Does it really exist?? Numerous Ebay sellers like Bikewagon seem to believe a fork is 29er specific with an axle to crown of 410mm. If your metric challenged like me....that means around 2 1/8" inches shy of a 80mm 29er fork. The Ritchey website shows no evidence of any 29er fork?
Ritchey WCS "29er" rigid fork??
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Cross fork
The Ritchey carbon cross fork has clearance for a 2.1 29er tire. It's close but it does fit.
But it's not suspension corrected so if you put it on a sus-corrected frame you'll get that nose-dive feeling b/c the nose of the bike is lower and the seat and head angles are all steeper. Am I describing that well enough? A sus-corrected fork is usually in the 468 range which puts the nose at the right height
If however you have a non-suspension corrected frame, like a cyclocross frame, then it's a good fork.
P
The Ritchey carbon cross fork has clearance for a 2.1 29er tire. It's close but it does fit.
But it's not suspension corrected so if you put it on a sus-corrected frame you'll get that nose-dive feeling b/c the nose of the bike is lower and the seat and head angles are all steeper. Am I describing that well enough? A sus-corrected fork is usually in the 468 range which puts the nose at the right height
If however you have a non-suspension corrected frame, like a cyclocross frame, then it's a good fork.
P
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
@tboy, 410mm is actually short of a 26" 80mm fork, not 29er.
bikewagon.com/Forks-Headsets-Suspension/Rigid-Mountain-Forks/26-Forks/2010-Ritchey-WCS-29-er-p6920358-1-3.htmlMy fox F29 80mm is approx. 18 3/4" or 476mm without rider sag. The Ritchey fork in question is 410mm or 16 1/8". Diference= 57.15mm or 2 1/4"
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Join the discussion
