Which are the better forks? Talas, Float RL or Revelations
Comments
-
OK, I now have the information that I should have given / had when I first started this thread.
The forks are:
Fox Float RL 32 130mm 2009
Fox Talas RL 32 110-140mm 2009
RS Revelations 426 Dual Air U-Turns 110-140mm 20090 -
The Revs are the better fork.0
-
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. A different head angle can result in your weight being more rearwards, or the bike being more prone to wheelieing etc - but it does not change the physical effort required to get the bike up the hill.Jomox wrote:YeehaaMcgee wrote:
Actually, that looks at a cursory glance to have about the same head angle as my bike.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.
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.html0 -
I'm very wary of second hand forks. Just make sure they are perfect or budget for a decent service.Duncan Disorderly wrote:OK, I now have the information that I should have given / had when I first started this thread.
The forks are:
Fox Float RL 32 130mm 2009
Fox Talas RL 32 110-140mm 2009
RS Revelations 426 Dual Air U-Turns 110-140mm 2009I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. A different head angle can result in your weight being more rearwards, or the bike being more prone to wheelieing etc - but it does not change the physical effort required to get the bike up the hill.Jomox wrote:YeehaaMcgee wrote:
Actually, that looks at a cursory glance to have about the same head angle as my bike.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.
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
Then your disagreeing with the law of bike geometry and many a expert on the category. (But this is going of topic should stop now)
Sorry.0 -
No, I really am not. Look, the rider's saddle, pedals and bars remain unchanged relative to each other, so the efficiency of the riding position stays the same.Jomox wrote:Then your disagreeing with the law of bike geometry and many a expert on the category. (But this is going of topic should stop now)
Sorry.
The steepness of a given hill stays the same.
The mass of the bike and rider stays (comparatively) the same (ignoring minor addition of longer forks).
The only thing that changes is the relative rotation of the bike and rider around the rear wheel axle.
There is no increase in required effort - there cannot be.
If you can prove otherwise, go ahead, but I think you're misunderstanding the effect of geometry on climbing, quite substantially.0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:
No, I really am not. Look, the rider's saddle, pedals and bars remain unchanged relative to each other, so the efficiency of the riding position stays the same.Jomox wrote:Then your disagreeing with the law of bike geometry and many a expert on the category. (But this is going of topic should stop now)
Sorry.
The steepness of a given hill stays the same.
The mass of the bike and rider stays (comparatively) the same (ignoring minor addition of longer forks).
The only thing that changes is the relative rotation of the bike and rider around the rear wheel axle.
There is no increase in required effort - there cannot be.
If you can prove otherwise, go ahead, but I think you're misunderstanding the effect of geometry on climbing, quite substantially.
I'm feeling rather hijacked here, as the OP but I thought I'd give my newbie twopenneth, as a layman and hopefully to steer
the thread back to it's original porpoise.
In my thinking, if you have a steeper fork angle, it would make the rider lean a tad further forwards, therefore making the hill climb seem easier (As everyone leans forward to go up hill, don't they?)
With a relaxed angle, exagerated, you'll get the easy-rider position and that is surely more difficult to climb hills?
i see the point about seat, pedals & bars being in the same position, relative to eachother but is your upper torso weight going to be more forward with a more upright fork? :?
Anyway, what do I know, I haven't even got a bike yet :shock: :roll:
Back to my fork choice dilema, hopefully . . . . . . . .0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote: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.
For me dropping the fork to 110mm helps keep the front wheel on the ground on steep climbs. I didn't think it would make any difference, my last bike had 160mm fixed travel.
It's also good to tweak the geometry to suit the trail, sharper steering for twisty singletrack and slacker for steep stuff.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
Er.. no, it has no bearing on the actual angle of the hill you're getting up.Duncan Disorderly wrote:In my thinking, if you have a steeper fork angle, it would make the rider lean a tad further forwards, therefore making the hill climb seem easier (As everyone leans forward to go up hill, don't they?)
That's like saying, if you will, that looking up at the ceiling whilst going up stairs makes it harder work than looking at the ground.
Now that - yes, that could be noticeable. Faster turn in, is something that does happen with a steeper head angle - although I hadn't considered that application of travel adjust.RockmonkeySC wrote:It's also good to tweak the geometry to suit the trail, sharper steering for twisty singletrack and slacker for steep stuff.0 -
Sorry I won't hijack thread and carry on off topic especially when people disagree with the law of bike geometry and many a expert on the category (No more needs to be said then, and as said it's off topic now) I'll continue on the thread topic.cooldad wrote:
I'm very wary of second hand forks. Just make sure they are perfect or budget for a decent service.Duncan Disorderly wrote:OK, I now have the information that I should have given / had when I first started this thread.
The forks are:
Fox Float RL 32 130mm 2009
Fox Talas RL 32 110-140mm 2009
RS Revelations 426 Dual Air U-Turns 110-140mm 2009
This. They are all good forks but ideally you want to take the ones that are in the best condition, it's no point getting the best fork if it's in worse condition than the other ones. Check the stanchions and ask when they was last serviced (General condition)0 -
Find me an expert that says that changing the head angle of a bike (and nothing else) makes a bike require more effort to get up hill.
If you're so adamant, let's see these experts.0 -
He's capitulated
Fluffy bunnies, remember?I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
I said I wont continue as it's off topic, I already posted one link but I guess you skipped that, a quick google search shows many results. I don't have time to prove facts to someone when google is there and this is off topic.
If you read the link: (There's so many that say the same, it's just facts in bike geometry)
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-frame ... -2009.html0 -
Or maybe not.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
From that page...Jomox wrote:I said I wont continue as it's off topic, I already posted one link but I guess you skipped that, a quick google search shows many results. I don't have time to prove facts to someone when google is there and this is off topic.
