Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Salt of the Earth
    Reputation: Le Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    117

    160 mm fork on a FTM?

    Pardon if my searches somehow missed this one. I looked here (MTBR), Google, Titisti.com, 5 chickens and black candle; you get the point.

    I realize that Titus says the FTM is "designed around" a 140mm fork and that the 160mm forked beast would be the EG. Also all of factory build kits for the FTM are 140mm kits; big hint too.

    That said, lot's of the FTM's competitors (575, Blur LT, Mojo, 5Spot, et. al.) are coming with 1 1/8" head tubes, hydroformed (ecept Mojo obviously) front ends... and are expressing support for 160mm forks. These frames are not EG competitors and in my mind fall squarely into the land of All Mountain or Trail or whatteverthehell we call 5.5" bike this week.

    So to lay it all on the line; has Titus officially said "no 160mm forks" (voided warranty) for the FTM or is it simply a matter of Titus just not actively positioning them in the marketing machine?

    Any help - with concrete supporting links / docs - from my fellow Titus owners would be greatly appreciated.

    Cheers

  2. #2
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,763
    with the Motolite the official line was "not more than 145mm", I'd guess a similar restriction applies to the FTM

  3. #3
    Salt of the Earth
    Reputation: Le Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    117

    I understand that point but...

    ... the reality is they are very different frames in terms of construction method, tubing type, and most importantly the period in which they were designed - this class of bike (mid travel rear end with 160mm forks) was not really a design goal when the ML / ML 2 were being designed.

    (Full Disclosure - I previously had a ML2)

    I just find it strange that Titus will not come out and say specifically thou shalt / shalt not use forks of a certain travel / A-C / ride hight - whatever.

    Time to call the factory I guess as it seems the larger public domain has had about as much luck at this as I have.

  4. #4
    Off the back...
    Reputation: pinkrobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,926
    I'm a bit curious as well. I was running a TALAS 32 [140mm max] on my ML2, but have now gone to TALAS 36 [160mm max] for the boost in rigidity and a wee bit more travel. It hasn't actually made it to the trails yet [snow ], but the day of reckoning is nigh...

  5. #5
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,149
    Yes, this seems like a really nice option, if nothing else as a back-up fork for those bigger days. With a 140mm the headangle is relatively steep and the BB relatively low (although it's still a little vague, since AFAIK Titus doesn't list the A-C measurements upon which they base the geometry charts). From purely geometric perspective, a 160 fork looks pretty do-able without totally jacking the handling characteristics. Would be a shame if the HT weren't engineered to handle it, since as you point out virtually all the competitors have done so.

    Jeff? Care to weigh in on this one?

    PS: The upcoming 150mm 20mmTA revelation -- especially with UTurn -- might make this all immaterial. Pretty close to the A-C of a current 36 or lyrik, but at a 4lb trail fork weight. If you really need the stiffness of 36mm stanchions, you should probably be on an El Guapo anyway.

  6. #6
    Salt of the Earth
    Reputation: Le Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    117

    Not really about the stiffness of a 160 fork...

    Quote Originally Posted by budgie
    Yes, this seems like a really nice option, if nothing else as a back-up fork for those bigger days. With a 140mm the headangle is relatively steep and the BB relatively low (although it's still a little vague, since AFAIK Titus doesn't list the A-C measurements upon which they base the geometry charts). From purely geometric perspective, a 160 fork looks pretty do-able without totally jacking the handling characteristics. Would be a shame if the HT weren't engineered to handle it, since as you point out virtually all the competitors have done so.

    Jeff? Care to weigh in on this one?

    PS: The upcoming 150mm 20mmTA revelation -- especially with UTurn -- might make this all immaterial. Pretty close to the A-C of a current 36 or lyrik, but at a 4lb trail fork weight. If you really need the stiffness of 36mm stanchions, you should probably be on an El Guapo anyway.
    But rather interested in the geo change and the that extra bit of plush that goes with it.

    FWIW - I have already bought the FTM and am running an 09 Float 32 RL on it. Here is a linky to pics... http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...53848#poststop

    That said, there is a 09 Marz 55 TST 2 that is staring at me from the corner of the garage offering a siren song of days in the saddle with long travel and trail precision -- and to be truthful, with the XV rear on this bike, it is amaizing how plush the "only" 135mm is... the 32 feels overmatched, and it is a damn fine fork in of it's self...

  7. #7
    Salt of the Earth
    Reputation: Le Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    117

    Recieved a response on this from Titus

    First things first - thanks to Jeff @ Titus for taking the time to quickly get back to me with a response to this question.

    So I posed the question to the good people at Titus about 160mm forks on the FTM and here is the response:

    1. When the FTM was designed and run through FEA, all of the modeling / testing for strength, fatigue, etc. was done using a Fox 32 Talas 150 as the front end.

    2. Load / strength testing was not done on any 160 mm forks.

    3. To make the FTM 160mm friendly from a strength perspective (not geo, just strength) would require bringing the weight up a fair bit from the 5.5 lbs weight for a medium. This would move it too close to a bike already optomized for 160mm in the Titus line, the EG...


    Bottom line, 140 - 150 mm forks with 32mm legs (09 Fox Talas, DT Swiss 150, 2010 RS Revelation) is the target fork for the FTM; anything bigger and it is time to go on a date with the "handsome one".

    So that is now my plan. I love my FTM, but ride big enough "stuff" that I will be selling the FTM frame, and hanging the parts on an EG (and maybe pick up a Ti HT later this year )

    Cheers.

  8. #8
    Off the back...
    Reputation: pinkrobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,926
    Oh no! I need to buy a new frame!


  9. #9
    Ti is addictive
    Reputation: TiEndo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,894
    I think a good way of deciding if a fork is too much for a frame is when the fork weighs almost the same as the frame.
    "Can I put a Totem on a FTM?".....Originally Posted by All Mountain

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Freak
    First things first - thanks to Jeff @ Titus for taking the time to quickly get back to me with a response to this question.

    So I posed the question to the good people at Titus about 160mm forks on the FTM and here is the response:

    1. When the FTM was designed and run through FEA, all of the modeling / testing for strength, fatigue, etc. was done using a Fox 32 Talas 150 as the front end.

    2. Load / strength testing was not done on any 160 mm forks.

    3. To make the FTM 160mm friendly from a strength perspective (not geo, just strength) would require bringing the weight up a fair bit from the 5.5 lbs weight for a medium. This would move it too close to a bike already optomized for 160mm in the Titus line, the EG...


    Bottom line, 140 - 150 mm forks with 32mm legs (09 Fox Talas, DT Swiss 150, 2010 RS Revelation) is the target fork for the FTM; anything bigger and it is time to go on a date with the "handsome one".

    So that is now my plan. I love my FTM, but ride big enough "stuff" that I will be selling the FTM frame, and hanging the parts on an EG (and maybe pick up a Ti HT later this year )

    Cheers.

    Hey Le Freak, I noticed that you have a HV sleeve on the bike, how much do you weigh and how much of an improvement is it?

  11. #11
    NOT Team Sanchez
    Reputation: wasea04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,971

    I had the same thought the other day..........

    Quote Originally Posted by TiEndo
    I think a good way of deciding if a fork is too much for a frame is when the fork weighs almost the same as the frame.

    A large EG ways about 8-9 lbs, a 66rc3 sits at about 7 lbs, hmmmmm, if anyone has fox float 36 and is looking to sell it (at a reasonable price mind you, I'm a poor college student after all) let me know
    I like bikes.

  12. #12
    dog
    dog is offline
    sit! stay!
    Reputation: dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,103
    Quote Originally Posted by wasea04
    A large EG ways about 8-9 lbs, a 66rc3 sits at about 7 lbs, hmmmmm, if anyone has fox float 36 and is looking to sell it (at a reasonable price mind you, I'm a poor college student after all) let me know
    you are kidding, right? don't you need that xtra 20mm of travel???... but the fox is nice!!!
    i need to develop my crashing skills...

  13. #13
    Salt of the Earth
    Reputation: Le Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    117

    Funny thing...

    Quote Originally Posted by TiEndo
    I think a good way of deciding if a fork is too much for a frame is when the fork weighs almost the same as the frame.
    I am not sure if this was intended as sarcasm or not, but I think you hit it right on the head.

    When I was first asking this question - about a boat anchor 55 TST remember - besides the usual warranty / strength / geo questions was this same thought...

    "Do I really want to put a 5.9 lb fork on a 5.7 lb frame?"

    Anyways, glad I asked the question but the Fox 32 RL is back on the bike.

  14. #14
    Salt of the Earth
    Reputation: Le Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    117

    Big improvement in my mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus
    Hey Le Freak, I noticed that you have a HV sleeve on the bike, how much do you weigh and how much of an improvement is it?
    This is why I started this thread in the first place; the back end changes character for the better with the XV sleeve.

    For the record regular sleeve was a 2009 RP23 with a high level compression tune that shipped with the FTM; the XV was a 2009 RP2 with a mid-level compression tune.

    I rode regular -> XV-> regular-> XV -> in about 8 x 2.5 hour seesions, over the following mixed terrain:

    - Rolling singletrack; loose topsoil with hardpack clay.
    - Muddy / rooty alpine front range type stuff.
    - Hardpack BMX track for tables / doubles.
    - Mixed 1.5 - 2.5 ft jumps, drops, and rollers in all of the above.

    What I found was the follwing:

    - No mid stroke hammock on the XV; I was a bit worried about this due to past experiences with the DHX Air (on a different HL bike) but it didn't happen.
    - I could actually run less sag (25%) on the XV than on the regular (32%) and yet early stroke felt more supple. Now to be fair, the compression tune would play a hand in this but the difference was very noticible, especially on quick studders or square edged stuff.
    - I could never get full stroke (even at 32% sag) out of the regular shock. Even "sent" it off of a 3ft staircase to flat (no lectures please), never got it all the way there. With the XV, I did -- but no bad bottom out experiences.

    Overall, I have to say that given the choice I would go XV. Suspension feels more alive, takes small odd shaped hits better, and uses full stroke. The last horst link rear end I had was on a Norco Six 1 (6.5") and despite being almost a full 1.5" shorter it feels like it is in the same general ballpark; not so with the regular can. So all I can say so far is, all upside with no downside on the XV.

    In fact I think there is a thread where someone uses a DHX on thier MotoLite and reports the same feedback... maybe the design staff at Titus has a bit of a bias to a trail / XC feel hence the small can, high compression tune. Dunno.

    That said, I don't mean the statemet above to be a negative, but do like the deeper feel of the XV alot. Titus should make it an orderable option IMO.

    For the record I live on the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rockies so that is the general type of terrain I ran this on.

    My weight? 215lbs when I get out of bed in the morning; 222 lbs by the time dinner is finished.

Posting Permissions

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