Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The Instinct thread is getting unruly and hard to navigate, even searching within it. So I'll ask this here.
Has anyone made the switch to a 160 fork while keeping the 140 shock running? I'm looking at making a change this season and this option seems like it would make more difference than switching to an X2 shock or something similar. Albeit, a much more expensive difference.
If you have switched, how does the bike handle in comparison? I'm figuring I can mess with Ride 9 to compensate for any geo. irregularities it may cause. Is it worth the big price tag? I'm considering a Ribbon or one of the Fox 36 offerings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
If you go to the last posts on that thread I posted some pictures of me doing that exact thing. I find I need to have the ride 9 in the steepest setting for my liking but I need to do more experimenting with the suspension and Ride 9 settings. I am really liking it, it feels like a much bigger bike and more capable. I've have also taken it on some of my more XC trails around here in Vegas and I find it climbs pretty well, except for it being heavier then my XC bike.

I put Carbon wheels on it and Carbon bars and an GX cassette and its still at 31.6 pounds with the 160 Lyric (I have the ALUM version).

Also I was able to sell my Fox 140 fork on my local Facebook group for $350 and I found a practically new take off Lyric for 400$ so the change only really cost me 50$.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I saw that, but I wasn't sure if you changed it from 140 originally or were doing a new build.
Putting it in the steeper settings makes sense. So you don't think it compromised any of the climbing characteristics of the bike? This thing climbs so well and I really don't want to change that if possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
not for me, I had to mess around with a few other things to get it feeling good though, like lowering the stem a few spacers for example.

It is still a bit of a trade off and I only had the bike with the 140 fork for about a month so I didn't have a LOT of trail time on it so sometimes it's hard to remember exactly how it felt to notice the differences, all I know is I like it the way it is and since I already have an XC bike I wanted my second bike to be more capable.

However if I had the funds to keep both forks I would have liked to have kept it so that I could experiment more and switch back and forth to really see what I preferred.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
A couple months ago I swapped the fork and shock (and link)on my BC to change it to a regular Instinct. I like the way the rear works better with the shorter stroke shock and I really like the lower bottom bracket. I’m currently running the ride9 in position 5. I also like the lower weight, but most of that savings comes from the 34 vs 36 fork, and I am missing the stiffer more accurate handling of the 36, and also the slacker head angle. I know I could get the head angle just as slack as the BC configuration by putting the Ride9 chips in position 1, though I’m worried the bottom bracket would then be too low in terms of pedal strikes.

So, I’m thinking of putting the Fox 36 160 fork back on and then swapping the Ride9 to pos 1 (and perhaps if I like that, just putting the BC link without the chips back on since that’s the same as pos 1). I calculate that would give me about the same bb height I have now (340-341) but a much slacker head angle -somewhere around 65.2 or so. (With 140 fork in pos 5, its 66.5.) I can also slide the seat a little forward to account for the slacker seat tube angle, though the trade off there is shorter reach of course.

I know can also get a 150 or 140 air shaft for the 36, but I figure I may as well try it out at 160 first and see how it feels and rides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
Seeing as you've revived this thread, I'll add my 2c - this was my preferred set up for running my instinct. 160 front, 140 rear. I just felt the rear shock just moved through its travel much better and was a bit more sophisticated - like the bike was designed around a 140mm rear. So I highly encourage you to try it. Ride-9 gives you quite a few options. I think I settled in somewhere between the middle and slackest, and didn't end up keeping it full slack all the time.


I also ran in to Mr. Simmonds this spring and he mirrored the same thing - before he switched to the slayer, he really liked the 140mm rear end too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Rode 30 miles yesterday for my first ride with the 160 fork / 140 rear. I thought the bike felt and handled great in this configuration. I have the Ride9 on my XL frame set to pos 1, which as I suspected, does put the bb height (with no sag) at about 341 which is very close to where it was with the 140 fork in pos 5. I really like the overall geometry and handling with this setup for both descending and climbing. The only thing I'd like to change if I could, would be to have the reach be a little longer - this might be the biggest reason I'll consider buying a 2021 Instinct if it is a little longer and a little slacker. But I definitely love the bike setup this way and will enjoy riding it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Update, after riding my 160/140 Instinct all week and playing around with shock pressure to try to account for the increased progressiveness in position 1, today I swapped the Ride9 chips to pos. 2. I don't like having to have the bb slightly higher, but it's worth it for the less steep suspension curve, which feels better to me (I weigh 180 lbs).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I started the thread way back when. I've been riding 160/140 with a MRP ribbon air up front this whole season in position 1 and have been loving it. I've not messed with chip position, but after seeing this thread revived, I might.
I like the bumped up front end a whole lot better than I liked the Fox 34 at 140.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top