Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DHFreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    167

    float or vanilla

    Whats up,
    I am getting ready to order a Mojo and I am having a hard deciding which fork, a Fox Vanilla 32 or Float 32, to out in the bike. Does anyone have any experience on these two forks? I am around 200lbs. and I am use to good ol' oil and coil forks. Thanks.

  2. #2
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    If you are used to coil now you will be disappointed with the performance and lack of full travel air forks or shocks.

    Unless you are only racing your Mojo, a coil fork and shock without platform damping are much better performing on any dw-Link bike, much smoother and more travel and better handling and traction. But at the cost of adding 1.5 pounds in combined steel spring weight for both fork and shock. A ti rear coil could drop a half pound of that weight.

    I hadn't ridden air suspension other than demo bikes in 5 years when I got my Mojo with SX build (Float 32 RL and RP23) last August. I was curious to see if air forks and shocks had improved much in 5 years, and it has improved a little in reduced stiction in the forks and higher speed damping is better. But the air shocks are no better unless you want platform valving for racing or for some other suspension design.

    The Vanilla 32 is 1/2 pound heavier than the Float 32. But unlike the Float it can touch the bottom bumper of the full 140 mm travel. The Float 32 gets only about 120mm of advertised travel even with very deep sag. I think the Vanilla comes with all 3 springs weights, at 200 pounds you will probably need the firm spring. The Vanilla is noticeably smoother and dives l, and wallows less without using firmer compression settings needed with air forks for decent handling.

    BTW the earlier discontinued Vanilla RC shock Iím using now on my Mojo is much better performing than almost any current shock available due to over-damping of nearly all the current shocks designed to compensate for lesser performing bikes than the dw-Link designs. Only a new Avalanche or special ordered dw-Link tuned Marzocchi Roco, perform as well as the Vanilla RC. PUSH tuned air shocks arenít as good. The tradeoff is the weight of a steel coil, making the RC 1 pound more than an Rp23. I'm about 200 pounds and never could get the deepest inch of travel out of the RP23 on my Mojo even with way too much sag. I tried a well broken in DHX Air for a few rides and it was smoother and gained more travel than the RP23, but the DHX was no comparison in ride quality to the early model Vanilla RC.

    Although maybe you should try an air set up first to really know the improvement with the upgrade to coil on the Mojo.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,934

    Vanilla - FLOAT/PUSH or Marzocchi

    Quote Originally Posted by DHFreak
    Whats up,
    I am getting ready to order a Mojo and I am having a hard deciding which fork, a Fox Vanilla 32 or Float 32, to out in the bike. Does anyone have any experience on these two forks? I am around 200lbs. and I am use to good ol' oil and coil forks. Thanks.
    I used to be on a Vanilla/PUSH 130 that I had to sell it to put a 140 Float on the mojo (the vanilla was too short).

    The main problem with the Float is that does not have any way to control the progression curve, and this results in a fork that ramps up so much that is very hard to get more then 4.5" travel unless one uses absurdly low pressures. Otherwise it would be fine (it is as smooth as a coil) and it gives you a weight saving of 100 to 200 grams depending on the spring you would use on a Vanilla.

    The only way I can see to fix the FLOAT is to buy it from PUSH with their mods http://www.pushindustries.com/servic...20Air%20Forks:. The mods will give you higher oil flow, much better stutter bumps performance and the addition of a compression control (at the base valve). The mods should be enough to make the fork work (especially the increased oil flow and compression dial).

    A Vanilla would be a cheap alternative ... unfortunately I have no idea if a standard Vanilla is better then a PUSH FLOAT (I doubt it).

    Finally ... Marzocchi. They seem to be the smart ones here. Building an air fork as it should be built: indpendent adjustment for main chamber, negative spring AND progessive curve (without mentioning 40 mm of height adjustment and compression dial) The 2008 XC 700 might be the fork to have ...

    No matter what my suggestion is to stay away from a standard FLOAT (or TALAS)
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Davide; 05-08-2007 at 10:39 PM.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DHFreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    167
    Thank you both for the in depth replies. I have considerd a 'Zocchi as I am running a 888RC on my big bike. The only problem is the high a-t-c lengths. I will most likey go with a Vanille fork and maybe upgrade to the DHX Air for the back. I have also considered a Roco Air, which I believe has no platform dampining. I don't I will have to see.
    Thanks,
    Mike

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pumpkinbiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    396

    You could do this!

    lighter, smoother, stiffer, and very unique.
    And yes they are coil sprung (ti spring).
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg 4.jpg (88.7 KB, 226 views)

  6. #6
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    Quote Originally Posted by pumpkinbiter
    lighter, smoother, stiffer, and very unique.
    And yes they are coil sprung (ti spring).
    I'll get a Lefty as soon as they add a right leg to it.

    Great technical design, but they make me feel queezy looking at them.

    I'll be first in line for a Right&Lefty. The roller bearings instead of sliding bushings is totally superior. And they use open bath TPC+ damping now too I think.

    I know Cannondale would sell many more forks if they had a Right&Lefty.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pumpkinbiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    396

    Queezy?

    I understand your queezyness. I had a little at first too.
    It's such a different design it takes some getting used to.

    The problem with a "right&lefty" is it wouldn't be lighter anymore.
    Those roller bearings are heavy. Besides it's already superior in so
    many ways to the standard two leg design. If it had two legs it
    would be serious overkill.

    I am surprized at you though, I have read some of your posts and you seem
    to be a pretty analytical guy. I would expect you to have more of a technical
    argument for not wanting a product. But I guess "queezy" is technically a scientific
    term? Im just busting your chops, I have some friends that refuse the lefty too.
    All I can say is your missing out.

  8. #8
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    Quote Originally Posted by pumpkinbiter
    I understand your queezyness. I had a little at first too.
    It's such a different design it takes some getting used to.

    The problem with a "right&lefty" is it wouldn't be lighter anymore.
    Those roller bearings are heavy. Besides it's already superior in so
    many ways to the standard two leg design. If it had two legs it
    would be serious overkill.

    I am surprized at you though, I have read some of your posts and you seem
    to be a pretty analytical guy. I would expect you to have more of a technical
    argument for not wanting a product. But I guess "queezy" is technically a scientific
    term? Im just busting your chops, I have some friends that refuse the lefty too.
    All I can say is your missing out.
    No real technical reason, the Lefty is mostly technically superior. There is a big hit flex issue for the freeride side of AM type riding. And above 70mph it would affect handling due to an aerodynamic pull to the left side. ...but I guess that wouldn't matter for technical trail riding

    I don't like Ducati's 1098 return to the single sided swingarm, it looks odd and gimmicky to me, and there is a real flex issue for track performance, but their race bikes won't use it if they ever find a category they can race it in.

    For the Mojo I'd like the leftyís roller bearing design but with smaller twin legs, wind down 160 Ė 130mm travel, ti spring in one side, adjustable air bottom bumper bladder, preload adjustment, low and high speed adjust compression and rebound cartridge with adjustable range from soft platform to TPC+ like design for lowspeed compression in the other side. Single and double crown options. It could be as light as a DUC-32. Dave??? Can you draw it up? If you don't want your name on it you can use mine! Investors, please form a line to the right

    And for longer travel bikes a few ounces of weight one way or another isn't a real performance issue for technical climbing.

    I rode an early version Lefty about 7 years ago on a friend's C'dale Jekyl. It was the smoothest and longest travel air shock in those days, with 4.5 inch travel I think. It had a harsh top-out like most air forks back then without using over damped rebound. Maybe they've fixed the top-out problem with a negative spring. A coil doesn't have that problem unless using a lot of preload with a low-end damper design.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DHFreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    167
    I have another question. Does anyone know if a set if TI springs can be had for a Vanilla RLC.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by DHFreak
    I have another question. Does anyone know if a set if TI springs can be had for a Vanilla RLC.
    No that I know, I looked around last year but nobody seems to have anything. Keep in mind that the weight savings will be miniscule. The 2007 Vanilla does not have a right leg spring, so all you will save is about 40% weight of the left leg spring. For the 2006 Vanilla the spring weights were around 90 to 170 depending on spring rate (ultra soft to hard) so the saving would be at most 70-80 grams

Posting Permissions

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