[Brian Peterson]

Ok... Here we go....

On the R models which will be OEM only here in the US.... Think along the lines of the current Super T. One HSCV cartridge and an SSV pumping rod to compress the spring in the other leg. The compression is handled by a shim stack inside of the cartridge.

The weight on the 150mm Z1 has come down over the current Z150 due to the loss of the steel stanchions on the current Z150. Think of a coil sprung Z150sl....

All mountain line... Adjustable travel, 4-5 or 5-6. Air/coil combo with ETA. TST is an on the trail adjustment that you can adjust according to the conditions. You can go from Bomber plush to full lock out.

Lower crowns... Expect to see them ready to ship in about a month. The order was just sent to production. Retail will be about $275 for the set.

And finally, how would one define how successful 1.5 has been?

Brian

 

[Zark]

Why in the h3ll do they keep adding more travel to forks like the Z1? I can never see trail riding and needing more than 4-5". I trail ride on a 03 DJer 3 with 4" of travel.

It all depends on where you live man. Some of the "XC" trails around here are kinda insane. Terrain is widely variable and people got different needs in different areas

 

[Jeremy R]

Why in the h3ll do they keep adding more travel to forks like the Z1? I can never see trail riding and needing more than 4-5". I trail ride on a 03 DJer 3 with 4" of travel.

All the companies are doing this and the reason why is because people are asking for it. But I still wonder why?? I totally agree with you, but everytime I say something about it, I take a bunch of crap for it.
A 5" inch bike front and rear is PERFECT for technical trail riding.
And if you have ever ridden an 04 130mm Z1, it will gobble up small automobiles. I just can't see wanting anything more (or higher) for trail riding.

I was thinking about this the other when I was chasing this dude on a Blur through the trees on this singletrack trail. He had a 80 mm fork, and the dude is short anyway. He was riding through all that with no effort at all.
Just super low and ripping.
I understand people wanting big hit 6 and 7 inch forks for freeriding, but I just don't see the need for lightweight 6 and 7 inch trail bikes.
But people are asking for them so what do I know.
That is why I am interested in that AM1. You can put it 110 mode for regular trail riding, and bump it up to 130 for the rest. I am gonna look at the price difference between the 130 Z1 and the AM1 and go from there.

 

[Zark]

This TAS adjustment sounds very interesting. I like the idea of fine tuning the travel for the ride needs. Some trails don't need all the travel... and some do

ETA is cool for all climbing or all descending, but is a little lacking in the inbetween.

JeremyR, you have some good points about 5" being about perfect for a trailbike. I do see a market for light 6-7" bikes. People without DH bikes or chairlifts who still want the big thrills and chills and people who can only have one bike.

 

[binary visions]

And finally, how would one define how successful 1.5 has been?

-An excellent lineup of 1.5 steerer forks from a major manufacturer that is appearing OEM on numerous freeride/DH product lines and has enough aftermarket sales that the when I tried to order one, the manufacturer was on backorder. This lineup is going into its third product year with a good reputation.

-A large crop of major bike/frame manufacturers who have adopted 1.5" headtubes

-Several major companies producing 1.5" reducing headsets & cups

-Demonstration that there is no issue with backwards compatibility between the two standards

-No major flaws outside of some small growing pains

I'd say that all points towards success, especially considering the relatively short time since the standard was introduced...

 

[Brian Peterson]

A large crop of manufacturers? I would say that large crop is less than 5% of the market. Plus, how many fork manufacturers are involved? And how is it that Marzocchi is considered the only company bashing 1.5? Have you seen a 1.5 for from Fox or Rock Shox? Heck, Manitou is even making a 6in 1.125 fork now... Hey, isn't the impossible concept of a 6in single crown fork what started all of this 1.5 thing?

If everybody wanted 1.5 forks, the reduction headset wouldn't exsist...

Backwards compatability? If you have your heart set on a fork that is 1.5, but your frame is 1.125, what do you do? Sure, a 1.5 frame is compatible with almost any fork, but a 1.5 fork is only compatible with a 1.5 frame.

There are some merits to 1.5 that I personally would love to see carried to 1.125 like a standardized headset insertion depth. But I still can help but ask when people refer to the obivous success or industry wide acceptance of any standard that is used by a small percentage of the industry.

Brian

 

[dante]

Will be VERY interested to see tests between the 66, the 36 and the breakout+ or the All Mtn ones vs. the Nixon. Weight, a-to-c height, stiffness, etc. Hope they haven't sacrificed stiffness in order to hit the low weight.

:dancing:

 

[Jeremy R]

This TAS adjustment sounds very interesting. I like the idea of fine tuning the travel for the ride needs. Some trails don't need all the travel... and some do

ETA is cool for all climbing or all descending, but is a little lacking in the inbetween.

JeremyR, you have some good points about 5" being about perfect for a trailbike. I do see a market for light 6-7" bikes. People without DH bikes or chairlifts who still want the big thrills and chills and people who can only have one bike.

Oh yeah, I agree, there is for sure a market for light 6 to 7" bikes. Or else so many frame and fork companies would not be making them. I am all for whatever keeps people interested in the sport to spend their dough on.
I was just giving my own personal preferences. I prefer low bikes for both trailriding and DH, I can't see myself wanting anything more than a 5-spot for the trails around here. Although, everything we ride is rooty and rocky, it is also always real tight with narrow trees and short corners. Low BB's and front ends are always real helpful here.
But I see people hammering these same trails on Bullits, so its just a matter of preference.

 

[Zark]

Oh yeah, I agree, there is for sure a market for light 6 to 7" bikes. Or else so many frame and fork companies would not be making them. I am all for whatever keeps people interested in the sport to spend their dough on.
I was just giving my own personal preferences. I prefer low bikes for both trailriding and DH, I can't see myself wanting anything more than a 5-spot for the trails around here. Although, everything we ride is rooty and rocky, it is also always real tight with narrow trees and short corners. Low BB's and front ends are always real helpful here.
But I see people hammering these same trails on Bullits, so its just a matter of preference.

Sounds like we have the same tastes, I'm a fan of the low slung rides myself

We don't have the roots here so much but long steep rocky sections into hairpin switchbacks. A lowslung bike does pretty good here, but clipping pedals and the big ring are common too.

Our trails will climb 3,000' in 5 or 6 miles and then drop you down garliness. a light 6-7" bike will have some more plowability on the ways down, which some will like. A tight 5" bike will be a more balanced ride, but sacrifices a bit on the descent.

BTW, I want a 5 spot so bad it hurts me

 

[OGRipper]

Not to turn this into a 1.5 thread or be too critical of you Brian, but isn't it a chicken-or-the-egg thing?

You use the fact that major manufacturers like you employer haven't adopted the idea as evidence that it's not successful - I can't really put my finger on it but there's something a little smelly about that. Doesn't the fact that major fork companies like 'Zoke don't support 1.5 keep the numbers low?

Do you have any arguments against 1.5 that are based on performance, engineering, etc?

All the technical explanations I've heard from proponents make it seem like a no-brainer, but the only thing I ever hear from opponents like 'Zoke is that it's not a good idea because there are not enough companies that have adopted it. Huh?

Personally I don't really care how many people are doing it, if it's good idea I'll go with it. But with 1.5 it seems many of the major players are playing wait-and-see games with each other.

And yes, 'Zoke proved that 6" and even 7" single crown forks are possible. But couldn't the frame and fork be lighter and just as strong (if not stronger) with 1.5?

 

[binary visions]

And how is it that Marzocchi is considered the only company bashing 1.5?

If you'll notice, I stated that I didn't know where that comment came from. Marz was simply more public than most in the beginning about their dismissal of the standard.

Hey, isn't the impossible concept of a 6in single crown fork what started all of this 1.5 thing?

Perhaps. Where the standard ended up, though, is more important than what started it.

If everybody wanted 1.5 forks, the reduction headset wouldn't exsist...

...and if everyone wanted an 8" 888, the 7" model wouldn't exist. What's your point? Choice is good.

Backwards compatability? If you have your heart set on a fork that is 1.5, but your frame is 1.125, what do you do? Sure, a 1.5 frame is compatible with almost any fork, but a 1.5 fork is only compatible with a 1.5 frame.

Hence the term "backwards". Very few standards are compatible both ways, the important thing is that they make it as compatible as they can. Your computer can run old DOS programs, but DOS can't run new Windows programs.

industry wide acceptance of any standard that is used by a small percentage of the industry.

Who said industry wide acceptance? Certainly not me. I simply stated that I thought the standard was a success. As far as market share is concerned, I am aware that it is not a major chunk of the bikes sold, but when well established companies like Intense, Turner and Yeti have picked up the standard, and fast growing companies such as Iron Horse that are more mainstream (instead of botique bikes) also jump on the bandwagon - all within the first couple years after the standard's introduction - that shouts to me that it is successful.

 

[Bulldog]

Ok... Here we go....

On the R models which will be OEM only here in the US.... Think along the lines of the current Super T. One HSCV cartridge and an SSV pumping rod to compress the spring in the other leg. The compression is handled by a shim stack inside of the cartridge.

The weight on the 150mm Z1 has come down over the current Z150 due to the loss of the steel stanchions on the current Z150. Think of a coil sprung Z150sl....

Brian

R models OEM, ok thanks for clearing that up.

As for the 150mm Z1...I still don't get it. My 130mm Z1 has Al stantions AND steerer and weighs 5.75 pounds. How do you add a steel steerer and shave off 3/4 pound (or with the added steerer weight, shave a full pound off the fork) at the same time?

 

[dante]

Who said industry wide acceptance? Certainly not me. I simply stated that I thought the standard was a success. As far as market share is concerned, I am aware that it is not a major chunk of the bikes sold, but when well established companies like Intense, Turner and Yeti have picked up the standard, and fast growing companies such as Iron Horse that are more mainstream (instead of botique bikes) also jump on the bandwagon - all within the first couple years after the standard's introduction - that shouts to me that it is successful.

Hmm, don't forget Cannondale and now Trek.

 

[Zark]

R models OEM, ok thanks for clearing that up.

As for the 150mm Z1...I still don't get it. My 130mm Z1 has Al stantions AND steerer and weighs 5.75 pounds. How do you add a steel steerer and shave off 3/4 pound (or with the added steerer weight, shave a full pound off the fork) at the same time?

888 style cartridges? That would cut the oil volume big time and drop weight.

 

[vitox]

R models OEM, ok thanks for clearing that up.

As for the 150mm Z1...I still don't get it. My 130mm Z1 has Al stantions AND steerer and weighs 5.75 pounds. How do you add a steel steerer and shave off 3/4 pound (or with the added steerer weight, shave a full pound off the fork) at the same time?

hey bulldog, i weighed a z150sl, absolutely straight out of the box with sticker protects, uncut steerer and all, and it was 2309g, thats 5,1lbs, probably 5lbs even cutting the steerer down.

keep the 6" sub 5lbs forks coming....

 

[frorider]

A large crop of manufacturers? I would say that large crop is less than 5% of the market. Plus, how many fork manufacturers are involved? And how is it that Marzocchi is considered the only company bashing 1.5? Have you seen a 1.5 for from Fox or Rock Shox? Heck, Manitou is even making a 6in 1.125 fork now... Hey, isn't the impossible concept of a 6in single crown fork what started all of this 1.5 thing?

If everybody wanted 1.5 forks, the reduction headset wouldn't exsist...

Backwards compatability? If you have your heart set on a fork that is 1.5, but your frame is 1.125, what do you do? Sure, a 1.5 frame is compatible with almost any fork, but a 1.5 fork is only compatible with a 1.5 frame.

There are some merits to 1.5 that I personally would love to see carried to 1.125 like a standardized headset insertion depth. But I still can help but ask when people refer to the obivous success or industry wide acceptance of any standard that is used by a small percentage of the industry.

Brian

damn Brian, I'm sure you're a nice guy so i don't want to offend you, but it's kind of sad that that i have to explain the fork industry to you of all people.

where to begin?

let's start with Engineering 101. structural elements have 3 salient characteristics in this conversation: weight, stiffness, and strength. gen'l consensus is that both the Z150 and the 1.5 inch Sherman have not suffered a high breakage rate i.e. both are strong designs, but have been done w/ different materials. regarding weight--obviously the Z150 (coil version) is much heavier than the Sherman Breakout, but that's partly due to other factors. Still though the use of steel, all else being equal, increases weight in this context. So no surprise there. So that leaves stiffness--in particular, fwd/backward flex. Again, because of different damping systems it's hard to do a true A to B comparison, but the consensus from those who've ridden both is that the Z150 flexes more in high speed DH type situations. Again, from an engr. point of view, this would be no surprise. Besides the steerer/crown/fork tubes interface, another key structural element in a bike is the frame, and in case you haven't noticed, aluminum has dominated in frame construction because of this stiffness vs. weight issue. To summarize: the 1.125 constraint leads to long-travel freeride forks that, all else being equal, are compromise at least two factors out of the 3 factors of stiffness, weight, and strength when compared to 1.5 inch. this statement has nothing to do with the manitou vs. marzocchi feud; it's just structural engineering 101 and can't really be argued against.

regarding adoption of 1.5 inch---there are chicken-and-egg issues that complicate the analysis. One point that you probably know but have conveniently neglected to not mention is that Magura has a 1.5 inch FR fork. Magura is less known in the US, but is well-known in europe. You may have heard of europe--there's a certain fork company that is headquartered there.

there are rumors of fox seriously looking at 1.5 inch but i have no inside knowledge on that one. i don't really care about rockshox, to be honest. maybe one day i will.

another way to look at adoption rate is to look at the number of frames that come standard w/ 1.5 inch HT, or as an option. last i heard the list was over 13 brands.

in terms of major brands and the mainstream, certainly Trek qualifies. interesting that their new FR bike has 7 inch front / rear, rocker linkage, and a 1.5 inch head tube.

regarding the existence of reducers as so-called evidence against adoption--are you serious???? that statement makes no sense when you think about it. part of the logic supporting 1.5 inch is that it leaves people free to run 1.125 if they want to i.e. leaves things open to choice. Evil frames use this logic and focus on the frame advantages (stiffness and strength) as a win/win regardless of what fork you choose to use. what if you have a 8 inch travel frame, and want to use a stiff SC fork for freeride/trailride and light DH, but maybe a month later decide you want to install a 1.125 steerer DC fork for hardcore DH? 1.5 is a good way to address both needs. win/win.

then there's your comment about 6 inch 1.125 forks. again, review the strength/stiffness/weight paragraph above. manitou has clearly gone to two product line focusses--the stiffer/heavier 1.5 inch 6 or 7 inch (depending on model or OEM version) forks, and the much lighter (in the manitou line) 1.125 6 inch. Again, for truly big drops or for use that is more DH like or true FR, manitou is not pushing their 1.125 long travel forks--instead, those are their trailride / lighter duty freeride forks. This makes complete sense. I wish Marzocchi would adopt a similar approach (Marzocchi is still a great fork company). Even on ridemonkey.com there is confusion about which SC marzocchi fork to buy.

From a market point of view, I would expect manitou will sell more long-travel 1.125 forks than long travel 1.5 inch forks. Big deal! all that proves is that there are more customers out there who want a gen'l purpose, reasonably light fork for trailriding and light freeride. It's pretty obvious that those needing a beefier fork for more abuse--but still want SC for climbing up hills w/o hitting their knees--will probably remain a relatively small percentage of the market compared to the casual XC weekend riders out there.

I've re-read your post, and the only valid and relevant comment that stands out is pointing out that at one time Manitou implied that 6 inch travel required 1.5 steerer--or double crowns. It could be argued that by coming out w/ a 6 inch travel SC, manitou pushed themselves and the industry into taking a harder look at this. ANd as it turned out, Marzocchi eventually responded w/ long travel 1.125, and Manitou even came out w/ 6 inch 1.125 and even longer travel 1.5 inch. So the net effect on the industry was positive. THe rest is just semantics--one could plausibly argue that Manitou's earlier statement that 6 inch req'd 1.5 HT has evolved into a more nuanced statement that 1.5 inch enables 6 or 7 inch forks to have the best combination of high strength, high stiffness, and reasonable weight, while 1.125 enables 6 inch w/ lighter weight and adequate (for less intense riding) strength and stiffness.

One interesting comment in your post was "And how is it that Marzocchi is considered the only company bashing 1.5"? I'll answer that for you; the reason is quite simple. Bryson Martin, among others, has done a great job making Marzocchi appear to be the only 1.5 inch-bashing company out there, and has make Marzocchi appear to be whiney, thin-skinned, overly defensive, and an object of derision in the process. He is a TEXTBOOK example of how NOT to handle company communications w/ the public (I'm a professional in that field, besides being an engineer, so I know a bit about this topic). So I feel your pain--it must suck for Marzocchi to be the whipping boy on this issue, but unless I've missed something the fault for that outcome lies solely with Marzocchi's PR department. Maybe you should hire someone from RS's PR department?

Interesting how structural interfaces have all gotten bigger in bike design. Stem/handlebar clamp diameters have become oversized. Frame downtubes are routinely huge. Bottom bracket spindles have become larger diameter via outboard bearings. More frames come with wider rear dropout spacings nowadays. Fork tubes, thanks to companies like Marzocchi and Fox, have become bigger diameter. I'm probably missing some other examples, but you get the point. All these evolutions have come from engineering 101--if you want to improve the combination of stiffness/strength/light weight, go bigger. In all the above cases, backwards compatability has been lost or compromised. I can't install my old crankarms on one of the newer spindles from shimano or raceface, for example, so it's an expensive retrofit. Meanwhile, if I need to use a 1.125 fork in a 1.5 HT frame, I buy a reducing headset. big deal.

spindly little 16 lb. roadbikes have all evolved upward to the 1.125 HT. are you honestly trying to tell me that those riders have the same stiffness and strength requirements as i do when doing a drop at northstar or on a trail in tahoe on my 7 inch travel bike?? Do you really think the answer is to use the same bearing inteface area, and just make the steerer tube heavy and strong? If the bike industry had that kind of logic, we'd all be hucking on square-spindle tiny BB's still. :roll:

okayk, end of rant. thanks for reading this far and rest assured i still buy marzocchi forks. just not for my FR bike. maybe i'll be pleasantly surprised by your newest forks in terms of stiffness and weight, and switch back to marzocchi. i assume steel is still being used in these forks? or very thick walled aluminum? if i've gotten some facts wrong, lemme know...

 

[binary visions]

Hmm, don't forget Cannondale and now Trek.

