Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 253
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    842

    Suspension Fork Experience - What's Working? What's Not?

    Recently I have had a few converstions about suspension forks on a tandem. I would be interested to hear people's experience with their existing set up.

    1. What fork make/model and what frame make/model?
    1a. single or dual crown
    1b. lock out?
    1c. axle type 20mm thru? 9mm QR?
    2. Team weight?
    3. Type of riding.
    4. Any feedback regarding performance, maintenance etc. (positive or negative).

    I think this type of information on this forum would be extremely valuable.

    Also, feel free to add anything that I missed. And don't be bashfull telling us if you are running a "non-tandem rated" fork. This is an informal poll - you can always hide behind your screen name...

    Thanks!
    Last edited by ds2199; 07-09-2010 at 08:08 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    842
    I guess I'll start

    1. 2009 Marzochi 55ATA on a Ventana ECDM (full suspension)
    1a. single crown
    1b. has "lock out"
    1c. 20 mm thru axle
    2. aprox 270
    3. we ride jeep roads, twisty singletrack, rocky trails (just about anything that I'd ride on my single bike - but no BIG drop offs).
    4. fork has worked out well so far despite unfavorable reviews on Marz forks. We have about 2500 miles on the fork (seals replaced this past spring). 20mm axle works very well and is actually a form of quick release.

    For as much bad press as I have received on the Marz forks, I have been pleasantly surprised with the performance of the fork. My local shops are all big Fox fans.

  3. #3
    Ride, Rinse, Repeat
    Reputation: DaleTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    124

    Fox

    A great Thread Idea. We are definitely in the "non-approved" bunch...

    1- Fox 36 Talas RLC 160mm on Ellsworth Witness
    1a - Single Crown
    1b - Lock out - yes (used SELDOM - Only for LONG road sections)
    1c - 20 mm QR
    1d - 203mm Disc rotors/Hope Mono M6 calipers
    2 - ~300 Team/50 lb bike
    3 - Mostly Colorado Singletrack, up to "moderately" technical, PLENTY of Rocks, lots of tight/twisty.
    4- Performs REALLY well. Stiff and tracks well. Think a 20mm thru axle is a requirement on a tandem. Replaced a Rock Shox Pike 454 (32mm stanchions..) and the Fox was a HUGE improvement in steering response and precision. A huge confidence boost. Good adjustability, the low speed damping adjustment REALLY helps keep the wallowing from the big bike under control. Holding up fine so far. 2 seasons on it, not a huge amount of hours on it, getting due to have seals done, but holding air pressure well, no oil leaks so far.

    Been VERY happy with the Fox, and have NO complaints.

    We have had the chance to ride a Mazzochi 55ATA on a friends Ellsworth Witness back to back with our Witness/Fox setup. The Marzzochi seems a bit stiffer than the Fox, noticeably more tracking precision. A gazzillion adjustments. I'll try to get him to post up...

  4. #4
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    I'll post details later about what we ride...

    To help others, why not also add your setup parameters if possible. Compression setting, rebound, spring or or air pressure, type terrain and team weight, chassis would be nice help also.

    Just a thought.

    PK

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    253
    1- Old Marzocchi DJ
    1a - Single Crown
    1b - No lock out (Wish we had it)
    1c - 9mm QR
    1d - 203mm Disc rotors/Hope Enduro 4 pistons
    2 - ~350 Team/50 lb bike
    3 - Mainly just Iowa singletrack right now, we have done a small amount of 1-2 foot drops, stairs etc.
    4- Good fork, much better ride then a rigid fork. Wish it had a lockout though, while standing it bobs like crazy.

  6. #6
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by DaleTR
    4- Performs REALLY well. Stiff and tracks well. Think a 20mm thru axle is a requirement on a tandem. Replaced a Rock Shox Pike 454 (32mm stanchions..) and the Fox was a HUGE improvement in steering response and precision. A huge confidence boost. Good adjustability, the low speed damping adjustment REALLY helps keep the wallowing from the big bike under control. Holding up fine so far. 2 seasons on it, not a huge amount of hours on it, getting due to have seals done, but holding air pressure well, no oil leaks so far.
    I was planning on building a hardtail tandem using a Pike 454 that I already have. Could you explain a little more why the TALAS is better?
    May the air be filled with tires!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    253
    Im not sure about the talas, but I know the Pike is not "tandem rated"

  8. #8
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.SBC
    Im not sure about the talas, but I know the Pike is not "tandem rated"
    I don't believe any Rock Shox or Fox fork is tandem rated. In fact, they specifically say not to use their forks on tandems.

    "FOX bicycle products are not designed or manufactured for use on any motorized bicycle, motorized cycle or motorized vehicle or for use on any vehicles carrying more than one operator/rider. Any such use constitutes misuse, which may result in serious injury, death or property damage, and will void all FOX warranties."
    May the air be filled with tires!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    842
    I am very interested to continue to hear ALL experiences with suspension tandem forks.

    The whole point of this topic is to hear what is working and what is not. I know for a fact that many people use components that ARE NOT tandem rated. Many of them ARE up to the task. I realize that many component manufacturers do not care enough about the niche that is tandems let alone mountain bike tandems.

    I am not endorsing nor encouraging the use of Non-tandem rated items. I AM interested to real world experience (tandem rated or otherwise).

    Please continue to share - Thanks!!!

    I suppose someone like Alex will chime in at some point and let people know the list of tandem rated forks (I think it may be a pretty short list).

  10. #10
    Ride, Rinse, Repeat
    Reputation: DaleTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    124

    Pike

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200
    I was planning on building a hardtail tandem using a Pike 454 that I already have. Could you explain a little more why the TALAS is better?
    Purely Stiffness & steering precision. The Pike (even with the 20mm..), while reasonable, tended to flex and "wander" a LOT more than the 36 TALAS under hard cornering or banging in the rocks. Until I made the switch I was pretty happy with the Pike, but was just looking for a bit less flex, and figured the bigger stanchions and beefier crown would help, and it made even more of a difference than I imagined.

    The TALAS seems to give more tuning options as well. even with an "extra Stiff" spring in the Pike, the sag and low speed compression was more than I liked, probably contributing to the feeling of flex...

    I think the Pike would be fine if your riding tends to the less rocky or less twisty side, but was getting overmatched on tight & rocky stuff.

