anyone know much about the new mars 66 sc? I am looking into selling my dorado and getting one of those, for i dont really need the dorado. anyone have anything to say would be great. thanx
mars 66
- Thread starter NovatoSCFR
- Start date
Do a search, there have been numerous, huge threads about it.
binary visions said:
just for the sake of (my) convenience ill post this here.
yesterday i was looking through the axle to crown measurements of the 05 forks to try and decide between two that i like for my bike and then i realized the 200mm travel boxxer has a 4mm lower axle to crown height than the 170mm 66rc, can this be true? (571 vs 575)
Hah. That's kinda funny actually.
Sure it's possible.. They need a whole lot more material in the one crown of the 66 than they do in the lower crown of the Boxxer. And, of course Marz has never been known for their low axle-to-crown heights anyway (whining about the 888 aside, this is true of all of their FR forks), whereas the Boxxer has always been a low fork.
Sure it's possible.. They need a whole lot more material in the one crown of the 66 than they do in the lower crown of the Boxxer. And, of course Marz has never been known for their low axle-to-crown heights anyway (whining about the 888 aside, this is true of all of their FR forks), whereas the Boxxer has always been a low fork.
binary visions said:
yea i know what you are saying but this has taken off to another level, i mean, the boxxer is 571 in the middle of its adjustment so its around 565 or less at the minimum for clearing a 2,7" tire (makes sense because ive seen 7" travel boxxers set at lower than 545mm).
565-200mm = 365mm
575-170mm = 405mm
from looking at the pics of the 66, ok, the crown looks big but not that thick, so again it seems there is just a massive amount of tire to crown clearance.
great fork for that guy who was looking to build up an 02 turner dhr as a freeride bike however.
nope, when it's in its 150mm travel mode it's 4mm taller than a 200mm boxxer. when it's in its 170mm travel it's 24mm taller.vitox said:
i say go for the fork if you want a sc. probly the best one you could get next to the fox 36 or one of the shermans. and it has 170 mm of travel same as my new super t. so if you want a sc id get this one cause of the name lol.
and richie's ridin it so what else is there to say.
and richie's ridin it so what else is there to say.
I'd be really interested in trying a 66 as a DH race fork. My next fork will either be a 7" 888 or a 66. I think the lighter weight would more than make up for the slight loss in stiffness.
I saw one at the Marz factory. The whole thing was huge, crown and all. Everything except the steerer, that thing looked really tiny, not proportional to the fork at all, like a twig sticking out of a trunk.... So with that in mind I'm going to make a prediction, after that forks been out for about 6 monthes theres going to start to be a lot of complaining of creaking and maybe even some broken steer tubes.
going out on a limb, huh??Alloy said:
Every 5" single crown fork I've owned has failed. Either its a cracked crown or a loose steer tube that creaks. This one broke right off on me. Since then they thickened the tubing wall up some but that still doesnt solve the problem of it coming loose.dante said:going out on a limb, huh??
The 666 is a giant, the stanctions, the crown are all big stiff parts. But that doesn't mean anything if your steer tube is deflecting back and forth. With only one crown the steer tube needs to be as stiff and strong as both the stanctions combined. When your limited to 1.125 that is hard to achieve. I don't see what thier trying to prove, if the trend continues Its going to fail and I think thats going to happen here. So I would really be weary of buying the first generation of this fork.
Attachments
the shermin breakout plus is a good race fork form what the guys i know that have them say. I think the 7 inch SC mite be flexy with the 1 /18 head tubebuildyourown said:
The steel steer tube on the 66 rc is "SUPER BEEFY"! It took about 10 minutes and hundreds of revolutions of a quality pipe cutter to cut the steer tube to length. The same cutter usually takes about 6 revolutions and seconds of labor to cut an average steer tube.
Well, it could have been worse. Either the original numbers that got threads yanked several months ago were actually wrong, or Marzocchi managed to trim a full 20mm from the original posted A-C lengths, which were 595mm for the 170mm travel fork and 575 for the 150mm travel fork. I personally am stoked, as the 150mm 66 is now *only* 2/3" longer than the 150mm Z1, and I can/will deal with that just fine!vitox said:
As for why the height, it's not so much in the crown as it is in the lowers. Yeah, the fork needs to clear the 3.0 tire it claims, and to do that they made the lowers where the seals sit so damn high. The fork needs to be so long to clear big meats but also just to get the desired travel numbers. I'd love to see some measurements of popular forks like the 888/66, the Shermans, Super/Junior T's, and Boxxer measuring the center of the thru axle to the top of the oil seals. I'd bet the 888/66 is WELL above the rest. As a plus a short, flat arch adds stiffness! LOL.
Randy Spangler had one on his bike at Downieville and it didn't seem like he was having any issues with the height (set to 6.6"). He was blazing the trail and maneuvering nicely FWIW...
I asked him a little bit about it and he seemed really stoked on it.
I asked him a little bit about it and he seemed really stoked on it.
gee maybe they should make a 1.5 66...lol just kidding. 
they should enev though your joking about it
perhaps they should make a 7" double crown, and not go past 6 inches for one crown.... :mumble:OGRipper said:gee maybe they should make a 1.5 66...lol just kidding.
Who needs 7" with one crown....or rather, who needs 7" that can't be solved with a double crown? If it breaks I won't be surprised. Is it just me, or if you need to be doing Xups or extremely tight turns, do you not need 7" of travel?
Two years ago the 6" single crown was silly. 3-4 years before that the 5" single crown was crazy. Once 4" forks were dual crowns. It's all an evolution. Nothing evolves without some resistance.Sandwich said:
Personally I'm not resistant, I'm hesitant.
I didn't feel safe on a 5" sc until 32mm stantions came out. Now I'm ready for my 6" sc and it's 35mm stantions. Bring it on!People like me who way 115 pounds and need ther bike to be as light as possable.Sandwich said:
that doesn't mean that a single crown...even a 1.5 one, is going to be lighter.TheMontashu said:
The slider plus was what, 6.2lbs? The 5" firefly 20mm was about 5.4lbs. I have a hard time believing the breakout plus is anywhere under 6lbs..with a big steel spring and longer stanchions, it's a no-brainer.
I'm not even mentioning the 1.5 headset that is about 100g heavier than a comprable 1.125, also the extra material on the headtube.
Weight savings? At the least it is HIGHLY debatable....
Yep, we went over the weight issue in the other Marz thread. As Jm_, they are definitly debatable.Jm_ said:
so you're looking at turning radius and trick factor as major differences?
I don't think it is very debatable which is generally stiffer, single crown vs. dual.
I understand that it is an evolution, but often times mutation produces species which are unfit, which is what I believe this case to be. Sure, fruit flies can be produced with vestigial (non-working) wings, but they would die off pretty quick in the real world. They just can't cut it, even if they are a pretty interesting novelty.
IT IS MY OPINION that fork companies should expend more resources in a nice, light dual crown fork. How about Marzocchi produces an inverted DC with 6-7" adjustable that weighs less than 7 pounds? I don't want 8" of travel, and I don't want 7.5 lbs on the front of my bike. Does anyone even make a 6" DC now, besides the slider (which is up to 7 now?)?
I don't think it is very debatable which is generally stiffer, single crown vs. dual.
I understand that it is an evolution, but often times mutation produces species which are unfit, which is what I believe this case to be. Sure, fruit flies can be produced with vestigial (non-working) wings, but they would die off pretty quick in the real world. They just can't cut it, even if they are a pretty interesting novelty.
IT IS MY OPINION that fork companies should expend more resources in a nice, light dual crown fork. How about Marzocchi produces an inverted DC with 6-7" adjustable that weighs less than 7 pounds? I don't want 8" of travel, and I don't want 7.5 lbs on the front of my bike. Does anyone even make a 6" DC now, besides the slider (which is up to 7 now?)?
mars had an OEM one. the drop off DC
What if they got office jobs? Then they wouldn't have to fly around and find fruit, they could just pay to have it delivered.Sandwich said:
I am super curious about that fork, and I can't wait to try it out.
there was a time when i agreed w/ most of your points. still agree w/ some of them. but then 2 years ago i got a sherman breakout, and my opinions changed fast. 'all else being equal' is hard to do when comparing different brands. however, lemme make some observations...Sandwich said:
regarding weight--comparing breakout and slider, there is a weight advantage to the breakout. but it's not huge. the limiting factor on tube wall thickness up high on a DC fork is that it has to withstand the clamping force of the crowns. which is why, all else being equal, the DC version (e.g slider) is heavier. but not by much. less than a pound.
The maverick is an example of a light DC fork that uses welded design up top...to get around this issue. The new Fox DH fork is damn light for its claimed weight, considering the travel. so it's not like NO ONE is trying to push the envelope on the design of DC forx.
the best way to explain why 6 or even 7 inches of SC fork makes sense would be to take you on some of the rides i do. i just did one last night in the mountains NE of san diego. a very steep, winding singletrack with knee-high boulders and insanely tight switchbacks. whether going up or down this trail, i can tell you than nearly all DC forks would suck a$$ on it. turning radius not tight enough, and top crown is right where your knees go when you're trying to make some of the uphill switchbacks.
last thing to consider is the adjustable travel on-the-fly aspect, which currently is only available on SC forks, AFAIK (the new Boxxer Ride supposedly has adj. travel, from what i read anyway, but are there any others?). it's not impossible to have a travel adjust mech in a DC fork, of course, depending on the design.
interesting how the new Trek FR bike that Shandro rode recently is 7 and 7 inches, w/ 1.5 single crown up front. Trek may be mainstream but clearly they looked at all these factors. Turner's new bike will also have 1.5 HT for 1.5 SC users or DC riders using reducers. And the intense V8 is also designed around the idea of a 7 inch 1.5 SC fork (or DC). so obviously there are some people that think these SC forks are going to be a valid option.
btw, the sherman breakout plus and the new marz 66 meet your weight requirements, don' t they??
Consider the possibility that your opinions/desires/requirements are in the minority?Sandwich said:
The market (or predicted market) drives research/development/procuction. If these forks suck, they won't sell well. If they don't sell well you'll have your Darwin-esque proof that you are right.
8" travel is more appropriate for the new crop of 8-10" travel bikes out there. And 7.5 pounds is a fairly light DC fork. Just the Boxxer and WB are under that aren't they? Maybe you should look into a Breakout+ or 66? :devil:
The Fox 40 DH will be adjustable to 6" if you desire.
Re Fox: Yeah, and it will cost two times anything else, less Avy/Manitou Werx.Bulldog said:
Re Opinions: Yep, I might be in the minority right now, but consider how many people have 1.125" vs. 1.5". Those of you lucky enough to have the dough for a sweet new frame and fork can treat themselves to a fantastic combination. But I can't afford that. However, I will likely be able to afford just a new fork. That rules out the stiffness of 1.5 to me (and others).
Also, I'm not putting down 6" single crown forks. They can be made, IMO, reliable enough to use. Hell, I'm planning on waiting till next season to get one (Z1), for all the reasons listed above (weight, radius, travel enough to do DH on plus lower for jumping, etc). HOWEVER, I have heard of some issues with z150s. I am very weary of their design, as they are supposedly heavy and some steerer issues i've read about. Now, marzocchi is pushing the limits even further (6.6" travel?) when it doesn't seem like the six inch is perfected. Perhaps with 1.5" steerers 7" is doable, but I just don't see the need. If you're doing things that require that much travel, why would you want to be on a single crown? Shouldn't you be on a DC for your own safety? (Yeah, some pros can use them to throw additional tricks in on drops and jumps...but can you?) And as for the whole radius thing, there are such things as offset crowns. They can be a pain in the ass, they can extend the WB or ride height, and they can interfere with other things, but if designed properly, they shouldn't.
And frorider, did you really use all six inches on that ride? I mean, was it not doable with less as easily or at the very least managably? I'm not calling you a liar, there are certainly situations that call for six inches, but it seems like if you were going down....and up....you really don't need so much travel, or you're wasting some energy somewhere (be it weight, bob, or otherwise). Would you really need an extra inch, too? [I don't want to sound like a hipocrate, but I want six inches for lift assisted riding...for trails, I think 5 is enough] I guess that's my point, six is enough. At seven, the need just isn't there anymore. Not IMO.
Lastly, Montashu, was the damping of the Drop Off DC on par with even a Z1 FR? I doubt it, and therein lies my point. Is that way off to ask for all the features of the single crowns in a DC? Are offset crowns impossible? Am I stuck with Stratos? Am I overexhausted?
The new MB action magazine has info on the 05 marz forks.NovatoSCFR said:
Stiffness. You know how stiff the 66 is already? Sure, the steerer is steel. But it's "reinforced steel". What kind? How thick? What's the reinforcement? I'm sure only a special few know. No one said that 1-1/8" cannot be as stiff as 1.5. For the same weight that is true, but no one knows how much effort was put into something a *simple* as a steerer.Sandwich said:
Pushing the Limits. It's a whole new fork. Steerer, crown, bigger stantions and lowers etc. You can't judge the potential problems with this fork based on the Z.150 and its chassis. Could you blindly judge the Psylo by examining the track record of the SID? Sherman based on Mars? We all need to take the "wait and see" position IMO.
sandwich, like i said, much of what yer saying is what i would have said a couple of years ago. even now i don't totally disagree w/ you.
to answer you question--yes, i've ridden that trail on my 4 XC bike. and remember that people back in the day rode the mammoth kamikaze on some v. primitive bikes, incl. hardtails.
the point is that on a more capable bike (8 inch brakes, 6 or 7 inches travel, etc.) you can ride more of the sketchy tech sections (and w/ less effort), and the whole ride is faster and more fun. and as far as the technical uphill sections, i'm not the only one who has found that more travel (assuming a stable platform rear shock) & larger tires means i can ride up sh*t i couldn't before. even the guys at MBA have figured that one out. of course, for buff single track or fireroads, the XC style bike will be faster and better.
this is why the 5 inch trail bikes everyone's talking about in the magazines don't interest me. I'd rather have both a very light 4 inch XC bike (for relatively smooth or small-rock trails, not that i ride many these days but occasionally) and a 6 or 7 inch bike that pedals efficiently and can handle most anything you throw at it.
it's very similar to ski width. back in the day, no one wanted boards wider than 80 mm. "too fat for most conditions, too heavy, blah blah". however, over time, the width of typical powder skiis has increased, and most west coast core skiiers have a 85 mm ski for 'soft snow/hard pack snow days" and a 95 or 100 or even 105 mm ski for full-on powder days. this has become the norm...but just a few years ago, even well-informed people were saying "there's never going to be much of a market neeed for skiis wider than 80 mm".
however, i think both the suspension market and the fat ski market are settling down for now. i.e. i think SC 6 and 7 inch forks might be enough for most riders. I expect that DC forks will optimize around 8 and 9 inches, and focus on weight and damping technology.
but what do i know. :dancing:
to answer you question--yes, i've ridden that trail on my 4 XC bike. and remember that people back in the day rode the mammoth kamikaze on some v. primitive bikes, incl. hardtails.
the point is that on a more capable bike (8 inch brakes, 6 or 7 inches travel, etc.) you can ride more of the sketchy tech sections (and w/ less effort), and the whole ride is faster and more fun. and as far as the technical uphill sections, i'm not the only one who has found that more travel (assuming a stable platform rear shock) & larger tires means i can ride up sh*t i couldn't before. even the guys at MBA have figured that one out. of course, for buff single track or fireroads, the XC style bike will be faster and better.
this is why the 5 inch trail bikes everyone's talking about in the magazines don't interest me. I'd rather have both a very light 4 inch XC bike (for relatively smooth or small-rock trails, not that i ride many these days but occasionally) and a 6 or 7 inch bike that pedals efficiently and can handle most anything you throw at it.
it's very similar to ski width. back in the day, no one wanted boards wider than 80 mm. "too fat for most conditions, too heavy, blah blah". however, over time, the width of typical powder skiis has increased, and most west coast core skiiers have a 85 mm ski for 'soft snow/hard pack snow days" and a 95 or 100 or even 105 mm ski for full-on powder days. this has become the norm...but just a few years ago, even well-informed people were saying "there's never going to be much of a market neeed for skiis wider than 80 mm".
however, i think both the suspension market and the fat ski market are settling down for now. i.e. i think SC 6 and 7 inch forks might be enough for most riders. I expect that DC forks will optimize around 8 and 9 inches, and focus on weight and damping technology.
but what do i know. :dancing: