[azonicbruce]

Can somebody please explain to me why the QR20 Pro was a bad system? I had a 2002 Z1 Freeride QR20+ and I whole heartedly agree that it was a major pain, but the QR20 Pro actually looked like it would work well. Looked like there were no items that you had to set aside/stick in your pocket and you only had to flip three levers. Maybe I'm not understanding how the Pro system worked?

Seems that with a "normal" 20mm setup you've got this axle floating around that you've got to make sure not to lose, and you still need allen wrenches.

 

[frorider]

i was intentionally using a sarcastic and derisive tone in much of my long-ass post, partly because i'm still amazed/surprised at how the marzocchi corporate response (e.g. that infamous letter from Bryson in MBA) used sarcasm and derision rather than logical engineering facts. guess i was giving them some of their own medicine.

but Brian seems cool enough so i hope he didn't take it personally. :love: still though he has to accept / deal with the fact that marzocchi as a company hasn't effectively communicated on this issue. as other posters have noted, even after 2 years has passed Marz. has not made an effective engineering argument on this topic. instead Marzocchi has used derision ("what does Manitou know about freeride? we invented the first freeride forks") and lost some customers along the way.

if marzocchi distributed a force vs. deflection graph that compared 1.125 vs. 1.5 inch steerer tube/associated crown with the identical stanchion assembly, and somehow magically showed that for the same weight the 1.125 option was a) the same stiffness (deflection curve) b) the same strength (failure testing) as the 1.5 option, they could end the argument quickly--and in their favor. Did Marzocchi ever do this internally? If so, why wasn't it published anywhere? By not doing so, Marzocchi has implied that the Marzocchi engineering approach is a) add some weight to make it strong enough b) live with the reduced stiffness (as compared to 1.5 inch at equivalent weight) c) emphasize that this compromise was made in order to conform to the existing 1.125 standard. If this is not the message Marz. wants to communicate implicity or explicitly, they need to try a new approach.

apparently not everyone read my long post before responding. who can blame them. anyway one of my points was that it's about the combination of stiffness, strength, and weight. the fact that there are long-travel forks now w/ 1.125 steerers doesn't invalidate 1.5 inch. 1.125 long-travel forks simply offer a different combination of stiffness/strength/weight. anything wrong with choice? the industry is fine w/ having 20 mm thru axle and QR axle choices for front wheels.

 

[Roasted]

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.

That would be a beautiful fork.

As for the 6in discussion. Maybe people want the 6 and 7" sc because they use one bike everywhere. A mid travel dually with a 6 or 7in sc could work on trails, dh, freeride ect. Instead of needing 2 or 3 bikes?

Just my thought of long travel AM forks anyways.

And my thoughts on qr20...ummm it really isn't that hard. 02 it kind of blew but on my 04djer it is really easy. Undo clamps, undo qr...remove axle...wheel pops out. Seriously...why is that hard or irratating?

 

[Jm_]

Can somebody please explain to me why the QR20 Pro was a bad system? I had a 2002 Z1 Freeride QR20+ and I whole heartedly agree that it was a major pain, but the QR20 Pro actually looked like it would work well. Looked like there were no items that you had to set aside/stick in your pocket and you only had to flip three levers. Maybe I'm not understanding how the Pro system worked?

Seems that with a "normal" 20mm setup you've got this axle floating around that you've got to make sure not to lose, and you still need allen wrenches.

You talking about the 2000 and 1999 thing called QR20? It simply didn't have the benefits of a 20mm axle because it still worked like a QR fork, it relied on the fork "resting" on the axle and the friction between the side of the axle nut and the QR "sandwitching" the dropout were how it basically worked, even though it was a lot bigger than a regular quick release.

A true 20mm axle that "clamps" is simply far better.

If you are referring to the last iteration of the QR20 which was 2003 or whatever, that system still had problems with people breaking the little levers because they were overtightening, and if that happened you had to send your whole lowers back, which kind of sucked...

 

[Bulldog]

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

Cool thanks. On a DH bike designed for 7-8" forks, a tall 7" fork would be perfect. On my 6" FR bike though, I gotta pay *some* attention to the numbers. I want a DH-able bike, not a DH bike! LOL.

 

[Brian Peterson]

Bwahahaha, classic!

Are you all healed now Brian?

All good... Just in terrible shape for XC rides... Too much BMX. I hit up Suicide last weekend... Died on the way up, but got into the groove on the way down and was gone... Felt good to be back on the DH bike.... I need to find some more time to ride it...

