'96 RM geometry and new forks

[Sam R]

Anyone got knowledge on new forks for old frames? Looking at RS Tora, Magura Odur & Marzocchi MX Pro - most seem to have 85/100mm variants, so can anyone advise which to go for on a '96 RM Blizzard. Currently have '96 Marzocchi Z2 with 65mm, but BITD I know someone who ran 100mm Z1s on a '96 Vertex - he didn't reckon that it compromised the geometry, I guess due to more sag. The bike originally came with Mag21 and I have found an online table for older fork axle-crown lengths, but not for the nu-skool ones. Cheers

 

[gump]

Hi Sam,

96 RM catalogue here..
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/mai ... emId=15475

and my 96 Hammer frame with 100mm Fox here..
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/mai ... emId=19352

Rode pretty well with 100mm, but would not do it by choice. 85mm I think would be fine, though I run my 96 Altitude on 63mm Judys and its nice and quick

hth

 

[Anthony]

Ah geometry, my favourite subject. As a proper mountainbiker, you’re supposed to say ‘oh just go and ride the f***g thing, all that geometry’s just a load of b*****ks’. And yet it’s surprising how many people with 100-130 adjustable forks say they love the 130 travel, but funnily enough they actually prefer the handling on the 100 setting. But they still say geometry is all b*****ks of course.

Basically a 96 Blizzard was designed to give a 70 degree head angle static with a 43-43.5 cm fork, or 71 degrees dynamically with 1.5cm of sag. I think most of those 2.5â€

 

[Anthony]

I'm just posting again because the previous effort was my 400th post, a humbling enough fact in itself, but the system that previously described me as some kind of guru now describes me as 'Jezza in the classifieds'. I expect Jez is more insulted by that than I am, but I just want to see whether posting a 401st time changes it to something a little less inappropriate.

 

[Anthony]

Hmmm, no.

Oh well, there are always other websites.