I’m pondering a shorter travel fork for my Ti456. Am currently running 140mm Thors (which I feel are probably too much fork for me) and would probably go down to a 120mm Reba or similar. Axle to crown would drop about 23mm.

I was just wondering if anyone else has any experience
running a similar 120mm setup on the Ti456.

Ta.

Try riding the thors round at 120mm for a while, decide if you like it?

Do Thors reduce to 120mm – I didn’t think it was possible?

Good idea, but I think the travel is reduced to 100mm (no in-betweens) by the FCR – I’ll double check…

Had 32 Talas on mine at a time 100mm-140mm – 120mm seemed to work well but the fork went a bit noodly if you wanted to crash through rock gardens. 36 Talas was a bit too much fork. Air Pikes seem to be the best all round fork for my sort of riding

Cheers mundie. The ideal option for me would probably be the bolt through 130mm DT Swiss XMC130s, but the current price tag is shocking.

Maybe not then. I’d just assumed that a 100-140mm £600(+) fork would at least have some sort of in between

why not get something like new revs, adjustable between 140 and 100 (i think?)

jobs a goodun!

[edit] Double post, boo

This doesn’t help, really, but I am just getting to grips with a Pace RC305 with adjustable Pikes. It’s fantastic on the downs at 140mm, but is very nice indeed at 120mm for more mixed terrain. It’s not the same bike as the 456 of course, but the general idea is similar. 🙂

Have a ti456 with pike u turns and it climbs really well with the fork wound in to 115mm, it gets ridden most of the time at full travel (140mm) though as I can’t be arsed but it still climbs well at full travel.

Ti456 here with air u-turn pikes (115-140). I do like them at full extension and think the sort of riding the ti456 is meant for deserves the longer fork. More travel and slacker angle got me out of a whole load of trouble with my clumsy handling skills today on the black @ Glospie Wildcat. Having said that wound down it does seem to climb even better and makes switchback climbs a joy.

I’m toying with making my 456 dual personality as the riding near home is pretty tame bridleway stylee. Longer stem (currently 70mm), narrower bars (currently 710mm), narrower tyres (currently 2.35) and fork wound down won’t make it any lighter (well maybe a bit but not noticable) but might make position a bit more stretched and narrower for bashing along bridleways at speed. 15mins to convert – I can live with that.

Due to the VERY long top tube on the Ti 456, the shorter the fork you put on it the more it’s going to feel like you’re sat over the bars.

I used to use 140mm Talas on mine and always felt it was underforked for the descents but climbed extremely well when wound down to 100mm. On the occasion wheer i forgot to reset the travel it felt VERY wrong at anything below 120mm.

150mm DT or Talas both with the QR15 would be my choice for it if you want it light or Talas 36 if you want it fun.

Thanks all for the replies – sounds like the general opinion is that some form of travel adjustment is definitely needed to get the best of both worlds. I’d agree with this as the 100m reduce is handy on the Thors for climbs.

My main issue with the Thors is them blasting through the travel too easily (and I’ve got them pumped 20% harder than the stock advised pressure).

I run Nixons 145mm on my 456SE and it felt great. Changed the forks for Talas 36 as XC/commuting needs sharper steering. Othewise it’d be long travel all the time. As my Fox’s are off to Mojo I fitted 120mm Blacks ontop the frame and it’s awfully low at the front.

Aren’t talas 36’s even longer than than the Nixons?

I’m running 08 Air Nixons on mine too. They’re fixed 145mm travel. Its only the ridicu-steep climbs where the front gets light. That said, I ride a 16″ at 6ft, so I can get a good portion of my weight over the front.

Bigdummy how are you finding the 305? I am after a new frame, was toying with the new ragleys but the pace seems to appeal too.

dual air Rock Shock Revs 100mm-130mm on mine… works a treat.

OP – dial in the lightest “albert select” on the Thors – cures the blowing thru the travel without losing too much on the smaller stuff.

Another vote for Pikes here (although tempted to try Float 36’s set at 150mm).

I run Revelation U-Turns between 100 and 130mm. I only run them at 130mm when going downhill, otherwise between 100 and 115 or so, otherwise I find it tricky getting uphill.

However, there are loads of factors – I’m an ex-roadie and like being over the bars on the climbs and flat but now love the extra travel and not being as much over the front on the descents.

To me, I NEED an adjustable fork for the kind of riding I do, as it’s mostly straight up and straight back down again!

van 32 rlc 15mm bt’s here.

soon to fit 2010 FLOAT 32 RC2 15mm BT’s.

no need whatsoever to run less than 140mm due to the very very short HT imo.

Lecht, don’t you find steep tech climbs are a bit harder than they should be with the fork set at 140mm??

Was your 32 fork the TALAS of Vanilla?

Suppose it all depends on your local terrain, the 40mm reduction on the Thors is a useful feature, and one I would defo miss.

woool – i initially had the TALAS, then swapped to the Van as i never needed the lesser travel.
i’m going 2010 FLOAT due to the weight and new FIT damper arrgt.
as i said, the short HT negated any less travel (for me – i’m not racing)

I’m with the lecht on this one- I’ve been running Float 140’s with the bolt through for a good while now on my ti456, initially in the Peaks, now on the North Downs etc, and the bike climbs great with them. Had revs on previously, normally at 115-120mm and I swear there’s less tendency for the front to lift or wander on climbs. Might be mental justification for expensive new part though, but I really don’t think so

That’s weird Vinny – not arguing with your findings but it doesn’t seem logical that a longer fork would make climbing easier – unless the 140mm Floats are actually shorter a-c than the 130mm Revs?

vince – any pics of your 456 + floats ?

you’ll crash and die mwahahahahahaaa

simon, I’ll send some off this afternoon.

James, it does sound a bit odd- not checked the ac measurement, but can’t imagine the floats being any shorter than the revs, specially wound down to 120mm- I’ve come up with some pretty esoteric reasons in my head- damping, sag, fork trail, but can’t imagine them having much effect in the real world. Probably just the expense justification as I said. Although I’m not normally somebody who worries too much about forks normally- if they work ‘i don’t really care, but the Fox’s are a cut above the RS in performance terms

i’d have to agree about FOX. simply the best damped mtb fork range currently available.
my only complaint is the limited range of adjustability on offer, and hence the mixing of oil weights to dial in the perfect ride.

awesome forks.

Cheers mundie. The ideal option for me would probably be the bolt through 130mm DT Swiss XMC130s, but the current price tag is shocking.

I wouldn’t if I were you as I’m likely to come round and bash you over the head with them if you do!

Aaaah Mr Levell! If Pace have had anything to do with them they would fall to bits if you swung them around, so I’m safe there!!

Mmmmmm…. you could make a good carbon rattle out of the bits though ;0)