Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,943 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Thinking about a fork for an Intense 6.6. I want something relatively light (< 6 lbs), adustable travel between 130-150 or maybe 150-170 and 20mmTA.

Question: Does Marzocchi make a Frankenfork equivalent for '06? The 66SL sounds close, but it's still a bit heavier and would have longer travel (150-170) which may be good for the 6.6, although I think I'd like to be able to drop it lower than 150 for some climbs.

If I build my own Frankenfork I have to buy two whole forks, true? :eek: Or can I just get the FR lowers?

Starting to hear some pretty good things about the higher end Nixons with Intrinsic now but pretty spendy. Or.... lower end Nixons with just good old TPC?

The TALAS 36 certainly gets some mixed reviews and is stupid spendy so probably won't go there. Maybe a Vanilla36... but still spendy and not adjustable.

Travis: good price. still a bit heavy but getting a few good reviews.
Pike: Nice, but a bit short for the 6.6 I think.

Wait for the RS 38?

Suggestions? This will be for aggressive trail and light freeride. More tight, twisty, techy, steps, steeps, drops and chutes... not as much high speed bombing.
 

·
Outcast
Joined
·
8,588 Posts
Early reports from 66sl owners say that there is no bottom limit to the travel adjustment made possible by increasing the air pressure in the negative chamber. Guys can run the fork in 130mm mode, and lower [or less travel]. The RC2 damping is suppose to be much nicer than TST. SSINGA has sold his frankenfork to buy a 66sl, and I have disassembled and sold off my frankenfork as well, and I'll probably buy the 66sl as well.
So yes, it appears that marz. has made a fork better than a frankenfork.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,943 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Renegade said:
Check out this thread; 66sl
Thanks. Yeah, I'd read that thread. Sounds like an awesome fork. The travel adjust feature using the negative air spring pressure seems like it would cause you to have too little negative air spring pressure in longer travel settings and too much in shorter. And you wouldn't be able to adjust the negative air spring pressure without affecting travel. True? How does that work?

Would the new FR Z1 SL be more equivalent to the Frankenfork projects you and SSINGA had? Or maybe the FR Z1 Light ETA with air and coil.
 

·
Outcast
Joined
·
8,588 Posts
the Z1 SL is internally just like the 66SL, you reduce the travel by upping the negative air. The Z1 light most resembles the frankenforks; it has TAS for dropping the travel to 130mm, just like the frankenfork, and has a coil spring in one leg, air in the other, and the RC2 damping system.
I can't answer your questions about too much/not enough negative air for the different travel settings in the SL forks, I haven't heard anything negative in that regard.
 

·
Outcast
Joined
·
8,588 Posts
MK_ said:
As of the negative spring travel adjust vs TAS travel adjust. I would think, but this is pure speculation, that if the TAS does not change the volume of the negative air spring, the pressure in there will stay the same, therefore, if you have your TAS at 150, then drop the fork further, to 130, you could bring your fork up to nearly 150 with TAS. Nearly 150 as you would effectively drop the pressure in the main spring (one of the spring volumes has to change with travel extension). If, however, the negative spring volume does not stay the same, then all bets are off. ;)

_MK
Huh? You lost me there MK_
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,297 Posts
Yeah, the Z1 Light is pretty much the Frankenfork. The RC2 has a more useful range of tuning than TST and there are far more clicks. 66SL sounds like a real winner, sans a bit of extra heft. BTW, does anyone have exact (no Marzocchi claimed) weights for the 66 line?

As of the negative spring travel adjust vs TAS travel adjust. I would think, but this is pure speculation, that if the TAS does not change the volume of the negative air spring, the pressure in there will stay the same, therefore, if you have your TAS at 150, then drop the fork further, to 130, you could bring your fork up to nearly 150 with TAS. Nearly 150 as you would effectively drop the pressure in the main spring (one of the spring volumes has to change with travel extension). If, however, the negative spring volume does not stay the same, then all bets are off. ;)

_MK
 

·
Outcast
Joined
·
8,588 Posts
MK, to my knowledge, none of the forks we are talking about have both TAS and negative air chambers in the same fork. The Z1 light has TAS, but no doppio air system, hence no negative air chamber. The two SL forks don't have TAS, but they have doppio air systems, with negative air chambers.
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,297 Posts
Renegade said:
Huh? You lost me there MK_
Say you drop your fork to 150mm with TAS, you then pump up the negative chamber to drop it by another 20mm, therefore the pressure in the negative offsets the positive by the equivalent of 20mm of travel. If you then turn your TAS knob to extend the fork to 170, the negative spring still offsets the positive (a little more this time as the positive chamber volume increased) so you're at almost 150mm of travel with the TAS at 170. Again, pure speculation.

