Marzocchi Roco...HELP....

SylentK · Jun 8, 2006

Yes, up the compression.

jonKranked · Jun 8, 2006

compression++. defintiely up it. a click at a time until it feels right. depending on how much you adjust it, you may have to adjust the rebound.

go-ride.com · Jun 8, 2006

Black Imperator said:
Hello , i have this shock on my single pivot frame, and i have some problems with it , so can you help me?
I set sag at 30 % of travel for DH/FR, and air pressure at 210 psi but every time when i jump from the smallest drop ( about 1 meter) i get bottom out. Little explenation: before dropping i put little rubber at the beggining of the travel , and after drop it is at the end... (i don't know better way to explain it...
Is this normal with this shock , and can compression help to prevent that?

It's not uncommon for the bottom out bumper to be pushed to the end of the shock, even on a smaller drop. The bumper actually does a lot to soften bottoming, but most people don't know that.

It would help to know what bike you have, but I'm guessing it has a falling rate suspension. You may need to run a stiffer spring and less sag if you want to do drops.

Turning up the compression will help on fast type hits, but the correct spring rate is better for low speed hits (i.e. drops).

jonKranked · Jun 8, 2006

good stuff for me to know, i'm getting my new bike w/ a roco this weekend :thumb:

offtheedge · Jun 8, 2006

add oil

Transcend · Jun 8, 2006

offtheedge said:
add oil

Yes, to his rear shock, this makes plenty of sense. :rolleyes:

offtheedge · Jun 8, 2006

Transcend said:
Yes, to his rear shock, this makes plenty of sense.

what do you think they are filled with magic pixie water?

I have a roco and had the same issue........changed/filled the oil, problem solved. every zocchi i have owned needed the oil topped.

vitox · Jun 8, 2006

Transcend said:
Yes, to his rear shock, this makes plenty of sense.

weeeelll

just since its you, im going to be adamant about proving you wrong

:rofl:

you see, if he changes the IFP position to one that allows for less air, he will get a more progressive feel out of it.

less air means less oil, so actually offtheedge was sort of right

alas, according to the roco god at marzocchi (cheers ronnie if youre reading this) they come standard with the IFP pretty much set at the most progressive setting, which is 35mm from the edge of the reservoir.

and as for the solution to the original poster, what frame is it, what spring to you have on there and what do you weigh?

Jm_ · Jun 8, 2006

Black Imperator said:
Hello , i have this shock on my single pivot frame

Is this a falling rate frame?

If so, you're screwed.

Ahh, I see what kind of bike you have.

Yes, you're screwed. That is simply the wrong kind of shock for that kind of bike. If you don't have a progressive-type shock on this kind of bike (air shocks are inherently more progressive, and the 5th element and DHX are also the types that would work well), then you have to run it over-sprung to prevent bottomout, which kills the performance of the suspension on everything but a hit that would try to bottom it out. You have to then compramise, and it's just never going to work out really well.

Spunger · Jun 8, 2006

This is why when Santa Cruz started putting a 5th on the Bullit it became a better bike......just by changing the shock. I have a falling rate frame and the only way short of adding too much air to the shock to make it ride normal would be to get a 5th/swinger/dhx but my shock is a 6.5x1.5 so there's a couple choices out there.

Single pivots seem to love 5th's, Swingers, and DHX's. For drops and stuff your best bet would be an Avy (sorry :O)

But since it is a zocchi you can always run the next spring rate up, add some oil, and try again. That's crazy that most of their forks come with the wrong amount of oil in each leg and now their rear shocks have the same issue. That made me laugh when I figured that out!

Jm_ · Jun 8, 2006

Spunger said:
That's crazy that most of their forks come with the wrong amount of oil

Well, because the oil level is "adjustable", and because different riders need different levels of oil, there's not really such a thing as "correct", there's just "stock", and sometimes it differs, but this is a fairly important adjustment that has to be done anyway.

I think you see this much more often these days due to the fact that there aren't as many springs available for the forks, in fact some have no additional springs available, because you do all the rate adjustment with the oil height and the air pressure, but some people will set the sag, then bottom it out, and figure that they just need a stiffer spring.

offtheedge · Jun 8, 2006

at 190lbs (however many stones that is) my roco is set up:

full of 10wt spectro......550lb spring.......190psi, before it felt right.

I prefer the suspension on the stiff side and the shock is on a almost 3:1 ratio bike.

blue · Jun 8, 2006

All of you guys saying the Rocco won't work well on a falling rate suspension design...what about an FSR? Sorry, I'm not very well versed on designs and stuff, just wondering. Thinking about one for my SGS...maybe. Or would a DHX be a better choice?

MOTODH · Jun 8, 2006

offtheedge said:
at 190lbs (however many stones that is) my roco is set up:

full of 10wt spectro......550lb spring.......190psi, before it felt right.

I prefer the suspension on the stiff side and the shock is on a almost 3:1 ratio bike.

Im doing the oil in my roco right now, just wanted to know if the oil is the same as for forks? Just need the right weight correct?

offtheedge · Jun 8, 2006

MOTODH said:
Im doing the oil in my roco right now, just wanted to know if the oil is the same as for forks? Just need the right weight correct?

correct.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155228&highlight=roco

Jm_ · Jun 8, 2006

blue said:
All of you guys saying the Rocco won't work well on a falling rate suspension design...what about an FSR? Sorry, I'm not very well versed on designs and stuff, just wondering. Thinking about one for my SGS...maybe. Or would a DHX be a better choice?

The rocco should work pretty well on an SGS.

evilbob · Jun 8, 2006

Ok I have been running one on my Demo 9 for months now, it pedals just fine. Your Moorewood has a high pivot and should be just fine when setup correctly. Please take a look in the threads linked below as there are some things worth knowing in them. Read them through and pay attention to my answers. There is also a volume adjustment in the resevoir to change progression. The Roco is amazing when setup and maintained correctly and it is easy to do so. Have fun!

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155228&highlight=evilbob

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152049&highlight=roco
__________________

Transcend · Jun 8, 2006

vitox said:
weeeelll

just since its you, im going to be adamant about proving you wrong

you see, if he changes the IFP position to one that allows for less air, he will get a more progressive feel out of it.

less air means less oil, so actually offtheedge was sort of right

alas, according to the roco god at marzocchi (cheers ronnie if youre reading this) they come standard with the IFP pretty much set at the most progressive setting, which is 35mm from the edge of the reservoir.

and as for the solution to the original poster, what frame is it, what spring to you have on there and what do you weigh?

Oh I'm aware how it works, and how an IFP functions, I'm just not sure Marz is encouraging consumers playing around inside the shock? Could be wrong, but it's not something usually encouraged.

vitox · Jun 9, 2006

blue said:
All of you guys saying the Rocco won't work well on a falling rate suspension design...what about an FSR? Sorry, I'm not very well versed on designs and stuff, just wondering. Thinking about one for my SGS...maybe. Or would a DHX be a better choice?

itll be ferpect, truss me

vitox · Jun 9, 2006

Transcend said:
Oh I'm aware how it works, and how an IFP functions, I'm just not sure Marz is encouraging consumers playing around inside the shock? Could be wrong, but it's not something usually encouraged.

good point, maybe ive got it coming :dead:

but no, since the shock can be asembled by the user thanks to the bleed and no special tools needed to pressurize it, its not much of an extra step to check the positioning (often required) of the IFP so i honestly dont think anyone will have an issue with it.

vitox · Jun 9, 2006

MOTODH said:
Im doing the oil in my roco right now, just wanted to know if the oil is the same as for forks? Just need the right weight correct?

i was recommended to use procircuit PC02.

thaflyinfatman · Jun 9, 2006

blue said:
All of you guys saying the Rocco won't work well on a falling rate suspension design...what about an FSR? Sorry, I'm not very well versed on designs and stuff, just wondering. Thinking about one for my SGS...maybe. Or would a DHX be a better choice?

SGS's are quite linear bikes, they're really not significantly more progressive than most singlepivots. I haven't ridden a Roco but based purely on the shock rate of the frame, I'd be very inclined to go with any kind of progressive shock (DHX or 5th/Swinger). Even with a swinger with 100psi and the chamber as small as it goes, with 35% sag, the bike is pretty easy to bottom out. I wouldn't go putting on a much more linear shock.

BTW - most singlepivots are not *extremely* falling-rate. It sure doesn't help, but when the change in leverage ratio is small, it's not a big deal as compared to a more "linear" frame. Even at a shock axis to main pivot angle of 105 degrees (more than 90 degrees meaning it's into the region of falling rate), the leverage over the shock has only increased by 3.4% from when it was at 90 degrees (which would be the minimum leverage ratio). When you get something like a Heckler or Prophet then yeah the difference does start to get pretty big, but with a Morewood or an Orange, it's not *that* big a problem. Like I said, doesn't help (and I am not a fan of either the Morewood or the Orange) but it's not really a big deal either.

Jm_ · Jun 9, 2006

thaflyinfatman said:
SGS's are quite linear bikes, they're really not significantly more progressive than most singlepivots.

No, I have both bikes plotted out. The morewood is a drastic falling rate, the SGS is fairly progressive.

Huge difference.

Transcend · Jun 9, 2006

vitox said:
good point, maybe ive got it coming

but no, since the shock can be asembled by the user thanks to the bleed and no special tools needed to pressurize it, its not much of an extra step to check the positioning (often required) of the IFP so i honestly dont think anyone will have an issue with it.

You can do the same thing on a DHX, but they really, REALLY do not encourage it. In fact, I believe it voids your warranty instantly. Moving the IFP to unspecified depths can do bad things to the shock (as you know) when it bottoms out in the chamber, but the shock doesn't.

thaflyinfatman · Jun 9, 2006

Jm_ said:
No, I have both bikes plotted out. The morewood is a drastic falling rate, the SGS is fairly progressive.

Huge difference.

So do I, in fact I'm looking at them right now. The Morewood (actually my model is of a 222/3, but they're nearly identical) isn't a "drastic" falling rate, and the SGS is barely progressive (in fact, it's actually very slightly FALLING rate in the last part of its travel, and so is the Sunday), certainly less so than say a Bighit or a DHR.

MOTODH · Jun 9, 2006

Well I changed the oil in my roco last night and I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to do. The shock was definitly low on oil since it was developping a click in the beginning of the travel with no damping. It is no smooth as butter through the whole stroke. I used 7 weight motorex oil also. Very impressed with the performance and simplicity of this shock.

SylentK · Jun 9, 2006

Hey gents, great thread! My Roco has a bit of "dead travel" in the initial part of the stroke (basically there is no resistance of any sort in the beginning of the travel, it moves quite easily and freely). Anyway, do you guys think it's because of too little oil? Or what?

Thanks in advance!

ChrisKring · Jun 9, 2006

Transcend said:
You can do the same thing on a DHX, but they really, REALLY do not encourage it. In fact, I believe it voids your warranty instantly. Moving the IFP to unspecified depths can do bad things to the shock (as you know) when it bottoms out in the chamber, but the shock doesn't.

I would think it would be difficult for the consumer to set the IFP accurately without some sort of depth gage. You could do it by trial and error and measure it with a caliper. It is possible to push it down and bleed oil out the bleed hole until the height is correct?

Setting oil height and using a bladder seems so much easier. Anyone know why a IFP is used over a bladder? I know that changing out the IFP to a bladder is the "hot" set up on a WP rear shock on a KTM.

jonKranked · Jun 9, 2006

sylentK - my guess would be too little oil or not enough preload.

MOTODH · Jun 9, 2006

SylentK said:
Hey gents, great thread! My Roco has a bit of "dead travel" in the initial part of the stroke (basically there is no resistance of any sort in the beginning of the travel, it moves quite easily and freely). Anyway, do you guys think it's because of too little oil? Or what?

Thanks in advance!

Low on oil, mine had the same thing in the travel, changed the oil and all is good.

evilbob · Jun 9, 2006

Ok noticed my links didn't work in my earlier post, sorry it was late for me. Anyway fixed um. This shock does fine with both slightly falling and rising rate frames. People.....don't mistake near full travel for a hard bottom out. On my Demo for instance I ran a 500lb steel spring and a 6 Way Swinger, I often bottomed it hard but generaly used less travel and the shoch felt dead and harsh, not as good as my previous Big Hit with a Pushed Fox. With the Roco I use more travel and the suspension is allways active anywhere in the travel. I run a 450lb Ti spring now and it never bottoms hard, is never harsh, never feels dead and is the most impressive shock I have ridden on square edge hits and lips on jumps. I would say I am probably getting about 98% to 99% full compression on this setup just like my 888 and tends to give a pretty even compression ramp-up that matches my 888. That last little bit of travel (1% to 2%) is the final compression stop provided by the oil/valving.......perfect. This is my experience and the experience of others may differ due to set-up issues or riding styles. Pretty much all of the shock technology let's us ride way above the levels we could 5 years ago, we have very impressive choices now on both ends of any bike, still it comes down to the rider and technique most of the time.:evil:

Transcend · Jun 9, 2006

ChrisKring said:
I would think it would be difficult for the consumer to set the IFP accurately without some sort of depth gage. You could do it by trial and error and measure it with a caliper. It is possible to push it down and bleed oil out the bleed hole until the height is correct?

