Quantcast

'07 Forks, whose thinking what?

vitox

Turbo Monkey
Sep 23, 2001
2,939
1
Santiago du Chili
I just rechecked and you'll have to disregard it. The air boxxer likes to sit into its travel 5mm or more at lower pressures it seems, hard to get an accurate A-C measurement. I'm pretty sure the rockshox official figure is 568mm though (can someone confirm)?

But mine is as low as it'll go (wipers are 1-2mm from crown at bottom out) and nowhere near tyre contact from what I could see, so your limiting factor will probably just be the crown/wipers I reckon. I'm running maxxis minion 2.5.

yes i think its 568 that gives you 203mm stanchion clearance, or at least very close. they come stock that way btw.
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,278
0
seattle
Marz lists the 888s at 584mm a - c (with their crowns of course). Are you figuring with an aftermarket crown?




It seems like i am the only one who thinks that all of the current 8" forks leave something to be desired...

They are all good in their own way, but i dont think any of them are great if you take all aspects (weight, price, a - c, durability, adjustability, tunability) into acount.

Like the rest of the bike industry, to many gimics and gizmos, and not enough simple refinement of proven technologies and applications.

Does the average biker really value a 'maxle' over properly applied, user servicable, damping?

Look at MX foks. No gimics. No propriatary, trade marked, plastic wiz-bangs. Better forks have better pistons, and they can all be upgraded, changed, and tuned to whatever characterisitc one might want.
If some one made this concept in a propper (light, strong) DH fork, it would truely be 'THE' fork.
 

Bicyclist

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2004
10,157
1
SB
I don't know, the Boxxer Team is pretty close. They've got their seal issues but with a new oil seal or the Zoke seal mod they work really well, they're cheaper than the top-of-the-line forks, yet they've got the same damping, they're low, light, and pretty strong.
 

Kntr

Turbo Monkey
Jan 25, 2003
7,536
20
Montana
I don't know, the Boxxer Team is pretty close. They've got their seal issues but with a new oil seal or the Zoke seal mod they work really well, they're cheaper than the top-of-the-line forks, yet they've got the same damping, they're low, light, and pretty strong.
and they love to leak oil.

He said durability. Not rebuild daily.
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,278
0
seattle
and they love to leak oil.

He said durability. Not rebuild daily.
There are ways to do it. I got oil to stay in my dorado!! Just takes some comercial oil seals.

The new boxxers are close..they are low and light and well priced (except the TOTAL rip off WC) ..BUT... few too many 'L' shaped pics, proprietary brake mount (WTF), plastic tube damping 'thing', the maxle is horrible..

But this is exactly my point. Seperate oil seals and dust wipers are THE standard way to seal a shaft. This has been done for YEARS in MANY different industries and applications. Why in the world does this need to be re-engineeered just to be able to use a trade-marked name?
 

CBJ

Turbo Monkey
Mar 19, 2002
11,184
1,420
Copenhagen, Denmark
I thought the Boxxer has seperate oil seals and dust wipers?

Kanter I dont know what you do to your Boxxers in Montana but leaks and daily rebuilds is not something the people I know on 06 boxxers know of.
 

Kntr

Turbo Monkey
Jan 25, 2003
7,536
20
Montana
I thought the Boxxer has seperate oil seals and dust wipers?

Kanter I dont know what you do to your Boxxers in Montana but leaks and daily rebuilds is not something the people I know on 06 boxxers know of.

If you are talking about JUST the 06, I can not comment. Everyone I know learned their lesson from the previous years and never tried the 06. I guess the 06 or 07 could be different.

Most 04 and 05 Boxxers only lasted a day around here before they started to leak. Our DHs can last 1-3 hours if you know where to look and dont mind hiking a little.

Sorry, I made a judgement on an 06 with no real experiences.
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,278
0
seattle
..I thought the Boxxer has seperate oil seals and dust wipers?...QUOTE]

You are correct they do now. Although I am not too sure of their quality. Seems like a few have had small issues. The soft black nitrile seals like used on Marz are the standard. The grey RS ones feel plasticy and I am not sure if they use a garter spring either. This is SUCH a basic part, there is no excuse to have seal issues. Marz forks have been known to go years and years on the same seals, why can NO other fork mfg come even close?

We all know the quality of the pre '06 RS wiper. (manitou is no better)
 

Bicyclist

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2004
10,157
1
SB
Yeah, well like I said Kanter when you disregard the seals after either doing the Zoke thing or just ordering regular ones, they're alright.

