Fox 34's

rockmonkeysc

I don't really understand why Fox need 34mm and 36mm stanchions. Why not just make 35mm like Rockshox.
Am I missing the point or do they just not want to do the same as rockshox.
The weight difference between 35mm and 34mm stanchions must be very minimal and fox 36's aren't noticeably more rigid than 35mm Lyriks.

Northwind

The weights I've seen printed say there's bugger all difference between a 34 and 36 Float, something like 80 grams IIRC. It's a good idea- longer travel for folks that don't need a massively strong chassis, ie me- but not sure it's delivered.

I think it's partly because long-travel 32s are a bit wobbly- always feels like a shorter fork that's been stretched past its comfort zone, compared to a revelation which feels designed for the job.

angry_bird

Can kind of see why they've done it for 29ers and 650bs, and yeah, 32mm chassis might be a bit out of it's depth and 36mm overkill.

What I don't get is why they've not done 140/150mm 34's for 26 inch wheels, they'd do quite well I'd imagine with long travel XC "trail" type bikes and some of these enduro machines where people believe 32mm are too flexy or whatever, depsite whether they are or not, if they marketed them right people would buy them.

Northwind wrote:

The weights I've seen printed say there's bugger all difference between a 34 and 36 Float, something like 80 grams IIRC. It's a good idea- longer travel for folks that don't need a massively strong chassis, ie me- but not sure it's delivered.

According to their weights on the website it's closer 150-200g difference

32 FLOAT 150 FIT CTD w/Trail Adjust = 1.76kg
34 FLOAT 160 FIT CTD w/Trail Adjust = 1.95kg
36 FLOAT 160 FIT RC2 = 2.14 kg

Talas models are about 130-140g difference.

Still not massive though

rockmonkeysc

Surely if you need a 160mm fork you will be riding pretty hard and need something like a Lyrik or 36. If rockshox can make a nice rigid 32mm revelation why are 150mm floats so flexy with a 32mm stanchions.

Northwind

Nah, not neccesarily- you might, frinstance, be a lighter rider than most, or you might want the handling of a longer travel bike without needing it to be bombproof. I use coil lyriks because my bike suits a 160mm fork best, but if there was a 160mm Revelation that'd be fine for 9/10ths of my riding.

Cheers for the Numbers Angry Bird, those are different numbers for the 36 than they've printed elsewhere (look a bit more convincing tbh!)

supersonic

The 32mm chassis has been stretched too far (for the harder riders). Sure for longer travel xc type bikes and lighter riders 150mm in this platform can work, but for others it was quite obviously too flexy. The main reason the forks got this long was just rivalry, Fox and RS kept on upping and upping them because 'more is better' plus the kudos of having the lightest fork in the class. RS have the lightest 150mm fork (Rev WC). Fox the lightest 160mm (Float 36 FIT). RS the lightest 170mm fork (Lyrik R). Fox the lightest 180mm fork (Fox 36 180 FIT).

I think the 34mm chassis is a good move to add choice at that crossover point.

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

Fox the lightest 160mm (Float 36 FIT)

The man from BOS would like a word

lawman

Angry bird, you can lower the 34 to 150mm like any other fox fork, but due its long negative spring thats as low as it will go, and tbh its only really at 150mm that the 32 feels abit stretched. If I were to buy new forks it'd be a 34, strikes a good middle ground. I'm not heaby, so the 32's are about right, but there are sometimes I think the extra stiffness of the 34 would be nice

Thewaylander

Personally I wasn't to impressed with the 140mm 32, but there we go lol.

an_original_name

Nah, not neccesarily- you might, frinstance, be a lighter rider than most

This would be my point. I weigh a bit under 11 stone with gear, and i consider myself to be a very smooth rider, so strength isn't as much of an issue for me when it comes to buying new gear. If I were to buy new forks now i'd probably buy the 160mm 34 floats, my only complaint about them is that they don't have high and low speed compression.

Northwind

It's the 15mm axle that just seems daft to me... Why does the 160mm fork with the flimsier chassis get landed with the inferior axle standard too when it has more to gain from a proper 20mm? I'd probably be considering a set otherwise.

