Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is online now Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beserkley
    Posts
    2,112

    Fox vs RoxShox - Who Takes It?

    Rather then clog up my other sram vs shimano thread, I thought I'd start a new one for suspension forks. Much like the other thread, I'm looking at people's preferences when it comes to AM/XC type bikes. I run a pike 454 on my hardtail, I've used a fox 40 on my dh bike and I like both companies. Not sure what the best option is for something around 5 inches of travel and some adjust ability for climbing and then some descending. I ride primarily in new england where the trails tend to be pretty rocky/bumpy so sensitivity is also important. Cost is less of an issue since I can get forks on proform.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    107
    Both make solid products, obviously, but I'm partial to RS mostly based on availability of small parts. This is both as a former shop mechanic and now as a normal peon trying to get parts through shops. The hassle of getting fox crush washers or travel spacers is a fuckin nightmare, while I had no problem getting rs small parts from SBS, BTI, QBP, or even straight from sram.

    You might check out the Marz 55 too, heard rave reviews about it

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The better LA
    Posts
    2,453
    Quote Originally Posted by rainier View Post
    You might check out the Marz 55 too, heard rave reviews about it
    2x
    Love mine.
    Then again, I don't think a Fox 36 can carry the jockstrap of a Marz 66, either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jer View Post
    After the first three seconds, Corbet's is really pretty average.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Malcolm View Post
    I mean, it's not your fault. They say talent skips a generation.
    But hey, I'm sure your kids will be sharp as tacks.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    pretty rocky/bumpy so sensitivity is also important.
    marzocchi 44 (if you want 120-140mm travel, the 55 is 160-170mm) without question are far and away smoother and more sensitive than the fox/rockshox equivalent stuff.
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Vancouver
    Posts
    6,457
    Halson kills them all.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    6,760
    Inversion!
    There's nothing better than sliding down snow, and flying through the air

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    your business
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post
    marzocchi 44 (if you want 120-140mm travel, the 55 is 160-170mm) without question are far and away smoother and more sensitive than the fox/rockshox equivalent stuff.
    +1. The newer generation Marz forks are butter, and definitely smoother than their Fox/RS brethren in the flavors i've ridden. Apples to oranges, but the 2011 36 Talas I rode for a few days was pretty meh, whereas the 55 was face-meltingly smooth and bottomless. Also, the Marz customer service is stupidly good, and those guys will go way out of their way to make things right.
    No, the real point is, I don't give a damn
    - Carl

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    21,126
    X4 on current Marzocchi forks. I replaced a Fox Talas 36 (admittedly several years old, 150mm version) with a Marz 55 micro ti air (160mm), and it completely blows away the Fox. Super buttery and smooth right out of the box. Easy to tune, though the knobs are sharp machined metal and difficult to turn.
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,845
    Are the new marzocchis still filled with lots of small, easily breakable parts that are only stocked in Italy? They had such a shitty run there for a few years, I'm still a skeptic, even if the new stuff does ride nice.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    your business
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Are the new marzocchis still filled with lots of small, easily breakable parts that are only stocked in Italy? They had such a shitty run there for a few years, I'm still a skeptic, even if the new stuff does ride nice.
    I had a bad run there with them too, but it's a whole new ball game the last 2 years. I sent an out of warranty 44 in last year for some bushings I thrashed and rather than service it and charge me, they replaced the lowers, most of the internals, and had it back to me in about 10 days free of charge.
    No, the real point is, I don't give a damn
    - Carl

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    O-Town
    Posts
    2,664
    Aren't Marzocchi having some company problems right now, as in finding someone to manufacture them since Suntour will not be anymore? Or did that get resolved? Heard it on empty beer.

    Also, someone please clarify something for me. Marzocchi still does a nickel coating on high end forks. I remember hearing from a Fox tech at the DH nationals at Mt Snow a few years ago that nickel was not working out for them. The entire Yeti team was on nickel coated 40's and the Fox guy said it helped with stiction, but scratched off way too easily and that they would not be putting it into production for this reason. If this is true, why is Marzocchi still using it? I'll take durability over a little extra butteryness any day of the week. I'm sure I'm not alone in this viewpoint.
    All I know is that I don't know nothin'... and that's fine.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central VT
    Posts
    4,806
    Its a tough call between Rock Shox and Fox. I've spent some time using a Boxxer, Reba, Lyrik and Domain and all were problem free and worked perfectly. I recently picked up a 36 Talas and its been a solid fork so far, but its only been a couple of months. When it comes up to straight forward performance, both companies are pretty comparable.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Witch City
    Posts
    1,267
    I don't really have any basis for an opinion as I've never owned a Fox or zoke and have only ridden both on others bikes briefly. That being said I'll never pay full retail for a fox, they can't even be serious with those MSRPs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Odin
    But where is he going to get 10 gallons of crisco, a real doll, 14 japanese virgins, a box of strawberrys, a bottle of old harpers, 12 and a half mangum condoms and some rubber gloves at this time of night?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    O-Town
    Posts
    2,664
    This comparison also depends on which category you're talking about.

