Axle to crown height of suspension forks

[Matt O'Toole]

I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm
travel forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White
Brothers. Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?

Matt O.

[A Muzi]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm
> travel forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White
> Brothers. Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?

Generally pre-1995 bikes need 'older standard' forks (ebay) and
post-1995 use 'modern standard' (taller) forks.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Peter Cole]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm
> travel forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White
> Brothers. Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?
>
> Matt O.

Sorry, I just installed a new fork, but it's 100mm. It's a Dart3, and
measures around 18.5". Some other newish, low-end forks in the garage
Judy C/TT seem to be about 18", my old '96 Judy DH looks like around 17.5".

[Matt O'Toole]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:18:51 -0500, A Muzi wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
>> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm travel
>> forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White Brothers.
>> Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?
>
> Generally pre-1995 bikes need 'older standard' forks (ebay) and
> post-1995 use 'modern standard' (taller) forks.

I know what I need. So which forks are shorter or taller? Tape measure
please...

Matt O.

[Kurd]

"Matt O'Toole" <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.24.02.15.50.586843@letterboxes.or g...
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:18:51 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
>
> > Matt O'Toole wrote:
> >> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
> >> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm travel
> >> forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White Brothers.
> >> Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?
> >
> > Generally pre-1995 bikes need 'older standard' forks (ebay) and
> > post-1995 use 'modern standard' (taller) forks.
>
> I know what I need. So which forks are shorter or taller? Tape measure
> please...
>
> Matt O.


Ever wonder why even big catalogs like QBP don't even list this info?
Answer: it's a stupid question.

A 1992 piece-of-**** frame with geometry closer to a road bike today is
still a piece-of-**** no matter what modern wunderfork you hack, chop and
Dremmel to fit into your antique frame.
If your riding position is THAT affected by having the front end of your
bike being 2-5mm higher, get a narrower damn tire or take a belt sander to
the palms of your hands.

[Michael Press]

In article
<YXzTi.62500$YL5.25076@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kurd" <no@fing.way> wrote:

> "Matt O'Toole" <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.10.24.02.15.50.586843@letterboxes.or g...
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:18:51 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
> >
> > > Matt O'Toole wrote:
> > >> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
> > >> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm travel
> > >> forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White Brothers.
> > >> Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?
> > >
> > > Generally pre-1995 bikes need 'older standard' forks (ebay) and
> > > post-1995 use 'modern standard' (taller) forks.
> >
> > I know what I need. So which forks are shorter or taller? Tape measure
> > please...
> >
> > Matt O.
>
>
> Ever wonder why even big catalogs like QBP don't even list this info?
> Answer: it's a stupid question.
>
> A 1992 piece-of-**** frame with geometry closer to a road bike today is
> still a piece-of-**** no matter what modern wunderfork you hack, chop and
> Dremmel to fit into your antique frame.
> If your riding position is THAT affected by having the front end of your
> bike being 2-5mm higher, get a narrower damn tire or take a belt sander to
> the palms of your hands.

That's odd. I do not see alt.mountain-bike in the
Newsgroups: header.

--
Michael Press

[A Muzi]

>>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
>>>> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm travel
>>>> forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White Brothers.
>>>> Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?

>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Generally pre-1995 bikes need 'older standard' forks (ebay) and
>>> post-1995 use 'modern standard' (taller) forks.

> "Matt O'Toole" <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote
>> I know what I need. So which forks are shorter or taller? Tape measure
>> please...

Kurd wrote:
> Ever wonder why even big catalogs like QBP don't even list this info?
> Answer: it's a stupid question.
>
> A 1992 piece-of-**** frame with geometry closer to a road bike today is
> still a piece-of-**** no matter what modern wunderfork you hack, chop and
> Dremmel to fit into your antique frame.
> If your riding position is THAT affected by having the front end of your
> bike being 2-5mm higher, get a narrower damn tire or take a belt sander to
> the palms of your hands.

Although you may have a point, this is a perplexing problem for our
customers with premium quality classic MTB format bikes - Merlin, Bruce
Gordon, Bridgestone MB1, Panasonic 7000, Ritchey Commando, American
built by Ross Schafer Salsa, Chris Chance etc. Not all are XMart level
bikes and in many cases the equipment is as tough as the frame so a
shock fork is the first failure.

This is less an issue of 'ride position' than of front end geometry.

p.s. QB parts selection is indicative only of QB's selection. It may not
be reasonable to draw wider conclusions from that subset.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Oct 23, 9:35 pm, "Kurd" <n...@fing.way> wrote:
> "Matt O'Toole" <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote in message
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:18:51 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
> > > Matt O'Toole wrote:
> > >> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
> > >> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm travel
> > >> forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White Brothers.
> > >> Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?
>
> > > Generally pre-1995 bikes need 'older standard' forks (ebay) and
> > > post-1995 use 'modern standard' (taller) forks.
>
> > I know what I need. So which forks are shorter or taller? Tape measure
> > please...
>
> Ever wonder why even big catalogs like QBP don't even list this info?
> Answer: it's a stupid question.
>
> A 1992 piece-of-**** frame with geometry closer to a road bike today is
> still a piece-of-**** no matter what modern wunderfork you hack, chop and
> Dremmel to fit into your antique frame.
> If your riding position is THAT affected by having the front end of your
> bike being 2-5mm higher, get a narrower damn tire or take a belt sander to
> the palms of your hands.

