Marzocchi Superfly or X-Fly for Bontrager Race?

[djm]

Hello,

Sort of a crazy inquiry here, but perhaps someone can lend advice on the
topic.

I plan to update the forks on my '97 Bontrager Race. I currently run 1999
Marzocchi Atom Bombs which have proven to be excellent performing forks, and
have the added bonus of a short axle-to-crown height (430mm) and thus do not
adversely affect the Bontrager's geometry. My goal is the lighten up the
front
end of the bike a bit...

I was planning to buy a 1999 Marzocchi Superfly, but I have not heard the
best
reports about this fork -- problems with seals, etc...but I am not sure how
valid those complaints are. The nice thing about the Superfly is that it is
pretty light and, like the '99 Atom Bomb, has a short axle-to-crown height
(433mm).

My other thought was to, perhaps, purchase a 2001/02 Z2 X-fly 80mm as I have
heard fairly positive reviews about this fork. Unfortunately, it has a
taller
axle-to-crown height (450mm) and I beleive this would upset the handling of
the
Bontrager. However, I have heard of people adding spacers to these (and
other)
forks so as to lower the fork's height, although this does sacrafice some
travel.

So, go with the Superfly or try the X-Fly and modify the travel?

Any thoughts on the topic are greatly appreciated.

DJM

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

[Maurizio]

> The nice thing about the Superfly is that it is
> pretty light and, like the '99 Atom Bomb, has a short axle-to-crown height
> (433mm).
>
> Unfortunately, it has a taller
> axle-to-crown height (450mm) and I beleive this would upset the handling
of
> the
> Bontrager.

The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not
that big to upset the handling of your bike.
If your bike doesn't handle like a truck, go for the tallest fork.

Ciao
Maurizio, Bologna, Italy

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

[Matt O'Toole]

"Maurizio" > wrote in message
...

> The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not
> that big to upset the handling of your bike.
> If your bike doesn't handle like a truck, go for the tallest fork.

I disagree. From experience, I know that 17mm, or even half an inch (13mm) is
enough to screw up a bike's handling -- if it puts the head angle out of sync
with the fork's offset, and designed amount of trail. With a 17" (430mm) fork,
this particular bike will already be half an inch taller than intended. That's
OK, but any taller won't work well.

Most suspension forks have 1.5-1.6" of trail, and are designed to work with
70-72 deg head angles. If you go slacker than that by raising the front end,
the bike will handle very sluggishly, especially while climbing. Back in their
day, AMP forks were an inch taller than everyone else's, so they had nearly 2"
of offset to compensate. This is why AMPs feel darty when mounted on a bike
designed for a taller fork to begin with.

The proper relationship between head angle and trail is important. Don't mess
it up.

Matt O.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

[djm]

Maurizio,

Thanks for your thoughts. I realize 17mm is not a great amount, however
consider that the Bontrager Race frames were originally designed around an
early Rock Shox with 50mm of travel. I am not sure of the axle-to-crown
height of these early Rock Shox, but I beleive they were around 415-420mm.
So, if I go with a 450mm fork, I will be adding at least 30mm to the front
end height, which I think is significant.

Any thoughts?


Mille grazie,

Dominic
Portland, Oregon


"Maurizio" > wrote in message
...
> > The nice thing about the Superfly is that it is
> > pretty light and, like the '99 Atom Bomb, has a short axle-to-crown
height
> > (433mm).
> >
> > Unfortunately, it has a taller
> > axle-to-crown height (450mm) and I beleive this would upset the handling
> of
> > the
> > Bontrager.
>
> The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not
> that big to upset the handling of your bike.
> If your bike doesn't handle like a truck, go for the tallest fork.
>
> Ciao
> Maurizio, Bologna, Italy
>
> --
> rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
> posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
> Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt
>

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

[A Muzi]

Maurizio wrote:
> The difference between 450 and 433 is 17 mm (as A Muzi would say :-)), not
> that big to upset the handling of your bike.
-snip-

I don't know that I would say that, actually

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

[Frank Palermo]

"djm" > wrote in message
news:Gc1Ab.307943$9E1.1548976@attbi_s52...
> Maurizio,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I realize 17mm is not a great amount, however
> consider that the Bontrager Race frames were originally designed around an
> early Rock Shox with 50mm of travel. I am not sure of the axle-to-crown
> height of these early Rock Shox, but I beleive they were around 415-420mm.
> So, if I go with a 450mm fork, I will be adding at least 30mm to the front
> end height, which I think is significant.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Mille grazie,
>
> Dominic
> Portland, Oregon

I think you could add spacers internally to limit the extension of the fork.
It'll have less travel, but the feel should be insignificant.

I've added a Judy SL to my ~ '98 GT Zaskar LE. I've had the travel set at
all three settings (3", 3.5" & 4", from memory). It's stayed on 4" now for
quite a while. Initially it felt a little odd, but a couple of turns less
preload (allowing the fork to sit a little lower) and a few rides to get
used to the bike again and all's well. Having a little less preload helped,
but I think whatever fork you install will feel odd to start with (I've
often changed forks on my bikes) so I wouldn't fret too much. In a very
short time you'll normalise the feel of the new setup.

I do find that having the 4", set soft, does help keep the wheel on th
eground a lot better more than making up for the very sligt difference in
feel.

Cheers,

Frank


--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt