Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    55

    Shiver SC - safe?

    So I have a beater with a '02-model Shiver SC on it. The fork's barely seen any dirt - I didn't really have the confidence in an unbraced USD fork to throw it around offroad.

    Anyway, I ask 'safe?' because you never notice when you're actually riding the thing, but I happened to lend it to a mate of mine while we were off for a short ride and he happened to pull a mild stoppie...

    ... and my eyes were like saucers. The legs were whipping around like spaghetti

    Ever since I've kind of had my doubts about it. I've had a look at the fork but nothing has been displaced, and there aren't any cracks, etc that I can see. The fork is old, but due to the above use, and frankly speaking not much of it, the item itself is generally in A1 condition. Has anyone noticed use-nondependent, age-related fatigue with these forks? That much deflection can't be normal, can it?

  2. #2
    Bike Crusader~
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    240
    That could be a reason why Marzocchi stopped producing it....
    "Ride it, Feel it...."

  3. #3
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,122
    My friend had one and I noticed the flex immediately, especially when braking. It won't snap on you but it will always feel like a noodle.
    Keep the Country country.

  4. #4
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,238
    Yeah, it depends on how big your balls are. I had one, and the fore-aft flex is nil, but the torsion flex is huge. Can cause you to take lines through rock gardens that you don't want to take. Depending on your skills and lack of fear, you can make this work for you, or it could be too much and you may need a better-tracking fork. SC inverted forks don't work all that well. Mine was very "plush", but unfortunately the tracking thing kind of negated the benefits. I survived with it for quite a while on my AM bike.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    55
    I've searched around a bit since I posted and I see that the flexing is not uncommon. OK. But a more pertinent question is: Has there ever been widely reported failures as a result of this noodliness?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    117
    there is a reason why in the last two years of production they lowered it to 100mm and did away with the ECC.

    BTW the 100m model with the dual HSCV cartridges is the best short travel sc fork I ever used.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    55
    The 2002 model is 100mm travel. Based on what I saw, I'd hate to think there were longer ones...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by spoony
    The 2002 model is 100mm travel. Based on what I saw, I'd hate to think there were longer ones...
    nope.

    They started making them 100mm starting in 2004 and onto 2005.

    Up until 2003 they were 120mm with ECC, 2004 and 2005 were 100mm, dual HSCV and no lock-out.

    2002:
    http://www.marzocchi.com/Template/de...DOggetto=56196

    2003:
    http://www.marzocchi.com/Template/de...DOggetto=56223

    2005:
    http://www.marzocchi.com/Template/de...IDOggetto=8689

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    55
    Ooops.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,689
    Can someone tell me the rational behind a single crown USD fork? While I don't believe USD forks make much sense on a mountain bike period, I really don't understand why someone would then make single crown one.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,298
    There isn't a good one really. There's the potential to have a little less unsprung weight, but at the expense of stiffness, and usually overall weight.

  12. #12
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,122
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Can someone tell me the rational behind a single crown USD fork? While I don't believe USD forks make much sense on a mountain bike period, I really don't understand why someone would then make single crown one.
    I guess price. Maverick considers the DUC32 their flagship and the SC32 a cheaper option with 1" less travel. They weigh the same.
    Keep the Country country.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Can someone tell me the rational behind a single crown USD fork? While I don't believe USD forks make much sense on a mountain bike period, I really don't understand why someone would then make single crown one.
    It looks cool... duh

    So anyway - since we seem to have blown off the topic a little, let me steer it (if on the SC, in a somewhat wobbly manner, ahaha) back and just confirm that while we may all be aware that it is not exactly the most rigid of forks, that there have been no notable volume of stories of legs or castings going AWOL over time?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7
    Well I've had mine for a few years. To be honest they don't get a serious work out. But work fine for my riding. Yeah they flex a bit when you grab a big handful of brake, but I don't hit many rock gardens where I ride. Plus a big rock garden is gonna be tough on any 4/5 inch fork!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    117
    I heard lots of complaints of flex and 2nd hand rumors from people who hate it despite never having ridden it.

    The issue I saw though was that of identity crisis. The 130mm version made sense as a trail fork for a burly-ish suspension frame with about 5 inches of travel, but in those travel range people want light frames nd the Shiver SC weighed at least a pound more than competitors. I have always found that with 6+ inches of travel in the rear the 130mm Marzocchis feel short in travel in the front. When they went to 100mm travel the range of users narrowed down further, not many 4 inch travel burly suspension frames were made back in 2004, slopestyle certainly were around back then. I suspect an 100mm Shiver SC would be great on bikes like Transition Double, etc, but as it stands most people with Shiver SCs have them on their burly hardtails, which kind of under values the sophisticated dual HSCV damping

  16. #16
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,238
    Quote Originally Posted by remember1453
    I heard lots of complaints of flex and 2nd hand rumors from people who hate it despite never having ridden it.

    The issue I saw though was that of identity crisis. The 130mm version made sense as a trail fork for a burly-ish suspension frame with about 5 inches of travel, but in those travel range people want light frames nd the Shiver SC weighed at least a pound more than competitors. I have always found that with 6+ inches of travel in the rear the 130mm Marzocchis feel short in travel in the front. When they went to 100mm travel the range of users narrowed down further, not many 4 inch travel burly suspension frames were made back in 2004, slopestyle certainly were around back then. I suspect an 100mm Shiver SC would be great on bikes like Transition Double, etc, but as it stands most people with Shiver SCs have them on their burly hardtails, which kind of under values the sophisticated dual HSCV damping
    The HSCV damping is crude, not sophisticated. It kind of gets the job done, but there isn't much adjustability or LSC control. While the suspension action was pretty good, it's nowhere near as good as more advanced and modern stuff. I sawed open an HSCV catridge to see this for myself.

    Sorry, it was flexy as hell, so flexy you got lots of control problems in any kind of rough terrain.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    The HSCV damping is crude, not sophisticated. It kind of gets the job done, but there isn't much adjustability or LSC control. While the suspension action was pretty good, it's nowhere near as good as more advanced and modern stuff. I sawed open an HSCV catridge to see this for myself.
    I'd love to put a set of 55's on the front of my bike to see the difference the years have made. In fact all my forks have had HSCV bar the commuter. I've only ever rebound and compression to play with, and the SC's don't have compression, and the van R on the back doesn't either. I don't remember the last time I changed the settings in 3 years! Clearly my riding is too predictable...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Sorry, it was flexy as hell, so flexy you got lots of control problems in any kind of rough terrain.
    Kinda adds to the fun, let go of the brakes. Pop out the other side. Some people love fiddling (Dougal) others don't.

    SC's look nice though.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I sawed open an HSCV catridge to see this for myself.
    Any chance you have pictures or could explain to me how it works?

  19. #19
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,238
    The rebound piston is on the end of the damper rod, which is attached to the top cap. This includes a check-valve and orofice that is closed off through use of the rebound adjuster.

    The HSCV valve is at the base of the cartridge. There are usually oil ports around it that allow oil to flow out of the cartridge and into the fork. This is how they provided "low speed" compression damping, although it's pretty crude obviously.

    The HSCV valve included shims on both sides (2x on each side), one side for high speed compression and the other side should be for high speed rebound. Again it's very minimal and crude with no adjustability. The later RC2 and RC3 dampers share the same general arrangement, but with a supposedly more advanced shim-stack and base-valve configuration.

    This is from a shiver DC.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,689
    Thanks, that was a really good description. You're right about it looking like a fairly crude system. I don't know why they didn't put the high speed rebound on the piston on the damper rod, or why they handicap themselves by putting both high speed rebound and high speed compression shims on the valve. Are you sure one of those isn't merely a check valve to allow refilling of the cartridge from the oil bath?

    Seeing things like this makes me respect Manitou all the more for getting their damping system right so long ago.

  21. #21
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,238
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    Thanks, that was a really good description. You're right about it looking like a fairly crude system. I don't know why they didn't put the high speed rebound on the piston on the damper rod, or why they handicap themselves by putting both high speed rebound and high speed compression shims on the valve. Are you sure one of those isn't merely a check valve to allow refilling of the cartridge from the oil bath?

    Seeing things like this makes me respect Manitou all the more for getting their damping system right so long ago.
    Both sides of that base valve are almost identical, except for the fact that the oil ports work in different directions, but they both have shims on the opposite side. It's not a check-valve like on the rebound-piston. Remember that on a fork such as the shiver DC, there are two of these cartridges, so it would be like having one much bigger piston and shims, but again, it's very crude.

    Yeah, manitou figured it out with TPC+, then shot themselves in the foot for many years with a bunch of different iterations of SPV.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Yeah, manitou figured it out with TPC+,
    Oh god where I have I heard this before!

  23. #23
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,122
    Everywhere. It seems pretty unanimous that TPC+ is the best. People on Ridemonkey have put it in Boxxers.
    Keep the Country country.

  24. #24
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt
    Everywhere. It seems pretty unanimous that TPC+ is the best. People on Ridemonkey have put it in Boxxers.
    Well, here's some more perspective then;

    TPC+ is useless without a good lubrication system. Older dorados and other manitous suffered hugely from this. You had to break them down and relube them with grease. After some riding the grease wouldn't be getting to the bushings anymore and the fork would self-destruct and eventually sieze, which happened with quite a few of em. Sure, there is some maintenance to do with forks, but open-bath lubrication systems simply do much better. It took manitou a while to figure this out.

    Secondly, while TPC+ is nice, it's not some end-all damper. There are better ways to acheive the same with better adjustability, such as the valving that Avalanche uses. To adjust the high/low speed compression damping with TPC+ you had to either re-shim it, or adjust a simple orofice for the low-speed. The valves that are on motocross forks and some of the much more advanced stuff like avalanche and the new boxxer incorperate shimmed damping control like TPC+, with real high and low speed adjustments. While lots of products have claimed to have this, few really have.

    While one could argue that TPC is fairly innovative, it's simply using a shimmed compression and rebound piston, which is nothing new. TPC+ helped to offset the "sticky" nature of manitou forks by lessening the initial damping, and it does work good, but there is room for improvement.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  25. #25
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,122
    Yes, open bath is better for lubrication but I was talking about damping and open bath is worse for that because it allows contaminants into the damping oil. All new moto forks and most MTB forks use closed cartridges with separate lubricating oil because of this. I think Manitou's lube problems were from bad seal design and lack of lubricating oil, rather than being closed cartridge.
    Nevermind all that cuz I'm purely talking about the damper design. I forgot about Avalanche and their moto based designs cuz they aren't mainstream. Everyone who uses them claims they're the best but for various reasons (mostly weight?) most riders don't consider them. The new Boxxer damper shows serious promise but let's wait a year for some perspective.
    Compared to Marzocchi, Fox, and '09 and older Rockshox the suspension geeks on Ridemonkey seem to think TPC+ offers the best control.

    Considering that everyone loves Avalanche's damper it must be assumed that their chassis is holding them back from world domination. Should they copy the chassis designs of Marzocchi and Rockshox or license their damper design to one of these companies? I'm SO stoked about getting Avalanche's Hi-Low compression valving put in my DHX this winter by Push but I would have never just bought an Avy shock. Don't know why but I'm not the only one.
    Keep the Country country.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •