5 x 4 anyone? anyone?

[Diamondback]

does anyone else have a 130mm fork on a bike that has a 4" travel
rear? I guess I could put a 100mm fork on this bike but I like
the extra inch of travel, it gives me a false sense of security when
traversing thru singletracks with drops. The mfgr recommends a 100mm
(or even a 80mmm--ugly)
but....whatdouthink?

[Epic_Mtn_Biker]

Getting a bigger fork can drastically change the geometry on your bike, thus effecting performance. If the manufacturer say it recommends 80-100 mm stick with that, especially since the geometry is set-up to accomodate a 80 mm fork, that's a huge difference from 130 mm.

How big are the drops you're trying to do? I'd recommend you get a 6 inch or more rear travel bike if you're going to be doing drops. 4 inches or less is for cross country riding.

I'm sure the guys with the longer travel bikes can help you out better than I can. I got 3.5 inches of travel in the rear and have 100 mm in the front, and i'm not one to do drops or getting big air. I'm strictly into XC.

[Von-Diggity]

I just put a Fox Vanilla RLC 125 on my Wife's superlight. (a 4" bike). I think it works better for her as it slackens the head angle closer to 69 degrees and lengthens the wheelbase, which seems to be the general consensus on trailbike geometry these days. Also, it looks cooler than the fork that it replaced.

Originally Posted by Diamondback

does anyone else have a 130mm fork on a bike that has a 4" travel
rear? I guess I could put a 100mm fork on this bike but I like
the extra inch of travel, it gives me a false sense of security when
traversing thru singletracks with drops. The mfgr recommends a 100mm
(or even a 80mmm--ugly)
but....whatdouthink?

[Steven Jackson]

I was thinking of replacing my dual-crown Suntour fork that is currently getting about 2.5 inches of travel with a 4 inch RST. My PACIFIC has about 2 inches of travel in the back right now. Hopefully it doesn't rake out the geometry too much.

Diamondback, I say you go for it brother.

[TURNERob]

I'm running a 130mm Talas on my Burner which has XR rockers which made the rear travel 4" (originally 3.6") and I love it. I honestly very rarely ever drop the travel down on the Talas from full travel. I like slack geometry bikes, they are comfortable to me and I don't feel it hinders my climbing ability at all. Now if you put a 6" or a tall 5" fork like a Mazocchi then it might be too tall....but the Fox 125-130mm forks are fairly short A/C height wise.

[CalEpic]

Is that a Manitou Nixon on there? If so, I think that you can adjust the travel on most if not all of the different models of Nixon. Use it 4" for XC and raise to 5" for the downhill to slacken it out.

Choppers Rule!

[Von-Diggity]

I just noticed that you are running a nixon on your spider. That fork is way too tall for the spider, I would be afraid of destroying the head tube. You may want to take a look at the getting a RockShox Reba at 115mm.

Originally Posted by Diamondback

does anyone else have a 130mm fork on a bike that has a 4" travel
rear? I guess I could put a 100mm fork on this bike but I like
the extra inch of travel, it gives me a false sense of security when
traversing thru singletracks with drops. The mfgr recommends a 100mm
(or even a 80mmm--ugly)
but....whatdouthink?

[TURNERob]

That's not a Nixon, looks like a Sherman Breakout to me

[Von-Diggity]

Originally Posted by FXRob

That's not a Nixon, looks like a Sherman Breakout to me

I would imagine that the Sherman is too tall a fork for a Intense Spyder. Plus, a 5+ lb. fork on a lightweight XC bike does not make too much sense to me..

[Von-Skipp]

Originally Posted by Diamondback

does anyone else have a 130mm fork on a bike that has a 4" travel
rear? I guess I could put a 100mm fork on this bike but I like
the extra inch of travel, it gives me a false sense of security when
traversing thru singletracks with drops. The mfgr recommends a 100mm
(or even a 80mmm--ugly)
but....whatdouthink?

Im in the same situation your in. I have 4inch travel bike, but used think it was kinda sketchy with 5 up front
So I decided a Talas would be perfect. Only use 5 in the front was the terrain called for it.

The extra travel is nice... but it really slows down my steering.

I would say it depends on your frame if you can get away with an extra inch up front. The SPIDER might be kinda sketchy like others said.

Are you gonna be doing any 5foot hucks?

[Von-Diggity]

Originally Posted by DINO

Are you gonna be doing any 5foot hucks?

Would you settle for 2 two and a half foot hucks?

I'll settle for 2.5foot hucks. =)

[Steven Jackson]

Originally Posted by DINO

I'll settle for 2.5foot hucks. =)

I won't settle for anything less than 5ft personally

[Diamondback]

Thanks for everyone's advice.
Yah, I use the 90mm travel setting when climbing really steep hills & in the 128/130 setting its not much higher than
the 100mm maximun Intense recommends, its like an inch higher. And an inch up on the bars isnt that bad. The geometry is perfect for the fork and I wonder if its the same as the 5.5?

Anyways, screw the warrantee issue, I bought the frame new from some guy on Ebay anyways and never got the warrantee card, but got the manual... I'm guessing the warrantee is valid only if you buy it from
an authorized dealer. The down tube has a pretty good sized plate welded
to the headtube for extra strength, and if it cracks I'll just pay for another
front triangle.

(BTW---see that new front tire? I bought it for $9
at Sav-ons, its actually a low-line Kenda)

[Evel Knievel]

125mm RS pyslo on a 100mm xc race bike . Only lowwer the travel for twisty trails like The Luge.