Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371

    status of all the new forks coming out

    I am curious if people have the full low down on the new 5" capable forks. Please comment and I can update this table.

    Fork brand Material Qr style(s) Available as fork only Tapered A/C Offset Weight Price
    Specialized Carbon 135x9mm not annouced yes ? ? not annouced not annouced
    Borealis Carbon 135x15mm yes yes 468mm 45mm 575 grams $449
    Salsa Carbon 142x15mm yes yes 483mm ? 700grams not annouced
    Salsa Al 135x9mm yes yes 483mm ? ? not annouced
    Carver Carbon 135x9mm yes no 465mm 45mm 570 grams $299
    9:zero:7 Carbon 135x15mm yes yes ? ? not annouced not annouced
    Muru Ti/Al 135x10mm yes both 470mm ? 705/768 gram $299/179
    Last edited by yxan; 07-29-2013 at 06:53 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlowinFlo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    103
    Good idea!

    Looking on the pictures the Salsa carbon fork should have 15mm qr.
    All the new forks you mentioned will be tapered, right?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    117
    I ran into the Salsa guys at their booth at the Dirty Kanza last June. Iasked about the availability of the carbon fork. They a) couldn't confirm availability by itself (initially) and b) told me the geometry was wrong for their current 2013 Mukluks.

  4. #4
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    675
    It'd be interesting to know AC distance on each model.
    --Peace

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371
    I added the additional columns, but would love to have some people with knowledge about the more detailed specs chime in

  6. #6
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378
    Awesome chart... I'm in the market for a carbon fork for my moonlander this fall. Kind of a bummer they are all tapered. But I've heard you can't go wrong with the weight and quality of the Carver forks. I'm 225 geared up... so carbon still scares me. I don't really jump my moonlander though... so...

  7. #7
    Team Captain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,203
    based on pictures and the announcement of the new fargo, it looks like Salsa is switching all their new rigid forks to 490mm a2c (suspension corrected for 100mm).

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MuruCycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    66
    Muru (currently) offer two rigid forks that fit the 5" tyres. (suspension is coming)

    The Swale [Ti] has a regular 135/10mm axle and 140mm between the upper legs. (it swallows a Bud on a Clown shoe with space to spare)

    Our Swale [Al] is alloy and has the same dimensions.

    The Swale ti is available in either straight or tapered steerer. The Swale alloy is in tapered only for now.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by MuruCycles View Post
    Muru (currently) offer two rigid forks that fit the 5" tyres. (suspension is coming)

    The Swale [Ti] has a regular 135/10mm axle and 140mm between the upper legs. (it swallows a Bud on a Clown shoe with space to spare)

    Our Swale [Al] is alloy and has the same dimensions.

    The Swale ti is available in either straight or tapered steerer. The Swale alloy is in tapered only for now.
    would you guys consider doing a suspension fork with a crown wide enough for a CS with Lou front? that to me is the holy grail = instant purchase

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mochunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    113
    Still stuck to just the Carver for the Surlys. It's ok, just a little concerned about the brake facing inconsistencies posted. I haven't pulled the trigger yet so we'll see. I need to rebuild my wheel or build an all new one. The latter preferred but just means a bigger initial investment with a second rim and hub. The ability to put back on the stock fork and wheel in a pinch or for winter is an added bonus probably worth the extra cost.
    Fatbike Chicago on Facebook

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MuruCycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    would you guys consider doing a suspension fork with a crown wide enough for a CS with Lou front? that to me is the holy grail = instant purchase
    the current fork is 122mm between the upper legs.

    however we're already at work on the wider model. and all the hard work (the damper etc) has been done...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    666
    Fatback does have a wider carbon fork coming soon. There have been pictures floating around.

    Cheers,
    Steven

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371
    updated the salsa fork specs, my god 142x15

  14. #14
    nothing to see here
    Reputation: Stevob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,037
    Throw an extra column in there for offset.
    I see hills.

    I want to climb them.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevob View Post
    Throw an extra column in there for offset.
    Just added, not sure where I can find those values (are some calling that rake?)

  16. #16
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,515
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    updated the salsa fork specs, my god 142x15
    I sure hope RS doesn't follow suite!!
    And I love beer!!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    I sure hope RS doesn't follow suite!!
    I am afraid they just might. Which would suck

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    59
    I certainly don't understand why after everybody (hub and fork manufactors) is stepping on the 135mm train a company comes up with a 142 fork ..

    That said, one reason i didnt go for a Sandman fatty was their use of a 165 rear hub.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371
    bummer really as I would have loved the suspension corrected fork in carbon

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    666
    I wonder if it is a typo. Standard front hubs did not go wider when they went to 15 mm through axel.
    I understand having 170 and 190 rears, it makes sense. Keep 135 front.

    On the front I use a 10 mm 135 DT RWS and it is very rigid. I do not see the need or the logic to go to another standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    I am afraid they just might. Which would suck

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by Vighor View Post
    I certainly don't understand why after everybody (hub and fork manufactors) is stepping on the 135mm train a company comes up with a 142 fork ..

    That said, one reason i didnt go for a Sandman fatty was their use of a 165 rear hub.
    A 170mm hub fits in any Sandman. The whole hub dimension issue is often more a marketing spin than anything else. In a properly designed rear frame you can fit very wide rim/tire combo's and use a 165mm hub in combination with offset chainrings. But then that "wasn't good enough", so on came the 170mm hub (which, when you look at it brings only a miniscule extra tiny bit of chain/tire clearance... neglegible in fact).
    If we now have to believe all the marketing spin, even wider is the only way to go...

    Same now with the front hub. I do understand the 135mm standard, it's a pain to remove/put in a wide tire into a 100mm-hub fork due to the brake caliper. I do think that a rigid 135mm fork is somehow "uglier", but because form has to follow function in my book...

    I often compare what's currently happening with fatbikes to the mtb craze in the earlu to mid '90ies: in a flurry of the wildest designs, everybody is trying to convince the rest that their hurried and sometimes poorly-thought-over design is the next best thing - instead of stepping back, taking a deep breath and properly thinking it over.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    724
    Perhaps I am missing something about the new Salsa 142 fork, but isn't the 7mm increase over a 135 just to accommodate the thru axle? From the Bike Rumor article, that is what I gathered, and there was no implied increase in tire clearance?

    Do very much like seeing a trend to thru axles in the front, a much safer concept.
    Just like Fat Bikes...the posters on here can go anywhere...and do.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Perhaps I am missing something about the new Salsa 142 fork, but isn't the 7mm increase over a 135 just to accommodate the thru axle? From the Bike Rumor article, that is what I gathered, and there was no implied increase in tire clearance?

    Do very much like seeing a trend to thru axles in the front, a much safer concept.
    It is not exactly clear, I hear something about endcaps coming with their hub so im guessing something changes

  24. #24
    Team Captain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,203
    read up on 142x12 rears, it's the same idea.

  25. #25
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    589
    also include a column for front or rear disc spacing. i think most aftermarket forks are going to front, but it's good to know for sure

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. status LED
    By Andy13 in forum Lights DIY - Do It Yourself
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 11:10 PM
  2. Upgrading 150mm forks to 160-180mm forks
    By timng85 in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-24-2012, 11:37 AM
  3. So what's the status...
    By AndyD in forum Knolly
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 03-09-2012, 04:46 AM
  4. Status 1, Anyone have one?
    By afp3 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-31-2012, 03:39 PM
  5. 29er forks more likely to snap than 26 inch forks?
    By Alastair78 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-05-2011, 06:15 AM

Posting Permissions

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