Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    354

    Mojo with Maverick DUC's Vs 07 Fox Talas

    For all you crazy tuners out there thought I would post my impressions of the Mojo with 2 different forks. I started with the 07 Fox Talas....I found it rode a bit hard esp small bumps....even when reducing the air pressure right down it made the bike feel less plush than I had hoped...[I already have a Mav 7.5 for the super hardtail feel] So thought I would chuck on a pair of DUC's that I had doing going spare.....result the bike felt much improved, I liked the slightly slacker angle, it feels there is a better balance between front and back travel/suspension feel.. also stiffer with less tracking wander on high speed descents.......it just feels much much better. The Duc's have 10wt oil in the damper side and some extra oil in the air chamber, standard everything else. I guess there has been quite alot of negative press about the DUC's based on early seal reliability etc[esp over in the UK] but in my opinion they feel a better match to the Mojo than the Fox IF you want to make the bike feel more plush with more travel. Hope this helps if you were wondering about the DUC's...and of course the Fox are a great fork, its just they highlight a different aspect of the Mojo's potential.

  2. #2
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by kidsuma
    For all you crazy tuners out there thought I would post my impressions of the Mojo with 2 different forks. I started with the 07 Fox Talas....I found it rode a bit hard esp small bumps....even when reducing the air pressure right down it made the bike feel less plush than I had hoped...[I already have a Mav 7.5 for the super hardtail feel] So thought I would chuck on a pair of DUC's that I had doing going spare.....result the bike felt much improved, I liked the slightly slacker angle, it feels there is a better balance between front and back travel/suspension feel.. also stiffer with less tracking wander on high speed descents.......it just feels much much better. The Duc's have 10wt oil in the damper side and some extra oil in the air chamber, standard everything else. I guess there has been quite alot of negative press about the DUC's based on early seal reliability etc[esp over in the UK] but in my opinion they feel a better match to the Mojo than the Fox IF you want to make the bike feel more plush with more travel. Hope this helps if you were wondering about the DUC's...and of course the Fox are a great fork, its just they highlight a different aspect of the Mojo's potential.
    What size frame do you have? I have a med mojo and a DUC32 in my basement waiting for a new headset to be assembled. Any problems mating the weirdo steerer to the headset/frame? I know spacers can't be used. Thanks, sub

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    354
    Is on a large.....low crown all the way at the top of the fork tubes with about 7 mm of spacers under the steerer nut. I dont know what the headtube of the medium is but given you could loose the spacers and shift the crown down the forks I reckon they will probably fit....worth a go!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188

    Ibis with Duc

    Here is an Ibis we just sent out at 23.75lbs. Incredibly tight bike. Thought you may like to see one actually on the bike.

    Z
    Attached Images Attached Images
    -----------------------
    The world's only compatible bike builder
    [SIZE=3]wrenchscience[/SIZE]

  5. #5
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,003

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Thats fuct

    Quote Originally Posted by zaxxon
    Here is an Ibis we just sent out at 23.75lbs.
    DAMN. My Ti Mojo doesn't weigh much less then that....!!

    Bling!
    - -benja- -

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    354
    Dont be so disheartened! The tyres on the above are Maxxlite's [I rang Wrench Science to check]...weigh next to nothing and are good for next to nothing and did the weight include pedals? .......Oh my God I have become a weight weenie!

  7. #7
    Trail Rider
    Reputation: Quattro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by kidsuma
    Dont be so disheartened! The tyres on the above are Maxxlite's [I rang Wrench Science to check]...weigh next to nothing and are good for next to nothing and did the weight include pedals? .......Oh my God I have become a weight weenie!
    I thought I read somewhere that the XT cranks were lighter than the new XTR. Is that true? I figured you would have checked that out. Getting close to ordering a new frame.
    Thanks!
    [size=4]Don[/size]

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by kidsuma
    Dont be so disheartened! The tyres on the above are Maxxlite's [I rang Wrench Science to check]...weigh next to nothing and are good for next to nothing and did the weight include pedals? .......Oh my God I have become a weight weenie!
    My Mojo with 2.25 IRC trailbears (750 gms) , Crank Brothers Candy Ti pedals, XTR 2007 drivetrain, Fox 32 talas X, juicy 7 160mm front and rear weighs in at 26.75#. I probably could shave a little more off especially with the tires, but I really don't see the point. I have had it for 3 weeks now and just put the new Fox Talas X on it today. The thing climbs and descends like a trail/all-mountain bike, but with the weight of a cross country bike. I have taken it off 3 foot drops (which is the limit of my jumping ability) at 10-15 mph and even did a manual down 3 stairs and the bike handles them without any difficulty. I also did a 30 mile non-technical 50% singletrack / 50% fireroad ride last weekend (2 laps back to back of the 24 hours of old pueblo course) and it handled beautifully. I have only had one ride with the Talas X (10 miles today) on technical singletrack and the fork was amazing. I have never ridden a Fox Fork before, and my only comparison is with my previous Marzocchi's AM1 and Manitou's top of the line Minute (3?) and there is no comparison. The X was very firm until It hit a bump and then it sucked up everything I rolled over. I love my IBIS and the Talas X seems to be a great fit. It works great for all mountain and cross country riding.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by kidsuma
    Dont be so disheartened! The tyres on the above are Maxxlite's [I rang Wrench Science to check]...weigh next to nothing and are good for next to nothing and did the weight include pedals? .......Oh my God I have become a weight weenie!

    Absolutely correct, Maxxis 310 tires and no pedals. Not trying to sneak anything by with retarded light parts. Here is the exact build kit.

    Frame Ibis Mojo Carbon Nude Carbon 19.00 23.60 Disc 1
    Fork Maverick DUC 32 Hard Ano 24mm 100-150mm 1
    RearShock Fox RP23 1
    Brake Magura Marta SL | Silver | 180.00 1
    Brake Magura Marta SL | Silver | 160.00 1
    Shifter SRAM X.O Twist 1
    Crank Shimano XTR M970 with BB 175.00 22-32-44 1
    BottomBracket Shimano Integrated to Crank | CrMo 1
    FrontDerailleur Shimano XTR M971 Bottom Swing 1
    Cassette Shimano XTR M970 | Steel/Titanium | 11-34 1
    RearDerailleur SRAM X.O | L 1
    Chain Shimano XTR 7701 1
    Pedal Shimano M970 | Silver/Gray 1
    Headset Cane Creek IS-6 1
    Stem Maverick DUC OS Stem | Black | 100.00 | 10.00 1
    Handlebar Ritchey WCS Rizer Black Carbon Low Rise 1
    Grip ODI Rogue LockOn, gripshift length | Black 1
    Cable Shimano Stainless | 1
    Housing Shimano Housing | Gray 1
    Seatpost Easton EC90 Zero Black 400mm 1
    Saddle Selle Italia SLR Trans Am Gel Flow | Black 1
    Tire Maxxis MaxxLite - 310 | Black | Kevlar | 1.95 1
    Tire Maxxis MaxxLite - 310 | Black | Kevlar | 1.95 1
    Tube Michelin Aircomp Ultra Light Butyl 1.50-2.20 | 36.00mm 1
    Tube Michelin Aircomp Ultra Light Butyl 1.50-2.20 | 36.00mm 1
    Skewer American Classic QR SS | Black | S.Steel 1
    RimTape Velox Cloth Rim Tape 2
    FrontHub Chris King Disc ISO 24mm Thru Axle Black 32 1
    RearHub American Classic Disc 225 Black 32 1
    Rim Stans NoTUBES ZTR Olympic Disc | Black | 32 | UST 1
    Rim Stans NoTUBES ZTR Olympic Disc | Black | 32 | UST 1
    Spoke DT Swiss Supercomp 14/16/15g | Black | 32
    Spoke DT Swiss Supercomp 14/16/15g | Black | 32
    Nipple DT Swiss Alloy | Black 64
    -----------------------
    The world's only compatible bike builder
    [SIZE=3]wrenchscience[/SIZE]

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,858

    Little sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by zaxxon
    Absolutely correct, Maxxis 310 tires and no pedals. Not trying to sneak anything by with retarded light parts. Here is the exact build kit.
    I have been a weightweenie-for-fun for a few years and got quite a beating for being one on a 5" bike before people realized that it does make sense to save weight on a all-mountina bike.

    Having said that the build above make ... a little bit of little sense. There are too many components that don't really belong on a all-mountain bike: the Maxis 310 1.95 (as somebody else have commented: useless) the ultra-light butyl, and the Stans ZTR Olimpic that are very questionable unless one is never leaving the ground. At the same time a few components that are heavier then need to be (to name a few: the Maverick/Hub front that is heavier then a simple FoxFloat/stabdard-hub, the Shimano crankset/chain, the QR. the ODI) ... and why a Maverick with 6" of travel on a bike that seems to be set up for ... ("racing"?) ... and the pedals missing

    What the purpose of this build? ...
    Last edited by Davide; 02-11-2007 at 08:16 PM.

  11. #11
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,711

    Too close for missles, I'm switching to guns...

    Not that anyone asked for my $.02, but..
    The maverick DUC32 IS a racing fork. I know it has dual crowns and loads of travel, however it is only 3.9lbs, travel adjustable and works incredibly well. Despite it's moto looks it really isn't a big-hit fork. The times they are a-changing: The DUC32 represents a shifting paradigm of light-weight, long-travel suspension components coming of age in the XC arena. Amen.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,858
    Quote Originally Posted by subliminalshiver
    Not that anyone asked for my $.02, but..
    The maverick DUC32 IS a racing fork. I know it has dual crowns and loads of travel, however it is only 3.9lbs, travel adjustable and works incredibly well. Despite it's moto looks it really isn't a big-hit fork. The times they are a-changing: The DUC32 represents a shifting paradigm of light-weight, long-travel suspension components coming of age in the XC arena. Amen.
    Well sure, you can amen almost everything, but I was really questioning the build: don't want to start a DUKE war!

    That is: you want to put 310 grams tires on the Mojo (?), why then go with a fork that is probably to0 tall AND weights more then a few alternatives? at 1860 grams + 250 grams hub the DUC32 is heavier then a Fox Float or Talas (0.5" less travel) or the PACE R41 (same travel) ... besides it is not the the Maverick is getting exactly stellare reviews! http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...49#post2881949
    Last edited by Davide; 03-30-2007 at 10:45 AM.

  13. #13
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Well sure, you can amen almost everything, but I was really questioning the build: don't want to start a DUKE war!

    That is: you want to put 310 grams tires on the Mojo (?), why then go with a fork that is probably to0 tall AND weights more then a few alternatives? at 1860 grams + 250 grams hub the DUC32 is heavier then a Fox Float or Talas (0.5" less travel) or the PACE R41 (same travel)
    Do the Fox and Pace weights you are using as comparison include hubs for them as well? As far the height goes, I've found that though the Mav has 6 inches of travel, what that really equates to is an ability to run additional sag, so the height thing is a reduced factor- especially when using the drop-down feature. And of course it's ease of service, stiffness, operational beauty of the QR system...Blah, blah, blah.... But I'm off the real subject here.

    I totally agree with you on some of the other stuff, like the tires. Any build is only as strong as it's weakest component. It does little good to build up an amazing bad-@ss bike that is super-light and is intended to be able to do anything- only to handicap it with tires that will severely limit it's capabilities. I mean, it's one thing if a person has a soft-spot in their heart for a certain component for some sentimental reason. Like it happens to work particularly well in some idiosyncratic way in the particular area they ride. I'm cool with that. But personally, I'll sacrifice that extra 1/4lb for something that performs. I'm a weight-weenie too, but if I'm going to be hauling around anything out there with me, it better be worth it's weight.

