"M" for Maniacal Laughter
2014 FOX 40 FLOAT RC2 & DHX RC4 - officially official
- Thread starter 'size
- Start date
difference is fox tends to work out more of the bugs before they send it out the door, and they don't revise it every single year just to move a few extra units
Isn't the boxxer more or less the same since 2010? Also Fox had problems with blown cartridges till 2010.
I guess its like getting pissed at burger king for not making a burger you like, rather then just eating somewhere else.
I'm curious to see if there is a noticeable difference in the shock, that looks like some good changes to make it a little smoother and less progressive.
I'm curious to see if there is a noticeable difference in the shock, that looks like some good changes to make it a little smoother and less progressive.
they still won't give me a liter of cola
I WANT A GOD DAMN LITER OF COLA.
just wondering... when fox drops a new fork, or at least something that is heavily revised, do they sell out of the first batch released? just wondering cause i had to wait a couple of weeks to buy my x fusion fork when it first came out.
i like this fork, but i think just for the sake of getting me on the trail quicker i might spring for the x fusion fork when it comes out.
is the RC4 considered a position sensitive shock b/c of the boost valve?
according to craig @avalanche, yes:
"Removing the boost valve and replacing it with our Speed Sensitive Valving.
This fixes the middle to bottom of the stroke by removing the position sensitive portion and making it speed sensitive,
It still prevents bottoming and will now blow-off when needed on high speed square bumps, that the RC4/RC2 fails to do."
It is both position and speed sensitive with the BV.
How can you compare a boxxer to a Burger King burger? Oh wait a minute. Both are assembled by an idiot and missing or lacking required lubes.
I see a pair of threaded holes on the underside of the lower crown. Am I hallucinating or will an integrated fender, ala Marz '04 be available?
Last edited:
So they're being coy about the type of splash guard that will be offered. I'm guessing something like this:
Instead of this:
Instead of this:
Last edited:
Last edited:
I want to qualify what I am about to write by saying I am not an engineer, just been thinking. I find it interesting that they are making the fork more "compliant" (flexy) by modifying the crowns and wonder why they chose that way. Likely it is because of marketing but it seems to me that going with smaller diameter stanchions would be a better way of achieving the same goal. You would have less seal surface area everywhere helping to reduce friction there. You could also have less dent prone stanchions and lowers if using the same thickness. And by using the same thickness you would come out with less material as well which would also lower weight, however minimally.
I am guessing it is solely because the Fox 40 is so recognizable that they wanted to stick with those numbers but it seems like the fork could have been made even better if they went with a different chassis to achieve the same results.
I am guessing it is solely because the Fox 40 is so recognizable that they wanted to stick with those numbers but it seems like the fork could have been made even better if they went with a different chassis to achieve the same results.
first off, the name of the fork is derived from the stanchion diameter (40mm). if they changed that they'd have to change the name!
also, adjusting the crown vs adjusting the stanchion size likely allowed them much finer control as to how much deflection ("flex") they addded.
and yes, material deflection is necessary.
also, adjusting the crown vs adjusting the stanchion size likely allowed them much finer control as to how much deflection ("flex") they addded.
and yes, material deflection is necessary.
Woot Woot! Should have photoshopped a graduation hat on me there cause I feel like I just reached the next level.Actually, you have met the qualifications:
Ridemonkey engineer
Could call the new fork the Fox sub40. Easy enough to modify the decals and I think it sounds cooler even.
no. why? because 90's gangstas didn't rap about 22oz bottles of beer.
I think you're right. Marz hit the sweet spot at 38mm but Fox didn't want to change the leg diameter due to marketing and backwards compatibility issues.
Last edited:
The PB article mentions also the stanchions are internally tapered to improve the compliance and reduce chatter over rough terrain.
Is this the beggining of the ol' "looks flexy" comment here on RM when a pic of the new 40 in the wild gets posted?
Last edited:
so were people complaining that the OG 40 was too stiff? sorry im not up to date with this stuff.
boxxer, too flexy.
40, too stiff.
you can never please some people
boxxer, too flexy.
40, too stiff.
you can never please some people
Last edited:
and about FOX RC4? become Manitou REVOX, a lots of marketing on Boost Valve, and Manitou take the Win, Air assist is better than boost valve, FOX MARKETING gets a lot of riders with **** tech, now FOX RC4 is a intrinsic damper, lets buy Manitou Revox, half price for the same 2014 FOX Pimp TEch
or X Fusion Vector HLR
you heard it here first
uh yeah.. how else are they gonna move all those CTD forks
how's the new floats feel? i figure they've been out long enough now for a myriad of experiences.
The lowers are dented and the bushings have worn through the Kashima, duh it's Fox. Seriously though, mine have been perfect and I haven't heard anything bad from anyone else. The damper, air pressure, and volume adjust make it easy to dial in the feel you want and the pressure relief valves keep it feeling consistent. It is a little heavier than claimed but that's pretty standard for forks. The negative spring seems best for someone from 160-190lbs. Outside of that plan on getting a different spring (and I think Fox has to install it?) if you're picky about spring rate curve.
I have very little time on mine but it really does feel very nice. Close eyes, I could never tell it was air, IMO. But - I did have it set to linear. It's a world away from the old crappy 40's.
It's listed on Fox's service website. 20ml of their gold oil is coming to mind but not sure.
Heh? Oil volume is still 50cc per leg.
As tacubaya suggests, don't run 20ml unless you like worn stanchions.
50ml/leg is the spec, I usually run 60ml for a larger contaminant buffer (as do a few good service centers). There is still plenty of consistent lubrication volume in 40s as the Float w/ coil negative spring doesn't substantially reduce volume like solo air systems.
50ml/leg is the spec, I usually run 60ml for a larger contaminant buffer (as do a few good service centers). There is still plenty of consistent lubrication volume in 40s as the Float w/ coil negative spring doesn't substantially reduce volume like solo air systems.
Not sure about an alternative armada. It is 50ml of 20wt per lower. I noticed an improvement in small bump sensitivity in my 34 when I switched to 20wt gold. Why would you want an alternative? Availability I assume? Your lbs should have some on hand or at least be able to order it.
I can tell you what forks not to use 20wt in: older 32's that DO NOT have the part number 803-00-878 (it also states in text on the package 20 wt compatible). The older seals aren't hard enough to deal with the thickness of the 20 wt. Also NEVER use it in place of float fluid for air chamber lubrication.
I can tell you what forks not to use 20wt in: older 32's that DO NOT have the part number 803-00-878 (it also states in text on the package 20 wt compatible). The older seals aren't hard enough to deal with the thickness of the 20 wt. Also NEVER use it in place of float fluid for air chamber lubrication.
Could you explain that?