that video was sweet!Slacker said:
Let The Speculation Start !
- Thread starter Curb Hucker
- Start date
The Kadvang said:
HAHAHAHAHAH, thats great dude. But yeah, people had been comenting on seeing these brakes in some of the zoch tents (at whistler i believe). I am assuming that we will be seeing them in '05. Hope they live up to their motorsport reputation, because if so i might just have to go with a set...
does brembo utilize any technology the current disc makers don't use? I mean just because they make cool 6 pot calipers for superbikes doesn't mean they make a better brake technology wise.
that said I really wish the mantiou caliper style was the IS standard those stupid shims suck balls
that said I really wish the mantiou caliper style was the IS standard those stupid shims suck balls
Well, just because they don't use any new technology doesn't mean the market couldn't use another good, reliable disc brake. Competition is a good thing.Leethal said:
I'm not sure how big a company they are, having no experience in moto sports, but might they be big enough to push these brakes into a really good price point? Competitive with the HFX-9s (cheaper than the Mags) without all the problems that plague the HFX-9s? Or are they small so that this will become a botique item along with 6-pot Hopes?
Time will tell, I guess...
You guys need to take more vacation time.
Yeah, I love that thing.punkassean said:
very well saidpunkassean said:
What a waste of time, they know they just can't compete
Here is the funny thing.... People can look at a picture of something like a fork, tire, or set of brakes on the internet and instantly tell if it will suck or change the world. Now to say how crappy a product is when you have zero working knowledge is about as good as saying how great something is with the same amount of knowledge. Sean, you and I have the same amount of riding time on the Marzocchi tires, which would be none. So how could either of us say if they work or not?
Brian
Brian
BP, it's not necessarily about the tire working "well" or not, it's more about a tread design that exclusively consists of that darn "M" logo. I know I am not the only one who has been disappointed in the past by Marz's desire to incorporate that logo at the cost of ultimate performance. Whether it's tire clearance, arch stiffness or axle to crown height that is compromised or something as day to day annoying as painful to turn adjuster knobs(marathon)...all for the sake of further branding (to the point of beating a dead horse) the already strongest branded forks on the market. I truly believe that when designing something as important as a tire, traction not incorporation of logos should the number one priority, PERIOD! That is why I doubt the ultimate performance potential of these new tires and also why I feel somewhat comfortable speculating as to their performance. As I said before, If those tires were available in a super tacky compound I am sure regardless of the tread, they would create sufficient if not excellent traction, however knowing now that they are made by Nokian tells me that they will be soft rubber but not tacky rubber, so that furthers my concerns. And last but not least I would be curious to ask Bryson were he got the nerve to enter a market that was pioneered by the likes of Maxxis, Michelin and Intense when Marzocchi has zero "street cred" as a freeride tire manufacturer? I think Marz needs to earn the right to come out with a freeride tire. (not really, but you do see the irony?) Anyway, this whole thing is overblown, Dropmachine took one line (posted by me) out of another thread and decided to slam me for speculating, so I am defending myself (and my right to speculate) more than anything, I truly don't care about this new tire and I am sure it will sell like hot cakes! A lot of "good little consumers" love brand association and will spend lots of $$$ to feel affiliated with a "core" company like Marz. I most likely wont be buying a set but that's not the point. However, I am tentatively very impressed with some of the new forks especially the 66,
but then again that's pure speculation...
but then again that's pure speculation...
But if we didn't speculate and argue over things that we had no idea on, there'd be no posts here and we'd actually be doing our jobs...Brian Peterson said:
Brian Peterson said:
I think what Sean is trying to say, is that Marz has a history of putting form over function and that this smells like another example.
"M" arch comes to mind. Sure it isn't as stiff as the old design and has worse tire clearance, but it looks like a M.
I love Marz products but every company makes bad product line / marketing choices and the M arch was one of them.
I had so many umma gumma's BITD...I loved the Cannibal 2.2" up front with the stealthy black sidewalls and I used some form or another of ground control (extreme?) rear tire in a 1.95"... didn't get much cooler than that! grey tire w/black sidewalls on a metallic fushia w/goldenrod decals, 1" headtubed M2 w/ future shocks and Deore DX/XT...even thumb shifters, oh yeah and don't forget the Scott brakes, hite-rite and grafton levers. ahhhh, 1992 was a good year!Jm_ said:that's backwards...
remember the specialized Umma Gummas ??
Sean,
You have some good points... But remember, all the tire makers you listed all had to earn their status too... When Maxxis was Cheng Shin, nobody wanted to touch them. But a new name and some new designs put them on the map. And when Intense first entered the tire market, it was "What? They make frames..." Everybody was an upstart at some point...
As for the M arch... Lack of stiffness? I have yet to see that backed up with any facts. Most of that has been "It looks flexy...." The tire clearence issue had more to do with the 32mm stanchions than the arch... Yeah sure, there is some vanity there, but should we strive to make our forks look like every other fork on the market?
Brian
You have some good points... But remember, all the tire makers you listed all had to earn their status too... When Maxxis was Cheng Shin, nobody wanted to touch them. But a new name and some new designs put them on the map. And when Intense first entered the tire market, it was "What? They make frames..." Everybody was an upstart at some point...
As for the M arch... Lack of stiffness? I have yet to see that backed up with any facts. Most of that has been "It looks flexy...." The tire clearence issue had more to do with the 32mm stanchions than the arch... Yeah sure, there is some vanity there, but should we strive to make our forks look like every other fork on the market?
Brian
Well, you can't possibly argue that "M" is the ideally engineered shape for that purpose. There was sacrifice somewhere, perhaps it was just a little bit more material to make it as stiff as a rounded arch. Not much of a sacrifice at all, but the fact is that as you said, there's some vanity there, and it sacrifices a small amount of functionality along with it.Brian Peterson said:
Yeah, it's all speculation from Sean, but the fact is that it appears that Marzocchi was a lot more concerned with branding their tire then making a great performing tread pattern. There are a lot of great tread patterns out there that have been evolving for a long time now, and this is different - at first glance, it appears that it was designed like this strictly to promote this corporate branding. Do I know how this will perform? Not at all. Maybe it's the greatest tire on the planet. But his speculation isn't entirely unreasonable.
Hey! That's the same bike I had.punkassean said:
An interrupted line (such as an "M") is no doubt weaker than an true arch I mean it is basically an accordion when heavily stressed, now is that amount of flex perceptible to the average rider? Who knows but either way IMHO it was one of the first in a growing line of "cheesy" incorporation of the company logo. As far as earning "street cred", I was being completely facetious and making light of Brysons' own hypocrisy pertaining to the comments he made about Manitou's 1.5 standard and that they had no right to try to enter "his" hard earned market. I have never agreed with that line of thinking, if you have product, bring it to market. Let the consumers decide if it's worthy, right? If Shermans weren't worthy of freeriding then after two years they wouldn't be as successful as they have been (albeit with some hitches along the way). Again, this is about the right to speculate not the integrity of Marz' products. I have stayed away since the the 2001 Z1 MCR I last had snapped at the joint (by the brake boss) and have been reluctant to go back. Well I did temporarily have a '03 JR.T but that's another story! Let's just say the damping wasn't sufficient for Tunnel trail and I was living in SB at the time. However I have extensively tested the 888R and it is the best DH fork (from any manufacturer) to date as far as overall feel/performance. I am/we are getting off track, this (argument?) is about every RM users right to speculate, even if it is slightly negative, without getting slammed personally.
so your the SOB that stole my bike!!!! :mumble:Dogboy said:
I think calling a product gay, saying it uses the wrong compound and is designed for form over function after looking at a photo of a dusty tyre is unreasonable. Sure make massive assumptions that you can't hope to back up but don't be surprised when someone tells you they are massive assumptions and you have nothing to back them up.binary visions said:
Okay, okay, I'm not defending the judgement of the tire compound or calling the product .. actually I believe the term used was "ghey"D_D said:
- I was just pointing out that "M" isn't some kind of universally superior shape that should be used in all applications.Sean,
I not not trying to slam you personally... I don't know you, so I don't try to take things to a personal level. And if RM users have a right to speculate, I also have a right to post a rebuttal. But, I still think you were right on the money by saying we need to earn our credibility in the tire market.
I try to keep things on the level when I post and make sure my info is as correct as possible when I post it. Hence why I don't jump on board every Marzocchi is the greatest ever thread... Will the tire be a case of form over function? Ask me after I ride it...
The age old 1.5 rant from Bryson.... Remember when Marzocchi introduced the Bomber line, the other two main companies said a 4in travel fork was crazy, unneeded, etc.. And they said it publicly too.... But, it didn't take long for them to follow suit.. So when Bryson speaks out about an idea that he feels is not needed, he is blasted.... And for the 1.5 fanatics out there, it still hasn't taken over the market like so many have predicted it would.... And really, with some nice reduction headsets on the market now, the debate really died quick. The only real down side it that if you own, or are planning to own a 1.5 fork, your frame selections are limited.
As for the M-arch... About the only way it is weaker is in a side load situation without a hub in place... If you compare the M-arch to the old bolt on arch, it way thicker front to back which gives it the needed strength in a lateral and torsional direction. It may seem like form over function, but there is some heavy duty R&D and testing that goes on before a prototype is seen on a bike...
Brian
I not not trying to slam you personally... I don't know you, so I don't try to take things to a personal level. And if RM users have a right to speculate, I also have a right to post a rebuttal. But, I still think you were right on the money by saying we need to earn our credibility in the tire market.
I try to keep things on the level when I post and make sure my info is as correct as possible when I post it. Hence why I don't jump on board every Marzocchi is the greatest ever thread... Will the tire be a case of form over function? Ask me after I ride it...
The age old 1.5 rant from Bryson.... Remember when Marzocchi introduced the Bomber line, the other two main companies said a 4in travel fork was crazy, unneeded, etc.. And they said it publicly too.... But, it didn't take long for them to follow suit.. So when Bryson speaks out about an idea that he feels is not needed, he is blasted.... And for the 1.5 fanatics out there, it still hasn't taken over the market like so many have predicted it would.... And really, with some nice reduction headsets on the market now, the debate really died quick. The only real down side it that if you own, or are planning to own a 1.5 fork, your frame selections are limited.
As for the M-arch... About the only way it is weaker is in a side load situation without a hub in place... If you compare the M-arch to the old bolt on arch, it way thicker front to back which gives it the needed strength in a lateral and torsional direction. It may seem like form over function, but there is some heavy duty R&D and testing that goes on before a prototype is seen on a bike...
Brian
My original comment about the tires wasn't that they were ghey, in fact this is exactly what I said in the original thread...D_D said:
This prompted certain RM members to make personal comments about my apparent "ability to know everything about a tire by looking at it" And proceeded to slam me (in a different thread, this one) and anyone else who thought the tire was "silly". In my own defense to these personal remarks and insults to my intelligence, I allowed my emotions to get the best of me and my stance became polarized (Hence the name calling). I still think that certain people overreacting to a simple observation is what caused this whole thing, however, yes I could have done a better job in not allowing it to escalate to this level. But I will not take responsibility for being the catalyst.punkassean said:
duh, they didn't put Ms on all their stuff, I mean, they put Ws on the tire!!binary visions said:Okay, okay, I'm not defending the judgement of the tire compound or calling the product .. actually I believe the term used was "ghey"
B,
I am in no way taking any personal offense from you or your comments! I have always respected your level headed-ness and rationality in every post on RM (and you have quite a few posts!). No doubt an "M" arch is strong but it also no doubt would be stronger without the "M". I also know that Marz does heavy R&D not only before releasing a product, but after, via the likes of Bender and all the other guys dropping cliffs/gaps and not breaking Monster's/888's. This thread was really never about you or even Marz as a company it was about personal attacks made by overzealous persons who are apparently way to easily offended by simple internet speculation. I really think the time has come for this thread to die as graceful a death as is possible given it's current maligned status.
Where's that smiley of the dead horse being beaten again?
-Sean
I am in no way taking any personal offense from you or your comments! I have always respected your level headed-ness and rationality in every post on RM (and you have quite a few posts!). No doubt an "M" arch is strong but it also no doubt would be stronger without the "M". I also know that Marz does heavy R&D not only before releasing a product, but after, via the likes of Bender and all the other guys dropping cliffs/gaps and not breaking Monster's/888's. This thread was really never about you or even Marz as a company it was about personal attacks made by overzealous persons who are apparently way to easily offended by simple internet speculation. I really think the time has come for this thread to die as graceful a death as is possible given it's current maligned status.
Where's that smiley of the dead horse being beaten again?
-Sean
Brian Peterson said:
Wow. I can't believe how much speculation masturbation there has been over this tire. To be honest, that pic of that tire is just something I skipped over so I could see the rest of the '05 fork line.
It just seems like they made so many positive changes to their fork line that nobody is talking about.
After years of hearing the crying about how the QR20 was anything but QR,
they are putting real 20mm on all their big forks from the Z1 up.
They are also coming out with an all new lineup just for trailbikes that looks promising. And of course, the lower crowns on the 888.
And all anybody wants to talk about is a tire that may or may not work.
Marzocchi is a fork company. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball here.
That would be like Zoke introducing their 05 fork line, and a fashion designer comes out of nowhere, and then says the colors on their t-shirts are all wrong and SO last season.
It just seems like they made so many positive changes to their fork line that nobody is talking about.
After years of hearing the crying about how the QR20 was anything but QR,
they are putting real 20mm on all their big forks from the Z1 up.
They are also coming out with an all new lineup just for trailbikes that looks promising. And of course, the lower crowns on the 888.
And all anybody wants to talk about is a tire that may or may not work.
Marzocchi is a fork company. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball here.
That would be like Zoke introducing their 05 fork line, and a fashion designer comes out of nowhere, and then says the colors on their t-shirts are all wrong and SO last season.
I need that smiley!!!punkassean said:Where's that smiley of the dead horse being beaten again?
-Sean
Brian
jeremy..... do you have a pic of the new crowns, i read the mtbr article about the '05 marz forks, but didn't see any pic, shaums 888 lower crown looked very go-ride style, but the pic didn't help muchJeremy R said:Wow. I can't believe how much speculation masturbation there has been over this tire. To be honest, that pic of that tire is just something I skipped over so I could see the rest of the '05 fork line.
It just seems like they made so many positive changes to their fork line that nobody is talking about.
After years of hearing the crying about how the QR20 was anything but QR,
they are putting real 20mm on all their big forks from the Z1 up.
They are also coming out with an all new lineup just for trailbikes that looks promising. And of course, the lower crowns on the 888.
And all anybody wants to talk about is a tire that may or may not work.
Marzocchi is a fork company. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball here.
That would be like Zoke introducing their 05 fork line, and a fashion designer comes out of nowhere, and then says the colors on their t-shirts are all wrong and SO last season.
diego
I think you can kinda see the crowns in the 2005 kona pics (super hi-res!) Parts' posted also in the DH forum. They appear to be similar to the older ones but flatter...
this thread was about fcukin brembo brakes :mumble:punkassean said:
Poor VV. His thread just got jacked.
punkassean said:
IMO i think it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on the performance of this tire. And it is most likely accurate to say that many opinions in here will end up being correct. Lets face it, for the most part RM is a group of very advanced riders especially in the DH forum. Many of us have ridden multiple tires and have come to know what tread patterns we prefer over others...That said i just think that opinions on the tire most likely arent BS and have some experience based behind the opinion.
On the fork side of things its great to see that we are finally getting the 20mm lowers...I thought i was going to be in manitou and fox land forever. The new stuff looks promising and cant wait to check it out.
It should be on how great Hope brakes are............You did it to yourself.ViolentVolante said:
ViolentVolante said:
yeah what the hell happened to the brembo discussion, even I wrote in about marzocchi, I guess i subscribed to that one too and got them confused. RM is turning into a speculatory orgy :mumble:
Sean again I think you missed my point.
For the record, there is speculation, which is fine and dandy, as in the Nicolai thread (by the way, that black thing is really a Futon). But then there is uninformed guessing, and slamming of a product, thats what I am trying to get across. With something like a tire, without knowing all the criteria that makes that tire up, its almost impossible to comment on how it works, especially since the comments seemed based entirely upon the fact that a KNob is shaped like an M. If you use your imagination, you can see letters in almost any block. For example, Michelin 2.5's happen to look like "A"'s. I think marz just went a little further. Wasn't really slamming you, just emphatically poiinting out that judging something like a tire by one pic is pretty unfair. See what i mean?
Now, lets move on to the next topic....
Does Brembo's move into the market mean we will be seeing dual front discs soon?
BRAAAAAP!
For the record, there is speculation, which is fine and dandy, as in the Nicolai thread (by the way, that black thing is really a Futon). But then there is uninformed guessing, and slamming of a product, thats what I am trying to get across. With something like a tire, without knowing all the criteria that makes that tire up, its almost impossible to comment on how it works, especially since the comments seemed based entirely upon the fact that a KNob is shaped like an M. If you use your imagination, you can see letters in almost any block. For example, Michelin 2.5's happen to look like "A"'s. I think marz just went a little further. Wasn't really slamming you, just emphatically poiinting out that judging something like a tire by one pic is pretty unfair. See what i mean?
Now, lets move on to the next topic....
Does Brembo's move into the market mean we will be seeing dual front discs soon?
BRAAAAAP!
didnt Shimano dabble in that once on the WC level?dropmachine.com said:
I'm pretty sure I read an article on that. Maybe it wasn't Shimano but it was definitly dual discs. They said the pros were hosing them down with WD-40 before the runs because they were too powerful.zedro said:
Well, sort of.
Shimano made a brake with dual discs, but both on one side. There were three pads, one inbetween both rotors ( they were onlya bout an 1/8th of an inch apart I think) and then one on each rotors side. Also had a liquid radiator to cool the fluid off.
A+ for effort, thats for sure.
What i meant is like current street bikes, with a caliper on each side,....saw it once on a 97 bomber, as they were i think the only fork to have mounts on both sides...
Shimano made a brake with dual discs, but both on one side. There were three pads, one inbetween both rotors ( they were onlya bout an 1/8th of an inch apart I think) and then one on each rotors side. Also had a liquid radiator to cool the fluid off.
A+ for effort, thats for sure.
What i meant is like current street bikes, with a caliper on each side,....saw it once on a 97 bomber, as they were i think the only fork to have mounts on both sides...
I seem to recall dual rotor capabilites on late 90's Z-series Marz forks...
too bad calipers dont exist to actually work on the right leg...