I’m looking at forks for a Commie Meta AM and I’ve narrowed it down to 2 :-

– 2013 Rockshox Revelation 150mm RCT3

Or

– 2013 X-Fusion Slants – 160mm lowered to 150mm.

Now the Revs are £50 less but the appeal of the 34mm stantions seems great. However, I lose the tuning options of the RCT3 rev.

The forks will be used mostly in the peaks so lots of big rocks etc.

Any thoughts? Cheers

Dunno about stiffness, but X-Fusion seem to like being run with lower pressures/a bit more sag/up the compression damping a little – maybe worth considering before you have them lowered – i.e. lose the 10mm in extra sag

I’ve got 2013 Revs RCT3. Great performance for trail riding but I’m now wanting a stiffer fork. You can see it judder under braking and I not exactly heavy(10 1/2 stone). I hardly ever use the threshold setting. It’s either in the fully open position or locked for road climbs. The low speed compression dial doesn’t seem to make much difference either. I wish I had gone for the Slants instead. Definitely 34mm stanchions for a AM bike.

Not quite the same, but I swapped some 2010 20mm revs for the 130/160 slants. Obviously a lot stiffer, but the slants dive a lot less and track the ground better. I run them with a bit more sag than normal and it took a while to realise there is 10mm of unusable stantion length.

Yes 😉

Obviously a lot stiffer, but the slants dive a lot less

And these are my thoughts pretty much in a nutshell. Go see Si, he’s just got a load in so you can choose travel adjust or not, and color!

The a to c height is right on the maximum for the frame at 160mm. The recommended is 520 with max 545.

Scamper what do you mean by the 10mm of unusable stantion?

So Slants, with the extra stancion mentioned above, may be too high. Or do I need to take into account sag on that? Plus at 150mm the a to c would be 535mm.

Hmmmmm,

I have had both and the slants are much stiffer and for me just as plush if you run lower air pressures. Ac wise mine are set to 130 and are at 510 mm

The bigger fork without a doubt. If it’s the later Meta AM, it’s a tank of a frame – you don’t want a floppy noodle of a fork on it.

My Mrs has an SX (essentially the same frame with a slightly different linkage to gain an extra 10mm of travel) with a set of of the new 160mm Pikes on it. They feel spot on. Prior it was a set of 160mm 36’s.

Yeah, decision made, X-Fusion at 150mm it is.

Cheers all, really looking forward to getting these.

So I’m a bit confused now, if a fork has a axle to crown of 545mm sagged to 20% that’s 436mm.

So when commencal stated recommended fork 520mm what do they mean. Not sagged?

Or do they not take sag into account?

What I mean is with the forks set at 160, the stanchion length is actually 170 ie let out all the air and the fork travel available is 160, but you can’t compress past the last 10mm.

Ah right, I see.

So is the a to c on a 160mm slant 545 maximum?

I’m struggling to find a 150mm fork with an a to c of 520mm that’s not a Fox.

It’s 20% of the travel, not the a-c so:

150mm * 0.8 = 120mm, so a-c will be reduced by 30mm -> 515mm

EDIT: I can write that more clearly:

150mm * 20% = 30mm, so a-c will be reduced by 30mm -> 515mm

Yeah I figured that out after I’d done it. Now I just need to find out if Commencal measure their recommended fork travel of 520mm sagged or unsagged.

I think you need to stop worrying and just get one. And 160mm fork will be fine.

They came with a 160mm Fox 36 at one point.

Loads of people run 36’s and 170mm Lyriks on them.

Hob Nob, ordered mate 🙂

I wanted 150mm more for my preference mate.

Well massive thanks to the always brilliant 18Bikes in Hope for lowering and sorting forks for me within a couple of hours of asking, especially after my initial muck up.

Slants lowered to 150mm, really pleased with the quality.