Stretching the Forks - what's wrong with the idea?

[Pavel]

I really enjoy the ride of my new Thorn RST, except for one small detail.  All the Thorn bike, and the RST is no exception, are designed for long trail handling characteristics.  The Best ride according to what I seek in a bike,  I remember was my old 1976 Peugeot.  It was a frame too small for me (as I like) and despite a fairly short wheelbase wanted to go straight.  My RST is better in that regard than my Nomad but both, I think, could be made more into the kind of bike that I preffer by stretching the forks offset out a bit. Thorn just happens to have a set of forks available which would fit both bikes and give a shorter trail to the bikes.  One set of forks is the Full Carbon forks which comes in an assortment of offsets. They include 45, 50, 55 and 60mm.  My RST I think is 48 mm.  Any idea if my ideas about this are wrong, and which offset to choose?  I want the steering to be more sluggish at low speeds that way a low trail bike tends to be.  I don't care about the possibility of shimmy at high speeds because I tend never to exceed about 35 mph on any downhills.  I know that I would lose the low riders .. but that is ok on the RST.  Are there any disadvantages that I am not thinking of?  I have the 55mm forks in my basket right now, but wonder if 60 may not be even better? Another choice may be to buy the RAV853VC fork which is less of a change at 52 vs 48 mm.  I know that I would have to reverse the brakes ... but don't mind unless that change forces me to put the front brake on the american/left side ... uggh!

Now I normally would stay away from carbon.  I have little use for something that is far more destructible that plain ol' steel - but the carbon fork has the largest range of offsets.  Does the carbon, from those of you who use a carbon fork, give a more supple ride? What can I expect?  If I decide to go steel, which on the Nomad I would preffer to, I have only one choice.  The Mt Tura which has a slightly larger offset at 52. Any ideas if that changes the handling in any meaningful way? Any advice greatly appreciated. I want a bike that goes in a straight line even with my hands off the bars and which I have to push into line.  Of course I'm itching to order ... so give me some sage advice ... on the double, please!

[jags]

go for carbon u wont regret it ,i hate a bike with heavy steering much more control when  the steering is light and way better for climbing hills.
i know your not looking for a race bike but the carbon fork will give u a sweeyt ride ,get a lend of a friends bike  or local bike store try one out.
if ever i get the noney to buy the club tour is getting a carbon fork 

anto.

[Danneaux]

Pavel,

See: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4245.msg19567#msg19567

Best,

Dan.

[Pavel]

Marvelous Dan - as always.  Good though for food. As to the carbon fork ... hmmm, the thing is Jags, I prefer a heavy front end.  I hate bikes with quick steering, but the extra rake on the carbon fork may give me the low trail geometry feel that I'm looking for and perhaps a smother ride as well.  I did't think of the sherpa fork and am surprised, and glad of the wide variety of offerings.  It the crown to axle distance is the same as the RST fork, then that is something to consider as well, seeing that I do worry about carbon a bit. I have to do some more thinking about this and some more research, but that link was just what I needed. Some of the French style bikes such as those by Velo-Orange have trail figures in the mid 30's and so 35 - 45 is what I would be aiming for I think.  I know now that I would likely get the highest rake forks in either of the choices. The 60 in the carbon forks and after a quick look, I see that the sherpa fork is only available in a max of 52 now.  Are the other sizes discontinued, I wonder?