Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 64
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Acme54321
    Better than that TALAS, I just did 50+ miles on mine the other day. It weighs just about the same, so that's not an issue. Most 6" bikes like the Enduro are designed around a 6" fork, and if you ask me most ride better in the 6" setting. Most people who are in love with their TALAS have either never ridden a Vanilla or are on bikes that are desinged around shorter forks, so they can drop the travel to 4 or 5 inch and still have a beefy fork that doesn't rake out their bike.
    So if the 160 TALAS is going to rake out the bike, how would going for the vanilla help me with that situation?

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    The more relevant question is "how are you going to do on a 13 mile technical XC loop?"

    There's not that much to it, and it's not like the fork is a handicap. I've done 30 milers, or shorter, ridiculously technical riding with painful climbs. It's not like the fork will hold you back if you're able to do it in the first place.

    13 miles isn't really that much.
    although 13 miles may be "not that much" by your standards, your comment was irrelevant. Yes i may be able to do the 13 mile loop with no problem using the 36, i may be able to do it with a fork that weighs twice as much. thats not what im asking. when i go biking, im going out to have a good time and enjoy the outdoors. i dont want to be wrestling with my equipment to get it to do what i what. thats why i wasnt asking if ill be able to do the loops, im trying to find out what the best equipment for the job is. and more importantly, in this situation im trying to find out if the 36 will handicap my performance over the 150mm. right now im riding a 120mm F120 and its great for the XC stuff but not so great when im doing so more downhillish stuff.

  3. #28
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Actually, it's not irrelevant. That comment was saying that if the fork handicaps you in any way, the problem isn't the fork.

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Actually, it's not irrelevant. That comment was saying that if the fork handicaps you in any way, the problem isn't the fork.
    so if you feel that the fork would not give me any problems like you just stated, why not say that in the original post? that would actually be helpful information.

  5. #30
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Quote Originally Posted by altezza2k2
    so if you feel that the fork would not give me any problems like you just stated, why not say that in the original post? that would actually be helpful information.
    I thought I did:

    and it's not like the fork is a handicap

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I thought I did:
    sorry, i guess i got lost amidst the criticism

  7. #32
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,994
    Man the 15mm talas 32 is taking a beating here!

    I am still curious about this fork, thinking it has a place in a multi-bike stable.
    I've owned a bunch of Talas 36's and they are great forks, but the lighter weight of the Talas 32 does interest me for a bike that will be primarily used for longer rides and bigger climb crampfests, and won't see too much FR. With so many dirtjumpers running QR's I have to wonder how much stiffness is a "nice to have" rather than a "need".

    I have yet to ride a Talas32 15mm, but a buddy has one on the way and I'm definitely curious to check it out. I already own some $20 adpators for my 20mm hubs, so the 15mm through-axle is a non-issue for me.

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    190
    I would say stick with the Spesh E150 25mm Thru axle

    If you have to change then go for the Rockshox Lyrik with 20mm axle

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: el_chupo_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,218
    No need to get your feelings hurt. JC, and many many others (search for info on the 15mm) are pointing out to suck it up, deal with 3/4 lb for a much better performing fork (for AM riding, not talking XC here)

  10. #35
    Shortcutting Hikabiker
    Reputation: Acme54321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by altezza2k2
    So if the 160 TALAS is going to rake out the bike, how would going for the vanilla help me with that situation?
    Are you on an old enduro? I never said it was going to rake it out, unless you are one one fo the old 5" enduros, then it might some.

    You probably won't be able to tell the difference between an 150 and 160mm fork as far as difference in head angle goes.
    "Listen here you beautiful *****, I'm about to **** you up with some truth"

  11. #36
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Acme54321
    You probably won't be able to tell the difference between an 150 and 160mm fork as far as difference in head angle goes.
    There's actually a pretty big difference!
    The Talas32 150 is 521mm a2c
    The Talas36 160 is 545 a2c

    So about 1 degree difference....

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    How would you know if I'm projecting? If you want an intelligent discussion about it, I'll be happy to oblige. If you want to bring it down to your level in the sandbox because your feelings are hurt, I can oblige that as well.

    There is also a thread running I coincidentally saw a little while ago about people who get longer travel bikes, but don't use them. We've all seen the same thing in real life. The issue is the Fox 150/15mm has not shown itself to be exceptionally stiffer over the 9mm equivalent. The forces it takes to compress these forks and use their full travel potential would outright make it more feasible to go for something with a stiffer platform, whether a stiffer 9mm, or a 20, or whatever. This particular fork simply doesn't do what it promises, in terms of stiffness.

    As far as your last statement, the illiteracy, coupled with grammar, and an inability to clearly communicate your thoughts makes the overall post look silly. If you're looking to answer the question in the thread, go for it. If you get butt-hurt and can't handle your own riding being criticized, or the reality of what these parts may or may not go through (leading to an actual recommendation and a WHY), then shut off the internet and don't read. Everyone that goes on the internet gets criticized for something. You made a post because your emotions were hurt because I didn't word myself nicely and politically correct, despite the reality in what I posted. You didn't respond based on the disagreement with the information I presented.

    Sorry, I don't spend 30 minute staring at the computer thinking of the most brilliant retort I possibly could and then go spell check it. I'm not in competition with you to win the MTBR award for biggest toolbag. Thats probably about the only time you'd ever sit on a podium

    Its just not that serious

    What also isn't so serious is the difference between 15 and 20mm. Not saying that I don't believe you and your presumptions but honestly I don't need an engineering degree to look at a 15mm through axle and a 9mm bolt (basically) to tell that its going to be stiffer. I'm sure you are quite right that a 20mm is stiffer but hey screw it, why not run a 50mm axle since bigger is better! I run big high volume tires with low pressure and spinergy wheels that have softer than normal spokes so honestly I don't really need the stiffest axle in the world because its already a bit flexy. If I could choose I'd have a 20mm axle but because of $ I run a 9mm. Oh well.

    I just think its funny how somebody, who's likely just a moderate rider, thinks they know whats best for everyone out there and likes to accuse anyone who does not believe what they say as being a poser.

    BTW you're giving yourself way too much credit if you think your little post hurt my emotions

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Oh and I totally agree wiht the consensus that for a real AM rig the 36mm is the way to go. If you really just do trail riding and think you do AM riding than the 32mm Talas 15mm through axle probably will be just fine.

  14. #39
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    I guess you never checked the search on the reality of the "enhanced stiffness" of the 15mm forks over the 9mm...

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I guess you never checked the search on the reality of the "enhanced stiffness" of the 15mm forks over the 9mm...
    No, I read a bunch of it when the discussions just started and basically it sounded like the majority of people didn't like it because of a different standard being introduced and then secondary that it wasnt' as stiff as a 20mm which was just another part of the argument that there shouldn't be a 15mm in the first place. But that doesn't mean its not stiffer than a 9mm and more than nust marginally.

    Also I run mostly XC Trail with a bit of AM every so often. I don't even know if I would call it real AM riding but that name seems to of been dissolved lately, I guess if you really wanted to imagine you could call it aggresive XC trail but all the names start to get silly. I have a talas 140 on a Spec SJ Swork and 140 is all I really need on the steep rocky descents. I like the relaxed geometry and the extra margin of comfort that extra travel gives me over the 120 .But if I did have 150 that would not suddenly put me into the category you were mentioning. For the right price I wouldn't hesitate to put a Talas 150 with the 15mm throughaxle on my bike, in fact I'd be down right stoked! However you wouldn't EVER see me forking out the money that Fox wants these days. Just not in my budget I think they want close to a grand now for their top of the line 32mm fork wtf!

    When I see Mountain Bike Action magazine try to shamelessly hype up the 15mm throughaxle Talas it does make me wanna barf a lil. I don't really believe that its so much better like they want you to believe. I'm sure they're all riding around on brand new Fox components for free on all their stuff.......

    (BTW I don't give a rats ass about my grammar on message boards. I have to write professional emails all the time and I get tired of it and sometimes just like to type how I feel lol)

  16. #41
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,481
    If you are riding single track go with the 32mm with the 15mm Axel.

    The increased stiffness of a 36 is not worth the extra weight. Really, fork stiffness is highly overrated, if your fork is a little flexy you make the necessary adjustments and ride just as quick.