Yep. Cannondale of course has always had their oversized headtube and Trek's isn't out yet, but their acceptance of the standard will be another major stepping stone.

Now if only Giant would start putting them on their AC series...

 

[Bulldog]

hey bulldog, i weighed a z150sl, absolutely straight out of the box with sticker protects, uncut steerer and all, and it was 2309g, thats 5,1lbs, probably 5lbs even cutting the steerer down.

So how would adding coil springs and steel steerer NOT add any weight?

 

[Brian Peterson]

Our support is not a measure of success of 1.5 (I don't even give us that much credit) but that is in more relative to the terms of an industry wide acceptance. Something that have been mentioned on this board several times as well in press releases from a certain company. If the two other big names had jumped on board with Manitou, there would be better grounds for claiming industry wide acceptance.

Brian

 

[binary visions]

Wow. frorider, first of all give your fingers a little break, that was quite the post. It was also very well thought out and argued, so

Wholehearted agreement from me on all points.

If the two other big names had jumped on board with Manitou, there would be better grounds for claiming industry wide acceptance.

That's the second time you've mentioned industry wide acceptance, when nobody else has...

 

[Jm_]

damn Brian, I'm sure you're a nice guy so i don't want to offend you, but it's kind of sad that that i have to explain the fork industry to you of all people.

where to begin?

let's start with Engineering 101

You know, when manitou came around and said that 1.5 was critical for their new 6" fork, it really made a lot of sense.

When manitou came out with the 6" 1.125 fork...(and marz was already sucessfull with their 1.125 6"er)....well let's just say the uncertaincy starts to get excessive. Manitou says it's critical for the 6" fork, then they go back on their word.

 

[Brian Peterson]

Tony,
The steel steer is in the OEM book... The aftermarket AM Forks will have AL steertubes.

Brian

 

[Bulldog]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but coming from a fork company I'm guessing Brian P is arguing the merits of 1.5 FORKS/STEERERS, not the entire 1.5 STANDARD. I've never heard great arguments against 1.5 headsets and 1.5 frames, and may be really talking out my arse here but I'd guess even Brian P can agree with the frame/headset benefits. Pretty sure this is a fork thread and discussion.

 

[Brian Peterson]

You know, when manitou came around and said that 1.5 was critical for their new 6" fork, it really made a lot of sense.

When manitou came out with the 6" 1.125 fork...(and marz was already sucessfull with their 1.125 6"er)....well let's just say the uncertaincy starts to get excessive. Manitou says it's critical for the 6" fork, then they go back on their word.

My point exactly... And it is not the first time this has happened.... Back when the first Z1 came out, two fork makers said a 4in SC fork was a bad idea, would never sell.... Hmm...

Brian

 

[Bulldog]

Tony,
The steel steer is in the OEM book... The aftermarket AM Forks will have AL steertubes.

Brian

Thanks dude. I'll guess I'll just have to look closely at IB to see where the rest of the fat was trimmed!

 

[dante]

Coming up in the Feb 2005 MBA issue: SEVEN INCH SINGLE-CROWN SHOOTOUT!!! One company promoted the 1.5 "standard." The other derided them for it!! Well finally Marzocchi has stepped up to the plate with a 7" SC designed to go squarely against the Manitou 7" SC. Who will win?? More likely, who will SURVIVE??!!!?! Two forks enter, one fork leaves.

 

[Jm_]

Coming up in the Feb 2005 MBA issue: SEVEN INCH SINGLE-CROWN SHOOTOUT!!! One promoted the 1.5 "standard." The other derided them for it!! Well finally Marzocchi has stepped up to the plate with a 7" SC designed to go squarely against the Manitou 7" SC. Who will win?? More likely, who will SURVIVE??!!!?! Two forks enter, one fork leaves.

I want to see the 6" 6 fork shoot out too! Maybe in Jan 2005, Manitou Nixon, Manitou Firefly, Marzocchi Z1SL (equivalent to Z150SL thingie), Marzocchi Z1 (150mm) and Magura Ronin....

They could even have a cool cover that is red with

6forks with6" of travel under6lbs

 

[Brian Peterson]

damn Brian, I'm sure you're a nice guy so i don't want to offend you, but it's kind of sad that that i have to explain the fork industry to you of all people.

where to begin?