  11. #11
    MTB Tandem Nut
    Reputation: TandemNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by ds2199

    I suppose someone like Alex will chime in at some point and let people know the list of tandem rated forks (I think it may be a pretty short list).
    I was going to stay out of this one in the hopes that folks would provide more info without fear of the "fork police" making comments about various forks being approved for tandem use. However, since you mention it, here's the (short) list of forks still in production:
    White Brothers Magic 100T (dual crown) and Groove 180 & 200.
    ATC Racing T-5
    Marzocchi 66, 55, DJ and 4X.
    Rockshox had no particular concerns with structural integrity of their Boxxer forks, but would not warrant the internals under tandem loads. Some will recall this fork was spec'd on Cannondale tandems for a couple of years.
    Risse Trixxy & Champ
    Manitou Circus (DJ style) and Dorado.
    Sad, ain't it?
    Last edited by TandemNut; 07-13-2010 at 05:27 AM.
    MTB Tandems Inc.
    678-445-0711
    www.MTBTandems.com

  12. #12
    my dog's Frisbee launcher
    Reputation: befoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    512
    1. Cannondale Moto Fork w/red springs
    1a. dual crown
    1b. No lock out
    1c. 9mm QR

    2. Team weight...about 325 LBS
    3. Type of riding....Single-track and forest roads lots of rocky spots
    4. I like this fork but its only one I've tried on on our Cannondale so I don't know any better.
    its gotten us down some very rocky downhills safe and sound
    as far as maintenance its very easy to rebuild although finding parts that's much harder (anyone have brown springs...or feed back on red vs brown springs?)

    ds2199, thanks for this post should be very helpful
    also...could you guys add what forks you used in the past and how they compare to your current setup?

    Thanks
    Darwin was an Optimist

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drdoak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    81
    1. 2010 Fox TALAS 36 RC2 (FIT cartridge) on a Ventana ECDM

    - Single crown, 1.5" steerer tube (straight not tapered)
    - No lock-out. Not needed for seated climbing, but very hard to coordinate standing climbs because of the fork bob. We do stand individually and find that acceptable.
    - 20mm thru-axle (love it)
    - 203mm disc rotors, Avid BB7 brakes

    2. 270 lb team weight + 50ish lb bike (never weighed the bike)

    3. Aggressive XC, rocky singletrack, desert trails, fireroads. Just about anything without big drops and tight switchbacks (or we'll walk those). Usually long climbs with long descents (average ride has 5000'+ ascent/descent). I'll ride more technical trails on the tandem than I would on my single because of the tandem's stability.

    4. I absolutely love this fork. Travel is adjustable with the turn of a knob between 4", 5", and 6" (100-130-160mm). For almost all riding we'll use the 5" travel. If it's a long smooth climb I'll drop it to 4". If it's really nasty I'll up it to 6" but handling can get a little sluggish like that. Very stiff, confidence-inspiring fork because of the 36mm stanchions, 20mm thru-axle, and 1.5" steerer tube. Maintenance heavy, though, need to service dust wipers every 15-30 hours and change oil every 100 hours (6 months for us).

    Sometimes I'll start to think this fork isn't doing much because I never feel it move. Then I'll ride my single bike (Reba 29er) and it's a world of difference. The TALAS just soaks up everything. Deep ruts, rocks, roots... we just float over them. Very happy with this purchase.

    Thanks for this topic. This is our first suspension tandem so I have no other forks to compare.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    83
    We are pretty happy with the White Bros Magic 100T. Bike: 50lbs-ish, us: 270lbs, tools,water and etc: 20lbs?
    We are running a Fandango 29er hardtail, fork is at 50-60 psi. I would say we ride pretty aggressively. I like to take chances on the trail, but I am not comfortable doing that AND running non-tandem rated forks..Just my 2 cents.

  15. #15
    Schipperkes are cool.
    Reputation: banks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,090
    Maverick DUC32 is tandem rated if correctly setup. I have a client that has 2 tandems with DUC on the front; Ventana 26" and Eriksen 29" hardtail. I have a bit of time setting them up and he will not look towards any other fork.
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee
    Better suited to non-aggressive 125# gals named Russell.
    I ride so slow, your Garmin will shut off.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    Maverick DUC32 is tandem rated if correctly setup. I have a client that has 2 tandems with DUC on the front; Ventana 26" and Eriksen 29" hardtail. I have a bit of time setting them up and he will not look towards any other fork.
    I've heard good things about the DUC 32 - too bad it is out of production for now. There's been rumors of a carbon version but that's going on almost 2 years...

    Damn... Ventana 26 AND Eriksen 29?... is that Chuck and Karla?

  17. #17
    wrench extrodinare
    Reputation: B-radical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    16
    My brother and I ride a Scott aluminum hard tail here in CO ( just not enough as we are oppisite sides of the state. We have a Rock Shox Argyle single crown w/ 20 mm. It has only 4" travel but tracks well. It has steel stanchions and special springs. Works well as we are 360# of riders plus gear. we also use Avid code brakes that are amazing. The Fox 36 should be a great fork w/ the big stanchions and air assist, would probably use the Van model w/ coil spring. 20 MM is the only way on mtn tandem unless you are pretty light riders.

  18. #18
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Several bikes to comment about. 380 pound team.

    1998 Cannondale MT 3000. Moto fork, 100mm with 9mm QR axle. Non disc brake version. Fork has oem valving, but has been modified as follows. Fork boots from lefties, Ohlins suspension fluid, coil spring is oem but the elastomer has had a section of Judy elastomer machined to fit the upper spring end.

    Preload run full firm, fork work very well, minimal if any flex is noticed, turning to steering stop allows almost 90 degrees of motion per side.

    Fork requires special tools to work on it easily. Normal stuff gets accomplished, rollers lubed with Phil Wood oil, cartridge fluid replenished as needed. Had one lower triple clamp crack at the bolt hole, no failure, blended away the crack and check it frequently. The clamp is a documented problem from long ago. The on the fly adjustable rebound is sometimes utilized for different terrain.

    Our 2001 MT800, I installed a Manitou Sherman single crown with 20mm axle, travel is adjustable (110mm / 150mm), but we always ran it in 110mm setting, 150 was to slack on the headtube angle. Changes made, swapped spring to extra firm, replaced damper fluid to 10 wt Motorex from oem 5 wt Motorex. Fork worked well but was used only for less than fifty miles of use, some jeep road some technical single track. Not a bad fork, but I would personally like more ramp up or progression for better mid stroke / bottoming control.

    ATC, with 20mm and Avid BB7, 100mm of travel. We have ridden one while installed on our MT3000, double red springs, as delivered it had no amount of spring preload, added 10mm (?) of preload, this held the front up much better. The fork was a bit under damped for us, replaced damper fluid to 20wt. Good turning radius. The lack of external adjustments was acceptable, but made on the trail tweaks tough. Once dialed in, this was an obvious replacement for the Moto when needed. This fork was tested on technical singletrack, hardpack, sand, and other varied terrain.

