Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 64
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    86

    Fox TALAS 36 or 32 TALAS 150

    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

  2. #2
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    I'd say 36 but I'm boycotting the 15mm axle so take that with a grain of salt. If the 32 had a 20mm axle then I'd say go for that.
    Bike good, work bad.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    I'd say 36 but I'm boycotting the 15mm axle so take that with a grain of salt. If the 32 had a 20mm axle then I'd say go for that.
    +1...the 15mm is rediculous(ly noodly). IMO, the data provided by testing it and the feedback I have heard from others first-hand is that it just shouldn't exist.

    Get the 36, enjoy the confidence and planted feeling. Get stronger if the weight upsets you!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    53
    Noodly? what do you mean by that

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: darkslide18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,065
    I was in the same boat as you but went with the 36 talas for my enduro SL and I am very pleased with the results. It is very plush, it is stiff as hell, the talas feature is great because I can adjust the travel on the fly. Plus it just looks sexy with those 36mm stanchions.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    667
    ^^^^^^^

    superb!!!


    not a fan of anything without a 20mm TA, so def a 36 TALAS,
    check out great video coverage of anything mtb (well almost).

    http://www.mtbcut.tv

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,089
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleBat
    Noodly? what do you mean by that
    Not stiff enough for me - front end flex in the fork/hub interface causes deflection and poor handling.
    I can make brake rotors "shiiing" on a QR fork on easy trails, I won't ever go back to them - they are a hold-over from when MTBs came from road bikes. The 15mm is much closer to the traditional QR in terms of stiffness than it is to the 20mm... spend some time researching.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jlar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    514
    The 15mm is only marginally stiffer than the 9mm. I also vote for the 36!!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikesinmud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    I've got a 15mm talas and it's purely an XC fork in my opinion, yep you can feel it flex. I've dropped it off my 5.5" and replaced it with a 55ata. I was going to put a talas on, but I got such a great deal on the 55. Get the 36 unless you are purely doing XC and no big stuff, or are a lighter rider.

  10. #10
    Shortcutting Hikabiker
    Reputation: Acme54321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,135
    Get the 36, but not a TALAS. Are you really set on travel adjust? I had a 36 TALAS and found myself never really using the travel adjust, and even when I did it make my bike ride weird. I have since ditched it for a 36 Vanilla and am much happier. The Vanilla is so much more plush than the TALAS it isn't funny.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    Not stiff enough for me - front end flex in the fork/hub interface causes deflection and poor handling.
    I can make brake rotors "shiiing" on a QR fork on easy trails, I won't ever go back to them - they are a hold-over from when MTBs came from road bikes. The 15mm is much closer to the traditional QR in terms of stiffness than it is to the 20mm... spend some time researching.
    I wouldn't argue that the 15mm is as stiff as the 20mm but how do you compare a weenie 9mm axle to a 15mm axle?? I mean how is that physically possible.

  12. #12
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody
    I mean how is that physically possible.
    by running it through a stress test. Companies do it all the time for frames, Rock Shox did it and decided not to buy into Fox's 15mm model because it didn't outperform 9mm, hence the 20mm Reba and Revelation lineup. Run a search if you are skeptical, there's about 8 million threads where nobody agrees but the tests are listed.
    Bike good, work bad.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Acme54321
    Get the 36, but not a TALAS. Are you really set on travel adjust? I had a 36 TALAS and found myself never really using the travel adjust, and even when I did it make my bike ride weird. I have since ditched it for a 36 Vanilla and am much happier. The Vanilla is so much more plush than the TALAS it isn't funny.

    how is the 36 vanilla going to do on 13 mile technical XC loops?

