 I have a 2008 Giant Trance which I think needs to have a slacker head angle for me to enjoy rather than survive some of the trails I ride (Coed etc). (Giant has slackened the head angle on the Trance since then.) Question would it better to fit a longer travel fork or are the K9 Reducer cups (2 degrees allegedly) really what I'm after. Currently a Fox F100 (nice fork) but I have a Pace RC41 XCAM (in need of a service) which would give an extra 40mm of travel raise the front significantly (may be a problem) and slightly raise the bottom bracket (would help). Has anybody fitted the K9s? Know anybody that has? Have a view (of course you do)?
|
 |
 When I looked into these cups for my Dh bike, they only fitted Intense and Iron Horse headtubes due to the internal diameter. So I'd ring K9 up first to make sure they'll fit.
It'll handle a longer fork easily enough but you have to make some changes, such as, trying a lower bar/stem to get your weight back to where it was, maybe try a smaller tyre to lower the BB, or you could get a slightly shorter Eye to eye shock to slacken and lower everything
|
|
Dean supposedly they now have a kit to fit most. But I will ask the question before shelling out £113.40. Trying to track down other users as it seems to be a neat idea and a smart bit of engineering.
|
|
I know of a few guys who've used them on Sundays and Socoms, they seem to work well and do what they're meant to but one of the Sunday guys found it made the bike too slack and went back to the original set up.
|
|
I'm pretty sure though that the Trance is not warrantied to 140mm, and irrelevent of any warranty, are you sure it can actually take the extra 'forces'...
|
|
b r pretty sure it can take the forces- my basic engineering tells me that a 2 degree change in head angle won't increase the forces by 2%. The tolerance built in for handling people weight means that its weigh within the force spread (NB. I'm not exactly heavy. I don't take things on at reckless pace any more - hurts too much when it goes wrong when you get to 50  . Won't jump it other than the occasional short hop). What I want it to do is be able to handle the trail centres a bit better and I worked it out on my last trip to Coed when I swapped from my all mountain rig to the Trance. I felt too on top of the front wheel and kept fearing it was going to stutter - didn't but I had to work hard. Then rode it back here on my usual trails and whilst its tight and snappy I just felt a slacker head angle would make it all much more relaxed.
|
|
Dean sounds like its just the downhillers who have used the K9 cups so far. No ones tried to take a cross country rig and tweak it to make a more trail centred bike.
|
|
 It's the increase in fork length and therefore leverage on the head tube that's the worry. A slacker head angle will reduce the angle of attack which reduces the forward impact forces on the frame but increases the forces on landing. As you're light it shouldn't be a problem. Frames are hugely overbuilt around the headtube to comply with Euro regs. A longer fork with adjustable travel is the obvious solution. Sell the Fox and buy a Rockshox Revelation or similar.
|
|
I wasn't thinking of the angle, more the increase in force due to a longer fork thats' bounced over bigger jumps. You'll also probably want to run it with plenty of sag, otherwise it will be a pain on the climbs.
|
|
John and b r Thanks for your thoughts. So are you saying that the decrease in angle that the cups provide provides just as much additional stress as a longer fork that generates the same angle. Or that because of the additional travel your more likely to do something beyond the original design scope for the bike and potentially put to much stress on the frame? As you say pretty academic give the tolerances of the frame but intriguing me as Giant has now changed the head set angle by 2 degrees and I can't see the difference between headset cups doing the same. Unless theres an implicit trust in the original design being fit for purpose (I used to ride crack-n-fail so I'm a tad cynical).
|
|
 I think 100 to 140 might be a bit enthusiastic. Probably a 120 would be fine though. £113.40 for a slacker head angle but no more travel doesn't sound great VFM to me. I'd go looking for a second-hand adjustable travel fork and experiment.
|
|
Mike. Yup I think I'll play around with some forks rather than buy the cups. Let you know how it goes. All the best.
|
|
On a vaguely related note, at the last XTR launch the demo bikes were 80mm Giant Anthems with 100mm forks. Apparently Giant sold them like that in some markets. They were pretty cool to ride - light and lively but a bit less scaryheaddown than the standard 80/80 setup. I think 100/120 would work well.
|
|