    We are now re outfitting our "squadron", one of our latest rides is an ECDM, it too has the ATC 100mm fork with a 20mm axle, Louise (210mm?) brake. Like the other ATC we tested, steering precision is very good, turning radius also. I need open this thing up, but speculate it has a pair of red springs (had at least one when I checked the tire to triple clamp clearance with the fork cap removed). Preload currently installed is about 8mm. This fork could use a bit more damping, it will likely also see 20wt fluid as the other fork did.

    Our Fandango 29'r is here and I'm working to get it built, it too will have the ATC fork with 20mm axle and an Avid BB7 203mm disc. We have not ridden at great length any other forks on a tandem.

    I have installed a Fox40 onto the MT3000, planning to shorten the stroke to 100mm, unfortunately the triple clamp / lower leg offsets did not allow ample turning radius for where we ride.

    I also have a Marzocchi drop off triple, modified from 170mm to 110mm of travel. I did install this onto the MT800 but other parts of the bike were not finished, the Manitou was fitted since the forks steerer tube was a more proper length. This fork has decent turning radius, is easy to work on, is spring with air over oil, open style damper with internally adjustable rebound. I believe this fork should work decent, provided the rigidity is ample for good steering precision, but again I have not run it.

    The present focus will be on further dialing in the ATC's, since this is our current setups for the most part.

    In my opinion, one of the greater challenges is finding proper springs for these forks at the loads we run them. Also, some of the forks, based on single bike test, do not have much if any progression to the spring via an air column. Obviously flex is a concern, also, but is always a trade off against weight, unless you run and air spring fork setup.For some teams this may be very important.

    PK

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Team Fubar Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    540
    We've been using a Rock Shox Argyle 318 (their DJ fork) on our C'dale tandem for about a year and a half with good success. I think for any teams over 300-325 lbs. it might be under sprung even with the extra firm spring in it. We're right at 300 lbs. and it is fine, but I know if it is much more, it won't be without some custom springs.

    The thing about the RS Argyle is it has steel stanchions (stiffer than the alu ones on the Pike/Revelation/etc.) a 20mm Maxxle, and a lock out. If I did it over, I'd probably go with the 409, that is an air sprung fork. for more adjustability.

  20. #20
    Long Live Long Rides
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    397

    Forks

    Clan McKim: Team weight 300lbs

    1998? - The first fork we tried was a "Bad Betty Bombshell". It was on a Da Vinci tandem we demoed. To be fair, it was set up for a different team, but it did not move much at all. It looked massive and cool but not so functional.

    2001 - Next came a 100mm travel Cannondale Moto (tandem version). It had red springsand quick release. I looked for brown ones but was told that not all tandem springs were actually brown...gave up and stuffed some extra elastomers inside the spring to firm it up. The fork worked really well, handling some serious abuse with minimal deflection or flex. We blew up a retaining clip and sprayed little roller bearings all over the inside of the fork. Fortunately we could still get the fork rebuilt by Cannondale. It started with hydraulic rim brakes and survived a conversion to discs. It now is in use by my in-laws and family as a "dirt-road" tandem, and still works well.

    2006 - With our new El Conq we got an ATC fork. It started at 100mm but I ran it most at 125mm. This fork drove me nuts. From day one it had major sticking problems, eventually getting bad enough that it would "lockout" from stiction during a ride. I tried every combination of tightening bots/loosening bolts/lubing/cleaning that I could think of. I even sent it back for a full rebuild by ATC (got a story about the sticking being due to the color of the lower legs, not kidding..). This was a 20mm thru axle and rode very confidently - very stable and solid, it just didn't move right. I fixed it as best I could and sold it since my stoker was tired of hearing me b**ch about it.

    2008 - Marzocchi Jr. T. The first big ride we did with this fork was Monarch Crest in Colorado. I couldn't stop laughing. Every time I hit a bump/drop/roller I broke out in joyful whooping. This fork is huge 170mm travel, 20mm thru axle and very smooth. It was way too soft out of the box, but the addition of the air preload caps quickly fixed that. It could probably use a servicing and maybe a touch heavier oil to increase damping. It is amazingly supple, but will bob quite a bit on hard flat peddling. Honestly I want about a 140mm fork, but in the Tandem rated world there is not much and out here in Grand Junction I would rather use too much fork rather than too little. The folks at White Bros told me they could modify something for me, but I would need a job first.

    2010 - To be fair to ATC, I test road a Ventana at AORTA that was specced with an ATC. I was really curious as to how a different fork would ride. It was much better. Some very slight sticking, but nothing substantial. The Ventana with the ATC felt "zippier" than the one with the Marzocchi.

  21. #21
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Along the lines of this discussion, what would you all consider as the ideal amount of fork travel on a rigid rear tandem, and why?
    May the air be filled with tires!

  22. #22
    Long Live Long Rides
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    397

    travel

    I think it will vary quite a bit depending on riding style and terrain. For us I really think 140-150mm would be best, but I've never tried a fork with that travel so I'm just guessing. 100mm is the minimum I would try.

  23. #23
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Trails4Two
    I think it will vary quite a bit depending on riding style and terrain. For us I really think 140-150mm would be best, but I've never tried a fork with that travel so I'm just guessing. 100mm is the minimum I would try.
    Oh, yeah...riding style...It really depends on what my wife will tolerate. We don't have a tandem yet, but I'm working on that, so we don't have any experience on a tandem. I race DH and BMX at an expert level (even at age 41), but my wife is a little more conservative, although she does ride BMX and DH (yes, even at Whistler!). So that means her comfort level will be the limit of technical terrain and speed. We may later move to a full-suspension frame. For her comfort, I already did pick up a Thudbuster seatpost.

    As mentioned above, I was planning on using a Pike, but set at 125. I also have a Fox 36 Float I can use. The reason I need to pick the travel is that I want to design the frame around a particular travel. Of course, I can deviate from that a bit, but I want to at least have a target in mind.

    This has been an informative thread! Thanks to all who've replied!
    May the air be filled with tires!

  24. #24
    Long Live Long Rides
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    397
    I'd pick a general 125mm travel to build the frame around. If you need more travel, remember that with a longer wheelbase more travel has less effect on head angle than on a short bike.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drdoak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200
    Oh, yeah...riding style...It really depends on what my wife will tolerate. We don't have a tandem yet, but I'm working on that, so we don't have any experience on a tandem. I race DH and BMX at an expert level (even at age 41), but my wife is a little more conservative, although she does ride BMX and DH (yes, even at Whistler!). So that means her comfort level will be the limit of technical terrain and speed. We may later move to a full-suspension frame. For her comfort, I already did pick up a Thudbuster seatpost.