Brian

 

[azonicbruce]

You talking about the 2000 and 1999 thing called QR20? It simply didn't have the benefits of a 20mm axle because it still worked like a QR fork, it relied on the fork "resting" on the axle and the friction between the side of the axle nut and the QR "sandwitching" the dropout were how it basically worked, even though it was a lot bigger than a regular quick release.

A true 20mm axle that "clamps" is simply far better.

If you are referring to the last iteration of the QR20 which was 2003 or whatever, that system still had problems with people breaking the little levers because they were overtightening, and if that happened you had to send your whole lowers back, which kind of sucked...

Oh, ok. So most of the complaints then to bring back a "real" 20mm were more for strength/reliablity rather than convenience in removing the front wheel? Honestly when I had a Stratos LR-1 it wasn't that big a deal getting the front wheel off, but it was sometimes was hassle if you didn't have your tools ready at hand.

 

[Jm_]

Oh, ok. So most of the complaints then to bring back a "real" 20mm were more for strength/reliablity rather than convenience in removing the front wheel? Honestly when I had a Stratos LR-1 it wasn't that big a deal getting the front wheel off, but it was sometimes was hassle if you didn't have your tools ready at hand.

and to have something that is simpler too. You can argue that the various QR20s made removing the wheel "easier" beause they didn't require an allen-tool, but that doesn't mean that it was simpler, and it doesn't get much simpler than a standard 20mm axle with pinch bolts.

 

[Brian Peterson]

Cool thanks. On a DH bike designed for 7-8" forks, a tall 7" fork would be perfect. On my 6" FR bike though, I gotta pay *some* attention to the numbers. I want a DH-able bike, not a DH bike! LOL.

Thats why there are options in that 6in range... The 66 may not be the chisce for you, but a 150mm Z1 may be...

As for the 4-5in, 20mm fork, we didn't see big numbers there... But both of the z150 models were moving big... That's why the line up is looking the way it is.

Brian

 

[Jeremy R]

I just don't see what the big argument is all about on this 1.5/1.25 steerer thing. It kind of seems like a small item to be arguing about.
The weight is not a big factor either way, and the stiffness should be fairly close as well. Unless there is a big difference in either weight or stiffness, I don't see the big problem here.
If I was trying to decide between the two, I would be more worried about the internals than anything else. Like fat chicks say, it is what is on the inside that counts.

I do love the 1.5 headtubes for sure.
The added benefit of those is the added crown adjustibility with E13 cups and all that jazz.

 

[jncarpenter]

Brian,

one question I have been pondering.....on the AM fork lineup, is the adjustable travel infinite between the 2 (110-130; 130-150) or is it simply a matter of either one OR the other? It seems that if it is infinitely adjustable, it would be the perfect way to tweek out your geometry (HT angles) as well! Thanks!

Jay

 

[azonicbruce]

Also, does the 66 not have any type of lockout? Seems like from the report that only the Z1 has ETA.

 

[Brian Peterson]

You can set the travel anywhere in between the min or max.

Also, no ETA on the 66..

Brian

 

[jncarpenter]

You can set the travel anywhere in between the min or max.
Brian

...BONUS!!!!!! Now if we could just get another color besides the 'bird dung' for the top model AM!!!! :love:

 

[punkassean]

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.

*cough* FOX 36 *cough*

 

[punkassean]

...BONUS!!!!!! Now if we could just get another color besides the 'bird dung' for the top model AM!!!! :love:

the proper term is "Guano"

I for one like that color, it's very earthy!

 

[The Kadvang]

Maybe it won't show dirt/dust...

 

[buildyourown]

You talking about the 2000 and 1999 thing called QR20? It simply didn't have the benefits of a 20mm axle because it still worked like a QR fork, it relied on the fork "resting" on the axle and the friction between the side of the axle nut and the QR "sandwitching" the dropout were how it basically worked, even though it was a lot bigger than a regular quick release.

A true 20mm axle that "clamps" is simply far better.

If you are referring to the last iteration of the QR20 which was 2003 or whatever, that system still had problems with people breaking the little levers because they were overtightening, and if that happened you had to send your whole lowers back, which kind of sucked...

The original iteration of the qr20 rocked! I'm still running my '00 Z1. I just bought another on ebay cause I like it so much. All the advantages of a standard qr with just a bit more beef. I had the same fork with a standard qr for awhile on another bike and the difference was huge. Last years qr20 plus or whatever it was called was a joke. I could take my front wheel off of my shiver faster than a superT. They interfered horribly with a fork-up too. Viva la QR20!!!!!!

 

[ÆX]

I just don't see what the big argument is all about on this 1.5/1.25 steerer thing. It kind of seems like a small item to be arguing about.
The weight is not a big factor either way, and the stiffness should be fairly close as well. Unless there is a big difference in either weight or stiffness, I don't see the big problem here.
If I was trying to decide between the two, I would be more worried about the internals than anything else. Like fat chicks say, it is what is on the inside that counts.

I do love the 1.5 headtubes for sure.
The added benefit of those is the added crown adjustibility with E13 cups and all that jazz.

one o fthe biggest things is the amount of weld area on a 1.5 head. that makes the bikes a lot stronger. more surface and all. i notice a stiffness increace. more surface for my headset cups makes tube wallowing hiastory.

the advantages outweight the neg, . . . . wait .. .what neg. :eviltongu

 

[zedro]

i Did Marzocchi ever do this internally? If so, why wasn't it published anywhere? By not doing so, Marzocchi has implied that the Marzocchi engineering approach is ....

are you insane? does any company release hard data on the structural performance of their products, let alone how they test their products? dont you think that may just give away RnD/testing methodology, something companies like to protect? what about confusing consumers with engineering data they are not fit to interpret, or comprising themselves by having other companies manipulate competing data? what, you think Marzocchi has to offer technical to the 1.5 crusaders using data to validate their engineering and buisness stance?

while you're at it, why dont you demand DW provide you with all his data and analysis pertaining to the DW-Links performance to justify its existance over an FSR design....

this kinda reminds me of the dude over in mtbr that argued that fork makers should provide the consumer with fatigue analysis data tables so they know when to swap out forks before they break...

 

[Zark]

this kinda reminds me of the dude over in mtbr that argued that fork makers should provide the consumer with fatigue analysis data tables so they know when to swap out forks before they break...

You are fuggin kidding me! "well that run was about....75 cycles" <adds to fork score card> What an ass!

 

[frorider]

are you insane? does any company release hard data on the structural performance of their products, let alone how they test their products? dont you think that may just give away RnD/testing methodology, something companies like to protect? what about confusing consumers with engineering data they are not fit to interpret, or comprising themselves by having other companies manipulate competing data? what, you think Marzocchi has to offer technical to the 1.5 crusaders using data to validate their engineering and buisness stance?

while you're at it, why dont you demand DW provide you with all his data and analysis pertaining to the DW-Links performance to justify its existance over an FSR design....

this kinda reminds me of the dude over in mtbr that argued that fork makers should provide the consumer with fatigue analysis data tables so they know when to swap out forks before they break...

got news for ya zedro--companies ROUTINELY publish sanitized data to make a point in issues exactly analagous to this one. The methods of sanitization vary. A graph isn't even needed. Or the graph can have axes that aren't labelled numerically, but show relative comparison.

alternatively, a company can duck the issue entirely.

but now we've moved from a discussion of Engineering 101 (which is a topic i already know you understand well) to PR/Advertising 101 (which is also an interesting topic, but I'm not sure I want to belabor this point any longer

 

[Jeremy R]

one o fthe biggest things is the amount of weld area on a 1.5 head. that makes the bikes a lot stronger. more surface and all. i notice a stiffness increace. more surface for my headset cups makes tube wallowing hiastory.

the advantages outweight the neg, . . . . wait .. .what neg. :eviltongu

I said in my post how I was all for 1.5 headtubes.
And I also like the big 1.5 inch headsets and those big ole bearings like the ones in my FSA. It turns super smooth.
I was just talking about the 1.5 steerer tube, and how if it just came down to the steerer size alone, I would pick the fork based on the internals.

 

[OGRipper]

I agree that a lot of data is kept confidential unless it's trumped up, vague, and cloaked in marketing jargon.

But I have to think that if 'Zoke has some data proving that 1.125 is superior they would at least release the results, if not the methodology, because it would support their stance. In that case we would get the technical argument against 1.5 we keep requesting and not getting.

Instead we get answers that basically say: "The reason we, a major fork manufacturer, don't produce 1.5 forks is because most major fork manufacturers don't produce 1.5 forks."

Can't argue with that logic.
:mumble:

 

[Brian Peterson]

No, the reason we don't produce 1.5 forks is we don't see a need to make forks specific to a limited number of frames.... Costs vs. returns... Refer to my earlier Super Monster post...

