Maverick SC32 29er- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    143

    Maverick SC32 29er

    Hi guys,

    Anybody running a pair? I have the chance to get some cheap and was wondering what people's experience's are like with them? Pics would be good too!

    Cheers.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    564
    I used them for a little while and did not like the fork at all. The main problem I had with it was that the front wheel would turn to the left when you got on the front brakes hard. It also comes set up for what seems like a 150-160 pound rider. So me at 200lbs would make the fork dive thru 75% of its travel when I hit the brakes. In order to get it to stop diving I had to run so much air pressure the fork didn't want to move on anything.

    The looks of the fork are awesome but the performance of it, at least for larger guys, is very poor.

  3. #3
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,073
    I liked mine pretty well, although I had to do several mods to get it where I wanted it. If you do some searches I think you will turn up a lot of user recommendations (oil weight, filing down the rebound knob, etc). I also found this fork to be somewhat high-maintenance. It seemed like performance would just fade away without regular tune-ups.

    If you do all of your own wrenching, you can probably get it set up and keep it happy. If not, you would probably be happier with another fork.

  4. #4
    Schipperkes are cool.
    Reputation: banks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,154
    If the Quick Flip levers holding the axle are not correctly tight, the hub will shuffle in the dropouts just like every fork.
    Since the brake caliper is on the non-drive side of the wheel, the braking force generated will naturally cause the rim/tire to 'dive' to the non-drive side as the spokes transmit torque, just like every fork. Butted spokes will cause this to happen more.
    There is a substantial amount of internal tuning that can be done with simple hand tools, if you are competent.
    brake dive can be phased out with more oil in the air side under the piston and more air pressure in the damper cartridge.

    I have been using Maverick forks since 2004 and my 3 29" wheel'd bikes run SC32s.
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee
    Better suited to non-aggressive 125# gals named Russell.
    I ride so slow, your Garmin will shut off.

  5. #5
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,073
    FWIW, I just realized that your title is "SC32". My comments above are about my experiences with the DUC32.

  6. #6
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    i liked it a lot on my singlespeed. aquaholic rebuilt mine for me which improved it a lot, to include enduro seals. i wish i kept it for a future snowbike

    note that i am only 175 lbs however

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    219

    Highly recommended... once correctly tuned for you!

    I have been using Maverick forks for about 8 years now. The first couple on a DUC(with a ML-7 frame), the last several on the SC32 (Niner MCR and currently Silk Ti 29er) . Great forks! I really like the feel of the ride, especially in stutters and off camber situations. Inspires confidence. They do need to be tuned for you and your riding style though! Find a good mechanic or give Maverick a call for advise.

    I am over 225lbs. loaded for a ride. Mostly XC or AM endurance rides. I have lived in SoCal and Colorado Front Range during that time. Not a big jumper, but I tend to hit trails pretty hard. I envision my style as a mogul skier having fun. Fork climbs smooth and efficiently, especially with the partial lockout. Downhills with solid confident feeling. This fork works for me and my riding style, ONCE TUNED CORRECTLY!

    I occasionaly see posts bashing this fork and am surprised. Until I read the post. Most negative reviews revolve around guys taking a 3.5lb. XC fork out to a jump park or downhill course and wonder why it does not perform like a 10lb. fork, Ya think! If this fork is not tuned for your weight and riding style it will ride like crap. Just like any piece of equipment.

    One of the previous posts mentioned he had to pump up the air too high and it did not ride right. Really? Why not set it up correctly for your weight before bashing it on a forum? When you pump up your tires to 10psi or 70psi, do you blame the crappy tire for all the problems with traction you have on a ride?

    Sorry about the rant. Not trying to ridicule anyone. Just a pet peeve of mine from years of being on the forums. There is a ton of equipment out there and technology is diverse and has amazing quality right now. Most equipment will work well, if used in it's comfort zone or intended use range.

    Bottom line is have realistic expectations, try several and pick what works for you and your needs. Set it up correctly. Then judge it.

    Ride Safe!
    Tim

  8. #8
    weekend warrior
    Reputation: Lenz43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    273
    I have both DUC and SC32 Maverick forks, run them in 26 and 29er guise. I really like them for this tunability with oil weights and volumes, the forks were designed with owner servicing in mind. The real wizards can mess around with th shim stack as well. Plus there's the important coil negative spring that needs to be selected to suit rider weight and riding style. It's not mentioned yet but that would go along way to solve the issues posted by ligero above.

    And they do look ace on a 29er, here's mine:


    and this is one of my favourites, shamelessly copied from here somewhere:


    Enjoy!!
    Common sense was never common

  9. #9
    You know, for kids
    Reputation: madcap's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,570
    hated it, way too flexy

    and I wasn't jumping the thing like the above poster suggests...only simple XC singletrack

    I could see the legs moving a LOT when braking, and also when cornering. I've seen the wheel off to the side of where my handlebar is supposed to be pointing it. I think it's the most flexy squishy fork I've ever ridden.

    And I had it tuned especially for my weight and riding style. The SC32 is no good in my opinion. If you really want to try it out, buy used and have it rebuilt and tuned for you. Used and rebuilt should cost less than brand new and then likely still having to tune the new one.


    YMMV

  10. #10
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    If the Quick Flip levers holding the axle are not correctly tight, the hub will shuffle in the dropouts just like every fork.
    Since the brake caliper is on the non-drive side of the wheel, the braking force generated will naturally cause the rim/tire to 'dive' to the non-drive side as the spokes transmit torque, just like every fork. Butted spokes will cause this to happen more.
    There is a substantial amount of internal tuning that can be done with simple hand tools, if you are competent.
    brake dive can be phased out with more oil in the air side under the piston and more air pressure in the damper cartridge.

    I have been using Maverick forks since 2004 and my 3 29" wheel'd bikes run SC32s.
    Didn't you mention before that it didn't even have a shimmed rebound valve? For the money these things cost, I'd expect top-level damping.

    In any case, a SC inverted fork is always a bad idea. The reason the DC32 works is that it has bulged 50mm uppers welded to the crown and the 2nd crown (dual crown). This helps to offset the main disadvantage of an inverted design, which is torsional flex. I've tried these forks briefly, but I also had a different inverted single-crown fork for a long time. It's simply a very inneficient way to make a fork as far as stiffness-to-weight. It is light, but the brake-arch ties together the lowers on a normal fork, and then there's the crown. The legs can't independantly move nearly as much on a normal fork, and that's exactly what makes an inverted fork flexier. There's nothing around where the uppers meet the stanchions to keep it torsionally rigid. I think the reason the SC32 exists is just to have something that "looks" like the better-designed DC32. Otherwise, it'd be far better structurally to build a normal fork.

    If you want a decently light 29er fork with a good damping system, get a Fox.
    "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.

  11. #11
    You know, for kids
    Reputation: madcap's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Didn't you mention before that it didn't even have a shimmed rebound valve? For the money these things cost, I'd expect top-level damping.

    I thought the internals were just reworked Rock Shox Judy internals from like a decade ago

    The looks are about the only thing good going for it in my opinion. I loved the way it looked, hated the way it rode...


    I sold the fork last year.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    Since the brake caliper is on the non-drive side of the wheel, the braking force generated will naturally cause the rim/tire to 'dive' to the non-drive side as the spokes transmit torque, just like every fork.
    What? How do you figure? Are you proposing that the rim moves laterally under braking (or pedalling torque, for a rear wheel)?
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  13. #13
    Schipperkes are cool.
    Reputation: banks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenz43

    and this is one of my favourites, shamelessly copied from here somewhere:

    That is mine
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee
    Better suited to non-aggressive 125# gals named Russell.
    I ride so slow, your Garmin will shut off.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    997
    heavy? my SC32s are lighter than my fox, manitou and reba.

    looking at the legs of the fork when braking? you are lucky that you are still alive! or you just ride on the road and should better switch to a rigid fork. or maybe you simply havn't tightened the wheel release properly.

    our SC32 work very well. my wife is running one on a maverick design frame as 26 and i have one as 29er on my dos niner. we are both very happy with it, as stated by other posters before just make sure you have it adjusted poperly. this fork uses all travel without bottoming out, is fairly light and SUPER plush. great XC fork!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FredBMOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    103
    2 questions:
    Don't many offroad motorcycles use an inverted front fork set up just as the Mav uses? and this is considered a better solution?
    Another thing to keep in mind is that the Mav SC 32 has the widest clearance for tires / rims of any fork available for 29rs and that is why it's so popular.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Maverick SC32 29er-160942009-bmw-f800gs-13.jpg  


  16. #16
    You know, for kids
    Reputation: madcap's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by hellocook

    looking at the legs of the fork when braking? you are lucky that you are still alive! or you just ride on the road and should better switch to a rigid fork.

    I get it now! If I would just not look at the fork while it's performing badly then I won't see it performing badly so therefore it must be performing perfectly.

    Just don't look at the wheel moving all over the place, problem solved.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    997
    MADCAP, if the wheel is "moving all over the place" you got a problem and get it fixed. nothing to do with the fork.

    but stop. you are right. the wheels on the motobike that is pictured above are moving all over as well. however, this may be intentional since these are vehicles who are SUPPOSED to move ...

  18. #18
    You know, for kids
    Reputation: madcap's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,570
    the problem was the fork is flexy, can't fix that

  19. #19
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    That is mine
    so nice

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by FredBMOC
    Don't many offroad motorcycles use an inverted front fork set up just as the Mav uses? and this is considered a better solution?
    Pretty well all modern off-road and street motos use USD forks. With two triple-clamps, and a stiff through-axle and interface, they're very stiff. The DUC32 isn't a bad design, structurally (as an XC/trail fork), but the SC loses the advantage of the upper triple-clamp.
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  21. #21
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by FredBMOC
    2 questions:
    Don't many offroad motorcycles use an inverted front fork set up just as the Mav uses? and this is considered a better solution?
    Another thing to keep in mind is that the Mav SC 32 has the widest clearance for tires / rims of any fork available for 29rs and that is why it's so popular.
    No, there are no moto companies that use a single-crown inverted fork that I know of. Actually, one was designed by Marzocchi as a one-off for use during some limited dirt-jumps, and it consequently SNAPPED at the stanchions, which tells you why they use dual-crown inverted forks, for the fore-aft strength on big dirt-jumps. You can boost the fore-aft strength of a standard fork by increasing the stanchion size, but at the amounts of travel you see on moto bikes, they need all the bushing overlap they can get, and at those extreme amounts of travel the normal forks do not have enough bushing overlap. The lowers have to be extended past the dropouts to get adequate bushing overlap on normal forks, but after a certian amount of travel it's just not practical.

    Dual crown inverted forks ARE inherently more flexy than normal forks when considering the same amount of bushing overlap. The fact that they have two crowns makes a huge difference though, they are also usually massive in terms of the stanchions, axle and uppers, but we aren't talking about dual-crown forks in this thread, we're talking about single-crown forks, and inverted designs are simply a poor way to make a single-crown fork.
    "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
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,516
    You're gonna find a bunch of opinions about the SC32. Be sure to keep track of posters who've actually personally run one.

    I had one a couple years back and I liked it quite a bit, once I had it properly tuned. I'm about 195 in gear and had no issues with flex on mine. It was supple, light and looked nice. I needed more travel so moved on to something else, but I don't have much negative to say.

    The folks at Mav are pretty good at helping you get your junk dialed in. That said, if you're not a wrencher, you would likely be better off with another option.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fallzboater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    No, there are no moto companies that use a single-crown inverted fork that I know of. Actually, one was designed by Marzocchi as a one-off for use during some limited dirt-jumps, and it consequently SNAPPED at the stanchions, which tells you why they use dual-crown inverted forks, for the fore-aft strength on big dirt-jumps. You can boost the fore-aft strength of a standard fork by increasing the stanchion size, but at the amounts of travel you see on moto bikes, they need all the bushing overlap they can get, and at those extreme amounts of travel the normal forks do not have enough bushing overlap. The lowers have to be extended past the dropouts to get adequate bushing overlap on normal forks, but after a certian amount of travel it's just not practical.

    Dual crown inverted forks ARE inherently more flexy than normal forks when considering the same amount of bushing overlap. The fact that they have two crowns makes a huge difference though, they are also usually massive in terms of the stanchions, axle and uppers, but we aren't talking about dual-crown forks in this thread, we're talking about single-crown forks, and inverted designs are simply a poor way to make a single-crown fork.
    USD moto forks are inherently stiffer than the obsolete RSU type, because the larger OD tubes are located where the bending moment is highest, which is at the lower triple-clamp. Room to increase the separation of the bushings for long-travel forks is a bonus, but road-racing and high-performance street bikes, which have only 4-5" of travel, use USD forks because of the improved stiffness/weight ratio. If not, the stanchions would need to be monstrous, and the sliders would be heavier than necessary (the USD design should also decrease unsprung mass).
    This computer system is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities. -Mac

  24. #24
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,332
    Quote Originally Posted by fallzboater
    USD moto forks are inherently stiffer than the obsolete RSU type, because the larger OD tubes are located where the bending moment is highest,
    Ok, but as I said, this can be negated by simply using bigger stanchions, such as with the Fox 40. This only becomes a problem when the travel becomes too great to get the proper amount of bushing overlap, and that becomes the real limiting factor. Yes, they are stiffer for a given stanchion size in fore-aft flex, but if you change the stanchion size, it kind of goes out the window. With a big enough axle, big enough stanchions and enough bushing overlap, the torsional stiffness problem becomes negated. You also might get better unsprung-weight gains with the moto GP forks. On a mountain bike, the "unsprung weight saved" really only turns out to be 5-10% or less, which is very small. The tire, spokes, nipples, rim strip, tube, disc rotor, hub, caliper, dropouts, axle, stanchions, lower fork internals, and so on are all part of this, and magneisum fork lowers (on normal forks) are stupid light, so all this translates to no substancial unsprung-weight saved. Switching to a different tire or tubeless would have a bigger effect. Actually, you seem to be saying the same things that I am, so I'm unsure of the point of your post. As far as USD vs standard, this is one area where mountain bikes are very different than motor bikes. There was a time when they thought they'd need USD forks for downhill applications, and I owned two USD downhill forks, but with 35 and 40mm stanchions it was possible to have 8" of travel and enough bushing overlap, not to mention far better torsional stiffness. No one has seen the need for more than 8" of travel yet (for standard DH applications), so I don't think we'll see anything else. Manitou does have the new dorado, but the chassi just goes to show you what has to be done to make an inverted fork adequately stiff, such as the carbon-lowers, bulged uppers, and hex-axle. Put that same engineering into a standard fork and you'd get an even more rigid chassi.
    "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
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Soupboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,040
    Form over function. SC inverted forks are the epitome of fail. The Shiver SC was horrible and the Mav version was not an improvement.
    Professional Amateur

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.