|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Marzocchi Superfly or X-Fly for Bontrager Race?
Hello,
Sort of a crazy inquiry here, but perhaps someone can lend advice on the topic. I plan to update the forks on my '97 Bontrager Race. I currently run 1999 Marzocchi Atom Bombs which have proven to be excellent performing forks, and have the added bonus of a short axle-to-crown height (430mm) and thus do not adversely affect the Bontrager's geometry. My goal is the lighten up the front end of the bike a bit... I was planning to buy a 1999 Marzocchi Superfly, but I have not heard the best reports about this fork -- problems with seals, etc...but I am not sure how valid those complaints are. The nice thing about the Superfly is that it is pretty light and, like the '99 Atom Bomb, has a short axle-to-crown height (433mm). My other thought was to, perhaps, purchase a 2001/02 Z2 X-fly 80mm as I have heard fairly positive reviews about this fork. Unfortunately, it has a taller axle-to-crown height (450mm) and I beleive this would upset the handling of the Bontrager. However, I have heard of people adding spacers to these (and other) forks so as to lower the fork's height, although this does sacrafice some travel. So, go with the Superfly or try the X-Fly and modify the travel? Any thoughts on the topic are greatly appreciated. DJM -- rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Marzocchi Superfly or X-Fly for Bontrager Race?
The nice thing about the Superfly is that it is
pretty light and, like the '99 Atom Bomb, has a short axle-to-crown height (433mm). Unfortunately, it has a taller axle-to-crown height (450mm) and I beleive this would upset the handling of the Bontrager. The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not that big to upset the handling of your bike. If your bike doesn't handle like a truck, go for the tallest fork. Ciao Maurizio, Bologna, Italy -- rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Marzocchi Superfly or X-Fly for Bontrager Race?
"Maurizio" wrote in message ... The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not that big to upset the handling of your bike. If your bike doesn't handle like a truck, go for the tallest fork. I disagree. From experience, I know that 17mm, or even half an inch (13mm) is enough to screw up a bike's handling -- if it puts the head angle out of sync with the fork's offset, and designed amount of trail. With a 17" (430mm) fork, this particular bike will already be half an inch taller than intended. That's OK, but any taller won't work well. Most suspension forks have 1.5-1.6" of trail, and are designed to work with 70-72 deg head angles. If you go slacker than that by raising the front end, the bike will handle very sluggishly, especially while climbing. Back in their day, AMP forks were an inch taller than everyone else's, so they had nearly 2" of offset to compensate. This is why AMPs feel darty when mounted on a bike designed for a taller fork to begin with. The proper relationship between head angle and trail is important. Don't mess it up. Matt O. -- rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Marzocchi Superfly or X-Fly for Bontrager Race?
Maurizio,
Thanks for your thoughts. I realize 17mm is not a great amount, however consider that the Bontrager Race frames were originally designed around an early Rock Shox with 50mm of travel. I am not sure of the axle-to-crown height of these early Rock Shox, but I beleive they were around 415-420mm. So, if I go with a 450mm fork, I will be adding at least 30mm to the front end height, which I think is significant. Any thoughts? Mille grazie, Dominic Portland, Oregon "Maurizio" wrote in message ... The nice thing about the Superfly is that it is pretty light and, like the '99 Atom Bomb, has a short axle-to-crown height (433mm). Unfortunately, it has a taller axle-to-crown height (450mm) and I beleive this would upset the handling of the Bontrager. The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not that big to upset the handling of your bike. If your bike doesn't handle like a truck, go for the tallest fork. Ciao Maurizio, Bologna, Italy -- rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt -- rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Marzocchi Superfly or X-Fly for Bontrager Race?
Maurizio wrote:
The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not that big to upset the handling of your bike. -snip- I don't know that I would say that, actually -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 -- rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Marzocchi Superfly or X-Fly for Bontrager Race?
"djm" wrote in message news:Gc1Ab.307943$9E1.1548976@attbi_s52... Maurizio, Thanks for your thoughts. I realize 17mm is not a great amount, however consider that the Bontrager Race frames were originally designed around an early Rock Shox with 50mm of travel. I am not sure of the axle-to-crown height of these early Rock Shox, but I beleive they were around 415-420mm. So, if I go with a 450mm fork, I will be adding at least 30mm to the front end height, which I think is significant. Any thoughts? Mille grazie, Dominic Portland, Oregon I think you could add spacers internally to limit the extension of the fork. It'll have less travel, but the feel should be insignificant. I've added a Judy SL to my ~ '98 GT Zaskar LE. I've had the travel set at all three settings (3", 3.5" & 4", from memory). It's stayed on 4" now for quite a while. Initially it felt a little odd, but a couple of turns less preload (allowing the fork to sit a little lower) and a few rides to get used to the bike again and all's well. Having a little less preload helped, but I think whatever fork you install will feel odd to start with (I've often changed forks on my bikes) so I wouldn't fret too much. In a very short time you'll normalise the feel of the new setup. I do find that having the 4", set soft, does help keep the wheel on th eground a lot better more than making up for the very sligt difference in feel. Cheers, Frank -- rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Race report - first triathlon (long) | Chris Durkin | General | 10 | July 16th 04 05:00 PM |
Ghent Six Day Excursion | Ilan Vardi | Racing | 8 | November 30th 03 08:03 PM |
Promoter's Lament -- from Hamilton world's site | Rik Van Diesel | Racing | 11 | July 11th 03 08:44 PM |