- Feedback
- View
Yes, though bombers did take long travel up to 100mm.
Most had standard at 65/70 and long at 80.
ish...
Most had standard at 65/70 and long at 80.
ish...
Suspension Forks on Early 90's Frames
- Thread starter PHeller
- Start date
dirttorpedo
Senior Retro Guru
I didn't see suspension forks showing up to any significant degree until 92 when I bought my Stumpjumper FS. The original Future Shock was a cheap noodly rockshock with maybe two inches of travel. A shock fork was pretty rare at the time - I looked at KHS, Kona, GT, Marin, Bridgestone and Rockymountain at the time and the Specialized was the only one with the suspension fork - and they even hedged and you could buy a lovely pink one with a rigid fork. Everyone who I talked to told me that a suspension fork could be swapped into the bike and some - the Kona dealer specifically - said the manufacturer wanted to let the purchaser make the decision on a suspension fork because there was so much variety in the technology of the time.
- Feedback
- View
Rocky had suspension (front) on three of their bikes in 1992, out of I think 9 bikes. A third of the range!
Funnily enough, I came across this thread because I was looking to see if anyone had tried beyond 100mm travel on a 1990s hard tail. A while ago, I fitted my 1998 Stumpjumper (small) with a Rockshox Recon 100mm and thought it handled okay but was disappointed by how far the fork dipped into its travel. Good on small bumps, bad for everything else. A DIY volume spacer improved engagement and gave the fork more mid-stroke support, but it was not enough.
Then the other day, I realized I could remove all-travel spacers from the air spring and make the fork have 120mm of travel. I tried it for the fun of it and was not surprised at how slammed the bike looked. With that having been said, 120mm of travel seems to be the sweet spot for this Recon fork, because it feels 1000x better and extremely plush. Also the sag is enormous anyway (with the recommended PSI for my weight), coupled with my weight being over a short frame, so the fork generally sits low enough in its travel to where it's at about 90-100mm travel as I ride.
I genuinely want to keep it like this because it's a much more plush fork when extended to its fullest travel. The only thing I am concerned about is climbing (in)efficiency and potentially snapping the head tube.
Then the other day, I realized I could remove all-travel spacers from the air spring and make the fork have 120mm of travel. I tried it for the fun of it and was not surprised at how slammed the bike looked. With that having been said, 120mm of travel seems to be the sweet spot for this Recon fork, because it feels 1000x better and extremely plush. Also the sag is enormous anyway (with the recommended PSI for my weight), coupled with my weight being over a short frame, so the fork generally sits low enough in its travel to where it's at about 90-100mm travel as I ride.
I genuinely want to keep it like this because it's a much more plush fork when extended to its fullest travel. The only thing I am concerned about is climbing (in)efficiency and potentially snapping the head tube.
Prodigal Son
Senior Retro Guru
early 90s mtbs were quick, sometimes too quick up front. A mag 21 would turn a 71 into 70 head angle. That was good on many situations.
- Feedback
- View
It still wasn't quick as you had to wait for the delay of the wheel/fork with a MAG catching up with the steering ;-)
You got used to it
, I liked it as it added a bit of side comfort.
You got used to it
, I liked it as it added a bit of side comfort.
Vesatoro
Cannondale Fan
With the Headshok there was, and still is no needIt still wasn't quick as you had to wait for the delay of the wheel/fork with a MAG catching up with the steering ;-)
You got used to it
