Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

DRCV Fork or TALAS Fork for Remedy 9.9 build?

10K views 20 replies 9 participants last post by  Radiorog 
#1 ·
Hi all, I wanted some feedback about which fork I should chose for my 2011 Trek Remedy 9.9 frame. First world problems, I know, I know.

Options:
Trek will sell me the 2012 150mm FIT RLC DRCV Kashima coat fork.
Fox will sell me a 2012 150/120mm TALAS FIT RLC Kashima coat fork.

Background: I'm a 165lbs Cat 1 XC racer, but I like doing burly rides around moab, black hills, arkansas, breckenridge, etc, and I'm tired of beating up my race bike (giant anthem x) on rough terrain. I'm building the remedy as a long travel frame that can climb almost as good as my race machine, and descend with aplomb. I really love technically demanding trails. I might consider, someday, to use this remedy build for long technical XC-ish enduros.

Trouble is this: I live in the midwest, and I expect to ride this bike a lot around the home trails (and just bust out the race bike, on, well, race day.) Local trails are tight, twisty affairs with lots of out of the saddle accelerations. Just short, bursty climbs. I know, I could leave the Remedy sit and ride the race bike, but it is really fun to have more travel then neceesary for the rooty sections and the downhills, even in the midwest.

So... how much will a TALAS 150-120mm, in lowered travel, help me on my home trails?
Will the TALAS offer less useable travel (too progressive) when I head to moab?

Is the DRCV function of the fork a really noticeable improvement over a "normal" fox fork? Does DRCV make the fork feel "bottomless"?

For those that ride twisty, switchback-y stuff, does a fork that is 30mm shorter help you climb, or burst out of tight corners out of the saddle?

Price wise, the DRCV fork is a bit more expensive. But frankly, I want to get the right fork, and make a decision I will appreciate.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Insights? Anyone love their DRCV fork that much more than a non-DRCV fork?

Anyone love TALAS for climbing/twisty stuff?

Please share your thoughts... thanks all!
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Running the drcv and on my limited time with it its money! coming off of a 140 Talas and it was a waste of money and weight for my midwest riding. I'm in the Midwest also, KY to be exact. I havent bottomed the drcv on my 12 remedy yet. Rode brown county this weekend and it was great.
 
#15 ·
spoke too soon...



Finally bottomed my '12 DRCV 32/150 tonight on a G-out that I regularly hit. Wasn't a severe bottom but it knocked the crown. No biggie though, I will add air, I think bottoming it just means I'm gettin' FASTER on the REMEDY! Love the bike more everytime I ride it.....

.....as a side note to the Trek HQ selling a DRCV OEM Fork, I called my local shop today (Trek Corporate Dealer) and asked them to see if I could get the 160mm DRCV 36 that comes on the '12 Slash and Trek corporate said not until next year. It appears their (Trek) deal with Fox is for Production Count forks to cover Complete Bike Build Forecasts for the 1st Year and 'X' amount of eXtra's for Warranties, other than that I am SOL on the 36/160 DRCV. I might just get a 36/160 FIT RLC though, while I can't complain at all about the 32/150 at this point I am @ 200lbs. give or take a few slices of pizza and I ride heavy, with an EPIC Trip to Moab coming in early spring I am thinking the 36/160 is the ticket.......thoughts welcomed.... ;)
 
#4 ·
My LBS called Trek HQ and asked if they would sell a DRCV for to me to accompany the frame I just purchased. Frame is new, purchased via LBS trek dealer. If this seems odd/unlikely, my only explanation is that my LBS is one of the largest trek dealers in the country, and they have a great relationship with Trek HQ.
 
#5 ·
I'd say DRCV.I have a '11 R9 and I dont ever use the Talas.It's my only bike and "earn my turns".when i first got it i used it a couple times cuz i could,but after i got my cockpit dialed in i no longer felt a need to drop it.I like the DRCV shock it allows me to run pretty stiff to climb and if i forget to turn it off for the downs its not as smooth on little stuff but bigger bumps it performs as it should.
 
#6 ·
I'm primarily a XC racer myself, and bought the Remedy for most of the same reasons you listed. It's my super-D/enduro/fun bike.
Anyway, regarding your question, I'd second the DRCV recommendation of others. Talas in the low position screws with the bike geometry too much. The only use I see for it would be to compensate for horrible bike setup (bars way too high/seat way too back) and climbing technique. I was expecting the 68 degree head angle to be a bear on some steep technical switchbacks, but found I clean them more often than with my xc race bike! Go figure...
One thing I'd recommend it to be sure to get the RLC Fox and not the cheaper RL. It might be less of a problem with the more linear DRCV fork, but the Fox 150 RL I have wallows like a ***** when climbing out of the saddle, and there's no low speed compression adjust to tune it. Also the blowoff for the lockout is set way to stiff on the RL for someone 150lbs, and cannot be adjusted as it can with the RLC. Makes it useless for climbing on actual trails.
 
#7 ·
Hi all, I wanted some feedback about which fork I should chose for my 2011 Trek Remedy 9.9 frame. First world problems, I know, I know.

Options:
Trek will sell me the 2012 150mm FIT RLC DRCV Kashima coat fork.
Fox will sell me a 2012 150/120mm TALAS FIT RLC Kashima coat fork.

Background: I'm a 165lbs Cat 1 XC racer, but I like doing burly rides around moab, black hills, arkansas, breckenridge, etc, and I'm tired of beating up my race bike (giant anthem x) on rough terrain. I'm building the remedy as a long travel frame that can climb almost as good as my race machine, and descend with aplomb. I really love technically demanding trails. I might consider, someday, to use this remedy build for long technical XC-ish enduros.

Trouble is this: I live in the midwest, and I expect to ride this bike a lot around the home trails (and just bust out the race bike, on, well, race day.) Local trails are tight, twisty affairs with lots of out of the saddle accelerations. Just short, bursty climbs. I know, I could leave the Remedy sit and ride the race bike, but it is really fun to have more travel then neceesary for the rooty sections and the downhills, even in the midwest.

So... how much will a TALAS 150-120mm, in lowered travel, help me on my home trails?
Will the TALAS offer less useable travel (too progressive) when I head to moab?

Is the DRCV function of the fork a really noticeable improvement over a "normal" fox fork? Does DRCV make the fork feel "bottomless"?

For those that ride twisty, switchback-y stuff, does a fork that is 30mm shorter help you climb, or burst out of tight corners out of the saddle?

Price wise, the DRCV fork is a bit more expensive. But frankly, I want to get the right fork, and make a decision I will appreciate.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Insights? Anyone love their DRCV fork that much more than a non-DRCV fork?

Anyone love TALAS for climbing/twisty stuff?

Please share your thoughts... thanks all!
I don't have any experience with DRCV in the front, but it's great technology in the back. I had a 150/130/110mm Talas on my '10 9.9 and loved the versatility. I live in an area that is constant rock and chunk and felt the 32 was a little to flexy in the 150 setting on the most challenging technical trails; I'm 6' tall, 195lbs w/o gear and love the chunk! I didn't really use the 110 setting and only used the 130 setting on longer climbs. I decided to go with what Trek originally made the Remedy with and bought a new 160. I LOVE my '12 F36 Talas 160! Killed two birds with one fork; No more flex in the front and a bit more slack on the DH. Now I use the 120 setting quite a bit, especially when climbing.

I don't know if you could justify a 160 for Midwest trails, but guarantee you'd love it in Moab. Sounds like you've made up your mind though, so good luck with decision and build.:thumbsup:

Remedy's RULE!

MTBP
 

Attachments

#8 ·
MTBPilot- I'm a guy that thinks my F100 with 9mm qr is pretty stiff.... so I'm going to stick with a the 150mm Fox 32 for now, but I'm not above buying a cheap second hand 36 for moab trips down the road... though I may hold out for the 180mm :)

good insight guys. And great points about the RL vs RLC, Strader. Its mostly the "wallowing" that makes me nervous. Inevitably, I'm out of the saddle on local short, non techy, bursty climbs... and I mean so short that there's no time to reach down and lock/unlock. I've been wondering whether the TALAS at 120mm would "wallow" a lot less than a DRCV at 150mm. When I've had RLC forks in the past, I typically run a pretty high threshold for low speed compression (knob turned all the way to the right) to minimize "wallow"/bob out of saddle and brake dive.

Strader, how is your saddle/bar reach/height position compare between your remedy and XC race rig? I typically run almost 20mm of saddle to bar drop on my race rig, 24.2" eff top tube and 100mm stem... my remedy will have a 24.0" top tube, wondering whether I should shoot for a 100mm stem or go shorter. How much higher do you run your bars on your remedy? Of course, I want this to be my all day, ride everything up and down bike.
 
