (or whatever system), there isn't a universal "better". I'd much prefer a coil with a better compression circuit than an air with a more basic circuit. I usually don't mind an extra couple hundred grams if it works better or costs significantly less.

I think I need to reiterate what I'm trying to do. I have two bikes, one has a 100mm coil that I'm actually happy with. Again no jumps no boulders, just basic XC stuff. The other has an 80mm coil that, as I've upgraded other stuff on the bike, mechanical disks to hydraulics, thin front tire to thicker front tire, the fork seems increasingly the black sheep in the family of components on the bike. It went from 'one of the problems of a cheap bike' to the main problem. Not that the freewheel-based drivetrain and derailleurs are not annoying to constantly tune, but that's a different issue than simply replacing a fork.

I've learned a lot on this site in the last 4 months, and I appreciate all of the good feedback, but my #1 pet peeve is that there is not a dedicated stand-alone XC webpage on here. Not an XC racing/enduro webpage, but a page where all bikers with 60-100mm (maybe 120mm) forks can talk about stuff like this, and other issues with XC bikes like gearing, what trails their bikes can and cannot handle, etc. And real, technical XC discussion in the beginners corner is very chaotic and contentious, everyone claiming to know more than the other poster. It can be a minefield in there.

The 100mm Suntour coil fork has a bad reputation on here, but is that because it's a horrible fork, period, or it it because it would not do well on all-mountain or downhill stuff? If the person doing the critical review of the 100mm Suntour coil rides 130mm+ forks, then yes, Suntour I guess is inferior for what THEY are doing with their bike. But look at the reviews on Amazon for this fork:

https://www.amazon.com/SR-SUNTOUR-M...ation&ie=UTF8&qid=1501957187&sr=1-2&keywords=80mm+mountain+bike+fork&th=1&psc=1

22 reviews, 4.5 out of 5 stars, lowest rating was 3/5 stars from only 2 of the 22 reviewers. Obviously those 22 reviews didn't come from people on MTBR!!!

However, with some fortuitous digging I found two 100mm AIR (keyword: air) forks for a 26":
SR Suntour Epixon XC MTB Fork 26", Travel 100mm, with Remote Lockout (not include the cable housings), Air Spring, QR 9mm, White OEM Package $178

Manitou M-THIRTY M30 Mountain Bike Bicycle Cycling Fork 26" Lockout 100mm 9mmQR $199

(I don't trust RST and GUB products so they don't count for the 100mm 26" air fork search).

Now, back to what I'm trying to do: ride rocky trails on a hardtail, not fast, not too steep, and have a relatively smooth ride doing it. Again, no jumps, no boulders, nothing even more than an 8-inch drop. So, in your opinion(s) do I even need an air fork or can I live with a coil forever? For replacing the 80 mm fork, I would almost for sure go with 100mm just because, but the question is coil or air. I've heard the ride is smoother, I've also heard the ride is firmer! I've never had an air fork on a bike so it's natural to wonder about how it would be different.

Maybe I'm on too many tangents with the reply so to be 100% to the point: will a 100mm (or even 120mm) air fork significantly help smooth out rocky trails or not? If so, then I do both air fork upgrades on both bikes. If not, then I keep the 27.5" 100mm coil stock, and upgrade the 26" to a 100mm coil for only $70 (same Suntour XCT coil as the 27.5" just a 26" fork). Thanks for your help.

 

[mik_git]

the thing is your questions are not comign from the right direction...eg:

"will a 100mm (or even 120mm) air fork significantly help smooth out rocky trails or not?"

No...yes...maybe. it all depends...
If you said, will spending around $1000 on ANY fork be better... hells yes
Ifyou said, if I spend 50cents on THE EXACT SAME fork, willit be better...yes, for about 5 minutes, then will be the same
If you said, my fork is toast, I NEED TO REPLACE IT with something that will work, then sure buying a sunour or rst or whatever, will be perfectly fine

But... you want to IMPROVE, that the key thing, you arnt wanting similar performance, you are wanting better, measurable better performance. And at the stuff you're looking at, that's not really going to happen. Air or coil isn't really the issue, they both work (how well depends on how much you're willing to spend).
It's more about what the fork IS, than how much travel or whether its air or coil.
As with everything mtb there is the law of diminishing returns, there gets to a point where spending more doesn't get you mcuh better, but sending less dosn't get you as good, and spending way less just gets you junk...you're in the spending way less area

eg this will be so, so, sooooooooooooo much better than a 120mm suntour
https://www.ebay.com/p/RockShox-Reb...Solo-Air-100mm-Black-Straight-Fork/1728644507?iid=331302651579&var=540493375879

you better off finding new old stock, good forks, than new low end forks.

 

[rockhopper97]

most of my riding right now is commuting as I dont have a working car at the moment and no $$ to fix it.....right now I have both of my bikes set up as commuter bikes

my winter commuter is the 97 rockhopper posted earlier in this thead.....
SS,beach cruiser tires( for now, I have a set of knobbies as backup) and its put together with mostly used parts, the manitou pro x cartridge fork seized up... I took it apart and it was done, all rusted inside from the time it spent outside before I got it in very rough condition... recently put a rigid fork on it, gave it a rustolem key lime paint job.... just need to put fenders on it

my main bike is a 2013 GT aggressor I got for free from an older relative after he got knocked of the bike by a car, it did need new handlebars a front derailleur cable.... tires are 26x2.3 Kenda K-RAD front and rear.... they are rated up to 80 psi, but I run about 60 psi... nice rolling tires for urban use... were put on right before the crash... dont really care for the fork....its the bottom of the line SR Suntour fork.... what some would call a pogo stick..lol....

 

[Mr Pig]

My question is, would they be going back to 26'' if it was still offered?

LINK

 

[richj8990]

My question is, would they be going back to 26'' if it was still offered?

LINK

Not that I know what a pro is thinking, but I liken this to (modified) auto racing or stock auto track racing. Those racing groups have to stay in certain groups with certain parameters. Technology has of course advanced a lot in sports/race cars as well, and many pro drivers complain that the sports/race car is sterile now, no manual transmission anymore at that level, a bunch of electronic nannies, traction control, stability control, etc. The pros love to turn those off so they have more control over the car instead of the computer system. Maybe it's the same with 29" vs. 27.5". 29" is technically superior, but the soul and fun of biking may be lost a bit. Just like a smaller sports car may be just as fun or more than a V-12 GT that's larger and weighs 500 lbs more. And the smaller car may be just as fast and more nimble (Lamborghini Huracan V-10 vs. Aventador V-12). But for 26", maybe that's pushing it. A Mazda Miata may be fun to drive but it's not going to win races against a Porsche Cayman or BMW M2, those (relatively) larger sports cars would be the equivalent of a 27.5" bike: large enough to have 18-20 inch wheels and thus handle almost anything, but small enough to still be nimble. Dark horse: Audi TTRS. Those are the three sports cars I'd like no matter how much money I ever make or 'get' in the future. I don't need a Ferrari (or a 29" bike). Just a fun bike and a fun sports car.

 

[Jack Burns]

Can the old saying in the automotive world, "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow." be applied here?

If, and it's a big if, one means that a 26" mountain bike wheel is slower, the yeah, maybe.

I'm saying, it depends.

How about this quote:

""Driving a slow car fast is more fun than driving a fast car slow,"; it's a tired old saw, but not without merit. I'd change it to, "driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast." Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess."

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/the-unimportance-of-speed/

The point being made is subjective. Fine. The realm of personal preference is not imaginary. It is not exactly scientifically quantifiable, yet it can be analyzed methodically if we liked. We could map it out using a topological analog to parsing a linguistic form.

Instead we usually resort to poetry and swear words.

26" is a form with limitations, similar to something like engine displacement. 26" is now almost like a vintage class, or classical form.

It's also like a musical form in terms of composition and performance.

What kind of music do you want to make?

As for myself, sometimes I want to just sit down at the piano and play; other times I want to get all electronic.

Most times, the 26" SS bikes are the ones I choose to ride on the local trails.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[mik_git]

large enough to have 18-20 inch wheels and thus handle almost anything, but small enough to still be nimble.

