Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Mmm... Tasty
Joined
·
700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
So i have an '03 Kona Dawg (or is it '04... bought it used, can't tell, but don't think it makes a difference). It still has the stock 105mm travel 'zocchi. MX Comp, i believe. Surfing around tonight, it looks like that fork has the potential option of bumping up to 120mm by simply taking out a "preload tube" from the dampers.

http://manualer.happymtb.org/marzocchi/2004 mx comp air.pdf
(page 18 of 39)

This is the basis of my assumption. I would like the additional travel as i am riding more technical terrain (vancouver north shore), and was thinking of a different fork, but if it is as easy and cheap as this seems, i'll save the bucks. Finally, i'd check it out myself, but i am travelling now, so i was hoping i could get confirmation from the all knowing mtbr.com. Is this possible, and if so, really this simple? And finally, are there any concerns with reduced stantion overlap?

Thanks,
-Damon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
If you remove the preload spacer, you have two options. You can place the preload spacer on top of the main spring stack. If the srping rate of your MX comp was stiff enough before for 100 mm travel, then this will give you a 100 mm travel fork with 120 mm fork axle to bearing race height. If you want a 120 mm fork with 120 mm fork axle to bearing race height and 120 mm of travel, you will need to remove the spacer and buy a longer spring designed for 120 mm travel at your weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
GMF said:
So i have an '03 Kona Dawg (or is it '04... bought it used, can't tell, but don't think it makes a difference). It still has the stock 105mm travel 'zocchi. MX Comp, i believe. Surfing around tonight, it looks like that fork has the potential option of bumping up to 120mm by simply taking out a "preload tube" from the dampers.

http://manualer.happymtb.org/marzocchi/2004 mx comp air.pdf
(page 18 of 39)

This is the basis of my assumption. I would like the additional travel as i am riding more technical terrain (vancouver north shore), and was thinking of a different fork, but if it is as easy and cheap as this seems, i'll save the bucks. Finally, i'd check it out myself, but i am travelling now, so i was hoping i could get confirmation from the all knowing mtbr.com. Is this possible, and if so, really this simple? And finally, are there any concerns with reduced stantion overlap?

Thanks,
-Damon
I would have to check the drawings when I get back to the office on Monday, but I am pretty sure the 85/105 forks use a different upper assembly from the 120...

Brian
 

·
Mmm... Tasty
Joined
·
700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Brian Peterson said:
I would have to check the drawings when I get back to the office on Monday, but I am pretty sure the 85/105 forks use a different upper assembly from the 120...

Brian
That would seem pretty reasonable, and i'd appreciate the definitive answer. If it makes a difference (don't think it does) this is the air sprung model. So for gearhead, the spring issue will not be a problem - just play with oil height and air pressure.

The fork works fine as is, and has taken a ton of abuse, so i probably shouldn't mess with it, but i am curious none the less.

Thanks for the great feedback, guys!

-Damon
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top