Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Fox 32 or 36

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280

    Fox 32 or 36

    OK, I think I'm going to regret asking this but here it goes, I'm building up a Blur LT Carbon, I'm a heavy guy, I will be using this bike for AM and trail, my problem is....
    I keep hearing that the fox 150 Talas 32 15mm is a flexy bug, I hate fork flex I don't like the RS 351 u-turn on my XC bike for that reason.....on the other hand the fox 36 talas is 1lb heavier but stiffer (from what I understand, never ridden a fox fork for more than a few minutes)...adding to the problem is the fact that the fork has to be tapered 1.5/1 1/8. and yes I know I can use adapters but that ads expense and weight and flex, this is an odd head tube. so my question is, what would you do in my place, my riding friends are half and half, I cant decide because I have never ridden the forks.......I weigh 230 (not fat) and ride aggressive. my worries are I'm going to put the wrong fork and then hate the bike for the it....thanks....oh and if your going to comment, please have some actual physical experience with the forks or bike....Thanks Dave
    F88me самолюбивый член

  2. #2
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,006
    I'm very happy with my Fox Talas 32 150.
    I put 3 days of black diamond whistler XC on it last week, and the fork took everything I could throw at it. FWIW I've ridden the same trails on my 6" bike with a Talas 36, and I didn't feel the 32 fork gave up anything in terms of stiffness or performance. I weigh 175lbs.

    The one thing I would say, the Talas 32 150 is a full inch shorter than the Talas 36 a60, despite having 1cm less travel. So, consider what length of fork will work best with your frame.


  3. #3
    Is that Bill rated?
    Reputation: Lord Humongous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    440

    Go 36

    You will hardly notice the extra .4% total system weight when climbing, it's not the same as putting an extra pound of wheels on your bike and you no doubt have the strength to cope. I have nothing against the 32 chassis, but at 230 pounds myself I find a myriad of reasons to prefer the larger stanchions and consider the minor weight increase well worth the extra steering performance. My situation is a little different, but I have one bike with a 4.5 pound Nixon featuring 32mm stanchions and a 20mm hex axle and another bike with an 8 pound Travis featuring 34mm stanchions and I almost always choose the larger fork when I go riding. I have run a 36 in the past and I have used several 32 series forks, both on my own ride and on loaners and I would definitely choose a 36 FLoat before getting any other Fox fork. Steering is key for my riding experience, I am not some kind of huckatron, I just find deflection puts me off my game.
    Well, it was a good try.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    I'm very happy with my Fox Talas 32 150.
    I put 3 days of black diamond whistler XC on it last week, and the fork took everything I could throw at it. FWIW I've ridden the same trails on my 6" bike with a Talas 36, and I didn't feel the 32 fork gave up anything in terms of stiffness or performance. I weigh 175lbs.

    The one thing I would say, the Talas 32 150 is a full inch shorter than the Talas 36 a60, despite having 1cm less travel. So, consider what length of fork will work best with your frame.

    Thanks, thats the kind of info I was hoping for
    Last edited by Saxon9598; 08-01-2009 at 05:00 PM.
    F88me самолюбивый член

  5. #5
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,433
    I was considering getting one (carbon BLT) before I got my Remedy... i rode two, one with a 32 and another with a 36. I definately preffered the 36 on that frame. Much better geometry for higher speeds and steep techy stuff... The 32 would be a quick, tight pedal'y single track killer, but that doesn't really exist around here. You're a bigger guy too, so I'd go 36. On that note, I'd also go with the aluminum model instead of carbon. 230# and aggressive riding sounds risky on a carbon bike at this point. At the time I was 210 and was a little skeptical. Maybe for little 150# feller, but not a clyde!

    Another point, I'm not totally stoked on the TALAS fork either. It's either harsh with no brake dive or pedal bob, or it's super sensitve to small bumps, but then wallows all over the trail. I can't find a sweet spot on it, unless it's in the 140mm setting. If I hadn't swapped it for a Nixon 160, I would have gone with a 36 Van...
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280
    [QUOTE=FM]I'm very happy with my Fox Talas 32 150.
    I put 3 days of black diamond whistler XC on it last week, and the fork took everything I could throw at it. FWIW I've ridden the same trails on my 6" bike with a Talas 36, and I didn't feel the 32 fork gave up anything in terms of stiffness or performance. I weigh 175lbs.

    The one thing I would say, the Talas 32 150 is a full inch shorter than the Talas 36 a60, despite having 1cm less travel. So, consider what length of fork will work best with your frame.

    http://www.santacruzmtb.com/blurlt_c....php?builder=1
    F88me самолюбивый член

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrissa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    149
    Hmm, are you sure the Blur LT Carbon is the right frame for your size and riding style if you're worried about whether you need a Fox 36 or not? I think the Fox 36 is a little overkill for a Blur LT. I see that fork on the front of a frame like a Nomad.

    I do own both a Fox 36 Float and a Fox F120. The 36 is like a mini DH fork and can rip it up very confidently on Whistler. My 36 is mated to a Foes FXR frame. I would think a smaller, lighter frame would upset the balance of the bike big time.

    My F120 is no where near the 150mm you're looking at (and I'm 70 lbs lighter than you), but it is a very capable trail fork. I'm not jumping anything big at all with it, but it's fine.

    I would be very cautious about sticking a large tough fork like that on a smaller, lighter frame. It may upset the general balance, plus the fork will encourage you to write checks that the rest of the bike can't cash. Just my opinion. It is a tough call though.

    Chris.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by chrissa
    Hmm, are you sure the Blur LT Carbon is the right frame for your size and riding style if you're worried about whether you need a Fox 36 or not? I think the Fox 36 is a little overkill for a Blur LT. I see that fork on the front of a frame like a Nomad.

    I do own both a Fox 36 Float and a Fox F120. The 36 is like a mini DH fork and can rip it up very confidently on Whistler. My 36 is mated to a Foes FXR frame. I would think a smaller, lighter frame would upset the balance of the bike big time.

    My F120 is no where near the 150mm you're looking at (and I'm 70 lbs lighter than you), but it is a very capable trail fork. I'm not jumping anything big at all with it, but it's fine.

    I would be very cautious about sticking a large tough fork like that on a smaller, lighter frame. It may upset the general balance, plus the fork will encourage you to write checks that the rest of the bike can't cash. Just my opinion. It is a tough call though.

    Chris.
    I hear yah, the thing is that the 160mm fork is a factory option so its on the table. afther reading some of the coments I'm leaning hard towards the 36
    F88me самолюбивый член

  9. #9
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    The Blur was designed to accept a 36 just fine. I'd prefer a 36 myself for the geometry. I've never been one for steep head angles. I'm also fundamentally opposed to the 15mm axle personally, even if it feels fine it doesn't hold up to the 20mm under testing. Whether that matters for riding is debatable but I don't see any reason for the new axle size personally.
    Bike good, work bad.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,525
    You will probably notice the geometry difference more than the weight difference.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saxon9598's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    280
    I just ordered the talas 36 thanks Dave
    F88me самолюбивый член

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    237
    good call--I just switched from a 32 vanilla to a 36 float on my heckler. I rode today on some rough, technical terrain, and the 36 was noticeably stiffer yet also more forgiving than the last time that I rode there on the 32 van. I couldn't be more pleased.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,777
    Good move !Get ready to rail some corners.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,788
    Yup, there's a hole in Fox's lineup between the two. IMHO the Pike fits the bill perfectly and has better damping than the 36.

    Have FUN!

    G MAN
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    285
    I run a Magura Thor 20mm axel on my Blur the double arch and 20mm really stiffen the front.you can really feel the rock solid difference in high speed berms,no noticeable flex.this is by far the best overall five inch fork I've owned to date.

  16. #16
    it's....
    Reputation: Strafer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman086
    Yup, there's a hole in Fox's lineup between the two. IMHO the Pike fits the bill perfectly and has better damping than the 36.

    Have FUN!

    G MAN
    New 2010 Revelation 150 Blackbox seems like the optimal choice, AC between Fox 32 and 36.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,362
    Fox36 Talas ,or Lyric I'm 220lb in my gear and the 36 over 32 is real apparent to me,
    people who are lighter don't know, the Lyric is slightly stiffer for me.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,217
    I recently swapped a Talas 150mm for a lyrik on my Tracer VP. At 170lbs the Talas is acceptably stiff. I noticed the geometry change much more than the weight change. The Talas is now for sale. At 230lbs I think it would be a no brainer.
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    198
    Im in the same boat, i weigh 200lbs and currently have a fox float 32 160mm on my bike and i can feel the flex, im looking at the van 36 rc2 here in a month or so if someone will buy my float haha, its a great fork, but not enough for my type of riding.

    Plus look how skinny it looks
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Still on training wheels

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffus
    Fox36 Talas ,or Lyric I'm 220lb in my gear and the 36 over 32 is real apparent to me,
    people who are lighter don't know, the Lyric is slightly stiffer for me.
    Weird, I feel the opposite. Allthough the Lyrik rails in the rough it's not as stiff as I'd like in the back-and-forth motion. So when I hit a rather big obstacle at speed it "hangs" a little and then skip forward. Try braking hard while watching the fork using a 36 and a Lyrik to see if there's a difference.

    I'd also prefer a 36 for stiffness and geometry on the LT. The difference in chassis stiffness will be progressivly more evident the heavier the rider is. I personally find stiffness to be as important as damping quality and even prefer bolt on rear wheels on my AM bikes.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by readingracing
    I run a Magura Thor 20mm axel on my Blur the double arch and 20mm really stiffen the front.you can really feel the rock solid difference in high speed berms,no noticeable flex.this is by far the best overall five inch fork I've owned to date.
    Been eying the Thor lately. Would be interesting to hear what forks you have owned before you compare the Thor with.

    Cheers!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    67

  23. #23
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Intrepidity
    Weird, I feel the opposite. Allthough the Lyrik rails in the rough it's not as stiff as I'd like in the back-and-forth motion. So when I hit a rather big obstacle at speed it "hangs" a little and then skip forward. Try braking hard while watching the fork using a 36 and a Lyrik to see if there's a difference.
    That hanging sensation is more of an indicator of funky compression damping set up or stiction, in my experience. shrug.
    .

  24. #24
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,006
    Quote Originally Posted by altezza2k2
    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,142
    didn't think there was a real choice of fork travel.If you chopper a bike with a longer fork than it's really designed for,you might gain a little bit of cushion in a straight line,but don't you lose some of the tracking precision that you have with a short(proper) fork because less of your weight is on the front tire.
    I have two forks i can use on my azonic saber,a classic z150 and an "all mountain 165", the bike is much more stunt worthy with the z 150 and feels a lot less stabile with the "all mountain" on it. I'm currently using the 165 because it's just so much lighter.They are not even 15mm different because the z150 is very long for a 150mm travel fork, but the front end just feels like it tracks so much better with the z 150. When i first engage the rebound lockout on the All Mountain it feels alot better,but if i forget to disengage that feature, the travel vanishes,and it of course the bike gets very squirrely.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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