[ChrisRobin]

BigMike started an interesting post about 7" SC forks and where DC forks are going.

Sorta along the same lines, are forks getting to be a little bit too overkill?? I remember hearing a couple people say that 7" of front travel is plenty when it comes to DH riding and racing while others swear by 8" in front (all the new forks are coming out as 8"...possibly in reaction to the 7" SC forks). In all honesty, 8" for me would be cool but I didn't really have any trouble with 7" in the last couple years.

 

[seismic]

Well, - I can adjust my bike between 9" to 11.5" of travel. It works fine in max setting, but it just works better in the lower settings. I think with a 3.0" stroke shock of a desent quality it is difficult to pass 10" of travel and still have a nice lever ratio.

As to what I like best I would say 8" in the front and 9" in the rear.

 

[Jorgen]

World champs was won with 7" in front and 8" in rear

 

[PsychO!1]

Another intersting question is.....

Are the longer travel bikes driving the direction DH courses are (or have been) going. Or are the more challenging courses driving the trend to longer travel race bikes???

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Another intersting question is.....

Are the longer travel bikes driving the direction DH courses are (or have been) going. Or are the more challenging courses driving the trend to longer travel race bikes???

I think with the new DH courses being more technical, you need the longer travel.

 

[OGRipper]

I like balanced bikes suspension-wise, so how much is too much in front depends on how much, if any, travel you've got in the rear. The same five inch travel fork might be too much on an xc bike and not enough on a dh bike.

That said, I've been running an 8" fork for the first time this year (on a 8" travel bike (vp-free)). At first I felt like it was too much for everything but the biggest gnarliest stuff, and excessive brake dive was a problem. I spent a bunch of time playing with oil level and otherwise getting it dialed. Now I recognize that it's great having long legs for dh but I think 8 is enough. I have yet to bottom the rear end, even when it's set soft and doing drops that approach 13-14 feet, so why would I need more? Plus, sadly more travel almost always means more weight.

For a agressive playtime/jumping bike that you need to pedal up hills sometimes, I think 6x6 is plenty. Bikes with a little less travel just feel more flickable and precise to me, and they'll usually be lighter.

 

[BikeFan84]

I like 8in the front, with 8 in the back.....

 

[mack]

i think 8 inches is plenty for the front. I think 7 inches is my perfect medium

 

[Zark]

8" is the most I'd use up front on a 9-10" rear travel DH bike. I still run a 7" SuperT and had a 7.5" Shiver DC previous to that. I really like the low front end on the 7" fork, but gnarly courses can be a bit of a chore

I guess it'd depend on what the DH courses near you are like.

 

[seismic]

I wonder if it is actually possible to feel the difference of an 8" and a 7" fork except for the ride height ??

 

[GravityFreakTJ]

Seven by seven for me

 

[OGRipper]

Seismic, I can definitely feel the difference in landing jumps and dropping the front wheel down steep chutes, it's like the front end is reaching out to grab the ground better.

 

[seismic]

Isnt that just a matter of how you set up your fork ?

 

[ioscope]

6x6 is enough for anything I've tried, but I admit my 8.6x7.6 is really nice to ride in rough stuff!

 

[Transcend]

The issue with longer forks is that they jack the front end up too much, and can sap much pedaling power. Of course the latter is true even with a 5" fork setup badly.

Personally i preferred my 7" fork to the 8" I had previously, but if i can get an 8" fork, tuned correctly, that doesn't alter my geometry too much throughout its travel (or when static) ... why not ?

 

[math2014]

although i am in a much smaller league than you guys... i run a 5" fork with 4.5" rear, and i feel like i could really use a 5.9" fork upfront (150mm).

 

[Curb Hucker]

I think that the 8-11in frames have become the new basis for a race frame. As someone said, 11 is near the max for a 3in stroke shock for sure. I do not think there will be bikes with more than 11in or so coming out in the near future to be marketed as competitive bikes. My bike has 9in of rear travel, it feels controlled and still pedals well. I just sold my old 8in bike and I can feel the difference between the two, but that just might be the canfield rearward arcing axlepath. Either way, the bike feels smoother and more bottomless. Ive ridden a few of the new V10s and at 11in of travel they still feel great, but I really think thats near the max travel to still be a good race bike.

