[niterider]

I have a 06 enduro with a 06 zocchi 66light on it. Should i keep this fork or replace it? I want to put a 07 Fox 36 van Rc2 on because it have less travel. I love the 66 light it perform great just to much travel. So just asking for some help on should i keep the fork I have or replace it?

 

[TNC]

You mentioned, "because it has less travel". Is the 66's travel causing you some problems?...bad geometry...too slack...or what? I have the 66SL on a Nomad...same height as your's...and it works great. I also had a Van 36 on it before the 66, but I prefer the 66.

 

[niterider]

You mentioned, "because it has less travel". Is the 66's travel causing you some problems?...bad geometry...too slack...or what? I have the 66SL on a Nomad...same height as your's...and it works great. I also had a Van 36 on it before the 66, but I prefer the 66.

The longer travel only causes problems when climbing. Also think the geometry calls for only 160mm for the fork. I love the 66 but have a 36 coming so will try that out i guess. Why do you prefer the 66 over the van?

 

[TNC]

Yeah, I thought you might have been referring to the taller axle to crown on the 66 for your bike. For the Nomad I wanted a higher A to C because of pedal smack. I'm a little more partial to the air fork in this case, as you can tune the positive and negative air chambers to exactly what you want. That said, I have that Van 36 on one of my Bullits now, and it is a very good fork. I would say that the set-it-up-and-forget-it aspect of the Van 36 is really nice if you don't want to putz around with an air fork. You'll drop about 20mm between your 66 and the Van 36.

 

[niterider]

Yeah, I thought you might have been referring to the taller axle to crown on the 66 for your bike. For the Nomad I wanted a higher A to C because of pedal smack. I'm a little more partial to the air fork in this case, as you can tune the positive and negative air chambers to exactly what you want. That said, I have that Van 36 on one of my Bullits now, and it is a very good fork. I would say that the set-it-up-and-forget-it aspect of the Van 36 is really nice if you don't want to putz around with an air fork. You'll drop about 20mm between your 66 and the Van 36.

The 66 is 170mm and the van is 160mm. So why will I drop or lose 20mm between forks? Thanks for the help.

 

[wilks]

the marzocchi fork is much taller than the fox - i.e. the axle to crown measurement is much greater - a taller fork can make climbing harder as the front will wander more.....you can have two forks with the exact same amount of travel but they ride much differently because they have differtent axle to crown measurements - you do not necessarily need less travel but you may need a fork with a lower axle to crown measurement.......

 

[Jayem]

Ok, lets dispell some myths here;

The axle to crown on the marzocchi is NOT much different, it's EXACTLY 10mm taller. The axle to crown on the 160mm fox is 545, the axle to crown on the marzocchi is 555, on a fork that is as large as EITHER of them, that is a pretty insignificant difference.

Secondly, do you really think you'll feel a big difference by changing the travel only 6% (the difference between 160mm and 170mm).

Lastly, the fox does not use oil levels to control bottomout, it relies on a stiffer spring for the most part, this means that you can sag a marzocchi fork more, and the fox fork less, so you could actually worsen your problem theoretically with the fox fork, and at the least you'd simply end up in the same place as before as far as axle to crown. To say this simply, if you have the fox adjusted so it doesn't bottom out on you, it may be riding HIGHER in it's travel, easily making up that 10mm difference.

You have a vanilla fox (not a talas) as well, so that means you can't lock down the travel like on a 66 light with ETA. I'm not sure if that's the version of the "66 Light" you have, but the one I have is the "66 Light ETA". BTW, My version is just over half a pound heavier than the vanilla 36, but if your's lacks the ETA cartridge, it's even lighter and probably within half a pound.

All signs point to no IMO.

All the people who are saying that the axle to crowns are vastly different are probably thinking about the old 66s that did not have the flat crowns and recessed knobs. From 06 and on, they've had very short axle to crowns for the amount of travel, in fact when thinking about travel vrs axle to crown, it's exactly the same as the fox (160 to 545 and 170 to 555).

 

[SLX]

I currently have a Mantiou Nixion Plat. on my Enduro that is modified for 153mm travel. It works great. I tend to climb alot with my enduro to reach the much wanted drops. I some times wish I had a beefier fork, but I never use all of the travel in my current fork. Have you tried compensating for the geometery with a change in handlebar or stem? I would try it out if you have spare parts laying around.

BTW love your bike is that custom paint? I have an enduro expert 05 dark blue but I hate the anodization (dirt sticks to it and it scratches easily). Also what kind of shock length do you have on your dhx 5.0? I have 5.0 air but some days I wish for a coil.

 

[niterider]

I currently have a Mantiou Nixion Plat. on my Enduro that is modified for 153mm travel. It works great. I tend to climb alot with my enduro to reach the much wanted drops. I some times wish I had a beefier fork, but I never use all of the travel in my current fork. Have you tried compensating for the geometery with a change in handlebar or stem? I would try it out if you have spare parts laying around.

BTW love your bike is that custom paint? I have an enduro expert 05 dark blue but I hate the anodization (dirt sticks to it and it scratches easily). Also what kind of shock length do you have on your dhx 5.0? I have 5.0 air but some days I wish for a coil.

Thanks for all the help guys. Well I already bought the fox so will put it on and try it out. The zocchi is an 06 and does have the eta available on it. Never thought about the handlebars or stem. The rear coil is 8.75 x 2.75.

 

[TNC]

Speaking of myths

Ok, lets dispell some myths here;

The axle to crown on the marzocchi is NOT much different, it's EXACTLY 10mm taller. The axle to crown on the 160mm fox is 545, the axle to crown on the marzocchi is 555, on a fork that is as large as EITHER of them, that is a pretty insignificant difference.

Secondly, do you really think you'll feel a big difference by changing the travel only 6% (the difference between 160mm and 170mm).

Lastly, the fox does not use oil levels to control bottomout, it relies on a stiffer spring for the most part, this means that you can sag a marzocchi fork more, and the fox fork less, so you could actually worsen your problem theoretically with the fox fork, and at the least you'd simply end up in the same place as before as far as axle to crown. To say this simply, if you have the fox adjusted so it doesn't bottom out on you, it may be riding HIGHER in it's travel, easily making up that 10mm difference.

You have a vanilla fox (not a talas) as well, so that means you can't lock down the travel like on a 66 light with ETA. I'm not sure if that's the version of the "66 Light" you have, but the one I have is the "66 Light ETA". BTW, My version is just over half a pound heavier than the vanilla 36, but if your's lacks the ETA cartridge, it's even lighter and probably within half a pound.

All signs point to no IMO.

All the people who are saying that the axle to crowns are vastly different are probably thinking about the old 66s that did not have the flat crowns and recessed knobs. From 06 and on, they've had very short axle to crowns for the amount of travel, in fact when thinking about travel vrs axle to crown, it's exactly the same as the fox (160 to 545 and 170 to 555).

Jayem, while I respect your usually well informed responses about suspension in general and Marz products specifically, I think your comment about the AtoC measurements on these forks is probably based upon advertised data. I have both the Van 36 and '06 66SL attached to my bikes out in my shop at this very moment. I just went out and measured these forks again, just to qualify my original comments. Now look...I'm not flaming you or calling Marz or Fox a pack of liars...but I consistently find variations in the adverised data by all of these companies for one reason or another.

Both of my forks are in perfect working order and serviced properly. I'm measuring from the front axle centerline perpendicular to a line at the very base of the seating area for the crown race with both bikes in bike stands with the front wheels suspended (off the floor). Since my measurements don't involve laser quality engineering devices, please allow me a millimeter or two of lattitude...though I think I'm quite close.

The Van 36 is the simplest fork to understand since it has no air preload or negative air issue. There is a negative spring on the damper leg for topout control, but I can't qualify exactly how much that affects measured travel or the real AtoC height vs. advertised...maybe none. My 36 measures almost exactly 540mm AtoC.

On the 66SL, you have to be more cautious in your measurements as setup can cause a major change, obviously. With the minimum negative air to get full travel but have good topout control, my '06 66SL measures 560mm. That's pretty much at full extension, and I contend that you get full extension at this setup when your front tire leaves the ground and is unweighted. Of course the more air you put into the negative chamber, the more travel you remove and the bigger the change in the AtoC height.

The difference in the unweighted AtoC height of my Van 36 and 66SL is 20mm by any measuring device that I know of. Now...which fork sags more when you actually sit on the bike?...I can't really qualify that one, though I don't get the impression that the difference is that dramatic, as I've had both forks on the same bike for a good comparison. I do know that pedal smack thankfully diminished a great deal with the 66SL as compared to the Van 36 on my Nomad.

So...what does all this mean? Maybe that only my forks have these higher than advertised AtoC heights...but I doubt that. I think most of us notice small discrepancies in advertised fork weights, advertised travel, and maybe even advertised AtoC heights. That's one thing I like about these forums. I can't count the times we see "differences" in what's advertised vs. what's reality. Personally I like the higher AtoC height on my 66SL, but for another rider on another bike with another preference, it wouldn't be a benefit.

 

[niterider]

Jayem, while I respect your usually well informed responses about suspension in general and Marz products specifically, I think your comment about the AtoC measurements on these forks is probably based upon advertised data. I have both the Van 36 and '06 66SL attached to my bikes out in my shop at this very moment. I just went out and measured these forks again, just to qualify my original comments. Now look...I'm not flaming you or calling Marz or Fox a pack of liars...but I consistently find variations in the adverised data by all of these companies for one reason or another.

Both of my forks are in perfect working order and serviced properly. I'm measuring from the front axle centerline perpendicular to a line at the very base of the seating area for the crown race with both bikes in bike stands with the front wheels suspended (off the floor). Since my measurements don't involve laser quality engineering devices, please allow me a millimeter or two of lattitude...though I think I'm quite close.

The Van 36 is the simplest fork to understand since it has no air preload or negative air issue. There is a negative spring on the damper leg for topout control, but I can't qualify exactly how much that affects measured travel or the real AtoC height vs. advertised...maybe none. My 36 measures almost exactly 540mm AtoC.

On the 66SL, you have to be more cautious in your measurements as setup can cause a major change, obviously. With the minimum negative air to get full travel but have good topout control, my '06 66SL measures 560mm. That's pretty much at full extension, and I contend that you get full extension at this setup when your front tire leaves the ground and is unweighted. Of course the more air you put into the negative chamber, the more travel you remove and the bigger the change in the AtoC height.

The difference in the unweighted AtoC height of my Van 36 and 66SL is 20mm by any measuring device that I know of. Now...which fork sags more when you actually sit on the bike?...I can't really qualify that one, though I don't get the impression that the difference is that dramatic, as I've had both forks on the same bike for a good comparison. I do know that pedal smack thankfully diminished a great deal with the 66SL as compared to the Van 36 on my Nomad.

So...what does all this mean? Maybe that only my forks have these higher than advertised AtoC heights...but I doubt that. I think most of us notice small discrepancies in advertised fork weights, advertised travel, and maybe even advertised AtoC heights. That's one thing I like about these forums. I can't count the times we see "differences" in what's advertised vs. what's reality. Personally I like the higher AtoC height on my 66SL, but for another rider on another bike with another preference, it wouldn't be a benefit.

In your opinion which for performs better? This will be the deciding factor for me. Today on my ride in Poway. The 66 performed well but the weather was a little cool. Seemed that the rebound was really slow. It has never been like that before. Don't know if it was because it was cooler then when i usually ride or what.

 

[Tourendo]

Another factor to consider is that when you are climbing hills your center of shifts backwards. thus sag is lessened and fork A to C becomes more of a factor.

I have an 05 enduro. It had a Manitou Nixon 145mm and now has a Zl light 150mm . The Z1 light rides significantly higher than 5 mm. The enduro without a doubt climbed better with the shorter fork. On any steep uphill the Z1's ETA is almost a necessity for me.

I wouldnt even consider a 170mm fork for the enduro unless it has some sort of travel reduction like ETA, 2 step ETC. Some bikes work well with longer forks but the Enduro isnt one of them IMO.

Someone asked the same Q over at the leelikesbikes.com website and he basically echoed the same opinion.

 

[Jayem]

Jayem, while I respect your usually well informed responses about suspension in general and Marz products specifically, I think your comment about the AtoC measurements on these forks is probably based upon advertised data.

Too bad I've directly compared the 36 talas (150mm) and 36 vanilla (160) against my am1, zam1 and 66 Light (170mm). Sorry, the data is correct.

Of course, the "sinking" talas syndrome would falsely indicate otherwise.

He doesn't have a 66SL, so I don't know why you are making that comparission. I suspect the nature of the 66SL (highly variable travel) would be the source of the error. Could the "negative" travel be used up if the positive pressure is too great?

I've directly compared the forks in question in this thread.

 

[TNC]

Yeah, the comparison with my 66SL and his 66 Light were based on the issue that both of those forks are supposed to be the same AtoC height...right? Yes, you're right about the 66SL being capable of having maximum extension with too much positive air and not enough negative air, but surprisingly it takes a bit of negative air before it even starts to "eat" into the available travel. Since I run between 75-100 psi negative pressure, depending on location, my fork usually runs at its max travel. I'm wondering about the 66SL vs. the coil forks as to how their negative spring issues work. Maybe this 4.8mm difference is somehow residing within the negative coil spring on the coil forks. The coil models do have a small coil spring for top out and initial stiction duty, don't they?...asking here, not claiming to know for sure, as I haven't been into a 66 coil model.

On the Van 36 AtoC height, I can't find the official number on Fox's site, and I don't see it in my owner's manual. Of course, the Marz site does clearly claim that 555.2mm number, but I still say there is a variation...and indeed it may be something to do with a slight difference between SL models vs. coil models. I think both of us know how to properly measure the AtoC height of a fork, so I'm not sure why the discrepancy.

 

[TNC]

Niterider, to answer your question, the main advantages of the 66SL over the Van 36 for me were the "allegedly" higher AtoC height and greater degree of adjustability. The Van 36 is a great fork, but you can't tweak on this fork quite as much as the 66. Being an air fork, the 66 can be changed for conditions with air changes. The 36 is fairly well fixed. Now...of course we're talking about the 66SL, and your fork is a 66 Light (coil/air hybrid), so it doesn't have the exact comparison...though allegedly the AtoC height is the same...or is it?...LOL!

Your 66 Light has ETA doesn't it? If so, wouldn't that address your climbing issue by dropping the AtoC height? If you've already got the Van 36 coming, I guess this all a moot point. I don't think you'll be disappointed with the performance, but you do realize you won't be able to lower the Van 36 for climbing if that's important to you. It wasn't for me.

 

[Jayem]

The coil models do have a small coil spring for top out and initial stiction duty, don't they?...asking here, not claiming to know for sure, as I haven't been into a 66 coil model..

All decent coil marzocchis have had a negative spring for a long time, but it's internal to the cartridge (I found it when I sawed the HSCV cart in half). My 66 does move up a few mm when I pull up hard with the fork stationary (but it's not an easily compressable spring).