160 or 180 mm for HD???
I would like to buy an Ibis Mojo HD but I haven't decided the fork travel yet: 160 or 180 mm.
I don't descend as quick as I would like to, and I never go to bikeparks, but it is true that I would like to improve my skills gradually.
At present, I use the bike for climbing and descending in the same proportion, although what I prefer is the second.
So, according to this, will a 180 mm fork be suitable for me? Or do you thing that climbing and riding with this fork will be uncomfortable? In this case, the option would be Fox 36 Talas RC2 180-140 mm (I prefer Fox 36 Float RC2 but this option is not available with Shimano XT kit).
And the second question is: are 180 mm forks suitable for Mojo HD frames? I'm afraid of damages in the frame caused by these forks (because of its angle).
The reason of choosing this travel is because of the bike geometry. As you know, Ibis's geometries are short but with a 180 mm fork, the top tube and wheelbase, for example, become longer.
with your climbing/descending proportion i would go 160. than again, it depends what you call climb. here in Co there are some pretty mean climbs that i am sure would be a challenge with 180. you can drop to 140 with talas, not sure how it affects the bike. i used to have 160 talas but i never would drop to 120 as it felt terrible and didnt really needed it. ended up converting it to float. obviously you would kill descends with 180. its all compromises.
160 or 170. The 180 is a supported fork according to Ibis. I run a 170 Lyrik and have a 66 degree HA with this setup. I have no problem climbing steep technical trails. I would not run the 180 unless it was for Park duty.
Get the 180/140 TALAS over the 160 Float 36. I have had both and the TALAS is far better on this bike. I do 90km XC rides with this setup and huck jumps as well. The bike is so much better for XC in the 140mode than it ever was with the 36 Float 160. In 180 it is just brilliant on the decents. Generally I will ride it in 140 mode for most of my riding and only go to 180 for freeride. Only draw back is the weight.
Now, I am going to probably go to a 160 fork later this year for the weight savings and lock out as I do alot more XC and my skills are good enought to decend without the 180. I will be going with a FOX 34 or the new RS Pike 35 as the A2Crown lenght is close to the 180 TALAS in the 140 mode.
I tried the 36 in 160 and 180. The 180 I found to be too heavy at the front.
Now, I run a Lyrik at 170 and it's better than the Fox options to me.
I feel size wise I am between the large and XL. Having a 180 on the HD kind of puts the sizing more in the middle for me. The plush factor is nice too. I played with a few forks and options and wound up here. Maybe if I had an XL the 160 would have been fine. As far as travel adjust, I miss it when I don't have it now, although the trade off is it gets a bit harder to pedal when you drop the fork (happens with the 160 Talas as well).
I ride in San Diego with Noble Canyon as my favorite weekend ride and midweek trails like Elfin Forest, Switchbacks and Nascar. Lots of steep climbs and rocky downhills. Not much flats or XC-style riding for me--- That's what my road bike is for.
I had a 2009 Lyrik 2-Step 160/115mm fork on my XL Ibis Mojo HD and just replaced it with a 2013 Talas 180/140. I prefer the damping and overall ride of the Talas but both are nice forks.
The Lyrik in 115mm travel was nice for climbing steeps but created a ton of drag in more gentle inclines and made the bike feel unusable in flats due to drag. The few times I forgot to raise the fork before heading downhill were harrowing. The good news was I didn't need to use it often in 115 mm travel as 160mm Lyrik felt balanced and fine uphill and downhill. I kept up on maintenance on the Lyrik but blew out the seals a couple times on hard hits. (I'm 6'5" 225lbs) I also couldn't quite find the balance in adjusting the air spring and damping to maintain sensitivity and also avoid steadily compressing the fork under braking in steep descents.
The Talas in 180mm travel is sick for downhill sections. I feel much more comfortable jumping and on technical descents. In 140mm I don't notice the drag and it feels balanced--- Its a great setting for technical climbs in that it still drops the front end a bit and yet keeps you high enough for decent pedal clearance. I run the air spring just a couple pounds under factory specs and while I don't get close to 25% sag, I do get more sensitivity than the Lyrik and I can balance damping and air spring to avoid losing much travel on technical descents.
The Talas is heavy, but I don't care. I'm 10 LBS overweight myself and added another 5 lbs to my bike with Saint Brakes, Easton Havoc wheels, bars, and stem, Minion 2.5" tires and the Talas. I appreciate the steering precision and reliability I get from the DH-oriented parts. I am climbing at least as fast as before as I'm clearing more technical sections and of course I descend much faster.
I'm intrigued by a 160mm Pike as I think it would be a great all-around fork and 2 lbs lighter than my Talas. However, until I'm less of a fat-ass myself, I'll stick with the "heavy" bike.
You will not be happy with the Pike if you like the bike in 180 mode. It is a 535 A2C if I remember correctly which is going to make your HA close to 68 vs. the 65.5/66 you are at with the 180 Talas.
BTW I had the opposite experience on the new Lyrik vs. the 36. I was running the 2012 36 with the FIT damper which was crap. There was also no midstroke support, but the ramp up was very severe making it almost impossible to get within 1.5" of full travel. This was despite the fact that I was only running 47 PSI vs. the recommended 75. They have completely redesigned the 36 air spring this year and put the RC2 damper back in it as well so I guess I wasn't the only person having issues. Absolutely love the 2013 Lyrik RC2DH that I have now.
Funny, I had an opposite experience! I had a coil U-Turn, and had the DH damper installed. Never could get the last 1-1.5 inches of travel. Eventually converted it to a 170 coil without the U-turn, but the problem persisted. I've always wondered if I should have gone with the Solo Air DH, since most people really have liked those.
Now I have a 2012 Talas 180 and run it at about 52 PSI. Even at that air pressure I hardly have to run any High speed rebound. I think running the lower air pressures make the rebound damping in consistant with temperature, and how warmed up the fork is. The Talas is also sluggish at that air pressure. I'm thinking about getting it Pushed, or seeing If I can gett the new air spring, and Talas system. The Fit damper is still on the new forks though.
Overall I like the change to the 180 with the ability to drop the fork for climbs and tight trails, and less rock strikes while climbing. I uses a bunch of spacers under the stem so the higher front is fine for me.
I think you might want to give a shot at the factory pressure and dampening settings before pulling the trigger on a Push. As far as I know the difference the 2012 and 2013 Talas 180 is the sir seals and my 2013 Talas has been working better for me at their standard recommended pressures than at the lower pressures required to give me 25 or 30% sag.
I decided to start right at the factory recommendations and then do minor changes from there on the trail based on feel. I also decided to ignore sag recommendations since I care about the performance on rocky downhill sections that have little correlation to balancing in my living room.
I ran the 2013 Talas 180 right at the factory-recommended 90 PSI for my 225 LB weight (~235 -w- camelback and gear) on Noble Canyon two weekends ago and got to within an inch of full travel despite not pushing it too hard. It was plenty sensitive at both 140mm and 180mm travel and didn't drop into the sag on extended descents. I think if I had gotten into an "oh crap" moment I would have used the full travel.
I was regularly getting full travel at 80 PSI on local trails but would have had to go to the extremes with LSC to maintain travel on long descents. If I had used 25% sag to set the fork, I would have used 75 or 80 PSI and it would have been even plusher on flats and uphills but worse on downhills.
I'm now running it at about 87 PSI and it seems like a good setting for me--- Just 3 PSI below their guidelines. I get about 10% sag at this setting when I'm seated.
I may give that a try, or at least go up to 60ish. I think 65-70 is recommended for my weight, but I'm not sure about where to find the dampening setting. I must have the manual somewhere. What low and high speed setting are you suing now?
Out of the build kit options - get the 160 or whatever your LBS will trade for a 36 Float RC2 160.
I've had a 11 Lyrik RC2DH 170 on mine for 3 years and ridden a friend's bike with a Totem. Its a big bike with a 180/Totem on it and those forks ain't light going uphill I find the 170 is fine for Norcal climbing but it does raise the the BB more than I'd like (the other consideration on a tall fork). The Float 36 RC2 160 is a sweet fork for a Fox fork and worth exploring if you can get your LBS to swap the 34 Float CTD for it out of the box for a few extra $.
Other option to think about is to run the 160 fork and add a -1 Works Headset if you want it slacker in the future to match a 180. I plan to lower my Lyrik down to 160 and add a -1 to get the slacker HA I like but lower my BB (I'm in Norcal now, so I can happily live with a low BB clearance wise).
The Pike 26 160 is listed at 542mm A2C so a wash with the 36 Float and a Lyrik at 160 at 545mm A2C. The 34 Float is 537.9mm A2C so it will be steeper than listed geometry which was around 545mm.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
- Arthur C. Clarke
Don't do the 180mm. Do 170 or 160. Even 170 will do very well in the steeps if it is well controlled against brake dive. Even steep rollers can be done with 170. No need for 180 in my opinion unless you're really pushing your riding. If you need to run 180, get another bike that's designed around it.
Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.
The HD is designed around 180, at least to the degree that the designer publishes a full geometry chart at 180. I do agree that if you can have one travel setting, 160 is all around ideal for varying terrain though.
I got the bike last year with a 160mm Lyrik. I'm on a Totem 180-150mm dual position air this year. It kills it. I considered the Talas 180-140, but figured 140 to only be useful on climbs. Both 150 and 180 can be used in rolling terrain, even though most of my riding is straight up, straight down (Colorado). I was worried about the weight of the Totem, but it has been completely inconsequential for me (210 lbs). When I'm at 150mm on my fork, I couldn't imagine liking 140mm for anything other than steep climbing, as suspected. I'm sure 140 is great for steep climbs, but I wanted more versatile settings. Fox changed their 160-120 TALAS to 160-130 this year, so maybe they will do the same with the 180, and make the low setting at 150. I think it would be wise. At my size, and my frequent visits to bike parks, I'm so happy with the 40mm legs on the Totem though. Its barely heavier than a 180 TALAS. I have a Vivid air out back though, which matches up well. Neither my fork or shock feels too burly for the HD frame.
The Totem doesn't feel heavier than my 160mm Lyrik while riding, and at 150mm, I think the Totem climbs better. On the way down 180mm is awesome and doesn't affect the handling or BB negatively. At 150mm, I can ride Fruita type roller coasters without having to change the setting constantly or feel compromised.
I would go 160-130 before I'd go 180-140. 180-150 kills it on the HD if you ask me. For all those times that 180 is overkill, you don't have to sink the front in the mud for all around riding as a compromise. I haven't ridden 140mm front, 160 rear myself though, so take with a grain of salt.