Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
I wanna talk to Samson!
Joined
·
3,303 Posts

·
New project, TBA shortly
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
DJrider04 said:
Whats the big difference......all it seems is new decals, more weight, and the same dampening.......
hmmmm. from the website:

website said:
- 2005 Boxxer-WorldCup SS (8 in./203mm travel): Made in Taiwan
- Titanium dual-coil springs with internally adjustable preload (shims)
notice anything??

:cool:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Yeah, i notice that it has hydracoil just like the boxxers from 1998. The "hydracoil2" system that came out in 2003 is 98% like the original severely-lacking damping system.

When is RS going to learn to use real internals? (shims, cartridges, etc)...


It wouldn't matter if they were using the original 7" taper-wall stanchions and chassi from 2000, if they simply put a real damping system in the thing they'd blow away every boxxer they've ever made. The little "gimmicks" like shiny stanchions (super-gimmick) and titanium springs just serve to up the price and not provide any performance.

Performance is what it is all about, and in that line of thinking the damping needs to be the FIRST priority (this is an unheardof idea at rockshox). It doesn't matter if it has "non-shiny" stanchions, the old lowers, and steel springs, if it has a decent cartridge damping system it will be hands down better than they could ever make it by putting gimmicks on it.

All in all, very dissapointing. Notice the "oversize" 32mm stanchions. Oh wait a minute, rockshox stanchions are the SMALLEST of any fork maker..lol.... This just goes to prove that you can't teach an old dog that clings to 1970s damping technology new tricks. It's all about the hype.
 

·
New project, TBA shortly
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Jm. said:
Yeah, i notice that it has hydracoil just like the boxxers from 1998. The "hydracoil2" system that came out in 2003 is 98% like the original severely-lacking damping system.

When is RS going to learn to use real internals? (shims, cartridges, etc)...
dunno, the damping in my 2003 WC (rebuilt by RS) feels light-years ahead of my 2002 SuperT. More supple and yet more resistant to bottoming, but hey, that's just my opinion... I mean, what's real-world experience and personal preference compared to being able to spew terms like hydracoil2 and HSCV and shims, cartridges, etc. I must be in WAY over my head in this post... :D

In all honesty I've tried the newer supers and they felt (damping-wise) like the 2002, but I haven't gotten the chance to ride the 888. Liked the feel of the 2003 Dorado a little better but the maintenance and the shorter axle-to-crown height were drawbacks...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
dante said:
dunno, the damping in my 2003 WC (rebuilt by RS) feels light-years ahead of my 2002 SuperT. More supple and yet more resistant to bottoming, ...
the super T is no longer their frontline DH fork as you know, and bottoming is a function of oil level, and very easy to set so that it never bottoms. Boxxers don't "bottom" because they use stiffer springs than marzocchis for the most part. Marzocchis can run more sag and have softer initial travel because the oil-level will keep them from bottoming. I've owned 2 boxxers, and my 1998 Super T just made them seem like a joke, even with less travel.
 

·
New project, TBA shortly
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Jm. said:
the super T is no longer their frontline DH fork as you know, and bottoming is a function of oil level, and very easy to set so that it never bottoms. Boxxers don't "bottom" because they use stiffer springs than marzocchis for the most part. Marzocchis can run more sag and have softer initial travel because the oil-level will keep them from bottoming. I've owned 2 boxxers, and my 1998 Super T just made them seem like a joke, even with less travel.
well, I've read on the internet that the HSCV carts in an 888 are 98% unchanged from 2002, though... ;) (not really, I just see dual HSCV carts listed and wildly speculate)

I had the "heavy" springs in the 2002 super and played with the oil height but still felt like I blew through 80% of my travel too quickly. The boxxer feels MUCH more supple in the first 2-3" of travel, and yet has a better/stiffer feel after that. I do less FR and more race type stuff, so I'm not doing the hUCkZ as before, but the boxxer just feels like the quality of its travel is better. (not as good as the dorado, though, but that's not surprising)

I do want to try an 888, though, I don't want to bash a new product I've never ridden just because I've tried an older version/different model and didn't like it... :eek: ;) :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
dante said:
well, I've read on the internet that the HSCV carts in an 888 are 98% unchanged from 2002, though... ;)
Nope, the cartridges in an 888 are vastly different than the years before.

You would be pretty much correct when talking about super Ts and previous marzocchis (excluding the monster T with the 26mm shiver mx cartridges, another serious departure).

As well as the fact that for 2005 there will be some significant damping changes to marzocchis.

Marzocchi did have their "cartridges" figured out a long time ago, and they haven't needed to change them extensively, but that is because they had something that works. RS on the other hand has something they can market and their powerfull marketing is the reason for their lackluster internals.
 

·
New project, TBA shortly
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Jm. said:
Nope, the cartridges in an 888 are vastly different than the years before.

