Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 38 of 38
  1. #26
    727
    727 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    103
    My jumps rarely exceed 1.5 meters, ┐do you think I need 34 fox?in trek have told me that I lose my warranty if I put fork de160mm

  2. #27
    Fox Shox
    Reputation: thredbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by 727 View Post
    My jumps rarely exceed 1.5 meters, ┐do you think I need 34 fox?in trek have told me that I lose my warranty if I put fork de160mm
    if you will lose your warranty then dont change.
    If i go to hell i'm taking my mountain bike.

  3. #28
    Fox Shox
    Reputation: thredbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    59
    although the added stiffness would be an advantage over the weight gain
    If i go to hell i'm taking my mountain bike.

  4. #29
    727
    727 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    103
    20% more rigidity is not much???

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Herzalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    240
    The rigidity of the 34 over the 32 is very noticeable. How will Trek know which fork you were running if your frame breaks? You send the frame back, not the whole bike. Besides, Treks break at the bottom bracket, not at the head tube.

    Get a 34 x 150 if you are concerned. The 34 makes more difference than the extra 10mm travel.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,268
    Quote Originally Posted by ihaveagibsonsg View Post
    The 32 is weak for AM riding. Feels like the front wheel is gonna fall off. I'm disappointed about the slash and enduro coming with 34's. Too flexible for a real AM ride. 36 all the way.
    arent you that guy that started the "AM" is a marketing ploy thread?

    i see you have since discovered what "real AM" is eh.

    nice.

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,292
    Quote Originally Posted by 727 View Post
    20% more rigidity is not much???
    I think what he is saying is that 20% increase in rigidity over something that is not that rigid may not really mean anything.

    The real question is how much more rigid is the 36, as compared to the 32 and 34? I also wonder how stiff the 34 would be with a 20mm axle as well.
    On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.

  8. #33
    727
    727 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Herzalot View Post
    The rigidity of the 34 over the 32 is very noticeable. How will Trek know which fork you were running if your frame breaks? You send the frame back, not the whole bike. Besides, Treks break at the bottom bracket, not at the head tube.

    Get a 34 x 150 if you are concerned. The 34 makes more difference than the extra 10mm travel.
    If it is true they may not know that fork He wore, you can adjust the fork 34 160mm to 150 mm??

  9. #34
    727
    727 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I think what he is saying is that 20% increase in rigidity over something that is not that rigid may not really mean anything.

    The real question is how much more rigid is the 36, as compared to the 32 and 34? I also wonder how stiff the 34 would be with a 20mm axle as well.
    It was exactly what meant me, 20% more rigidity is little. That with regard to the 36 is not known
    how much more rigid is 32, the question is ┐┐because now even the trek slash 2013 mounted 34??and santa cruz nomad moented 34 this year.Maybe have given that the 34 is the perfect?

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mark747's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    84
    Personally I think you should just get the 36 if you are worried about the frame warranty issue you can just get it stepped down to 150mm. For me going from the 32 to 36 was a huge improvement and as I said you get the adjustably of the RC2 as apposed to the unadjustable CTD.

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    9

    It's all bout riding style & "fit".

    There is no real downside to either fork so here's what I've discovered from my Treks.
    Fox 32 150mm with Thru Axel should be plenty rigid regardless of ride style if you are under 180 lbs. If you are over 185 lbs and you rive VERY aggressively you may consider the 34.

    Trek designed the Remedy to be able to handle anything AM related and the stock setups have proven to be amazingly dialed. Having said that, I'm all for customization and the best bike is the one that "fits" your body type and riding style to best.
    If you have not already purchased the Remedy 9 and you are leaning toward the 34 version fork, you are probably better suited for a Slash. If you already own the Remedy frame the go with your gut and build the bike that "fits" you & your ride style.

    I do not have a Slash but I test rode it at one of the Trek Demo Days, it was pretty amazing and with the 2x9/bash ring & chain guide it was still super light.

    These bikes I own:
    My AM bike is a Remedy with the stock 150mm Fox 32 & I run a 2x10 w bash ring (no chain guide).
    My FR bike is a Scratch with a Fox 36 VAN 160mm & I run a 1x9 with e-thirteen chain guide & bash guard (I have both Fox DHX 5.0 coil & a Float RP23 for the rear that I swap out depending on where I'm riding my FR bike).
    My DH bike is a Session 8 (its a beast)

  12. #37
    727
    727 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by mark747 View Post
    Personally I think you should just get the 36 if you are worried about the frame warranty issue you can just get it stepped down to 150mm. For me going from the 32 to 36 was a huge improvement and as I said you get the adjustably of the RC2 as apposed to the unadjustable CTD.
    I think that will put the fork fox talas 34 160mm ,because they may not know that fork
    wore in the frame.

  13. #38
    727
    727 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by E-ROG View Post
    There is no real downside to either fork so here's what I've discovered from my Treks.
    Fox 32 150mm with Thru Axel should be plenty rigid regardless of ride style if you are under 180 lbs. If you are over 185 lbs and you rive VERY aggressively you may consider the 34.

    Trek designed the Remedy to be able to handle anything AM related and the stock setups have proven to be amazingly dialed. Having said that, I'm all for customization and the best bike is the one that "fits" your body type and riding style to best.
    If you have not already purchased the Remedy 9 and you are leaning toward the 34 version fork, you are probably better suited for a Slash. If you already own the Remedy frame the go with your gut and build the bike that "fits" you & your ride style.

    I do not have a Slash but I test rode it at one of the Trek Demo Days, it was pretty amazing and with the 2x9/bash ring & chain guide it was still super light.

    These bikes I own:
    My AM bike is a Remedy with the stock 150mm Fox 32 & I run a 2x10 w bash ring (no chain guide).
    My FR bike is a Scratch with a Fox 36 VAN 160mm & I run a 1x9 with e-thirteen chain guide & bash guard (I have both Fox DHX 5.0 coil & a Float RP23 for the rear that I swap out depending on where I'm riding my FR bike).
    My DH bike is a Session 8 (its a beast)
    depends on the offer that is, buy the fox 32 or 34, too bad you can not buy it in the United States because this more
    cheap

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •