Indestructible
Likes Dirt
No probs with my rebound, must have got a rare setlike the rebound dieing on them
and i know 3 people that have had the same thing happen to them
No probs with my rebound, must have got a rare setlike the rebound dieing on them
and i know 3 people that have had the same thing happen to them
Wise observation, you are wise aren't you? Have you found Nirvana and now understand all?Hmmmmm, maybe because theyre SHIT.
Umm...thats exactly what the 40 is? The 40 ways less then 200grams more then a Boxxer Race/TeamWhy don't they bite the bullit and make a dual crown 36 as well - with the same adjustable travel (203-160) as the 40, a Ti spring , comparable weight to a Boxxer coil (Race & Team) and a price tag as close to Rock Shox as possible. Then we'd see some action - bet they'd outsell the 40 ten to one.
It's the same reason Fox hasn't made an XC fork to compete with the TORA. Focus is on the top end of the market.Why don't they bite the bullit and make a dual crown 36 as well - with the same adjustable travel (203-160) as the 40, a Ti spring , comparable weight to a Boxxer coil (Race & Team) and a price tag as close to Rock Shox as possible. Then we'd see some action - bet they'd outsell the 40 ten to one.
Might answer both posts...Is there a reason that Kowa, Manitou and Marzocchi have been left out?
Looks pretty cool. If they don't feel too rubbishy I may get one.
No need to be a smart ass buddy. That makes a bit of sense but still im sure its not the only reason.Nice one.
Manitou started doing it back in the golden years as somewhat of a safety measure. The thought was that if the axle broke, or the lever came undone and the wheel came off the drop outs wouldn't be mangled in the resulting ground contact.
I can only assume that Fox have done the same thing to make way for their new FIT cartridge, that may need some extra room for their 'inverted' internals.
Blip on the radar? that caused delays to 2010 bikes shipped with them for several months? pretty big blip if you ask me.Might answer both posts...
"Have you ridden Kowa?" No. Nobody has. Thats why.
Manitou - because they are rubbish. Wow, a manitou sponsored racer ran sponsored manitous? Totally makes up for the suspect build, performance and reliability. For the last 10 years or so they've had many 'great on paper' ideas which just haven't translate into real world performance. As in bolt on the fork, set the dials and rip, as you can with Fox, Rockshox.
Marzocchi - Because they are rubbish. One bad production year? More like almost every year of the preceding 7 or so.
Problems with Boxxers are a blip on the radar of a workmanlike, reasonably priced fork.
Might answer both posts...
"Have you ridden Kowa?" No. Nobody has. Thats why.
Manitou - because they are rubbish. Wow, a manitou sponsored racer ran sponsored manitous? Totally makes up for the suspect build, performance and reliability. For the last 10 years or so they've had many 'great on paper' ideas which just haven't translate into real world performance. As in bolt on the fork, set the dials and rip, as you can with Fox, Rockshox.
Marzocchi - Because they are rubbish. One bad production year? More like almost every year of the preceding 7 or so.
Problems with Boxxers are a blip on the radar of a workmanlike, reasonably priced fork.
That just sounds silly. If the wheel comes out and the forks make contact with the ground at speed alot more damage is going to be done than just mangled drop outs.Nice one.
Manitou started doing it back in the golden years as somewhat of a safety measure. The thought was that if the axle broke, or the lever came undone and the wheel came off the drop outs wouldn't be mangled in the resulting ground contact.
Im so sure that it would not be there to make room for the FIT system because they don't do it on any for the other forks with it.I can only assume that Fox have done the same thing to make way for their new FIT cartridge, that may need some extra room for their 'inverted' internals.
That is exactly right, both Manitou and Fox do it for that reason. (and others that i do not know of)Another possible reason; it reduces A-C height so you get the extra travel without jacking up the head tube any further. Just a thought...
Then why don't all longer travel forks have the longer lowers? It's bullshit; you still need the 180mm+ stauntions, and the lowers will always be longer than that.That is exactly right, both Manitou and Fox do it for that reason. (and others that i do not know of)
Love Todd
have you got the 08 ones or 07No probs with my rebound, must have got a rare set
Its not that they have made the lowers longer. They have moved the axle higher up the lowers.Then why don't all longer travel forks have the longer lowers? It's bullshit; you still need the 180mm+ stauntions, and the lowers will always be longer than that.
wouldnt there then be issues with the tire contacting the crown?Its not that they have made the lowers longer. They have moved the axle higher up the lowers.
Good point, but they could just make the crown higher.wouldnt there then be issues with the tire contacting the crown?
also longer lowers allow for more stanchion, which could add to stiffness.
TALAS huh, so air?
Which would in turn require more stauntion length for the arch to clear the crown, making the whole fucking exercise completely useless.Good point, but they could just make the crown higher.
And another good point with the stiffness.
Yes so true we just did a complete 360.Which would in turn require more stauntion length for the arch to clear the crown, making the whole fucking exercise completely useless.
My guess is that it (as previously said above) lowers the A-C height.anyone else got any input to this topic