What does that even mean?

 

[richj8990]

What does that even mean?

This is REALLY getting off topic, maybe it needs to go over to off-camber.

As in the mountain bike world, there is also some controversy in the automobile world about tire sizes. There are some interesting parallels. Small auto tire size (actually wheel size), say 15 inches = quick acceleration, slightly better gas mileage. Larger, wider tires with low-profile rims = better handling, higher top speed. However, there is a limit to this. Car and Driver did a study with a Volkswagen Golf, putting 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 inch tires on the car. They then hooked up computer equipment and analyzed handling. The stock wheel size I think was 17 inches. The optimal handling was at 18 inches, not 19 or 20 inches. Now, to compare this to mountain bikes, we are talking about a car that weighs over 3000 lbs, so I'm not sure you can extrapolate over and say that the sweet spot in handling is a 27.5" tire. The analogy I'm trying to make is that a Mazda Miata would be the equivalent of a 26" bike, Porsche, BMW, Audi and other average-sized sports cars the equivalent of a 27.5" bike, and Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, etc. the equivalent of a 29" bike. Those larger sports cars put up huge numbers but are probably not as fun to drive as the smaller sports cars. Similarly, see Pig's link about XC racers feeling that a 27.5" tire is more fun than a 29" tire. But not a 26" (at least in that story). Moral of the story: more is not always better. There is a sweet spot for "frame" size and tire size in the auto world just as in the mountain bike world.

 

[291748]

This is REALLY getting off topic, maybe it needs to go over to off-camber.

As in the mountain bike world, there is also some controversy in the automobile world about tire sizes. There are some interesting parallels. Small auto tire size (actually wheel size), say 15 inches = quick acceleration, slightly better gas mileage. Larger, wider tires with low-profile rims = better handling, higher top speed. However, there is a limit to this. Car and Driver did a study with a Volkswagen Golf, putting 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 inch tires on the car. They then hooked up computer equipment and analyzed handling. The stock wheel size I think was 17 inches. The optimal handling was at 18 inches, not 19 or 20 inches. Now, to compare this to mountain bikes, we are talking about a car that weighs over 3000 lbs, so I'm not sure you can extrapolate over and say that the sweet spot in handling is a 27.5" tire. The analogy I'm trying to make is that a Mazda Miata would be the equivalent of a 26" bike, Porsche, BMW, Audi and other average-sized sports cars the equivalent of a 27.5" bike, and Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, etc. the equivalent of a 29" bike. Those larger sports cars put up huge numbers but are probably not as fun to drive as the smaller sports cars. Similarly, see Pig's link about XC racers feeling that a 27.5" tire is more fun than a 29" tire. But not a 26" (at least in that story). Moral of the story: more is not always better. There is a sweet spot for "frame" size and tire size in the auto world just as in the mountain bike world.

The car analogy fails to transfer over to mountain bikes well at all.
The issue being that probably 90% of how fast a bike will go and what terrain it can handle, etc etc is determined by the riders skills and fitness. With a car, 90% of performance is determined by who's better at shopping. A lot of people try to use this method to get better/faster at mountain biking ("what can I buy that will make me a better rider"). It doesn't work.

 

[shwinn8]

I like round wheels

 

[Zowie]

I like round wheels

Because they're faster.

 

[shwinn8]

yeah, faster then square.. octagon is slightly less rough. oval is like riding a raging bull

 

[Jack Burns]

I have reached the point of no return.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[OlMarin]

The car analogy fails to transfer over to mountain bikes well at all.
The issue being that probably 90% of how fast a bike will go and what terrain it can handle, etc etc is determined by the riders skills and fitness. With a car, 90% of performance is determined by who's better at shopping. A lot of people try to use this method to get better/faster at mountain biking ("what can I buy that will make me a better rider"). It doesn't work.

It does and it doesn't. Much of the faster acceleration is taken care of by low gearing on the bikes we're likely to ride.
On a car, well, I knew a guy in HS with GTO. He'd put these small diameter slicks on when he went to the strip. The same law/s of physics apply to gearing no matter what you drive or pedal.
You're 100% correct in that many of us try to get something to ride better and we usually fail.

 

[OlMarin]

I like round wheels

Aw, come on. Get them new corkscrew wheels. At least you'll be able to blame them when you crash on that twisty downhill.

 

[richj8990]

The car analogy fails to transfer over to mountain bikes well at all.
The issue being that probably 90% of how fast a bike will go and what terrain it can handle, etc etc is determined by the riders skills and fitness. With a car, 90% of performance is determined by who's better at shopping. A lot of people try to use this method to get better/faster at mountain biking ("what can I buy that will make me a better rider"). It doesn't work.

The original question posted by Pig is if the 26" is going to make a comeback in XC racing. I actually read parts of the article. The gist of the story is that the racers that originally chose a 29" are often going smaller to a 27.5". No mention was made about going back to a 26". They talked as much about the smaller tire being more fun as they did about performance. They preferred a 27.5" tire for subjective reasons, not because it made them faster.

As far as skills and fitness is concerned, I also snicker at the guys who "have to" spend $2000-5000 on a bike just because everyone else is doing it. However, are you saying that a bike with a 3x7 drivetrain with a 14-28t freewheel, not to mention an 80mm fork and 1.95 inch back tire, (and assume stock cheap mechanical disks) can handle an all-mountain trail just because of a rider's skills and fitness? I'd really like to see that, and see how they end up avoiding running out of low gears and having the rear tire slip and stop on a steep dirt incline. Seriously, if you have any videos of someone successfully riding a cheaper bike on all-mountain trails I'd really like to study how they do it. Because I can't do it on a cheaper bike. XC trails no problem. All-mountain trails = need to get off the cheaper XC bike multiple times. And going off 3 foot boulders or jumps with an 80mm fork, is that skill or is it just dumb?

 

[mik_git]

sorry I should have bolded the "and thus handle almost anything" as well that makes no sense.The car analagy is kinda almost, but not really.

here was an article in Autosport many years ago with the head guy at Wiliams Renaut touring car team he was saying the only, only reason they used 18in wheels was so they could run the brakes they run. Havingthe big wheels and low profile tyres gave them headaches in setting up the suspension.
Evo (or it was Performance car back then, same thing though) did a test, took a stock Audi A4 turbo and put bigger wheels on it and comparison tested it and it was junk, because of the extra rotating weight and the suspension wasn't designed for the stiffer sidwalls, it was measurable slower n test course.
Of couse these days most cars are designed around bigger wheels, but it's mostly for looks over function, unless your wheesl wont clearthe brake calipers you don'need huge wheels...a Mclaren F1 will pretty much hose any car you mentioned, yet only runs 17inch wheels. it's not the size of the wheels, its the package it comes in. ANd again the drive does a whole lot in that package.

But its the same with bikes, the wheel size and the drivetrain play a small part in the package.
You'l find that tere are peopel out there that could jump on your bike and ride it down a trail that you couldn't ride aan AM bike down, sure it'll be hard and they won't like, but they can do it,give them a $5000 bike and then they can do it easily.
Rider skill is one thing, having the best tool for the job is another.

Now heres a vid, from like 1998 I think, and yes quite a few FS bikes, but also quite a ot of HTs and were talking 80mm travel with rim brakes, so not even the luxury of discs for these guys... (especially at the ~20min mark)

 

[mik_git]

also queue the vids of the guy riding a bike park on a wallmart bike or the guy riding whistler on a cross bike...

 

[291748]

.

, are you saying that a bike with a 3x7 drivetrain with a 14-28t freewheel, not to mention an 80mm fork and 1.95 inch back tire, (and assume stock cheap mechanical disks) can handle an all-mountain trail just because of a rider's skills and fitness?

Yes. Absolutely, undeniably and inarguably yes.
Anyone that has actually spent any time at all riding with talented riders will agree 100%.

As far as easily verified evidence, I would start by presenting all mountain biking that took place prior to the year 2000.

It was the pre digital-era, so I don't have many pics or video, but I've seen incredible riding done on bikes that the internet gear-weenies of today would undoubtedly blame for all their shortcomings.

Someday I'll get around to scanning my old pics.