Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    Paterfamilias
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    417

    Firebird Fork Spec - FOX 36 RLC FIT 160 vs. RC2 170mm

    Hello all,

    I figured I could ask your opinion on these options, as we are nailing down future fork options for the Firebird offering.

    A lot of our riders like the lighter weight options of the 36 160 forks. (This is a different chassis platform then the 170/180mm offering and is dedicated 160mm only) If we were to offer the Firebird with this fork, and include the Cane Creek Angleset headset, it would allow the bike to hit a lot of the areas where the bike was designed to perform at its best. With a 160 fork, we keep the BB lower, and for those who want a slacker fork angle, you can adjust it with the angle set and it allows the bike to be nearly a pound lighter! We know the 170mm fork options adds some cool factor too - bigger hit performance etc, but you pay a weight penalty.

    FOX 36 160mm travel - 4.47lbs - Pro's - Light Weight, Low BB, and comes with Adjustable Cane Creek Angleset to meet a wider array of trail conditions.

    FOX 36 170mm travel - 5.18lbs - Pro's – Longer travel, and a bit plusher Big Hit performance.

    Please let me know your thoughts, and what you think our customers (you) and the local shops would like us to spec’ on the bikes.
    "The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face".
    Jack Handy

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: crank1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,546
    I run my FB with a 160mm Float because that is what was available when it first came out. I generally like to have at least the same amount of travel front and rear, if not a little more on the front. I think a 170mm Float with an Angleset gives the best options for the FB. I don't think the weight difference is that much to worry about on the FB and the 170mm fork will help differentiate it a bit more from the Mach 5.7.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    136
    180 talas is the fork to have

  4. #4
    I do what I want
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,014
    I will assume your talking about the Float 36 in both instances. IMO and as a future Pivot owner, Firebird or Phoenix, who has pondered this issue for some time now, its been my belief that the longer travel (170-180) float is the better option because if I wanted I could lower to 160 with spacers if I felt the need.

    Edit: Plus the RLC sux! Who needs a Lockout on a 160 fork??

    Oh BTW brilliant idea to offer the FB with the angleset, please tell me your going to offer with the .5, 1.0, 1.5 option and not just the .5, 1.0 option you offer on the Phoenix. Now how about a thru axle??!! (i know never happy)
    Last edited by Guy.Ford; 04-01-2011 at 12:25 PM.
    Guy.Ford

    I'm not really an @sshole, I just act like one online.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    554
    180 float

    To me the front end (160) in my case just doesn't match the performance that the rear offers (FB). So 160 fork is on the market to help finance the 180 upgrade.
    If someone wants a light, nearly 6" bike, go get a 5.7.
    My wifeypoo is luvin hers.
    Last edited by toHELLuRIDE; 04-06-2011 at 05:37 AM.
    Bad rep!!! That's right SON!!

  6. #6
    dog
    dog is offline
    sit! stay!
    Reputation: dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,102
    I had the float 160 and now the 170 (180 with 10mm spacer)... and 12-14mm of bottom stack...

    the 170 is much better and feels more balanced to me... my steering does not feel slower... not much difference on climbing... much better pointing down... haven't felt any negative effects of a higher bb either... so...

    my vote = 180... haven't tried the angle set... but if you have a spare one I'll try it out
    i need to develop my crashing skills...

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,482
    Call me a contrarian, but I would prefer a 160mm fork with angleset. Granted I am not a current owner but have ridden the firebird a few times in Moab with the 160 and would consider buying one for my next rig.

    The lower bottom bracket and lighter weight appeal to me for all mountain riding. The only negative is that da** RLC damper but that is what it is. Maybe offer a 160 vanilla?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,593
    Really, you are gonna have some people that want it one way and some that want it the other. I remember when you were spec'ing the bike with a triple crank and a 160mm travel fork so that people wouldn't think it's a freeride bike and trash on it. If, as a company, you are still of that "it's a long travel all-mountain bike" mind you should spec it with a 160mm (or 170mm... there's two companies that make a 170mm max travel fork, but neither one are the "best" fork maker). If you want people like moose hucking the chit outta it, spec it with a 180 or 170 shimmed from 180 fork.

    If you were to spec it with a 160mm travel Float RC2 fork, you'll probably even get people buying it just for the RC2 cartridge in a Float

    Personally, I'm running the amazing 180mm travel float with a uber low 3mm stack headset. BB and head angle wise it rides like a 170mm travel fork with a regular headset. It CAN bottom out lower than a 160 or a 170 fork as well. I like that extra bit of travel when I mess up on a jump or something. An angleset is lower stack so you can't send out bikes with a 160 and that. It would ride like crap, IMO... OK, I'm starting to ramble now.
    "It looks flexy"

  9. #9
    dog
    dog is offline
    sit! stay!
    Reputation: dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,102
    that's a good point gticlay, but i really think the FB rides better with the 170 mm and normal headset. i am certainly nowhere near what anyone would call a freerider ...

    i am just an XC rider who likes to enjoy a (very) little air and is too lazy to pick my way through downhills... i do have an otf adjustable post (reverb) which does help lower ones center of gravity when needed... so even with the weight penalty i like the 170 mm better... so far...

    that said there are those who ride around where i'm from who ride M5s or 429s that i think would be happier with a FB but have convinced themselves that it's too much bike... but i don't know that a lighter 160mm fork would convince them otherwise...
    i need to develop my crashing skills...

  10. #10
    MC MasterShake
    Reputation: woodyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,886
    I don't own a FB but my bud does and I've gotten a few rides on it. He rides his currently with a Totem coil and is looking to go to the Talas 180mm. Based on how I like things I would spec it with a 180mm Talas RC2 and an angleset to slacken it out even further. It sounds like most folks on this board would go the other way with the angleset. So for maximum flexibility a 180mm Float RC2 w/CC angleset seems like the way to go. That way you can go up and down on the travel and customize your HA as you seem fit. Plus you get the RC2 which is a big win in my book. I still can't believe they took out the RC2 from their 160 forks.

  11. #11
    crash and burn at 45
    Reputation: drydirtrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    250
    160 with the angled headset for the win. Understandable, you are going to get a varied set of answers, depending on the use of the bike and the terrain that the rider has envisioned for it. My Firebird is my only bike. I ride it everywhere, Kenosha pass, buff creek epic days of 20+miles. I have a seperate set of wheels for it for shuttle and dh vs my XC stock set. I don't have much of an issue climbing it anywhere right now and with the slack (to me) H.Angle, I rarely have a place that I feel its too steep. It would just be another fun adjustment to tinker with.
    COMBA fan boy card holder #1.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    983
    depends on how you want to bias the bike.

    I rode my firebird with the 160 flloat, then a 170 Lyrik Solo air.

    It had a much better climbing geo with the 160. I guess this could be accommodated with the 170 and angle set.

    >1/2 a pound won't make much difference for someone who doesn't care much about climbing efficiency or go on epic rides where weight becomes a factor. If this was your bias you'd be on a 5.7.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,801
    If you can put a dw link on the forks it would be great. Thanks.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robertj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    397
    Options:

    Float 180/RC2, with the options to internally reduce to 170mm and adjust head angle via the angle set is how I would likely go; I think that would be a great and very tuneable setup. I think a bike like the FB deserves the RC2 cartridge for tunability.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: supermoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    511
    160 Van

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,593
    This thread is why Fox needs to have a 180/160 TALAS fork. There's a ton of bikes that could use 160 on general trail riding, but 180 on more heavy duty trails. The bike climbs like a billy goat with a 160 fork. I could then buy a tapered steer and run a regular headset...
    "It looks flexy"

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    156

    Fork options.

    Keep it at 170. I had the 160 on my carbon Nomad and I feel that the 170 setup on the FB inspires more confidence in the roughest of terrain. To me the 170 fork just feels super stiff compared to my 160 on my Nomad, not that the 160 was wimpy, it's just that the extra 1/2 pound feels stronger to me (which I like). I bought the FB for it's excellent climbing ability and it's ability to go down the gnarliest, roughest DH and it has not dissapointed me yet. My bike would weigh 32.2 Lbs instead of it's current 32.7 if it came with a 160 fork on it. I would rather have the added strength and travel of the 170 over the weight any day. After all I purchased the FB for all mountain use and I believe Pivot has hit the ball out of the park with the FB in it's current setting.

  18. #18
    Let'er Buck
    Reputation: kdimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    226
    I have the 160 and thats all I have used on the bird but for me its plenty of fork and love the climbing, I use it as a do it all bike and trying to keep it as close to 30lbs as possible.
    "Powder River, Let 'er Buck"

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,170
    I'm happy with the RC2 at 170. I've got a single 10mil spacer under the stem, and if the rear shock is set up right, the front wheel stays down alright.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rideflatout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    311
    Been a while since I've been in here...

    I have the stock Float 36 Float 160mm from 2009 and I really like it, but If I were buying a FB right now, I personally would go for the 170mm option. And a 2x9 or 2x10 with bash and an RC4...

    The weight does not bother me one bit. I ride DH/DH UST 2.5 tires and the stock SLX build components (front is 2 ring with bash now, I was using my large ring as a bash guard anyway) because they can handle the AZ terrain. I also have a a dhx5 coil
    on there and I think my bike it about 36ish pounds and I still feel I am getting a good "performance to weight ratio" lol

  21. #21
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    720
    I just ordered mine with the 170 Float. It weighs almost the same as my 160 Van & the weight doesn't bother me at all. I'm running all coil currently, so i'm used to hefting a little more around.
    Life in every breath

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    128
    Love my FB with a Float 180 up from with a CC flush hs and RC4?Ti in back. Weighs in at 36 lbs. Started with a Van 160 and King hs and the switch was a big improvement.

  23. #23
    The OMEN
    Reputation: Prodigy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    39
    Why wouldn't you want 170-180mm of fork on a bike of this caliber?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ebeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    811
    I hit a Pivot demo yesterday (kudos to the team) to try out the Mach 5.7, but also rode the Firebird. I was floored after riding the Firebird, what a great bike. I couldn't help but think after riding both models that something in between would be perfect for me. I would love to see the Firebird with a 160mm fork and angleset.

    My 5.7 demo had a 140mm fork. As an alternative it would be very interesting to see the 5.7 with a 150mm fork and angleset yielding a 67ish HA.

  25. #25
    Stucco Bucket
    Reputation: the_owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,520
    170 Lyrik DH Air on my Firebird. 4.80lbs
    I sometimes wish I had done the talas 180

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •