Which are the better forks? Talas, Float RL or Revelations

Duncan Disorderly

Hi.

Which are the better forks for a Trek Fuel?

I'm looking for a 17.5" 2009 Fuel 8 or 9 but I've just been offered a fork option, should I find the "Right" bike.

They come as stock with the Fox Float 32 RL fork, 130 travel, air etc but I have an option to obtain either :
1. Fox Talas 32 with selectable 100, 120 or 140mm travel, air etc
or
2. Rockshox Revelation Air U-turn 100mm to 140mm, pos/neg air

Which fork would give the best ride, be most tuneable and the most rugged and I guess, the best overall option?

My riding will be very steady woodland trails, road and gentle "Green lanes", so nothing hardcore, brave or demanding but I'm 16 stone. :roll:

any advice (Other than to loose weight! :shock: ) would be appreciated because looking at the prices of the different forks doesn't mean that the more dollars, the better, I assume?

Thanks

ilovedirt

Revs, the Talas system is crap, and the float RL is a very basic fork. Fox forks aren't really worth buying unless you get the top of the line ones.

bamba

Duncan Disorderly wrote:

Hi.


My riding will be very steady woodland trails, road and gentle "Green lanes", so nothing hardcore, brave or demanding but I'm 16 stone. :roll:

any advice

Thanks

Why do you want a full suspension bike to ride this ? all sounds a bit over kill, just get the cheapest, it doesnt sound like your going to be testing there limits any time.

symanoy

Just a thought, I'm pretty sure current fuel's are 120mm travel, is the frame going to be ok with 140mm of fork or is that going to mess up the handling?

rockmonkeysc

Get the Revelations. They come with internal spacers so you can drop them down to 130mm which is fine for a Fuel

jairaj

The travel has changed over the years with the Fuel EX best to check with Trek what is recommended on your frame.

I *think* 2008 they were 130mm 2011 they were 120mm and 2013 are back to 130mm.

Either way I don't think a travel adjust fork suits the Fuel EX at all. Just get a fixed travel fork, it'll be cheaper, lighter and less things to go wrong.

if 120mm is advised by Trek, go for a Rock Shox Reba
if 130mm is advised by Trek, go for Rock Shox Rev (as I don;t think the Reba goes to 130mm?)

It'll be cheaper than the equivalent Fox fork.

benpinnick

Some of the adjustable travel revelations have a poor reliability record. What year are the revs?

jairaj

that was the 2 step version. from what I've heard the u-turn system is reliable

Jomox

Talas easily (In my personal experience)

sofaboy73

having owned all of these at one time or another, i would say the rev's for what the OP wants. the most tuneable out of the three and nicest 'ride' at that price point. personally i prefer fox normally to rockshox, but as someone else said the lower end one aren't really worth it. the tallas seems fairly pointless for what you are riding and dependent on year, can be a little heavy and tempremental

Duncan Disorderly

Wow, thanks you lot, for the input.

I should have said that I have a choice of the forks with no cost implications, i.e. I can chose which of the 3, all at the same price. The Revs are 2009, Dual Air, U-Turns, the Fox Talas are 2009 32mm and with the Fox version of the U-Turn and finally, the Fox Float 130 RL are also 2009.

The bike will be a 2009 model with 130mm travel spec.

Although I will be riding the steady stuff to begin with, I may progress to harder rides, so I want to be prepared for all eventualities from the onset. Yes, right now, a Raleigh Chopper would be capable but I have made my decision as to what bike I want to get, based on the one I was left by my uncle. The advice I need is on the forks

I thought the Talas adjustable were the most expensive of the three and supposedly a better fork than the Float 130 Rl but the comments thus far confuse me and I guess everyone has their favorites so maybe I was hoping for a "Clear" list of best, mid & worst and I assumed that all were a very good (In relation to the bike's value) fork. I know you can pay a fortune for forks but I thought a £500 set of Talas was good, though it's all relative.

Back to the dilema . . . . I gather that the Talas are better than the Floats? but are the Revs better than the Talas? :roll: :? :? :?

thanks again

supersonic

TALAS is the external travel adjust system. Do you need it? It isn't always as smooth. What is important is the damper - the RL versions of Floats are rather basic.

Revelations in RL, RLT, Race and SL all get a lot of adjustability.

rockmonkeysc

Older TALAS forks are awful. Revelation U-turn forks are much better.

YeehaaMcgee

Travel adjust is a mostly pointless feature - I've hadit on three different forks and never once used it beyond the initial "ooooh - funky gizmo" period.
My current forks don't have it, and I don't miss it.

ilovedirt

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Travel adjust is a mostly pointless feature - I've hadit on three different forks and never once used it beyond the initial "ooooh - funky gizmo" period.
My current forks don't have it, and I don't miss it.

This, I've had it on a couple of forks and never used it, i don't see what the benefit is, you still get as much bob when you're climbing

Long story short, TALAS is pointless and makes the fork less plush, the RL is a poor fork with crap damping and not worth the money. Get the revs, they're a good fork with a good damper and no useless features like travel adjust . A high end rockshox fork is better than a low end fox fork, which is basically what you are looking at getting.

Jomox

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Older TALAS forks are awful. Revelation U-turn forks are much better.

I disagree, I had Revelations U-turns but did not get on with them, I now own older Tasas RLC (2007) and I find them to be much better for me personally.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Travel adjust is a mostly pointless feature - I've hadit on three different forks and never once used it beyond the initial "ooooh - funky gizmo" period.
My current forks don't have it, and I don't miss it.

I personally love having travel adjustment and find it very handy in what I do. (XC/AM etc) I think this is where it becomes to personal with regard to what forks you will like better and what features will suit you better. You personally will have to decide if you will use certain features and which fork will suit you better personally.

