Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 44 of 44

Thread: Fox 32 or 36

  1. #26
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,653
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    That there is a great example of a MTBR thread gone totally wrong

    Again, I own both these forks (Talas 32 150rlc and Talas 36 160rc2) on different bikes. I cannot think of any piece of trail where I wished I had one over the other. They really do feel nearly identical to me, in terms of suspension and stiffness. By far the biggest difference is the axle-to-crown length- an inch of difference! So go with the one that your frame was designed to work with.

    Not to beat a dead horse but.... duh, of course the 36 is stiffer! It's also an inch taller and a pound heavier. That doesn't make it a better fork- just a better match for bikes designed around a 545mm axle-to-crown length fork. The Talas 32 150 is 521mm a2c, a better match for shorter travel bikes. According to Santa Cruz's website, the Blur LT-C is designed around a 515mm fork.... so, if you go with the 36, you'll be slackening the angles out by 1.5 degrees and also raising the BB 1/2" or so. Also, I do not see the Fox 36 listed on the bike builder page. I think for that frame, the Talas 32 150 is a perfect fit. If you think you need more fork, maybe go with a burlier frame too.

    In principle you have a really, really good point, but i disagree. I'm the same size as the OP, and i would no-way-in-hell run a talas 32 150. That thing is sketch-flexy, and while it worked great for the xc bike on stilts i demo-ed it on, i wouldn't put one on my own bike. I'd rather use the talas knob constantly (36 @ 130 =~32 @150), or get a float and spacer it down.

    Although it might be a good move on a carbon bike, keep you comfortable but not pushing the envelope and crashing the thing. Maybe that's my anti-carbon bias talking. 100% of the carbon mtbs i've seen crash have lead very short lives.

    i fall in the 'eww, too light' camp in general, even for XC/trail bikes. When you're 230lbs, i think you have to.
    Hell is eternally climbing manzanita trail on your singlespeed.

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    carbon takes impacts better than aluminum. a crash that would damage carbon would absolutely destroy aluminum beyond use. theres plenty of videos of people taking hammers to carbon frames on youtube.

    that said, im not a fan of carbon, nor do i ride carbon.. but it is plenty strong..

  3. #28
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,653
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsmoto
    carbon takes impacts better than aluminum. a crash that would damage carbon would absolutely destroy aluminum beyond use.
    That's not what i've observed firsthand.
    Hell is eternally climbing manzanita trail on your singlespeed.

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    they make fighter jets out of the stuff man, its strong

    the problem is process. its easy as hell to make an aluminum tube.. it takes an amount of experience to make a strong carbon tube.. but if its made properly, its plenty strong. a poor carbon tube is very weak. i just dont think any marginal advantages are worth the huge price jump.. but if someone else has the cash, hey go for it.

  5. #30
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg
    In principle you have a really, really good point, but i disagree. I'm the same size as the OP, and i would no-way-in-hell run a talas 32 150.

    i fall in the 'eww, too light' camp in general, even for XC/trail bikes. When you're 230lbs, i think you have to.
    I think that does just come down to size & weight.
    I've hit some decent drops on my talas 32, and ridden a bunch of whistler black diamonds, was very impressed with the fork so far. You guys have 50lbs on me so your experience may be different- but I still think it's best to pick a frame/fork combo that was designed to work together. Otherwise- regardless of head angle- the steep angle gets slack and BB gets tall, then the bike handles funky.

    Not a bad idea about running a float or talas with the travel reduced- just keep in mind that the Talas 36 at 130mm has roughly the same length as the Talas 32 at 150mm. So, you are trading down in travel to get additional stiffness.

    In reality, I think the short a2c length is partially behind the "flex" people notice with the Talas 32 15mm fork- it steepens up the head angle, creating more "nervous" feeling handling.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    22
    What is the biggest sized brake rotor that will fit on a 36?

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by ferozoso
    What is the biggest sized brake rotor that will fit on a 36?
    203mm probably.. that's what I am running at least.

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg
    That hanging sensation is more of an indicator of funky compression damping set up or stiction, in my experience. shrug.
    Yep, I know it sounds like it and I expected that reply. But no, it's not the compression damping that is to blame. No stiction either..

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg
    I'd rather use the talas knob constantly (36 @ 130 =~32 @150), or get a float and spacer it down.

    i fall in the 'eww, too light' camp in general, even for XC/trail bikes. When you're 230lbs, i think you have to.
    That is my plan. the light riders sometimes just don't understand how bad we can flex the frame fork and even the wheels, it just takes the fun right out.
    I plan on using this bike for "light" AM/Trail. dare I say XC, the furthest I have ever pedaled was 16 miles on some insane steep terrain, and you know what...I loved it. I will be using this bike on 6-12 mile rides once maybe twice a month.
    I have a 100mm DJ, 34lbs 6" AM and and a 42lbs 7" FR big hit bike, and they all get the love, so crossing this bike over to extreme duty was never my intent, I just want a lightest strongest bike that wont feel like its folding in half when I stand and power through a section or hit a root or some thing, its really annoying. I'm a big dude that likes to pedal.....there is not a lot of high performance choices for guys like me. we go light and snap or heavy and puff huff puff... and its just so hard to be accurate in description of riding stile, because what I call AM might be FR for some and XC for others.....all these damn labels suck and confuse the hell out of me..its like spicy...it might be mild to you, but unbearable to me...hope that cleared up a bit, thanks for all the replies guys. they were very informative and solid, especially the ones on AtoC numbers. I hope I got this right or my AM just got a new fork
    F88me самолюбивый член