let's start with Engineering 101. structural elements have 3 salient characteristics in this conversation: weight, stiffness, and strength. gen'l consensus is that both the Z150 and the 1.5 inch Sherman have not suffered a high breakage rate i.e. both are strong designs, but have been done w/ different materials. regarding weight--obviously the Z150 (coil version) is much heavier than the Sherman Breakout, but that's partly due to other factors. Still though the use of steel, all else being equal, increases weight in this context. So no surprise there. So that leaves stiffness--in particular, fwd/backward flex. Again, because of different damping systems it's hard to do a true A to B comparison, but the consensus from those who've ridden both is that the Z150 flexes more in high speed DH type situations. Again, from an engr. point of view, this would be no surprise. Besides the steerer/crown/fork tubes interface, another key structural element in a bike is the frame, and in case you haven't noticed, aluminum has dominated in frame construction because of this stiffness vs. weight issue. To summarize: the 1.125 constraint leads to long-travel freeride forks that, all else being equal, are compromise at least two factors out of the 3 factors of stiffness, weight, and strength when compared to 1.5 inch. this statement has nothing to do with the manitou vs. marzocchi feud; it's just structural engineering 101 and can't really be argued against.

regarding adoption of 1.5 inch---there are chicken-and-egg issues that complicate the analysis. One point that you probably know but have conveniently neglected to not mention is that Magura has a 1.5 inch FR fork. Magura is less known in the US, but is well-known in europe. You may have heard of europe--there's a certain fork company that is headquartered there.

there are rumors of fox seriously looking at 1.5 inch but i have no inside knowledge on that one. i don't really care about rockshox, to be honest. maybe one day i will.

another way to look at adoption rate is to look at the number of frames that come standard w/ 1.5 inch HT, or as an option. last i heard the list was over 13 brands.

in terms of major brands and the mainstream, certainly Trek qualifies. interesting that their new FR bike has 7 inch front / rear, rocker linkage, and a 1.5 inch head tube.

regarding the existence of reducers as so-called evidence against adoption--are you serious???? that statement makes no sense when you think about it. part of the logic supporting 1.5 inch is that it leaves people free to run 1.125 if they want to i.e. leaves things open to choice. Evil frames use this logic and focus on the frame advantages (stiffness and strength) as a win/win regardless of what fork you choose to use. what if you have a 8 inch travel frame, and want to use a stiff SC fork for freeride/trailride and light DH, but maybe a month later decide you want to install a 1.125 steerer DC fork for hardcore DH? 1.5 is a good way to address both needs. win/win.

then there's your comment about 6 inch 1.125 forks. again, review the strength/stiffness/weight paragraph above. manitou has clearly gone to two product line focusses--the stiffer/heavier 1.5 inch 6 or 7 inch (depending on model or OEM version) forks, and the much lighter (in the manitou line) 1.125 6 inch. Again, for truly big drops or for use that is more DH like or true FR, manitou is not pushing their 1.125 long travel forks--instead, those are their trailride / lighter duty freeride forks. This makes complete sense. I wish Marzocchi would adopt a similar approach (Marzocchi is still a great fork company). Even on ridemonkey.com there is confusion about which SC marzocchi fork to buy.

From a market point of view, I would expect manitou will sell more long-travel 1.125 forks than long travel 1.5 inch forks. Big deal! all that proves is that there are more customers out there who want a gen'l purpose, reasonably light fork for trailriding and light freeride. It's pretty obvious that those needing a beefier fork for more abuse--but still want SC for climbing up hills w/o hitting their knees--will probably remain a relatively small percentage of the market compared to the casual XC weekend riders out there.

I've re-read your post, and the only valid and relevant comment that stands out is pointing out that at one time Manitou implied that 6 inch travel required 1.5 steerer--or double crowns. It could be argued that by coming out w/ a 6 inch travel SC, manitou pushed themselves and the industry into taking a harder look at this. ANd as it turned out, Marzocchi eventually responded w/ long travel 1.125, and Manitou even came out w/ 6 inch 1.125 and even longer travel 1.5 inch. So the net effect on the industry was positive. THe rest is just semantics--one could plausibly argue that Manitou's earlier statement that 6 inch req'd 1.5 HT has evolved into a more nuanced statement that 1.5 inch enables 6 or 7 inch forks to have the best combination of high strength, high stiffness, and reasonable weight, while 1.125 enables 6 inch w/ lighter weight and adequate (for less intense riding) strength and stiffness.

One interesting comment in your post was "And how is it that Marzocchi is considered the only company bashing 1.5"? I'll answer that for you; the reason is quite simple. Bryson Martin, among others, has done a great job making Marzocchi appear to be the only 1.5 inch-bashing company out there, and has make Marzocchi appear to be whiney, thin-skinned, overly defensive, and an object of derision in the process. He is a TEXTBOOK example of how NOT to handle company communications w/ the public (I'm a professional in that field, besides being an engineer, so I know a bit about this topic). So I feel your pain--it must suck for Marzocchi to be the whipping boy on this issue, but unless I've missed something the fault for that outcome lies solely with Marzocchi's PR department. Maybe you should hire someone from RS's PR department?

Interesting how structural interfaces have all gotten bigger in bike design. Stem/handlebar clamp diameters have become oversized. Frame downtubes are routinely huge. Bottom bracket spindles have become larger diameter via outboard bearings. More frames come with wider rear dropout spacings nowadays. Fork tubes, thanks to companies like Marzocchi and Fox, have become bigger diameter. I'm probably missing some other examples, but you get the point. All these evolutions have come from engineering 101--if you want to improve the combination of stiffness/strength/light weight, go bigger. In all the above cases, backwards compatability has been lost or compromised. I can't install my old crankarms on one of the newer spindles from shimano or raceface, for example, so it's an expensive retrofit. Meanwhile, if I need to use a 1.125 fork in a 1.5 HT frame, I buy a reducing headset. big deal.

spindly little 16 lb. roadbikes have all evolved upward to the 1.125 HT. are you honestly trying to tell me that those riders have the same stiffness and strength requirements as i do when doing a drop at northstar or on a trail in tahoe on my 7 inch travel bike?? Do you really think the answer is to use the same bearing inteface area, and just make the steerer tube heavy and strong? If the bike industry had that kind of logic, we'd all be hucking on square-spindle tiny BB's still. :roll:

okayk, end of rant. thanks for reading this far and rest assured i still buy marzocchi forks. just not for my FR bike. maybe i'll be pleasantly surprised by your newest forks in terms of stiffness and weight, and switch back to marzocchi. i assume steel is still being used in these forks? or very thick walled aluminum? if i've gotten some facts wrong, lemme know...

If you take two identical bikes, with the exception of the steer tube diameters, are you really going to notice the difference? You are more likely to notice differences in bushing tolerence than you will the steertube diameter.

Weight- Yes the fork may be lighter, but the rest of the parts tend to be heavier. Overall wieght difference is a wash.

On the road bike thing... Forgive me, but that is not my area of specialty. What has brought about that change? If the same problems I see in the bmx area are any indication (IE finding 1in headsets..) that could be part of it. If the supply is getting low on 1in components, it is hard to keep producing the bikes.

As for the road vs mtn bike comparison you made, I honestly don't think 1.125 has reached the end of the development cycle yet. 1.5 came out as the "must have" thing... But, it seems to be 1.125 isn't done yet.

As for Magura making a 1.5 fork... Yes, I have heard of it... And I will gladly include them in future discussions should they succeed in growing their market share. As for Fox testing the waters of 1.5, more power to them... We built a some 1.5 forks for test purposes too.... But, they never made it to production. The benefits weren't as big as they seem. We can get the results we want with 1.125 and not limit the end user on what frames they can use...

Brian

 

[profro]

It all depends on where you live man. Some of the "XC" trails around here are kinda insane. Terrain is widely variable and people got different needs in different areas

I want to beleive that I have ridden insane XC trails. Tall fork like that jack-up the geometry too much for me. I didn't like 5" for my DJer even for trail riding, so I had it shortened to 4". Heck I have even raced DH on my SX with my 4" DJer on the front. The only thing holding me back on that was the damping, not the amount of travel.

I think you are seeing new people wanting to feel like they are DHers and Freeriders. But most of the time less travel will do. But make it and buy it, thats cool. I just wish they still offered forks for those of us that don't want a 6" Z1.

Brian P,

Is the Shiver SC still being offered in the US?

What is the email for Marz. Tech service in the US?

 

[Brian Peterson]

I want to beleive that I have ridden insane XC trails. Tall fork like that jack-up the geometry too much for me. I didn't like 5" for my DJer even for trail riding, so I had it shortened to 4". Heck I have even raced DH on my SX with my 4" DJer on the front. The only thing holding me back on that was the damping, not the amount of travel.

I think you are seeing new people wanting to feel like they are DHers and Freeriders. But most of the time less travel will do. But make it and buy it, thats cool. I just wish they still offered forks for those of us that don't want a 6" Z1.

Brian P,

Is the Shiver SC still being offered in the US?

What is the email for Marz. Tech service in the US?

If you want a shorter fork than the 6in Z1, look into the All Mountain fork. The All Mountain 1 will be available in 4-5 and 5-6in travel models.

I don't see the Shiver SC on my list of 05 forks.

Email for tech here in the States is techinfo@marzocchiusa.com. I would suggest calling them for quicker service. (800)227-5579

Brian

 

[OGRipper]

Go FRORIDER!!!

I don't really dig the sarcasm or derision, especially when directed towards Brian who has generally always been straight up here on RM. I haven't heard from any other fork companies lately and certainly not with the frequency and directness of Brian. So once again, props to Brian for making a showing here.)

But I must agree with the substance of Frorider's post.

"Yes the fork may be lighter, but the rest of the parts tend to be heavier." Really? Like what? The headset and stem are the only two I can think of and I'm not sure it's true, and in any event they will be stronger.

