05-06 Marzocci valve specs

[GMP]

Is this bushing land issue unique to GasGas Zokes, or Huskys also? I ask because the Huskys I've ridden with LTR valving exibited NO bad habits. If anything, the overall bushing/tube fit seemed more relaxed, giving the fork very little stiction. I've had Husky Zokes apart but not that bushing, and didn't notice the fit.

[jeffd]

I mentioned this to Les @ LTR - he revalves several sets of zokes a week, both husky and gasgas...

• He said he has never seen a clearance issue with this bushing; As a sidenote - He has seen wear associated with overtorqueing the triple clamp bolts, etc. (like any fork).
• He has seen four different compression pistons used over the last couple of years with varying amounts of bleed.
• What appears to look like a checkplate and spring can actually act as a mid-valve - depends on the tension of the spring.

jeff

[pobit]

Today I measured the thickness of the shims between the 05 and 06 and found they are differant also.

06 stk 05 stack
11x20
22x10 21x10 the 21mm face shim does not completely cover the ports on the 05 so there is some bleed.
11x20 11x10
19x10 19x10
17x10 17x10
11x10 11x10
16x10 16x15
16x10
15x15 15x15
14x15 14x20
14x15
13x20 13x20
12x20



Notice the 1st cross over is a thicker 11x20 in the 06 stack and the doubling up of the thinner 16x10 and 14x10 with the smaller 12x20 pivot. Keep in mind the 06 valve uses a 2mm bleed in one of the ports compared to a 1mm bleed in the 05. Anyone care to comment on what GasGas was thinking with the new specs? Dave

[Treesmacker]

Pobit,
I think you should remove all shims in the 250 fork & replace them with
SAE 1/16" thick washers. It would give the other AA riders in District 23 a chance this summer. Paul sure is fast!
Bob

[pro250]

Originally Posted by pobit

Putting a radius on the tubes to allow the upper bushing to float to prevent binding and prevent wearing the hard coating off the inside of the tubes was suggested by Terry Hay.

Dave, Terry also recommended it to mine marzocchies '99, as per the kayaba example. I never saw a kayaba inside, so i never really understood what Terry meant, but now seeing yr pictures i get it. You leave the middle part intact, and only bevel the sides to give room for the bushing to flex a little.

You felt it was worth the effort?

[KTMLew]

Originally Posted by pro250

Dave, Terry also recommended it to mine marzocchies '99, as per the kayaba example. I never saw a kayaba inside, so i never really understood what Terry meant, but now seeing yr pictures i get it. You leave the middle part intact, and only bevel the sides to give room for the bushing to flex a little.

You felt it was worth the effort?

The only set of these i've had apart were the Cannondale version, so somewhere around a 2001/2003 model? The upper bushing was jammed into place when installed on the tube. On every other fork i've ever seen you can turn the bushing on the tube with very little effort. On these it was stuck solid. The bushing and land were basically the same exact width. No clearance for the bushing to move.

Just measured a 89 RM 46mm fork tube as it was handy.

Bushing width measures 19.79mm--Bushing land 20.09 = clearance of .30mm or .012" this allows the bushing to float some and not get bound up.

Land dia at center 44.90. Center area is 16.59mm wide--At edges dia is 44.69= .31mm/.012" of clearance for the bushing to rock on the tube. Reduced dia area is about 1.50mm wide per side.

I can take pictures if it will help anyone.

[pobit]

Originally Posted by pro250

Dave, Terry also recommended it to mine marzocchies '99, as per the kayaba example. I never saw a kayaba inside, so i never really understood what Terry meant, but now seeing yr pictures i get it. You leave the middle part intact, and only bevel the sides to give room for the bushing to flex a little.

You felt it was worth the effort?

I already had the forks apart to replace the seals so it wasn't much effort to grind the tubes with a Dremel. I did two sets of forks, both with 1 year of riding time and the coating on the upper tubes looked like new on both forks. I have noticed the forks bind under a load and hopefully this will solve some of that. Dave

[pro250]

Originally Posted by KTMLew

I can take pictures if it will help anyone.

Very nice elaborations on this subject, Lew. Now i finally see what Terry meant with the upper bushing problem.
Although i can see the picture now I surely like to see some pictures. I feel that more people wld appreciate that.

Dave, when do you plan on yr test ride? Hopefully soon?!
Ohh, and how did you find out about the bind up. Riding with a ty-strap around the fork and hitting that brick several times?

[pro250]

Dave, again... how wld i investigate binding with my marzocchies? Is it something you learn by experience or is there a trick that can address binding?
I am very light on mine compressions valving, midvalve aswell bottomvalve, but still i feel some spike on 2" roots.
Is this reshaping of the land of the bushes helping me in this situation?

I once ridden this showa Honda fork... i never felt any spike.....
This is what i like to accomplish with mine marzochies

[pro250]

Ok, here a report about the marzocchies 45mm.
First i disassembled the forks completely and went step by step to measure and look at the various parts.
One upper bushing was very thight on its land. The other was so so.
With the outer legs in the triple clamps i cld feel some binding at the last part of travel. This is the upper clamp area.
Both legs have a freebleed hole in the legs at 17cm of the upper bushing. So i felt no need for extra holes at 20cm.
I started working.
I did the bushing land as per Pobit pictures. Now both bushing have some room to flex and turn on the land.
With everything assembled this gave some free play(more than was before offcourse). I checked binding by putting the outer legs in the triple clamps, torqued the bolts to specs and when shoving the inner legs tru felt no binding at all at the triple clamp area. What i did notice was quite some drag/binding caused by the seals. I sure feel that slippery oil will benefit some forks with thight seals.
Today i went for a little ride, and first thing i noticed was that with slap down landing of the front forks(you get these with ending a wheely) there is a softer cushion. I address this to the more free play of the bushings. Correct me if i am wrong in my thinking.
I surely felt the whole travel was more compliant, but i did not do a real high speed spike test. I also felt that the rebound was better?! The fork was less dribbling over smaller impacts, at speed. And i had even less rebound than before.
I did nothing to my valving, so the only thing i did was the bushing land.
What i did do was running less oil volume than ever before. Terry Hay gave me his advice to run oil height of 130mm, where i normally use around 90mm. I use ATF II type, which shld read 7,5 sae of forkoil.
Well, so far my experience with the year 99 marzochies and i feel that everyone can benefit as they are not changed for over 8 years now. Maybe the valves are a little different but all dimensions are still the same.
I have a very light midvalve, with around 1.0mm of lift, and a very light basevalve. Rebound is rather heavy simmed since it is such a small cartridge.
Because of the small cartridge the basevalve sees rather much oil.
Maybe my midvalve is too light but i rather have no spike with an occasionally bottom out than otherwise.
When i did some more riding i will report back.