If you read the link: (There's so many that say the same, it's just facts in bike geometry)
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-frame ... -2009.htmlHeadtube Angle
The headtube angle is the angle the headtube forms with the ground. The steeper this angle is, the faster a bike will turn and the better it will climb. A slacker angle provides for slower steering and is a bit harder to climb with but provides stability at higher speeds. A typical cross country bike will have a steep headtube angle, usually around 71 degrees. A downhill bike on the other hand, will have a much slacker angle, closer to 65 degrees.
Harder to climb with in that context, means that the bike will be more liable to doing a wheelie. - I don't dispute that will happen (although I do think the extent to which travel adjust forks make a difference is overstated) - what I'm saying is that it will not take any more physical effort to get the bike up a hill
If you want a discussion, fine. I've given you my opinion - now it's time for yours, or a response on that. Posting an internet link about something somewhat disconnected doesn't server any purpose. Although it does server somewhat to undermine your position since it demonstrates an understanding of what you're disputing.0 -
-
Yes you do - that's how discussions work. At a level above kindergarten anyway.Jomox wrote:I don't have time to prove facts to someone when google is there
Explain, in your own words, here or on the other thread, your understanding of it.
I at least believe I understand this. I've explained to you why my understanding is as such.
If you think you can change my mind, go ahead.
However, linking to irrelevant pages, without actually showing any of your own understanding, and in fact seemingly highlighting your lack of understanding, serves no purpose, and isn't going to convince or educate me, is it?0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:Jomox wrote:Yes kindergarten anyway. on the other thread, , go ahead.
irrelevant pages, understanding, serves no purpose, educate me?
Please follow your own lead and take this off subject, point scoring (Deducting) stuff to your own thread
Leave my thread for the grown ups please, I'm asking a serious question about forks and never mentioned "Angles"
. . . . . and when you get there, BEHAVE! :roll:0 -
Yes boss - it DID start off as a discussion of the merits, or not, of travel adjust forks.
But people want to say I'm wrong, but not WHY.
It seems I've had enough of these people, and so have you, so let's get back to the topic at hand. Except... i do believe it has pretty much concluded.0 -
How much are the various forks? That would change the perspective on what's best dramatically, also what is the fol replacing?A Flock of Birds
+ some other bikes.0 -
benpinnick wrote:How much are the various forks? That would change the perspective on what's best dramatically, also what is the fol replacing?
The forks are all the same price, I just would need to choose which one I wanted.
The Revelations seem a good deal heavier than the Fox options though but the comments about Revelations being "Sturdier" sway me this way.
As a similie, I've been lead to believe that Fox forks are like an RS Turbo and Rockshocks are like XR3's (That shows my age and probably looses many younger folks
) in the world of the Ford Escort. By this comparison, I mean that the Fox's are the race tuned, competition stuff and the Rockshox are ok, reliable workhorses . . . . . . . have I mis-understood? 0 -
Yes, you have. They can both be tuned, both are sturdy, and both are about the same weight. (travel/steerer/axle comparative). The lower end RS are more tunable than Fox though (externally).0
-
More like rockshox is the xr3, and fox is an MR2. Ultimately better built from a finish perspective, lighter, and more supple etc. but would cost alot more and not get you from a to b any quicker. The rockshox offers more home getting options too. And your RS2000? Rockshox do XX and world cups for that! Lighter than the equivalent fox by some margin IIRC.A Flock of Birds
+ some other bikes.0 -
Hmmm . . . . a conflict of opinion re the weight issue :shock:
I guess I'd better weigh them and report back to the thread on that one.
I get the XR3, MR2 bit and the RS2000 bit too but another thing that throws me is that Fox forks seem so much more money on fleabay than revelations, so does this mean that they are better? or more sought after?
I just thought of another comparison, probably a better one: Are Fox forks like a 2 stroke motorcross bike (Loads more maintainence but higher tuned, less tolerances, more temperamental) and Rockshox are the 4 stroke enduro bike, steady thumper, less trouble but not for racing a 2 stroke!
I'll report back with the weights asap0 -
Fox are both more desirable, but mainly also not subject to mass OE trading unlike Rockshox. Hence the difference in price.A Flock of Birds
+ some other bikes.0 -
A good fork is a good fork. It will probably be more competent than the average rider.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
cooldad wrote:A good fork, is a good fork. It will probably be more competent than the rider.
A fixed fork would be more competent right now
:shock:
I just want to get my decision "Future proofed" for when I'm a cycle-star 0 -
It's been two weeks, stop talkiing and start riding.
You may note I edited my post so as to not insult the stars.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Duncan Disorderly wrote:Hmmm . . . . a conflict of opinion re the weight issue :shock:
I guess I'd better weigh them and report back to the thread on that one.
I get the XR3, MR2 bit and the RS2000 bit too but another thing that throws me is that Fox forks seem so much more money on fleabay than revelations, so does this mean that they are better? or more sought after?
I just thought of another comparison, probably a better one: Are Fox forks like a 2 stroke motorcross bike (Loads more maintainence but higher tuned, less tolerances, more temperamental) and Rockshox are the 4 stroke enduro bike, steady thumper, less trouble but not for racing a 2 stroke!
I'll report back with the weights asap
Which two specific forks are you looking at?0 -
Are you confusing your RS2000 and RS 200s? Since, the RS2000 wasn't anything particularly special, really.benpinnick wrote:And your RS2000? Rockshox do XX and world cups for that! Lighter than the equivalent fox by some margin IIRC.0
