[Matt D]

Awesome, thanks Brian!

I would imagine these new crowns would be available stock on a new 888 direct from Marz right? I makes a lot more sense getting them with the fork than having some brand new stock crowns sitting around and having to buy the new set.

Definitely keep me posted on this, when they're in, I may have to EP one!

 

[go-ride.com]

Seeing as I started this whole thing, yah the Go-ride “Lowrider” crowns were my idea, I think I can clear up a few things.

A shout out to a couple of industry people I know, like, and respect.

1. I have known Kevin Risse for about 6 years and back in the day we used to hang out a bit. To my knowledge Kevin does not smoke weed, and certainly is not high while designing products. So, please do not spread rumors unless you have personal first hand knowledge otherwise. As for his employees, I do not recognize any of the guys in the pictures, so I have no comment.

2. Brian Peterson has been a great help in building the sales relationship between Go-ride and Marzocchi. He is a big reason why Go-ride is so confident when recommending a Marzocchi product to any of our customers. Without first rate customer service even great products will suffer. Thanks for all the hard work BP.

PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO POINTS 3, 4 AND 5!

3. The Marzocchi 888 is the best damn 8” travel fork I have ridden, and when you consider that it retails for under $1200, or $600 less than its closest competitor, that is saying a lot! Thank you Marzocchi!

4. The Marzocchi 888 does not need any aftermarket crowns. The ones that come on it are perfectly functional. Brian is right, if you are happy with your fork the way it is, there is no need to change it.

5. I see our Lowrider crowns as a testament to our belief that the 888 is a great fork. I would not even considered this project if I did not believe that 888 is a great product and worthy of spending $300 for a small improvement. For example: we don’t make crowns for Boxxers.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE WHOLE STORY, KEEP READING…

6. If you are serious about DH racing then you will understand that bike geometry one of the most important aspects of any DH bike. I when I say geometry I am referring to: top tube length, BB height, steering angle, chain stay length and handle bar height.

7. At least 90% of the current DH bikes are designed around a 21” to 22” axle to crown fork height, to achieve the manufacture’s recommended ride height and steering angle. Here are the axle to crown heights that manufactures consider when designing DH frames: 7” Manitou Dorado (21.0”), 7” Rock Shox Boxxer is 21.0”, 170mm ’04 Super T 21.25”. These are all set at minimum ride height, but still clear at least a 2.7” tire.

8. The Marzocchi 888 (200mm) with stock crowns has a minimum axle to crown height of 23.5”. That’s 2” taller than most 7” forks. For me that is taller than I wanted, so I found a way to make a crown that lowers the ride height by 1.0”. The Go-ride Lowrider crowns give the 888 (200mm) an axle to crown height of 22.5”. Originally, I was only going to make 10 sets for some friends and myself, but a few other riders liked the idea. If you don’t then that’s great too.

9. It is true that the stock 888 crowns will just barely clear the brake arch when the fork is bottomed and the crowns are set at the minimum height line. However, we took a different approach to making our crowns and they will also clear the arch when fully bottomed and set at the minimum height line, yet they still have a 1” lower axle to crown height than the stock crowns.

10. The Go-ride “Lowrider” crowns will clear a 3.0 tire when set at the minimum crown height and the fork is fully bottomed. If think that ride height and geometry are important enough to buy our crowns, you probably don’t ride 3.0 tires, but if you do rock the 3.0s you can still get all the benefits of our crowns.

11. If you want aftermarket crowns and like the Risse crowns better than the Go-ride ones, well…buy them. Unfortunately, I can tell from the pictures they will not clear the brake arch when set at the minimum ride height and the fork is fully bottomed. How do I know? 1. You will notice that they have their crowns set about 1 cm (4/10 ths of an inch) above the minimum height line (see pic 1 below). 2. Look at pic 2 below and you will see what looks like impact marks on the fork arch exactly where I would expect the Risse crowns to hit. 3. We did 3 prototypes to get our crowns exactly the way we wanted them, so I know what they should look like to get the job done right.

12. Blackdiamond, no hard feelings, and if you decide that only being able to lower your ride height by about ½” is not worth the money you may be saving from buying the Risse crowns, you know the number, but just in case you forgot 801-474-0081.

If you have made it this far you will understand that we made the Lowrider crowns because we felt a need for them on our own bikes. We did not make them based on market demographics, marketing hype or to make huge piles of cash. We did not make them for every rider; for that matter we don’t even think that most riders need them. However, if you understand the benefits, you may have the need, so we’ll keep making them.

Peace.

Image #1

Image #2

 

[Brian Peterson]

Thanks Scott.....

Brian

 

[kidwoo]

Originally posted by go-ride.com
4. The Marzocchi 888 does not need any aftermarket crowns. The ones that come on it are perfectly functional. Brian is right, if you are happy with your fork the way it is, there is no need to change it.

taken from the go-ride homepage:

If you are running a Marzocchi 888 you need these crowns. They lower your ride height by over 1" while still clearing a 3.0 tire. Only from Go-ride.com!


Aw come on now which is it?

I am completely kidding, I just thought it funny. I fully respect everyone at go-ride and follow their advice often. If you want I will take myself out back now and beat my own ass so that you don't have to. After being so trite and annoying, I deserve it.

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by go-ride.com

1. I have known Kevin Risse for about 6 years and back in the day we used to hang out a bit. To my knowledge Kevin does not smoke weed, and certainly is not high while designing products. So, please do not spread rumors unless you have personal first hand knowledge otherwise. As for his employees, I do not recognize any of the guys in the pictures, so I have no comment.

The guys that worked for risse that were at the downieville gathering last year were smoking like they were cheech n chong. Then they stoned their dog, and made it jump 7 feet in the air to grab a peice of meat or something, with a ~10-15lb padlock around it's neck. If Kevin Risse worked on and made every product himself, the "perception" would obviously not apply. He has chosen to hire some "less than steller" persons.

This is behavior I expect from kids 15-20 that are just screwing around. Not what I expect from a company that is making stuff that we count on to not fail and meet certain standards. I know the MTB world still has a lot to learn from the business world, but these guys are ambassadors for their company where ever they go. If you are going to F-around like that then do it where you aren't surrounded by 300 other people that spend money and recommend stuff to their friends.

 

[James | Go-Ride]

Originally posted by kidwoo
taken from the go-ride homepage:

If you are running a Marzocchi 888 you need these crowns. They lower your ride height by over 1" while still clearing a 3.0 tire. Only from Go-ride.com!


Aw come on now which is it?

I am completely kidding, I just thought it funny. I fully respect everyone at go-ride and follow their advice often. If you want I will take myself out back now and beat my own ass so that you don't have to. After being so trite and annoying, I deserve it.

Let it be known that SOMEBODY here at the shop tried to point this out before Scott posted his thesis.....

 

[Brian Peterson]

James we should correct that....
If you are as tall as Scott, ride an El Cuervo, and live in Utah, then you need our crowns.....

Sorry, I couldn't resist.... One of these days I will make it there for some DH action....

Edit: On my personal bike, Mountain Cycle 9.5, the stock crowns at the minimum height rocks!!

Brian

 

[go-ride.com]

Originally posted by Brian Peterson
James we should correct that....
If you are as tall as Scott, rid an El Cuervo, and live in Utah, then you need our crowns.....

Sorry, I couldn't resist.... One of these days I will make it there for some DH action....

Edit: On my personal bike, Mountain Cycle 9.5, the stock crowns at the minimum height rocks!!

Brian

Do you happen to have Gazzy 3.0s on that mutha?

 

[Brian Peterson]

Scott....

Remember.... I live in Southern California.... We only ride bike paths and fire roads.... No need for 3.0 tires here!!

Brian

 

[bmxr]

Everybody has valid points and I think it's awesome that you guys have taken the time to explain so much. I just wanted to share my thoughts.

I LOVE the way the 888 looks and feels (I have tried it on others' bikes). There is a long list of things I like about it, however:

I don't know anybody that runs a 3.0 tire.
I hated the handling of my bullit with a 03 Monster, which is slightly shorter than the 888. I switched to an 02 Monster, and all is well in Bullitville.

I honestly think the 3.0 tire (if that is even the real reason the fork is so tallee go-ride crowns ) should have been a secondary consideration to ride height on a fork that was destined to go on so many race bikes and other bikes that don't benefit from being raked out. I would still consider a 170mm 888, but I can't help but to think it would be a better product if it wasn't unnecessarily tall.

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by bmxr


I honestly think the 3.0 tire (if that is even the real reason the fork is so tallee go-ride crowns ) should have been a secondary consideration to ride height

Ahh yes...and the masses would be screaming for 3.0 compatability instead of ride height...


3.0s are quite possibly one of the worst inventions in DH mountain biking....

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Jm_
Ahh yes...and the masses would be screaming for 3.0 compatability instead of ride height...


3.0s are quite possibly one of the worst inventions in DH mountain biking....

Pinkbike logic: If a 2.7 is good, then a 3.0 must be better.

 

[Fulton]

Originally posted by Damn True
Pinkbike logic: If a 2.7 is good, then a 3.0 must be better.

damn, I just bought 2.5's tooo..........

just my luck

 

[ChrisRobin]

If you're just putzing around, 3.0 tires are fun...although you can easily get better traction from a 2.8 Michelin.

 

[Jimmy_Pop]

I had a Risse champ for a year and I really like the pinch bolt steerer. I changed frames and slid in a new one and it was cake! It never caused any issues either.

joel

Originally posted by Kanter
They should be fairly inexpensive as the steer tube doesn't look pressed in. It looks like there is a pinch bolt on the bottom crown. I dont know if I like that idea or not.

http://www.risseracing.com/888/3.jpg

http://www.risseracing.com/888/5.jpg

Wouldn't it still need to be pressed though? Are there any other forks or crowns that do this?

 

[Kntr]

The Arrow 3.0 hooks up awesome but is only a 2.8 compared to other tires. The Gazzo 3.0 hooks up increadably, also. I have ridden all size tires on the 888 and I think the 2.5 Maxxis Minion hooks up just as well as any 3.0. But on the other hand a 3.0 feels so smooth and feels like it gives the 888 another inch of travel if you can imagine that. As for traction there is no added benefit. Now if they made a Michy 3.0!!

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Kanter
Now if they made a Michy 3.0!!

.........it would be too heavy, roll too slow, and provide little or nothing in the way of added traction, just like other 3.0's.

 

[Kntr]

Have you ever run a 3.0? I raced on 24s a few years ago with a 2.6 Gazzo rear and a 3.0 front and did fairly well. And they rolled faster than Maxxis 40 or 42. I even tested it.

As for weight.... The 26x3.0 Gazzo is lighter than some Intense DH 2.7 tires. How can you say too heavy? I do agree that a 3.0 doesnt give anymore traction but weigh is another thing.

 

[binary visions]

Originally posted by Jm_
The guys that worked for risse that were at the downieville gathering last year were smoking like they were cheech n chong...

...If Kevin Risse worked on and made every product himself, the "perception" would obviously not apply. He has chosen to hire some "less than steller" persons...

...these guys are ambassadors for their company where ever they go...

Agreed. I don't think people always understand that their employees are a reflection of the company.

Kevin Risse may as well be out there himself taking bong hits through a megaphone with his employees acting like that. Nobody cares that he doesn't smoke weed, they care that the people who are representing the company are.

It's very similar to the asinine comments made by the Marzocchi VP that were sent to Ridemonkey. Nobody cares that all his employees aren't overly aggressive dicks, that's how he came across and he's representing the company. The only difference is that Brian P. is good at P.R. and was around to do some damage control. If Kevin Risse logged onto this board and posted that he's sorry that his employees acted in such a manner but blah blah have been disciplined blah blah careful, sober product design... It'd probably do a lot to help his image.

