Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    38

    Talas 36 vs Talas 32

    I am a bit confused about the different fork options and wanted to get some opinions and advice. I am planning on demoing the IBIS mojo sl-r at Eurobike in a few weeks and would also like to demo the Yeti SB-66 (but they are not going to be there for Demo day )

    Any way, I was looking to get a bike that can really climb well (3000 feet +) but also provide confidence and fun coming down from that height. I was always thinking of taking the Talas 32 with 150mm to pair nicely with the 6" travel of the SB-66 and Mojo SL-R. However I saw there is a Talas 36 with 160mm travel. So what are the major differences between the 32 and 36 models besides the 10mm extra travel?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Boogie Manīs Nightmare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by schlange View Post
    I am a bit confused about the different fork options and wanted to get some opinions and advice. I am planning on demoing the IBIS mojo sl-r at Eurobike in a few weeks and would also like to demo the Yeti SB-66 (but they are not going to be there for Demo day )

    Any way, I was looking to get a bike that can really climb well (3000 feet +) but also provide confidence and fun coming down from that height. I was always thinking of taking the Talas 32 with 150mm to pair nicely with the 6" travel of the SB-66 and Mojo SL-R. However I saw there is a Talas 36 with 160mm travel. So what are the major differences between the 32 and 36 models besides the 10mm extra travel?
    The main difference IMO is fuc..nī noticible chassis stiffness. But it depends what is your body weigth, riding style, if you prefer overall bike weight or sturdiness...

    For Yeti Iīd deffinitely go for 36 however not sure by Mojo SL-R. SB-66 is rather competition for Mojo HD, SL-R is more ASR5 kinda bike...
    Personal, little freaky story-photo-blog: ondrakozubek.webnode.cz

  3. #3
    Australia = phun
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    405
    Also weight can be an issue. If you want to go trail, go 32.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    552
    this depends a lot on your weight.

    My AM bike's fork has 35mm stanchions with 25mm thru-axel, which is probably comparable to the Fox 36 with its 36mm stanchions and 20mm thru-axel. But my dirtjumper only has 25mm stanchions and 9mm QR (which on paper is significantly less stiff). However, I can ride my dirtjumper almost as well as my AM bike on AM trails. What's keeping me back is not the skinny dirtjumper fork but the lack of rear suspension on the the dj'er!

    I'm between 130-133lb so I'm a lightweight. I think the Talas 36 would be an overkill for my weight.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    If you're doing drops less than 3 feet, and are generally doing more trail riding with a lot of climbing, I'd recommend going with the 32. The 36mm stanchions are going to be stiffer sure, but at the expense of weight. You have to ask yourself if you need all that fork. Is a 32 with thru-axle and tapered steerer really not stiff enough or burly enough for you? If yes, get the 36. For most riders it's overkill (most of the people in this forum aren't your average rider so keep that in perspective). If you don't need it get the 32. Get the tool fit for purpose.

    You're still going to be somewhat limited by the bikes design and intended purpose. Even with a 36, you shouldn't be hucking a trail bike off 10-15 foot drops, so it's somewhat pointless unless you get a true all mountain bike designed to handle the abuse.

    If you think you need a 36 to descend your average trail fast and fun, then there's something wrong. A 150mm Float is going to be more than enough for damn near everything you encounter. I ride some pretty techy stuff here in Colorado and I've never thought to myself, if only I had a 36 I would have cleaned that. I generally keep the wheels fairly close to the ground though. Just make sure you get the RLC. Don't get the RL. The compression settings really help. Or even better get a RockShox Revelation with Motion Control and 20mm thru-axle.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    38
    Thanks for the replies. I am 82 Kg ( think about 195 lbs) and 6'1"
    The weight diff between the 32 150mm and the 36 160mm fork is about 250g (quarter pound). So I guess I can lose that weight off my waist and go for the stronger fork .

    I would like to try same bike with both forks and see if there is any diff in angles and feel of the ride.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by schlange View Post
    Thanks for the replies. I am 82 Kg ( think about 195 lbs) and 6'1"
    The weight diff between the 32 150mm and the 36 160mm fork is about 250g (quarter pound). So I guess I can lose that weight off my waist and go for the stronger fork .

    I would like to try same bike with both forks and see if there is any diff in angles and feel of the ride.
    Really? I thought the weight difference was more substantial.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  8. #8
    Dirt Deviant
    Reputation: savagemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,694
    My bike is probably better suited with a 32, but I am a big guy and run a 36 for the extra stiffness and 20mm TA.

