[Jayem]

OK- thanks. Yeah I opened up the Manitou to see what it needed and immediately started seeing what other options there were. Z2 it is. Watched a few rebuild vids on it and seems very straightforward with seals and oil being available perpetually to keep it running.

Any idea how the different Z2s stack up against each other? Lots of models in the 97-98 era when they had the 70mm travel I needed and not much written about them now. Superfly, Atom Bomb, BAM, Light, and Alloy were the ones I saw. Was one of them the best?

Just make sure its a coil version, there were some bad air versions that needed some wacky bleeding and additional seals to work right. Otherwise, make sure it has the cartridge damper, later referred to as HSCV.

 

[Jayem]

It wasn't just the short travel. It was "short" back then and was definitely a win over rigid forks - if they worked. And that's the point: Those early forks (except of Cannondale) had nothing of what's called "small bum sensitivity" today. The were basically rigid until a bump was big enough to overcome the terrible stiction. While they've been pretty "rigid" in the direction of the telescope, the were pretty floppy forks and not stiff at all. They twisted all over the place. That's also a problem Cannondale riders didn't know.

If you want a suspension fork in this bike, I would grab any fork that's still in a good working condition or that can be serviced and not worrying too much which one was "better" originally.

Are there no brands, maybe suntour or RST, who still make inexpensive short travel forks for 26"? Another option could perhaps be using a longer travel fork and just preventing it from extending all the way with some modifications and may adjusting the air volume.

The early cannondale forks had cartridge and roller bearing issues most frequently. While the platform had its positives, as a really old fork the Z2 will still be miles better.

 

[lefthanded]

The early cannondale forks had cartridge and roller bearing issues most frequently. While the platform had its positives, as a really old fork the Z2 will still be miles better.

The roller bearings always worked a lot better than everything else. Most of the issues were due to water and corrosion. Some of them made noises, but bearing migration wasn't a thing. What issues do you remember?

I don't know what the problems with the first gen cartridges in 92 and 93 were, but Cannondale replaced them with the second gens in 93 when there was a defect. The second gen cartridges in 93 and 94 were made by Marzocchi! Indeed they didn't last long. From 95 on they made their own cartridges again, and they worked just fine and were very reliable. Cannondale forks are by far the most robust and serviceable design until today. No bushings or stanchions to wear out. Fully replaceable (and upgradable) spring and damper cartridges independent of telescopic parts from generation 1 on.
Best design for a bike suspension fork until the travel required by the market set it an end. It's still the best for commuters and would be for gravelers, too.

 

[MendonCycleSmith]

No disrepsect to knowledgeable folks like Jayem intended here, but people who don't understand that bearing migration wasn't an "issue", don't realize it was an issue the same way tubes slowly lose air, is an "issue".

Large industrial equipment running on needle bearings, have reset schedules, because, it happens, it's not a problem, its a passenger on the bus of using needle bearings.

Lack of full comprehension leads to people calling things problems.

Do a quick reset, on any Cannondale fork, the bearings go back to "non problem" status in about 30 seconds. Just like adding air to your tires does.

Dampers had the same design flaws everyone else did in that era, no internal pressure compensation, so pressure builds, oil pukes, damper loses function. Cannondale added it, about the same time everyone else did, and the problem dissolved. At least till Chinnandale occurred, and the 2.0 dampers threw out all the advancements previously made, in their zeal to not be like the old Cannondale, out of fear of appearing happy with a status quo of more than enough performance for 98% of the riding public, in favor of selling you a new fork every two or three years.

Back on topic?

No opinions on vintage forks, they're all vintage, they'll all suffer from the issues that were commonplace in that era, plus, they're old now, and parts to refresh them are limited at best.

Modern basic forks like a Rock Shox Judy Silver (if you're pinching pennies and don't mind the extra weight of steel steerer and stanchions) or Gold if you don't mind spending a few more bucks, will get you air tuning, lockout, are still offered in 26" and straight 1 1/8" steerers. Do pay attention to rim brake studs though as most offerings are commonly disc only now, and you'll need V brakes, no cable housing stops anymore....

 

[Crang]

Modern basic forks like a Rock Shox Judy Silver (if you're pinching pennies and don't mind the extra weight of steel steerer and stanchions) or Gold if you don't mind spending a few more bucks, will get you air tuning, lockout, are still offered in 26" and straight 1 1/8" steerers. Do pay attention to rim brake studs though as most offerings are commonly disc only now, and you'll need V brakes, no cable housing stops anymore....

The problem with the modern forks is (from what I understand) the frame geometry of the older bikes is only suitable for forks of that era with much shorter travel. Putting a fork with 120mm of travel on a frame that was correct for something with 45 to 60mm travel would not be a good thing. I'm not sure where the limit would be for a 1994 frame but I imagine the 70mm of a 1996 to 1998 Z2 would be an absolute max. I could of course be wrong, which is why Im asking....

 

[lefthanded]

The problem with the modern forks is (from what I understand) the frame geometry of the older bikes is only suitable for forks of that era with much shorter travel. Putting a fork with 120mm of travel on a frame that was correct for something with 45 to 60mm travel would not be a good thing. I'm not sure where the limit would be for a 1994 frame but I imagine the 70mm of a 1996 to 1998 Z2 would be an absolute max. I could of course be wrong, which is why Im asking....

I didn't do the maths, but you might end up with a contemporarily slack head tube angle if you put a contemporary fork in your 94 bike. (Maybe that's how it all started, some fool at Mondraker rebuilt a 91 stumpy with a 150 mm fork? )

Another problem though is that the 94 frame wasn't made for long forks structurally. Nobody will know how long this frame lasts riding with 120 mm of travel decently.

As said before, you could also just try to limit that 120 mm fork from extending all the way. Every 150 mm fork has only 50 mm of travel left at some point.

 

[Jayem]

If you are going to go for a vintage fork, a vintage z2 “suffers” from basically none of those vintage fork issues. Seals puke after a few seasons or as little as one, as the oil gets contaminated from oxidation rather quick…but its really the only thing to do. Proper oil seals held in by a c-clip below the dust seals allow oil height to be used to control bottom and the more pressure, the harder the seal pushes back, something fox didnt pick up on for their open bath forks, which relied on negative pressure to help keep the dust seals held in. So a coil z2 is nearly bombproof…hence why it was called the bomber. Damping performance was crude…but even more advanced dampers had piss poor performance due to everything else working against them, like elastomer springs, poor lubrication, etc.

Id like nothing more than an 80-100mm modern headshock to fit fat tires with carbon fork blades, I think that would be the perfect hardtail application, but as a vintage fork, be prepared to deal with issues that are not present on the z2. Sometimes we have a skewed perception of reality based on what we owned. I had a Manitou FS ti, an 80mm stretched SX cartridge fork, it had theoretical and some actual advantages over a Judy, but performance and everything else again, Z2 wins by a lot.

 

[lefthanded]

z2 is nearly bombproof…hence why it was called the bomber.

Well, computer nerds call "trojan horses" "trojans", too, so all good

 

[lefthanded]

Id like nothing more than an 80-100mm modern headshock to fit fat tires with carbon fork blades, I

It's probably difficult to get carbon blades, but you could just get an 80 mm telescope and have some frame builder put some steel or alu blades on it.

 

[Jayem]

It's probably difficult to get carbon blades, but you could just get an 80 mm telescope and have some frame builder put some steel or alu blades on it.

That would negate a lot of the weight advantage. The giant legs required for metal fat forks weigh a lot, where carbon forks are as little as 1.5lbs. A headshock unit would maybe add 1lb if done right, at least its be sub 3lbs when all the other fat suspension forks are lbs heavier.

 

[eshew]

Marzocchi all the way. I have a Yeti Fro with a freshly rebuilt Manitou Three (tried w/ new firm and medium elastomers), it looks great, but really just plain sucks compared to the Z2 I have on another bike.

The Marzocchi Z2 will take a lot more work to rebuild, but the results are SO much better. It feels like a modern fork in terms of stiffness and uses travel effeciently. The Manitou is essentially a wet noodle when compared. Z2 all the way!

If you end up deciding on a Z2 and need any tips/tricks on rebuilding I've serviced 15+ over the last decade or so, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

 

[Crang]

Marzocchi all the way. I have a Yeti Fro with a freshly rebuilt Manitou Three (tried w/ new firm and medium elastomers), it looks great, but really just plain sucks compared to the Z2 I have on another bike.

The Marzocchi Z2 will take a lot more work to rebuild, but the results are SO much better. It feels like a modern fork in terms of stiffness and uses travel effeciently. The Manitou is essentially a wet noodle when compared. Z2 all the way!

If you end up deciding on a Z2 and need any tips/tricks on rebuilding I've serviced 15+ over the last decade or so, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I appreciate the offer. There are a few YouTube videos servicing the Z2- it looks fairly straightforward but you never know until you pull something apart. I'll certainly be starting g a thread if so. There are a couple Z2 Atom Bombs for sale right now so plan on snagging one as soon as I am able-

 

[lefthanded]

That would negate a lot of the weight advantage.

But you could still call it "Fatty Ultimate" ;-)

(Super and Ultra already taken as you know)

 

[ShortTravelMag]

I had every single Manitou fork from the first through R7. Your era was the worst. They still had elastomers, and no longer all machined bodies, now they had magnesium legs, bonded arches and more elastomers, and the plastic knob on the top legs were horrible. I had 3 or 4 of those models and they all sucked. The Scarabs and R7 after were much better. But having never had any Marz forks, I can't imagine they'd be worse than the bonded Manitous of the mid 90's.

 

[Crang]

So I went to find a 1997-1999 Marzocchi Bomber Z2 and came across an 2000 Z2 Bomber Atom 80. It has 80mm travel instead of 70mm. Since my frame is a '95 I assume its 'suspension correct' for a fairly short travel. Any way of knowing if 80mm is too much? The previous owner was a mountain bike instructor and has a Manitou fork on it that's 70mm travel so my assumption was it was good up to that.....would it be better or worse than with the shorter travel?

 

[eshew]

The atom 80 is essentially an 80mm z2. Same damper, same oil with a little weight savings in the crown.

I ran one on a Mountain Cycle hard tail and it worked great.

 

[Crang]

The atom 80 is essentially an 80mm z2. Same damper, same oil with a little weight savings in the crown.

I ran one on a Mountain Cycle hard tail and it worked great.

Thanks yeah- its the 80mm of travel I am concerned with on a 1995 frame where suspension correct may be for something in the 45mm range. Not sure if 80mm is too much- I know 70mm travel fork is ok since its what on there but trying to determine if 80mm is over the line. I don't have the original rigid fork to measure. I assume suspension forks in 1995 were quite short.

 

[side-swipe]

It’s not exactly the travel, it’s the axel to crown height. I recall more variance between manufacturers back then, but my memory isn't great.

To be honest, it will probably be fine. What’s the head tube angle and seat angle like? A little bit slacker won’t feel too bad.

Enjoy the ride!

 

[drag_slick]

The 95 Manitou Mach5 fork was 63mm. I had one on a 95 Manitou HT frame. swapped it for an 80mm Manitou Minute, like SideSwip mentioned above, it's a little slacker, but doesn't feel bad.

 

[eshew]

2003 & 2004 Marzocchi Marathon S 105mm forks should have an axle to crown of about 18.75" 476mm

1997+ Marzocchi Z2 w/ 65mm travel axle to crown of about 17" 431mm