Orange 5 – 160mm or 140mm forks?

Home Forum Bike Forum Orange 5 – 160mm or 140mm forks?

Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Orange 5 – 160mm or 140mm forks?
  • Rik
    Member

    I’m getting an orange 5 frame next month with the maxle swing arm,(same as 5am) and im still wondering what forks to buy.

    Bike will be used for big days in the peak/lakes/wales and 2 weeks a year in the alps.

    I’m looking for a build around 30lbs.

    What fork length would you recommend & why?

    Cheers for the help.

    MrNutt
    Member

    160mm with travel adjust, best of all worlds.

    and it’ll probably end up at about 32lb’s but that wont matter one iota!

    Premier Icon glenh
    Subscriber

    Friend of mine has a 5 with fox 36 talas forks on.

    However, he mostly runs them at 100 or 130mm.

    Premier Icon igm
    Subscriber
    GaryLake
    Member

    Me and a mate have 08 Fives – mine’s a pro (F32), his an AM (F36). I reckon now that you can get ’09 Maxle Revs or 15QR F32s they’d gain a bit of the 36s infallibility but maintain the weight of the old 32s/revs…

    GaryLake
    Member

    Worth noting that even with the flexy 08 32, my Five copes with Wales more than adequately, 36s are nice on the downs but possibly overkill…

    nickegg
    Member

    Run my 2007 Five with the new 15QR Vanilla R 140mm Fox forks.

    Feels perfect for what i do: Welsh trails centres, Lakes and abit of very light downhill etc.

    It has the 9mm QR swingarm but feels pretty damn stiff. A close match to the forks i think.

    Travel is more than enough for the majority of UK trails IMO.

    Will be taking to Zermatt in the summer so lets see how it copes with ‘real’ mountain biking.

    Premier Icon igm
    Subscriber

    Pike, pike, pike, pike

    Though to be fair the only other fork I’ve riden it with was a Float 130R – bit short and a bit flexi

    bomberman
    Member

    my mate has a 5 with 36’s and i’ve got a heckler with 32’s and he usually just pips me on the climbs so i suspect there’s not much in it. his bike is a pound lighter than mine with a lighter wheelset. he does get some bob when they’re set on 160 though but he says it’s not enough to bother him.

    chunkypaul
    Member

    this is mine, an 2007 with pikes on – quickly dumped the fox32’s that came with it, unbelievable amount of flex….

    weighs in at 30lbs – would consider sticking on a fox 36 talas if i had the spare cash, 160mm for the giggles, 130mm for the majority of riding, 100mm for the near impossible short techy climbs

    if weight is a concern, the new fox 32 talas 150mm fork maybe the answer?

    bomberman
    Member

    if weight is a concern and money isn’t since it RRPs at about 700 quid….

    chunkypaul
    Member

    sorted – i’ll have two then…

    Premier Icon charliemort
    Subscriber

    Magura Thor beginning to look quite good value………. they’re only £600! can be had for £530 ish I think……..

    freeman
    Member

    Rik, ive got some 08 36 Talas R’s for sale if you’re interested??

    pete_ollyAThotmailDOTcom

    Rik
    Member

    thanks for the replies so far.

    i’m not sure on the fork as i want a bike biased for dh, but i’m always used to building bikes on the lighter end of the scale.

    Also since buying a ti456 i find that i hardly use my 120mm full sus as the 456 is so good at everything.

    so i’m looking for something different and will inspire me to ride full suss again.

    wl
    Member

    For the riding you’re doing, defo 160mm to do the bike real justice. Avoid the Talas – most people who’ve had both seem to rate the Van way better and more reliable. Extra stiffness and travel, and slacker head angle with the 160mm, will be well worth a slight weight penalty, especially if you’re getting a Maxle. In the Alps, Lakes and Peak etc the bike will be amazing descending with Vans (I run them on a SubZero) – it’ll just open up some crazy lines, and the forks will take the punishment better than the slimmer 140mm versions. Mint setup and pretty much the perfect low maintenance all-rounder.

    scant
    Member

    the new 09 talas is nothing like the older 08 & before talas internals, significantly better. I’m running the 15qr 32talas, 110/130/150mm travel on 1 bike & 36 talas on another bike. yes the 36 feel stiffer, only 10mm more travel than the 32 talas, but they weigh 1lb more. so thats the decision to make, is the 10mm more travel & slight extra stiffness of the 36 worth the 1LB weight increase for you?

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

    I have a 5 with the float 32s at the mo. feels noodly. i have a set of pikes to go on. wrt the length i run an inbred with a 5″ fork ( which is about the max for that frame ), but felt very at home with the length of the foxs, so that should give some idea?
    i suspect that if you go to 160mm you’ll need a travel adjust of some sort to get up steep stuff – i would want it. i did consider going longer, but with the pikes at 300 quid, i’d have to lay out another couple of hundred again for the next step up and i don’t think it’ll work too well, at least for me anyways.
    HTH

    wl
    Member

    You’ll get up steep stuff with 160mm forks – your technique will adapt. And on the descents where you’re riding, you just won’t care if you had to work a tiny bit harder to reach the top.

    simonm
    Member

    Putting 160mm on a 5″ trail bike, that is a frame designed for a 5″ fork is a big mistake. I put 160mm Talas on my Meta 5… what most people assume, is you can “just stick um at 160 for the downs” BUT, what I missed – and most other people do – is the degree of control you LOOSE by weighting your self further back with the 160 fork. You need weight up front to descend as much as climb. I never rode the Meta at 160 once I’d discovered getting some weight back over the front. Now I’ve changed the 160 to a 09 Float 140mm and its awsome.
    Stick with the Fork that the frame is designed around.

    wl
    Member

    Can’t speak for the Meta 5 but the Orange Five AM comes with a 160mm fork – the frame’s designed to take it.

    Rik
    Member

    either fork would be a rockshox as i’ve never had any problems with them.

    If 160mm then lyrik either solo air or dual air. Seems to be a lot of dual air on offer ( would be perfect if they now work and don’t lord travel?) or if 140mm would be maxle light revelation dual airs.

    Cost is putting me off 160mm forks but does seem to be a deal out there if you look.

    If I stay at 140mm though, would i still always grab my ti456 to go riding rather than the orange?

    wl
    Member

    The Five is such a capable bike (according to so many sources), seems a shame not to fully exploit its ability with a bigger fork. I’ve got a Patriot, and guys on Fives with big forks give me a run for my money downhill and then out-climb me going up. Can’t fault my Van36 RC2s (on a SubZero).

    I_Ache
    Member

    Mate has 09 36 talas on his 5 and leaves them in the 160 setting all the time unless he is climbing a steep and long hill. Have a look at Wotans only £575 from wiggle and you can drop the travel to 120 for the climbs and even lock them out as well as the shock if you get an RP23.

    I reckon an awful lot depends on your riding style and preferences when it comes to forks. I’ve never felt a need for more than 140mm of travel on my Five though because they have such a stupendously long head tube.

    I deliberately went Fox because the A-to-C length is shorter than RS forks, plus I wanted a plush coil fork with no stiction so fitted a Vanilla 32 R.

    Assuming RS have remembered how to make a fork that doesn’t leak air and oil again I reckon the 09 Revelations could be a bargain though.

    simonm
    Member

    Doesnt The Five AM have tweaked Geometry to suite the 160 fork.. longer wheelbase etc ?

    Richyb
    Member

    Nope, the 5AM (not to be confused with the alpine 5 or alpine 160) is just a stock 5 with 36 forks and and a bash ring. Obviously the longer forks slacken the angles of the bike. I’ve had both 140 and 160 forks on mine and if you are just gonna use the bike in big terrain (alps, lakes etc) then go for the 36’s but if it’s gonna be you do it all, week in week out bike I’d go for 140 32’s, they’re much lighter and it’s rare you’ll want more + they’re stiffer now with bolt through. The 36’s are great, really confidence inspiring but overkill for most peoples general riding I’d guess.

Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)

The topic ‘Orange 5 – 160mm or 140mm forks?’ is closed to new replies.