[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Grant @ Rivendell]

The forks lengths follow the tire size and brake requirements, and there's 
so much to it, when you do it the way we do it--some 650b forks are 388, 
some are 370, and there's a 399 looming there. Suspension forks have to be 
super long to account for suspension, and the extra length means extra 
leverage against the frame, which means the downtube has to be extra 
something, too, or it'll cave in. The frame and fork obviously work 
together, but it's not obvious how unarbitrary the lengths of the forks 
are. We could design our frames to work well with superlong forks, or make 
them to work with our forks, but not both, so...

It's still a good question, tho...(and has a good answer, I hope).

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 7:56:05 AM UTC-7, tc wrote:
>
> With the exciting news about a new Riv MTB in the works, I wonder what 
> would be given up by offering it with a suspension-corrected rigid fork to 
> allow those of us who prefer some squish in front to have that option?  I 
> realize it's too late for that, but I can always hope for a "2.0" model :)
>
> And I'd like to stay away from justifying the need for me or anyone else 
> needing a suspension fork, and instead stick to the design principles 
> involved, and mostly the experience of those who've had bikes that were 
> offered with suspension corrected forks/frames and rode them with both 
> setups.  For the type of riding you do/did, did the offset/trail/whatever 
> bug you to the point that you didn't like one version or the other?  Did 
> you really appreciate the flexibility it gave you?  Did you enjoy it both 
> ways, for different purposes?
>
> Tom
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

['Chris Lampe 2' via RBW Owners Bunch]

I e-mailed Jeff a year or two ago and asked if he had a unicrown fork 
planned for what was then his "Plus" bike and I think the answer was a 
negative.  Now that he has introduced a unicrown fork for the short and 
long models, I really want the LWB version.   Also, now that he has a riser 
version of his H Loop Bar, I ordered the 710mm version with clear grips 
this weekend.  They will go on my Karate Monkey and I'm really hopeful that 
I will like them.  I've been curious for years and a brief test ride on a 
new Ogre with the Moloko bar, which is similar to the Jones H-Bar, 
convinced me that there's a good chance I'll like the H-Bar.  




On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 11:34:09 AM UTC-5, Belopsky wrote:
>
> I like the discussion here and a bit off topic but not terribly so
> http://www.jonesbikes.com/jones-steel-plus-lwb-with-unicrown-fork/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Philip Williamson]

My friend already had a very hard time (a couple years ago) getting a 
replacement fork for his Niner Sir9(?) that was only a couple years old. 
The steerer standard had changed. I passed on buying a Kona Unit X because 
the (rigid) disc fork was 100mm, not 110, and I could see that if I had to 
replace it in five years, I'd need to buy a new wheel, too. Surly designs 
weird work-arounds for backwards compatibility, but you can't future-proof 
anything in the bike industry. 

Philip
Santa Rosa, CA

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 4:16:31 PM UTC-7, iamkeith wrote:
>
> My first disc brake bike, which was state of the art when I got it, uses a 
> 22mm Hayes caliper mounting standard.  Try and find something that fits. 
>  My modern, once-modern replacement suspension fork has ISS caliper 
> mounting tabs.  All new forks use post mounts, so when it wears out, I'll 
> be forced to get new brakes too?  That's a rhetorical question, of course, 
> because the new fork would have a tapered steerer that wouldn't fit my 1 
> 1/8" headtube.  And, even if it did, it would likely be intended for a 
> thru-axle 110 boost hub standard, so I'd need to rebuild my wheel anyway. 
>  Which is probably a good thing, because then i could ditch the old-school 
> 6 bolt rotor mounting standard for the new and improved centerlock 
> standard.  This year, that is.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[iamkeith]

My first disc brake bike, which was state of the art when I got it, uses a 22mm 
Hayes caliper mounting standard.  Try and find something that fits.  My modern, 
once-modern replacement suspension fork has ISS caliper mounting tabs.  All new 
forks use post mounts, so when it wears out, I'll be forced to get new brakes 
too?  That's a rhetorical question, of course, because the new fork would have 
a tapered steerer that wouldn't fit my 1 1/8" headtube.  And, even if it did, 
it would likely be intended for a thru-axle 110 boost hub standard, so I'd need 
to rebuild my wheel anyway.  Which is probably a good thing, because then i 
could ditch the old-school 6 bolt rotor mounting standard for the new and 
improved centerlock standard.  This year, that is.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Patrick Moore]

Disc brakes and well designed suspension forks are no more prone to
obsolescence than rim brakes or rigid forks, for which, also, there are
fashions (high-rake? Paul, Compass, centerpulls? -- not in the original
Rivendell catalogues). And please explain why disc brakes will last less
long than calipers or cantis or those horrible modern V brakes?

Patrick Moore, whose BB7s on his bilaminate custom dirt road bike will be
things of beauty forever.

The period Rockshock fork on the 1996 Race Lite I owned worked as well in
2016 as it did in 1996; though I personally have no need for suspension
forks of any era. And BB7s have been around longer than Compass brakes and,
I daresay, some of the Dia Compe calipers.

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:13 AM, iamkeith  wrote:

> Setting aesthetics, appropriateness of riding style and necessary
> design/handling compromises aside, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the
> most obvious strike against suspension (not to mention disc brakes):
> longevity and built-in obsolescence.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Belopsky]

I like the discussion here and a bit off topic but not terribly so
http://www.jonesbikes.com/jones-steel-plus-lwb-with-unicrown-fork/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[tc]

Thanks everyone.  It looks like only a very few have owned and ridden a 
sus-corrected bike in both rigid and sus modes...so the experience pool 
here is kinda small, as expected.

For those that may or may not have that experience, it looks like poor 
aesthetics, not "Riv" enough, handling weirdness of a specific bike model 
(don't know make), riding only in places and at speeds where your body is 
enough of a shock, and lack of replacement part longevity are reason enough 
not to buy a sus-corrected bike.

Carry on!  Next topic.  Can't wait to see the new MTB.  One thing we no 
doubt all agree on is that a new bike, a new *Riv *bike, is always exciting.

Tom

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[iamkeith]

Setting aesthetics, appropriateness of riding style and necessary 
design/handling compromises aside, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the 
most obvious strike against suspension (not to mention disc brakes):  longevity 
and built-in obsolescence.

After every past or current, state of the art, fashionable headtube standard, 
hub standard, brake mounting standard, or available fork travel length has 
disapeared,  Rivendell bikes are still going to be useful, ridable, beautiful 
and sought after. And their forks wont "wear out."

1" threaded headsets, 68mm threaded english bottom brackets, 100/135 qr hubs & 
rim brakes have and will outlast everything else.  I don't know about the rest 
of you, but that's the very reason I buy Rivendells in the first place.  
They're not only lifetime bikes for me, but heirlooms that I'll be able to pass 
to my kids.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Bob K.]

Tom,

I ride very rocky, rutted, rooty, and washed out trails here in MD with a good 
bit of elevation change—generally 100 feet of gain per mile on average, and 
often more. My steed is a non-suspension-corrected Surly Troll with 26x3.0 
tires. I love the ride and handling to and from the trails, and I never feel 
limited on the trails themselves.

I’ve ridden a very expensive full suspension Santa Cruz on the same trails, and 
while it was definitely fun, I don’t like the bounce and give of a suspension 
fork.

In terms of design, like someone already said, a suspension-corrected front end 
requires a shorter headtube—and I’m guessing a different headtube angle—and 
these things change the ride and comfort of a bike, as well as the handling.

Bob K. in Baltimore

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Deacon Patrick]

Hey Tom! Exactly! I agree wholeheartedly and highly suspect we could ride the 
same ride and have a great time together. There is a fairly large swath of 
middle ground where some may like the squish and others not. Which was my 
point, responding to “if your riding requires suspension.” Grin. Equally, there 
is no need to justify suspension in whatever form when rocks, roots, and slopes 
are involved. Grin.

With abandon,
Patrick

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[tc]

Patrick!  Gosh, poor guy.  I fully expect to see you in your armor in your 
next travelogue!

Your comment is a great one, since it speaks to what I think is another 
possible misunderstanding of why anyone would choose to ride a squish 
forked bike.  It's not always about being a daredevil.  Sometimes its about 
being able to ride at a fun (not stoopid) pace, over rooty, rocky, rutted 
paths, without shaking your teeth or bones loose.  There is a middle ground 
of speed for the fun of it, but not balls-to-the-wall crazy speed.  And it 
does depend on terrain.  There's also the enjoyment - *after* a lengthy 
singletrack ride - of not feeling like you've been body slammed all day.  I 
know the difference because I've felt it.  I'm in great shape, and I know 
how to use my body to absorb shock.  A measly 80-100mm sus fork simply 
takes the edge off where I ride, given how I like to ride.  

But I've digressed into what I didn't want this discussion to be 
(justification).  I was looking for more of the design points and different 
ride qualities that others have experienced who've had bikes with 
sus-corrected bikes and used them in both modes.  The only experience I've 
had is with an Ogre I used to have, as well as a Karate Monkey.  I liked 
both in both modes (the Ogre better), but for other reasons got rid of 
them...in one case to get my first Riv.

Tom

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Deacon Patrick]

“If you're riding requires some sort of suspension”

Suspension in various forms is a part of all riding. Be it pnumatic tires, arms 
and elbows, flex of frame/fork, bouncy bike shocks ... whatever. However, I’d 
posit no riding requires what is refered to as “full suspension shocks” except 
downhill racing. I have do desire to downhill race.

I ride trails not for the technicality, but for their remoteness, though the 
two strongly correlate. I regularly pass sponsored bouncy bikers, and almost 
never (1-2x a year?) does one pass me ... generally on the downhill with them 
needing body armor to survive any mishap. Seriously. The other day a guy 
skewerd himself on a tree near here. His lesson to all bikers out there from 
his hospital bed after his very near death experience? “Wear your body armor!” 
Yup. That was the lesson. Sigh. Sardonic grin.

With abandon,
Patrick 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Coal Bee Rye Anne]

I'd be more surprised to see Grant/Rivendell design any suspension 
corrected frame than I would be to see a disc equipped fully rigid 
Rivendell.  Not that either are likely to happen but I think what would be 
given up is essentially everything a Rivendell bicycle represents in terms 
of handling and frame/fork being designed as a singular and cohesive unit.  
Ok, the Rosco Bubbes may have been designed around existing forks, but they 
were still designed individually and to work exclusively with each fork 
variation for a desired ride/handling.  There are too many variables and 
options for aftermarket forks and Rivendell wouldn't be able to do anything 
but design compromises around all the possibilities and doing would be a 
huge contradiction, I think.

I also agree with what Philip mentioned regarding the "misproportioned" 
appearance of suspension correct forks in general.  I have a Surly Big 
Dummy fork I bought to install on an older Rockhopper that had a stock 
short travel Manitou fork.  I used the Manitou suspension fork to rebuild 
an even older full suspension Mongoose Amplifier II with a crusty old Rock 
Shox (Quadra [something] model) that needed replacing and decided to make 
the Rockhopper rigid.  I have since blown the seals on that Manitou fork 
and the chainstay of the aluminum Amplifier eventually cracked as well.  
But back to the Big Dummy fork... with 425 axle to crown it split the 
difference between the other suspension corrected rigid fork options I was 
considering (some below 420mm and others 440+mm or 453mm) and is designed 
around 26" with canti/v-brake posts and disc tabs but is tall enough to 
actually clear a 29x2" tire with ease which actually looks much more 
proportioned between the blades... so much so that if I had a 29er QR disc 
wheel I'd have made the Rockhopper a 69er (26" in back, 29" up front) and 
removed the canti posts from the Dummy fork.  A 26x2.35" tire just looks 
tiny with all that headspace in the fork.  

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:56:05 AM UTC-4, tc wrote:

> With the exciting news about a new Riv MTB in the works, I wonder what 
> would be given up by offering it with a suspension-corrected rigid fork to 
> allow those of us who prefer some squish in front to have that option?  I 
> realize it's too late for that, but I can always hope for a "2.0" model :)
>
> And I'd like to stay away from justifying the need for me or anyone else 
> needing a suspension fork, and instead stick to the design principles 
> involved, and mostly the experience of those who've had bikes that were 
> offered with suspension corrected forks/frames and rode them with both 
> setups.  For the type of riding you do/did, did the offset/trail/whatever 
> bug you to the point that you didn't like one version or the other?  Did 
> you really appreciate the flexibility it gave you?  Did you enjoy it both 
> ways, for different purposes?
>
> Tom
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[tc]

d2mini, I agree with your 'no replacing' statement, though in my riding 
areas, full sus would be fun but not requireda hard tail is fine.

In general, I think there is a large misunderstanding of the types of 
singletrack to be found in different parts of the U.S. (and world).  In NC, 
the trails I have access to are rooty, rocky, often rutted, often damp, 
heavily wooded, with oh-so-nice brief stints of what a lot of the Riv 
videos show.  I mean, if the test of a mountain bike's design worth is 
Repack Road, then fine, no suspension needed.  But that's a far, far cry 
from what we experience "over here".

Thus my wish for an MTB that could appeal to a wider audience by offering 
sus-corrected fork/frame.

Yes, I know I can get that somewhere else.  I've had several.  But the 
thought of a RIv-designed one, which I know would be the best, is exciting 
to me, anyway.

Tom





On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:59:17 AM UTC-4, d2mini wrote:
>
> For my mountain biking, there is no replacing my full suspension mtn bike. 
> Period.
>
> That's ok though. I have my Riv for my casual riding on roads and light 
> trails and my specialized rockhopper for taking the real abuse.
>
> In other words, don't force something to be something it's not. Let Riv be 
> Riv. 
> If you're riding requires some sort of suspension, there are so many good 
> options out there already.
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-5, tc wrote:
>>
>> With the exciting news about a new Riv MTB in the works, I wonder what 
>> would be given up by offering it with a suspension-corrected rigid fork to 
>> allow those of us who prefer some squish in front to have that option?  I 
>> realize it's too late for that, but I can always hope for a "2.0" model :)
>>
>> And I'd like to stay away from justifying the need for me or anyone else 
>> needing a suspension fork, and instead stick to the design principles 
>> involved, and mostly the experience of those who've had bikes that were 
>> offered with suspension corrected forks/frames and rode them with both 
>> setups.  For the type of riding you do/did, did the offset/trail/whatever 
>> bug you to the point that you didn't like one version or the other?  Did 
>> you really appreciate the flexibility it gave you?  Did you enjoy it both 
>> ways, for different purposes?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

['Eamon Nordquist' via RBW Owners Bunch]

I wouldn't consider any cruiser/paperboy fork ever made to be comparable to 
(for example) a Hunqapillar or Bombadil fork (which I would consider "mtb" 
forks).

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:51:36 AM UTC-7, tc wrote:
>
> Eamon, hmm, I understood this new bike to be a 'dedicated' mountain bike, 
> which in my experience means no need for racks and fenders.  Maybe I got 
> that wrong?
>
> Also, there are plenty of old steel "paperboy" and cruiser bikes with 
> nicely curved, very strong blades.
>
> Tom
>
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:25:11 AM UTC-4, Eamon Nordquist wrote:
>>
>> Well, for starters the headtube has to be shorter, and the fork crown 
>> ends up a million miles from the rack mounting braze ons, limiting your 
>> front rack mounting options (also making fender mounting difficult). The 
>> fork blades have to be much longer (and probably stouter), making chances 
>> for an elegant looking fork slim to none. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[tc]

Eamon, hmm, I understood this new bike to be a 'dedicated' mountain bike, 
which in my experience means no need for racks and fenders.  Maybe I got 
that wrong?

Also, there are plenty of old steel "paperboy" and cruiser bikes with 
nicely curved, very strong blades.

Tom

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:25:11 AM UTC-4, Eamon Nordquist wrote:
>
> Well, for starters the headtube has to be shorter, and the fork crown ends 
> up a million miles from the rack mounting braze ons, limiting your front 
> rack mounting options (also making fender mounting difficult). The fork 
> blades have to be much longer (and probably stouter), making chances for an 
> elegant looking fork slim to none. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

['Chris Lampe 2' via RBW Owners Bunch]

I agree.  The only thing I really don't like about my Karate Monkey is the 
fact that it's suspension corrected.  The new Ogre fixes that but when I 
decide to get a new frame, it's going to be something much nicer than a 
Surly.  



On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:25:11 AM UTC-5, Eamon Nordquist wrote:
>
>
>
> I think a bike is either designed for suspension or it isn’t. Trying to do 
> both is a bad idea. 
>
> There’s also the admittedly subjective matter of aesthetics (I think they 
> are as ugly as including disc and canti mounts - i.e. super ugly). 
>
> Eamon 
> Seattle 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Philip Williamson]

I have a long rigid Kona fork on my Bontrager 
, replacing a 
suspension fork. I had the same setup with a Gary Fisher Utopia hybrid 
. I see them 
as misproportioned, and I don't like that it's an obvious hack. The Fisher 
had a bad SR fork when I got it, and the Bontrager's SID Air was just older 
and flexier than I wanted to deal with. One of the things I really liked 
about my Gryphon mountain bik 
e was that it 
was designed as a rigid bike. It looked good.

Of these two bikes, the dedicated rigid version is more attractive to me, 
and presented as an improvement on the suspension-able design by the 
builder: (non-Riv trigger warning) Suspension-corrected 
 hybrid vs Rigid 
 hybrid.  

