Would this work?

[FLV]

A frame designed for 120 to 140 forks.

The geo numbers with a sagged 120 fork state 67 head angle and 74 seat angle.

Axle to crown @120 sagged is 501mm

Ive been looking at it for a little while and would use a suspension fork 85% of the time.

How horrible would it be to use a rigid fork with an axle to crown of 483mm on occasion ?

I can't find any rigid forks that are much longer.

[PaulB2]

Salsa reckon that their carbon Firestarter forks works with the woodsmoke and that normally takes a 140mm fork so presumably you should be fine with a 483 ac fork.

[Lazarus]

IME, with using the wrong size forks, you dont really notice a difference of 18mm.
Granted I was always going bigger rather than smaller

[redefined_cycles]

Dave... I wouldn't as I reckon it would become a great climber but on the downhill might feel a bit steep.

However, sometimes you might be surprised what size forks a frame can handle whilst retaining a good riding geometry...

Like they say, there's only one way to find out... Do you wanna borrow my Trav Prongs for a little experimentation (just don't crush the steerer tube whilst doing stem up )...

[jameso]

29er 120mm fork sagged 25% is as you say ~500mm. I prefer a fork that's a bit shorter than that calc for a rigid conversion so 485-490 would be great, 483 will be fine also. You can make up 3-4mm or so with a deeper headest cup if it really needs a tweak.

[FLV]

Cheers for the opinions. My gut feel would be that it would work fine.

[Bearlegged]

Should be ok. The geometry should be designed so the bike doesn't do anything silly at full travel, which would be a shorter a-c than your rigid fork.

[composite]

However, sometimes you might be surprised what size forks a frame can handle whilst retaining a good riding geometry...

I used to run a 29er rigid fork on my 26er P7 (designed for 140mm sus fork). It rode great!