.blitz

Some 34mm Revs would be pretty much perfect for trail riding imo

oodboo

I want to see some 40s in all travel options for fat buggers like me

lawman

.blitz wrote:

Some 34mm Revs would be pretty much perfect for trail riding imo

Rockshox are in a difficult place with their range in that respect, because they have the 35mm lyrik and 32mm rev, so a 33mm fork is gonna be too close to a rev for some people, and a 34mm to close to a lyrik. a fox 34 sits right between the 32 and 36, so while performance between a 34mm fox or rockshox fork will be negligible, it would be a harder sell for rockshox I reckon, and alot of people think they have too many forks already.

supersonic

RS won't change the diameters for sure - but what they will do (and already have with the OE lyrik on the Scott Genius) is stretch it out to 180mm and claim the lightest 180mm fork title. It will then cover the 150-180 range, while the Rev covers the 120-150 range. RS will then say they have the lightest forks in each area ;-)

rockmonkeysc

I'm sure RS could make a 150mm, lighter 35mm fork somewhere between the Rev & Lyrik.
The Lyrik is pretty heavy duty.

supersonic

They might do what Fox have done and make two, a lighter and heavier duty version ie the Fox 36 160 and 36 180.

.blitz

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I'm sure RS could make a 150mm, lighter 35mm fork somewhere between the Rev & Lyrik.

+ several million

YeehaaMcgee

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I'm sure RS could make a 150mm, lighter 35mm fork somewhere between the Rev & Lyrik.
The Lyrik is pretty heavy duty.

Yaaaay, another RS fork :roll:
I really can't fathom what's what in their range, far too much crossover.

supersonic

It'll still be called the Lyrik as such, just a lighter version, maybe with carbon crown etc and shorter stanchions.

.blitz

supersonic wrote:

It'll still be called the Lyrik as such, just a lighter version, maybe with carbon crown etc and shorter stanchions.

Sounds great when can we get one?

bennett_346

Will they call it the Revelation For Fat People?

.blitz

I would prefer Revelation Non-Mincers Edition meself

YeehaaMcgee

Revelation BEEFCAKE GNARCORE!!111!!

Thewaylander

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Revelation BEEFCAKE GNARCORE!!111!!

May i suggest in your delusions you have come up with a fantastic product name which i would really love to ahve on my bike.... yes i am this sad!

YeehaaMcgee

So would I , i was not joking.
I would revoke all my petty hatred of SRAM if I could by a BEEFCAKE GNARCORE!!111!! fork.
It should say "BEEFCAKE" on one leg, and "GNARCORE!!111!!" ont eh other. And the rest of the paintjob could maybe look like it's covered in blood and gore, maybe entrails.
Yes, definitely, the fork crown should be made to look like entrails.







Or, maybe just stick to the name.

lawman

Northwind wrote:

It's the 15mm axle that just seems daft to me... Why does the 160mm fork with the flimsier chassis get landed with the inferior axle standard too when it has more to gain from a proper 20mm? I'd probably be considering a set otherwise.

whilst alot of hubs these days have switchable endcaps/axles for different sized thru-axles, I figure alot of people are going to stepping up from a 32 to a 34, therefore keeping the same axle eliminates the need for a new front wheel if going from a 32 to a 34, where as if you have a set of really nice wheels I.e. chris king that you can't change the axle on, you're far more likely to buy a 34 than a 36 because you won't have to shell out for a new hub/wheel.

I can't see many folks wanting to move the other way and go from a 36 to a 34, doesn't really seem worth it, as guys running a 36 have pretty clearly shown there riding style by picking such a burly fork. I for one would like a stiffer fork, but could not live with extra pound a 36 weighs over a 32, however half a pound on the 34 I could live with.

Northwind

Hmm. That's a fair point, apart from it just makes me ask why do 32s have 15mm axles when it's such an inferior standard, too

lawman

Northwind wrote:

Hmm. That's a fair point, apart from it just makes me ask why do 32s have 15mm axles when it's such an inferior standard, too

I honestly would love to see a test of a revelation, with all axle and dropout standards tested for stiffness and strength, qr, 9mm thru bolt, 15mm and 20mm and see what the numbers came out like, whatever kind of measurable numbers they might be

Northwind

Aye, steerers too.

But then it's not just about stiffness, Fox's QR15 is heavier than a 20mm maxle lite for 32mm

leaflite

Didnt WMB or MBUK have some kind of rig for measuring fork stiffness?