Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 160mm on XCL ?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    663

    160mm on XCL ?

    I'm sure the frame could take it, but how will the bike handle ?
    Got a Pike right now, and it's nice, but curious to try a 160mm fork ...
    Anyone try this ?

  2. #2
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,207
    try searching this forum, it's been discussed here.
    beaver hunt

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaMan
    I'm sure the frame could take it, but how will the bike handle ?
    Got a Pike right now, and it's nice, but curious to try a 160mm fork ...
    Anyone try this ?

    I had a TALAS 36 on my XCL. At 160 it climbed ok. The front end would wander. The bike descended real nice at 160. Ideally, I kept the travel at 130 for flats and climbing and I would increase the travel to 160 for descents. The TALAS 36 matches up nice with the XCL

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Scottandhisdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    236
    I am running a Lyric travel adjusts between 160-115mm and it is nice. It also helps tighten up the wheelbase when it's wound down to mount on my friend's roof rack. At 160 it's too long for the rack.

    I posted my review of my XCL somewhere on here. The Lyric is really nice, but I usually ride it around 145-150mm, so you might not see a huge difference from the Pike. I think that the Pike is a bit lighter, and maybe not as stiff. Overall, I love the bike the way it is, not lightest, but I never worry about riding an area because she won't brake.

  5. #5
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,488

    As long as you can lower it

    I agree, I thought the Talas 36 worked real nice on my XCL, but I used the 130mm setting a lot, esp for climbs and tight singletrack. The only time I did not care for it was on steep loose tight singletrack descends. In that specific case I wanted longer travel and slacker front angle than 130, but the 160 was too slack and tended to wash out in corners.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

Posting Permissions

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