How does one know if a 1993 Fat Wicked is susp corrected?

[colker]

Are there any tells on the serial number? Any head tube length number?

 

[Stingercut]

The 93 catalogue only lists Wicked Lites which were sus corrected. Afaik the 92 and earlier Wickeds were not, unless custom ordered that way. If you compare head tubes lengths for the same size frame with earlier catalogues, the later sus corrected frames are typically shorter in length.

[URL https://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/2147-5/FatChanceCatalog1993.pdf[/URL]

 

[colker]

The 93 catalogue only lists Wicked Lites which were sus corrected. Afaik the 92 and earlier Wickeds were not, unless custom ordered that way. If you compare head tubes lengths for the same size frame with earlier catalogues, the later sus corrected frames are typically shorter in length.

[URL https://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/2147-5/FatChanceCatalog1993.pdf[/URL]

Mine is a 93. I built it w/ an a-c 415mm vicious cycles fork and it felt horrible. Once i put a 395mm fork it came alive. Now that i am riding rough desert trails, the bike feels a bit overwhelmed by the terrain. Maybe i got it all wrong.

Btw:I looked at the catalogue pic and it does not look like a longer unicrown fork is in place.

 

[TheWheel]

1993 WL with Judy XC put on by me in 1995 or so. Just rebuilt the shox and put springs into the tubes, and damper rebuilt last week. I wanted the SL or DH but too much travel I was told at the time for this geometry.

 

[colker]

The 93 catalogue only lists Wicked Lites which were sus corrected. Afaik the 92 and earlier Wickeds were not, unless custom ordered that way. If you compare head tubes lengths for the same size frame with earlier catalogues, the later sus corrected frames are typically shorter in length.

[URL https://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/2147-5/FatChanceCatalog1993.pdf[/URL]

I looked at the catalogue pic and it does not look like a longer unicrown fork is in place.

1993 WL with Judy XC put on by me in 1995 or so. Just rebuilt the shox and put springs into the tubes, and damper rebuilt last week. I wanted the SL or DH but too much travel I was told at the time for this geometry

It does not look like it´s corrected for susp forks.

 

[TheWheel]

I looked at the catalogue pic and it does not look like a longer unicrown fork is in place.


It does not look like it´s corrected for susp forks.

AGREE! I put an optional 3/8" spacer in the stack last week when I rebuilt it. Taking it out this weekend...we shall see. Or its the frame. Rode it for 25+ years with it this way. Just attached a pic of the way it was before fork restoration...it is about 1/2" lower...

 

[Stingercut]

Actually I just measured my 93 WL At 405mm A-C so its very mild sus correction at best. A 10mm A-C difference gives a 1 deg change in geo. I have original factory unicrown fork and assumed it was fully sus corrected. Other 93 models like Yos/Tis are more sus corrected and I assumed they all were.

 

[colker]

Actually I just measured my 93 WL At 405mm A-C so its very mild sus correction at best. A 10mm A-C difference gives a 1 deg change in geo. I have original factory unicrown fork and assumed it was fully sus corrected. Other 93 models like Yos/Tis are more sus corrected and I assumed they all were.

I thought 1cm = half degree but i am not sure. What´s the BB height ?