[Closed] Rigid fork question

As long as your frame will take the a-c of the fork it'll be fine.

Is your 29er rigid fork suspension adjusted? If so I think it may raise the front "too much".

If you had a frame that is designed to have 100mm suspension, you'd need a rigid fork that was suspension adjusted, to have the same(ish?) axle to crown distance as a 100 mm suspension fork provides.

see... http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/measuring-axle-to-crown-height

All depends how much longer the 29er rigid fork is than your current fork.
There is no set size for a rigid fork so a fork for a 29" wheel could vary by around 40mm. If you had a particularly long 29" fork it would change your frame angles and also raise the front up too much while also giving your bike a bit of a chopper look.

bear in mind you want to look at the 'sagged' values of the suspension fork you're replacing - this can be significant even if you're using a fork designed for the wheel size of the frame, more so with a 29er fork in a 26" frame.

Don't forget that 29'er forks often have a different rake to 26'er forks.

Check the a to c but was fine for me.

Yup, that's exactly what I did with my Exotics- I got them for a Soul so I wanted "long travel" rigids basically not the usual 100mm corrected ones. Basically buy on actual dimensions not on what it says on the listing.

It'd be going on a 456... the a2c is 470mm... my 'maths' tells me that'd be fine, & the equivalent of a 130mm 26" fork sat in its sag.... a bit like northwind above.

i have a 470mm A-C exotic fork on my 456, previously had a 26" wheel in it, but now got a 29" wheel fitted. It works for me.

Perfect paladin... you don't have any pics do you? Sounds like what I'm ultimately planning!!

i do have pics. and when i figure out how to link them from google photos, i'll put them on here

Ha... no worries & thanks!

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

-1 point for valve / logo alignment on the rear. 😀

Good effort, thanks again.

gastromonkey - Member
-1 point for valve / logo alignment on the rear.

different coloured wheels ok tho? 😉

Dunno if this helps, but both of my 26" frames have 29" forks and 26" wheels (f&r) and they ride (subjectively) really well.

You'll notice that I like to challenge the conventions of the bike-photo genre, by playfully flirting with unconventional ideas around things like logo/valve/crank alignment, and clear backgrounds, lending each picture what I like to think of as an earthy, rustic quality, befitting of racked, rigid steel bikes in countryside scenes, oft single-speeding, but all built up organically for a purpose, not just bought off the shelf.

😉

1992 Kona Fire Mountain with PII 29er forks.
[img] [/img]

2010/11 Genesis Altitude with Surly ECR forks:
[img] [/img]

It's not always clear what makes a fork a 29er fork. The important thing is that its axle to crown height is within the limit of the frame's design. I checked with Pipedream, the manufacturers of my frame, who advised that anything from 440mm - 480mm would work (the frame will take 90mm-130mm sus. forks). I was going to buy a 440mm fork but MRP, the manufacturers, recommended their 465mm length fork knowing that the frame as 26" wheeled and could take up to a 130mm sus. fork; I bought as recommended, and rides really nicely.

MRP do a range of rigid forks (420mm up to 490mm, all I think with the same rake) and don't seem to spec. them for specific wheel sizes. I've seen the 465mm fork I have sold as a 29er, 27.5er and (when one retailer was just selling the 465mm and 490mm) as a 26er fork. Fork heights and sag recommendations vary between suspension brands, but I'd guess that 465mm is roughly a sagged 110/120mm 26" fork (450mm is usually suggested to be the equivalent of a 100mm fork).

[img] ?psid=1[/img]

One of the best riding hardtails I've ever had was a mk2 (26") Inbred running a 29" fork up front.
It was great.