Setting oil height and using a bladder seems so much easier. Anyone know why a IFP is used over a bladder? I know that changing out the IFP to a bladder is the "hot" set up on a WP rear shock on a KTM.

You can, yes. In fact,I rebuilt my DHX last week with fox's blessing (I used to be a tech for fox, this wasn't some "hay guys! i need to play with my shock!" type thing).

You need to set the IFP to a certain depth using calipers. This will vary from shock to shock depending on stroke. I actually h ave the proper settings for my shock that fox sent over to me, it is down to 3 decimal places....that tells you how accurate you actually have to be. Too low and the ifp will bottom before the shock, basically blowing the seals and causing a free bleed where air gets sucked behind the IFP leading to loss of damping.

It is a fairly convoluted process tho, and has to be done while the ifp and bleed screw are both submerged in oil.

Fox tried a bladder in the real Van Dh prototypes (the one's Cedric etc were on, not the OE kona ones). From what I understand, it didn't work so well. Possibly due to materials or something, I am not really sure.

evilbob · Jun 9, 2006

Transcend said:
You can, yes. In fact,I rebuilt my DHX last week with fox's blessing (I used to be a tech for fox, this wasn't some "hay guys! i need to play with my shock!" type thing).

You need to set the IFP to a certain depth using calipers. This will vary from shock to shock depending on stroke. I actually h ave the proper settings for my shock that fox sent over to me, it is down to 3 decimal places....that tells you how accurate you actually have to be. Too low and the ifp will bottom before the shock, basically blowing the seals and causing a free bleed where air gets sucked behind the IFP leading to loss of damping.

It is a fairly convoluted process tho, and has to be done while the ifp and bleed screw are both submerged in oil.

Fox tried a bladder in the real Van Dh prototypes (the one's Cedric etc were on, not the OE kona ones). From what I understand, it didn't work so well. Possibly due to materials or something, I am not really sure.

All of this is dead true and should be considered if you do adjust your IFP volume. Also, when you change your IFP volume your previous pressure settings may not be good anymore so when changes are made at this level it's adviseable to start keeping a log of your settings. If you are racing and are a competitive expert or up you should be keeping a log of all your settings/setup anyway. Or if you are blessed with your own mechanic your mechanic should be keeping a log.

Jm_ · Jun 9, 2006

thaflyinfatman said:
So do I, in fact I'm looking at them right now. The Morewood (actually my model is of a 222/3, but they're nearly identical) isn't a "drastic" falling rate, and the SGS is barely progressive (in fact, it's actually very slightly FALLING rate in the last part of its travel, and so is the Sunday), certainly less so than say a Bighit or a DHR.

No, they are NOTHING alike. The SGS looks progressive on the program to me, but the morewood is a drastic falling rate, huge difference in rate between the two.

The red line tells you if it's progressive, linear, or falling rate.

Can you show me what you were using to compare the "progressiveness" of the two bikes?

Jm_ · Jun 9, 2006

Here's the closeup of the rear end of the morewood when it's compressed. It's pretty easy to tell by the angle the shock makes that it's a falling rate bike. It's also not just a "slight" falling rate, it's a drastic falling rate. Like a bullit, like my foes was. It NEEDS a progressive shock of some kind.

offtheedge · Jun 9, 2006

Marz says set IFP to:
35mm + progressive
40mm + linear

Jm_ · Jun 9, 2006

offtheedge said:
Marz says set IFP to:
35mm + progressive
40mm + linear

Not going to be a huge change though, as it's not really position sensitive like SPV is.

Marzocchi Roco...HELP....

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Detective Dookie

Monkey

Detective Dookie

Monkey

Chimp

My Nuts Are Flat

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

sled dog's bollocks

Git yer dumb questions here

sled dog's bollocks

Monkey

boob hater

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

sled dog's bollocks

Monkey

My Nuts Are Flat

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

sled dog's bollocks

My Nuts Are Flat

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Detective Dookie

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

My Nuts Are Flat

Monkey

sled dog's bollocks

sled dog's bollocks

Monkey

sled dog's bollocks