Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I picked up my 2005 Blur (XL) at the weekend with 5th Element shock. Unfortunately my LBS (Sydney, Aus.) did not have the RLT100 fork I requested (it would mean a 3 month wait for the delivery!!) so THEY suggested the Float RLC or the Talas. I'm aware that SC voids the warranty for forks greater than 105 so I was reluctant. My LBS said the 130 travel on the Blur for the type of riding I do will be fine so I went with the reliable Float.. I ride XC, 2ft dropoffs at best. Being 6'2" and weighing 175, do you think:

a) this will not affect the geometry of the bike and I should ride with the 130 travel
b) alter the forks travel to 100 by adding the necessary spacer
c) replace the fork
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
XC down under said:
I picked up my 2005 Blur (XL) at the weekend with 5th Element shock. Unfortunately my LBS (Sydney, Aus.) did not have the RLT100 fork I requested (it would mean a 3 month wait for the delivery!!) so THEY suggested the Float RLC or the Talas. I'm aware that SC voids the warranty for forks greater than 105 so I was reluctant. My LBS said the 130 travel on the Blur for the type of riding I do will be fine so I went with the reliable Float.. I ride XC, 2ft dropoffs at best. Being 6'2" and weighing 175, do you think:

a) this will not affect the geometry of the bike and I should ride with the 130 travel
b) alter the forks travel to 100 by adding the necessary spacer
c) replace the fork
I had a Float RLC on my blur for a few rides. Mine was reduced down to 100mm. There is nothing wrong with the fork, but I did not like the difference in feel between the very linear rear of the blur and the very progressive (quickly ramping) feel of the float. If I were going to go with a fox on a blur I would go with the talas, not for the travel adjust but for the linear feel. I ended up picking up a marzocchi marathon which I am happy with. Don't get me wrong the Float RLC is a fine fork, I just didn't like the match on my blur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
XC down under said:
I picked up my 2005 Blur (XL) at the weekend with 5th Element shock. Unfortunately my LBS (Sydney, Aus.) did not have the RLT100 fork I requested (it would mean a 3 month wait for the delivery!!) so THEY suggested the Float RLC or the Talas. I'm aware that SC voids the warranty for forks greater than 105 so I was reluctant. My LBS said the 130 travel on the Blur for the type of riding I do will be fine so I went with the reliable Float.. I ride XC, 2ft dropoffs at best. Being 6'2" and weighing 175, do you think:

a) this will not affect the geometry of the bike and I should ride with the 130 travel
b) alter the forks travel to 100 by adding the necessary spacer
c) replace the fork
I had a chance to play around with a 2005 Float RLC 130. I thought it was a sweet fork. Personally, I don't like platform forks. To answer your questions:

a) It will definitely change the geometry of the bike. It's not better or worse. It's just different. It will be better going downhill and will handle better at high speeds. Climbing will be a bit different, but should not be an issue

b) Try it at 130 first. You may really like it.

c) see b :D

As far as the warranty goes.....Since the LBS is actually recommending the 130 fork, ask them if they'll support you if you require a warranty claim. They should if they are recommending the fork in the first place. I know quite a few riders that are and have been using 5" forks on the BLur for a couple of years without issues. One of them is a pretty big guy....way bigger and heavier than you. I know it's only annecdotal evidence, so take it for what it's worth.
 

·
Kiwi
Joined
·
28 Posts
RLC is a fine choice

XC down under said:
do you think:

a) this will not affect the geometry of the bike and I should ride with the 130 travel
b) alter the forks travel to 100 by adding the necessary spacer
c) replace the fork
I went the other way around and specifically asked for the Float RLC instead of the RLT100 for my Blur. I wanted the compression damping adjustment and also thought the RLC might be a bit stiffer than the RLT (RLT has some extra metal machined off the housing). I also hate buying version 1 of anything. I considerded a TALAS but didn't want the weight or additional faff factor of adjustable travel.

I set the RLC to 100mm travel and 1200km later I'm quite happy with it, although I suspect I'd also be happy with either of the other forks. The "C" I definitely like having, and if you've got good "C" you don't really need to use "L".

So to answer your questions:
a) obviously it will affect the geometry if set at 130mm. Personal preference and the warranty issue will help you decide.

b) the Blur is designed for a 105mm max fork - my take on it is that SC know more about bike design than I do so I'm happy to stick to their guidelines and use a 100mm fork. I never fiind myself thinking "gee I wish I had more travel", and I've never been over the bars on my Blur. Maybe I need to ride harder :)

c) Don't over-think things - just get out there and ride what you have - it's still a great piece of technology.

grum
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
try it, you'll like it

I've tried both and like the 130 mm set up best. That extra inch really translates into some real smooth, cushy riding in rock gardens and such. Stick with the 100mm if your strickly doing XC. Anymore than that, go with the 130mm. As far as the warranty, Santa Cruz also has a frame replacement plan if you're the original owner. I'd use that if I ever trash the headtube.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top