I was on a 6/6 bike for a few years and I did like it alot, but the extra travel of a big bike really helps you go faster and ride smoother when DHing

 

[seismic]

I think that the 8-11in frames have become the new basis for a race frame. As someone said, 11 is near the max for a 3in stroke shock for sure. I do not think there will be bikes with more than 11in or so coming out in the near future to be marketed as competitive bikes. My bike has 9in of rear travel, it feels controlled and still pedals well. I just sold my old 8in bike and I can feel the difference between the two, but that just might be the canfield rearward arcing axlepath. Either way, the bike feels smoother and more bottomless. Ive ridden a few of the new V10s and at 11in of travel they still feel great, but I really think thats near the max travel to still be a good race bike.

I was on a 6/6 bike for a few years and I did like it alot, but the extra travel of a big bike really helps you go faster and ride smoother when DHing

Yeah...11" feels great !! But I think it can be a bit sloppy for racing...especially in berms and stuff

 

[Curb Hucker]

Yeah...11" feels great !! But I think it can be a bit sloppy for racing...especially in berms and stuff

All of the syndicate guys (+town) rail on their V10s with 11in of travel, I do not think that thats too much travel. If we start getting up in the 13-14in range like the old apocylapses and a few other goofy old huck bikes when racing you are just far too disconnected from the ground and i think you would become too sloppy throughout

 

[OGRipper]

Isnt that just a matter of how you set up your fork ?

If this was in response to me, the answer for me is no, I don't think so. I went from 7 to 8 on the same bike and can definitely feel the longer travel in front in the way I described. And I like it for most things I use that bike for. At Northstar, for example, it's much easier to pick through the big rocks on std, karpiel, dogbone, etc., not just because of ride height, but because I have more negative travel, and the front wheel extends further down to the ground. I mean, head angle and ride height are part of it, no question there, but it's not the whole story. Haven't really put it into words before but I guess what I'm trying to say is that with more travel I can run a little more sag in front, which gives me more negative travel, which for me is a good thing for dh and other burly stuff. It's especially true 'cuz I run a lot of sag in the rear, so a longer travel fork helps balance it out...

But having said all that, going from 7 to 8 made my rig less versatile, and it's pretty much dh specific at this point. Doing any kind of climbing is more of a chore with that extra inch of travel in the front, and overall the bikes feels a little less precise in the tight, slow stuff. It's enough that I'm getting my heckler back together with a long travel SC...but that's that other thread.

 

[Tarpon]

When I bought my Avalanche, Craig said he recommends using 1" less travel in front as a rule of thumb. This seems to match what a number of other posters are running.

The rule does not work for my hard tail though.

 

[Tully]

Are the longer travel bikes driving the direction DH courses are (or have been) going. Or are the more challenging courses driving the trend to longer travel race bikes???

Yes. I think courses become more technical to follow the progression of the sport, so to make easier what was hard, they made longer-travel bikes. But when everyone got longer-travel bikes, they has to make the courses harder to keep them challenging. In other words, I think both your assertions are right.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would ever need more than 8" up front and 10" in the back, and most people are fine with 7" in the front and 8" behind. A course so rough as to require more than 9"-10" of travel at either end would be, in my opinion, simply unrideable for any amateur racer, as well as many pros.

 

[math2014]

Sorry to interrupt this program, but why less travel up front in comparison to the rear? More sag on the rear?
Personally i was used so much to riding HTs that on my SX i got 5/4.5 and i feel like i need 6" up front without changing anything on the rear of the bike....

Sorry if i sound silly but i havent ridden many dh bikes, and those i did were only on a quick spin

 

[ChrisRobin]

Sorry to interrupt this program, but why less travel up front in comparison to the rear? More sag on the rear?
Personally i was used so much to riding HTs that on my SX i got 5/4.5 and i feel like i need 6" up front without changing anything on the rear of the bike....

Sorry if i sound silly but i havent ridden many dh bikes, and those i did were only on a quick spin

Must be a question of stability since you put a lot of your weight towards the rear of the bike.

 

[seismic]

When I bought my Avalanche, Craig said he recommends using 1" less travel in front as a rule of thumb. This seems to match what a number of other posters are running.

The rule does not work for my hard tail though.

Yeah...that would be one weird hardtail

 

[thaflyinfatman]

I think with the new DH courses being more technical, you need the longer travel.

I don't see the link between the two here... the only time I really want long(er) travel is on the really fast, open, rough stuff. Technical stuff IMO requires more agility, which (as demonstrated so well by the V10) USUALLY means less travel. 8" is more than enough on the rear for me, I reckon I could go down to 6 and be alright, 7" is great on the front. On longer, rougher courses I could see the want/need for longer travel/softer forks, just to stop ya hands getting hammered so much.

