Cotic Soul with 140mm fork – waggy and baggy?
Yes, another Cotic thread – seem to be rather a lot of those at the moment…..even Cy’s probably getting bored of seeing them 🙂
I’m thinking of changing my 456c for a Soul. I have Marzocchi 140mm fork that I want to keep, but I gather the collective wisdom is that 120mm it best for the Soul. But then, if the frame has the same geo as the BFe, surely 140mm is not going to screw up the handling too badly, and I’d rather not be carrying around the extra 1lb of steel of the BFe if I don’t have to.
…but will it be a bit on the flexy side when cornering / braking with the longer forks? I weigh 11stone, and will use wide-ish bars. Riding will be trail riding not racing, and whilst I”m not shy of going down hills swiftly I’ll not be ‘sessioning the jump spot or boosting the phat gnar’ etc.
Would be great to hear opinions from those who’ve ridden the bike at the upper end of the travel range, or even better, if anyone has ridden both the Soul and BFe? Ta in advance…Posted 10 years ago
been riding 140mm TALAS on a soul for four years, its fine if a little wandery on really steep ups @ 140 but nothing good weight management can’t fix. It’s a bit slower turning in as well but again it’s not really much of an issue more than made up for the great downhill manners 🙂
never noticed any flex in the bike even when i was pushing on 17 stone.Posted 10 years ago
Thanks Klunk. I’d use flat bars to offset the climbing issue and am pretty used to riding on the nose of the saddle with the 456 on the ups so that wouldn’t be a problem I think.
I’m just wondering if it will flex a bit too much in the front end, and I’ll lose pointandshoot-ability*. I’ve been looking at the specs on the Cotic site, and judging by the weights the BFe is indeed a fair bit beefier…but then it is a good chunk cheaper….
*apologises – sounds a bit whatmtb? 😳Posted 10 years ago
I have a BFe, it rides much better the less travel it has really. 140 feels too much, 120 is probably about right although I prefer around 100-110mm I think.Posted 10 years ago
I have a BFe, it rides much better the less travel it has really
Ah. Oh.Posted 10 years ago
strength wise the soul is more than strong enough to handle anything i can throw at it and i’m quite the clumsy fat oaf. @ 11 stone there will be no flex and you’ll have all the point and shoot you need.Posted 10 years ago
They are awesome though, buy one anyway, you may like it with long travel forks.
But if you were going to be “sessioning the jump spot or boosting the phat gnar” I’d definitely recommend 100mm of travel for that job.Posted 10 years ago
Ran 140mm on mine and it was fine. Now run 130mm and it is still fine.
Not certain I can tell the difference and I suspect this is normal.Posted 10 years ago
I think my Zocchi’s can be dropped to 130mm anyway, so that might be worth doing in the future.
I do fancy a nice clean-looking steel frame again…..Posted 10 years ago
I do fancy a nice clean-looking steel frame again…
You’ll need to get hold of one without the gopping stickers then.Posted 10 years ago
I had longer forks on my soul ( dt 130’s which have a long axle to crown). It was fine in terms of flex, but a bit wandery on steep uphills.Posted 10 years ago
I’m thinking of changing my 456c
Do you mean carbon 456? Out of curiosity, why the change: new bike itch or something you dislike about the c456?Posted 10 years ago
It was fine in terms of flex, but a bit wandery on steep uphills.
– that I can deal with
…so no problem there
new bike itch or something you dislike about the c456?
yep, just a case of serial bike-buyer disease. I’d keep the c456 if there were more space in the shed…as it is I’ll have to let it go for a song as there’s paint chipped off from chainsuck, and people get iffy about carbon frames (even though the carbon itself shrugged the chainsuck off and there’s absolutely no damage to the weave, just on-one’s crappy paint job 🙄 )Posted 10 years ago
What size is your C456 ? 😉Posted 10 years ago
I want to change my Soul for a Carbon 456. But it’s the older version – 130mm forks.Posted 10 years ago
16″ – long top-tube, I usually ride an 18″ bike.
Entonox – cheers, but I’d be after the new version.Posted 10 years ago
I too am looking to make the switch to a soul from my 456. I do find the backend harsh on longer rides so thought the soul would be a great choice, potential weight saving too? I’m on an 18″ at the mo with lots of Seatpost so would a move up to 19″ on a soul be a good choice? TaPosted 10 years ago
May be interested if you decide to sell it.Posted 10 years ago
Entonox – I’ve just listed it on the classifieds, drop me an email if you would like some more details etcPosted 10 years ago
davidtaylforthI have a BFe, it rides much better the less travel it has really. 140 feels too much, 120 is probably about right although I prefer around 100-110mm I think.
I am a believer in not starting too far from the designers geometry, yes you can put on larger or smaller forks and it may be “approved” but it’s not what was intended.
I’m looking at hardtails, 120 or more travel and I’ll pick the frame based on the chosen travel.
My question would be would a 120-140 fork be the best of both worlds on something like a cotic ?Posted 10 years ago
130s on mine, a touch wandery, but nothing unmanageable…Posted 10 years ago
since starting this post I’ve been doing a bit of research, and I reckon it should be fine. The new version of the soul apparently has a stiffer top tube so that should keep it fairly tight up front. and my marzocchi’s can be dropped to 130mm, and for the intended use of this bike I’ll run them with a fair amount of sag.
Job’s a good’un.Posted 10 years ago
It’s more about A-C length than travel. I have a Magura Menja 130 on mine and I’d say it’s perfect. I think the Magura is a short fork for its travel though.Posted 10 years ago
The Old marzocchis used to have a very long axle – crown length, about 10mm longer than the other fork manufacturers. So a 130mm marzocchi would be the same length as a 140mm rock shox.
I dont know whether this has changed with the new models.Posted 10 years ago
new frame is lovely to ride. 140mm is the nuts for downhill esp.Posted 10 years ago
I used to have 110-140mm uturns on my Soul, and it didn’t spend much time at 140mm. Best all round at 120mm, I thought, and not too compromised at 130mm but at 140mm I didn’t really feel like it was much better descending, yet it was worse at everything else. Better at some things but it felt that wee bit taller which I didn’t really like.
Soul is better as a really tight handling, controlled descender than as a blunt instrument, IMO. C456 is a bit better at the big stick stuff but doesn’t have the finesse of the Soul. So horses for courses to some extent.Posted 10 years ago
The fork is an RC3 ti – the axle to crown length looks to be 510mm set at 140. I think I can get away with that.
Northwind, I get what you are saying…I love the marzocchi so would like to get some more use out of it, but may end up getting some 120mm qr15s in the end. I have some 120mm SIDs on my racebike, but want to run a big tyre up front on the soul (conty rubber queen which comes up too wide for the SID)…another reason to keep the marzocchi for a while….Posted 10 years ago
my soul should be arriving next week and i’ve got a pair of 2007 130mm revelations and a pair of 140mm 44 rc3 ti’s available to put on it.Posted 10 years ago
Still don’t know which to go for.
Mine has Fox Float 140mm 15QR forks and Flow/Pro2 wheels and is, without doubt, rad to the power of sik. 😉 Previously it had Reba 100mm forks and XC wheels and the improvement downhill is vast, particularly on fast rocky stuff – it just charges over whatever it’s pointed at. I weigh about 12.5 stone, and ride it pretty hard. 60mm stem and 680mm bars (if my local riding wasn’t so tightly wooded I’d probably be on 750+). I’m far from a proper dirt jumper but I spend a fair amount of time in the air, bunnyhopping and jumping (still on tabletops, haven’t got the mental ability to handle gaps yet) or dropping off anything that isn’t too big.
For flatter twistier stuff I have to ride more actively and get on the front of the bike to keep it pinned down and prevent understeer but it feels great like that. I have the forks pumped up pretty firm, not a lot of sag, so it’s about as slack at the Cotic Geek thing calculates for 160mm sagged forks. With a straight seatpost and the saddle forwards on the rails and decent technique it climbs well – but now I’ve gone 1×9 it climbs even better!
I originally planned to put a 100-140 fork on it but I’m very happy with having a 140 fork all the time, moving my weight about more and having a bike with consistent geometry up, along, sideways or downhill.Posted 10 years ago
140 Revs & low rise bars on mine, seems perfect.Posted 10 years ago
I’d suggest 120mm is best for the Soul, i’ve tried more on a Bfe which i believe is the same geometry and it didn’t feel half as good as 120.
I ran my soda at 100mm for a while and it was too sharp for my taste, currently on 120mm Sids.
If you’re looking for a frame to suit your forks, my mate is looking to sell his 20” Ragley ti for not much more than a new Soul. Fantastic bike, just a little too slack for his XC ridingPosted 10 years ago
I originally planned to put a 100-140 fork on it but I’m very happy with having a 140 fork all the time, moving my weight about more and having a bike with consistent geometry up, along, sideways or downhill.
The geometry’s not very consistent when your forks are moving about through 140mm of travel. 100mm forks would give your more consitency.Posted 10 years ago
The topic ‘Cotic Soul with 140mm fork – waggy and baggy?’ is closed to new replies.
Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.
Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.