Originally Posted by
ToddBlackstone
Dabac, Thank you. This is the type of infomation that I'm looking for. I have a couple of follow up questions: 1- What does IME ... mean?
IME is a good ol' internet abbreviation of
In
My
Experience. Which may be greater than some, but smaller than others.
Originally Posted by
ToddBlackstone
1- What does ... ATC mean?
ATC is maybe my own shorthand for
Axle-
To-
Crown, which isn't that fun to keep tapping out. I can be lazy in things like that.
Originally Posted by
ToddBlackstone
.. 2- On my lunch break I ran over to REI and peeked in their QBP book and found that the deminsion non corrected fork is 395 (you're right on) but their 80mm corrected fork is 425mm, which is shorter than your suggest range... would you still go with something longer?
Really hard to tell what I'd go for. And it probably doesn't matter in terms of rideability.
Since you haven't got a fork for it now, you have no frame of reference to how the bike "should" ride. A new bike is a new experience anyhow, so you'd probably soak up a 425 mm fork as part of the whole experience w/o second thoughts.
Seeing that you want to use it as a commuter, I think the 425 will work out fine. In city traffic, I like a bike that feels nimble and manouverable. Off-road, a bit more casual response can be nice.
But the math is interesting. I might try to track down a few other sus-corrected forks, see what they are recommending. If one were to use the fairly well established sag value recommendation for a an 80 mm fork, one should be looking at a 455 mm rigid fork to mimic ride characteristics at casual riding. At 425, it's almost 2/3 of travel used up already.
I still think a slightly longer fork would bring the bike closer to its original handling, but unless you have an explicit wish to match that as close as possible, the 425 fork will in all probability do just fine.