    As mentioned above, I was planning on using a Pike, but set at 125. I also have a Fox 36 Float I can use. The reason I need to pick the travel is that I want to design the frame around a particular travel. Of course, I can deviate from that a bit, but I want to at least have a target in mind.

    This has been an informative thread! Thanks to all who've replied!
    I'd use the 36 Float, and probably all of the travel or reduced to 130-140mm. I am not sure how much tandem experience you have, but with your background and a trusting wife you could really have some fun with the stability of the tandem.

    We run a 36 TALAS, 100mm = quicker handling, not as plush, 130mm = happy medium, 160mm = sluggish steering, but float over everything. Other than steering, I don't notice any difference in overall bike geometry, compared to a single bike where an adjustable fork can totally change how the bike feels.

  26. #26
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Quote Originally Posted by drdoak
    1. 2010 Fox TALAS 36 RC2 (FIT cartridge) on a Ventana ECDM

    - Single crown, 1.5" steerer tube (straight not tapered)
    - No lock-out. Not needed for seated climbing, but very hard to coordinate standing climbs because of the fork bob. We do stand individually and find that acceptable.
    - 20mm thru-axle (love it)
    - 203mm disc rotors, Avid BB7 brakes

    2. 270 lb team weight + 50ish lb bike (never weighed the bike)

    3. Aggressive XC, rocky singletrack, desert trails, fireroads. Just about anything without big drops and tight switchbacks (or we'll walk those). Usually long climbs with long descents (average ride has 5000'+ ascent/descent). I'll ride more technical trails on the tandem than I would on my single because of the tandem's stability.

    4. I absolutely love this fork. Travel is adjustable with the turn of a knob between 4", 5", and 6" (100-130-160mm). For almost all riding we'll use the 5" travel. If it's a long smooth climb I'll drop it to 4". If it's really nasty I'll up it to 6" but handling can get a little sluggish like that. Very stiff, confidence-inspiring fork because of the 36mm stanchions, 20mm thru-axle, and 1.5" steerer tube. Maintenance heavy, though, need to service dust wipers every 15-30 hours and change oil every 100 hours (6 months for us).

    Sometimes I'll start to think this fork isn't doing much because I never feel it move. Then I'll ride my single bike (Reba 29er) and it's a world of difference. The TALAS just soaks up everything. Deep ruts, rocks, roots... we just float over them. Very happy with this purchase.

    Thanks for this topic. This is our first suspension tandem so I have no other forks to compare.
    Have you posted a photo of this bike overall and maybe with some detail photos somewhere on the net? I would like to see some photos of it.

    Thanks
    PK

  27. #27
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    With some rides on our ATC forks on both the Fandango and ECDM, I'm learning what I like and dislike about these forks. Consider also I spent some miles on a loaner fork that was installed on our MT3000.

    As mentioned, we now own two ATC forks, one installed on our Fandango 29r hardtail and the other on our ECDM later model series with the rear shock upright and parallel to the seatube.

    On both bikes we run 20mm axles.

    One bike has Magura Louise discs while the 29r uses BB7's.

    What is good about these forks…

    As I mentioned in a previous post they are very good in steering precision and not flexing. This is probably based on the fact of them having large diameter tubes.

    No flex is noticed while rolling, this includes brake forces trying to bend the fork aft, or twisting flex from steering inputs or on a result of deflections.

    The fork has merit in its modular machined construction.

    The design is a dry type fork, with no oil bath for the telescopic tubes. These are lubricated via grease ports.

    Seals are easily cleaned on account of the sealheads being threaded onto the outer tubes.

    Bushings are a finger fit and requiring no special tools.

    Fork travel settings can be varied by spacer location changes from a top out or negative position to positive positions, or if additional travel can be utilized, spacers may be left out. This is also how axle to crown dimensions can be dialed in to obtain manufacturer head angle and trail dimensions.

    Being a dry fork design, major fork leaks are minimized to non existent. Also the damper cartridge is on the side opposite the disc, so even if it were to leak, the disc should remain uncontaminated from leaking fluid.

    Things to not like about these forks…

    First off, many folks have complaints about the forks being notchy as they move through the stroke.

    Some have complained about knocking sounds during fork movements.

    From experience, I do not like servicing the fluid in the damper. Having worked on motocross suspension setups since the mid 70’s, I still do not have enough experience to easily bleed one of these dampers to my satisfaction unless I modify the damper.

    The triple clamp design is not conducive to proper torques needed to secure the fork tubes.

    The fork bridge mounting, like the triple clamp pinch bolts is not proper for good clamping to the outer tubes.

    By design, the bottoming cushion is placed to impact the damper seal with no support or protection to the seal.

    A minor concern is no easily removed front wheel.

    For some, the lack of compression, rebound, lockout or on the fly travel is a concern.

    So there you have some thoughts on good and bad. Thing is I still do not object to these forks. Having been around the moto end of stuff long enough, I don’t get worked up on account of dialing stuff in. For me these forks are no different.

    So, our team weight is 370 ish plus camelbacks and helmets. We ride a lot of stupid drops, really tight trails, palmetto roots and sometimes hardpack ruts, plus lots of sand. Speeds range from crawling and plonking to decent flat ground cruising, and when possible, long descents like those at AORTA.

    Neither of the two forks we currently own were great as delivered. They were ok and ridable but nothing to rival Ohlins. This past weekend had me spend some time working out some of the major concerns.

    FWIW, I had previously modified a damper for easy consistent bleeds, so this chapter is closed.

    Simple damping changes are made via fluid viscosity changes, and easy bleeds make this a no brainer, provided you not on the damper or your setup notes what fluid you installed. By now most of the world is familiar with Peter Verones fluid chart. This is a huge help when comparing fluids, whether for your tandem, single or motocross / harescramble ride.

    Scroll down this page to compare fluids.

    http://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=Suspension_Fluid

    Be forewarned that not all fluids have good lubrication properties. Many folks buy fluid based on its VI ratings. Typically, I have found that fluid with high VI’s, tend to have less slippery feel on the sliding surfaces. Some fluids are just crap, and others are excellent. FWIW, for Silkolene Pro RSF is a great fluid in demanding apps, but is not good for being slippery. Guess what Fox now uses? Torco stuff works very well. Also, if the viscosity is proper my favorite is Mobil1 ATF, trust me it works very well and has for years in my KTM race bike.

    My notes show that the ATC forks prefer heavier fluids to obtain damping. 20 weight Bel-Ray was on the shelf and has been used with good results. These dampers are very basic and use no amount of shim stacks like the more sophisticated counter parts. This doesn’t make it bad, just different, and somewhat easier to get good settings. Those of us that have time on 70 and early 80 motocross machines rode on damper rod forks, these were simple in operation and maintenance, but performed very well in many bikes. Consider the 81 Maico 490, which still works well for non stadium type tracks. Shim type dampers are great if you have shims AND know how to make good shim changes. This is its own book and won’t be discussed here.