Brian

 

[zedro]

got news for ya zedro--companies ROUTINELY publish sanitized data to make a point in issues exactly analagous to this one. The methods of sanitization vary....

ya i know, but thats the equivalent to simply saying "it is as good or better" (to which they pretty much to say), which is why i assumed you were expecting something more relevant, so why bother in that case. Either you simply state your conclusion and let people trust it (or not say anything at all and let your product design do the talking), or you would have to provide data and testing procedure etc if you wanted actual proof and validation, where at lest people would be able to scrutinize the procedures for relevance and accuracy.

if theres anything that makes me scream at my monitor (besides moderating mtbr :mumble: ), its the masterbatory readings in companies tech/manufacturing/why-we-are-better sections. Anyone who knows better is in tune to how meaningless anecdotal evidence really is.

 

[buildyourown]

My favorite is FEA screenshots proving that they have done lots of non-destructive testing. *cough* ellsworth *cough*
IMO, that is the most common use for FEA software. Making pretty pictures for clients and cataloges. That's all I use it for.

 

[OGRipper]

Brian, so you are saying that even if it's a good idea, 'Zoke isn't going along because for the moment the sales potential doesn't look promising? If that's your answer, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea.

Chicken or the egg? If you build it they will come. And other cliches too obvious. As others have pointed out, there are a ton of 1.5 products out there DESPITE the fact the Manitou is only major US fork manufacturer to support it.

Let's pretend for the moment we are not in the real world, and the only thing that matters is figuring out the best way to achieve the optimum combination of light weight, strength, and stiffness, ignoring what other people are doing, sales projections, etc. (Come on, allow a little unrealistic indulgence.)

From that hypothetical, narrow, purely technical/engineering point of view, yes or no, in your opinion is 1.125 superior to 1.5 for dh, dj, and other burly applications?

 

[zedro]

From that hypothetical, narrow, purely technical/engineering point of view, yes or no, in your opinion is 1.125 superior to 1.5 for dh, dj, and other burly applications?

umm, when did people get the impression Brian was an engineer part of product development? geez leave the guy alone lol...

and nobody suggested 1.125 was superior, but rather 1.5 wasent entirely necessary....when will this die?!

i still think they should of gone to 2.0....

 

[OGRipper]

I don't mean to pick on Brian, only responding to his comments. I've said a bunch of times that he's a credit to his employer and that I respect his participation in these debates. I understand that he may not be able to publicly say anything other than the company line, whether he personally agrees or not. I also understand that no decision can be made in a vacuum.

I'm just trying to get to the core of 'Zoke's decision, cause it seems contrary to what most of the engineer-types (including you Zedro) have said.

Besides, he's a big kid, he can defend himself.

 

[punkassean]

i still think they should of gone to 2.0....

Haven't you seen the '06 Sherman?

 

[jncarpenter]

Brian, so you are saying that even if it's a good idea, 'Zoke isn't going along because for the moment the sales potential doesn't look promising? If that's your answer, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea.

...WOW!!! Doesn't anyone objectively read a post that's potentially contrary to their own opinion anymore? No, that is absolutely NOT what he is saying. Re-read the post!! He said that any POTENTIAL/ "Theoretical" gains that may/ may not be inherent to the 1.5" do not JUSTIFY potentially excluding a majority of the market (those with 1.125" FRAMES!!). That means even IF 1.5" has an advantage over the 1.125", Marzocchi does not feel that it is significant enough (remember, they have tested some) to warrant a model that MANY will be unable to utilize. Of course $$ better be a consideration in todays market if survival is considered important (particularly in the bike industry). They have every right to decide what is/ isn't a viable investment in the future of their co.

 

[OGRipper]

Funny, maybe you didn't really read my last post. Or any of my earlier posts.

I said I accept it IF their reasoning is based on their determination of the market.

But the real objective question for me is whether there is an advantage to 1.5 from a purely technical point of view. Many think there IS an advantage, and it's not theoretical, it's very real. But because of production realities, market perception, etc., they decided not to do it. As I said before, FINE, if that's their answer. But they seem to be arguing that there is no sound engineering reasoning, and I don't buy it. Other than platform damping, every recent gain in performance has been a matter of degree rather than revolutionary.

I STILL haven't heard anyone from 'Zoke admit that from an engineering point of view, 1.5 makes sense. And I'm not holding my breath.

