Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    144

    mach 5.7 and 34 fork

    Has anyone gone with a fox 34" fork(or some other brand) on their mach 5.7s?
    Pivot said it would slacken out to 66.35 curious to hear peoples experiences if any.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    63
    I think it's possible to add a spacer to the 34, making it a 150, but with a little added stiffness/weight. Not sure how much crown height differences would change HTA, can't be too much.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    69
    I'm also looking at the same thing but not sure what to do.
    Options:
    1) Fox 34 Float: It can be shimmed down to 150mm and ATC will be 527.9mm
    2) XFusion Slant: It can be shimmed down to 150mm or 140mm and ATC will be 535mm or 525mm.
    3) Fox 34 Talas: It can't be shimmed down so ATC is 537.9mm

    Fox 32 @ 150 ATC is 520mm

    I thinikg the ~8mm difference to the 34 Float won't impact the geometry too much and the increased stiffness would be a big advantage.

    The Xfusion Slant, would have to be shimmed down to 140mm to work best for the geometry, but the reduced travel would be the disadvantage.

    And the Talas 34. Yes there is a 18mm ATC difference but if you are climbing you can lower the fork and I think that would work nice, and then have 10mm extra travel for the decent... but not sure how well it will handle. Pivot stongly recommends 150mm.

    NOTE: Got the ATC numbers from Fox and Xfusion websites.

    So I have done my math homework but I have no experience with any of these forks. If someone has real experience please comment.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: swinkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    228
    I recently upgraded from a 32 Float 140 to a 34 Float set at 150. I immediately noticed a difference on downhills, but on uphills the front end felt wandery for a couple rides. Definitely glad I made the upgrade.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    144
    Thbanks for the responses swinkey And others, that's good to hear I tried a buddies 36 equipped enduro and another turner 5spot and those folks felt like tanks

    Might check out a fusion slant will have to check stanchion size

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11
    Will a 165lb rider (like myself) really need the added stiff of the 34 over the 32?

  7. #7
    Paterfamilias
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedroll View Post
    Will a 165lb rider (like myself) really need the added stiff of the 34 over the 32?
    I don't think you would appreciate the stiffness at your weight. I don't know how fast your roll DH but I'm thinking you would be better off saving the 1 lb of weight, and keeping your 32.
    "The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face".
    Jack Handy

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by dan23 View Post
    I don't think you would appreciate the stiffness at your weight. I don't know how fast your roll DH but I'm thinking you would be better off saving the 1 lb of weight, and keeping your 32.
    I weigh 167 and I *DO* notice the difference in flex between my 32 150 mm and a 34 on knarly descents (with Enve AM's, so it's not the wheels). Is it a show stopper for my 32 at my weight? No, not really. That said, I'd rather have the stiffness the 34 provides up front (at 150 mm "cuz I want to preserve the the geo as much as possible) and save weight in other ways (e.g. tires).

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    69
    I'm ordering a 5.7 with the Float 34 shimmed @ 150mm. I wanted to avoid a higher ATC with a Talas or a XFusion Slant...
    I really hope it rides nice and that I don't miss a Talas reduced to 120mm for the steep techy climbs.

    My test ride was on a 5.7 equipped with a Talas 32 @ 140mm. I didn't feel much difference climbing at 140 or at 110 or 120 (not sure which was the setting). So that's how I made up my mind.

    It'll take some time before I get my bike but I'll update then.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by sancycling View Post
    I'm ordering a 5.7 with the Float 34 shimmed @ 150mm. I wanted to avoid a higher ATC with a Talas or a XFusion Slant...
    I really hope it rides nice and that I don't miss a Talas reduced to 120mm for the steep techy climbs.

    My test ride was on a 5.7 equipped with a Talas 32 @ 140mm. I didn't feel much difference climbing at 140 or at 110 or 120 (not sure which was the setting). So that's how I made up my mind.

    It'll take some time before I get my bike but I'll update then.
    You may want to rethink. Front ends on a 5.7 are looser at 150 mm than 140 mm. Now add the addition 8.5 mm in A2C and you may find the front end looser yet on climbs. Nothing that can't be over come with technique, but there nonetheless.

    In my case, I went ahead and installed the Talas 160 mm last week and loved it. Much better tracking and, per my last post, much more stiff. That said I went the Talas route because:
    1. Lower A2C height than the Slant
    2. The ability to drop to 120 mm on climbs. Why this mattered? "Cuz I had a Talas 150 mm on my 5.7C before and the front end had a tendency to get loose on climbs which was easily remedied by dropping it to 120 mm.

