Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Is running 160mm forks on a Meta 5 more likely to make it snap in half?
  • hugorune
    Full Member

    Just got some obscenely cheap fox 36 Talas Rs and was planning on sticking them on my ’08 commenfail meta 5. Now for all you haters out there please don’t bother with the usual comments – has anyone out there who actually owns a Commencal had any problems? (i’m not really bothered about the slightly higher BB or the head angle). I know the new ones are specced with 150mm fox forks and none of the problems seem to be with the head tube welds.

    james
    Free Member

    Newer ones (which yours isn’t?) may run Fox 32 QR15 150mm’s (axle-crown=525mm), but a Fox 36 20mm 160mm (axle-crown=545mm) is 20mm taller* (more leverage on the headtube when hitting things at typically much greater speeds/forces due to the increase in capability/’egging-on-factor’ the fork may give. 20mm axle, more uppers overlap (being taller for the travel), 36mm stantions etc making for a much stiffer fork won’t exactly do the frame any favours

    (*so 30mm taller than a Fox 32 140mm QR15, 34mm more than QR)

    Leave it at 130mm (it’ll be 515mm tall, the same as a Fox 32 140mm QR15, it’ll be stiffer, should perform better and you won’t screw up the geometry (most likely most so uphill)
    Just avoid the 160mm setting

    DaveyBoyWonder
    Free Member

    My mate runs Lyriks on his and loves it. Been like that for a good 18 months at least now and its still in one piece.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

The topic ‘Is running 160mm forks on a Meta 5 more likely to make it snap in half?’ is closed to new replies.