I didn't expect Brian to respond to that last post, but I doubt this is the last of this debate. It is, however, the last you will hear from me in this thread. Tonight anyway(!)

Chill. I still love my 888.

 

[zedro]

I STILL haven't heard anyone from 'Zoke admit that from an engineering point of view, 1.5 makes sense. And I'm not holding my breath.

what company would say they wont do something that might have a performance advantage?

and also, at what point do you even consider something a tangible advantage? from engineering speak, theres such a term as a negligible quantity, meaning no real difference from a practical standpoint.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Frame builders are the ones that need to support 1.5 for it to make a big differance. If giant, norco, kona and other mass mega market crap adopted the standard then forks manufactures would jump on board.

No one has mentioned the extra stress put on a 1.25inch frame with a 6inch fork. Really bad idea IMO. This is what is going to happen

1. Companies/people will spec 1.25inch steerer 6inch single crown forks on their bikes
2. People take then out hucking of **** and generally trashing them
3. People will be snapping of head tubes, bending frames etc
4. Frame builders will get pissed of at having to warrenty frames and will figure it is cheaper to make the head tube 1.5 then to replace the whole frame
5. Mazochi, rock**** and co. will jump on the bandwagon and proclaim 1.5 is the best improvement in fork technology and that they have the hardest of the hardcore forks.

 

[zedro]

No one has mentioned the extra stress put on a 1.25inch frame with a 6inch fork. Really bad idea IMO. This is what is going to happen

.

how is this situation different when 4"-5" forks came out? frame makers will simply make sure their bikes can handle the forks they spec on the bike, and its common knowledge you're asking for trouble putting longer than oem forks on bikes.

i put a 5" fork on my Zaskar, and i know full well it aint exactly ideal and already ovalized my HT with a crappy headset i should of swapped out. But who should i complain to about this? Probably Marz for ever producing a 5" fork...damn them!

 

[narlus]

i put a 5" fork on my Zaskar, and i know full well it aint exactly ideal and already ovalized my HT with a crappy headset i should of swapped out.

should have used a King.

 

[jncarpenter]

Funny, maybe you didn't really read my last post. Or any of my earlier posts.

I said I accept it IF their reasoning is based on their determination of the market.

.........OK.....again, here's where you seem to be getting hung up:

Brian said:

No, the reason we don't produce 1.5 forks is we don't see a need to make forks specific to a limited number of frames

You said:

Brian, so you are saying that even if it's a good idea, 'Zoke isn't going along because for the moment the sales potential doesn't look promising? If that's your answer, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea.

....if I am misinterpreting your intent, my apologies. It seems you are focusing on the $$ end of the decision & as I stated before, of course businesses need to make responsible financial decisions. However, what I interpret Brian's comment to imply is that there is no perceived NEED because any potential gains introduced by the 1.5" are negligible at best & do not necessitate additional expenses of introducing a new standard. IOW they can sufficiently deliver comparable performance that is compatible with all frame platforms which will enable them to be more efficient with their business, benefitting the customer overall (less expensive products and/ or more monies available to develop concepts that DO meet a perceived NEED in their market)

Only a fool would suggest a business holds profitability to a low priority...however, I felt the orientation of his statement reflected more of a balanced approach (I.E. perceived consumer needs) than simply just dollars & cents.

ANYHOOO my $0.02

 

[Incubus]

...He said that any POTENTIAL/ "Theoretical" gains that may/ may not be inherent to the 1.5" do not JUSTIFY potentially excluding a majority of the market (those with 1.125" FRAMES!!). That means even IF 1.5" has an advantage over the 1.125", Marzocchi does not feel that it is significant enough (remember, they have tested some) to warrant a model that MANY will be unable to utilize...

Unfortunately, manufacturers will likely never use 1.5 on their XC bikes. So XC bikes will always have a 1.125 headtube. XC bikes make up a collasal percentage of the mtb bikes sold. So Marzo can continue to spout off what they're currently spouting. What Brian is saying will likely always be true.

This is where it's up to frame manufacturers to steer (no pun intended ) this new standard. In order for this to really take off, enough FR frames need to have this oversized headtube to create a sense that the size of the headtube defines what the bike is built for. Unfortunately this is far from the case.

If there was ever this association that 1.5 = FR, then other fork manufacturers would be forced to give the customer a choice as Manitou choses to do today.

I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for a 1.5 Fox 36.

 

[jncarpenter]

I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for a 1.5 Fox 36.

...if your fingertips grow cold & begin to turn bluish....try & change hands for a while