As for road bikes, Frorider's point is valid. And the change came about from demand, despite companies like campagnolo and shimano resisting. There might be a current shortage but if so that's only because everyone recognizes that 1.125 is better and the market for 1" headsets dried up, not the other way around.

And this may seem like a discussion about forks and steerers, but it's really a discussion about bikes, and how they can be improved as a whole. 1.5 is a way to improve the entire front end of a bike. Fork manufacturers can't ignore what frame builders are doing any more than manufacturers of bbs, cranks, brakes, derailleurs, etc.....

I just can't help but think 'Zoke's great lineup could be even better with 1.5 but for some reason we'll never now, the company is against it. Like a Manitou person hit on Bryson's S.O. in Vegas or something stupid like that...

I dunno but I still haven't heard a valid technical argument against 1.5.

 

[buildyourown]

On the road bike thing... Forgive me, but that is not my area of specialty. What has brought about that change? If the same problems I see in the bmx area are any indication (IE finding 1in headsets..) that could be part of it. If the supply is getting low on 1in components, it is hard to keep producing the bikes.

1" headsets aren't hard to find and are still plentiful. The reason road bike manufactures began to switch was that 1.125 stuff was plentiful and carbon steerer tubes in 1" dia are scary. I believe road bars were the first to use a 31.8 dia. This too was due to the switch to carbon.

 

[profro]

If you want a shorter fork than the 6in Z1, look into the All Mountain fork. The All Mountain 1 will be available in 4-5 and 5-6in travel models.

I don't see the Shiver SC on my list of 05 forks.

Email for tech here in the States is techinfo@marzocchiusa.com. I would suggest calling them for quicker service. (800)227-5579

Brian

Thanks, I am looking for a fork with 4-5", HSCV, no ETA, 20mm, that I can race MTNx, DJ, trail ride, and do light DH races on. I currently do all that on my DJer 3, but the SSV is killing me on trail rides and DH, not the travel.

 

[Brian Peterson]

And this may seem like a discussion about forks and steerers, but it's really a discussion about bikes, and how they can be improved as a whole. 1.5 is a way to improve the entire front end of a bike. Fork manufacturers can't ignore what frame builders are doing any more than manufacturers of bbs, cranks, brakes, derailleurs, etc......

Here is something.... You can come up with any system and reasoning for it to be used, but if you can't get someone to build frames for it, where are you? Example, if no frame manufacturers jumped on board with 1.5, what would happen?

 

[Bulldog]

Hey Brian, now that the pics and technical specs are legit and ok for release, when can we expect release of the technical drawings? Or mainly, axle-to-crown height listings for the forks ('specially the 66 )?

 

[Brian Peterson]

1" headsets aren't hard to find and are still plentiful. The reason road bike manufactures began to switch was that 1.125 stuff was plentiful and carbon steerer tubes in 1" dia are scary. I believe road bars were the first to use a 31.8 dia. This too was due to the switch to carbon.

Ahh... So a change in material usage brought about the upsizing... Thanks for that update.... One of these days I will buy myself one of the off dirt bikes to make my commute to work easier....

Brian

 

[buildyourown]

I think marz reasoning for not producing a 1.5 fork is somewhat valid. They figured out how to build a 7" SC fork without it. The fork would undoubtedly be stiffer and lighter with it. However, that would require new crown forgings. Marz didn't see enough potential market to warrant this investment. Sounds like solid business managment to me. Don't invest in building a product that won't sell. Perhaps in a few years, if there are more frame companies producing 1.5 frames, marz will feel that the market is there.

 

[Brian Peterson]

Hey Brian, now that the pics and technical specs are legit and ok for release, when can we expect release of the technical drawings? Or mainly, axle-to-crown height listings for the forks ('specially the 66 )?

If I can get my hands on the final numbers, I'll post them... But it looks like the 66 didn't drop much in the ride height. Only so much room to work with... But to hell with the numbers, I want to put a 170mm 66RC on the front of my Mountain Cycle and take it for a run or 2!!!

Brian

 

[Brian Peterson]

I think marz reasoning for not producing a 1.5 fork is somewhat valid. They figured out how to build a 7" SC fork without it. The fork would undoubtedly be stiffer and lighter with it. However, that would require new crown forgings. Marz didn't see enough potential market to warrant this investment. Sounds like solid business managment to me. Don't invest in building a product that won't sell. Perhaps in a few years, if there are more frame companies producing 1.5 frames, marz will feel that the market is there.

*cough*Super Monster*cough*

Of course, if you were at out booth at Interbike hearing the reaction to that, a limited run didn't seem so bad...

Brian

 

[Zark]

*cough*Super Monster*cough*

Bwahahaha, classic!

Are you all healed now Brian?