    Now to focus on the mechanics of the sliding tubes…

    If you have time to work on your fork, I suggest you remove the wheel with the bike supported, remove the springs, and remove the damper rod nut and spring plunger nut, both of these are located in the forks outer tube lower fitting behind the axle. This will allow checking the tube movements with no outside force applied. Also, remove the four cap screws securing the fork brace.

    In this setup, slide the forks telescopically, do they move freely? Don’t let the damper foul you checks on the right side leg. If the forks feel notchy, loosen and remove the fork brace mount pinch bolts. Did the fork get better?

    These were checks I made to our forks repeatedly until I was able to make the movement smooth.

    To gain smoothness, these are the things I did to free up the forks and why.

    I decided the fork brace mounts and triple clamp pinch bolts can not secure the tubes tightly without distorting the clamps to a shape that is no longer round and true. Basically, the pinch bolts begin to cant the clamp edge into the tube causing distortion. If you prevent the distortion with less torque on the bolts, slippage will occur. My remedy for this was to install NAS 43 DD spacers of the proper thickness in the gaps of the clamping surfaces. This allowed full torque on the fasteners with no distortion since the spacer was now holding the pinching surfaces parallel. I checked the clamps holding ability on the tubes to ensure no slippage. This included checks for twisting easily by hand force, and exerting bottoming forces by hand to see if the tubes slipped. These were also monitored during the first ride as a double check. FWIW, we did have tubes slip several times prior to this mod, and this was on account of not being able to get enough clamping pressure on the tube prior to the clamp distorting and going out of round.

    In regards to the clamp up for the fork brace mounts, the ECDM was fine on the lower tubes external surface. The Fandango however, with spacers installed a very exact zero / zero slip fit. This would not work since the clamps would not hold the brace to tube tightly. I made shims for each clamping surface. These shims were nothing more than aluminum tape, cut 1” wide with scissors. The tape was wrapped and adhered one layer thick onto the outer tube, in the clamp location. The tapes split line was positioned 180 from the clamps pinch opening. The tape allowed excellent clamping of the mount to tube with full torque on the pinch bolts.

    Next the tubes were checked for sliding action individually. Each tube was extended and compressed, checking for tight spots or poor quality in the movement. Fortunately, there was no additional work need for good movement.

    I did check the lower bushings to ensure proper fit on the tube. To accomplish this, I ensured that the bushing ends where split had clearance, thus allowing the bushing to be seated onto the tube land 100%.

    Prior to accomplishing a final install on the foot nuts for the damper and spring plunger, the damper was checked for smooth movement. Also, any travel adjustment were made. It was noted that the ECDM at full bottom out would have the dust seals hit the lower triple clamp with full uncushioned force. Not good. To prevent this, the bottoming cushion was extended by using a Thudbuster gray elastomer. This will give a more fluid bottoming control. I could have installed a rigid spacer but opted not to. The ECDM travel was maintained at slightly over 100mms while keeping Sherwoods spec for axle to crown.
    In regards to the Fandango, I found I could increase travel, and removed some of the rigid bottoming spacers. Both bikes no longer run fork boots.

    The foot nuts were final installed and secured.

    The wheel was positioned and axle secured. What I have found works well for this when tightening the axle clamps is to install the capscrews part way. Then tighten the forward two capscrews on each leg until bottomed and snug. Then snug the rear pair on each leg. I then loosen the forward bolts ½ turn on each bolt. The rears are then made snug plus 1/8 turn. I then go back and tighten the four forward bolts ¼ turn. All are then rechecked, adding no more than 1/8 turn if needed.

    Note also, that I prefer to push the fork tubes inward to ensure the hub is secure side to side, prior to any tightening of the axle clamps.

    Focus then heads towards the triple clamps. I installed shorter NAS 43 DD spacers into the pinch slots of the clamps. Again, I ensured that each tube was clamped securely and the tubes were inspected for any slippage during the first ride. No slippagae was noted.

    The sequence I use has me snug the upper clamp bolts with the tubes positioned for selected height above the clamps upper surface. You should never position the forks top cap with the caps sides in the clamping area. You should position the tube so the triple clamp is able to secure the fork cap and gain clamping support by clamping in the caps threaded area.

    So I secure the upper clamp to tube joint first, these are snug plus a little bit. Next I snug the lower clamp to the tube. Again this is initially just snug. All of this assumes the headset is adjusted properly since any headset change will require this to be done again. Additionally, this is based on the triple clamps are not twisted on the steerer tube.

    Go back and tighten all the triple clamp to tube bolts.

    The final alignment and tightening involves the fork brace and it’s clamps. I found it best to gradually bring these bolts to snug, then back off slightly. This allows the mounts to twist freely into proper position, and by having the brace float there is no spreading of drawing of the tubes inward or outward during this sequence. I gradually tighten the bolts, with a final tightening done once I know the brace nor clamps will slip out of alignment. Be careful if you do this since the brace mount pinch bolts have very few threads in the aluminum mount. I plan to use longer fasteners of the same length as the brace mount to prevent stripping the aluminum clamp.

    This all sounds very complicated but is actually very easy to accomplish in a short time. Both of our forks move easily and fluidly. I run no seal saver fork boots, but this is your option. Experience for me has shown that unless they are cleaned faithfully, you will make sandpaper and grind up your forks finish.

    Also, the grease I have been using is a low viscosity product from FORD. I was at the dealer get some parts for our toy hauler and saw this tube of grease. It’s a plastic tube that screwed into my small bicycle grease gun. The grease is blue in color and contains Teflon. Cost was about $6 and for me close to home.

    Cost for the spacers is low. One place listed them as a 10 piece minimum at 35 cents per spacer. I believe they also had a 25 dollar order minimum. For me these were stuff I have easy access to, so free for me.

    So was it worth it. Absolutely!!!!!!!!! I personally like many traits of these ATC forks. I will admit that box stock they fall short. Not many will take the time and effort to make this happen, and I understand why. For us the fork works smooth enough now, with no notchy feeling, that the damper will need a more viscous fluid. The fork is also fully clamped with all the capscrews tight. I believe this added to the forks already rigid structure, but it may be something I want to believe.

    Other things I hope to accomplish include…

    Converting one fork (the Fandangos) to air sprung with external damping / possible lockout.

    Locating anti-friction spring seats to minimize internal binding.

    Anti friction the springs sliding surface against the tubes inner wall.

    Will these forks stay or go, I’m not sure. My current lust is to convert the Fandango 29r to a Fox 36 / 20mm axle setup. As for the ECDM, I hope to buy a Kashima Fox 40 to install on the front. This is something for the future and may not happen, but time will tell.

    PK

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,936
    I run a RockShox Boxxer on our Ventana El Testigo. The Boxxer is a dual crown fork with 20mm dropouts. My wife and I weigh 325lbs as a team.
    I have also ran on our other tandems (another Ventana El Testigo we ran a Marzocchi Shiver, a Ventana El Conquisidor we ran a Hanebrink).
    All the forks work great, although Ive been thinking of replacing the Boxxer with a Fox 40 DH fork, for really no apparent reason other that I really like how Fox forks perform on my single bikes, but the RS's are also really good forks...so it may be a wash.

  29. #29
    sftrydr
    Reputation: ssulljm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,041
    For my style of riding , Norcal dirt w lots of roots+ruts, I'm fully pleased w how my Softride stem w my original rigid fork performs.
    My Bike:
    http://www.oldmountainbikes.com/cgi-....cgi?bike=T136

    Have tried forks on other tandems during group tandem outings, and if I was an extreme tandem descender, I'd consider one of the aforementioned moto forks. Climbing on my bike is a dream, and it never has to be locked out, as the stem functions beautifully w/o penalty of fork pogo.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drdoak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by PMK
    Have you posted a photo of this bike overall and maybe with some detail photos somewhere on the net? I would like to see some photos of it.

    Thanks
    PK
    I don't believe I've posted it before. Here is a link to the album. If you want more specific detailed pics, let me know and I'd be happy to post.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/jeff.dambrun/VentanaECDM#


  31. #31
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Some detail photos of the NAS spacer installation. In the photos, you can see the spacers installed in the pinch area of the lower triple clamp, both left and right sides. Also the other photo shows the spacers installed on the fork brace mounting clamps. The Fandango fork required a shim of aluminum tape to obtain good clamp up of the fork brace clamp. On account of cables and hose, I didn't take photos of the upper triple clamps, they are however typical of the lower triple clamps.

    The spacers allow the triple clamp pinch bolts to reach torque without the triple clamp distorting. The distortion would bind the clamps shape into the tube while placing the bolt at an angle with the head moved away from the tube.

    We have a ride on the Fandango and tonight the ECDM. Both forks have freed up and have minimal stiction and move smoothly. Both forks triple clamps hold the upper tubes tightly with no slipping. Also the fork brace has not slipped.

    The forks have improved enough that I now need to go into the damper and revalve the rebound to slow the extension. The fork action now has no deflection from binding, but rebounds too quickly. The fork will let the wheel follow the ground in compression, with no harshness felt in the bars. The rebound should be minor to cure and will allow me the chance to modify the cartridge body for better consistency.

    The entire process may seem extreme, and yes I believe that these mods should not be needed. The fact is, many suspension assemblies and components, both Moto and MTB are production units that need work to get dialed in. As I already mentioned, it's very common to spend a lot of money or time testing and modding brand new suspension on motocross and woods bikes. By comparison, this has been very little time, easy to remedy, and the gains are more noticeable, cost for the parts if you had to purchase them is less than $10, assuming the vendor has no minimums.

    Hope it helps if you own an ATC.

    I wanted to add, that if you try this with washers instead of NAS spacers, be very careful of the outside diameter dimension. I initially mocked this up using AN960 series airframe washers. I was able to get them installed, however the washers outer edge contacted the fork tubes. Not sure if this would cause a concern or not but I didn't see it as a proper setup and changed it.

    PK
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Suspension Fork Experience - What's Working? What's Not?-copy-img_0682.jpg  

    Suspension Fork Experience - What's Working? What's Not?-copy-img_0684.jpg  

    Suspension Fork Experience - What's Working? What's Not?-copy-img_0686.jpg  


  32. #32
    Long Live Long Rides
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    397

    Thanks

    Great suspension write-up. It would actually make me consider an ATC again. Alex should hire you to "tune" the ones he gets new!

  33. #33
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Trails4Two
    Great suspension write-up. It would actually make me consider an ATC again. Alex should hire you to "tune" the ones he gets new!

    FWIW, all suspension can use some personalized or team specific setting changes from oem. Some suspension components just require more than others.

    As an example, the rear damper on my KTM 250 woods bike, is a hybrid I designed and built using parts from several different year dampers. The end result was the bike went from a machine with high speed compression spikes, and a rear damper that was a few mm's too long causing steering / handling issues, to a chassis that is easily dialed in and very ridable if it's not exactly perfect for the day.

    The ATC on the Fandango will be super easy to get the valving correct. It's a hardtail, so there is no front to rear suspension balance to contend with. Just simple tracking, no deflection, compression and rebound.

    The ECDM on the other hand will be a bit more to dial in. Tonight's ride had my wife / stoker understanding rebound damping. We (I) attempted to launch the machine and us by using a logpile as a jump. Nothing high nor steep. Normally we hit this feature around 20 mph. Prior to the fork work, the original RP3 had so little rebound she bounced up and the bike landed, if it even left the ground, nose low on the front wheel. The revalved RP3 works good and is a decent setup but not 100% when needed. With the DHX5.0, she gave good feedback, I instructed her to make certain clicker changes and we had a very balanced and fast setup with the non modified fork. The bike would cross the logpile, the opposite side would be a flat landing, totally uneventful, maybe we got air, but it was small if we did. Tonight's ride had the fork tracking very well, so our speed was up for the pedal effort. When we hit the logpile, the fork rebounded fast enough to have us almost bounce the front wheel over and did launch the bike, landing way too front wheel high. Suffice to say, I was interrogated immediately. I explained rebound damping of the fork and the merits of external adjusters, which led into the Kashima FOX 40 in black.

    I'll revalve the ATC regardless. If I arrive at settings worth posting I'll share them.

    The irony of this ATC stuff though is I'm starting to wonder if I am the only one riding them.

    PK

  34. #34
    MTB Tandem Nut
    Reputation: TandemNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by Trails4Two
    Great suspension write-up. It would actually make me consider an ATC again. Alex should hire you to "tune" the ones he gets new!
    Should a product that's been produced as long as the ATC need this much tuning?
    MTB Tandems Inc.
    678-445-0711
    www.MTBTandems.com

  35. #35
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Quote Originally Posted by TandemNut
    Should a product that's been produced as long as the ATC need this much tuning?
    The obvious answer is no, and honestly, if damping tuning results involve much testing it's Fox40 for the ECDM, and ATC with spares for the Fandango or maybe a FOX36 converted to a 29r fork.

    On the flip side though, the ATC is a torsionally rigid platform well suited for a tandem.

    Sadly the ATC is somewhat dated by todays current damper designs, and the notchy action compounds this.