    100-150mm - Rock Shox by a long shot, mostly due to being significantly stiffer in the 32mm chassis, and that 15mm axle crap just bugs me

    29er - Fox 34 seems pretty sweet

    160-170 - Could go either way on this one, Fox 36 or Lyrik

    180 - Rock Shox, my short time on a Totem felt quite a bit stiffer than my 36 Van did.

    200 - No idea as I've never ridden a 40 or Boxxer
    All I know is that I don't know nothin'... and that's fine.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    472
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickeymotto View Post
    This comparison also depends on which category you're talking about.

    100-150mm - Rock Shox by a long shot, mostly due to being significantly stiffer in the 32mm chassis, and that 15mm axle crap just bugs me

    29er - Fox 34 seems pretty sweet

    160-170 - Could go either way on this one, Fox 36 or Lyrik

    180 - Rock Shox, my short time on a Totem felt quite a bit stiffer than my 36 Van did.

    200 - No idea as I've never ridden a 40 or Boxxer
    This. Couldn't agree more. I've also found that secondhand Fox is more expensive in my experience.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Vancouver
    Posts
    6,457
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post
    marzocchi 44 (if you want 120-140mm travel, the 55 is 160-170mm) without question are far and away smoother and more sensitive than the fox/rockshox equivalent stuff.
    No more X-fusion love?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    194
    Haven't tried the zoke (or x fusion), but as far as fox vs rockshox I like RS. My 140mm Revelation is loads smoother than both the f120 and the Talas 150 I owned. I rode a 140mm float a few times and it was close, but not as good. YMMV.
    come join me, rideit, and all the other retarts at f88me. Now under new management!

  18. #18
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is online now Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beserkley
    Posts
    2,112
    If you throw x-fusion in the mix, how does it compare to RS or Fox?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    No more X-fusion love?
    OP wanted 140mm travel? x-fusion offers 160/170 and 130 as far as i know... i have not ridden the shorter x-fusion, so cannot comment there.

    but yeah the 160-170mm x-fusion vengeance compares to a marzocchi 55 (feel different, but both much nice) the RS and fox stuff don't compare since they require more service and are a little less sensitive IMO.

    i definatly prefer the revelation stuff the float 32mm chassis stuff.

    i should add that i am a dh'er looking for plush mini-dh ride, not firm xc ride, so YMMV.
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,985
    Pretty validatingMarsh. The 2011Fox TAlas I had were poor performers - underdamped . 160 and 150. So poor they were rejected for testing and completely rebuilt before even riding them. The2011 140 Float otoh was a strong performer. Fyi the short travel x-fusiom imo is as at least as good as the longer travel version

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Vancouver
    Posts
    6,457
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post
    OP wanted 140mm travel? x-fusion offers 160/170 and 130 as far as i know... i have not ridden the shorter x-fusion, so cannot comment there.
    The Velvet is available in 140mm now.

    So far I am happy with my Revelation RLT Dual Air (wihtout the travel adjust Dual Position). Still getting it and the bike dialed but it feels stiffer than the Fox 32 I rode a couple years back. I was deciding between the Rev and the 44 RC3 Ti. Ended up going for the lighter option over the plush mini dh fork option.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,465
    yeah man, you make the right call. the revelation is a totally rad fork. defiantly rides like a mini-boxxer IMO, the dual air particularly.

    didn't know that about the velvet. interesting, thanks!

    oh and lee, did you use the float 140 for longer than a year? at least at the shop in colorado, we saw after ~2 years a lot of those things needing major repair (bushings, worn stanchions, etc), but that could in large part be to the super fine dust. but didn't see the same issue with revelations or zocchis. anecdotal 1 data point only. curious if flow or any of the other shop rats saw similar things?
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,985
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post

    oh and lee, did you use the float 140 for longer than a year? at least at the shop in colorado, we saw after ~2 years a lot of those things needing major repair (bushings, worn stanchions, etc), but that could in large part be to the super fine dust. but didn't see the same issue with revelations or zocchis. anecdotal 1 data point only. curious if flow or any of the other shop rats saw similar things?
    Used about 40 days fall and spring but we don't have anywhere close to the fine dust CO and UT sees. I also periodically lift wipers and put some fork oil to lift assorted crap off the internal seals - hopefully that helps. Definitely not long term use. Just a glaring difference in quality of travel between the 140 and the 150/160 - hard to believe the same fork company made them

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Southeast New York
    Posts
    11,766
    Heh, good on ya for asking about the X-Fusion. Like I said to you last night, for me it would be between the Revelation and the Velvet. Serviceability and performance...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    O-Town
    Posts
    2,664
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson View Post
    yeah man, you make the right call. the revelation is a totally rad fork. defiantly rides like a mini-boxxer IMO, the dual air particularly.

    didn't know that about the velvet. interesting, thanks!

    oh and lee, did you use the float 140 for longer than a year? at least at the shop in colorado, we saw after ~2 years a lot of those things needing major repair (bushings, worn stanchions, etc), but that could in large part be to the super fine dust. but didn't see the same issue with revelations or zocchis. anecdotal 1 data point only. curious if flow or any of the other shop rats saw similar things?
    Could a part of that be that there are more Fox forks out there? I remember they pretty much owned the OEM market for quite a while. Maybe it's just my perception, but it seems like they sell more mid to high end forks then Rock Shox.
    All I know is that I don't know nothin'... and that's fine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •