Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,954

    maverick sc32 29er

    Tis a bit outdated and hard to find used so thought i would shake the tree and see if anything falls out.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,630
    Plus Maverick frames tend to have very short head tubes, so finding one to fit the taller head tube of a fat bike will be even more difficult.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,954
    Quote Originally Posted by patineto View Post
    Plus Maverick frames tend to have very short head tubes, so finding one to fit the taller head tube of a fat bike will be even more difficult.
    I figured you would know this after acquiring one. Seems a viable suss fork option IF one can locate it.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,630
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    I figured you would know this after acquiring one. Seems a viable suss fork option IF one can locate it.
    Yeah the steering is a issue for sure, I got my steer tube exchange for a longer one (custom made), about performance you can always send it to Ethan the Maverick guru for a tune up..

    Ps: they are suppose to be flexy, but mine is plenty rigid for me and i'm pretty chubby and big..

    Ps2: the DUC32 (dual crown) are very rigid but they have diminish tire clearance because the legs are taper, plus finding the parts for a long head tube can prove to be a total pain in the butt..

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,630
    You can also look for Marzocchi Shivers SC, they are heavier freeride forks but very tunable and I'm sure convertible to 29er/fatbike travel.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,954
    Quote Originally Posted by patineto View Post
    Yeah the steering is a issue for sure, I got my steer tube exchange for a longer one (custom made), about performance you can always send it to Ethan the Maverick guru for a tune up..

    Ps: they are suppose to be flexy, but mine is plenty rigid for me and i'm pretty chubby and big..
    in the event i locate one in decent shape having a steer tube made is no problem, as for the flex i suspect the design along with the 24mm hub axle was to help retain some strength but keep the weight down which was successful it seems.

  7. #7
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,626
    Though I have ponies in the race, this is not intended to steer you towards what I'm doing, but more to save you money and hassle.

    SC32's may be fine with a skinny tire, but I'd venture they aren't even that great then.

    With the additional friction of an increased contact patch, I found the fork to lag behind my steering input, badly. Created this really odd, disconnected feeling.

    Might be "stiff enough" and it does squish, but you'll need to build a wheel, buy the fork, only to find out that it's underwhelming at best, and barely fits a Rolling Darryl with a Larry.

    Just my two cents. having bought one, as well as a DUC, only to be fairly bummed at the time and money wasted.

    Skinny tires? Yeah, the forks feel nice, and the DUC is plenty stiff. My comments are targeted purely at use with fatties....

    Got DUC/wheel for you if you have a hankering, the SC is on my wifes Pug, and she only uses it in snow, so doesn't find issue with it, but I'm sure being all of a buck 20 doesn't hurt either.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,630
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Though I have ponies in the race, this is not intended to steer you towards what I'm doing, but more to save you money and hassle.

    SC32's may be fine with a skinny tire, but I'd venture they aren't even that great then.

    With the additional friction of an increased contact patch, I found the fork to lag behind my steering input, badly. Created this really odd, disconnected feeling.

    Might be "stiff enough" and it does squish, but you'll need t]o build a wheel, buy the fork, only to find out that it's underwhelming at best.
    I think you are up to something..

    I just came back from my first "real ride" and I feel the disconnect you are taking about, I attribute it more to the slack head angle of the frame (even slacker do to the fork) but maybe you are right and is the fork, I just don't have anything to compare too.


    and barely fits a Rolling Darryl with a Larry.
    Right again..

    My Larry has about 4mm of clearance on each side, but as well all know this tires are not exactly "round" so with the wobble, I can see marks on the "Lowers" already (nothing serious)



    Just my two cents. having bought one, as well as a DUC, only to be fairly bummed at the time and money wasted.

    Skinny tires? Yeah, the forks feel nice, and the DUC is plenty stiff. My comments are targeted purely at use with fatties....

    Got DUC/wheel for you if you have a hankering, the SC is on my wifes Pug, and she only uses it in snow, so doesn't find issue with it, but I'm sure being all of a buck 20 doesn't hurt either.....
    You have a ton of experience plus you willingness to share it make you a tremendous asset to this community..

    About the Lefty's, personally I never got around the "Asymmetrical" build of the rim (same reason why I got a 170mm rear end frame), the tinny distance in between the hub flanges and the "steeper" angle of the spokes, but that is just me annal retentive wheel builder, I'm sure it work fine but is just not for me..

  9. #9
    ouch....
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,683
    My sc 32 will be up for sale if I ever get my lefty installed....waiting on shop....I should mention another member has dibs on it if he chooses to buy it when the time comes.
    Last edited by Shark; 11-20-2012 at 06:23 PM.
    Riding.....

  10. #10
    ouch....
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,683
    Fyi there is one on ebay right now
    Riding.....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8
    I have two that I'm going to be getting rid of as well as a chris king hub.

    Used the Maverick on my Mukluk for a few months but now I'm back to rigid.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails maverick sc32 29er-sc32.jpg  

    maverick sc32 29er-mukluk.jpg  


  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,954
    I appreciate all the feedback good, bad or indifferent. For those fat owners out there who own a sc32 are selling them for one reason or another just as i seek one simply to have squish HOWEVER not at the cost of a underwhelming squish, is it tunable? i suspect they are for an additional fee. If the crystal ball would only reveal the next mass produced fattie conventional squish fork NOW it would make many a happy owner.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    I appreciate all the feedback good, bad or indifferent. For those fat owners out there who own a sc32 are selling them for one reason or another just as i seek one simply to have squish HOWEVER not at the cost of a underwhelming squish, is it tunable? i suspect they are for an additional fee. If the crystal ball would only reveal the next mass produced fattie conventional squish fork NOW it would make many a happy owner.
    You mean like this one from the crystal ball of Bike Rumor 2015 X-Fusion Inverted All Mountain Suspension Fork - Bike Rumor




    I have nothing to add on the SC32 search other than I found them on ebay and over at pink bike when I was looking for one. Ultimately decided to go the budget route and build my bomber pugs fork. I like it alot though I experience slow steering and lots of autosteer too. I figure it has to do with the huge contact patch, mixed with a much slacker head angle than stock and possibly my bar setup.

  14. #14
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,626
    Quote Originally Posted by patineto View Post
    About the Lefty's, personally I never got around the "Asymmetrical" build of the rim (same reason why I got a 170mm rear end frame), the tinny distance in between the hub flanges and the "steeper" angle of the spokes, but that is just me annal retentive wheel builder, I'm sure it work fine but is just not for me..
    I won't pollute this with self serving propaganda, but if I had a dime for everyone that quotes that as a concern, and paid a dime for every offset wheel (Lefty or otherwise) I've seen fail or even have issues due to offset nature, I would be quite well off in the financial department.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  15. #15
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,626
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    I appreciate all the feedback good, bad or indifferent. For those fat owners out there who own a sc32 are selling them for one reason or another just as i seek one simply to have squish HOWEVER not at the cost of a underwhelming squish, is it tunable? i suspect they are for an additional fee. If the crystal ball would only reveal the next mass produced fattie conventional squish fork NOW it would make many a happy owner.
    Is it tunable to get rid of the flex? No. Tunable in terms of travel, oil weight, rebound etc, yes.

    Sadly for X Fusion, unless that thing is made of some unobtanium material, it's going to suffer the same issue as the SC, seeing as the functional design aspect is identical.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by patineto View Post
    About the Lefty's, personally I never got around the "Asymmetrical" build of the rim (same reason why I got a 170mm rear end frame), the tinny distance in between the hub flanges and the "steeper" angle of the spokes, but that is just me annal retentive wheel builder, I'm sure it work fine but is just not for me..
    Sorry to fuel a derail. But I having built quite a few wheels, and having a deep fondness of strength through design (as apposed to weight ). I was a bit unsure about going the fat lefty route.

    My Lefty front fatty came out near dishless, and with nice bracing angles. I'll also admitt to be somewhat surprised by the even spoke tension required.

    Before this I was looking at SC32s, and might have some old leads laying around in my bookmarks, or inbox. I'll have a rumage.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  17. #17
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,383
    I have my sc32 and wheel off for seasonal reasons. Still interested?

  18. #18
    ouch....
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,683
    I e-mailed Xfusion about that fork, got the standard reply "prototype only at this time".....

    The SC32 is decent if you don't want the rigid front end, & are on a budget. As noted though, you are limited to 3.8 tires on no larger than a 82mm rim like the RD or you'll get rub.

    Yes there is some flex, but you get used to it. I've ridden mine pretty hard & the ++ outweight the --.

    Of course, if budget allows, the lefty conversion is likely the best option right now (from what I've read).
    Riding.....

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RockyRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    I appreciate all the feedback good, bad or indifferent. For those fat owners out there who own a sc32 are selling them for one reason or another just as i seek one simply to have squish HOWEVER not at the cost of a underwhelming squish, is it tunable? i suspect they are for an additional fee. If the crystal ball would only reveal the next mass produced fattie conventional squish fork NOW it would make many a happy owner.
    I love the SC 32 I've been running on my Pug for 5 years now and yes they are tunable. In fact I found out from Ethan that they can put an inertial damper in them now and a full rebuild with pro tuning is something like $150 plus shipping. Never had any flex issues with mine but at the tire pressures I run I get squirm even when its rigid

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Is it tunable to get rid of the flex? No. Tunable in terms of travel, oil weight, rebound etc, yes.

    Sadly for X Fusion, unless that thing is made of some unobtanium material, it's going to suffer the same issue as the SC, seeing as the functional design aspect is identical.....
    The SC32 is indeed tuneable. Basic tune is easy through playing aorund with oil viscosity and oil level (smaller airchamber above the oil = harder "spring"). And there's a lockout on it.

    The reason it's flexible is not inherent of its design, but because it's outdated (ok, maybe part of the flex comes from its weird dropouts/front hub design).
    A current, modern German Answer "wide" is much, much stiffer compared to an SC32 - on par with a "normal" suspension fork. And the new soon-to-arrive Sandman Javelina (which is USD as well) is another step above that in stiffness with massive 36mm stanchions, it's even tandem rated.

    All are around the same weight, give or take 50gr.

    The X-Fusion is more or less comparable to the German A, all sizes compared. So the stiffness should be more or less the same if they don't skimp on the internal design.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,031
    I have heard lots of people complain about the SC32 being flexy, so apparently it is a legitimate problem. I really don't notice it when riding mine, or at least it isn't enough of a problem that it has made me wish for a different fork. I am about 160 and only run mine with 3.8 tires on 47mm rims, and only in the summer months.

    One big difference in the X-Fusion, or either of the Sandman forks, is that their axle interfaces are a lot better design than Maverick's. A lot of the flex in the SC32 comes from the silly "quick release" setup, which is not only slower and more finicky to use than a standard thru-axle, but also sacrifices a lot of strength and stiffness.

    The SC32 is definitely tuneable, but not in the sense of a RockShox fork where you just twiddle some knobs and you're done- tuning the Maverick requires oil changes, changing shims, ect.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    I have heard lots of people complain about the SC32 being flexy, so apparently it is a legitimate problem. I really don't notice it when riding mine, or at least it isn't enough of a problem that it has made me wish for a different fork. I am about 160 and only run mine with 3.8 tires on 47mm rims, and only in the summer months.

    One big difference in the X-Fusion, or either of the Sandman forks, is that their axle interfaces are a lot better design than Maverick's. A lot of the flex in the SC32 comes from the silly "quick release" setup, which is not only slower and more finicky to use than a standard thru-axle, but also sacrifices a lot of strength and stiffness.

    The SC32 is definitely tuneable, but not in the sense of a RockShox fork where you just twiddle some knobs and you're done- tuning the Maverick requires oil changes, changing shims, ect.
    I remember the first ride with a Maverick, the first moment I grabbed the front brake actually (200mm discs, Avid Code brakes) . It was like "whohooo, easy does it, let's countersteer !!".

    But after a few rides you don't notice it anymore, it becomes 2nd nature. I wouldn't go back to them, but I do have fond memories of the SC32 on my fatbike. I'd prefer it anytime over a rigid fork.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,630
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco View Post
    I remember the first ride with a Maverick, the first moment I grabbed the front brake actually (200mm discs, Avid Code brakes) . It was like "whohooo, easy does it, let's countersteer !!".

    >>
    I did not feel that and I'm glad, running 183mm rotors on XTR brakes, very powerful brake actually..

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,954
    I like that there's opinions / thoughts surrounding suspension within this thread from various angles and it gives me ideas to ponder from whats avail now to items on the rise next spring/summer...........i enjoy squish plain & simple and while the fat pug is new to me it was built for mainly hard packed, rocky terrain ST riding just as my 26r full suss is so the current ML and 4.0 tires are as lrg as it gets for me leaving the setup doable for the SC32 width wise.
    I know squishy forks are slowly making their way to us so its either wait patiently for the new goods or source something long on R&D. I've seen / read of the X-fusion just as i have about the german-A, sandmans javelina with all 3 fat compatable WOOT so i'm not completely out of the loop. I've no interest in a dbl crown unit as its far more than what i deem necessary for my riding so single it is.

    I spread some green chiclette love to ya's.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by patineto View Post
    I did not feel that and I'm glad, running 183mm rotors on XTR brakes, very powerful brake actually..
    Off topic: my current setup too, better than the bigger Code's

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •