2017 Fox 32 SC Fork

Offset

Fox provides two good offset choices for the 29” fork. For those who like older, slower handling forks, you can get a 44 mm offset. For others (myself included), they offer a nice, large 51 mm offset.

For the 27.5” version, the only option is a 44 mm offset, which is fairly standard for that wheel size.

Air Spring

The 32 SC features Fox’s Float air spring which is adjustable with air volume spacers. It is still a good air spring, and the air volume spacers offer some nice tuning options. This is essentially the same air spring that was found in model year 2015 forks, so there’s not much new to talk about here.

Damping

Fox has upgraded the 32 SC from the model year 2015 32 to feature larger, FIT RC2 10mm shaft architecture. This allows for greater oil flow through the base valve.

The 32 SC fork in Factory trim features the same dual circuit rebound system as the rest of Fox’s Fit4 forks, but it has a specific cartridge design and damping tune. It. This allows more controlled return from hard hits and quicker recovery from successive impacts. Fox also offers the fork in a less expensive Performance trim with a FIT GRIP damper. We don’t have experience with that yet, so we can’t speak to it.

Tom Collier reviews the Fox 32 SC for Blister Gear Review.
Tom Collier on the Fox 32 SC fork, Salt Lake City, UT.

I appreciate that Fox provides a true low-speed compression adjustment. I thought the range and resolution were good, but after some experimentation, I left it wide open. The rebound adjustment also offered great range and resolution.

The lockout is quite firm, and the mid setting provides nice support without being too harsh.

It took a bit of stanchion lube and time to break in the fork, but afterwards, performance was supple. It isn’t the same as what you get from a longer travel fork, but it was good.

I experimented with the air volume spacers, running 0, 1, 2, and 3. The feeling was distinctly different in each configuration. With 0, the fork feels a bit deeper and more linear, but dives more and bottoms a bit too easily for my liking in rough sections. 3 spacers was a bit too progressive, while 2 offered the best blend of bottom-out resistance, suppleness off the start, and mid-stroke support for me.

Comparisons

Vs. RockShox Sid XX World Cup

The Sid weights 1485 g (120 g heavier) and is almost $300 more expensive than the 32 SC configuration we tested.

Vs. Marzocchi 320

The SC 32 is lighter and offers significantly better damping performance with a chassis that is at least as stiff as the 1600 g Marzocchi 320 LCR.

Vs. DT Swiss OPL (according to Marshal Olson)

The DT Swiss OPM ODL is my benchmark “best-in-class” XC fork. I found the DT rides a bit higher in its travel, and I can push into the fork more in corners. But the 1635 g DT Swiss is significantly heavier. The Fox SC 32 tracked better due to increased fore-aft stiffness, and I much preferred its Kabolt axle.

Bottom Line

The Fox 32 SC is a great example of bike technology evolution. It isn’t wildly different than the forks that have come before it, but a lot of optimization has resulted in a light, relatively stiff fork with real damping performance at a very attainable price tag.

I’ve not ridden a fork this light and stiff. It doesn’t feel like a fly-weight fork when you crank into a corner or crush into a rock garden. The damping holds up to abuse, and the chassis tracks well.

If you are looking for a new XC fork, the new Fox 32 SC is definitely worth a look. It somehow seems to undo the old saying, “Strong, Light, Cheap — pick two.”

 

 

6 comments on “2017 Fox 32 SC Fork”

  1. Nice concise writeup.

    Quote: “He is even curious to try a 120 mm version of the 32 SC for trail riding. (Now to get Fox to make one of these…)”

    +1 on that. At 195 myself, I really LOVE that Blister has Marshall wringing stuff out!

    Query: Having a new-ish Fox 34 in the house, I’m curious what your preferred stanchion lube is.

  2. Thanks for the review. Did you use the Fox Fork this whole year or just during April? I’m going to get this (boost version) for my 2014 S-Works Epic World Cup (frame is still the same for the 2017 model though I think they are calling it the Stumpjumper now).

    The frame was originally designed for a 95mm fork, but I notice they’ve moved it to a 100mm fork with 51mm offset, slightly changing the geometry. I’ve seen no mention of this move in the blogosphere and no reviews on what difference it makes. I’m getting for the fork because I need one of course, but also that if I move to a different frame that there’s a better chance of this fork being compatible.

    As it happens one of the reasons I love the Epic is it’s still the best Full Suss xc machine with two full size water bottle cages. KTM and Cannondale now to two bottle cages in their full suss race machines but I believe one is for a small bottle. As a marathon rider who wants a nimble XC bike the World Cup has been the best option. My only heartbreak with it though is the races have gotten gnarlier and steeper, so the 27.2mm seatpost doesn’t offer the dropper options I want, and the steep head angle is too jittery. (however I can’t remember what I’m missing with a slacker head angle!) But I also like the idea of boost to stiffen things up even more. I’m hoping the 2018 Epic (stumpjumper) will be boost with a larger seat post.

  3. Now that both the Fox 32 SC 29 Factory and the current gen Rock Shox SID 29 World Cup with Charger damper have both been out for a while, I’m curious what people are thinking in terms of how these two forks match up. The Fox SC is lighter but the Rock Shox seems to have slightly better tire clearance. My understanding though is that the Fox 32 SC could still handle a 2.35 Racing Ralph, but curious what others have found.

    I have the prior generation Air 9 RDO with the prior gen Rock Shox SID and am looking to replace the fork. I’m leaning towards the Fox 32 SC 29 Factory with 51mm offset. I’m pretty sure the current SID I run has a 44 mm offset. There are some good deals right now on 2018 SC’s and I don’t think there is much, if any, difference on the 2019 versions.

Leave a Comment