Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146

    Last generation Mountain Cycle shock?

    I was curious if any Zen II or San An 2.0 owners received their frame equiped with the Marzocchi Roco rather than the X-Fusion and if so, how does it perform?

    I have a Zen II with the X-Fusion and it works well, but the Roco has my interest peaked.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,794
    Ccdba?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  3. #3
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    Ya, there's always the double barrel but from what I've read about the Roco it is no slouch and seems to offer characteristics that would match what my fork is doing i.e. very linear with good bottom out resistance. It looks like Marzocchi has got QC issues sorted and there are some pretty good deals going, and I even like the color

    The only concern I have is I've read reports that full travel can't be achieved. I can call Marz tech support and if I become serious about getting one I will, I was just curious if any MC's were actually shipped equiped with the Roco as those ride reports would be the most telling for my application.

    And your not allowed to have a better looking bike than mine Shawn, stop prettying it up.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,794
    Lol, I think I'm done, except for maybe a new fork and shock!
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    I know Gerard has had both the roco and the x-fusion on his Zen. He prefers the x-fusion.

    I had been bugging him to loan me the Roco so I can try the shocks back to back on one of the local loops. Would be really interesting to see just what a difference the shocks actually make. I know I prefer the look of the roco.

    I have a roco on my Battery, unfortunately its the wrong size so I can't objectively compare it to the x-fusion on my Zen and San An.

  6. #6
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    Thanks Sammy, maybe post a follow up if Gerard lends you the Roco

  7. #7
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    I'm not lending him my Roco's!

    I originally specc'd the Roco for the Zen and San An but switched to the X-Fusion as they offered a better price for their top shelf model, and they could fit the shocks in the frames at the factory, unlike the Roco option.

    Now, I rode the Zen with the Roco first up and found it to be very plush. I ended up running higher pressures in it than 'what the book' said for my weight etc. to offset the plush (though that's not uncommon for Marz)! On the rides I did with it, I found myself fiddling the TST switch to suit the terrain I was on to get the most out of the shock. It is by far an excellent shock, though I am not sure I like having to 'tune on the fly'.

    The X-Fusion in comparison lends itself much better to set and forget - the platform valving works 'better' in that once you set the shock, it tends to just do its thing without needing further input.

    Of the two which is the best? That's a really hard call. I want more time on the Roco, though I am guessing that on the SA it could be the better option, while on the Zen, I'd lean for the X-Fusion. I might do a back to back test when I get back on the dirt proper just to compare. I guess ultimately it comes down to how you like your bike riding.

    Of note, Fox seems to be reverting to the less 'fiddle on the fly' option on its new units. maybe the thinking finally is that too many options makes getting the best out of the shocks too hard for most people (read CCDB). I'd have to agree and when I had my Fox 'Pushed' to suit my riding etc. I found I never had to once again touch the shock's settings for the most part. Something to be said about having one's suspension properly tuned to fit 'you'.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by G.. View Post
    I'm not lending him my Roco's!

    I originally specc'd the Roco for the Zen and San An but switched to the X-Fusion as they offered a better price for their top shelf model, and they could fit the shocks in the frames at the factory, unlike the Roco option.

    Now, I rode the Zen with the Roco first up and found it to be very plush. I ended up running higher pressures in it than 'what the book' said for my weight etc. to offset the plush (though that's not uncommon for Marz)! On the rides I did with it, I found myself fiddling the TST switch to suit the terrain I was on to get the most out of the shock. It is by far an excellent shock, though I am not sure I like having to 'tune on the fly'.

    The X-Fusion in comparison lends itself much better to set and forget - the platform valving works 'better' in that once you set the shock, it tends to just do its thing without needing further input.

    Of the two which is the best? That's a really hard call. I want more time on the Roco, though I am guessing that on the SA it could be the better option, while on the Zen, I'd lean for the X-Fusion. I might do a back to back test when I get back on the dirt proper just to compare. I guess ultimately it comes down to how you like your bike riding.

    Of note, Fox seems to be reverting to the less 'fiddle on the fly' option on its new units. maybe the thinking finally is that too many options makes getting the best out of the shocks too hard for most people (read CCDB). I'd have to agree and when I had my Fox 'Pushed' to suit my riding etc. I found I never had to once again touch the shock's settings for the most part. Something to be said about having one's suspension properly tuned to fit 'you'.
    I think shocks and suspension designs are getting so good now that you don't really need all those on the fly adjustments.

    So, G, I've been thinking about something for a long time. What if you took a design like the Turntable, or the APP and combined it with a pivot that rotates around the bottom bracket?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  9. #9
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    I think shocks and suspension designs are getting so good now that you don't really need all those on the fly adjustments.

    So, G, I've been thinking about something for a long time. What if you took a design like the Turntable, or the APP and combined it with a pivot that rotates around the bottom bracket?
    Concentric BB pivots, while I like them, do not work well for single pivot designs. SP's rely on the chain tension created by the axle path to cancel out various forces. A concentric SP design would lack these forces hence the bike would pogo all over the place under power, regardless of how well the shock rate was tuned.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by G.. View Post
    Concentric BB pivots, while I like them, do not work well for single pivot designs. SP's rely on the chain tension created by the axle path to cancel out various forces. A concentric SP design would lack these forces hence the bike would pogo all over the place under power, regardless of how well the shock rate was tuned.
    I see.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  11. #11
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    G.. thats is some great feedback I really appreciate it.

    I read one short comment somewhere mentioning the plushness of the Rocco and, coupled with my favoring the aestetics of the Marz shock and the price they can be had for I thought it worth considering.

    I'm satisfied with the X-fusion, just wanted to know if there was a substantial benefit from running the Rocco and if it's a toss up I'll stick with what I have.

    The Zen II continues to impress me, very fun, agile, and rugged. I hear a lot about how much more efficient these VPP and DW designs are, but it seems that they are all related to pedal efficiency. I think a single pivot has the most natural wheel path and the feedback and response from the rear of the bike feels "right". How the shock is driven really makes for an excellent ride under all demands and conditions.

    I like all these new bikes on the market, but this one is right for me- very stoked.

  12. #12
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    The Zen II continues to impress me, very fun, agile, and rugged. I hear a lot about how much more efficient these VPP and DW designs are...

    I like all these new bikes on the market, but this one is right for me- very stoked.
    Hey Jon, glad it's of use. I personally think the XF is a great shock and while I might play with using the Roco on the Zen, I think that for the type of riding I prefer, the XF is the ideal shock. Even on the SA, unless I was hucking the bike etc., which I don't (I do not bounce like I used to!!) I think the XF will remain on the bike as the default shock.

    In regards to the DW etc. etc. I could launch into a big diatribe about how I view all these different suspension systems and how, if having a million different versions to achieve the same thing is needed, is it in the automotive world, you can could all of the suspension systems on one hand... and have a few fingers left over?!

    SP works because it's simple and bikes are supposed to be simple, at least in my mind. It's the shock rate tuning that's the important bit, not the wheel path (within reason), as a badly tuned shock path etc. will kill a bike's ride in 1 minute flat....at least that's how I see it.

    I'm about to brush the proto Zen I have here, should come up a treat!
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by G.. View Post
    SP works because it's simple and bikes are supposed to be simple, at least in my mind. It's the shock rate tuning that's the important bit, not the wheel path (within reason), at least that's how I see it.
    I agree with that 100%

    When are we going to see your new design?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  14. #14
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by G.. View Post
    SP works because it's simple and bikes are supposed to be simple, at least in my mind. It's the shock rate tuning that's the important bit, not the wheel path (within reason), as a badly tuned shock path etc. will kill a bike's ride in 1 minute flat....at least that's how I see it.
    I too agree, but don't misconstrue my mentioning wheel path as my placing importance on it over tuning. Infact, I was trying to convey the exact same idea that the simplicity of SP is it's appeal. The rear wheel swinging in and arc actually seems more efficient to me when not under power.

    I view the VPP's and DW's as the bikes for those placing chief importance on climbing prowess.

  15. #15
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Ha, never did. I saw you thinking what I do, hence why you like SP designs.

    Of interesting note... On my original San An, a SP with as we all know a direct shock connection to the arm and frame so as basic as you can get, I started running a Fox RP AVA up back. It was OK but it was very hard to get 'right', either too soft or too hard, so pogo'd under pedaling or was not plush enough. I ended up getting the shock 'Push' tuned and when it went back on the bike it was like night and day. On climbing, the platform kept the rear bob free while still taking up the smaller bumps and on the down, it was perfect.

    For 95% of riders, I debate the added complexity of multi pivot solutions that deliver small advantages in climbing (over a SP with a well tuned shock system), especially when so many people can't even set their suspension up properly to a basic setting (ie. as per the manual).
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  16. #16
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,146
    Thats pretty much right on key, infact I believe a big part of what I like about the last generation MC's is that the Turntable link takes care of the lion share of the tuning issues typical for many like myself who are by no means suspension guru's.

    I think it is genius how simple of a package it is that both serves to stiffen the swing arm and feed the loads to the shock in a manner that allows a linear tune to perform so admirably over the full spectrum of terrain frequencies.

Posting Permissions

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