Joined
·
32 Posts
Just thought I'd post up some thoughts on experimenting with fork length on the Epiphany, and maybe get some feedback on what others are finding. I'd been running an 08 Fox Float with 140mm travel for a year, I had decided to go with the fixed travel Float as I didn't want any reliability issues with the Talas..and I'm more of the frame of mind to get the handling dialled for allround riding and leave it.
On its recent years service decided to get the mechanic to drop the fork by installing a travel spacer to 130mm (had to custom make one as fox only supply a 20mm spacer) - this was partly inspired by viewing the Ellsworth website which seems to indicate that the frame was designed for 120/130mm forks. To elaborate...the axle to crown length of my fox at 140mm was 513mm, and Ellsworth are suggesting a static fork length of (presummably the same thing as axel/crown?) 19.5 Inches or 495mm - My Fox dropped to 130mm now has a 503mm axel to crown - I've measured it accurately. This would suggest that a Fox at 120mm would be more spot on! They recommend a 5inch travel fork which would be 128mm...and I thought Fox were some of the lowest axel to crown for given travel!
Anyway, I'm shocked at what a difference to the handling just dropping by 10mm at the front has made, much bigger difference than was expecting for such a small change - though I admit that I am a bit like the Princess and The Pea when it comes to bike setup. The bike feels much sharper and racier and more stable steering. I had previously been getting some minor handling issues particularly on technical climbs where the slightest nudge at the front wheel had my wheel lifting and feet dabbing, as if I had too much weight rearward. I run a 10 degree 90mm stem set low with 5mm spacer, low rise bars and am 5'10" on a medium frame... and am conversant with adopting the bent arm and arse on nose of saddle type climbing posture. Also had similar issues with difficulty cornering on switchback climbs, and generally being nocked off balance too easily, I guess what you might call wheel-flop. Now with the front end down 10mm the weight balance allround and particularly climbing is spot on and I've just easily cruised up a climb that I struggled on last week.
So now the handling feels much further towards the racier end of the 'Trail' type bike, and think this type of handling best suits the light ('ish) nature of the frame, is this what Ellsworth intended? Running the front low is not without some drawbacks such as a slight loss of plushness on front and a steeper headangle which is noticed on steeper downhills. I'm really surprised if Ellsworth suggest 120mm as ideal as this would seem very steeply angled for a bike with over 5inches of rear travel, but maybe for certain types of terrain it works?
Just thought I'd throw it open to debate as it seems most people are fitting 140mm Fox's to these bikes when it seems strangely that Ells suggest an F120mm would be better suited....Though maybe because Fox and Rockshox dont make a 130mm fork now. What have people found to be the best compromise for fork length ?...where do you set the travel if you have adjustable travel?... should Ellsworths dimensions be taken with a pinch of salt (I've noticed a few typo errors etc. on the website before). Cheers.
On its recent years service decided to get the mechanic to drop the fork by installing a travel spacer to 130mm (had to custom make one as fox only supply a 20mm spacer) - this was partly inspired by viewing the Ellsworth website which seems to indicate that the frame was designed for 120/130mm forks. To elaborate...the axle to crown length of my fox at 140mm was 513mm, and Ellsworth are suggesting a static fork length of (presummably the same thing as axel/crown?) 19.5 Inches or 495mm - My Fox dropped to 130mm now has a 503mm axel to crown - I've measured it accurately. This would suggest that a Fox at 120mm would be more spot on! They recommend a 5inch travel fork which would be 128mm...and I thought Fox were some of the lowest axel to crown for given travel!
Anyway, I'm shocked at what a difference to the handling just dropping by 10mm at the front has made, much bigger difference than was expecting for such a small change - though I admit that I am a bit like the Princess and The Pea when it comes to bike setup. The bike feels much sharper and racier and more stable steering. I had previously been getting some minor handling issues particularly on technical climbs where the slightest nudge at the front wheel had my wheel lifting and feet dabbing, as if I had too much weight rearward. I run a 10 degree 90mm stem set low with 5mm spacer, low rise bars and am 5'10" on a medium frame... and am conversant with adopting the bent arm and arse on nose of saddle type climbing posture. Also had similar issues with difficulty cornering on switchback climbs, and generally being nocked off balance too easily, I guess what you might call wheel-flop. Now with the front end down 10mm the weight balance allround and particularly climbing is spot on and I've just easily cruised up a climb that I struggled on last week.
So now the handling feels much further towards the racier end of the 'Trail' type bike, and think this type of handling best suits the light ('ish) nature of the frame, is this what Ellsworth intended? Running the front low is not without some drawbacks such as a slight loss of plushness on front and a steeper headangle which is noticed on steeper downhills. I'm really surprised if Ellsworth suggest 120mm as ideal as this would seem very steeply angled for a bike with over 5inches of rear travel, but maybe for certain types of terrain it works?
Just thought I'd throw it open to debate as it seems most people are fitting 140mm Fox's to these bikes when it seems strangely that Ells suggest an F120mm would be better suited....Though maybe because Fox and Rockshox dont make a 130mm fork now. What have people found to be the best compromise for fork length ?...where do you set the travel if you have adjustable travel?... should Ellsworths dimensions be taken with a pinch of salt (I've noticed a few typo errors etc. on the website before). Cheers.