Back on topic, I think there's way too much commentary about this very simple thing. If you don't mind the ride height high, use the stock crowns. If it's important to have the ride height low, use the Go-Ride crowns. It's simply. It's absolutely no different from any other modification like the Mojo cartridge, or a Romic crown, or having your Fox shock "Pushed". Why do people think that the simple existance of an alternative product indicates that the stock part is unacceptable?

 

[Repack]

Originally posted by Kanter
As for weight.... The 26x3.0 Gazzo is lighter than some Intense DH 2.7 tires. How can you say too heavy? I do agree that a 3.0 doesnt give anymore traction but weigh is another thing.

It goes like this: "Too heavy".
I love the Intense rubber and tread patterns, but they weigh far more than Maxxis or Michelin. Its the main reason I stopped using Intense tires.
(Just bustin')

 

[Kntr]

Minion 26x2.7--1380g
Mich 26x2.8-- 1350g
Gazzo 26x3.0--1550g

Gazzo 24x3.0--1390g
Gazzo 24x2.6--1230g

I ran the Gazzo 24 set up and they are lighter than a Maxxis 2.7 set up. The 26x3.0 is a monster and too heavy but great for shuttle days. The 24x3.0 Gazzo is almost the same diameter as a smaller 26. The 24 x3.0 is a little different tread than the 26x3.0. It actually hooks up better. To eaches own I guess, but the 3.0 in a 24 is not that bad.

BTW I see a lot of guys running 3.0x24 rear and 3.0x26 in the front in BC Canada.

 

[Jm_]

They roll like ass, and they don't have better traction than a good sticky 2.7 tire. Period. There might be fast riders on them, but they'd be even faster if they were not on 3.0s.

gazzi 3.0x24=1423g
gazzi 3.0x26=1664g

 

[Kntr]

My 24 3.0 & 2.6 combo rolled better than my friends Maxxis HR SRY 2.5s. We tested them many times. I would pull away from him with both of us ridding side by side without pedaling. Bikes weighing the same and riders weighing the same. Im sure he had more traction, though.

I guess the Nokian website for weights must be wrong.

Have you ever ridden 3.0 and 2.6 combos in a 24 or 26 for any period of time? Im just wondering? I have never ridden the 3.0 in a 26 so I really cant comment.

This debate could go on and on. Im just saying my 24 combo rolled better than my friends Maxxis SRY. Im sure he had more traction though. I also agree a 3.0x26 is waaaay too heavy and probably rolls slower than both combos mentioned.

 

[Jeremy R]

3.0 tires are like really skimpy clothing for fat chicks.
2 things that just should not be made.

 

[DßR]

Originally posted by Kanter
My 24 3.0 & 2.6 combo rolled better than my friends Maxxis HR SRY 2.5s. We tested them many times. I would pull away from him with both of us ridding side by side without pedaling. Bikes weighing the same and riders weighing the same. Im sure he had more traction, though.

That's totally meaningless unless you were both on the same bike, with the same PSI in your tires, taking the exact same line, at the exact same moment.

I've ridden the same trails for many years, and I've done it on 26x2.2's, 24x3.0's, and every combo in between. I can tell for CERTAIN that on a given trail, on a given bike, 24 x 3.0's are by far the slowest-rolling combo out there.

There's a rhythm section at our jumps that I absolutely CANNOT make it through with 24x3.0's front and rear on my bike. With 26's, it's childs' play, because my momentum is not killed.

IMHO, 3.0's are a worthless holdover from the late '90s, along with Doublewides, square-taper, falling-rate DH frames, and other ill-thought-out travesties of the MTB industry.

 

[Curb Hucker]

Originally posted by DßR


IMHO, 3.0's are a worthless holdover from the late '90s, along with Doublewides, square-taper, falling-rate DH frames, and other ill-thought-out travesties of the MTB industry.

So is building up a Demo 9, with green doublewides, 24in 3.0's, and square taper cranks a bad idea, damn

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by Kanter

Have you ever ridden 3.0 and 2.6 combos in a 24 or 26 for any period of time? Im just wondering? I have never ridden the 3.0 in a 26 so I really cant comment.

.

Yes, they sucked ass. I've ridden F/R 26x3.0 and 24x3.0 R setups. The nokian weights are off, go check out the weightweenies site. It's a commonly accepted that they weigh ~1600 for the 3.0x24s. The 3.0x24s aren't far behind at ~1400. They are massive tires, it's no mystery. Now there are some other heavy tires out there, like the regular Intense ones. I have the intense "EX" tires, and the simple way to put it is that the "EX" tires are more like the "normal" DH tires that other companies make. The "normal" intense tires have crazy sidewalls that are just overkill and compared to most other DH tires, quite heavy.

Michelin comp32s are used most of the time with a rear comp24.1, which makes for a decent combo, it isn't as heavy as a 3.0 nokian up front (but close), and with smaller (and sticky!) rear, you get really good rolling and even less weight. There just isn't a big reason to need 3.0s when the sticky tread 2.7s work as well as they can. There are other variables that might have affected your "test", in fact inertia would keep a heavier wheel rolling longer down a hill, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that there is less rolling resistance to it. Go kick a 1200 gram tire down a hill, and a 1600 gram tire down a hill. The 1600 gram one will slow down slower, and roll further. Doesn't mean there is less rolling resistance.

3.0 is beyond the "threshold" of rolling resistance and weight that makes a good tire for DH. I don't even think the traction is that great, it's wierd how they react, pulling you to the outside of the turn, they don't seem to hold lines as well as a smaller sticky tire, they seem to "break" on certain kinds of terrain suddenly.

Lastly, you can "like" 3.0s, and for the biggest hucks (if that is all you do all day) there could be some advantage, but the fact is that you are in the minority with that view, and 99.9% of DH riders see a pretty big decrease in performance when they go to a 3.0 tire, and I definitely would not ever say that 3.0 should be a design-guideline for any fork or bike.

 

[Kntr]

Ok. We were both on almost exact Big Hits. Both bikes weighed the same and riders weighed the same. Tire pressures were 25 in both Maxxis and 20 in the Gazzos. We were on a steep gravel road side by side. I pulled away from him. We tried it several times because we couldn't believe it. The SRY tires do roll slower than you think. The other rider with us couldn't believe it either. The only time I can see using 3.0s is when shuttling.

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by ViolentVolante
So is building up a Demo 9, with green doublewides, 24in 3.0's, and square taper cranks a bad idea, damn

You gotta use the Carumba Double Barrel cranks

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by Kanter
Ok. We were both on almost exact Big Hits. Both bikes weighed the same and riders weighed the same. Tire pressures were 25 in both Maxxis and 20 in the Gazzos. We were on a steep gravel road side by side. I pulled away from him. We tried it several times because we couldn't believe it. The SRY tires do roll slower than you think. The other rider with us couldn't believe it either. The only time I can see using 3.0s is when shuttling.

There's more variables, like brake rub and expansion due to heat, wind resistance (plays a huge role), bearing friction, etc...

Everyone that's ridden with me with 3.0s (including when I used the bikes with em) had to pedal their ass off to keep up, maybe they were just crappy riders, but I have a hard time beliving that a 3.0 would have less friction than a 2.7, even a SR one...

 

[Kntr]

They were almost exact bikes minus cranks. Both of us wieghed almost the exact same and exact height. The difference was so big that the variables you speak of would not have made a difference. I was even running lower tire pressure in the 24 gazzos.

 

[Jm_]

Originally posted by Kanter
They were almost exact bikes minus cranks. Both of us wieghed almost the exact same and exact height. The difference was so big that the variables you speak of would not have made a difference. I was even running lower tire pressure in the 24 gazzos.

Tire pressures were 25 in both Maxxis and 20 in the Gazzos

Actually, gazzis are so damn big, that due to the volume; 20psi in the gazzi would be like 40psi in the maxxis. My buddy ran about 12psi in them usually. 20psi for a 3.0 is actually pretty high, and might have meant a smaller contact patch. Also, riding on the road where you might be riding mostly on the "knobs" might not be a very good indication, especially of traction.

 

[Jm_]

btw, did you 'pull away" from him from a dead stop? or were you already at speed? Because of inertia, if you were already moving, a lighter tire with less weight out futher( like a 3.0 has) is going to slow down faster, making it seem like you are pulling away.

 

[Kntr]

( like a 3.0 has) is going to slow down faster, making it seem like you are pulling away

hu?

We were already rolling at speed. We tried it at about 5 mph and again at about 15 mph.

 

[bmxr]

Originally posted by binary visions Why do people think that the simple existance of an alternative product indicates that the stock part is unacceptable? [/B]

That's not what people are saying. There are actual reasons why people don't like super-tall forks.

 

[crashing_sux]

Originally posted by zedro
you need a concentric pivot to not run a tensioner. The FSR would be no different from a Stinky in this case

Usually you're dead on with most of your comments Zedro but this one surprised me. Have you ever considered that someone has probably ridden that bike? And if so, then your understanding of the requirements for it to work might need revising?

As impossible as it sounds (to you at least) I rode my old Specialized Enduro with a Rohloff and no chain tensioner for a while and had no problems with the chain. You don't need zero chain growth for a design to work, you just need the chain growth to stay within an acceptable (albeit small) range.

In the case of my Enduro my tensioner had seized (I was running a crappy Surly Singulator, one run through the mud killed it) so I chose the appropriate sized front and rear sprockets to allow me to run the bike with no tensioner using a calculator I found on a single speed website. I did have to keep the Enduro in the 4" travel setting, I tested it in the 5" setting and the chain didn't break but did get too tight for my liking.

Basically I set it up so the chain was at the tension I liked with about one inch of sag, when the bike unloaded the chain loosed slightly but not enough to derail or hit my chainstays, and when the suspension compressed the chain tightened some but not enough to cause any problems.

I really liked the bike this way and wish there was just a touch less chain growth so I could have used the full 5" of travel without a tensioner. One less thing to break.

Different model fsr's had varying amounts of chaingrowth. It's actually pretty surprising that a bunch of dumbass pot smokers could figure this out when the engineering types thought it impossible, even after seeing a picture of a bike setup to run this way.

 

[crashing_sux]

And for what it's worth, an fsr setup this way would be different from a single pivot with the same location of the front pivot. It would actually be worse, as the horst link causes the chainstay to lengthen trying to keep the rear axle path more vertical instead of pivoting up and forward around the front pivot.

It still isn't enough to cause a problem though in this case.

 

[ChrisRobin]

I forgot how we got into this whole 3.0 thing but anyways...

I remember when having a gazz 3.0 in front and a gazz 2.6 in rear was THE tire combo to get. Then comes the Mich 2.8 and we all switch to dual 2.8s or 2.8 in front and 2.5 rear (now with the comp16 in 2.5)....we all agreed: wayyyyy better traction. Unless Nokian comes out with something new and soft, forget it. Too big and too clumsy for the weight and so-so traction it gives.

 

[ChrisRobin]

Oh, as for the Rohloff system....well, on my frame I played around with the swingarm to see the chain stretch and it's minimal. The chain tensioner barely moves yet it's comforting knowing that it's there keeping tension onthe chain 100% of the time. I was impressed as to how tight the spring is...if only regular derailleurs could be as tight. I say it should be run WITH the tensioner just to be on the safe side.

 

[binary visions]

Originally posted by bmxr
That's not what people are saying. There are actual reasons why people don't like super-tall forks.

Without a doubt. Read my post again - you took that one sentence out of context.

Fact is, 90% of the people bitching about ride height of the fork had never ridden it, never even sat on one, probably most of them hadn't even ridden an 8" fork before, yet they just knew it was wrong for them.

Kanter, your very professional "roll test" is meaningless. There are a billion variables at work here and you simply can't predict all of them. What if one of you had recently serviced your hubs while the other's was caked with mud? What if one of you was shifting your body weight, "pumping" the bike a little bit? There are so many "what if's", you simply can't do a test like that and expect the results to be valid.