So I have just got myself an ASR-5 and will take be reducing the travel on my Fox 32’s 150mm to 140mm or 130mm.

So ASR-5 riders which do you prefer 140mm or 130mm?

I am in the Alps so I’m thinking 140mm but is handling any better at 130mm? I already have a Transition Covert for the bigger stuff.

120 for me. Tried a longer fork but lost some of the fun handling on singletrack. All depends where you ride I guess.

No use answer #2.

120mm for me too, was running them on my Trance and find the forks a little ‘overwhelmed’ now on my ASR5c, given the supreme awesomeness of this frame. Got a front wheel pinch puncture for the first time in my life the other day.

Fox F-series. Light, and whippy, but starting to feel a bit ‘willowy’ alongside the ASR5c.

Will upgrade soon, prob go for 120mm again though.

/end of useless answer #2

Slightly more useful answer #1:

120mm here, but gone for DT Swiss XMM120 rather than Fox, based on being much stiffer with the 2 piece arch desgin. Also running tapered steerer and QR15.

Lake District, Peak District, North Wales, Highlands natural rockfest descents no hassle…

That said, you might find the slightly slacker head angle a 130 or 140mm fork gives you more of a benefit in the Alps than in the UK…

Potentially more useful answer but probably not.

Previously had Reba team dual airs at 120mm but recently upgraded to some dual air revs, mainly because they were 15mm compared to the 9mm qr on the rebas but also to get a bit more travel. Got the revs at 130mm and they feel great but that’s most likely because they’re much more stiff. Up in Scotland and it deals with everything very well – both up and down it just wants to go fast.

140mm Fox Vanillas on my ASR5C. They’ve been brilliant. No complaints anywhere. Excellent handling.

Run Fox 32 Float 140 CTDs on mine. Feels fantastic.

I have 130mm Revs. Previously I ran 120mm forks. The 130mm are great, I haven’t found any issues climbing and the bike is a bit more able to take the big bits with the slightly longer travel. I think the bike may be a tad slower than it was running 120 forks but that may just be my imagination.

Thanks. So it looks like whatever I decide I will have fun!

Guaranteed 🙂

I had mine at 130 and now at 140, I kind of think I preferred 130 but 140 is the biggest fork I’ve ever run so maybe it is just a case of getting used to it. I think the bike might have been a bit livelier at 130. Would like to try it at 130 again but it isn’t very easy now you have to change the whole spring assembly in Revs to change travel.

I have 140mm Revs on mine. For a while I had U-turn Pikes and tried in various settings: 110/120/130/140.

It’s just a compromise.
120 is noticeably better for aggressive climbing on steep/loose stuff where you need to be seated for rear wheel traction. At 140, the front end can be a bit light and wandery on really steep stuff, but it has to be incredibly steep for this to become a problem, not something I encounter very often at all. Also, if there’s enough grip to allow you to get out of the saddle, then it’s a non-issue. The ASR-5 seems to encourage you to stand up and pedal harder! Going down, 140mm feels a lot nicer to me. Slacker, faster, just great for charging.

I ride mainly in the peaks, but I took it to the alps last year. I suppose if you mainly ride smoother stuff and you’re not as aggressive then 120mm or 130mm would probably be better, but I’ve certainly got no plans to change mine (which would just be a case of adding an extra spacer to the fork).