    BTW the main advantage of the 15mm axel over a 9mm axel is you can run a decent size brake rotor without tearing your wheel out of the dropout.

  17. #42
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    Yody, FWIW 15mm isn't really that much stiffer than 9mm, regardless of what people say they "feel". The differences are marginal at best. I think that's what JC is getting at. Don't get butt hurt because you buy into marketing.

    As far as I'm concerned All Mountain when discussing components involves a specific class of bicycles, and the Stumpjumper isn't involved in that discussion, no matter what fork you put on it. Anything with a 15mm axle is excluded as well IMO.
    Bike good, work bad.

  18. #43
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by LMN
    If you are riding single track go with the 32mm with the 15mm Axel.

    The increased stiffness of a 36 is not worth the extra weight. Really, fork stiffness is highly overrated, if your fork is a little flexy you make the necessary adjustments and ride just as quick.

    BTW the main advantage of the 15mm axel over a 9mm axel is you can run a decent size brake rotor without tearing your wheel out of the dropout.
    First of all I get the feeling you haven't ridden a 20mm axle, only a 9mm QR setup.

    Second of all, you are wrong about the brake rotor thing, most modern QR forks can run up to 8" rotors.

    And finally extra weight is relative, IMO your statement that increased stiffness is not worth extra weight is a double negative. Most people who have ridden a stiffer fork are willing to accept a bit of a weight penalty. Furthermore weight on the fork is extremely transparent compared to weight on a hub or rim or crankset.
    Bike good, work bad.

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    Yody, FWIW 15mm isn't really that much stiffer than 9mm, regardless of what people say they "feel". The differences are marginal at best. I think that's what JC is getting at. Don't get butt hurt because you buy into marketing.

    As far as I'm concerned All Mountain when discussing components involves a specific class of bicycles, and the Stumpjumper isn't involved in that discussion, no matter what fork you put on it. Anything with a 15mm axle is excluded as well IMO.
    Yeah your'e right, in fact, that's exactly what I said; that for real AM riding I'd run a 36mm I have a 32 I ride mostly trail.

    So where is this study at that shows 9mm v 15mm? I've never seen it. If there is such thing I would be interested in reading it. I'm not claiming that I'm absolutely right but it better be pretty scientific.

    Also I don't see how I'm buying into any marketing, thats a nice cheap shot but honestly in fact I don't believe they're marketing, not sure where you picked up on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    First of all I get the feeling you haven't ridden a 20mm axle, only a 9mm QR setup.

    Second of all, you are wrong about the brake rotor thing, most modern QR forks can run up to 8" rotors.

    And finally extra weight is relative, IMO your statement that increased stiffness is not worth extra weight is a double negative. Most people who have ridden a stiffer fork are willing to accept a bit of a weight penalty. Furthermore weight on the fork is extremely transparent compared to weight on a hub or rim or crankset.
    Agreed, but I think the OP came off sounding possibly like he really might just be riding trail where in fact LMN's comments would make sense. If the OP is truly riding aggressive AM with 4ft+ drops, nasty rock gardens, and fast rough descents than a 15mm axled 32mm sthanchion would definitely not be the way to go.

    If he's just doing Trail riding and believes its aggresive enough to maybe be called AM I think a 32mm fork can work.

    You can't say that you don't find people in the AM forum asking questions and talking about thingns that really pertain to XC Trail riding and so forth? But maybe I got the wrong impression from the OP, in which then my original statmet of using the 36mm would match yours

  20. #45
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody
    So where is this study at that shows 9mm v 15mm? I've never seen it. If there is such thing I would be interested in reading it. I'm not claiming that I'm absolutely right but it better be pretty scientific.
    Run a search, this has been in about a bazillion threads already. Part of why I threw a shot at you about buying into the marketing. Tons of mags say they love 15mm, but the data still comes back the same way. It's barely stiffer than a 9mm QR and it doesn't even compare to a 20mm setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yody
    Agreed, but I think the OP came off sounding possibly like he really might just be riding trail where in fact LMN's comments would make sense. If the OP is truly riding aggressive AM with 4ft+ drops, nasty rock gardens, and fast rough descents than a 15mm axled 32mm sthanchion would definitely not be the way to go.

    If he's just doing Trail riding and believes its aggresive enough to maybe be called AM I think a 32mm fork can work.

    You can't say that you don't find people in the AM forum asking questions and talking about thingns that really pertain to XC Trail riding and so forth? But maybe I got the wrong impression from the OP, in which then my original statmet of using the 36mm would match yours
    I agree that a 32mm fork can work. I think the 15mm axle is silly in premise and doesn't offer any affordable performance advantage, therefore I think he should go with a 36 because it is a better fork. I see where you are coming from, but the 32 is a crummy fork due to it's axle. I will likely never run another 9mm QR fork and by default that includes 15mm forks because they offer no improvement in noticeable ride stiffness compared to 20mm.
    Bike good, work bad.

  21. #46
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Pictures of the test charts are in my user gallery and/or search history.

  22. #47
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    First of all I get the feeling you haven't ridden a 20mm axle, only a 9mm QR setup.

    Second of all, you are wrong about the brake rotor thing, most modern QR forks can run up to 8" rotors.

    And finally extra weight is relative, IMO your statement that increased stiffness is not worth extra weight is a double negative. Most people who have ridden a stiffer fork are willing to accept a bit of a weight penalty. Furthermore weight on the fork is extremely transparent compared to weight on a hub or rim or crankset.
    Actually I have spent a fair amount of time on 20mm axel. (I use to be a pretty decent DH racer).

    You are right about most modern forks being able to handle a bigger rotor, but having ripped a wheel out of a dropout before I prefer not to chance it.

    IMO most people want a stiffer fork because they think it is better not because it is. I spent a couple of weeks on a Monster T a couple of years back. Truely horrible fork, the thing was so stiff that it would just about rip the bars out of my hand in a rock garden.

    My experience is that a stiffer fork changes the feel of the bike but that doesn't mean it is better, it is just different.

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,769
    160mm with 35mm stanchions and 20mm TA (I have Wotan currently) is addictive.

    I have nothing against 15mm, it is a perfectly fine system (just do not ever get QR again), so if I went for a smaller trail bike (in the 5"-5.5" rear travel and with lighter air shock) this new 150/32/15 would be very high on my list. (But I would be more likely to get Thor)

  24. #49
    I think I need to Upgrade
    Reputation: AzSpeedfreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by altezza2k2
    i'm debating what to do with my bike. I have a specialized enduro sl and im trying to pick out a fork. If i could get these 2 forks at the same price, which one should i go for? I do all sorts of riding from 13 mile super rocky and technical XC loops to straight up climb climb climb followed by quite lengthy downhill runs but dont know if i necessarily need all the travel as last season i was doing it on a stumpjumper. However, I think the 160 TALAS would really be quite fun on the downhills.

    basically, im trying to decide whether i stick with the 160 TALAS and forget that its 3/4 of a pound heavier, or do i say that its ridiculous for me to have such a burly fork when i dont need all that suspension and get a 150 mm to save some weight?

    am i being a weight weeny who wont even notice a difference in the 3/4 pound or is that extra weight going to make my climbs noticeably harder? TIA

    I may have missed it, but what fork is currently on your bike?

    Another thing to take into consideration is what will that 3/4 pound do to the balance of the bike? It may just require a bit of adjustment for you, it may change the balance enough to the point that you don't like it at all.

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    82
    This is a question to the OP. What wheels and tyres do you usually run?
    If you run a lightish combo go for the 32. If you are running larger volume, more burly tyre go for the 36. I have ridden both forks over identical terrain many times and love the 32 with an all mountain wheel/tyre setup. The only time i really appreciate the 36 more is smashing through rockgardens or ridding roots and ruts at high speeds. Usually if I am riding the 32's the tyres give up first in this terrain. The bike I have the 32's on is a giant Reign and has a lightish build (28lb) The 36's on a ReignX (34lbs). I prefer the regular reign for 90% of my riding. The 15mm system is night and day ahead of 9mm and so close to 20mm as to not being an issue in my actual experience not just "according to what I have read"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 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
  •