Im guessing the attraction of going fully rigid on a HT is reduction in weight and simplicity/less to go wrong.

If you decide rigid, then how do you chose the fork length? I assume you look at what forks are spec'd with your frame and then see what the a/c measurement of those is? Do you allow for the static sag, or is that irrelevant?

Assuming you decide you would still like some front susp, then who makes the most reliable short travel 29 fork?

And if you go rigid carbon fork, who makes items i should be looking at for multiday mtb bikepacking on a 29er?

Thanks

I just bought a rigid fork that fit the head tube and then when I got used to riding without suspension, bought a Stooge frame set.
Nothing technical really, it's just bike riding.

Also means you can run a bigger front bag on the handlebars

I went rigid as I don't like the way normal tele suspension forks ride. If someone comes up with something decent I wouldn't mind a go though.

Will consider a lauf maybe one day but won't fit bikes as is anyway

Are you riding 'branded' forks? Or have a particular supplier/seller?

I've ridden with rigid forks on and off since first getting into mountain biking. Some bikes just seem to ride better with them and there can be a significant weight saving.

Wider, higher volume tyres make rigid an even more usable option as the tyre will handle some of the roughness that might otherwise get a bit tiring.

For fork length, measure the a2c of the suspension forks when sagged (or calculate it nased on 20% of travel). Some rigid forks will have the relevant numbers in the spec.

My Pact is currently using a set of non-branded carbon Boost forks bought off eBay.

It's a bit of a shame that 20-40mm suspension forks aren't a thing, though some short travel forks are now being fitted to gravel bikes. I've not looked into them enough to see if they'd be suitable for bikepacking or what sort of a2c they have.

I've just put my rigid forks back on my HT as I find it more fun to ride. In addition to the above reasons another is that suspension forks require servicing. if you do this yourself then that's not an issue but I send mine off (when I remember) and this costs about £100 a time. The information that comes back with them recommends that they are serviced once a year or every hundred hours of riding. The enduro kids I see in the woods might only ride twice a week in the summer for say 2 hours a time so they'll get a years use between services - or most likely new bikes But for us more 'endurance' based riders a hundred hours doesn't go very far.

The simple truth is - riding rigid will make you more appealing to the opposite sex and it will signify to those with suspension that you are a 'riding god' with skills and finesse way above their own. There's also the added bonus of having a built in crap riding clause ... "I'd have cleared that if I wasn't riding rigid", etc, etc.

Rigid's pretty much a win - win from any angle

If in doubt I usually go with a slightly longer a-c rigid than an equivalent sagged sus-fork.

My reasoning being that too short a fork is likely to shift weight distribution to the front / bars / hands and that is less comfortable / fun. IMO

It also assumes everything else stays the same, if you do go for a bigger tyre that'll raise the front a little etc etc.

My HT (charge cooker 3) went rigid with Sinuglar rooster forks on it after the Rockshox XC forks I had collapsed on day 2 of a trip and were unfixable. I spent the next 2 days with a rather slammed front and less than great handling.

I think I just went with the A-C measurement. I really like the steel forks, currently with a 2.4" 29er tyre, certainly seems to have some welcome spring in them. I've not got drop bars too and really like the setup for the riding I do.

Strangely enough, for the first time in 3 decades of mountainbiking on HT, I find myself looking at FS bikes for the first time in my life.

I'm so over rigid bikes.

Zippy wrote:I'm so over rigid bikes.

Why's that?

benp1 wrote:

Zippy wrote:I'm so over rigid bikes.

Why's that?

Was knackered on it after the Cairngorm Loop! Mostly from being beaten up by it - that said, I was running pressures a bit higher than optimal as I'd had some tyre issues the night before... It is also a 26er on fast rolling tyres, not a a big volume 29er.

Let me qualify that,I'm so over rigid bikes for multi-day, long hours in the saddle type stuff.

I may also be getting soft in my old age.

Thanks for the input. I have some Fox forks i can use for afternoons out but the low maintenance of rigid sounds ideal for a multi day outing.

Im loving the idea of being more attractive to the opposite sex and also the idea that i now have a ready made excuse.....

the big problem for me now is which to buy.....Enve mtn are 650 (gulp), 3t are 350, and ebay chinese specials are from £50!

Does anyone have a chinese specialist seller they can recommend? Or should i buy the most expensive i can afford as my head is worth it?

I always got on well with the stuff from carbon cycles: http://www.carboncycles.cc/

Also a fan of Salsa steel forks. Fit and very much forget ... or at least until hordes of women chase me down the trail, then I remember them (fondly)

I bought a 29er bike that was built to only fit rigids.

Goal was to get the front end lower.

It runs a 445mm "26 inch" rigid fork.

Started off with a no name ebay carbon fork which i broke the steerer on so bought a set of kona triple butted p2s weighin in at 800 grams. Just the right amount of twang but not the same fear of tooth extraction :)

On the right bike rigid is good. Angles play a big part , i found my steep head angled xc 26"race bike to be very difficult to ride rigid as it would a. Bounce off things and b. jarr the wrists badly even if i fitted a big tyre.

Also, you NEED a beard to ride rigid.

That's the law*



*ladies don't require beards, just some fuzz on the top lip...

Better arrest me then

My rigid is SS for full niche points!

Only use it for local stuff and local BAMs. Haven't got the legs to do real hills!

Bearbonesnorm wrote:The simple truth is - riding rigid will make you more appealing to the opposite sex and it will signify to those with suspension that you are a 'riding god' with skills and finesse way above their own. There's also the added bonus of having a built in crap riding clause ... "I'd have cleared that if I wasn't riding rigid", etc, etc.

Rigid's pretty much a win - win from any angle

Pretty much my thoughts too - especially the excuse for being crap / old etc.
Plus downhills last much longer

I am sticking with my Fox's for the moment, well they came with the bike, I am still thinking of going rigid, the Salsa carbon forks look tasty.

Looking at the Open U.P. makes me go rigid.

I'll get my coat...

Is it only me that finds the initial cost of suspension forks another great reason for riding rigid? With a mid-level fork easily costing over £300, I simply can't justify the expense when weighed up against the potential gains.

That and the servicing is the major reason that when my forks that came with the bike collapsed I decided to get rigid forks. I also didn't want to be a couple of days ride from getting home again with collapsed forks.