Philip
Santa Rosa, CA

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 7:56:05 AM UTC-7, tc wrote:
>
> With the exciting news about a new Riv MTB in the works, I wonder what 
> would be given up by offering it with a suspension-corrected rigid fork to 
> allow those of us who prefer some squish in front to have that option?  I 
> realize it's too late for that, but I can always hope for a "2.0" model :)
>
> And I'd like to stay away from justifying the need for me or anyone else 
> needing a suspension fork, and instead stick to the design principles 
> involved, and mostly the experience of those who've had bikes that were 
> offered with suspension corrected forks/frames and rode them with both 
> setups.  For the type of riding you do/did, did the offset/trail/whatever 
> bug you to the point that you didn't like one version or the other?  Did 
> you really appreciate the flexibility it gave you?  Did you enjoy it both 
> ways, for different purposes?
>
> Tom
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[CMR]

It would need a very different type of headset that would look goofy with a 
steel fork that 95% of Rivendell riders would use. Unless you want to do 
the hunting for straight steerer suspension forks, that's not a search I 
want to do. And there would be way too much space in the fork to mount the 
front racks Rivendell often uses. It really doesn't go with the Rivendell 
style or purpose. Just so many reasons, please don't do it Rivendell haha

Chris
Berkeley, CA

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

['Tim' via RBW Owners Bunch]

A question and a comment: 

Question: What is a suspension corrected fork? (In Italy caffe correto is 
"coffee corrected" meaning adding liquor...)

Comment: Now that I'm working in AZ, I took the Hunq to Sedona and hit the MTB 
trails. The bike never limited me, my skills did. I'm a novice on rocks and 
it's rocky there. The first day was a big, big challenge with lots of walking 
the bike. My technique improved probably 50% the first day and another 50% per 
day the next two. I had two low speed crashes (which I almost always do on 
single track) but I rode stuff on day 3 that I would have just turned around 
and avoided on day one. I'm still a super mediocre off road rider. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[Eric Karnes]

I would definitely appreciate front suspension during the (extremely rare) 
occasions that I'm riding seriously off-road. But I'm guessing a 500 or 
600mm fork completely changes the ride characteristics of the bike. I'm no 
geometry expert, but have definitely found suspension corrected Surlys to 
ride awkwardly on anything but the single track they were designed for. 
Kind of a lumbering feel. Certainly compared to a Rivendell. And as was 
mentioned, there are plenty of steel, suspension-corrected mountain bike 
frames out there today. 

Eric



On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:59:17 AM UTC-4, d2mini wrote:
>
> For my mountain biking, there is no replacing my full suspension mtn bike. 
> Period.
>
> That's ok though. I have my Riv for my casual riding on roads and light 
> trails and my specialized rockhopper for taking the real abuse.
>
> In other words, don't force something to be something it's not. Let Riv be 
> Riv. 
> If you're riding requires some sort of suspension, there are so many good 
> options out there already.
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-5, tc wrote:
>>
>> With the exciting news about a new Riv MTB in the works, I wonder what 
>> would be given up by offering it with a suspension-corrected rigid fork to 
>> allow those of us who prefer some squish in front to have that option?  I 
>> realize it's too late for that, but I can always hope for a "2.0" model :)
>>
>> And I'd like to stay away from justifying the need for me or anyone else 
>> needing a suspension fork, and instead stick to the design principles 
>> involved, and mostly the experience of those who've had bikes that were 
>> offered with suspension corrected forks/frames and rode them with both 
>> setups.  For the type of riding you do/did, did the offset/trail/whatever 
>> bug you to the point that you didn't like one version or the other?  Did 
>> you really appreciate the flexibility it gave you?  Did you enjoy it both 
>> ways, for different purposes?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Why not a suspension-corrected fork/frame?

[d2mini]

For my mountain biking, there is no replacing my full suspension mtn bike. 
Period.

That's ok though. I have my Riv for my casual riding on roads and light 
trails and my specialized rockhopper for taking the real abuse.

In other words, don't force something to be something it's not. Let Riv be 
Riv. 
If you're riding requires some sort of suspension, there are so many good 
options out there already.



On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-5, tc wrote:
>
> With the exciting news about a new Riv MTB in the works, I wonder what 
> would be given up by offering it with a suspension-corrected rigid fork to 
> allow those of us who prefer some squish in front to have that option?  I 
> realize it's too late for that, but I can always hope for a "2.0" model :)
>
> And I'd like to stay away from justifying the need for me or anyone else 
> needing a suspension fork, and instead stick to the design principles 
> involved, and mostly the experience of those who've had bikes that were 
> offered with suspension corrected forks/frames and rode them with both 
> setups.  For the type of riding you do/did, did the offset/trail/whatever 
> bug you to the point that you didn't like one version or the other?  Did 
> you really appreciate the flexibility it gave you?  Did you enjoy it both 
> ways, for different purposes?
>
> Tom
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.