Lame. Not everyone with a nice old mountain bike
wants to throw it away and get some generic welded
aluminum thingy. And the difference between old and
new geometry is about 18mm, not 5mm. In fact,
the QBP catalog does list axle to crown for _rigid_
replacement forks:
http://harriscyclery.net/page.cfm?PageID=49&action=details&sku=FK2458
http://harriscyclery.net/page.cfm?PageID=49&action=details&sku=FK2445

I think they don't list it for new sus forks for two reasons:
1. All new sus forks are "new" taller geometry.
2. If you measure the axle to crown on a sus fork on the
workbench, it's going to be shorter once you sit on the
bike due to sag under your weight. The amount of the
sag depends on the fork, your weight and the preload.
So there isn't a simple number that one can measure
that will provide the OP useful information.

Ben

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:32:49 +0000, bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> Lame. Not everyone with a nice old mountain bike
> wants to throw it away and get some generic welded
> aluminum thingy. And the difference between old and
> new geometry is about 18mm, not 5mm. In fact,
> the QBP catalog does list axle to crown for _rigid_
> replacement forks:
> http://harriscyclery.net/page.cfm?PageID=49&action=details&sku=FK2458
> http://harriscyclery.net/page.cfm?PageID=49&action=details&sku=FK2445
>
> I think they don't list it for new sus forks for two reasons:
> 1. All new sus forks are "new" taller geometry.
> 2. If you measure the axle to crown on a sus fork on the
> workbench, it's going to be shorter once you sit on the
> bike due to sag under your weight. The amount of the
> sag depends on the fork, your weight and the preload.

They don't list it because they don't want you to think it's important
enough to make you not choose their fork.

A ballpark figure is good enough. For a shorter travel fork like I'm
interested in, sag is negligible anyway.

> So there isn't a simple number that one can measure
> that will provide the OP useful information.

Yes there is. Doesn't anyone have a few bikes/forks around, and a tape
measure?

Sheesh.

Matt O.

[Steve Gravrock]

On 2007-10-25, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:32:49 +0000, bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

>> So there isn't a simple number that one can measure
>> that will provide the OP useful information.
>
> Yes there is. Doesn't anyone have a few bikes/forks around, and a tape
> measure?

I get the impression that very few of the regulars here ride bikes with
suspension forks.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Oct 25, 12:16 pm, Steve Gravrock <use...@sdg.users.panix.com>
wrote:
> On 2007-10-25, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:32:49 +0000, b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> >> So there isn't a simple number that one can measure
> >> that will provide the OP useful information.
>
> > Yes there is. Doesn't anyone have a few bikes/forks around, and a tape
> > measure?
>
> I get the impression that very few of the regulars here ride bikes with
> suspension forks.

There's that. Used to be more MTB content on rbt, but that
has declined a lot since 2000 or so. I have a few sus forks, but
they're ancient (want an axle-crown measurement on a
functional '96 Judy XC?) What Matt wants are measurements
of several current-model suspension forks, and the only people
likely to have those are ones who just bought a bike or
shops that keep several models in stock.

Matt, I think your only hope for this is to find a sympathetic
bike shop with a lot of forks, or to call one of the more
customer-service oriented mail order places (Speedgoat?).
I also think pretty much all new forks will be annoyingly tall.

Ben

[jim beam]

Steve Gravrock wrote:
> On 2007-10-25, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:32:49 +0000, bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
>>> So there isn't a simple number that one can measure
>>> that will provide the OP useful information.
>> Yes there is. Doesn't anyone have a few bikes/forks around, and a tape
>> measure?
>
> I get the impression that very few of the regulars here ride bikes with
> suspension forks.

on the contrary - they just don't respond to someone with an attitude
when it comes to providing free information!

[Bob Flumere]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:23:42 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>On Oct 25, 12:16 pm, Steve Gravrock <use...@sdg.users.panix.com>
>wrote:
>> On 2007-10-25, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:32:49 +0000, b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> >> So there isn't a simple number that one can measure
>> >> that will provide the OP useful information.
>>
>> > Yes there is. Doesn't anyone have a few bikes/forks around, and a tape
>> > measure?
>>
>

Try here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:31:15 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:

>> I'm looking for a new suspension fork for my old MTB. I'm wondering
>> about the axle to crown height of various candidates -- 80mm
>> travel forks from Marzocchi, Rockshox (Psylo, Duke, Reba), and White
>> Brothers. Anyone have a few forks lying around, and a tape measure?

> Sorry, I just installed a new fork, but it's 100mm. It's a Dart3, and
> measures around 18.5". Some other newish, low-end forks in the garage
> Judy C/TT seem to be about 18", my old '96 Judy DH looks like around 17.5".

Now that's the kind of info I'm looking for. Thanks.

Old Judies were actually 17" for 3" travel. This is about the tallest
fork I want to put on my bike. Currently it has a 2.5" travel Judy, which
is about 16.5" tall. More than 17" and it will affect the steering more
than I like.

Older Rockshox and Manitou forks were considerably shorter for the same
amount of travel than Marzocchi, White Brothers, Pace, etc. I don't know
about newer Rockshox forks though, which is why I asked.

Old Girvin/Proflex forks, the linkage ones, were actually half an inch
more "height efficient" than Rockshox/Manitou.

Also, White Bros. cartridges are shorter overall than stock Judy
cartridges with the same amount of travel.

Matt O.