  14. #14
    flow where ever you go
    Reputation: noshortcuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,512

    weighing in on light weight parts

    Quote Originally Posted by subliminalshiver
    Do the Fox and Pace weights you are using as comparison include hubs for them as well? .
    I assume you are asking about weights with the thru-axle, not the "hub" as quoted.

    For the record, my Pace Fighter weighed in at 1737 grams with the thru-axle installed and un-cut. You can get the same fork with QR and it is lighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    and the Stans ZTR Olimpic that are very questionable unless one is never leaving the ground.
    As for the question of Stans rims on a truly all-mountain ride.......... I know it works for some, including me. I prefer Stan's 355's for all-mountain over the Olympics, but did run Olympics for one year of heavy riding with no failures or rim problems and only one minor truing. It also depends on conditions: I am 150 lbs, was using a 5" full suspension bike, and the wheels were built incredibly well. That year, jumps and drops were 3' and under, so that won't qualify as all-mountain in all circumstances.

  15. #15
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by noshortcuts
    I assume you are asking about weights with the thru-axle, not the "hub" as quoted.
    Well.. it would have to be the entire hub... thru axle, QR, whatever to really be apples to apples. If one compares the weight of the DUC32 (or SC32 for that matter) to other forks and includes the hub, then the weight of whatever hub/QR/thru axle is used on the other forks must be used.
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide

    Well sure, you can amen almost everything, but I was really questioning the build: don't want to start a DUKE war!

    That is: you want to put 310 grams tires on the Mojo (?), why then go with a fork that is probably to0 tall AND weights more then a few alternatives? at 1860 grams + 250 grams hub the DUC32 is heavier then a Fox Float or Talas (0.5" less travel) or the PACE R41 (same travel)
    Yeah, when using a Mav fork you must run either a Mav, Bontrager, CK, or I9 front hub... It's integrated. The fork and hub are kinda part of the same structure. The same is true for a Lefty fork. And hey..wait a minute... the same is true for any thru axle fork too! So.. we can avoid all this and just include the weight of the pieces that actually came with the fork. The Mav's QR's are built into the fork, and so the thru-axles should be included with the others as well and we can not worry about trying to sneak an extra 250g of hub weight into the fork weight. Whew. That was hard.
    Last edited by subliminalshiver; 02-12-2007 at 08:34 AM.

  16. #16
    flow where ever you go
    Reputation: noshortcuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,512

    Apples to Apples

    Quote Originally Posted by subliminalshiver
    Well.. it would have to be the entire hub... thru axle, QR, whatever to really be apples to apples. If one compares the weight of the DUC32 (or SC32 for that matter) to other forks and includes the hub, then the weight of whatever hub/QR/thru axle is used on the other forks must be used.


    .......The Mav's QR's are built into the fork, and so the thru-axles should be included with the others as well and we can not worry about trying to sneak an extra 250g of hub weight into the fork weight. Whew. That was hard.
    Hubs are part of the wheel weight. They are part of the wheel after all.

    Axles and QR are best weighed as part of the fork weight, since some forks rely on a specific part.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,858
    Quote Originally Posted by subliminalshiver
    Yeah, when using a Mav fork you must run either a Mav, Bontrager, CK, or I9 front hub... It's integrated. The fork and hub are kinda part of the same structure. The same is true for a Lefty fork. And hey..wait a minute... the same is true for any thru axle fork too! So.. we can avoid all this and just include the weight of the pieces that actually came with the fork. The Mav's QR's are built into the fork, and so the thru-axles should be included with the others as well and we can not worry about trying to sneak an extra 250g of hub weight into the fork weight. Whew. That was hard.
    Again dont' want to start a war on a few grams, but all I am saying is that if one wants to be a weigth weenie (as the build I am commenting on is) a Fox Float (1740) + AC front hub (135 grams) + bolt on skewer (25 grams) seems lighter then the DUC ... by close to half pound

    (I am not counting the stem because I don't know precise weights, the 70mm seems to be around 120, which is about the same, maybe 20greans less, of a very short standard XC stem).

  18. #18
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Again dont' want to start a war on a few grams, but all I am saying is that if one wants to be a weigth weenie (as the build I am commenting on is) a Fox Float (1740) + AC front hub (135 grams) + bolt on skewer (25 grams) seems lighter then the DUC ... by close to half pound

    (I am not counting the stem because I don't know precise weights, the 70mm seems to be around 120, which is about the same, maybe 20greans less, of a very short standard XC stem).
    Ok Ok.. lets leave the hubs out of it already! And stem! For crying out loud! How much of the bike do you want to include! So... i'll give you a Float weight of 1740+25 grams for the skewer for a grand total of 1765g or 3.89lbs. Looks like the DUC32 comes in at 1780g including 180 mm steerer, 70 mm stem, crown and oil. The Float has 15 grams on the DUC. I have no idea where a half pound came from. Did you include brake calipers in the DUC weight? They are attached to the fork too. So maybe with stem and calipers, then the DUC would be about a half pound more.
    I'm just giving you a hard time. It's pretty close.
    Last edited by subliminalshiver; 02-12-2007 at 10:26 AM.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Well sure, you can amen almost everything, but I was really questioning the build: don't want to start a DUKE war!

    That is: you want to put 310 grams tires on the Mojo (?), why then go with a fork that is probably to0 tall AND weights more then a few alternatives? at 1860 grams + 250 grams hub the DUC32 is heavier then a Fox Float or Talas (0.5" less travel) or the PACE R41 (same travel)
    The tires were put on purely for a weighing on the scale. It's all mountain bike, but all mountain doesn't mean everyone is hucking. Alot of people use them as big travel XC bikes. Which is exactly how this bike was built up. Besides the tires, everything on the bike is primarily standard XC parts, there isn't any ultra lite parts. The Maverick fork is actually lighter than the Float, as it weighs in at 3.25 lbs with out the stem. The Hub is considerably lighter as well, and the integrated stem is equal to a light stem out there. 6" of travel with a ride height closer to a 5" fork. I understand that seeing a light All Mountain bike may not make sense if your a hucker, but this guy is looking for all day in the saddle. Think more like a big travel XC bike.
    -----------------------
    The world's only compatible bike builder
    [SIZE=3]wrenchscience[/SIZE]

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,858
    Quote Originally Posted by subliminalshiver
    Ok Ok.. lets leave the hubs out of it already! And stem! For crying out loud! How much of the bike do you want to include! So... i'll give you a Float weight of 1740+25 grams for the skewer for a grand total of 1765g or 3.89lbs. Looks like the DUC32 comes in at 1780g including 180 mm steerer, 70 mm stem, crown and oil. The Float has 15 grams on the DUC. I have no idea where a half pound came from. Did you include brake calipers in the DUC weight? They are attached to the fork too. So maybe with stem and calipers, then the DUC would be about a half pound more.
    I'm just giving you a hard time. It's pretty close.
    Basta! (stop! in Italian)

    PS the posted weights of the DUKE are a zoo because Maverick posts the weight without the upper crown (you know, when you buy the DUKE you nead the fork (3.6 and change), then as a separae item the upper crown 230 grams or so), then the maverick stem (light but it comes in only 3 lengths: good luck), then the hub (250 grams)), and the weight of the whole thing changed quite a lot from the first release. That might be why you see some strange claims, like the 3.2 weight mentioned in this thread ...

    Me ... run a Vanilla that is (horror!) 4.1 pounds
    Last edited by Davide; 02-14-2007 at 04:42 PM.

  21. #21
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    Word. Sounds good to me. Long travel doesn't mean super-huckfest anymore. The ideal bike would weigh nothing, rocket up hills like a bottle rocket and down like an avalanche, offer speed-of-thought control, have zero loss of pedal efficiency, be indestrucible and be all-day comfy. Usually all these things don't go together but the industry is getting closer- and the mojo is at least one, probably several steps in that direction.

Posting Permissions

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