[Closed] Are Fox 32 Lowers Fatter than RS ?

Does it really matter? From my experience, Revelations are stiffer than 32s.

Fox have a bulkier arch on the lowers, think it's maybe a failed attempt to make the 32s competitive on stiffness? Not sure about the legs, Rockshox are really into their powerbulges which could enable the rest of the lowers to be narrower and lighter.

Thanks. Maybe it is just the arch that gives it the more rugged look. Of course how they ride is more important than how they look, its just interesting (to me at least) that everyone says the RS shocks are stiffer but that's not what you'd think by looking at them.

When I was last looking at forks the Fox 32s had way more tyre clearance through the arch than the equivalent Rockshox. No idea on the current situation but if you like big tyres and ride in the UK it matters rather a lot.

chiefgrooveguru - Member

When I was last looking at forks the Fox 32s had way more tyre clearance through the arch than the equivalent Rockshox.

Other way round now, Rev has a little more clearance than the 32. Both pretty decent tbh.

From what I've read the Revelation is by far the stiffest 32mm fork, especially the 20mm bolt through models.

Thors are maybe stiffer- some folks say definitely, I couldn't tell 😳 But Revs vs 150mm 32s is very obvious.

TBH I rode some 34s at the weekend and they felt in the same ballpark as my Revs and the Thors- all stiff enough without being uber-stiff.

In answer to the original question... yes the 32 has fatter lowers. I was looking at them in my garage the other day noticing this myself (I've got 140mm rev's on my hardtail and 150mm 32 floats on my trail bike) and its really noticeable by eye.

Both 32mm stanchions.