Forum menu
Interesting thread - I'm test riding a 5 soon so will be watching the responses here.
Question to all those who say it is better with the 140 mm up front - is that only because it climbs/handles better on the flat? How much difference does the 160 make to the descents? Significantly better? Not-much-in-it? Still handles awful on the descents?
Riding a bike that smooths out every single bump requiring minimal effort from the rider[s] makes things a lot more interesting[/s] means that now when you're pushing the point of control it's happening at a much higher speed.
The 160 fork makes it slacker and the extra stiffness from 36's is really reassuring when ploughing down big rocky descents.
It does feel like a pig at trail centers or on XC rides though. Unless the bulk of your riding is big mountain stuff I'd maybe stick to a smaller fork.
I've got a hardtail so the Orange is reserved for big weekend rides. If I didn't have the hardtail I would not have the 160mm 36's on my Orange.
I really don't understand why people would want to put 160mm forks on a trail bike thats designed around 140mm forks, especially when they make it ride crap unless descending. If you need the extra travel and stiffness buy an Alpine, its not rocket science!
didn't you say you had 160 mm forks on you're Five at some point?
I really don't understand why people would want to put 160mm forks on a trail bike thats designed around 140mm forks, especially when they make it ride crap unless descending. If you need the extra travel and stiffness buy an Alpine, its not rocket science!
'cause I predominantly carry my Five to top of big mountains and ride down them. Having tried an Alpine I found the Five felt more lively and fun on descents and also peddled a LOT better uphill.
didn't you say you had 160 mm forks on you're Five at some point?
Yeah, you learn by your mistakes no?
I really don't understand
No you don't, but don't let it bother you so much 🙄
No of course not. Riding a bike that smooths out every single bump requiring minimal effort from the rider makes things a lot more interesting
Do you need reminding that you ride a bike with 140mm front and rear? You really shouldn't be espousing the virtues of short travel.
Your post would only make sense if you were on a 100mm bike or a rigid. As it is, is doesn't make sense, as it's bollocks an I think you know it is.
Whats your definition of 'over biked' then smart ass, as thats the question I was answering?
It has nothing to do with what bike I have.
Who am I to judge what other people ride or how they ride it?
Who cares if someone is "overbiked"? What business is it of theirs?
In case you didn't notice this thread is about the possibility of the OP being over biked. If you don't have an opinion why comment?
No then girls !,it's a forum after all
Please read my first post. Too many people worry about this and that, have I got too much bike/have I got enough. Theres also too many people out ther judging others by what bikes they have. Buy what you want and ride the bloody thing! The five is actually sold with a 160 fork (the AM) so it actually is designed to take a fork that big, if you don't like the ride (which is fair enough) with one that big just spacer it down and benefit from the stiffness a 36mm stantion gives.
There is no perfect for everything, it's all a compromise.
Someone on here once said; nobody's ever died from being overbiked!
'cause I predominantly[b] carry my Five to top of big mountains[/b] and ride down them. Having tried an Alpine I found the Five felt more lively and fun on descents and [b]also peddled a LOT better uphill. [/b]
Did it also make it stiff but flexible?
IanT,
I've just ordered a similar five, 36 talas kashima up front and RP23 kashima at the back. I currently ride a 2000 sub five with an RLC rear and 100mm bombers up front, which I've had from new and ridden in the Alps, Lakes and (less impressive) Malverns plus many trail cetres. I based my decision on riding a five test bike in the Lakes (thanks Orange and Biketreks) which had 36 FITs on and a CCDB coil rear. I managed to climb everything, even stuff that others on shorter forked bikes couldn't on the day (and I'm no lightweight hill climbing fella) by shifting my weight forward on the saddle. With that set up I was also able to tackle rocky downhill stuff I'd previously wobbled at. Basically, I was blown away with how good the bike rode. I had a quick blast on a RP23 / 32 FIT 140mm forked five and it felt no better than my 12 year old sub five (sketchy / flexy at the front). On the same day I also rode the 29er STRANGE bike that was along for the ride. Not for me. Two days later I rode a five with an RP23 kashima and a 32 / 140mm kashima fork and this confirmed my original spec decision; it rode well but the 32 front end was just too flexy to inspire confidence. The RP23 was great and I managed to get it feeling not too dissimilar to the CCDB, which is why I went for it as it's simple to set up (whereas the CCDB is more complex, and I want simplicity).
So, in summary, you've chosen well for the riding you describe. Ignore the naysayers and concentrate on getting fit for the ride, which will increase your enjoyment much more than worrying about whether you're under / over specced.
Did it also make it stiff but flexible?
I'm sorry your criticism doesn't make sense. Are you simple or just looking to annoy people?
To clarify my previous statement for any other argumentative fools - I spend [b]most[/b] of my uphill time pushing/carrying, however I do often find myself pedaling uphill too. If I had an Alpine 160 those pedally bits would be a nightmare. Instead I have the Five and they're slightly less of a nightmare.
Why do you think the Alpine would be worse up hill and on the pedally bits?
It has a steeper HA and weights pretty much the same as a Five AM.
Why do you think the Alpine would be worse up hill and on the pedally bits?It has a steeper HA and weights pretty much the same as a Five AM.
It's not conjecture. I don't [b]think[/b] it would be worse - I've ridden both and personally I preferred the Five. Maybe it's the extra rear travel, maybe the shock wasn't set up right, maybe I've just got different uphill pedal-preferences to you. Who knows, who cares! The Five felt nicer to me and that's what I spent my money on 🙂
At the end of the day I'm really happy with my Five with the 160 Talas which is what the op was asking.
drookitmunter (I'm new here and haven't worked out how to quote) - I rode a five pro (from memory 140 FIT forks and fox RP23 at rear) and an alpine 160 back to back (again in the Lakes) a couple of years ago and the Alpine felt heavy and unresponsive (sort of like my sub five but with all the fun removed). I tend to base my opinions on actually riding stuff, not comparing angles and weights.......
You mean to say you test rode a Five Pro back to back with an Alpine, and the Alpine felt heavy.
Thats surprising......
Skywalker - do you actually have anything useful to add to this thread or are you just here to argue and pick fault with everyone's opinion?
Go on say something nice/constructive/helpful. I bet it'll make you feel all warm and lovely inside.
Skywalker - do you actually have anything useful to add to this thread or are you just here to argue and pick fault with everyone's opinion?
The latter.
Ive come to realise Skywalker in general is a bit of a troll on the forum, particularly when it comes to fives. He/she is amusing though, although it does get tedious sometimes.
I would suggest that it is flow but he's not as aggressive. A flow-lite or a trickle if you would.
Don't take it to heart lads. I was just giving my opinion and don't like it when someone tells me I'm wrong, as thats all it is, an opinion!
Love my 5 with TALAS 36s. Most of my riding is steep ups and steep downs which probably helps. If you ride trail centre/ flatish trails this may not be the best setup. Dont worry too much about HA compared to an Alpine, as they're much the same when in the sagged position as the alpine has more rear travel.36s and CCDB and you'll love it.
I'd avoid speccing 160mm forks on a 20" frame. The frame will be too big to make it chuckable hence you wont get full use of the 160mm's. I think the people telling you to avoid 160mm forks are those that have bought frames to big for themselves.
Get an 18" frame, fit the 160mm's and go and throw it down a proper hill. None of this single track mincing along climbing uphill nonsense.
Dont worry too much about HA compared to an Alpine, as they're much the same when in the sagged position as the alpine has more rear travel.36s and CCDB and you'll love it.
Care to explain that one?
The frame will be too big to make it chuckable hence you wont get full use of the 160mm's. I think the people telling you to avoid 160mm forks are those that have bought frames to big for themselves.
WTF are you on?
Oh god if the handlings that bloody bad on shallow trails with 160's on, then get some air sprung ones and lower the bloody ride height by increasing the sag a bit. Then increase the pressure at the back a little.
That will make it more oversteery on shallow trails.
Here's an even BETTER idea, get some travel adjust Lyrik U-Turns!
Long wheel bases are great as well, learn how to chuck your weight around through tight corners. They are much nicer when ploughing through big stuff.
Twits.
Oh god if the handlings that bloody bad on shallow trails with 160's on, then get some air sprung ones and lower the bloody ride height by increasing the sag a bit. Then increase the pressure at the back a little.That will make it more oversteery on shallow trails.
Twits.
Or reduce them to 140mm like I did, that way they wont be diving all over the show and unbalancing the bike because you are running them too soft.
Twit.
WTF are you on?
I know what Im on about. Smaller frames are much better for this kind of hooliganism and you can put yer feet on the ground without catching yer nads!
It doesn't ****ing matter if they are a bit divey on shallow trails. I spose your the kind of person that uses the exact same spring rate/weight distribution on steep as **** alpine stuff as you do when your riding the llandegla red trail.
If your worrying about dive on trails then 160mm is the way to go.
Better yet just buy some travel adjust forks.
Jesus my Mega is way longer and more boat like than a Five with 160's and I do just fine on it, I through my weight round more aggressively on slow downhill switch backs and just sit down and wheelie round steep slow uphill switch backs.
I know what Im on about. Smaller frames are much better for this kind of hooliganism and you can put yer feet on the ground without catching yer nads!
Ahhh, I missed the bit where the OP told us how tall he is, oh wait he didn't!
It doesn't * matter if they are a bit divey on shallow trails. I spose your the kind of person that uses the exact same spring rate/weight distribution on steep as * alpine stuff as you do when your riding the llandegla red trail.
I don't ride trail centres and I know how to set up my suspension thanks. Your idea is crap, who would want a saggy front end and a stiff rear? That would ride well, not!
Skywalker says "Don't take it to heart lads. I was just giving my opinion and don't like it when someone tells me I'm wrong, as thats all it is, an opinion!"
....interesting as he/she seems to get a bit nasty when disagreeing with someone else's opinion.
double standards.
an Orange 5 is like a dinner jacket. You can wear one anywhere and people will just admire you for wearing it, the context matters not one jot.
You are never overdressed in a dinner jacket.
interesting as he/she seems to get a bit nasty when disagreeing with someone else's opinion.
Errrr, I haven't at all!
don't ride trail centres and I know how to set up my suspension thanks. Your idea is crap, who would want a saggy front end and a stiff rear? That would ride well, not!
Your talking about 5 percent more sag on the front, you have no clue mate.
One type of setup is never perfect fir everything, what I'd run for banging down fort williams is totally different to what I would run on loamy natural trails.
Ok mate, whatever you say.
Skywalker = flow
A complete tool from Kent. Got busted for posting a video of himself.. that wasn't him.
A sad bitter little man who doesn't really ride, except cycle paths. Probably why he's angry.
You're a proper strange one you are.
Pot kettle, flow, or james
I did like your defence of flow, on the where's flow thread. Genius. How are the mountains of Margate today?
There's a register for people like you mate 😕
Children!
Too easy