    Then again, many of the current forks have smooth action but are prone to flex and even failure of internals on account of taking the lightest weight by design possible, or damper designs that are very sophisticated and not serviceable by most folks.

    It would be great to see a torsional deflection vs force graph for the various forks. Then plug in a ride performance rating to see how everything stacks up.

    I haven't given up on these ATC forks yet, if it does come around, it may find all the good traits of rigidity, travel, 29 or 26, and ease of maintenance to be envied. On the lacking end, it will need fluid changes for damping adjustment vs clickers on other brands. Not a bad tradeoff if you can find happiness in the damping and don't require lockout.

    Ironically, I never expected the fork to get this good so easily. About 1 hour per fork so far, and with a good guess on fluid settings, another hour max. Cost has been negligible.

    Time will tell.

    PK
    Last edited by PMK; 08-13-2010 at 05:20 PM.

  36. #36
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Trails4Two
    Great suspension write-up. It would actually make me consider an ATC again. Alex should hire you to "tune" the ones he gets new!
    Relating to your previous post regarding the idea of a 140mm fork, Marzocchis are typically a very easy conversion.

    I have a double crown Drop Off I had planned to run on the Cannondale. At 170mm it was way to long, and yes a lot of travel compared to the 100mm Moto on it.

    I forget the exact number I clipped it to, but if not right at 110mm something very close to it.

    If done properly, changing travel from oem of 170mm to anything less and back are easily reversible mods.

    PK

  37. #37
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    8 more miles on the ECDM with the freed up ATC.

    The fork is better, but it is becoming apparent that rear setup of our ECDM far exceeds the ability of the ATC fork.

    I'll continue to improve these ATC forks I have, keeping updates posted here.

    Over a week ago, I spoke with Alex. We discussed the ATC plus some other forks like the White Brothers 100t, the Groove USD series and even the Risse.

    I would recommend, that unless you NEED a bargain double crown type fork, you will probably be better off to purchase one of the other forks he recommends. I know some folks run non approved tandem forks also, that's fine too in my book, (I know Alex is cringing with good reason) if you have your facts for what you are buying. I say this based on having a good idea of how much these forks will need to dial in and keep consistent from ride to ride.

    Yes it is an easy fork to work on and maintain, but unless you want to take the time...you would likely rather be riding. For me, I am a suspension geek and have been working moto suspension and playing test rider since the mid 70's. Simple and easy in this situation may be a bit more than most folks care to play with.

    I am by no means disappointed in the ATC, and suspect I'll get a dialed setup for the hardtail Fandango 29r. It will take some work, involving testing and some tuning but it should be doable. The hardtail rear end can not out perform the ATC like the ECDM does.

    Time will tell what fork ultimately goes on the ECDM, but at the moment, the DHX 5.0 I installed on the rear dialed in real close to spot on with no big mods internally. Our greatest deviation from Foxes settings are running Pro Pedal threshold between clicks (non detent position). As I posted before, I am really leaning towards a modified Kashima FOX 40. Whatever route I take, I'll post the setup settings.

    PK
    Last edited by PMK; 08-21-2010 at 07:28 PM.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    143
    Marzocchi Jr. T. on Ellsworth. I limited the travel with internal spacers to 6". Using 15wt oil, played a bit with the damping, use the optional stiffest springs offered and bought seperately from Marzocchi, added air caps mostly to bleed off any accumulated pressure from time to time. No need to add air as the stiffer springs are just about right for my normal stoker. Adjusted the oil level down a bit to allow full stroke. Supple for the first part of the stroke, stiffens out well near the limit. Does eat the bumps well. The mods made it less bouncy and more confidence inspiring. Heavy steering feel. Has been a good fork for the job. No issues with seals and they are still going strong since new in 2002. As with any fork you can spend forever with the variables. You could make it a full time job just tuning forks and shocks. Certainly better than out of the box and no doubt I will continue to fiddle with it from time to time. I do like the fork. Lock out would be nice.

  39. #39
    Long Live Long Rides
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    397

    Jr T modification?

    Stevoo,

    Could you give more detail about your Jr T mod? I've got one at the original 170mm and would be very interested in lowering it to 150-160.

  40. #40
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    In regards to the JrT's and Super T's, there are two different design platforms.

    For model years 2002 and prior they utilized 30mm upper tubes, 2003 and after went with 32mm upper tubes.

    By comparison, The WB 100's are 32mm uppers as are the USD type forks lowers.

    As I mentioned, I have a 170mm Marzzochi clipped to about 110mm. Typically, the mod is very easy. You'll need a piece of 1/8" wall thickness aluminum tubing to loosely slip over the cartridge body. If you want a 130mm travel fork make a 40mm spacer sleeve for each leg. If the fork has coil springs, they can be replaced with shorter springs, or if a spacer lives on the main spring, trim it to offset the spacer added to limit extension.

    For several years, and possibly still, Marzocchi was selling a second set of negative (top out) springs to shorten the forks from 130 to 100. This works, but can make the fork have a dead feel as opposed to being more lively at longer extensions.

    If you have down time later in the year, or want to send it here and back sooner I'll make the mod for you.

    Unfortunately I didn't take photos of the DO triple when I did it.

    PK

  41. #41
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Is anyone else running an ATC fork that reads these forums? Before I spend more time writing I wanted to see if it is even worthwhile.

    Our ECDM fork is what it is. Not bad but needs a revalve to get better. Sometimes notchy but mostly pretty smooth now.

    Our ATC on the Fandango 29r has been less consistent. After this weekends ride with some new simple mods, it has been smoother than the ECDM fork, and consistent for the entire rides.

    PK

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    299
    I would be interested in more info on the Magic 100T. This is our second one on our ECDM and I find the newer one to be smoother, the break in was shorter and I run more air pressure than the one on our Fandango. We are a 360 # team. I would also like to hear about settings for the Fox RP3 rear shock but maybe that needs a whole different thread.
    I am running 55# of air in the Magic after setting the IMV valve about 6 clicks from wide open and the rebound screw closed about 3/4 of a turn. I am still adjusting as the fork is still breaking in somewhat. I am much happier with the new version. The 100T we had on our Fandango I ran only 30# of air, 3 clicks from wide open on IMV and wide open on compression and would still come back with sore hands and shoulders.
    On the RP3 I run 215# of air, rebound about 4 clicks, and we use pro pedal most of the time.
    I am still learning about suspension settings so please excuse any errors that are obvious.
    Ed and Pat Gifford
    Toms River, NJ

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    228
    I am sooooooooo happy with the DUC32 I bought off ebay and sent to maverick to tune up and setup for our weight and riding style. Last weekend we rode the SM100 and it was flawless. Although I do not have much to compare it to I am so impressed with this lighter weight triple clamp fork. The only problems we had was with the timing chain and rear wheel.

