Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
the kona Dawg comes with a 120mm fork. If i upgrade to 130 or even 150 will that effect the performance of the rear supsension as far as small bump control and pedal platform. The "pros" seem to think its a big deal but will a recreational rider like me notice a problem?
 

·
Just roll it......
Joined
·
7,621 Posts
Got_Issues? said:
the kona Dawg comes with a 120mm fork. If i upgrade to 130 or even 150 will that effect the performance of the rear supsension as far as small bump control and pedal platform. The "pros" seem to think its a big deal but will a recreational rider like me notice a problem?
Moving from 120 to 130 is such a minimal difference I wouldn't worry about it. Actually, it's not the amount of travel you should worry about as much as the Axle to Crown height of a fork. Different forks with the same amount of travel often have different ride heights.

What fork are you thinking about? For instance, if you went with something with travel control - say a Fox 36, you could run it at lower height during climbs and raise it up during descents. Those are extra bling. A cheaper option would be a Marzocchi All Mountain 1 (last years are on sale at Jenson right now), but it somewhat resembles a creamcicle. :confused: Other options are the Sherman Nixon's or Sherman Firefly / Flick which are also on sale at Jenson right now. Gotta love those previous- year blowouts!

I think a slacker head angle on descents is the bees knees and it takes slightly , but a lot of people don't really dig it on swoopy or tight stuff.....it's all personal preference.

Cheers,
EB

EB
 

·
Time is not a road.
Joined
·
4,150 Posts
I'd say 150mm would be way too much for that bike. What you have to consider is the geometry as it's designed. When you increase the HA too much, you'll affect the stability of the front of the bike in turns. You will have more stability going down, no doubt. Climbing could be compromised though, as well as agility. Rear suspension performance shouldn't be compromised though and you'll elevate your BB slightly, which some people like, especially in rocky/rooty areas.

Like the previous poster noted, a fork that you can adjust travel on would be the ticket because if you found that you didn't like the performance of the longer travel on your bike, you could reduce it. Marzocchi, Rock Shox, Fox and Manitou all have variations on that.

Check out the Marzocchi AM1/SL, RS Revalation or Pike, Fox Talas or new Man. Minute forks. All good trail forks.
 

·
Meh.
Joined
·
17,508 Posts
chad1433 said:
I'd say 150mm would be way too much for that bike. What you have to consider is the geometry as it's designed. When you increase the HA too much, you'll affect the stability of the front of the bike in turns. You will have more stability going down, no doubt. Climbing could be compromised though, as well as agility. Rear suspension performance shouldn't be compromised though and you'll elevate your BB slightly, which some people like, especially in rocky/rooty areas.

Like the previous poster noted, a fork that you can adjust travel on would be the ticket because if you found that you didn't like the performance of the longer travel on your bike, you could reduce it. Marzocchi, Rock Shox, Fox and Manitou all have variations on that.

Check out the Marzocchi AM1/SL, RS Revalation or Pike, Fox Talas or new Man. Minute forks. All good trail forks.
It's more about the axle to crown height rather than the amount of travel. My 140mm travel Pike has a lower a to c than my 130mm travel Drop-Off Comp. And if I remember correctly, my 130m sherman was even lower than both of them (extended lowers).

Rockshox Pike, Manitou Minute, Manitou Sherman Firefly, Manitou Nixon (new ones with intrisnic dampening, old ones had issues), Marzocchi AMs are ok.
 

·
Time is not a road.
Joined
·
4,150 Posts
Yeah, that's right Axle to Crown height. Marzocchi tends to have greater heights than the other fork guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
chad1433 said:
Yeah, that's right Axle to Crown height. Marzocchi tends to have greater heights than the other fork guys.
Does this mean that if you switch from a Marz to another brand you may be able to increse your travel while maintaining the same neck height and angle?

If so, that might be an option for me sometime down the road. A 5" front travel Kikapu would be cool.

Ian
 

·
Just roll it......
Joined
·
7,621 Posts
hallin222 said:
Does this mean that if you switch from a Marz to another brand you may be able to increse your travel while maintaining the same neck height and angle?

If so, that might be an option for me sometime down the road. A 5" front travel Kikapu would be cool.

Ian
Well, that is the situation with some forks, but it really differs from fork to fork.

For instance an '04 Z1 (130mm of travel) has an A2C of 518 mm whereas a Fox Vanilla/TALAS/Float with the same travel has an A2C of 505 mm. You'd need to look at the measurements between each fork to be sure though.

Now, depending on what fork your Kikapu has on it, there's a chance that you could move to a Manitou Minute or Fox and not gain any height on the front end, but you'd need to compare it on a case by case situation.

Cheers,
EBX
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for the Info guys. I never really new about axel to crown height and its significance. I guess you could estimate whether or not a fork has higher or lower A2C by just looking at the leng of the fork legs?
 

·
Just roll it......
Joined
·
7,621 Posts
Got_Issues? said:
Thanks for the Info guys. I never really new about axel to crown height and its significance. I guess you could estimate whether or not a fork has higher or lower A2C by just looking at the leng of the fork legs?
Yeah, that's really the critical element. For instance, I went from a Super T to a 66RC on my Stinky. They have the same amount of travel, but the 66 is 40+mm taller in A2C and it made a huge difference in climbing and riding on tight stuff.

It's not always that obvious by looking at them.....especially when you're talking about 5-10 mm's difference. Most manufacturers list the A2C length for their forks in the specs. If you can't find it for a particular fork on the manufacturers site, just ask on the shock forum. That info. is pretty available.

EBX
 

·
Time is not a road.
Joined
·
4,150 Posts
Kona may also list this info somewhere. Ellsworth notes all the A to C height recommendations on their website for each frame type. You might call Kona to get the skinny on that as well. I'm sure they've tested many different types of forks and done the CAD on diff A to C heights to see what's optimum.

Also, tire height can make a difference. Some tires are taller on the rim than others. A tall tire, combined with a longer A to C can create odd angles, especially when the rear squats under load. I'd say it's best to match up front and rear tires just to eliminate this variable.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top