_MK
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,297 Posts
Renegade said:
MK, to my knowledge, none of the forks we are talking about have both TAS and negative air chambers in the same fork. The Z1 light has TAS, but no doppio air system, hence no negative air chamber. The two SL forks don't have TAS, but they have doppio air systems, with negative air chambers.
I see. From Robot Chicken's description I was under the impression that the 66SL had TAS. Nevermind then.

_MK
 

·
not so super...
Joined
·
11,466 Posts
KRob said:
Thanks. Yeah, I'd read that thread. Sounds like an awesome fork. The travel adjust feature using the negative air spring pressure seems like it would cause you to have too little negative air spring pressure in longer travel settings and too much in shorter. And you wouldn't be able to adjust the negative air spring pressure without affecting travel. True? How does that work?

Would the new FR Z1 SL be more equivalent to the Frankenfork projects you and SSINGA had? Or maybe the FR Z1 Light ETA with air and coil.
aappling72 has the Z1 light ETA on his new 6.6 (at least that was the plan a few days ago - hard to tell with that cat) . It is the Marzocchi production frankenfork. the Z1 SL is justa smaller 66SL.

I will say that the 66 chassis is noticibly stiffer and tracks better.
 

·
noMAD man
Joined
·
12,220 Posts
Allegedly 5.7lbs.

MK_ said:
Yeah, the Z1 Light is pretty much the Frankenfork. The RC2 has a more useful range of tuning than TST and there are far more clicks. 66SL sounds like a real winner, sans a bit of extra heft. BTW, does anyone have exact (no Marzocchi claimed) weights for the 66 line?

As of the negative spring travel adjust vs TAS travel adjust. I would think, but this is pure speculation, that if the TAS does not change the volume of the negative air spring, the pressure in there will stay the same, therefore, if you have your TAS at 150, then drop the fork further, to 130, you could bring your fork up to nearly 150 with TAS. Nearly 150 as you would effectively drop the pressure in the main spring (one of the spring volumes has to change with travel extension). If, however, the negative spring volume does not stay the same, then all bets are off. ;)

_MK
This is supposed to be a shop scale weight, though not mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Z1 Light Factoids

I understand how a Z1 Light might seem like a frankenfork however upon close inspection there is a big difference. And that is the RC2 Cartridge, it is fully open bath, no bladder here and that means a lot smoother performance especially on long rough descends. The bladder system tends to heat and swell with time, if you are doing short downhills you probably won't notice it, but on long rough downhills it puts a big stress on the cartridge which is the reason this cartridge suppposely was design for all mountain and not freeriding. When the cartridge swells it hits the walls of the inner lower/stanchions and restricts the flow of everything down there. I have been riding the 06 Z1 light and find it quite good. I still think that the full coil 66 rc2x is much better but for light freeriding and downhilling it serves it's purpose. I really wanted to see a Z1 RC2 full coil but I guess that they figure that nobody would buy it if they could get a 66 SL at the same weight.
 

·
"El Whatever"
Joined
·
18,889 Posts
gkler said:
The bladder system tends to heat and swell with time, if you are doing short downhills you probably won't notice it, but on long rough downhills it puts a big stress on the cartridge which is the reason this cartridge suppposely was design for all mountain and not freeriding. When the cartridge swells it hits the walls of the inner lower/stanchions and restricts the flow of everything down there.
The bladder cartridge feels different because it's a simple orifice damper with blow-off valves, not a shim damper as the RC2. It will spike in certain situations no matter what you do.

Just ask Renegade who has played a lot with it trying to make it work as an HSCV (with no positive results, AFAIK)

The bladder 'swells' at full compression, no matter the oil temp. I really don't think oil changes much volume with the temps found on a fork (I could be wrong though) and the bladder has no air inside that could expand.

The fork doesn't feel fine on ong rough descents because of the spiking at certain speeds.

I can't argue the RC2 is superior, but for other reasons than the ones you exposed.

It still gets affected by oil height as a HSCV/RC2 but not as much.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top