still need some damping however. Marz's have more than you think, they just have a nice and low high-speed compression damping rate which keeps them extra supple.thaflyinfatman said:
MX suspension
- Thread starter HTFR
- Start date
I dunno, the ease with which I could move the damper rods by hand (when immersed in oil, attached to the bottom of the fork but not the top) doesn't convince me at all. Every Marz fork I've had (apart from my awesomely oversprung Z1) has had a lot of dive, and when lacking the correct oil height, has been extremely easy to bottom. So I'd say the oil height is doing a hell of a lot more than the damping.zedro said:
P.S. I will keep arguing the toss, even though I don't care and I like Marz forks, until everyone else stops caring/arguing 
thaflyinfatman said:
I agree
:dancing:
heh, hard to say which does "more", since they are two completly different things....just saying its there and the fork would suck without it.
just have to add, damping doesnt limit the amount of dive since thats an increase in weight to the front end; damping will slow the transition (because its a transient component) but the fork will want to settle to the same point. Marz forks tend to dive alot because they do rely on oil height which makes for a progressively sprung fork; progressive springs will dive more.
This is tuning tho, people like that soft progressive feel you can get with them, but you will get dive. To lessen the amount of dive, you'll need stiffer springs, but you'll lose that Marz plush.
The only way damping can limit the amount of dive is if it locks out, or the weight transfer ceases before the fork reaches equilibrium.
This is tuning tho, people like that soft progressive feel you can get with them, but you will get dive. To lessen the amount of dive, you'll need stiffer springs, but you'll lose that Marz plush.
The only way damping can limit the amount of dive is if it locks out, or the weight transfer ceases before the fork reaches equilibrium.
SOunds kind of right !
That last line is what makes the difference... weight transfer is generally inconsistent (under braking, because you're only doing it for a second or two), you very rarely load up your fork to a point and sit there. Given that suspension is underdamped (as the technical definition of damping goes), you usually "overshoot" the equilibrium point anyway, and the damping does affect how much you do this. On a fork like my old Supers for instance, jumping on the brakes would come damn close to bottoming the fork (ironically, I never once managed to bottom them), then they'd extend again (whilst still braking), causing the bars to move up and down a bit more than I like.zedro said:
yeah it'll make a difference depending on ride styles and terrain. But funny enough, since i got the new bike with a floater, excessive dive on my Shiver (which is setup pretty soft) is a thing of the past.
Before with heavier oil w/medium springs, the dive was too much for my long interval braking, so i had to switch to stiffer coils and ended up using lighter oil (felt it was too slow before), which improved the dive problem.
Before with heavier oil w/medium springs, the dive was too much for my long interval braking, so i had to switch to stiffer coils and ended up using lighter oil (felt it was too slow before), which improved the dive problem.
also i've never felt the Marzs were under-damped (even with 5wt); that would mean the fork would actually bounce back during the braking interval, something i've never felt even in my worst 'dive' setup. Perhaps it's in the critically damped range which would give it a fast response time.thaflyinfatman said:
Anyways back to the original point, i still maintain a non-damped compression cycle would be practically unridable and could not be governed by spring-rate alone.
Mine noticeably bounced back, maybe only an inch or so (obviously it's not gonna extend fully again), but it definitely did it. I ran 7wt and 10wt in my Marz forks (Shiver, Z1, Super T and Z3) and both the Shiver and the Super did it.zedro said:
When you say a non-damped compression cycle, do you mean no compression damping, but still having rebound damping? Or do you mean no damping at all? I agree that having no rebound damping will make anything unrideable, but Boxxer Races ARE rideable, and honestly not that different from most forks.
bounced back while still braking? or after you stopped/decreased braking?
and i have a hard time believing that Boxxers have zero compression damping, and otherwise you'd be complaining they overshoot a dive, or feel like a Marzocchi...
and i have a hard time believing that Boxxers have zero compression damping, and otherwise you'd be complaining they overshoot a dive, or feel like a Marzocchi...
Whilst still braking. If you jump on the brakes really suddenly, they'll dive to a poofteenth from bottoming... and if you think anything is gonna stay there for long...zedro said:
Boxxer RACES do not have a compression damper. It just isn't there. They do dive a bit more than the Teams, but they don't feel like a Marz usually does (due to the overall spring rate I would guess). The ones I've ridden have all been set with retardofast rebound, so yeah they do overshoot then rebound. Due to the more linear feel though, they don't do it as noticeably as my Supers did (the Supers were way undersprung for me though) or to a lesser extent, my Shivers. It's not that big a deal, I intended to use that as an example more than a point of contention in itself... but whatever.