Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Manitou Mezzer: Owners Thread [Setup & Tech]

21 reading
Jump to Latest
4,281 - 4,300 of 4,405 Posts
#4,282 ·
piciu256 said:
Obertorqued (broken threads) or under torqued nut, nothing else. Well maybe damaged seal or a piece of debris, but that hasn't happened to me ever with those large square profile seals.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your message piciu. I checked the service manual again and yes, I forgot to do the step with the 8mm socket 🫣 I hope that will solve the issue.
 
#4,283 ·
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#4,285 · (Edited)
mike_9935 said:
Wondering if anyone swapped lowers to convert 27.5 to 29? Sorry if it's in this thread but I didn't find it in the first few pages of search. Appreciate any experiences or information. Really like my Mezzer Pro.
Click to expand...
yep. Easy peasy, lowers are interchangeable between all Mezzers (but obviously determine 27.5 or 29 fork). If you’re starting with a 27.5 fork, just be aware that CSU comes in “short” and “long” offset and 29 lowers add 7 mm of OS - ie, 37 mm (short) OS 27.5 becomes 44 mm OS w/29 lowers, 44 mm (long) OS 27.5 becomes 51 mm OS 29
 
#4,286 ·
mike_9935 said:
Wondering if anyone swapped lowers to convert 27.5 to 29? Sorry if it's in this thread but I didn't find it in the first few pages of search. Appreciate any experiences or information. Really like my Mezzer Pro.
Click to expand...
I've also done the same just recently. Wasn't too expensive, easy as pie to do. Honestly, don't notice the difference in offset since there was a bunch of other changes at the same time going to 29".
 
#4,287 ·
So, had the first ride after a bunch of changes that have had an overall great improvement. I was running into the same issue as most others with the highly processive rebound. I'd got used to the compression, and generally ran it at 1 click in on HSC, and 3 or so in on LSC. I'm 78kg-ish with gear, on a Starling Mega murmur that I've stuck a 27.5 wheel into at the rear, so it's slacker with a 63.2 head angle. Was running pressures in the order of 37/65
After reading through all the pages of this thread, I decided I'd steer a middle course between going with Dougal's Pick and Mix kit, and just removing shims alone:
I removed one of the 17.5mm shims from the compression stack, and then took out the 9mm spacer shim from the rebound stack, leaving me with:
  • Compression stack:
    • 8 x 17.5 x 0.1
    • 8 x 20 x 0.1
  • Rebound stack:
    • Piston
    • 12 x 6 x 0.1
    • 12 x 6 x 0.1
    • 8.5 x 6 x 0.2
    • 8.5 x 6 x 0.2
I lapped out the dishing in the rebound piston, and then filed the rebound port holes into a rough slot. I found that a welding/oxy torch nozzle cleaning set has a great selection of what are essentially small round files:
Image

$6 from the local tool shop. With a bit of time and care:
Image

(would recommend fixing it in a bench vise, not in a hand clamp like this)
I had to spend a lot of time washing the filed piston, even with an ultrasonic cleaner, to try and dislodge the fine aluminium particles. It took a 2nd damper bleed to get the majority of the silver glitter out of the damper oil. Damper oil is 2.5wt Motorex.
I also did the 214 quad ring swap. I'd previously been running oil on top of the air pistons, which did improve things, but after realizing the oil migrates down I've gone back to just Slickoleum. The smaller Qring has done the trick, it's just as good as with oil (or better) and that's without bedding in.

Finally got out to test ride things at the local trails. The test trail is a great mix with jumps, hucks to flat, high speed chunder, loose over hard, hard and clean, braking bumps, fast supported berms and deep sandy gravel. Pretty much everything. It's short, but fast and hard enough to get hand fatigue showing up if things aren't on the money.
Started running every setting in the middle of the ranges. Ended up slowing rebound down and backing off LSC, so it's now 2 out HSC, 8 out LSC and 4 out rebound. Pressure was 39/65. Felt pretty good, but was a bit firm in the first half of stroke, and still had tired hands from the high speed hits. I think I was using probably about 60-70% of travel.
Then I decided on a whim to match Dougal's pressures I remember seeing of 35/70, since I think I was about the same weight and this bike is quite slack.
Result was a very apparent and fantastic difference. The fork smoothed out the chatter, but still took the chunder and bigger hits smoothly and comfortably. Need more runs to confirm things, and there might be +/-1 on each of the clickers, but I'm very happy with where it's landed and the pressures I'm on. Quite a big change from a small PSI change (ratio went from 1.67 to 2.0 though).

In summary, you can get a pretty amazing result from opening up the rebound ports, changing the rebound to a flat shim stack (with no dishing preload), and softening the compression stack. If you're not that level of tinkerer, then go with the Shockcraft/Dougal's Pick and Mix tune. I imagine it's pretty much this, or better, and a lot less of a stab in the dark. All of his posts of "the rebound is too progressive, and you need to open up the ports to fix it" are right on the money.
 
#4,288 ·
Skjyed said:
So, had the first ride after a bunch of changes that have had an overall great improvement. I was running into the same issue as most others with the highly processive rebound. I'd got used to the compression, and generally ran it at 1 click in on HSC, and 3 or so in on LSC. I'm 78kg-ish with gear, on a Starling Mega murmur that I've stuck a 27.5 wheel into at the rear, so it's slacker with a 63.2 head angle. Was running pressures in the order of 37/65
After reading through all the pages of this thread, I decided I'd steer a middle course between going with Dougal's Pick and Mix kit, and just removing shims alone:
I removed one of the 17.5mm shims from the compression stack, and then took out the 9mm spacer shim from the rebound stack, leaving me with:
  • Compression stack:
    • 8 x 17.5 x 0.1
    • 8 x 20 x 0.1
  • Rebound stack:
    • Piston
    • 12 x 6 x 0.1
    • 12 x 6 x 0.1
    • 8.5 x 6 x 0.2
    • 8.5 x 6 x 0.2
I lapped out the dishing in the rebound piston, and then filed the rebound port holes into a rough slot. I found that a welding/oxy torch nozzle cleaning set has a great selection of what are essentially small round files:
View attachment 2153313
$6 from the local tool shop. With a bit of time and care:
View attachment 2153314
(would recommend fixing it in a bench vise, not in a hand clamp like this)
I had to spend a lot of time washing the filed piston, even with an ultrasonic cleaner, to try and dislodge the fine aluminium particles. It took a 2nd damper bleed to get the majority of the silver glitter out of the damper oil. Damper oil is 2.5wt Motorex.
I also did the 214 quad ring swap. I'd previously been running oil on top of the air pistons, which did improve things, but after realizing the oil migrates down I've gone back to just Slickoleum. The smaller Qring has done the trick, it's just as good as with oil (or better) and that's without bedding in.

Finally got out to test ride things at the local trails. The test trail is a great mix with jumps, hucks to flat, high speed chunder, loose over hard, hard and clean, braking bumps, fast supported berms and deep sandy gravel. Pretty much everything. It's short, but fast and hard enough to get hand fatigue showing up if things aren't on the money.
Started running every setting in the middle of the ranges. Ended up slowing rebound down and backing off LSC, so it's now 2 out HSC, 8 out LSC and 4 out rebound. Pressure was 39/65. Felt pretty good, but was a bit firm in the first half of stroke, and still had tired hands from the high speed hits. I think I was using probably about 60-70% of travel.
Then I decided on a whim to match Dougal's pressures I remember seeing of 35/70, since I think I was about the same weight and this bike is quite slack.
Result was a very apparent and fantastic difference. The fork smoothed out the chatter, but still took the chunder and bigger hits smoothly and comfortably. Need more runs to confirm things, and there might be +/-1 on each of the clickers, but I'm very happy with where it's landed and the pressures I'm on. Quite a big change from a small PSI change (ratio went from 1.67 to 2.0 though).

In summary, you can get a pretty amazing result from opening up the rebound ports, changing the rebound to a flat shim stack (with no dishing preload), and softening the compression stack. If you're not that level of tinkerer, then go with the Shockcraft/Dougal's Pick and Mix tune. I imagine it's pretty much this, or better, and a lot less of a stab in the dark. All of his posts of "the rebound is too progressive, and you need to open up the ports to fix it" are right on the money.
Click to expand...
well done, thanks for sharing! Been wondering about trying to modify pistons like that but it's an expensive experiment if things go wrong...
 
