Float or Talas

Davesport

This is my first post on here so please be nice

For the first & probably only time in my life I've got enough dosh to build myself up a decent bike. My rides at the moment are an antique Claud Butler cape Wrath & a 2005 Norco 6 which weighs a ton.

I'm about to buy a Santa Cruz Heckler & am debating the choice of fork. After a conversation with Jungle (the importers) they seem to reckon that the fox 36 is a good match with the frame (Size L)

Main use is trail centre riding. So I'm after a few opinions on the reliability of the Talas cartridge. I could live without the travel adjuster but it would be "nice to have"

Opinions puleez

Mancunianfightingcat

I've not sampled the 36 versions of these Fox forks, but I do have the 32 Floats and 32 TALAS forks on my current bikes.
The Floats are much plusher and ride extremely well, but I love the TALAS function and it makes climbing on my Orange 5 a fair bit easier. I tend to leave the rear shock alone and never touch the pro-pedal lever, but always knock the TALAS down to 120 at the front for long climbs and occasionally down to 100mm if it's really techy and steep.

I had the TALAS first and was more than happy with them and if I'd never got the Floats I would never have known that they're not as plush!

Saying all that though, I have no idea how the Heckler climbs and if it will benefit from shortening the forks for climbing!

Louis84

I have neither the Float 36 or the talas. However I do have a set of Float 32's and my mate has a set of the Talas. He always complains how heavy his Talas forks are and as for the function to change the fork length, well, he says it's one of those things that you don't realise how LITTLE you need it, until you have it. I havve the floats and so far they are serving me brilliant. Nice and light, especially now they have just been serviced. Get them with the 15mm axle and they will be even stronger still. Also I think they are probably more suitable for trial riding.

Davesport

Thanks for the replies I'm begining to get the picture I think. Less is more possibly. I have'nt had the opportunity to try either fork out for any length of time. I've operated the Talas system & it's fascinating to see it drop the travel down. But if it's going to compromise the action of the fork & be a ballache to service I'll give it a bodyswerve.

As I said, thanks for the replies, keep them coming.

D.

weescott

I have run a 36 Talas for just over 2 years on my Heckler. No problems with reliability. For me the travel adjust is must. 160mm for most riding. 130mm for easy riding or climbing where pedal strikes are an issue at 100mm. 100mm for super steep fireroad climbs.

el loco pollo

Floats every time, you spend no time wondering about what setting you should be using and more time enjoying your ride. What about trails that go up then down then across then up a bit but then down and then up and then some serious down, then up and across then down and up again? You'd spend half your life adjusting the forks like some tool.

Anonymous

I went for floats. I've had travel adjust forks in the past, and only ever used the travel feature for a short while, before the gimmick wore off. After that I left them on full travel all the time.

Another thing worth considering, which I hadn't realised until I pulled the Fox36 Floats out of the box, is how light they are. Really light for such a tough fork.

wordnumb

I don't think travel adjust is particularly necessary for man-made trail riding. Damn handy on natural technical climbs though, worth the extra weight.

nferrar

IMO if you need travel adjust a lot you've bought the wrong bike. I have some 09 Rev U-turns and after the initial novelty wore off I never use it any more (partly because on the bike they're on it climbs fine without dropping the forks and partly because when I do wind them down I usually forget to wind them out again before a descent).

Radixmatrix

I've been considering upgrading to some longer, stiffer forks on my older Heckler, everything I've read seems to suggest that 36's Float / Talas / Lyriks are an ideal fork.

I've always run coil forks in the past, but just read STW article where they have reviewed 2011 Float 36 and initial impressions are that it's the best long-travel single crown fork available now.

Only downside the price.

weescott

nferrar wrote:

IMO if you need travel adjust a lot you've bought the wrong bike.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have heard for a long time.

Radixmatrix wrote:

I've been considering upgrading to some longer, stiffer forks on my older Heckler, everything I've read seems to suggest that 36's Float / Talas / Lyriks are an ideal fork.

I've always run coil forks in the past, but just read STW article where they have reviewed 2011 Float 36 and initial impressions are that it's the best long-travel single crown fork available now.

Only downside the price.

That has been the consensus for the past few years. The Float's are a better fork than the Talas if you don't need the travel adjust. The 36's haven't really changed that much since 2008 to 2010 apart from the price. The 2011 Fox forks look good though. I just wish Fox didn't go all 2 step.

Anonymous

wordnumb wrote:

I don't think travel adjust is particularly necessary for man-made trail riding. Damn handy on natural technical climbs though, worth the extra weight.

weescott wrote:

nferrar wrote:

IMO if you need travel adjust a lot you've bought the wrong bike.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have heard for a long time.

Things like this really pi** me off. You're making assumptions about other people's riding, and their technique and bike choice.

Here's a mountain, being ridden up, using a set of non-adjustable Fox 36s.
This mountain was steep. And I mean steep to the nth degree.

The whole, "natural terrain" bolloks is a dick-swinging contest. Mountain bikes are amountain bikes, the biggest difference between them is the rider.
Get over yourselves.

wordnumb

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Things like this really pi** me off...Get over yourselves.

Well perhaps you ought to take a moment to calm yourself, realise that you are commenting on a question posted on a public forum. Unless I'm mistaken Davesport was soliciting opinions, not asking for your advice in particular.

There was no dick swinging involved in what I wrote, you'd have to ask weescott what he was doing when he posted what he did. Irrespective what a rider considers steep or technical there is a benefit to reducing front travel when the climbing gets strenuous. Were this not the case I doubt fork manufacturers would produce adjustable forks.

Thank you for illustrating your point with a photograph, I'm certain it was steep to the nth degree (dick-swingy comment?). Pedantic point but that's clearly a path, paths do not occur naturally.

weescott

I think I was swinging my **** when I wrote that.

Anonymous

wordnumb wrote:

Irrespective what a rider considers steep or technical there is a benefit to reducing front travel when the climbing gets strenuous. Were this not the case I doubt fork manufacturers would produce adjustable forks.

Thank you for illustrating your point with a photograph, I'm certain it was steep to the nth degree (dick-swingy comment?). Pedantic point but that's clearly a path, paths do not occur naturally.

Actually, a lot of things are sold purely to make money, with little or no basis in fact. Braided hose brake upgrades are one notorious example. OEM hoses are braided kevlar, so... no real advantage to braided steel hoses.
Same with the whole brake jack crap. There just aren't any bikes on the market that cause brake jack.
I put the picture of Cnicht up to highlight that terrain like that can indeed be ridden with a 160mm fork, unchanged.
That terrain is as natural as it gets, most of the way up there is no path at all, let alone a defined one.

Quite apart from that, a lot of the trails or paths that people call "natural" in the mountains occur because they were the routes taken by animals, or folk walking to work. Get enough legs walking a route often enough and a trail, or path is formed.
That's about as natural as it gets. Nobody's been there to mark it out, or surface it, it just wore out to be like that.

richg1979

its all down to the bike and rider, i have 160mm travel adjust forks and find them to make no noticable diffrence to the climbing abilty of my bike.

Mancunianfightingcat

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Here's a mountain, being ridden up, using a set of non-adjustable Fox 36s.
This mountain was steep. And I mean steep to the nth degree.

If he's riding up a big mountain with his seat as low as it is, he's a fecking super hero and could probably do it without forks.

He is stood up and will therefore be compressing the forks and thus shortening them, liak a manual TALAS system!?!?!?!

Anonymous

Yep, like I said, I spent months a while ago, trying to ride everything standing up.

supersonic

I'd love Air uturn for my Zaskar!

The Northern Monkey

and I have air Uturn on my P7... best upgrade i've ever made to a bike.

low travel for steep climbs. 130-140mm for general trail work and 150mm for anything a bit pointy downhilly.

Why not... my frame is designed to take varying travel so i'm gonna make bloody use of it!

Torres

To be fair, i think if you end up with a TALAS you will use the travel adjust; purely because you can. If you choose the Float, then i doubt you will ever miss the ability to tinker with your travel.

In my opinion, a lock out function can be much more effective in certain situations than travel adjust.

What's the price difference betweent he Float and the TALAS?