#10 ·
Strader, how is your saddle/bar reach/height position compare between your remedy and XC race rig? I typically run almost 20mm of saddle to bar drop on my race rig, 24.2" eff top tube and 100mm stem... my remedy will have a 24.0" top tube, wondering whether I should shoot for a 100mm stem or go shorter. How much higher do you run your bars on your remedy? Of course, I want this to be my all day, ride everything up and down bike.
On my remedy the ends of the bars are about 1" higher than the saddle. I run the stock 80mm stem with some easton haven 711mm bars, and one 1cm spacer under the stem. On my XC hardtail the bars are a little less than 1" lower than the saddle. I can ride either bike all day, I think the longer wheelbase of the Remedy helps keep the front end down on the climbs. I've adjusted both bikes by feel, and was surprised to see the bars were that much higher on the remedy when I went to measure. I've been "professionally" fitted on the hardtail, but within a few months migrated everything back to my usual settings.
I'd highly recommend going to wider bars before a longer stem. I have a really hard time going back to the 660mm bars on my hardtail.
In theory the DRCV fork should behave like a short travel fork for the first 60% of travel, until the second air chamber opens up. Most of the reviews have focused on bump compliance though, I'd love to try one for myself to see how they behave under pedaling.
 
#9 ·
I think if the 2012 low speed compression damping is good enough, adjustable enough, than I can live without a TALAS fork-- meaning I could really minimize the "wallowing" effect of out of the saddle efforts and be happy.

And from all accounts, it sounds like DRCV will make me really happy in the (more rare, but oh so enjoyable) chunky stuff.
 
#12 ·
Looks like I'm not the only one with this "problem". I too just got a 2011 Remedy frame and was wondering what fork to run. I'm not a huge fan of Fox forks so I went with a Rock Shox Revelation RLT Dual Position 150-120. My rides consist of a lot of short and long steep climbs, nothing too long but I'm hoping the ability to drop the front end a bit will help keep the front wheel planted to the ground and tracking. I've never used a travel adjust fork so this will be a new experience. Fork hasn't come in yet but I'm hoping to get it all together on Monday.
 
#13 ·
I've been riding my '11 R9 for 8 months now...and it rocks! I have the 32" talas, and reading reviews, i think I remember them saying that the forks on the 2011 taals were excellent, and eliminated the wallowy effect. So to this point i would also say that th 2012 are surely as goos if not better. I have never noticed any wallow whatsoever, and have the lsc set at 3 clicks anticlockwise (8 clicks being minimal brake dive). I weigh 11st, (is that 160lbs I think?). I don't use the tals very often, but it does get used....either on long steep climbs, or short v steep climbs, but for most stuff i don't use. I rode a 2012 R the other day with the DRCV float, and was very impressed....they seemed much smoother, and plush. They were very impressive forks. I guess it depends on how much you think you might need a tals, because i do actually relally appreciate when needed, and am not sure i would be able to make some of the climbs i can with the tals, but the drcv floats were super smooth, and felt like they could handle more than the talas.
And MTB Piloy...I really liek your '36 160's! I'm tempted to do thatto mine, as think i might also appreciate a slightly slacker head angle, and would be very interested to hear how they perform for you. ;)
 
#19 ·
hey RFX.,
I don't know my exact figures, but i did just go by the recommended settings on the trek chart, but the rear was a little stiff, so after a month or so i took out about 5 psi I think, and it was noticably different, and I haven't altered it since. Ithink I may have 5 psi or so lower on the forks too, with a few clicks out on the lsc to prevent brake dive. I have been slightly tempted to take out a bit more from the rear, but as the sag meter band thingy comes off on most rides, I guess I am near to bottoming out, so I'm also guessing it's pretty near to where it should be. I don't think i have actually bottomed it out yet, as i think this is quite noticable, i haven't had any jarring or clunky impacts yet. (so maybe i could take out anouther 5psi?). I weight 11st.
 
#20 ·
I was skeptical at first, but sure enough.... put the pump on the valve, turn until guage inflates.... then turn another 1 to 1.5 turns, valve inflates again, allegedly merging the 1st and 2nd air chambers in DRCV.... funky! I'd really like to see how the valve does that!

Here's a random thought: let's say I pump it up to 190psi, as recommended by Trek. Presumably, I just filled up both chambers to 190, yes? When I ride, the shock compresses the first chamber, and when compressed enough to activate the second chamber, the air in the first chamber is waaaay higher than 190 (bc its compressed). So let's say its at 350psi in 1st chamber when compressed, that 350psi air will push into the second chamber, and increase its pressure.

Later, mid-ride, I go the put the pump on.... and turn it all the way to the second inflation of the guage.... I just equalized those air chambers again, changing ride quality....

Am I describing the phenomenon correctly?
 
#21 ·
mmm....i for one hadn't really thought about it like that before, and was about to post saying not sure what you were asking, but thinking about it, i think you are describing it correctly. I presumed that both chambers once "cycled" (as in bounced on to at least 50% as described in the Trek video) were at the same pressure, but now i'm thinking maybe the 2nd chamber is at a higher pressure once "cycled" which is why Trek say you must do this after each pressure change on the shock.
How To Setup Your Trek Full Suspension Mountain Bike - YouTube
...and on my last post, i meant O-ring, and not sagmetre band thingy....of course... :/
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top