Fox TALAS 32 150 or 36 160 on Santa Cruz Blur LTc?

zelak999

I'm buying a Santa Cruz Blur LT Carbon and would like some fork recommendations.
I'm torn between the Fox TALAS 32 150mm and the 36 TALAS 160mm.
I test ridden the Blur LTc with 150 revelations and it was great but i prefer the feel of Fox shox.
Anybody have any experience with either of these forks on the SC Blur LTc?
I like the idea of the beefy 36 fork, not too worried about the additional weight.
Is there much difference to ride feel with the 160 travel because of the slacker head angle?
I mainly ride trail centres, Afan, Cwmcarn etc.
Weight about 185 lbs inc kit.
Any advice is welcome.

bennett_346

talas not worth it imo

styxd

If your riding is predominantly mincing round trail centres, then jsut get some nice, light 140 - 150mm travel forks. As said above, TALAS probably arent worth it, get some 32 Floats.

lawman

wait a few weeks for the 34 floats, perfect middle ground.

delcol

i used to have 32 talas r on my heckler but soon upgraded them to 36 talas rc2 the 32 flex quite a bit when riding hard. mine were the old qr ones though before the 15mm version came out...

i did prefare my heckler with 160mm it made the bike come alive especially on the downs with the slacker headangle..
i would agree with the 2 comments above about the talas both my mtbs have them the butcher and the chromag hardtail and i never use the talas i just tend to run them at 160mm.. so look at the float....

i put 160mm on the heckler/butcher as it is my whistler bike the trails are a little gnarly over there hence why i found the 32 flexing..
i have not ridden the 32mm with the 15mm axel so dont know if flexing is still an issue with them,, i would imagine it aint...

Thewaylander

My opinion is avoid all 32 fox forks, there really flexy very noticible on decents. If your going lower travel variations, move to Rock Shox or Marz and ignore fox. Though i like there 36 forks and these are stiff and very light for a tough trail fork

IBISMojoHDamon

36 Floats.... TALAS is rubbish.... 150mm 32's Flex loads...

I've had them all and would never buy TALAS ever again... I'd never buy 32's either...

miss notax

Interested to read the opinions here as I have just got some new Fox Float 36 160 forks for my Minxy! Have yet to test them (collect the bike in a few days) but i'll happily report back if you're interested

zelak999

Pretty slating of the TALAS! Ive been using a pair of 2010 140 Talas' with the FIT cartridge and i think they are excellent with no issues after 1500 miles of off road abuse and a regular service. I guess i was hoping that the general consensus would be that the 32 150's with the 15mm QR would be pretty good.
Are you guys all talking about the pre 2010 TALAS?
Whats the consensus on the slacker head angle the 160 would create and the general ride feel because of it?

bennett_346

Just the general idea of TALAS is pointless really.

styxd

Why would you want such a slack head angle for riding round trail centres? Trail centres are relatively flat and mellow, a slacker, longer wheelbase, longer travel bike would make them even more mellow and dull.

I'd always go for a shorter travel steeper bike to make things more responsive and hence more fun.

If you want a slack head angle fit some off set shock bushings or an angleset

zelak999

styxd wrote:

Trail centres are relatively flat and mellow, a slacker, longer wheelbase, longer travel bike would make them even more mellow and dull.

Jeez!!, which trail centres have you ridden lately?

zelak999

miss notax wrote:

Interested to read the opinions here as I have just got some new Fox Float 36 160 forks for my Minxy! Have yet to test them (collect the bike in a few days) but i'll happily report back if you're interested

Would be very interested to hear your opinion on the 160's

Thewaylander

zelak999 wrote:

styxd wrote:

Trail centres are relatively flat and mellow, a slacker, longer wheelbase, longer travel bike would make them even more mellow and dull.

Jeez!!, which trail centres have you ridden lately?

Personally i think he is right there are pretty flat and mellow :S find them boring on my 160, prefer natural steeper stuff or DH runs lol

lawman

surprised more people haven't mentioned the fox 34... the 32's are a bit flexy at 150mm, not too bad at 140, but the extra 10mm does make the flex more noticeable. 36's are overkill for so many riders it staggers me how many people claim they are better for them. if you ride DH or proper mountains like the alps, or try to throw some serious drops in, a 36 is great. anything else in the UK demands a lighter fork, the 34 fits the bill perfectly. It should be stiff, a similar sized bos deville is a damn stiff fork, and it will weigh a fraction more than a 32 and be alot lighter than a 36.

sofaboy73

I ran both 32 150 15qr and 36 160 20mm on my heckler and have to say I prefered the 160's. Noticeably stiffer and could definitely take the down hills faster and but stuff harder. The extra travel wasn't the big selling point for me (especially as you never seem to get full travel out of the fox's with any of the damping on), but it has saved my teeth on more than one occasion. The extra weight is a small sacrifice when compared to the extra stiffness. They also slackened the head angle by about a degree I reckon which made the heckler (which I think is similar angles to the blur) even more fun in the downs and didn't effect it too much on the ups. Re all the comments about not needing 160 in the uk, I suppose it depends on where / what / his hard you ride. Personally I found they made my bike more fun

delcol

lawman gives a good recomendation there..

the bos devilles kick arse over any fox fork they are superstiff and mega plush... bos would be my fork of choice if i changed my fox talas...

supersonic

Fox 34 are not available aftermarket yet for 26 inch wheeled bikes.

if you ride DH or proper mountains like the alps, or try to throw some serious drops in, a 36 is great. anything else in the UK demands a lighter fork

I don't understand what you are saying. The mountains may be smaller in the UK, but drops and obstacles can be the same size. Or bigger! And not limited to just DH courses. The alps have longer descents sure, but there are numerous places in the UK with severe terrain where many do benefit from a longer/stouter fork.

Also have to remember that the 36 is available in two formats, the 180, and the lightened 160.

lawman

supersonic wrote:

Fox 34 are not available aftermarket yet for 26 inch wheeled bikes.

if you ride DH or proper mountains like the alps, or try to throw some serious drops in, a 36 is great. anything else in the UK demands a lighter fork

I don't understand what you are saying. The mountains may be smaller in the UK, but drops and obstacles can be the same size. Or bigger! And not limited to just DH courses. The alps have longer descents sure, but there are numerous places in the UK with severe terrain where many do benefit from a longer/stouter fork.

Also have to remember that the 36 is available in two formats, the 180, and the lightened 160.

well DH or proper mountains has it the hardcore side of things pretty much summed up imo! having done alot of uk trails, and alot of serious rocky trails, I've never once thought I'd prefer to have a 36, unless I was on an even more serious trail which would warrant a bigger bike than an LTc or any other trail bike. From previous years fox forks normally hit our costs early june time, so its not long to wait for what is imo without riding it of course, going to be a fantastic fork. In a market full of compromise, surely that is the perfect compromise fork

if you can't wait, get the deville, only reason I'm not considering it for future purchase is they only come in 160 and 140mm versions, no 150mm which is a crying shame!

styxd

Jeez!!, which trail centres have you ridden lately?

I havent ridden any for a while. I have ridden quite a few of the Northern ones and Scottish ones though. Off the top of my head:

Glentress, Innerleithen, Mabie, Ae, Whinlatter, Grizedale, Hamsterley (but only the downhill tracks not the xc stuff which i believe is quite good fun now) Leigh Quarry, Llangdegla and Coed y Brenin.

Nothing at any of those warranted a full suspension bike, never mind one with 160mm of travel.

miss notax

Just because kit isn't warranted doesn't mean people don't want it or shouldn't have it!

I'm sure 90% of the riding I do could be done on a rigid singlespeed if you felt so inclined (and had the talent to go with it) - would I do it? No. Give me full suspension and lots of gears any day

lawman

styxd wrote:

Jeez!!, which trail centres have you ridden lately?

I havent ridden any for a while. I have ridden quite a few of the Northern ones and Scottish ones though. Off the top of my head:

Glentress, Innerleithen, Mabie, Ae, Whinlatter, Grizedale, Hamsterley (but only the downhill tracks not the xc stuff which i believe is quite good fun now) Leigh Quarry, Llangdegla and Coed y Brenin.

Nothing at any of those warranted a full suspension bike, never mind one with 160mm of travel.

That's a pretty narrow-minded view, and utter bull if you ask me. peaty and co used to race down Mont st Anne on fully rigids with v brakes and then stupidly weak fs bikes... so surely they don't need all that travel they use now. I ca tell you now, I certainly find full sus bikes to be a hell of a lot more fun than any hardtail I've ridden!

zelak999

Guess i'm really just wondering if there is a noticable difference in handling between the 150 and the 160 travel on the SC Blur LT and if it is better or worse.
I'm sure some people could ride Ben Nevis on a Monkey bike, but i'm not one of them!!

lawman

it'll be abit slacker and the bb will be higher, it probably won't climb as well either. Imo a 150mm fork would be best, if you needed 160mm, you'd have bought a nomad.

zelak999

Thanks Lawman.

Thewaylander

I find myself disagreeing with Lawman over the 36 vs 32 debate.

As i said before ridden a fair few fox 32's and there nothing short of bendy, turn them in hard and youc an feel them give its horrible, Try a 36 out and the slight weight penalty is seriously nothing in comparison to the confidence it gives.

try before you buy i say! go to a test day and try bikes with both

delcol

both my bikes climb fine weather in the 120mm or 160mm i tend to just ride mine in the 160mm all the time.. i have no issues at all on climbs be it locally (leequarry gisburn) or when i was oooooop in scotland or the killer climbs of whistler...
and i thought every man knew that extra inch makes all the difference. :roll:

supersonic

proper mountains

That doesn't sum it up lol. Are you saying hills can't have boulder fields and rocks, drops and severe terrain? Of course they do, and are plenty of places in the UK that are like this.



Wharncliffe for a start, 1050ft at the highest but more boulders than you can imagine.

kodo28

If you are riding more on trail like u say...so get the middle shoot between both of 32 - 36
34/140

If you like to ride all-mountain better to take a 36 Float or Talas

I have the new 36 Talas 160 kashima coat on my Butcher and working like a charm... 8) 8)

mr joey

ive got 32 floats on my heckler and their fine 140 is enough imo

lawman

As I previously posted, why people fit 160 or longer forks to 140mm frames is beyond me, especially on the likes of santa cruz, yeti, ibis etc when they have dedicated 160mm bikes in their line-up. If you want a bike to fit a 160mm 36 too, then you probably would have bought a nomad, asr7, or mojo HD over an ltc, 575 or mojo sl. a bike like an ltc is definitely best with a 150mm fork. As I say a 34 adjusted to 150mm would be perfect