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg
    I'd rather use the talas knob constantly (36 @ 130 =~32 @150), or get a float and spacer it down.

    i fall in the 'eww, too light' camp in general, even for XC/trail bikes. When you're 230lbs, i think you have to.
    That is my plan. the light riders sometimes just don't understand how bad we can flex the frame fork and even the wheels, it just takes the fun right out.
    I plan on using this bike for "light" AM/Trail. dare I say XC, the furthest I have ever pedaled was 16 miles on some insane steep terrain, and you know what...I loved it. I will be using this bike on 6-12 mile rides once maybe twice a month.
    I have a 100mm DJ, 34lbs 6" AM and and a 42lbs 7" FR big hit bike, and they all get the love, so crossing this bike over to extreme duty was never my intent, I just want a lightest strongest bike that wont feel like its folding in half when I stand and power through a section or hit a root or some thing, its really annoying. I'm a big dude that likes to pedal.....there is not a lot of high performance choices for guys like me. we go light and snap or heavy and puff huff puff... and its just so hard to be accurate in description of riding stile, because what I call AM might be FR for some and XC for others.....all these damn labels suck and confuse the hell out of me..its like spicy...it might be mild to you, but unbearable to me...hope that cleared up a bit, thanks for all the replies guys. they were very informative and solid, especially the ones on AtoC numbers. I hope I got this right or my AM just got a new fork
    F88me самолюбивый член

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon9598
    (...).its like spicy...it might be mild to you, but unbearable to me...hope that cleared up a bit, thanks for all the replies guys. they were very informative and solid, especially the ones on AtoC numbers. I hope I got this right or my AM just got a new fork
    Speaking of spicy, the bike Lapierre Spicy might would probably have been anything but unbearable considering what kind of qualites you are looking for :-)

    http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/catego...y-516-09-32457

    Quote: "Very light for its travel, extremely stiff despite a climb-friendly length and with suspension thatís totally controlled, the Spicy is a truly outstanding trail bike thatís ready for anything you are."

  12. #37
    The Crow
    Reputation: Iwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    847
    Had a 32 Float, 32 Talas (150mm 15mm) and 36 Talas on my Ibis Mojo and the 36 was by FAR my favourite. Being slightly heavier is it's only downside. Other than that...36 is the better option.

    Maybe for somebody else who doesn't ride as hard it won't matter that much then a 32 will do. Ibis was build quite heavy so 36 was perfect.

    I currently own a Morewood Mbuzi with a Float 36. Freaking brilliant fork.
    There's a feeling I get
    When I look to the West
    And my spirit is crying for leaving

  13. #38
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Iwan
    Maybe for somebody else who doesn't ride as hard it won't matter that much then a 32 will do.
    I totally agree.
    Just look at the pros... it's obvious 32mm stanchion forks aren't up for riding hard!

    Ben Boyko's 32mm fork & him riding it:






    Last edited by FM; 08-07-2009 at 10:29 AM.

  14. #39
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    Dude, it's not the stanchions. It's the axle...
    Bike good, work bad.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    i do like how he posted up a marzocchi fork when talking about the fox 32

  16. #41
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsmoto
    i do like how he posted up a marzocchi fork when talking about the fox 32
    Oops, my bad.
    Dan Atherton chooses the 32 over the 36 for his slalom bike. Looks flexy to me!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Oops, my bad.
    Dan Atherton chooses the 32 over the 36 for his slalom bike. Looks flexy to me!
    [IMG][/IMG]
    my wife decided she was going to settle it, she ordered me a 32 talas, if I like it I can put the 36 on her AM, if I don't I put the 32 on her XC bike I love this girl

    this is her by the way, on a 32mm fork on her Jamis

    My other friend, Vish from the Vish Files does 360s and back flips on his fox 32....so weak it is not, I know that for fact. its the flexing while hitting flowing switchbacks and g outs, I was worried about.....hope clears it up. for everyone. now stop arguing or I'm going to virtually flatten all your guys tires and put the "mysterious squeaky noise" curse on your bikes
    Last edited by Saxon9598; 08-08-2009 at 11:52 AM.
    F88me самолюбивый член

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    48
    dirt Jump forks are tough - After two years after this thread finished to further test the question, is the consensus that I should run a 36 160 or 32 150 on my Trek Remedy?

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by wantriot
    dirt Jump forks are tough - After two years after this thread finished to further test the question, is the consensus that I should run a 36 160 or 32 150 on my Trek Remedy?
    I've seen several guys lately around where I live on brand-new Remedys and they're running32s which I'm assuming are stock (I don't ride Trek so I don't know). Are you looking to step up to rougher stuff? If so, I'd say the 36 160mm might be worth a look - as I said on the other thread, mine rocks after a 1/2 year of heavy use.

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
  •