For me it's personal as to what you will like the most and despite me liking one fork over the other it's impossible to say which you will like the most for you based on other peoples opinions only, especially people saying the other fork is crap and pointless, I won't say that about the Revelations just because I did not like them personally. (I know others who share the same opinion as me but again this is to personal now)

So the morale of the story is, tred carefully when people bash one fork saying it's crap and pointless because they personally prefer the other one, pick what you think will be better for you and what features you may or may not like.

YeehaaMcgee

You like the word personal and personally, huh? Like, personally like it?

mrmonkfinger

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

You like the word personal and personally, huh? Like, personally like it?

a little personality goes a long way in a person


+1 for revs.

Jomox

May have gone overboard with the personally but at least its the truth (And I won't bash a fork I dont like especially if its a good one)

jairaj

An argument can be made for the need of travel adjust forks on some frames but on a Fuel EX I don't see the need at all.

The fuel ex is not designed to have a long fork or super slack angles that make climbing hard so there is no need to drop the travel down to enable climbing. It works very well going up or down at a fixed 130mm.

SuperSonic - Is it possible to modify the Rev to remove the uturn and keep it at a fixed 130mm?

ThePriory1978

I have travel adjust forks. Dont use the facility. Wouldn't say they are pointless, it helps keep the front low on steep climbs but then as i said i dont use it, so in actual fact it is kind of pointless.

Also +1 for Revelations.
Rockshox are less linear than Fox. New Fox CTD are even more linear than old 2012 Fox if thats your bag.

Duncan Disorderly

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Older TALAS forks are awful. Revelation U-turn forks are much better.

Hmm, the Revelations I'm able to choose are the 426 Dual Air U-Turn 140mm to 110mm 2009 I believe (Much the same year as the Fox fork choice) - does this count them all as "Old" and does it alter anyone's opinion?

Do I understand that the Talas is similar to the Float RL but it has the adjustable travel? Or are they a much better "Build" and do they still suffer with the reported stansion wear like the Floats?

supersonic

They use the same structure - it is the internals that differ. One has a fixed air spring, one is externally adjustable for travel.

rockmonkeysc

Dual air u-turn revs are excellent. I borrowed a set before I got my dual air u-turn pikes which are really excellent but not quite as good as the Rev's.
You can convert u-turn rev's to 130mm fixed travel but it's a lot easier just to set them to 130mm & leave them there.
I use travel adjust on my hardtail. Most of the time I run it at 110mm but for fun descents I wind it up to 140mm. 10 seconds to make the bike 1.5 degrees slacker & harder hitting is definitely worth having and it does climb better with the forks wound down.

Jomox

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Most of the time I run it at 110mm but for fun descents I wind it up to 140mm. 10 seconds to make the bike 1.5 degrees slacker & harder hitting is definitely worth having and it does climb better with the forks wound down.

Pretty much same thing I do also, 90/100mm for climbs, and 130mm for descents, helps allot especially for climbing. (So much climbing to do when so unfit, anything that can help, helps)

YeehaaMcgee

I swear, it's a placebo. Even with a very slack head angle bike, with forks nearly 20mm longer than stock, it will winch up some ludicrous climbs.
Fitness is a non issue, head angle makes no difference to the physical ease of climbing.

Duncan Disorderly

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

head angle makes no difference to the physical ease of climbing.

I find it easier on climbs to have my head down and tongue hanging out, so I would disagree here :roll:

(Sorry, couldn't resist )

Well thus far, it seems that you good folks out there in "Been there & done-it-land" are saying that the Revelations are the plusher, better forks out of the three? Correct me if I'm reading it wrongly

Duncan Disorderly

supersonic wrote:

They use the same structure - it is the internals that differ. One has a fixed air spring, one is externally adjustable for travel.

And there is a small brass screw on the bottom of the Talas's left leg (The travel adjuster side), incorporated in the bolt head, any ideas what that is for?

Jomox

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

head angle makes no difference to the physical ease of climbing.

Physics law disagrees with you though.

You are also saying you can ride up a hill with a head angle such as this:
http://i.imgur.com/eOg9g.jpg

As easy as a more level head angle.

YeehaaMcgee

Jomox wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

head angle makes no difference to the physical ease of climbing.

Physics law disagrees with you though.

You are also saying you can ride up a hill with a head angle such as this:
http://i.imgur.com/eOg9g.jpg

As easy as a more level head angle.

Actually, that looks at a cursory glance to have about the same head angle as my bike.
The riding position of your bike doesn't change because of head angle, it just kind of rotates.
Your arms, legs, back, hands etc are in the same relative positions - meaning you have the same exact riding cockpit - it's just rotated a little. It really doesn't affect the effort needed to climb, not one iota.

Jomox

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Jomox wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

head angle makes no difference to the physical ease of climbing.

Physics law disagrees with you though.

You are also saying you can ride up a hill with a head angle such as this:
http://i.imgur.com/eOg9g.jpg

As easy as a more level head angle.

Actually, that looks at a cursory glance to have about the same head angle as my bike.
The riding position of your bike doesn't change because of head angle, it just kind of rotates.
Your arms, legs, back, hands etc are in the same relative positions - meaning you have the same exact riding cockpit - it's just rotated a little. It really doesn't affect the effort needed to climb, not one iota.

It has a big effect, it's just basic physics (if you learned about physics) and bike geometry. Slacker is better for control on dh etc and harder to pedal up. Steeper has better uphill/xc attributes. The geometry / head angle has a much bigger effect then you think with a bike. (Weight distribution is also key)

A google search can help you research on bike geometry. Quick link here:
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-frame ... -2009.html