    I've descended down some 40-50% grades on 32mm forks and could see them flexing SO BAD I swear they were either gonna snap or the tire was gonna hit my toes.
    Look, whatever happens, don't fight the mountain.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Yeah, but going by what you've posted, you're a REALLY big dude. I'm not saying that to be offensive, but I'm a pretty big guy and I've never seen that kind of flex in any of my 32mm forks.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  10. #10
    Dirt Deviant
    Reputation: savagemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,694
    No offense taken. Imagine a defensive lineman that can climb hills. That's pretty much me.....haha.
    Im not saying everybody needs a 36, but it is way stiffer and tracks much better. Even if you're only 160lbs, let alone 300

    Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk
    Look, whatever happens, don't fight the mountain.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    93
    195lbs? That should be easy. Go for the 36. The weight differents is minimal but the increase in stiffnes is substancial. Make no mistake the 32 is a cross country fork. Don't let the little guys fool you. I read somewhere and agree that the 15 mm thru axle on the 32 was a solution to a problem the did'nt exist. Of course if your built like my 14 year old daughter then it may be the perfect fork. My 10cents.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by jessh510 View Post
    195lbs? That should be easy. Go for the 36. The weight differents is minimal but the increase in stiffnes is substancial. Make no mistake the 32 is a cross country fork. Don't let the little guys fool you. I read somewhere and agree that the 15 mm thru axle on the 32 was a solution to a problem the did'nt exist. Of course if your built like my 14 year old daughter then it may be the perfect fork. My 10cents.
    You're kidding right? I'm sitting at 216 now, but I was at 247. I've ridden some crazy terrain on a 32mm fork. 150mm is hardly a cross country fork. I do prefer the stiffness of a 20mm thru-axle, but I'm not hurting with a 15. Plus my Revelation on another bike is 32 with a 20. It's always the same on the all mountain forum though. Everyone thinks you need 6+ inches of travel to ride anything. I've seen riders absolutely killing it in Moab, Fruita, etc. on fully rigids. It's like all the advice telling a new rider to go ride trails with a Reign X or an Enduro Evo.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Murchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    659
    I'm a big guy two at 6'2 230lbs and sure I can ride a 32 fork with a quick release but I can also ride a fully rigid too but you won't see me doing it. After owning a couple of 36's now on different bikes I won't buy anything smaller. The flex is noticeable once your use to it not being there and and the solid feel is well worth it just for the mental aspects it gives you. I can ride my 32 bike just fine on the same trails but it's just not as fun nor as secure feeling. I like to enjoy my rides and not worry about my bike deflecting off things instead of plowing over them. I'm not out to prove anything when I ride I just want to ride and enjoy it and the 36 lets me do that the best along with my 6 inches of travel.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Murchman View Post
    I'm a big guy two at 6'2 230lbs and sure I can ride a 32 fork with a quick release but I can also ride a fully rigid too but you won't see me doing it. After owning a couple of 36's now on different bikes I won't buy anything smaller. The flex is noticeable once your use to it not being there and and the solid feel is well worth it just for the mental aspects it gives you. I can ride my 32 bike just fine on the same trails but it's just not as fun nor as secure feeling. I like to enjoy my rides and not worry about my bike deflecting off things instead of plowing over them. I'm not out to prove anything when I ride I just want to ride and enjoy it and the 36 lets me do that the best along with my 6 inches of travel.
    Maybe I'm just smoother than you.

    ...Just kidding.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  15. #15
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,928
    the fox f series are cross country forks. fox 32s are not. 32 vs 36 really comes down to riding style and rider size. baecker has it 100% right, if your not doing any 3+ foot drops i think a 32 would be good.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Murchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    Maybe I'm just smoother than you.

    ...Just kidding.

    No worries, there is no doubt I am not very smooth and my line choices are anything but ideal but that is the fun. I gave up a long time ago about being the first one to the top or the first one to the bottom. For me it's all about the smile on my face and the fun I am having hitting the trail.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Murchman View Post
    No worries, there is no doubt I am not very smooth and my line choices are anything but ideal but that is the fun. I gave up a long time ago about being the first one to the top or the first one to the bottom. For me it's all about the smile on my face and the fun I am having hitting the trail.
    That's all that's important.

    All that being said, if they're the same price and the weight difference doesn't bother you, then by all means go with a 36. You'll most likely have to internally limit the fork to 150 for the SL-R at least if you want decent geometry (it's a 140mm bike), but that's not hard to do. Nobody is doubting the 36 is stiffer. A 32 did come on my Pivot Mach 5.7 though and it's more than enough fork for that bike.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul View Post
    the fox f series are cross country forks. fox 32s are not. 32 vs 36 really comes down to riding style and rider size. baecker has it 100% right, if your not doing any 3+ foot drops i think a 32 would be good.
    It's those unexpected "oh sheit" moments that I build a bike for...within reason
    1/4 lb diff is acceptable to me for the peace of mind...especially going to trail riding after a summer of bike park DHing...space you're on a smaller bike and go plowing head-long into chunder
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( š.š )╭∩╮

  19. #19
    Wēk Sôs
    Reputation: IAmHolland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    That's all that's important.

    All that being said, if they're the same price and the weight difference doesn't bother you, then by all means go with a 36. You'll most likely have to internally limit the fork to 150 for the SL-R at least if you want decent geometry (it's a 140mm bike), but that's not hard to do. Nobody is doubting the 36 is stiffer. A 32 did come on my Pivot Mach 5.7 though and it's more than enough fork for that bike.
    +1 on this. I just bought a Talas 36 FIT RLC 160mm. It's not much more expensive, maybe $100 more, and the < 1lb it would save doesn't impact me. My weight fluctuates by > 1 lb daily. When the closeouts happen, the price gap should drop too. I bought it knowing that if I were to improve (not likely), then the fork would never be an issue.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bones2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    That's all that's important.

    All that being said, if they're the same price and the weight difference doesn't bother you, then by all means go with a 36. You'll most likely have to internally limit the fork to 150 for the SL-R at least if you want decent geometry (it's a 140mm bike), but that's not hard to do. Nobody is doubting the 36 is stiffer. A 32 did come on my Pivot Mach 5.7 though and it's more than enough fork for that bike.
    Why would you need to reduce to the fork to 150?? It is the same geometry as an SL and plenty of people have been riding that with a 160, Ibis rates the bike for 140-160. That would give you a HA of 67.5 for better or worse. Not saying you need a 160, but if you buy one I would try it before you shorten it.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Bones2 View Post
    Why would you need to reduce to the fork to 150?? It is the same geometry as an SL and plenty of people have been riding that with a 160, Ibis rates the bike for 140-160. That would give you a HA of 67.5 for better or worse. Not saying you need a 160, but if you buy one I would try it before you shorten it.
    Ah. I haven't read enough into the SL-R I guess. I thought it was designed around a 140-150mm fork. 67.5 isn't bad at all. My Mach 5.7 with a 150mm Fox is right around 67 degrees (67.6 with a 140). I figured one would be on a Mojo HD if they were looking for 160mm travel. I retract that statement.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: el_chupo_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,218
    For the record -
    2012 Fox 32 Float RL, 1 1/8th steer, 15mm axle is 3.88lbs (1.76kg), per their site
    2012 Fox 36 Float R, 1 1/8th steer, 20mm axle is 4.52lbs (2.05KG), per their site.

    This is ~290g lighter, or about .65lbs lighter - a bit over 10oz.

    With that said, I am a bit over 250, and have a 32mm RS Sektor, and a Fox 36. There is a difference, but I dont think for someone 50lb less would notice the difference by much, for general trail/AM riding. Start pushing it, and it may be a bigger issue. I dont know how the 15mm axle vs 20mm axle would do, but that alone would (and has) keep me off the Fox 32.


    Good luck!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by el_chupo_ View Post
    For the record -
    2012 Fox 32 Float RL, 1 1/8th steer, 15mm axle is 3.88lbs (1.76kg), per their site
    2012 Fox 36 Float R, 1 1/8th steer, 20mm axle is 4.52lbs (2.05KG), per their site.

    This is ~290g lighter, or about .65lbs lighter - a bit over 10oz.

    With that said, I am a bit over 250, and have a 32mm RS Sektor, and a Fox 36. There is a difference, but I dont think for someone 50lb less would notice the difference by much, for general trail/AM riding. Start pushing it, and it may be a bigger issue. I dont know how the 15mm axle vs 20mm axle would do, but that alone would (and has) keep me off the Fox 32.


    Good luck!
    True. Personally my favorite trail fork has been the 32mm RockShox Revelation with 20mm axle and Blackbox Motion Control. That's just me though.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jtnord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    521
    I have owned and ridden several 32mm forks on XC bikes. At a 230lbs riding weight, I can safely say I will never buy another XC bike nor 32mm fork.
    If you are going to climb 3000ft you will have amazing dh runs. So I say dont go with a fork that will make you hold back!! Adding .65lbs (or what ever the exact amount is) will only make you stronger.

    Btw I now ride a 36.5lbs rig with a 40mm stanchion Totem for daily trail/ all mtn riding. Im going to get it out to Diablo Freeride park once this cracked rib heals
    6'5" 230lbs
    My Build: Vitalmtb - Bike Check

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    92
    It all depends on trail you ride and more importantly your riding style.
    For a combination of tech/steep/very rough terrain AND aggressive style - 36 rules! It's sooo much stiffer, more like a DH fork in terms of steering precision and VERY confidence inspiring.

    The travel difference is nothing here - 10mm means nothing. For example, I had a pike and changed it to 36. The stiffness difference is amazing on rough trail, yuo can easy land in a pile of rocks and keep tracking the wheel all the time. Then set to 130mm (talas) despite less travel it beats 140mm pike in big bumps absorption - Fox damper is a little better imo.

    The other important thing is a2c - 36 is 1'' higher then 32. Ask yourself if you need higher front end and slacker HA.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Push 2009 Fox Talas Vs 2011 Talas?
    By Oracle in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 07:41 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-10-2009, 06:51 PM
  3. Talas Mods? 2009 Fox Talas 32mm RLC with 15mmQR, JC approved
    By KenDobson in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 11:48 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 05:50 AM
  5. Rock Shox Revelation vs Fox Talas vs Push'd Talas
    By eman2 in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-02-2006, 05:17 PM

Posting Permissions

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