You would be pretty much correct when talking about super Ts and previous marzocchis (excluding the monster T with the 26mm shiver mx cartridges, another serious departure).

As well as the fact that for 2005 there will be some significant damping changes to marzocchis.

Marzocchi did have their "cartridges" figured out a long time ago, and they haven't needed to change them extensively, but that is because they had something that works. RS on the other hand has something they can market and their powerfull marketing is the reason for their lackluster internals.
How can you claim an 888 HSCV is vastly different from a Super T HSCV cartridge and yet an HC2 is 98% like the 1998 boxxer damping?? Have you seen the internal diagrams and have a degree in Mechanical and Fluid Dynamics in order to whether a change is "vastly different" in the case of Marz but "98% the same" in the case of RS? :rolleyes: I wasn't impressed with the stock 888 that came on a buddy's Stab Primo, but haven't really been able to spend a lot of time on one (also stock vs custom rebuild on the boxxer). Hmmmm. Maybe I should go around bashing Marzocchi whenever anyone mentions them b/c I didn't like their older products and haven't spent time on one of their new forks in the last 2 years. :D (again, I liked the 2002 Super, just like the newer boxxer better)

You crack me up, JM, your blind hatred of boxxers is refreshing (and predictable) whenever one is mentioned. I know you hated your... 2003? boxxer race, but that's like saying that I tried a Jr T and hated it so marz sucks (I didn't, and they don't). You should try one of the higher-end 2004s if you're going to keep bashing them, you lose credibility the longer its been since you've ridden one, the "it's no different from before" just doesn't cut it. :D

dante
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
dante said:
How can you claim an 888 HSCV is vastly different from a Super T HSCV
Because internally they are extremely different, the "HSCV" is just a name, not a super-accurate description of how it works. The 888 has low and high speed compression damping, it is not an 8" "super-t" style cartridge. The older "HSCV" cartridges are most definitely different. Despite the internal differences, there's also other differences that are an elementry change from how marzocchis are put together, the jam-nuts, the simplified preload, etc...

The boxxers on the other hand...well I've taken them apart, and yes they are 98% the same.

I've had a 1999 and a 2003, as well as I have worked on and opened up others. I also had a "compression cartridge" in my 2003 race, so it was essentiall a world cup.

It doesn't matter what I think, the damping technology they use is outdated and innefficiant. Sure, with enough engineering it can be made to work "ok", but rockshox is continually trying to create the ultimate "drum brake", when it is proven that disc brakes are far superior. Sure you can make it work, but it's a waste of resources and it is definitely debatable whether you'll ever be able to get "equal" performance. A wise person in the industry once said that when you are trying to design a fork with that kind of damping system, it's like trying to do it with one hand tied behind your back. BTW, all the other fork makers have systems that use shims, do you think they MIGHT be onto something? Or is RS really that good? lol...
 

·
New project, TBA shortly
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Jm. said:
Because internally they are extremely different, the "HSCV" is just a name, not a super-accurate description of how it works. The 888 has low and high speed compression damping, it is not an 8" "super-t" style cartridge. The older "HSCV" cartridges are most definitely different. Despite the internal differences, there's also other differences that are an elementry change from how marzocchis are put together, the jam-nuts, the simplified preload, etc...

The boxxers on the other hand...well I've taken them apart, and yes they are 98% the same.

I've had a 1999 and a 2003, as well as I have worked on and opened up others. I also had a "compression cartridge" in my 2003 race, so it was essentiall a world cup.

It doesn't matter what I think, the damping technology they use is outdated and innefficiant. Sure, with enough engineering it can be made to work "ok", but rockshox is continually trying to create the ultimate "drum brake", when it is proven that disc brakes are far superior. Sure you can make it work, but it's a waste of resources and it is definitely debatable whether you'll ever be able to get "equal" performance. A wise person in the industry once said that when you are trying to design a fork with that kind of damping system, it's like trying to do it with one hand tied behind your back. BTW, all the other fork makers have systems that use shims, do you think they MIGHT be onto something? Or is RS really that good? lol...
A wise person in the industry, who is that, Bob Roll?? :D So because you had a 1999 and a mod'ed 2003 low end fork, *and* you've seen the internals of others, you're an expert on 2004 and the yet-to-be-released 2005 high-end forks? :rolleyes: Disc brakes vs drum brakes?? C'mon, that's reaching, or at least would be true if 90% of F1 cars used drum brakes. I know you'll never change your mind about boxxers but the continual harping on anything that starts with the letters b.o.x... is pretty funny.

:D
 

·
Stabbitha
Joined
·
140 Posts
Jm. said:
... bottoming is a function of oil level, and very easy to set so that it never bottoms. Boxxers don't "bottom" because they use stiffer springs than marzocchis for the most part...
Ok, I hate responding on these boards, especially to JM (I think the analogy was "arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics...") but I can't let plain wrong information be out there like this.

Bottoming is only a function of oil in the sense that you can make the fork hydro lock and not get full travel, but bottom harder than metal (fluid can't be compressed). In other words, its nothing short of foolish to try and compensate for incorrect spring weight by adjusting oil volumes.

Boxxers and Marzocchis run extremely similar spring weights for like riders (because all forks are leveraged in the same manner by the rider). Since a Boxxer and a Super T both recommend 20-30% sag, a correctly sprung fork for rider "a" will use the same spring rates in each fork.

Feel free to continue about dated this, hype that, always this, never that. I know this, I know that, been there, done that. YAWN :rolleyes:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Flow 559 said:
Boxxers and Marzocchis run extremely similar spring weights for like riders (because all forks are leveraged in the same manner by the rider). Since a Boxxer and a Super T both recommend 20-30% sag, a correctly sprung fork for rider "a" will use the same spring rates in each fork.

Feel free to continue about dated this, hype that, always this, never that. I know this, I know that, been there, done that. YAWN :rolleyes:
Maybe that is technically true, although when running the "stock" springs for boxxer, the amount of sag that you get never seems (at least in my practice on two completely different years and when setting up my friends) to come close to the recommended sag range, and when it does, then you get the bottoming.

Bottoming in the marzocchi is a function of the air spring and the amount of space that is left for the air to compress, it deals with the compression rate of air. Marzocchi is fairly unique in this aspect.

The two forks work very differently. With the RS, you can't adjust the oil level to make it more progressive and keep it from bottoming, if you do the seals just blow out because it wasn't designed to do that. With the marzocchi, the oil level does affect the progressiveness and the bottoming, and in the end, I find that when looking at riders of the same weight, the recommended springs for that weight on a marzocchi vs a rockshox seem to be quite different, and the difference is because of the inherent difference in how these forks work. So apart from the "recommendations", I usually find that marzocchi forks run fine with a little more sag, while RS forks seem to run with less sag than you "should" get with the right springs for your weight.

Maybe this is empirical vs actual, but you can't deny that they both operate very different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
ummmmm..........

Jm. said:
Maybe that is technically true, although when running the "stock" springs for boxxer, the amount of sag that you get never seems (at least in my practice on two completely different years and when setting up my friends) to come close to the recommended sag range, and when it does, then you get the bottoming.

Bottoming in the marzocchi is a function of the air spring and the amount of space that is left for the air to compress, it deals with the compression rate of air. Marzocchi is fairly unique in this aspect.

The two forks work very differently. With the RS, you can't adjust the oil level to make it more progressive and keep it from bottoming, if you do the seals just blow out because it wasn't designed to do that. With the marzocchi, the oil level does affect the progressiveness and the bottoming, and in the end, I find that when looking at riders of the same weight, the recommended springs for that weight on a marzocchi vs a rockshox seem to be quite different, and the difference is because of the inherent difference in how these forks work. So apart from the "recommendations", I usually find that marzocchi forks run fine with a little more sag, while RS forks seem to run with less sag than you "should" get with the right springs for your weight.

Maybe this is empirical vs actual, but you can't deny that they both operate very different.
I like eggs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,683 Posts
Dante, What JM is trying to explain is that RS have not changed the internal system of there forks for, well since, you were [email protected]#$%ing mustard, a long time.

Thay have great marketing etc.

I am pleased with JM's knowledge on forks, saved me form getting RS WC's. Rode some on another scooter, didnt like them.

Thanks JM, you fork knowledgeble beast you....................................
 

·
New project, TBA shortly
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Whafe said:
Dante, What JM is trying to explain is that RS have not changed the internal system of there forks for, well since, you were [email protected]#$%ing mustard, a long time.

Thay have great marketing etc.

I am pleased with JM's knowledge on forks, saved me form getting RS WC's. Rode some on another scooter, didnt like them.

Thanks JM, you fork knowledgeble beast you....................................
Ummm, so JM's knowledge of forks somehow made you test ride them for yourself instead of slapping down a credit card for a fork that you've only read about online??? :confused:

I'm glad you were able to ride someone's WC that were properlyt set up for your weight, and that you were able to make an informed decision as to what you liked and what you didn't, and then test rode other forks by other makers and finally came to a conclusion of what would be best for you. I would hate to think that you saw HC2 and listened to JM drone on and on about how it's the exact same technology that's been around since I was, ummmm, pooping mustard, and how new and innovative Marzocchi's HSCV cartridges are.

/sarcasm

:D

edit: PS - DHRich, please turn in your keys to the wayback machine. You can have them back when you can be trusted again... :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,683 Posts
Dude..........................I dont have a Marzocchi fork anyways...... All I was sayinig that I find JM's comments valid.

And for the record the RS WC were setup for my weight............

Just opinions bro, this is what this sight is about.............

But I am waiting, let me have it............. Can feel it coming........................

Cheers
Whafe
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top