    So, in short, the the 34 mm stanchions actually make a difference, the extra 10 mm in travel is a plus, I'm loving the 66.4 degree head angle for descents, and the ability to drop to 120 mm on climbs makes it all around good.

    As for over all handling, I'm not seeing any issues with the geo at all. The bike seems to be handling as good, if not better in all conditions. The noted exception is down hill, where handling is markedly better. Caveat, I just bought a new toy, so I'm sure there's a bias towards it being "better". We'll see what the verdict is later in the month.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    384
    With little tinkering It is possible to set the travel limits to just about any value. At 190lbs I would take 34 fork anyway and would then play with travel spacers to get the front end where it should be.

    Btw, Velvet RL @ 140mm is massive improvement over 32 Fox Float @ 150 at similar a-c height. The damping is not as advanced as FIT but it feels more consistent and predictable.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    144
    from what i've read the xfusion slant 34 is not released yet.
    Still leaning in that direction just dont know when that fork is available.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    21

    5.7 / fb

    First time posting here although I've been reading these threads for quite some time. Love Pivots but I'm having a hard time deciding on my next new bike. Building a 5.7 with a Fox 34 or just stepping up to a FB. Seems to me there might only be a 2 or 3 lbs difference between a burlier 5.7 compared to a lightened FB. If the geometry on both are almost identical whats the disadvantage to getting more travel in the FB if its only for a small weight penalty? Am I missing something here?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by jbuhl18 View Post
    First time posting here although I've been reading these threads for quite some time. Love Pivots but I'm having a hard time deciding on my next new bike. Building a 5.7 with a Fox 34 or just stepping up to a FB. Seems to me there might only be a 2 or 3 lbs difference between a burlier 5.7 compared to a lightened FB. If the geometry on both are almost identical whats the disadvantage to getting more travel in the FB if its only for a small weight penalty? Am I missing something here?
    I think 5.7 provides a bit more "sporty" ride feeling and FB will provide more confidence on downhills. It is probably rider preference and ideally you would have chance for a test rides before making your choice.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: razorjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    100
    i had fox34 talas factory 120-160mm for two months, great bike with a travel switching fork.
    but my Fox worked awfull, it had a lot of compression damping (no stiction however), my distributor/service said the fork is ok (but it's a bad service, the guy that works with foxes don't even ride on a bike too much :/ ) so i sold it.
    now i'm using fox 36 160 and i'm waiting for a Lyrik 160 rc2dh

    Firebird has cockpit (bar) a lot higher than m5.7 but it climbs as well

  16. #16
    jddist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    334
    Owned a bird for almost 2 years and just recently test rode the 5.7 and to me the two are not even in the same ballpark. Totally different rides in all aspects. 5.7 for more long trail oriented riding with some AM every now and then. The bird for AM + pedal that can also be used for long trail rides without too much pain. The best one out of the two all depends on what type of riding you do MOST of the time. Just my thoughts. Good luck.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    21
    Thanks for the info....still having a battle with which one to buy. Hoping to hash it out in the next few weeks.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JMW503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    292

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by istvisinet View Post
    Owned a bird for almost 2 years and just recently test rode the 5.7 and to me the two are not even in the same ballpark. Totally different rides in all aspects. 5.7 for more long trail oriented riding with some AM every now and then. The bird for AM + pedal that can also be used for long trail rides without too much pain. The best one out of the two all depends on what type of riding you do MOST of the time. Just my thoughts. Good luck.
    Hmmm, I ride a 5.7c AM 95% of the time and race Enduro with it. Like any rig, set up is key, and mine is built for AM (50mm stem, wide bars, 34mm Talas 160mm, etc.); not at all long trail. And with that, it performs exceptionally well. The only real knock is the lack of ISCG. The FB has 20mm of additional travel which I'd like at times (read: bigger drops, larger air). It can also handle a 180mm fork, which makes is a freaking fantastic park bike with that set up IMO.


    That said, I agree that folks should ride both and decide on ride characteristics and the type of riding they do. I'm less inclined to say either is an AM or trail bike, since I've riden with guys that killed knarly and big trails on 4 inch travel bikes, so it's more about the rider IMO. My recommendation is to focus more on how you want to build the bike for the type of riding you do. The 5.7c and FB both have the pros/cons (e.g FB weight; no ISCG for the 5.7c), so go with the one that feels best and can be built the way you want it.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    34
    So after updating the fork on my 5.7c from a 32 to a 34 i thought I would share my personal observations.

    1. The increase in stiffness and tracking is marked and is very welcome.

    2. Running them @ 160mm signficantly detracted from the handling of the bike, to the point where I had several very impressive crashes over the few rides that I partook at this travel setting. Pushing hard through corners I have ridden dozens of time on this bike l washed out the front wheel. Not once or twice, but 3 or 4 times. Caused I am assuming by the exagerated HA and raised BB, but mostly by the HA. The front end became lazy and the technical climbing ability was affected. Overall the bike felt like ****.

    3. Once lowered to 150mm, the bike's status quo was resestablished. I noticed little to no differences to the geometry related handling, and the benefits of the additional stiffness really started to shine.


    Unrelated, but the changes the air piston/assembly for 2013 is very noticable and welcome also.

  20. #20
    aka greyranger
    Reputation: redranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    507
    How do the RS Revelations compare to the Fox 32, Fox 34 in stiffness. Just got my 5.7c and was wondering if anybody had a RS and went to a Fox 34.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: razorjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    100
    well... fox says that new Fox34 is as stiff as fox36 (and fox cancels fox36 160mm forks)
    but...taking into account that Revelation is only 32mm i think that fox34 is stiffer, but i'm not enough experienced rider to feel the difference
    now you can compare Fox34 to Lyrik (it has 35mm stachions) that is only few milimeters higher

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    19
    Just an excuse to post a picture of my new bike, but here it is complete with BOS Deville fork - that's 160mm travel with 34mm stantions. Complete bike weighs 27.6 lbs and that's with 2.4 and 2.35" tyres.

    It's a great bike, but I am coming off a Santa Cruz Nomad so I wanted something that pedals better and was lighter but still flew on the downs. I could see if you were more used to XC geometry you would find it a bit slack and would want to step down the fork, but I think that is an irreversible change on the BOS so I won't be doing it.

    The demo bike had Fox 32's 150mm, the BOS is definitely a much superior fork in terms of downhill ability. This bike can be ridden all day and still tackle teh steepest descents, very impressed.


  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    75
    Bring this thread back from the dead (sorry): It appears that the majority of riders coming off of bigger biked with slack-head angles are ok with or even prefer the 160 up front for going down. Is there anyone who would say I should stick to 150mm or less if I am looking at a travel adjustable fork (talas/2-step). Just ordered my 5.7c for better climbing and longer rides than my ASR-7, but would not mind keeping the stiff front end.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    69
    I've been riding my 5.7 since end of October and I think I finally got the suspension dialed in. So here are my thoughts about Fox Float 34 fork. I'm 5'10, 190lbs geared and ride a Medium frame.

    When I got the bike I immediately reduced the travel to 150mm. When I got the bike I never bothered measuring ATC or actual travel (I was just too excited with my new bike). But now I can tell you that the actual travel is ~155mm, so that got me thinking on how to experiment to improve the ride. What I ended up doing was to increase the sag. I'm measuring the sag from top to bottom (I know it should be the other way around) and have it set up at 120mm, so ~35mm if measured from the seal to the ring.

    I'm now at 70psi. So in order to avoid bottoming out the fork I added 20cc of Fox Fluid in the air chamber. I mostly use trail setting 3 (soft) for climbing and trail and decent for going down. I just use the climb mode on paved roads.

    After this change I felt the bike way more controlled in corners and I feel that my weight is better balanced. The reduced pressure also improved the small bump sensitivity. I could not be happier with how the bike rides now.

    So I would suggest going with a 34 fork @ 150 and make sure you actually get that travel. I like Float better than Talas due to tuneability and less maintenance. Doing extremely steep climbs can be done with a little technique. If I can't get up the climb it is usually my legs, lungs or heart that fail, not the front end losing traction.

    This is only my experience but hope this helps.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    To be honest, the new Rockshox Pike at 150 sounds like the perfect fork for the Mach 5.7 when it's available. We shall see, but I like everything I've read about it so far. Plus that all black one looks awesome.

    Riding RockShox's New 2014 Pike - First Look - Pinkbike
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

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
  •