  44. #44
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Ed I can't help with the WB stuff at this time. We don't have one to test or even go through basic settings.

    In regards to your RP3, when you run Pro Pedal, which PP setting. Our RP3 has the ability of selecting one of 3 settings.

    Reference page 11 of this manual

    http://www.foxracingshox.com/fox_tec...arShock_en.pdf

    Position 1 was way to soft and no amount of air pressure would take the marshmallow feel away.

    We tested in full PP but never rode while set there excepting dead smooth road sections, and even then, for us I believe the bike was faster not in #3.

    All our riding was done via PP2. This gave a decent compromise. Our settings were 225/230 PSI with a small can and team weight of about 370 plus gear.

    Besides revalving the RP3 for better rebound, now able to run 4 clicks out from full slow, I have made a conversion to the internal floating piston filler, so now it is more reliable and adjustable in pressure easily and without special tools. This can alter the internal progression of pressure, similar to, but not as extreme as on a DHX5.0 air.

    Consider also, that on many forks and rear dampers, that adjustments to the rebound can alter compression flows too as many rebounds are not checkplated and freebleed in two directions. As rebounds are opened or closed, this alters the pressure values inside the damper to unseat the compression shim stacks and can change the way the bike feels in some situations.

    PK
    Last edited by PMK; 09-07-2010 at 09:31 AM.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    299
    Hi Paul,
    We usually run PP3 and full suspension switching between the two as the conditions dictate. I also have been flirting with the idea of finding a PP2 setting that works for most conditions we ride. Sometimes my stoker becomes pre occupied with switching the settings and forgets about the other aspects of the ride.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    299
    Hi Paul,
    We usually run PP3 and full suspension switching between the two as the conditions dictate. I also have been flirting with the idea of finding a PP2 setting that works for most conditions we ride. Sometimes my stoker becomes pre occupied with switching the settings and forgets about the other aspects of the ride.
    Ed

  47. #47
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Ride a bit in PP2, make minor (1 click) changes to the rebound. Go firmer, ride a bit, go 2 clicks softer ride a bit. Work this until optimized.

    While testing try and ride sections that are all similar, or the same sections repeated. Don't let the stoker make a change until you have forced yourself to ride the entire section (unless dangerously wrong). Before making the change ask what she noticed, liked and didn't like.

    Once set, I doubt you'll need PP1 for anything except the moon, PP2 should be your home setting with PP3 for flats.

    With PP2 setup, the bike will bob some but if the air pressure is correct, it should be minimal, and give good results.

    Rebound set full closed or open is bad. Since the RP's don't use a rebound needle all settings can be used effectively, however, the shape of the ports does not have the same net change from one click to another. Best rebound settings are #3 thru #6.

    PK

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    634

    Marz 66SL

    1. What fork make/model and what frame make/model?

    2006 Marz 66SL. This is the air version, no springs. Oil damping. On an '06 ECdM.

    1a. single or dual crown
    Single

    1b. lock out?
    No

    1c. axle type 20mm thru? 9mm QR?
    20mm through axle. Before Marz switched to a QR 20mm axle.

    2. Team weight?
    Probably 380ish with gear and water

    3. Type of riding.
    Everything this side of drops and jumps. Fireroad, singletrack, rutted singletrack, dry creek crossings, sections of boulder downhill.

    4. Any feedback regarding performance, maintenance etc. (positive or negative).

    Aside from the poor Marz owner's manual (one manual per model year, despite the vast number of different forks produced for that year, makes it very difficult to figure out which acronyms apply). Worse that there were a half-dozen 66 models produced, so it took quite a bit of time to find the correct service manual.

    Use has been great, so far as my knowledge goes. I run the positive air at ~145lb, negative at ~40. Have come close to using all the travel a handful of times, but most it sags about 20% and I use another 40% when riding, according to the stanchion zip tie. Has provided a stable platform when we hit rough stuff. Probably a bit tall for our needs.

    Maintenance isn't difficult. Again with the task of finding the correct service manual. I did fill the oil to the specified amounts (200ml in left, 50 in right), but came away with a very harsh top-out. Another 50ml in the right leg cured that. Otherwise a seal kit and a couple hours did the job. Not as easy as the RP3, but, hey...

    On RP3 notes, we use ~170lb in the can with ProPedal set on. I tried to get my stoker to play with some of the settings to figure out what she likes and likes better, but that never got very far. Via the witness ring, we use up about 85% of travel at that pressure.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Suspension Fork Experience - What's Working? What's Not?-img_2817.jpg  


  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    634
    Borrowed from the "New ECdM Build Advice" thread, TandemNut said:

    Quote Originally Posted by TandemNut
    Second the Marzocchi option for single crown, but team weight has a bearing on that as well; typically teams over 300lbs are better suited to double-crown forks.
    So, given that our team weight is ~360lb with gear and we ride hard enough to go through three WI rear hubs and crack the ECdM frame, is there a more definite weight limit for an '06 Marz 66SL? I did not detect any damage/fatigue when the fork was out during the rebuild and I don't want to be surprised by it on the trail.

  50. #50
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Okayfine
    Borrowed from the "New ECdM Build Advice" thread, TandemNut said:



    So, given that our team weight is ~360lb with gear and we ride hard enough to go through three WI rear hubs and crack the ECdM frame, is there a more definite weight limit for an '06 Marz 66SL? I did not detect any damage/fatigue when the fork was out during the rebuild and I don't want to be surprised by it on the trail.

    Most modern large tube forks are pretty well built structurally. Most times it's not going to be a catastrophic structural failure but rather cyclic stress type failure. Pretty much a situation of how many times can you bend the beer can before it breaks, not so much a John Belushi smashing the beer can on his head Ala "Animal House".

    Best to do visual inspections at higher stress locations like the crown, bridge, axle mounts, and lower legs about half way between the seal and axle.

    Should you plan to find something, NO. Could you find something, Yes.

    In regards to single crown vs double, the obvious advantage is much less flex loads into the double crown. Aside from that, the lowers and bridge see the same, and possibly more stress in some cases than a single crown. One other big consideration to loads induced into the forks is extended length. It can be nice to have lots of travel, but with it comes added torsional and front to rear flex.

    We don't ride a single crown fork on our tandems. I'm pretty confident we could on our XC Fandango, but the ATC is now working very well so it will stay. As for the ECDM, where and what we ride I would not have faith in a single crown lasting very long. If it ever gets here, a Fox40 Kashima is going to replace the ATC not on account of flex or lacking structural strength, we just need better damping control.

    PK

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... 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
  •