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    If you're going for this level of travel, you need a 20. Unless you're riding XC, in which case, you're only in it for the status a bike with this much travel would give you on the street.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    If you're going for this level of travel, you need a 20. Unless you're riding XC, in which case, you're only in it for the status a bike with this much travel would give you on the street.
    Are you serious? Sounds like you're projecting

    Pretty much anyone on a mountain bike looks like a goober to the average person. I highly doubt anyone is impressing anybody with their travel of their fork Maybe with you're talas you're trying to make up for the lack of travel somewhere else

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    I came from 9mm QRs since day 1 riding and went straight to a 36 TALAS. Had a lot of doubts about the increase weight and all. But definitely not looking back now.

    Reading all the hype last year and later the test results on 15mm, figured its not worth the while.

    Weight of the 36 TALAS? Hardly noticed it. But I find this always has to do with proper setup of a bike. Nope I dont have anchors for biceps. Just your average 160lb that pedals everything (well almost)

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den
    I came from 9mm QRs since day 1 riding and went straight to a 36 TALAS. Had a lot of doubts about the increase weight and all. But definitely not looking back now.

    Reading all the hype last year and later the test results on 15mm, figured its not worth the while.

    Weight of the 36 TALAS? Hardly noticed it. But I find this always has to do with proper setup of a bike. Nope I dont have anchors for biceps. Just your average 160lb that pedals everything (well almost)
    thank you

  18. #18
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody
    Are you serious? Sounds like you're projecting

    Pretty much anyone on a mountain bike looks like a goober to the average person. I highly doubt anyone is impressing anybody with their travel of their fork Maybe with you're talas you're trying to make up for the lack of travel somewhere else
    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.

  19. #19
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,410
    I think everyone should be required to mention their weight when describing a (fork/wheel/frame) as "flexy."

    That said it's silly to replace a fork that does everything the OP wants with a fork that may or may not do everything he or she wants simply to save 3/4 of a pound, and not even on a race bike.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    840
    That 3/4 lb is 3/4lbs worth of extra performance, the 36 IS stiffer and you really won't notice the extra weight on a climb but will notice the extra stiffness on a rocky twisty descent.

    Take 3/4lb of food in a saddle pack next time you go riding and see if you can really notice it is there.

    If your like most of us, could always lose 3/4lb of yourself to even it up,

    As every one else says, go for the 36!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dust_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    129
    I'll also side with the 36, If weight is a concern also consider the non Tallas 36 Float. I'm running it on my Intense Tracer and is awesome. I don't feel the need for a Talas. In the 5.5 travel mode on the tracer I don't feel a need to steepen the head angle anymore for climbing or single track and in the 6" travel it's more then slack enough for descending anything short of a WC DH course. So I figured the Talas would become redundant in my case

  22. #22
    Shortcutting Hikabiker
    Reputation: Acme54321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by altezza2k2
    how is the 36 vanilla going to do on 13 mile technical XC loops?
    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.

  23. #23
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by altezza2k2
    how is the 36 vanilla going to do on 13 mile technical XC loops?
    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.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    840
    if you were set on a 150mm fork to match the back or if you want the lighter weight, you could look at dt swiss, there 150mm fork is super light and super stiff and comparable in price to the fox (ie expensive)

  25. #25
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    What about the a2c compared to the Fox? Do the tires touch the crown on full compression?

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    86
    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?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    86
    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.

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Actually, it's not irrelevant. That comment was saying that if the fork handicaps you in any way, the problem isn't the fork.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    86
    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.

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    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

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I thought I did:
    sorry, i guess i got lost amidst the criticism

  32. #32
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    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.

  33. #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

  34. #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)

  35. #35
    Shortcutting Hikabiker
    Reputation: Acme54321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,135
    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.

  36. #36
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    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....

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    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

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    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.

  39. #39
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    I guess you never checked the search on the reality of the "enhanced stiffness" of the 15mm forks over the 9mm...

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    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)

  41. #41
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    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.

  42. #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.

  43. #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.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    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

  45. #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.

  46. #46
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Pictures of the test charts are in my user gallery and/or search history.

  47. #47
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,311
    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.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,764
    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)

  49. #49
    I think I need to Upgrade
    Reputation: AzSpeedfreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,620
    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.

  50. #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 1 of 2 12 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
  •