2012 Marzzocchi RC3 Ti, 170mm only??

Overview Chat Bike Members News Women

This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by messiah.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

2012 Marzzocchi RC3 Ti, 170mm only??
kawato
Free Member

Right so, i’m keen as mustard to get a pair of these to go on an SB66 but worried that the new 2012 model is 170mm only???

I know the 2011 were 160mm but it seems ‘zocchi aren’t giving the option for the 160mm for the 2012 fork.

WOuld consider a 44 RC3 which is 150mm as the travel is fine, but i’m concerned about the chassis not being up to scratch, especially after being used to riding a Fox 36 for 5 years.

Anyone know any different?

Posted 12 years ago

I_Ache
Free Member

Just run a little more sag, very easy to do with air preload.

Posted 12 years ago

kawato
Free Member

Yeah but that front wheel will be a pain to hop over anything!

Posted 12 years ago

Fresh Goods Friday 703 - The Mushroom ASMR Edition

jedi
Full Member

i have both 55 rc3 ti and 44’s 🙂 oth rad forks. why would sag make unweighting the front a pain???

Posted 12 years ago

kawato
Free Member

Well, i asked whether or not zocchi were doing a 160mm version of the 55 in conjunction with the 170mm and someone instead suggested to run more sag. SO that would mean running more sag than what i would already run on a 170mm forkhat would mean that the fork would be sitting more into its travel so to pick up the fron end would be that little bit more diofficult as you’d be picking up the slack, so to speak.

I know its a minor point as DH forks run slightly more sag, but then again picking up the fron wheel when you are going at speed is easier than on a trail fork where you have to pick up the front wheel at much slower speeds.

Posted 12 years ago

kimbers
Full Member

iirc the 44s are interchangeable between 140-150 with some internal jiggery pokery are the 55s similarly adjustable?

Posted 12 years ago

jedi
Full Member

unwieghting the front has nothing to do with sag really

Posted 12 years ago

kawato
Free Member

Jedi, you’re right, i guess the two points are independent of each other, but not always. Take two extremes, A v10 with optimal sag at the rear running fairly slow rebound and a hardtial. Which is easier to pick up? If you are sitting /more’ into your travel that means that to lift the front end you have to effectively lift out the bit of fork stanchion inside the lower as sag, before you begin to pick up the fork/wheel off the ground. As i write this i realise its a minor point, but when you are picking up the front at low speeds its harder than if your fork was sat into its sag at optimal levels.

Posted 12 years ago

messiah
Free Member

I didn’t want a fork longer than the 160mm Fox I had… so i bought a 2010 Bomber 55 RC3 Ti ( it helped that it was cheaper… I love cheaper ).

Posted 12 years ago

LoCo
Free Member

I’d be more concerned with bottoming the forks out/ them being too ‘soft’ as a result of having to run ‘too much sag’.
You could argue that this could be compensated for by damping adjustment, however it’s not an ideal situation, setup wise.

Posted 12 years ago

messiah
Free Member

I agree with Loco that too much sag due to over soft srings is bad… but 10mm of travel, assuming 30% sag means the fork is only 6.6mm longer. If your frame has a 1.5″ head tube you could run an internal headset and run the 170 fork?

Posted 12 years ago