Travel reduction of 180 to 160 is pretty pointless as it doesn't really change the forks capabalities that much. The 120 mm is obviously for long climbs/xc but that's setting won't fit right with the type of bike that a 180 mm fork is going to be fitted on (i.e. 160 + rear travel)
I reckon 180 to 140 mm would have been more practical.
Mojo...You should really spend some time reading the specs, or looking at the pictures. It IS 180->140 on the 36 180 and 160->120 on the 36 160... Also it states travel can be stepped down in 10mm incremements to 100mm.
Friar, sorry, yes it's 180 & 140 or 160 and 120 but I'm pretty sure it's just a 2 travel option on both, not incrememental. Fox say by only having 2 set travel options it enables the talas to be lighter and perform better. Now, was there any need for your condescending tone?
Friar, sorry, yes it's 180 & 140 or 160 and 120 but I'm pretty sure it's just a 2 travel option on both, not incrememental. Fox say by only having 2 set travel options it enables the talas to be lighter and perform better. Now, was there any need for your condescending tone?
It's the internet, and I think this comment was cut and paste posted in about 4 or 5 other threads and seeing the same comment/question so many times so many places irks me.
I think I actually died a little inside when I read that the '11 160 TALAS was only going to be 160-120mm. The best think about the current ones is that you can put it in 130mm for nice singletrack and general riding, 100mm for mad climbs and open it up to 160mm for the downhills. I hope they change it next year.