Who wants to see the Marzocchi Shiver re-produced?

PB Forum :: Bikes, Parts, and Gear
Who wants to see the Marzocchi Shiver re-produced?
Author Message
flag face-plant-king
Posted: Apr 7, 2010 at 13:29 Quote
mikeyridesbikes wrote:
Inverts flex too much compared to forks that are the 'correct' way up, they won't catch on. There's a reason Marzocchi dropped them.
durado's (sp) are amazings forks and most MX bike now run usd forks marz can easily beef them up and stop the flex.
flag mikeyridesbikes
Posted: Apr 7, 2010 at 13:32 Quote
Reviews I've seen say that they flex noticably, but did not find it a major problem. I find the same thing with my Argyles but I would rather it didn't happen. Reason inverts don't appeal to me at all.
flag stryke
Posted: Apr 7, 2010 at 13:34 Quote
face-plant-king wrote:
mikeyridesbikes wrote:
Inverts flex too much compared to forks that are the 'correct' way up, they won't catch on. There's a reason Marzocchi dropped them.
durado's (sp) are amazings forks and most MX bike now run usd forks marz can easily beef them up and stop the flex.

of course they can

then everyone will whine it weighs too much

bikers are the best people
flag rideonjon
Posted: Apr 7, 2010 at 16:52 Quote
mikeyridesbikes wrote:
Inverts flex too much compared to forks that are the 'correct' way up, they won't catch on. There's a reason Marzocchi dropped them.


i think you need to go look at an MX bike.just because uhhg RockShox doesn't make an inverted fork doesn't mean their crap.
flag nwthumbs
Posted: Apr 7, 2010 at 17:28 Quote
they flex because we want light weight, high performance, and low cost... out come? flexxy forks... we have to give a bit if we want a stiff inverted fork....
flag DJDrysdale406
Posted: Apr 10, 2010 at 9:58 Quote
ive seen a '09 55 opened up, you wanna know what it says on the internals??

"SR Suntour"

no thanks
flag nwthumbs
Posted: Apr 10, 2010 at 11:39 Quote
were we talking about the 55? no, were talking about the flexxy ass fork called the shiver and how if we dont want it to flex like a straw we need to accept that it will cost as much as a fox 40.
flag scrippsranchDJ
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:17 Quote
But we are talking about Marzocchi. And they are made by SR Suntour. That's why he brought it up. And the flex is not due to making cost go way down. It's due to the way the fork is designed and works. It is possible to eliminate flex, but that can cause extra force to be transferred to the fork, which would be countered with extra material. The purpose of the shiver was I believe to be a trail/am type fork, a discipline which can sacrifice some strength for less weight.
flag uttanutta12
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:24 Quote
rideonjon wrote:
mikeyridesbikes wrote:
Inverts flex too much compared to forks that are the 'correct' way up, they won't catch on. There's a reason Marzocchi dropped them.


i think you need to go look at an MX bike.just because uhhg RockShox doesn't make an inverted fork doesn't mean their crap.

yes, but incase you haven't noticed, most MX forks weigh in at around 10Kg a leg... which is a lot to be sat on the front of your push bike...
flag pbuser102331
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:38 Quote
uttanutta12 wrote:
rideonjon wrote:
mikeyridesbikes wrote:
Inverts flex too much compared to forks that are the 'correct' way up, they won't catch on. There's a reason Marzocchi dropped them.


i think you need to go look at an MX bike.just because uhhg RockShox doesn't make an inverted fork doesn't mean their crap.

yes, but incase you haven't noticed, most MX forks weigh in at around 10Kg a leg... which is a lot to be sat on the front of your push bike...

Upside down forks are also top heavy.
flag uttanutta12
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:40 Quote
marquis wrote:
uttanutta12 wrote:
rideonjon wrote:



i think you need to go look at an MX bike.just because uhhg RockShox doesn't make an inverted fork doesn't mean their crap.

yes, but incase you haven't noticed, most MX forks weigh in at around 10Kg a leg... which is a lot to be sat on the front of your push bike...

Upside down forks are also top heavy.

and more open to stone chips... Wink
flag scrippsranchDJ
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:43 Quote
uttanutta12 wrote:

and more open to stone chips... Wink
They made gaurds for a reason(not saying they worked all the time but they did think of that before selling them).
flag pbuser102331
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:43 Quote
uttanutta12 wrote:
marquis wrote:
uttanutta12 wrote:


yes, but incase you haven't noticed, most MX forks weigh in at around 10Kg a leg... which is a lot to be sat on the front of your push bike...

Upside down forks are also top heavy.

and more open to stone chips... Wink

When upside down forks were first produced they were stiffer than conventional forks hence why road bikes still use them,for mtb/mtx regular forks are the way.
flag uttanutta12
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:46 Quote
motocross and supermoto seem to be sticking with the upside-down concept though, my YZ has some showa inverted's, and they work pretty well Confused haven't found them flexing...


i think they work on motorbikes better because they can afford to make them beefy and as heavy as 20kg a set, same idea as why motorbikes has suspension ages before mountainbikes Smile
flag pbuser102331
Posted: Apr 26, 2010 at 6:51 Quote
uttanutta12 wrote:
motocross and supermoto seem to be sticking with the upside-down concept though, my YZ has some showa inverted's, and they work pretty well Confused haven't found them flexing...


i think they work on motorbikes better because they can afford to make them beefy and as heavy as 20kg a set, same idea as why motorbikes has suspension ages before mountainbikes Smile

It's all down to weight,if the motor cycle gets too heavy you just shove a bigger motor in or save the weight else where,motorbike will always have a better power to weight ratio than that of a car,could you possibley imagine a bike with 500 bhp,you wouldn't be able to ride the thing safely.

As for upside downies they were originally introduced back in the early 90's on the mountain cycle san andreas but only because they were stiffer and they suited the disc brake better.

Unsecure image, only https images allowed: http://www.xtremecanada.com/bicycles/BD%201993%20Mountain%20Cycles%20San%20Andreas%20After%20Shock%20270.jpg
Unsecure image, only https images allowed: http://www.bikemagic.com/news/images/osmm09_retro_8_h.jpg

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.015927
Mobile Version of Website