 

[vitox]

World champs was won with 7" in front and 8" in rear

fabiens bike has 170 (6,6") front and 170mm (approx) rear.

his dhx5.0 is a 240mm unit with a 10mm shorter shaft than normal, and the 888 is as someone pointed out here a 170mm version with huge amounts of hi speed compression damping.

 

[Jorgen]

Akei, thanks for the info Vitox.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

I don't see the link between the two here... the only time I really want long(er) travel is on the really fast, open, rough stuff. Technical stuff IMO requires more agility, which (as demonstrated so well by the V10) USUALLY means less travel. 8" is more than enough on the rear for me, I reckon I could go down to 6 and be alright, 7" is great on the front. On longer, rougher courses I could see the want/need for longer travel/softer forks, just to stop ya hands getting hammered so much.

I was meaning rougher courses. I can ride the big rocks better with my big travel bike than my 6" bike.

 

[seismic]

Yeah...just eat em !!

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Yeah...just eat em !!

Yep, more travel has actually made me a better rider as I'm more confident on some of the trails I ride.

 

[seismic]

No doubt that travel is nice...I thought about trying the 11" setup (just for fun), - who knows, - it might be ok even though I think the lever ratio is a little high even for the Avy.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

No doubt that travel is nice...I thought about trying the 11" setup (just for fun), - who knows, - it might be ok even though I think the lever ratio is a little high even for the Avy.

What are you at now? 10 seems to be perfect for me.

 

[seismic]

I am running it in the 9" setting !

By the way...just found out that I need a new bolt (the one that attach the shock to the lower links), - it has beome quite sloppy, but I am not quite sure where to get one. I wonder how "special" it is....?

 

[Bulldog]

Simply, it depends on the rider and the terrain.

A point-and-shoot rider on extreme terrain needs all the help they can get. But honestly for the rest of us I think we've reached a point where products developed for those riders but marketed to us paying consumers are actually hindering the other 95% of us. I strongly believe that a lot of riders are on too much bike. I personally am a better/faster rider on a burly 6"x6" bike than I was on my 7"x8" bike that weighed more and handled slower.

I think design limits can still be pushed further, but for now our needs are being met or exceeded already with 8" forks.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

I am running it in the 9" setting !

By the way...just found out that I need a new bolt (the one that attach the shock to the lower links), - it has beome quite sloppy, but I am not quite sure where to get one. I wonder how "special" it is....?

The heads are machined on those, however contact Craig @ Avalanche, as he sells longer bolts for older Discos. maybe he can part with one and you'll just need to cut it to length.

 

[punkassean]

I'm pretty much a Seagrams kinda guy myself, or at least I thought I was until I rode a demo 9 w/ 8" front and 9" rear...

It comes down to the geometry and leverage ratio. If the BB isn't stoopid high and the angles aren't stupid slack (or steep) and the suspension isn't overworked or poorly tuned, then how ever many inches you can work into the bike/fork design without compromising the things I mentioned is the "magic number". Basically there isn't a number as much as a feeling.

I have some experience with off-road racing shocks and a 14" travel street-legal prerunner with properly valved bypass shocks and dual rate coil-overs will waaaay outperform the same 14" travel truck with just stock valved single rate coil-overs (duh). Inches aren't the determining factor IMO.

 

[seismic]

I will give it a try..thanks a lot !!

 

[HTFR]

idealy for my self. i like a 7x7 (6/7x6) low bb, slack'esc and a shorter rear end. however i don't ride DS bike too much, so im just not used to plowing though. really it all depends!

i like the way you think bulldog!

 

[Red Bull]

Right now i ride a 04 stinky and it has been enough to keep up with expert racers ive ridden with and hit a 12' drop near me. Since i just got my bike in early august i never got to race the bike was fine and still pretty much is. (But i did get sponsored for freeriding type stuff, drops , dirt jumps, stuff like that.) Next year i will be getting a new bike, and i am planning on getting a stab with an 888rc 7 inch version, saint cranks and a new wheelset. This will be plenty for (im 14) my smooth riding style. I just feel that 7 inches of travel will be enough so i can have plent of pedaling ability and enough travel to get through the rough stuff with speed. So its gunna be 7and 7 for me