[Dartman]

It's not just ride height that is affected. It's the fork wouldn't even fit on my large sized frame (>160mm stack) without a different crown.

But that said, I finally got some decent ride time on the fork at the Mayhem race in Snowshoe, WV. The fork performs extremely well and is very adjustable. I finished 4th Exp 40-49 with a very satisfying run after getting it dialed in perfectly on Saturday's practice. I just snugged the axle bolts as much as I dared and put duct tape over them to keep them from falling out. Of course the season is over and the fork is going to sit until next year after spending most of the summer out for warranty. I hope Marzocchi continues to work on the quality issues of the lowers and changes their mind about providing service info to customers.

Mike

 

[profro]

Don't get me wrong, I love my Shiver but owning a Yeti DH9 I see first hand how a lower front end makes the bike handle better...at least on my bike. I was able to lower the crowns to the minimum wheel to crown distance and WOW what a difference it makes in that bike. As is, it is lower than a 7" 888 and Boxxer. The only thing lower is a 180mm Dorado. I won't be putting a 888 on it any time soon. I've got my eye on that Fox DH 40.

 

[binary visions]

What we have here is an absolutely classic case of Internet Bike Geeks discussing a problem like it affects most of the population.

Most of the people riding 888s are riding them stock. No special crowns needed. And, given the rave reviews the fork has been getting, they're loving them.

This is not a high volume product. The reason the crowns cost more to produce than the stock ones is due to the lower volume, not because the forging and machining actually costs more. The first car that rolls off a production floor is a multi-million dollar car, and the price goes down with each subsequent one built. Same with these crowns. If there's a fixed cost of $100,000 for design and equipment and R&D for each crown, where they produce 10,000 of the stock ones and 1,000 of the low rider ones, which crown ended up costing more?

YES, it would be nice to have them as a no-charge upgrade option. YES, some people have issues with the fork height. But don't flatter yourselves into thinking that what a few dozen internet geeks want is what most of the population wants.

 

[Brian Peterson]

Brian,.

Could you explain how it is possible that the new low crowns are any more expensive to make then the normal ones? From the pictures i have seen they look like cast aluminum like the standards ones, i don't know whow you can say they are more expensive to make.

Also, cast alumnium crowns are far cheaper to produce then CNC'd ones like go-ride or risse. If risse can make them for $150 i am sure a large company like your self could do it for cheaper. If you can't then why not subcontract the work to risse and they could do it for you.

But, never fear fellas, 888's will have lowrider crowns stock in 2008 when marzocchi finally listens to what riders want. It only took 8 years to get rid if QR20 remember. All these problem over some stupid intergrated fender that no one ever uses.

-Matt

PS I didn't buy 888's due to the height issues otherwise i would have. Need to fix it up guys.

Matt, that is where you are wrong.... The new crowns are CNC'ed. While a cast crown, like the stock crowns, is cheaper to produce, things like producing the mold to make a cast piece in not justified for small volume production. You say they look cast, but that leads me to believe you haven't seen them in person. Especially since there have only been a few sets of prototypes made so far. Hell, I have only seen one set, so far. Which, coincidentally is how many Go-ride crowns sets I have seen to date while out riding.

But, we will never please everybody. Last year, we had to reduce a bunch of DJs to 100mm for people.... Now I find myself selling a bunch of spacers to increase the travel of the DJs... Go figure...

BV... Thanks for getting the point...

Brian

 

[vitox]

But don't flatter yourselves into thinking that what a few dozen internet geeks want is what most of the population wants.

thats only part of the story, whereas your fixed cost v/s variable cost explanation might be correct, there is still the issue to address that is the fact that the stock crowns are sub-optimal.

i dont think marzocchi would make the same crowns all over again if starting from scratch with the design of this fork.

so marzocchi designed maybe the best dh fork ever but put crowns on it that limit its potential, they can then decide to just let it be so and dont worry about it or to do somehting about it like producing aftermarket crowns, sort of a silent acknowledgement of that the stock ones are not the way they really should be.
they could also go one step further.

 

[Jeremy R]

Hey Brian,
You mentioned that nothing was final yet, and you guys were still working out the details.
I realize the new crowns are CNC'd and they have to cost more.
I think it would be cool to be able to buy the fork with those crowns at the initial purchase for of course, an upcharge. That way, you would not be paying extra for a set of crowns that you don't need.
Something like the price of the 888 plus $175 and you would get the higher quality low crowns, but only get one set. That should keep the internet :mumble: to a minimum.

 

[Brian Peterson]

thats only part of the story, whereas your fixed cost v/s variable cost explanation might be correct, there is still the issue to address that is the fact that the stock crowns are sub-optimal.

i dont think marzocchi would make the same crowns all over again if starting from scratch with the design of this fork.

so marzocchi designed maybe the best dh fork ever but put crowns on it that limit its potential, they can then decide to just let it be so and dont worry about it or to do somehting about it like producing aftermarket crowns, sort of a silent acknowledgement of that the stock ones are not the way they really should be.
they could also go one step further.

They are only "sub-optimal" for a small number of people.

Why wouldn't we design the same crown? There haven't been any issues other than a few people who want a slightly lower front end.

A slient acknowledgement?? You are right.... We should scrap the project. We should stop listening to people like yourself. Some people have asked for a lower crown, and when the number got to be enough to where we thought we could recoup our costs to do it, we moved ahead.... And when we do, we are the bad company for doing so... Once again, go figure...

Brian

 

[Brian Peterson]

Hey Brian,
You mentioned that nothing was final yet, and you guys were still working out the details.
I realize the new crowns are CNC'd and they have to cost more.
I think it would be cool to be able to buy the fork with those crowns at the initial purchase for of course, an upcharge. That way, you would not be paying extra for a set of crowns that you don't need.
Something like the price of the 888 plus $175 and you would get the higher quality low crowns, but only get one set. That should keep the internet :mumble: to a minimum.

Ironically enough, I had mentioned that possibility about 2 weeks ago in another thread.... Like I said, nothing has been set in stone yet.

Brian

 

[dante]

They are only "sub-optimal" for a small number of people.

Why wouldn't we design the same crown? There haven't been any issues other than a few people who want a slightly lower front end.

A slient acknowledgement?? You are right.... We should scrap the project. We should stop listening to people like yourself. Some people have asked for a lower crown, and when the number got to be enough to where we thought we could recoup our costs to do it, we moved ahead.... And when we do, we are the bad company for doing so... Once again, go figure...

Brian

Hey Brian, please keep in mind that the people that I know that have the fork absolutely LOVE it for its a) compression damping, b) weight, c) stiffness. This is not a "bag-the-whole-product" type of thread, it's more of a "gee this is such a great fork except for the whole height thing". Also, about 75% of the people I know who purchased the fork aftermarket went out and bought lower crownsafter riding the stock ones. This isn't just a few internet kids, this is pretty much most of the people I see at Plattekill and MC...

You have a great product here, it's just that some people are a little disappointed that they have to spend an additional $300 to get it to perform the way they want it to.

 

[banj]

Where can I find pics of the lower zoke crowns?

 

[Dusty Bottoms]

The stock lower crown should be flat. Period. That will give you the lowest possible starting point and give nobody anything to complain about. Then, depending on headtube height and desired geometry you can raise or lower that lower crown, and choose a flat or dropped upper crown.

This nonsense about extra charges for switching out crowns so your bike can handle properly is lame.

 

[profro]

Remember folks Marz. is always right. They will come out with a product, think it is the way it should be, then change it.

Few examples...

QR20... how long did people wish it would go away?
Cryo fit crowns on DC forks... Dumb idea
Unecessarily high crowns on 888...

Don't get me wrong, Marz has done TONS more in the way of positive than negative. I just love how they defend company policy, when I bet deep down inside a couple USA Marz. guys are asking Italia Marz. WTF????

 

[Brian Peterson]

Hey Brian, please keep in mind that the people that I know that have the fork absolutely LOVE it for its a) compression damping, b) weight, c) stiffness. This is not a "bag-the-whole-product" type of thread, it's more of a "gee this is such a great fork except for the whole height thing". Also, about 75% of the people I know who purchased the fork aftermarket went out and bought lower crownsafter riding the stock ones. This isn't just a few internet kids, this is pretty much most of the people I see at Plattekill and MC...

You have a great product here, it's just that some people are a little disappointed that they have to spend an additional $300 to get it to perform the way they want it to.

Dante,
Like I said before, the "most of the people I know want a lower crown logic" is flawed. Because based off of that, I can counter by saying 99.9% of the 888 I have seen in use out here at races are using the stock crowns. So, where do we go from there?

The fork was designed around somebody's idea of the ideal fork... Don't ask me who that somebody was... I am not involved in that.

But, much like any mass produced product, it won't be perfect for everybody. However, it seems when I look at sales numbers vs. requests for a different crowns, we did a pretty good job of making something that works for the masses. However, no matter how good we make it, somebody will want something different. If we did a stock lower crown to begin with, I would probably be here answering to a bunch of people who want a slacker HA on their bikes..

Finally, for the person who asked about the pics, I may have some later today..

Brian

 

[Zark]

If we did a stock lower crown to begin with, I would probably be here answering to a bunch of people who want a slacker HA on their bikes..

Brian,

Couldn't they just raise the crowns on the stanchions? Having a lower stock crown doesn't limit people from slacking their head angle as far as I can see.

That said, I'd happily ride a 7" 888 with stock crowns. :love:

 

[profro]

Dante,
If we did a stock lower crown to begin with, I would probably be here answering to a bunch of people who want a slacker HA on their bikes..
Brian

Was this an issue with the Super T, Monster T, Jr. T, Shiver?

 

[Brian Peterson]

Zark,
There is a limit to how much movement you can get.... Even on our older designs.

Profro,
Apple to oranges there.... And even on those forks, not everybody was happy.

Brian

 

[profro]

Brain P.

I know you get slammed on here all the time. I think it's great for us internet geeks to have a voice with Marz. in you here on RM. Please don't get me wrong, I love my Shiver I think its an awesome fork. I think Marz. quality damping has caused Manitou, Fox, etc. to step up alot.

 

[dante]

Dante,
Like I said before, the "most of the people I know want a lower crown logic" is flawed. Because based off of that, I can counter by saying 99.9% of the 888 I have seen in use out here at races are using the stock crowns. So, where do we go from there?

The fork was designed around somebody's idea of the ideal fork... Don't ask me who that somebody was... I am not involved in that.

Hey brian, we know you weren't involved in designing the fork, and I appologize if it seems you get shot for being the messenger. It's just that Marzocchi overlooks the fact that frames not specifically designed for the 888 were designed with a certain axle-to-crown height in order to get the optimal geometry. When that is changed by several inches, the geometry is thrown off as well. True it can be ridden that way, and with some 2005 frames being built for other 8" forks it won't be off as bad, but it's still not optimal geometry. Around here people are just kind of annoyed that they have to spend extra $$ just to get the geometry that their frame was designed for.

Thanks for listening!

 

[narlus]

That said, I'd happily ride a 7" 888 with stock crowns. :love:

is the crown to axle distance different on the 7" fork? i heard it was the same as the 8".

 

[Espen]

I don't think it would cost Marz too much if they made 2 different crowns. Directly from the factory in Italy

I think the big question is: why did they made the stock crowns so tall in the first place????

I have never heard anything official from Marz on that.

Espen

 

[Zark]

is the crown to axle distance different on the 7" fork? i heard it was the same as the 8".

Yes it is, I think on the 7" fork the A-C distance is similar to a Shiver DC. I don't have the actual #'s though.

A little search would turn them up hopefully.

 

[Brian Peterson]

Dante,
Let me ask you this.... With every frame manufacturer having a different optimum ride height, how do you make 1 product accommodate every design in a cost effective manner? You could do an average, but that is still a compromise that won't make everyone happy...

Brian

 

[profro]

Yes it is, I think on the 7" fork the A-C distance is similar to a Shiver DC. I don't have the actual #'s though.

A little search would turn them up hopefully.

My Shiver is lower than Jeremy's 7" 888. I would say considerably... not more than an 3/4", but more than a 1/4". I have mine set to the minimum tire to crown distance (193mm).

 

[James | Go-Ride]

Brian:
The apocalypse is coming and it's your fault for not making the forks with flat crowns. Not Marzocchi's fault; YOUR FAULT.

Trying to lighten the mood a bit.

 

[Dusty Bottoms]

Dante,
Let me ask you this.... With every frame manufacturer having a different optimum ride height, how do you make 1 product accommodate every design in a cost effective manner?

Brian

You start with a flat lower crown! AND MORE COWBELL!!!

 

[dan-o]

James: How many sets of low-rise crowns have you guys sold to date?
Actually knowing the numbers will end a lot of the speculation for demand.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Dante,
Let me ask you this.... With every frame manufacturer having a different optimum ride height, how do you make 1 product accommodate every design in a cost effective manner? You could do an average, but that is still a compromise that won't make everyone happy...

Brian

Well as it seems right now, most frame manufactures are looking like they're basing the preferd ride height on a 7-7 1/2" fork, grant it frame are getting bigger and bigger in travel every year, but the stock crowns do take the front end up quite high. I think right now as it stands the heigth of those aftermarket crowns does the trick and keeps it very close to the heigth of a 7" fork. I see a lot of benifits here to keeping that 7" fork heigth in an 8" package, its the best of both worlds. It will change of course in a few years when will be looking at a 9-10" forks as the norm. Just my 0.38

 

[MikeD]

You start with a flat lower crown! AND MORE COWBELL!!!

I think he needs to explore the studio space.

 

[profro]

It will change of course in a few years when will be looking at a 9-10" forks as the norm. Just my 0.38

I hope not.

 

[Espen]

The 200mm 888 is taller than any other 200mm fork on the planet! Even taller than the Monster T, Avalanche DHF, WB, Shiver and more!!!
Of cource, every frame is different but, when the fork is so tall, there are many more frames that don't fit.

E

 

[Brian HCM#1]

The 200mm 888 is taller than any other 200mm fork on the planet! Even taller than the Monster T, Avalanche DHF, WB, Shiver and more!!!
Of cource, every frame is different but, when the fork is so tall, there are many more frames that don't fit.

E

Actually its about the same heigth as a Stratos S8.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

I hope not.

We're looking at 9-11" frames as being the norm in the last few years, thats a big jump from the original 7-8" frames. I think as travel gets bigger in the rear, there will be a need to keep it more balanced.

 

[Jm_]

Actually its about the same heigth as a Stratos S8.

Ah yes. the other "tallest fork" on the planet. I was able to set it up with 10.5" between the crown and my 26" tire at one point...

Anyway, you b*tches that bought lowrider crowns will be sorry when nokian comes out with their new 3.75" tires at interbike in a few weeks!

I heard on pinkbike that go-ride has only sold 2 sets of the lowrider crowns.

 

[Salami]

They are only "sub-optimal" for a small number of people.



Brian

I know we are a small segment but lets see how many here think the current crowns are okay. GO here : http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97076

 

[Macrider]

You start with a flat lower crown! AND MORE COWBELL!!!

Fellas! Fellas! you're gonna want the flat crowns (at least on the lower)....and more cowbell!

I gotta fever, and the only prescription is flat crowns AND MORE COWBELL!

 

[Incubus]

...But, much like any mass produced product, it won't be perfect for everybody. However, it seems when I look at sales numbers vs. requests for a different crowns, we did a pretty good job of making something that works for the masses. However, no matter how good we make it, somebody will want something different. If we did a stock lower crown to begin with, I would probably be here answering to a bunch of people who want a slacker HA on their bikes...

Brian

This statement is absurd. It's an unfair comparison given 'the masses' didn't have a choice. Also, I'd bet that a majority of 'the masses' that you speak of don't know that there are low-rider crowns available.

I wonder how many current 888 owners would be willing to trade their existing lower crowns if Marzocchi were to have some sort of swap program.

 

[Jeremy R]

My Shiver is lower than Jeremy's 7" 888. I would say considerably... not more than an 3/4", but more than a 1/4". I have mine set to the minimum tire to crown distance (193mm).

If your fork is lower than mine, it is because you have 40 degree head angle on that Yeti.


The 170 888 is exactly 30mm lower than the 200.
Stand back now, I don't wanna hurt anybody with my fancy math.
For the DHR, designed around 7.5 inch fork, the 170 888 is perfect.
The reason I am interested in the low crowns for next year, is so
I can run the 200mm at the same height.

 

[Jm_]

Fellas! Fellas! you're gonna want the flat crowns (at least on the lower)....and more cowbell!

I gotta fever, and the only prescription is flat crowns AND MORE COWBELL!

More cowbell for Bruce Dickinson...

 

[binary visions]

I wonder how many current 888 owners would be willing to trade their existing lower crowns if Marzocchi were to have some sort of swap program.

I wonder how many current 888 owners have exactly zero problems with their existing setup but would scream for the new crowns just because they're supposed to be OMG SO MUCH BETTER.

 

[MikeD]

There's also the fact that a hell of a lot of guys just think, "wow, 8 inch fork! Awesome!" and slap it on and go ride their bikes, often a hell of a lot better than I do with all my Internet reading/opining and pseudo-scientific mechanical tinkering.

If anything, they're thinking "cool, now my bike is even SLACKER!" if they think about geometry at all.

And yet they still rip. I don't get it, and I think it's unfair, frankly, but they do. Then again, if they can ride that well instinctually, and often on unsuitable or sometimes dangerous equipment, it's possible they'd do even better with good gear and maybe a little bit of teaching. But I don't think the 888 makes a bike dangerous...perhaps a bit awkward for those of use who care (and I do...I'm running my stem upside-down with a 6" slider right now, for chrissake), but the rippers care not.

MD