I've heard of people running the Maxle with only the traditional-style axle, no inner thing/springs/etc. and just checking tightness often. The brake mount is IMO better than post mount. I wish it was IS but it's not too bad.
 

Bicyclist

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2004
10,157
1
SB
If you are talking about JUST the 06, I can not comment. Everyone I know learned their lesson from the previous years and never tried the 06. I guess the 06 or 07 could be different.

Most 04 and 05 Boxxers only lasted a day around here before they started to leak. Our DHs can last 1-3 hours if you know where to look and dont mind hiking a little.

Sorry, I made a judgement on an 06 with no real experiences.
They still leak but that can be fixed.

I'd rather fix a seal than crappy damping.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,839
1,029
Okay, lets get some facts straight before we go boxxer-seal-slagging. (And i'm not biased - I used to be one of the crew!)
..I thought the Boxxer has seperate oil seals and dust wipers?...
You are correct they do now.
No you are wrong, they ALWAYS have. Pre 06 boxxers have run the same oil for damping as lubrication (ala marzocchi) hence they require a pressure seal - it is not optional. 06 boxxers are an entirely different animal, as the damper is sealed inside the stanchion, and the oil in the lowers is only for bushing lubrication (ala fox).

The cool thing is, boxxers still stuck with the pressure seals on the legs - unlike fox which just have dust-wipers and foam rings. If the pressure seals leak, it's only because excess pressure has built up in the legs and probably should be released (ie. undo footnuts a little and tap to release pressure, half compress forks, hold and retighten). If you don't want them to ever seep, then do the marzocchi seal mod - because yes, stock RS leg seals are not that great. But it is important to realise how little they mean now.

The coolest thing about these seperated damper setups (40, boxxer, even dorado) that people are forgetting - is that the oil sees little to no contamination; at least on motion control forks the oil is always clear when you open them up! And not only does the oil stay clean and damping consistent, seperated damping oil also means that you can scratch your stanchions or mess up your seals, and still not lose damping oil or have a change in performance. Even the air spring in the WC is sealed inside it's stanchion - so same story there.

As a sidenote, marzocchi do NOT make their own seals (that's why they're good :)). They use seals from a highend seal manufacturer called NOK, which is coincidentally where avalanche also source their seals. So feel free to do the mod and run them in your boxxers without feeling degraded - because marz don't make em anyway. Hehe.
 

jrfor0

Monkey
Mar 28, 2005
235
0
i will be running the Totem on my DH rig for 2007.

i'm surprised no one else is interested in running the Totem. it is stiffer, more easily adjustable and has a lower c - a then a boxxer.
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,278
0
seattle
i will be running the Totem on my DH rig for 2007.

i'm surprised no one else is interested in running the Totem. it is stiffer, more easily adjustable and has a lower c - a then a boxxer.

Do some searching then wait for more people to get the fork and do some more searching. The lyrics are showing problems already, stuck down air versions, and creaking crowns. Do what you want, but i dont like paying to part of R&D.
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,278
0
seattle
Okay, lets get some facts straight before we go boxxer-seal-slagging. (And i'm not biased - I used to be one of the crew!)

No you are wrong, they ALWAYS have. Pre 06 boxxers have run the same oil for damping as lubrication (ala marzocchi) hence they require a pressure seal - it is not optional. 06 boxxers are an entirely different animal, as the damper is sealed inside the stanchion, and the oil in the lowers is only for bushing lubrication (ala fox).

The cool thing is, boxxers still stuck with the pressure seals on the legs - unlike fox which just have dust-wipers and foam rings. If the pressure seals leak, it's only because excess pressure has built up in the legs and probably should be released (ie. undo footnuts a little and tap to release pressure, half compress forks, hold and retighten). If you don't want them to ever seep, then do the marzocchi seal mod - because yes, stock RS leg seals are not that great. But it is important to realise how little they mean now.

The coolest thing about these seperated damper setups (40, boxxer, even dorado) that people are forgetting - is that the oil sees little to no contamination; at least on motion control forks the oil is always clear when you open them up! And not only does the oil stay clean and damping consistent, seperated damping oil also means that you can scratch your stanchions or mess up your seals, and still not lose damping oil or have a change in performance. Even the air spring in the WC is sealed inside it's stanchion - so same story there.

As a sidenote, marzocchi do NOT make their own seals (that's why they're good :)). They use seals from a highend seal manufacturer called NOK, which is coincidentally where avalanche also source their seals. So feel free to do the mod and run them in your boxxers without feeling degraded - because marz don't make em anyway. Hehe.
Actually I was correct. I said that they do use a seperats oil seal currently. In my earlier statements I was making general observations about forks, some of which only use a dust wiper (including the upsidedown dorado:bonk: ). My point was that sourcing good seals, and useing them (i am well aware of NOK) should be a non issue for these mfg, yet this continues to be a problem.

edit: I can see how (and that) my words were taken as saying that they lacked a true seal..sorry..not my intent..

Unlike you, I am not convinced that 'seperate oil' forks are superior. In fact all of the forks of this type that I have owned, have failed. The oil in the sealed cartrage can leak and fill the lowers, causing complete hydraulic lock...NOT fun @ 35mph. This type of construction also relies on MORE seals. The same seals that these same mfg cannot source propperly, and are prone to failure. Not to mention the added stiction assosciated with the additional seals.
I am all for clean oil (I change oil every month in summer), but there are other ways of keeping oil clean. Marz forks are open bath and they tend to foul oil. It is a major mistake however to assume a correlation between dirty oil and open bath (they dont foul the same right to left for example) . Check the oil in an Avalanche or high end MX fork, or ANY shock. The Marz oil fouling is due in large part to NON - annodized parts (one of my major peeves with Marz along woth non-servicable cartrages).

BTW a pressure-lip oil seal should provide a better seal with internal pressure, not allow leaking.
 

Tootrikky

Monkey
Jul 31, 2003
772
0
Mount Vernon
Actually I was correct. I said that they do use a seperats oil seal currently. In my earlier statements I was making general observations about forks, some of which only use a dust wiper (including the upsidedown dorado:bonk: ). My point was that sourcing good seals, and useing them (i am well aware of NOK) should be a non issue for these mfg, yet this continues to be a problem.

edit: I can see how (and that) my words were taken as saying that they lacked a true seal..sorry..not my intent..

Unlike you, I am not convinced that 'seperate oil' forks are superior. In fact all of the forks of this type that I have owned, have failed. The oil in the sealed cartrage can leak and fill the lowers, causing complete hydraulic lock...NOT fun @ 35mph. This type of construction also relies on MORE seals. The same seals that these same mfg cannot source propperly, and are prone to failure. Not to mention the added stiction assosciated with the additional seals.
I am all for clean oil (I change oil every month in summer), but there are other ways of keeping oil clean. Marz forks are open bath and they tend to foul oil. It is a major mistake however to assume a correlation between dirty oil and open bath (they dont foul the same right to left for example) . Check the oil in an Avalanche or high end MX fork, or ANY shock. The Marz oil fouling is due in large part to NON - annodized parts (one of my major peeves with Marz along woth non-servicable cartrages).

BTW a pressure-lip oil seal should provide a better seal with internal pressure, not allow leaking.
1. Nice what trail up in the NW are you hitting 35 on?
2. The same seals that these same mfg cannot source propperly, and are prone to failure---Sounds like an assumption to me! How bout some real examples of crappy seals sourced on the seperate oil forks out there?
3. I am all for clean oil (I change oil every month in summer), but there are other ways of keeping oil clean---Well tell us about these "other ways" PLease!
4.The Marz oil fouling is due in large part to NON - annodized parts. Explain please, are you saying dirty oil due to Al shavings/particles is not fouled oil?
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,839
1,029
You are wrong on so many counts here, because you are posting based on opinion rather than fact.

davep said:
Unlike you, I am not convinced that 'seperate oil' forks are superior. In fact all of the forks of this type that I have owned, have failed. The oil in the sealed cartrage can leak and fill the lowers, causing complete hydraulic lock...NOT fun @ 35mph. This type of construction also relies on MORE seals. The same seals that these same mfg cannot source propperly, and are prone to failure. Not to mention the added stiction assosciated with the additional seals.
You clearly haven't owned a boxxer, or paid attention to what forks most guys are running these days - specifically how often their motion control damping has failed (over here, it's never - apart from floodgate leaks but that is an easy fix).

Both MC unit and air-cartridge simply use o-rings for sealing, neither have failed yet, and neither exhibit significant stiction. In fact, the damper has pretty much zero (I have the fork apart RIGHT NOW and have been moving the damper rod in and out with my finger).

Finally, even if there was a damper seal failure, the 150ml of damping oil a boxxer runs is nowhere near enough to fill a lower, so your point about complete hydrolock is as hilarious as it is retarded.

I am all for clean oil (I change oil every month in summer), but there are other ways of keeping oil clean. Marz forks are open bath and they tend to foul oil. It is a major mistake however to assume a correlation between dirty oil and open bath (they dont foul the same right to left for example) . Check the oil in an Avalanche or high end MX fork, or ANY shock. The Marz oil fouling is due in large part to NON - annodized parts (one of my major peeves with Marz along woth non-servicable cartrages).
I on the other hand have owned a plethora of marzocchi forks, so I can speak based on experience. 888's (not marz forks in general) don't foul oil the same left to right, because the compression cartridge does next to no damping work compared to the rebound cartridge. Dig up a superT or shiver on the other hand, and you'll notice both sides are equally black and silvery after a season of use. Yes it is due to non-anodized parts, but even running aftermarket HSCV cartridges (that are anodized blue FYI), the oil still turns black slowly. Oh, another feather in rockshox's cap - all internal alloy parts are anodized.

edit: I can see how (and that) my words were taken as saying that they lacked a true seal..sorry..not my intent..
Moreso your opinion seemed to change from first assuming that no boxxers had a pressure seal, to only 06 boxxers have a pressure seal. As I pointed out, while your statements weren't neccessarily incorrect, your school of thought was. 06's don't need them, but still run them - while 05 and ALL previous models did need them (and therefore did run them).
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,278
0
seattle
1. Nice what trail up in the NW are you hitting 35 on?
2. The same seals that these same mfg cannot source propperly, and are prone to failure---Sounds like an assumption to me! How bout some real examples of crappy seals sourced on the seperate oil forks out there?
3. I am all for clean oil (I change oil every month in summer), but there are other ways of keeping oil clean---Well tell us about these "other ways" PLease!
4.The Marz oil fouling is due in large part to NON - annodized parts. Explain please, are you saying dirty oil due to Al shavings/particles is not fouled oil?
Come on Nick, you have owned older boxxers that could not keep oil in them. I have owned several Manitou forks that could not keep oil in them, with failure of internal as well as external seals (sherman lower damping shaft seal blown @ whistler = locked fork. All i am saying is that a company that is not known for durable seals is not the company that I would want using MORE seals to acomplish the same end. Feel the current boxxer dust wipers, they are stiff and plastic-like. The seal lip is thick and blockish, where as most high end oil seals that I have seen have a very thin 'tapered' or 'featherd' lip geometry. There are riders here and elsewhere with weeping seals, and this is preventable via better quality seals IMHO.

The 'other' way to keep damping oil clean (rather than use a sealed cartrage) is to NOT use raw aluminum to build all of the parts that the consumer does not see. Nothing on the inside of an 888 is annodized, painted, or coated in any way, yet it is all aluminum and many parts move against each other with or without some kind of glide ring or bushing. Aluminum oxidizes instantly in the atmosphere. This oxidization is continually rubbed off into the oil, fouling it. Ther are many examples of hard annodized, sealed suspension components that do not foul like this. A shock is a great example, much smaller oil volume and many go years without an oil change, with functional oil. In my experience, Marz forks show some mechanical wear as well. I have removed oil after as little as a month that resembles gray paint with visible silver metalic particles floating around.
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,278
0
seattle
You are wrong on so many counts here, because you are posting based on opinion rather than fact.

You clearly haven't owned a boxxer, or paid attention to what forks most guys are running these days - specifically how often their motion control damping has failed (over here, it's never - apart from floodgate leaks but that is an easy fix).

Both MC unit and air-cartridge simply use o-rings for sealing, neither have failed yet, and neither exhibit significant stiction. In fact, the damper has pretty much zero (I have the fork apart RIGHT NOW and have been moving the damper rod in and out with my finger).

Finally, even if there was a damper seal failure, the 150ml of damping oil a boxxer runs is nowhere near enough to fill a lower, so your point about complete hydrolock is as hilarious as it is retarded.


Moreso your opinion seemed to change from first assuming that no boxxers had a pressure seal, to only 06 boxxers have a pressure seal. As I pointed out, while your statements weren't neccessarily incorrect, your school of thought was. 06's don't need them, but still run them - while 05 and ALL previous models did need them (and therefore did run them).
You are correct, i am stating opinion in some cases, as i have clearly stated. I have also stated explicitly when I have personal experience (fact). To assume that, because your experience is different, I am 'wrong on so many counts" and 'retarded', makes you an arrogant dick.

You are taking statements that i have made about forks in general and appying them to specific forks. I never said that your precious boxxer was bad, you made that assumption. I actually think that it offers some of the best combination of features, of what is available, but it is FAR from perfect.
I could not care less what 'most guys are running'. RS makes their forks available VERY cheap to anyone connected to a shop or team in any way. They also give forks to MANY pro riders so that people will buy them. You are correct in your assumption in lack of older boxxer ownership. (Most guys ran those forks as well.. but) They had issues and I had access to what I believe was a better product.

Try to dump 150ml of oil in you lower casting and see what happens. You have NOT experienced this. I have!

I have owned sealed damper forks without a true oil seal. They ALL leaked oil. I have put NOK seals in several of these forks and solved the problem. Have you tried to run your boxxer w/o the seal, since you are sure that they are not needed?

More seals means friction. It may not be at a level that one can feel, but it exists. Read through the posts here about 'sticky boxxer WCs'. More seals also means more possibility for failure, it is a moving part.

If you do some more research about the leaking floodgate knob, it seems to be semi-common and not always so trivial. Several posters here have had their MCU assemblies replaced for this.



My post was not ment to be a boxxer 'thing' rather a little critique of current forks. In my mind, they all have some kind of significant 'issue'. You are acting like I have personally attacked you. Did you have something to do with designing the new Boxxer? Not sure why you are being so defensive and feel the need to call me names....
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,839
1,029
You are correct, i am stating opinion in some cases ....... You are taking statements that i have made about forks in general and appying them to specific forks. I never said that your precious boxxer was bad, you made that assumption.
With all due respect, we were talking about the boxxer specifically - so either your post about sealed dampers was in relation to the boxxer, or completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'll assume the former.

Try to dump 150ml of oil in you lower casting and see what happens. You have NOT experienced this. I have!
You have got to be kidding me. You say I sound like an arrogant dick, but what you just said just reaffirms my calling you a retard. I'm totally in the wrong for name calling (and take it back) but you might want to explain to me how 150ml of oil in the lower is going to cause hydraulic lock. There is at least four times that amount in lower leg volume - if it did happen (and it never has), you'd experience some ramping up in the travel, that's about it.

I have owned sealed damper forks without a true oil seal. They ALL leaked oil. I have put NOK seals in several of these forks and solved the problem. Have you tried to run your boxxer w/o the seal, since you are sure that they are not needed?
I was just pointing out that you were wrong in thinking that at any stage they (boxxers) didn't run a pressure seal. But since you mention it, Fox40's only run a wiper and foam-ring, no pressure seal to my knowledge (can someone confirm this for me, I don't own one). They seem to run fine - if oil does leak, it's just bushing lube oil not damping oil. I'm not disagreeing that it's better to have a pressure seal though, hence my original suggestion of using the NOK seals if they leak.

More seals means friction. It may not be at a level that one can feel, but it exists. Read through the posts here about 'sticky boxxer WCs'. More seals also means more possibility for failure, it is a moving part.
If you do some more research about the leaking floodgate knob, it seems to be semi-common and not always so trivial. Several posters here have had their MCU assemblies replaced for this.
Again you are just regurgitating second-hand info. Anything I said about marzocchi forks was based purely on experience, as are my comments on rockshox forks.

The WC requires different lube types in many different places (and RS kindly provide a detailed manual to cover this), so the cause for the 1 or 2 "sticky" forks would likely be a lubrication one. 15ml per lower leg of 15wt oil for bushing lube, 150ml for the motion control, and 5ml for the air spring. Beyond that it's just silicone grease for stanchion seals and other o-rings. Like I said, i've just finished up changing the lube oil on mine, and both damper shaft and air spring shaft were surprisingly stiction free. If they are like that with my pinky pushing on them, surely stiction will be negligible with 150lbs riding on them. I can't feel any, and i've come off an 888RC - so again your comments are pretty well null and void.

And the floodgate thing truly is a trivial issue. It's also definitely an oversight on RS's part, but shops and warranty reps are probably just replacing dampers because they don't know what the issue is. A 1.5mm allen key, 1 or 2 thin washers, and 5 minutes to me is trivial. (punkassean covered this in detail, and I covered it better in a later post - do a search if you care that much).

