Forum home Mountain biking forum MTB workshop & tech

Fox 140 talas RL fitted to Cube ltd

MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
edited March 2012 in MTB workshop & tech
Hi

I have just fitted a pair of FOX 140 talas RL (140/120/100) to my 2011 cube ltd comp (original fork 100mm travel) They are 30mm longer in length in the lower leg and I was thinking of running them on the 120 travel. Will this extra 30mm be noticeable or will the preload on the forks compress and compensate for this

I took it out on a dirt track and they felt awesome on a short blast, so much smoother ride

Posts

  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    I think the extra 30mm fork leg length will slow the steering and make the bike more stable at higher speed ??
  • warpcowwarpcow Posts: 1,448
    It might also tear the front end off the frame, but you never know.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    I doubt it, I'm an ex aerospace engineer and cnc machinist and the frame is 7005 series alloy.
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    Makes no difference what the frame is made of if the headtube/top tube/bottom tube is not reinforced to take the extra load or the tube walls are thin. Which in the case of an xc frame, are much lighter than say a jump or AM frame. Though I doubt 140mm would kill it, but would kill your warranty!

    The frame is warrantied for 120mm fork max, which is what I'd drop them to.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    That's what I'm running them at, the warranty is neither here nor there.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    I appreciate the input on the frame but judging by some of the 6061 frames (the grade matters alot) of mtb's with 140 travel forks as standard the cube has a very decent headstock weld area

    I'm not worried about the frame strength thats fine, it's the handling and turning speed I am wondering about!

    Cube, giant, lapierre etc etc dont make frames on the limits of the components fitted, they don't want their frames breaking so everything manufactured is within true health and safety margins and will be made to take alot more stress than is asked of the rider or components.

    If the frame snaps at the headstock then I will eat it like Monsieur Mange tu!
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    As above, I don't think it will on a more modern frame (within reason), but I have seen literally dozens of snapped frames and headtubes ripped off due to the wrong fork.

    DH, jump and AM frames tend to have thicker tubing or more reinforcements - the Cube is pretty light at around 3.5lbs! Also some have to pass CEN standards, and many older frames were failing.

    6061 or 7005, if built and welded correctly it makes little difference im my experience - the latter has a yield typically 10% higher (with the former a T6 temper). I have seen both materials used to make very light and robust frames. 6061 used to be more commonly seen on higher end frame as was a little easier to form and weld.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    It's a 2011 bike so I'm happy it's worthy of 120mm travel. The only reason i got the 140 talas was it was a bargain

    I'm running it at 120 and I reckon I won't have any issues

    Out of interest I have the option of a giant xtc composite 2012, what do you reckon to this with the 140mm fork?
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    I think giant still limit the warranty to 120mm - maybe even less! This is a pretty focused XC frame, very light (sub 3lbs).

    It will probably upset the handling somewhat ie higher bottom bracket, and slacker seat angle.

    I'd look at the OnOne carbon 456 - this is warrantied for (and has passed CEN testing) for a 160mm fork, yet weighs just 3.5lbs.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    Thanks, I will check it out. Appreciate the info.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    Just checked out the 456 frame, On one are Yorkshire too. Could only be better if they were from Lancashire but I love uk companies. I'm on a 20" frame currently and wonder if I could get away with an 18" frame (on offer for £299)

    Would this be a drop too far, I have a 32" inside leg and am 5' 11"
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    You could probably get away with a 16 inch! The top tube length is important - check what it is. I would say 20" would probably be too large for the intended use, unless you want to be really stretxhed out.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    Seriously?? When I visited 3 shops they all came up with different sizes as being ideal 18, 19 and 20

    I went with 20 as it felt the most natural, I will get the dims of tge cube and on one frames and have a trip over to yorkshire

    Thanks for your help
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    This is the thing, the listed 'size' is just one measurement (the seattube - and even this is measured differently!) out of several ie top tube length, effective length. Bottom bracket height can make a difference too to how high a frame seems, and any clearance. Reach is important.

    The frames I own are 17", 17.5", 18", 18" and 20.5" - and the last one is not the longest!
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    So it's all about try it and see what feels right I suppose.
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    Yep ;-). And once you get used to all the numbers it comes in handy when buying frames in the future.
  • MTB-MattMTB-Matt Posts: 46
    I'm going over to on one to try the 456 in the next days
Sign In or Register to comment.