#4,289 ·
I opened up the ports too recently, but honestly didn't find it to be that much of a difference at my pressures (35psi main) it mostly just shifted the adjustment range from +1 click to +3/4 clicks with one 0.1mm shim in there.
I found surprisingly good results using a Dremel with a drill (don't remember if it was 2mm or smaller) first I tried cutting with its side but it did nothing, so then I decided to just carve with the end, of course piston mounted in a vice, it removed metal very precisely and was safe, since it didn't attack the sides at all, so no risk of cutting through the narrow wall at the circumference.
I just washed it out with rubbing alcohol and compressed air did the rest, no metal shavings left, though mine were probably a bit larger than the file created. Of course had to break up the edge st using a file too. Photo before cleaning, just after facing the compression check side.
I also added some scratches per the ohlins guy recommendation to avoid the shim sticking to the piston, not sure how important that is, but what the hell, were hunting every incremental improvement at this point!
Image
 
#4,290 ·
I have a question of my own though, what am I supposed to do with those nylon spacers? Are they necessary? (it's the service kit of course, needed the bottom out bumpers, since my first gen ones sometimes start rattling loosely inside and make metal shavings 🙈 )
Image
 
#4,291 ·
piciu256 said:
I opened up the ports too recently, but honestly didn't find it to be that much of a difference at my pressures (35psi main) it mostly just shifted the adjustment range from +1 click to +3/4 clicks with one 0.1mm shim in there.
I found surprisingly good results using a Dremel with a drill (don't remember if it was 2mm or smaller) first I tried cutting with its side but it did nothing, so then I decided to just carve with the end, of course piston mounted in a vice, it removed metal very precisely and was safe, since it didn't attack the sides at all, so no risk of cutting through the narrow wall at the circumference.
I just washed it out with rubbing alcohol and compressed air did the rest, no metal shavings left, though mine were probably a bit larger than the file created. Of course had to break up the edge st using a file too. Photo before cleaning, just after facing the compression check side.
I also added some scratches per the ohlins guy recommendation to avoid the shim sticking to the piston, not sure how important that is, but what the hell, were hunting every incremental improvement at this point!
View attachment 2153365
Click to expand...
I chose the tip cleaners over the Dremel, as it was about $100 for a Dremel and the appropriate engraving tip. $6 is a pretty low investment to give it a try, haha.
That's fair enough, but with whatever the differences are (my bike, terrain, riding style, color of underpants, who knows) I definitely can tell a difference with this rebound deep in the stroke. Downhill through chunder is where it really shines now, doesn't pack like before. Makes sense to me, at high oil flow it's probably going to mainly be the shims and piston ports doing work, rather than the needle orifice.
 
#4,292 ·
I recall somebody here made some sort of a spring rate calculator, but I cannot find it and couldn't be arsed to make one myself- too many measurements and remembering equations I've already forgotten 🙈 Does someone have a link or could otherwise point me in the right direction?
I've greatly lowered the end stroke progression coming from air trapped in the lowers and am trying to decide if I should decrease the IRT volume to keep it from becoming too stiff in the mid stroke, or should I leave it as is, also increased the negative volume slightly, would be nice to be able to just change some values to see what effect it had on paper (cannot really tell much difference honestly)
 
#4,293 ·
piciu256 said:
I recall somebody here made some sort of a spring rate calculator, but I cannot find it and couldn't be arsed to make one myself- too many measurements and remembering equations I've already forgotten 🙈 Does someone have a link or could otherwise point me in the right direction?
I've greatly lowered the end stroke progression coming from air trapped in the lowers and am trying to decide if I should decrease the IRT volume to keep it from becoming too stiff in the mid stroke, or should I leave it as is, also increased the negative volume slightly, would be nice to be able to just change some values to see what effect it had on paper (cannot really tell much difference honestly)
Click to expand...
It's on page 1. Here you go: calculator
 
#4,294 ·
Unless I misunderstood something, this is a pressure chart, based off the Manitou recommendations and peoples setups, nowhere in there do I see spring force calculations or volumes. I remember someone did something like this, not sure if it was published though.
 
#4,295 ·
Ok, so to tell my findings, at my weight of 55kg I ran a split of 35/50 which lands a bit lower than Manitou recommendations and results in the IRT starting to move around 40% travel, which makes sense logically for the sake of better mid stroke but not impacting begging of the stroke too much.
After increasing the negative volume (a piece of 12x1mm tubing in place of 10mm reducer) I find myself needing to increase the main pressure a bit to 40psi to maintain a bit less than 25% sag (without doing so, the fork is very stuck to the ground, doesn't want to pop at all) and then even with the IRT shortened by 10mm, I find myself needing to run 50psi in there for the sake of physically being able to use full travel, that's including having lower legs connected to lessen the ramp up, which results in the IRT moving just about sag point, so basically pointless.
All in all at this point in time I'm starting to find increased negative volume in this case a bit counter productive, I may give it a go at shortening the IRT a bit more still, for the sake of getting usable pressure split out of it without having to open up the bottom of my fork up, but will probably return to the factory setup, like most guys who tried this mod here did eventually, from what I found.
 
#4,296 ·
Found the file I was looking for, a guy from Germany posted it, it had a lot (of at least bovious to me) mistakes in the beginning, fixed it up a little with the data I remember and plunked the changes I made, also increased the casting volume to the point that it doesnt interfere pretty much, if/ when I measure everything and fix the file to be precise, I will post it here again.
Anyway, came to post what came out of the calculation with the data provided by the changes I made to the fork, it would appear that I gained a little bit of compliance around sag point, but lost some mid stroke support at the same time, by trial and error I came up with the solution that if I want to gain the mid stroke back, while keeping beginning the same, I'd have to shorten the IRT by 35mm in total and run the split at 40/60, while the most linear I was able to make it came about with IRT shortened by a total of 50mm and ran at the same split, still less linear on average than the stock setup with the smaller negative chamber (all ignoring the casting progression and assuming the numbers in the spreadsheet are at least somewhat accurate), this data somewhat correlated to what I feel on the bike.
All in all I'll give this setup a try, will most probably be going back to stock volumes though, I prefer the stiffer midstroke spring rate for more pop, the slightly stiffer beginnign stroke doesn't bother me at all, not sure I feel a difference honestly, the change is so small.
Image
 
#4,297 ·
Will also give 35/60 split with increased neg volume a try, just occured to me that it may be alright, more sag still, but similar mid stroke support to my og setup, while having a lot more small bump compliance in theory as well.
Testing in the parking lot says I like this setup, a bit more pop, while still feeling super soft. Will see tomorrow how it behaves in rocky terrain. I guess if it stays depends on if I'll like the lower in general ride height (previous expeirence says I wont, but we'll see)
Image
 
#4,299 ·
piciu256 said:
Found the file I was looking for, a guy from Germany posted it, it had a lot (of at least bovious to me) mistakes in the beginning, fixed it up a little with the data I remember and plunked the changes I made, also increased the casting volume to the point that it doesnt interfere pretty much, if/ when I measure everything and fix the file to be precise, I will post it here again.
Click to expand...
Is the file worth sharing? I have a general idea of how adjusting the chambers affects the curve, but would be interested to play around and see it visually. I considered making a similar file myself, but it hasn't been a priority, tbh.

You may be doing something similar, but I 3d printed some spacers for my Mattoc to change the IRT/Main volume ratio - rather than putting spacers into the IRT as I'd seen suggested.

Image


It occurred to me that you could probably use a similar print in the negative chamber as well.
 
#4,300 ·
100km after having the CSU replaced, the fucking steerer tube started creaking again. This is the THIRD CSU including the original one.
The worst thing is there is no solution (except for spending enormous money shipping it to U.S. and back, not being aware of anyone else but Oliver being able to repress it) because it's some kind of design failure Manitou either failed to or refused to address, and I can't even sell the fork with clear conscience to buy the stupid Lyrik or whatever, so I'm stuck with this crap.
 
4,281 - 4,300 of 4,405 Posts
About this Discussion
4.4K Replies
389 Participants
Last post:
Mudguard
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion