Meta 5.5 + Marzocchi All Mountain 2

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2012, 04:07:44 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[What is the main type of machine you use to surf the site?]

What is the main type of machine you use to surf the site?
Desktop
	112 (28%)
Laptop
	158 (40%)
iPhone
	51 (13%)
Android phone
	29 (7%)
Tablet
	24 (6%)
Other
	14 (3%)
Total Voters: 287

[Tomm]

Anyone use this setup? 

I've got the 2007 5.5.3 (which is amazing, but then you all know that so I won't harp on) with Marzocchi AM4s (140mm).  I think the forks let the bike down a bit - Mainly because the damping can be very unpredictable.  The other slight downside to the bike is that it wheelies on climbs a bit more than I'd like.

Anyway, a friend is selling some AM2s for quite a good price and I was wondering whether to buy them.  They have the Marz ETA lockdown which would help the climbing ability and I hope the damping would be smoother and more reliable.  Just better generally.

So, 2 questions:

1)  Has anyone used AM2s? Are they significantly better than what I've got?

2)  They're 160mm so they're a bit longer.  I'm not too worried about that affecting the geometry, but what about the warranty?

P.S.  They're 20mm through axle so I know I need a new wheel, not a problem.

[Te Bheag]

Nearly... It would come down to cost for me, balanced with 'suitability'. I bought some Marzo AM SL's (2006) recently for my 5.5.3, for 250 and they work well, lighter than the AM 4's and sooo much more adjustment. They are slightly longer  and that slackens things somewhat, so I'm still debating how good they are... the steering is slow, but as I've come from an XC light hardtail with a steeper head, it may be I'm still getting used to my first full sus.

And, yes, the front lifts quite easily, but that's all part of learning to distribute my weight differently.

[twin]

first of all, am2 or all mountain 2s? there's a ton of difference with the former being a cheap fork, the letter the second from the top under the 1/1sl. the all mountain 2s are prob pretty good, though i've heard about them not being brilliant on large square hits. a lot better than the 4s though, a lot. in terms of the ac height, it is pretty high as marzocchi forks are generally taller than say fox so i'm not sure it is such a brilliant idea.

if this is a good fork or not also depends a bit on your budget. if these are at your highest limit, well, yeah, all mountain 2 is a lot better than the 4. that being said if you have the funds i would rather go for a 08 talas rc2. buy it from universalcycles.com or some similar site and take advantage of the weak/depriciated dollar. also, if from uc, add the coupon "vip15" to get a 15% discount on it. they won't ship it outside of us, but send it through a parcel service like jetcarrier (can't remember or find their american site right now) where one first ships it to a mailbox in the us, then they ship it home to you. if not, get it off ebay. get the 07 or preferaby the 08

sorry if i'm telling you to get a fork that is too expensive for you. the am2s are not something you wanna consider, the all mountain 2s might be, but i would hesitate a little to put that tall forks on ( i'm not sure how the talas and the all mountain 2 compares in terms of ac height, but the height adjustment and compability of the talas is well proven in here with two other bikes rocking it). a new 08 talas rc2 would run you something like 850 bucks + shipping so not too much i think,  say 400 quids plus shipping and any fees/taxes. dunno if that's too much for you. good luck on the purchase

[Tomm]

Sorry, All Mountain 2s.  Didn't realise they were different - It transpires that in 2007 there are only All Mountain, the AM line was 06.

also, if from uc, add the coupon "vip15" to get a 15% discount on it.

UC?

To be honest, I don't really feel the need for new forks particularly, it's just that the offer came up and I can get these forks (which haven't been used much) for £150, and I figured I could probably sell the All Mountain 4s for ~£100 on eBay?  So if I'm lucky the upgrade would only cost about £50  (I already have a 20mm wheel so that's not important).  I'd love some 36 Talas but that's not going to happen for a while 

Any idea about the warranty on using a longer fork?

[twin]

UniversalCycles.com

eh, i'll leave the warrenty issue to the experts, say steve, but i believe he has mentioned that 160mm forks voids the warrenty. if you see in his realcycles blog he went down to spain or something with his meta fitted with a talas and while it handled excellently didn't do jack shit to the frame in terms of damage. you could always send commencal an email too. but, couldn't you just borrow the fork for a ride an see how it feels? swapping forks isn't a lot of work, almost no work at all. and yes, a big difference between a fork costing 150 and 400

oh, didn't know about the am getting the boot in 07.

[Nugget]

I replaced my am4's with a pair of 05 all mountain 2's on my 07 meta 5.53... maybe could do with a 20mm axle but i'll get over it... rebuilt them with slightly heavier shock oil about 8months ago and it made some difference to them.... they have eta (which i never really use) rebound adj and air sprung so easy to setup... serio reliable have been tryin to kill them along time but they just dont want to be replaced!!! i'll keep trying tho...

[steveb]

Officially, like if you ripped your headtube off your bike, and it's wasn't a known issue, and the warranty guy was in a bad mood, 160mm are not covered under warranty. However ,so many people are doing it, and as yet I've not heard of a single failure due to it. But.....

...why? If the forks are non adjustable It's messing up the overal handling on a fantastically balanced frame.

I've done it, and from time to time do it, run 160mm forks that is. But only the very odd time, and even then it's an adjustable travel 36 TALAS, which spends most of the time in 130mm setting anyway!

160mm on the front does improve the Meta5's downhill ability, but it spoils every other good feature of the frame. If you want 160mm on the front all the time, get a 666.

[twin]

i concur

[Tomm]

Fair points, thanks.

I was looking at getting them since they'd be smoother, stiffer (20mm axle) and lighter (?) than the All Mountain 4s - not for the increased travel.  If they were adjustable to 140mm I'd use that, but they're not .  If you think it'll destroy the handling, I'll leave them.

[twin]

hm, this is gonna somewhat hurt as i do not like pikes (as stated before for all the wrong reasons), but why not get a used pike and send it to tftuned or push to be pushed? shouldn't cost that much and it's bound to be a great upgrade. dunno if you could get the upgrade with it, but say a u-turn - you could have adjustable travel and adjustable and smooth travel at the same time that doesn't mess up the overall feel of your bike.

in all fairness, i used to own a meta 5.3 that i fitted a 05 all mountain sl on. i never gave it a fair shot(sold it so i could go snowboarding in colorado), but i hated the the thing/bike. took it out for two rides and comparing it with my supreme it felt like shite. well, that's a not fair comparison i know - they're different bikes, but i think it's a much better idea to get a fork that compliments a superb frame than try making it something it is not 90% of the time. if one can stand the extra weight a talas would be the perfect choice, or a 55 with travel adjust, but if one can't afford it one must save and in a little while.... that being said, if the extra cost of trying a all mountain 2 is 50 quids (if the 4 can fetch 100) you can try it and see if you like it. hell ,we might be way off and you might actually like it a lot better. better yet, give your buddy a pint and he'll prob lend it to you for a spin. as mentioned before changing forks takes no time at all.

good luck with the choices

[Tomm]

Like I said, I'm not even that fussed about getting new forks at the moment - it's just that these seemed like a bargain.  Maybe in the future I'll look at getting some Pikes or Foxes but I'll probably leave it for now.  Thanks for the help.

[Te Bheag]

...why? If the forks are non adjustable It's messing up the overal handling on a fantastically balanced frame.

Steve, could you explain? Is the 'messing up' due to another 10 - 15mm axle to top of crown? Is that a lot (in reality)? If it has an effect, what is that... I assume it's to slacken the head angle, slow steering, but improve stability. Obviously I have an interest, having replaced 2007 OEM AM4's with 2006 All Mountain SL's. Now, these are adjustable forks, beween 130 and 150, but I assume you mean overall fork length, not travel..?

I'm still getting used to the bike really. It doesn't feel quite right, or didn't even with the original forks, but I'm putting that all down to 'My First Full Susser' but this thread has raised some questions for me.

Just a thought - Just measured the AM4's = 53cm approx Uncompressed (i.e. off bike) EDIT - wrong figure before
& All Mountain SL's = 54cm approx (on bike) EDIT - wrong figure before

Diff = 10mm overall fork length as expected, so what is the real world difference that would make? 

Just a bit confuzzed, and not trying to start a fork war 

[steveb]

On average for every half inch increase in the axle to crown length of the fork, you'll slacked the head angle by about half a degree. This don't sound a lot but it makes a difference to how the bike rides.

As you say, slacker head angles just feel more stable at speed, and when pointing down the forks feel less like they are trying to "tuck" themselves under the frame. For instance, say your pointing downhill and hit a rock, say half a foot round. If the head angle, and so fork angle, is slack the forks will be more inclined to pop up over the rock and you keep going down on your merry way. If the forks are steep, they are less likely to pop over the rock, meaning they'll start to compress, this compression can cause the bike to stall, so you've nowhere to go but over the bars, superman stylee. So, in this case, slack head angles are good.

But.....

Point the bike uphill and it's a totally different matter.  Slack forks mean the front wheel is further out the front of the bike, meaning your COG is more over the back wheel, meaning the front end will tend to wander a bit and lift, when really you want the front wheel planted firmly on the ground. To compensate this you have to slide your weight forward and get as much weight over the front wheel. This not only upsets your pedalling dynamics and also means less weight on the rear wheel, so less grip. So, a steeper head angles keep the front wheel nicely tucked under the front of the bike on climbs making it easier to climb. A steep head angle will also make the steering a bit sharper on the singletrack making the bike feel quicker, whilst a slack head angle makes it a bit slow and more barge like.

There is no right and wrong on this one, just personal taste. I like a slack head angle, some like a steep one. Some prefer the stability of a slack head angle on the downs and are happy to forego the climbing abilty, which is fair enough.

But.....

I've ridden the Meta5 a lot, had one since 2005 as my main bike, and even though I do like a slack head angle, I think for all round use anything over 140mm makes it too slack. Ideally you'd put an adjustable fork on a Meta5, which can adjust between 100 and say 150 or even 160mm, like say the 36Talas. But personally, and it is only a personal thing, I think to run a 5 with a fork that is permenantly stuff at 150mm plus is spoiling the bike. Last year I saw the point in doing this, cus we didn't have the Meta6, now we do.

As I said though, this is all just my personal taste, and also my experience of riding a 5. Yesterday I had my 5 all around the black and red/blue route at Kirroughtree. With 140mm forks on it it made it up every climb no problem, and i'm no climbing demon: I'm 40 years old, I'm 6'3" and I weight 16st and I have at best average MTB fitness. I don't ride up anything like a mountain goat, I plod and grind and haul my way up everything. I've also hauled it up the black runs at Glentress and Inners. At no point did it feel under forked on the way down and at no point the front want to lift on the climbs. Even on Heartbreak hill!

I've ridden the same courses on a Meta5 with 150mm forks on it and it felt much the same on the ups but no where near as good on the climbs.

So I guess, in my experience, yes 10mm makes a huge difference.

[Te Bheag]

Still a bit confused... On an adjustable travel fork, does changing the travel also change the axle to crown length? I'll have to test this tomorrow... If so, then the All Mountain SL's should work a treat. If, on the other hand, an adjustable fork retains its overall length, but just limits its travel, then why would one adjustable fork be preferable (in terms of head angle) to another... unless they were a different length to start with..?

I'm starting to get a headache (but that's more to do with the wine with dinner and Real Cycles additional 10% off htis week... grrrr )

[rugbyred]

Te Bheag,
If I understand your first question correctly, adjustable travel means that the length of the fork decreases (amount of travel, ie. 5in become a 4in and so on or 160mm to 130mm to 100mm). This will decrease your axle to crown length making your bike more x-countryish.
I don't know of any forks that limit travel and retain overall length.
Eric