получил ответ.
В принципе так он и сформулирован:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jason Brozek <
хххххххх@pacific-cycle.com>
Date: Oct 10, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: Question about the Force GT mountain bike
To: Omer Shapira <
хххххххх@gmail.com>
Yes, for the reasons you’ve mentioned, we can’t recommend installing a fork with more travel than spec’d. Your friend may be interested in the Sanction model instead, which has the same rear travel and a 160-180mm fork.
Thanks,
Jason Brozek
Schwinn/Mongoose/GT
IBD Service and FAQ Support
хххххх@pacific-cycle.comFrom: Omer Shapira [mailto:хххххх@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Jason Brozek
Subject: Question about the Force GT mountain bike
Hello,
I have a question regarding the Force MTB frame.
A friend of mine is considering installing a longer-travel fork on a Force frame. Specifically, he intends to put a single crown frame with 160 mm travel (instead of a fork with 140 mm of travel, as used on stock bikes). This is to make the bike behave better on descends; on rolling terrain and uphill he intends to shorten the travel to 140 mm (using a variable travel fork).
Besides the obvious problems with steering (higher center of gravity, disbalanced handling), would a 160 mm travel fork be a problem from the frame strength perspective? What is the maximal travel (or crown-to-axle length, for that matter) for which the Force frame was designed? Will a 160 mm travel fork void the manufacturer warranty?
--
Sincerely Yours,
Omer Shapira
----------------------------------------------
В переводе: Рама не предназначена для 160 вилки, для этого есть Сэнкшн. Ход подвески у обоих рам одинзков.
Language:
