Looking for good quality 120mm forks for trail riding.

Want them to be easy to service.
Want them to be light.
Want them to be robust.
Need to take 2.4 inch tyres minimum.

Fancy a 15mm axle. Don’t know if I’ll need tapered steerer yet, as frame has yet to be finalised.

So far on my list:

Rockshox SID 120mm – worried about tyre width?
DT Swiss XMM 120 Twin Shot 15 mm – not that impressed with weight vs cost.

Any help much appreciated. I am no expert. Coming from a Cannonade 80mm headshok (love the weight!).

Why are you speccing a 15mm in particular? I’d’ve suggested a Reba Team with a maxle in otherwise. I’ve not seen the numbers for Rockshox’ 15mm maxle but the 20mm Maxle lite is lighter than a Fox 15mm axle… Hubs can be made lighter for 15mm but a lot of them end up being a big shell with stepdowns anyway so you lose the advantage there too.

Thanks Northwind – I am clueless, I thought 15mm was the standard for this type of fork. What is the weight on the Reba Team?

1700 grams-ish I think. Which does seem a wee bit overweight but they’re stronger and stiffer than Sids and F100s and give you decent clearance. The Team gets you the blackbox damping which I’ve got in my Revs, it’s fantastic.

The standards, well… It looks like 15mm’s winning, Rockshox have given in and started to use it even though it’s inferior because that’s what manufacturers want (and maybe riders, I don’t know…) The annoying thing is Fox admit 20mm is better for their big forks but they stick with 15mm for the little ones, I think just because it has a perception of lightness. Whereas Rockshox made 20mm work for big and little forks. QR15’s advantages are too small for the extra baggage of more standards I reckon. But 20mm is so established there’ll be not be a problem getting wheels etc in the life of the forks.

All IMO of course 😉

The Reba’s 08/09? are a pretty tight fit with a large 2.2″ tyre – it isn’t the width that’s a problem, it’s the height. I don’t know if later revisions have more space. Workable but I’ll be going with something with more clearance when I replace them. I would love to know if any manufacturers clearly state the axle to underside of bridge height on their spec sheets, as I’ve yet to find it.

Depends what 2.4 tyre for the Reba, re. clearance.

Conti MK 2.4 = no worries.
Conti RQ 2.4 = might just fit, but I wouldn’t.

The RQ is a huge tyre though., more like a Maxxis 2.7.

The Reba is OK with a Kenda nevegal 2.35, which is a “big” 2.35.

HTH.

If you’re considering s/h forks, I’m flogging a Reba Team, email me if interested. Apologies if not.

What about a Marzocchi 44 micro or RC3 Ti spaced down to 120mm

Maybe not the lightest, but easy to service and will take a big tyre

Don’t know what it is that is putting me off Marzocchi… they are more for rough-n-tumble stuff?

The tyre clearance thing is a pain in the bum though with Rockshox. Why do they make the crown so tight?

I am running Conti Mountain Kings, but I want reasonable clearance plus the ability to run whatever large tyre around and up to 2.5 I think.

Was considering a Lefty as well. Maybe I should look into that more?

I am so used to the stiff and light and massive clearance headshok, I don’t want to end up with a flimsy boat anchor with tyre rub! Especially if I am spending £600+

I am running Conti Mountain Kings, but I want reasonable clearance plus the ability to run whatever large tyre around and up to 2.5 I think.

Why do you need to run 2.5″ tyres with a lightweight trail fork?

Because big tyres + hardtail = the best comfort, stability, grip.

Maybe not 2.5s, but certainly 2.4 Mountain Kings. I want room!

7hz, I know exactly what you mean! Changing from 2.1 to 2.3 Speed Kings and then to 2.2 XR4s has completely transformed how my HT performs – yes, it’s a bit slower uphill in the dry but everything else is hugely positive. I have 7mm of clearance between treadblock and fork bridge with the XR4 – just enough but annoying in the mud.

Note that the 2.2 XR4 is significantly larger than a 2.3 Speed King and slightly larger than a 2.35 High Roller. However it is the same width and fractionally taller than a 2.2 Specialized Purgatory (like a rounder Eskar). It is also a fair bit narrower in the carcass than a 2.2 Rubber Queen. And how wide does it actually measure? Dead on 2.2″!

Anyway, my point is that a nominal width does not necessarily reflect reality. There seems to be a shift towards tyres measuring true or being oversized but in the past they tended to be undersized. The cynic in me says that historically more tyres got bought because they were light for a 2.4 (easy to do if you only make it 2.2 size) but with the proliferation of info on the internet that kind of cheating doesn’t work so well – and as MTBing becomes more rad it sounds more badass to sell a tyre that is described as a BIG 2.2

Well the fox F120 QR 15 is superb, light and stiff.
The damping is way better than any RS forks ive ever tried and the servicing stuff is the same on almost all of them anyway.

No idea what tyres it will run though and they can be quite ££££

Suits my Cotic perfectly 🙂

I don’t mind £££ if it is a quality product.

Fox seem to have a bad rep for needing serviced a lot and stuff needing replaced at great expense.

Everyone seems to run Rockshox!

In my experiannce they do not deserve that rep and the quality of the damping has always been the best out there (appart from bos, Cane creek etc)

The servicing they recommend is simple to do but I just clean teh seals off before each ride and they will last for as long as you could ask. What gets me is the people who complain about stantion wear but their bike always had massive piles of mud stacked between the arch and the stantion, what do u expect?

The damping is way better than any RS forks ive ever tried

Have you tried the Blackbox damped RS forks?

Easily a match for any of the Fox forks I’ve tried. I prefer the controlled and composed feel to the more plush Fox feel. Others may differ.

Mmmm.

I run 2.25 Rocket Rons on my SID World Cups with no problem.

But I must say Im a bit surprised you want to run such a fat tyre on an xc fork. I thought my 2.25’s were fat!

For info my Maxxis Highrollers 2.35 were noticeably thinner than my 2.25 Rocket Rons. It might be worth taking a closer look at tyre width, 2.5 seems huge.

i have a pair of 15mm BT Float 32’s and a pair of Revelation Team 20mm BT’s.

the fox is more plush [FIT] and very well damped. good stiffness and little flex.

the RS Rev is more of a faff to set up but will run at 120mm. Damping is more composed mid stroke, but full travel and stroke progression to full travel so far seems harder to obtain than the Fox.

to be honest, most products are excellent, and there seems little to separate them other than servicing, weight, price and colour !

all imo 🙂

TLR is spot on, I’m a big fan of the Blackbox damping, it suits me very well but the latests Foxes have some advantages too. It’s not as simple as better/worse. To me the Fox seems to work better at the start of travel, it feels nicer and smoother but start to batter it around and work deeper in the stroke and the Rockshox works better- more consistent and more composed. But they’re both very good.

What about the DT Swiss stuff?

Anyone run DT Swiss forks?

Have you tried the Blackbox damped RS forks?

Or Mission Contol for that matter….. 🙂

The Reba is OK with a Kenda nevegal 2.35, which is a “big” 2.35

Confirmed.
I can imagine the Sid is a bit on the light side for trail stuff, xc racing maybe. The 15mm Reba would be my choice. Two mates have them & we all run 2.35 Kendas on them. Two winters ss’ing on them now, without a problem & they get left in a right state between rides. If speccing new kit then go bolt-thru – it is better, but not worth swapping perfectly good q/r stuff for, at least not on a trail ht anyway.

Reba is OK with a 2.4 Rubber Queen but it’s pretty marginal, not much mud clearance. Then again the 2.4 Rubber Queen is a poor mud tyre, so that’ll be the least of your worries if it gets that muddy. RQ’s a bit of a special case as it’s so tall.

Oh and 2.35 Nevegal isn’t a big 2.35, it’s an accurate 2.35. It only seems big because so many others are falsely advertised.

I prefer the Reba 120 with maxle to the Fox F120 with 15mm. Stiffer, doesn’t spike at the end of the travel meaning you ‘lose’ 10mm or so, not so well controlled when things get rough.

On the plus side, I have a set of F120 QR15 for sale and a pair of wheels with XT hubs, in Edinburgh, if you’re interested 🙂

I can imagine the Sid is a bit on the light side for trail stuff,

As I understand it the new SID 120mm is light / stiff and strong. Probably more “trail light”, but more than up to the job; which is why they aren’t exactly cheap. They are only a little lighter then the equivalent fox aren’t they?

Anyway… it’s where my money is going for the new bike.