I don't work for rockshox, neither do I have any great care for them. I've been a diehard marzocchi fan up until recently (and still like them!). Furthermore being a shimano freak, I despise the fact that I have anything SRAM-owned on my bike. So I run a boxxer (and a pike) only because I truly believe they are a good fork.

My problem with you is that you are trying to put them down, without any personal experience in running one.
 

MorewoodKid

Monkey
Sep 14, 2006
238
0
In the woods...
i will be running the Totem on my DH rig for 2007.

i'm surprised no one else is interested in running the Totem. it is stiffer, more easily adjustable and has a lower c - a then a boxxer.
Sorry to burst the bubble but the Totem is not lower than the Boxxer, consider this:

  • Totem A-C height: 565mm +/-5mm (180mm Travel)
  • Boxxer A-C height: 568mm +5/-1mm (200mm Travel)

Ok, so the Boxxer appears to be 3mm higher in A-C, BUT:
  • Totem is 1.5" fork which means no zero stack headset => +10mm
  • Boxxer can be run at 180mm => -20mm

Taking this into account my calculations leave me with the following:
  • Totem 180mm Travel A-C: 565mm (Plus headset cup...)
  • Boxxer 180mm Travel A-C: 548mm +5/-1mm (With possible internal/ zero stack HS)
Now I am not saying it is not worth considering, it is for sure, but there is no real advantage other than stiffness: It is not lighter than the WC, and it is not lower than the WC as shown above. I does supposedly have a superior damping system though... Mission control found in the new Totem is said to supersede the motion control as seen in the Boxxer (even with the BB speed stack. I have not ridden on the Totem enough to say that this gives a clear advantage and increase in the forks performance, but it could prove to. However it is a less proven and tested system, that although may not have any major issues, is still very much in its infancy, which means you could be a member of the MTB mad science society- a mouse at the disposal of MTB engineers...

Ok, sorry for the :rant: ....
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,839
1,029
No worries CBJ.

Spot on morewoodkid.
I was going to dig up the same info but was too busy arguing. :)
I daresay the stiffness factor is debatable too, I suspect the dualcrown will always be stiffer in the fore/aft dept.
 

MorewoodKid

Monkey
Sep 14, 2006
238
0
In the woods...
Spot on morewoodkid.

I was going to dig up the same info but was too busy arguing. :)
I daresay the stiffness factor is debatable too, I suspect the dualcrown will always be stiffer in the fore/aft dept.
I'm not sure, at the Sonoma NORBA this year I took a bit of a spin around on Amiel's bike with the Totem and I was really surprised. It was noticeably stiffer under braking. A common trait with the Boxxers is the flex encountered under braking, but the Totem's seemed perty stiff... As I said though, I don't want to wax lyrical about the thing, I have only had parking lot rides on it, no serious stuff.

I don't know about you guys, but riding a single crown for DH just doesn't feel like the real deal. Its not because I don't trust the things, I've been riding a SC fork on one of our freeride frames all year, it just doesn't reel "racer". I do like the prospects of it though, its definitely a step forward... And with 'Zokes taking the plunge to 1.5"... It seems the Big 3 are starting to take notice.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist: “I Brake for Birds”
Mar 14, 2005
4,839
1,029
Fair enough.
I haven't noticed that personally, my only gripe (or worry rather) is how thin the casting is in the middle. Although to be fair I think the only ones that have gone L shaped have been victims of pretty nasty crashes or screwups.

But yeah the other thing about the SC that you brought up - is travel vs a-c height. It's not all that great, bump the totem to 8" like all dh forks these days - and you've got a 588 a-c. Other worries would be stress on the steerer/crown interface - so much higher than on a DC fork.

Apart from those nitpicks I could probably deal with running one.
 

PoserNewbie

Monkey
Feb 14, 2003
469
0
Lower Mainland, BC
On top of that, the totem is not exactly light weight at 6.5 lbs. I honestly don't see a reason to run SC on a DH bike unless you really really like to do x-up.

Having said that, having an options (DC/SC) is always good for us consumers.

PS. Contrary to popular belief, the Travis DC is not really tall. My 180mm has an A-C of 548mm. Add 20mm for the 200mm, it is pretty much in the same ballpark as Boxxer.
 

blt2ride

Turbo Monkey
May 25, 2005
2,334
0
Chatsworth
I've been very happy with my 2006 888RC2X, but the new '07 888 WC looks like an awesome fork! My plans are to have the '07 internals intalled in my '06.