Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:31 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:43 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26154
Location: Moomin Valley
Loki wrote:
I have the same Zaskar and a Manitou 3 yielded the same results. The GT 3D fork goes from apr. 42mm rake to around 51MM with 395mm atoc. Not sure on Judy specifications but the Manitou was 38mm rake and long enough to change the HA a degree. The 92 Zaskar is a NON suspension frame , I think 94 was the first year Zaskars came with suspension?


Catalogs show suspension from new so 1991 onwards? My 92/93 model was MAG21.

I always had trouble with the Zaskar geometry when playing around with forks. I finally fitted the original spec 3D forks and all is well other wise it was tramlining or wayward handling.

*Edit: 1991 catalog has the RS1 as an option.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:16 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:20 am
Posts: 271
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
legrandefromage wrote:
Loki wrote:
I have the same Zaskar and a Manitou 3 yielded the same results. The GT 3D fork goes from apr. 42mm rake to around 51MM with 395mm atoc. Not sure on Judy specifications but the Manitou was 38mm rake and long enough to change the HA a degree. The 92 Zaskar is a NON suspension frame , I think 94 was the first year Zaskars came with suspension?


Catalogs show suspension from new so 1991 onwards? My 92/93 model was MAG21.

I always had trouble with the Zaskar geometry when playing around with forks. I finally fitted the original spec 3D forks and all is well other wise it was tramlining or wayward handling.

*Edit: 1991 catalog has the RS1 as an option.

Can you link to a 92 English language Catalog showing suspension on the Zaskar as the two I found on retrobike only show 3D forks.
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/v/M ... 2.pdf.html

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/v/M ... a49de39b70


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:39 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26154
Location: Moomin Valley
If you read the German text next to the Zaskar pic it mentions the 3D fork or the MAG 20 as options for a 1992 Zaskar.

Edit: a bit of searching and on the '31 days of GT' thread:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=238321

Image


Last edited by legrandefromage on Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:43 pm 
Concours Judge
Concours Judge
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:59 pm
Posts: 8171
Location: a proper EU country
My rider with RondWP and beefy booster fitted offers very satisfactory precission imo. The Judy XC's I tried didn't achieve the same level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:51 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26154
Location: Moomin Valley
merckx wrote:
Interested to hear thoughts from others...

I have had my 96 model Judy XC on two frames now, and it feels to me the handling and steering is not good. I am no expert on rake and trail, however the Judy just feels like they got it all wrong..

It feels sluggish, floppy and imprecise. In stark contrast, the rigid steel fork on my 92 Zaskar is sharp, precise and steers perfectly.

Thoughts from others?


I ran 1996 model Judy DH on mine - MCU in one leg and a Speedspring in the other - it was a huge leap from the MAG21 but I was never a happy bunny with front suspension. I even ran a set of aluminium rigid forks for a while (not the straight ones often in my pics) and that transformed the bike into what it should have been all along. Found out those very same forks were recallled due to steerer bonding issues...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:55 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16746
Location: Yorkshire, England
If the fork is shorter 395mm and you JUDY is probably at ~60mm then it's going to be slacker, if so fit a lower slightly shorter stem when you change.
The comparable forks for 395 would be the MAG's at ~43mm travel.

Never found the problem with even MAG's really, probably so used to it though. Feel the same as JUDY and Bombers to me. Once you have a beefy hub in the MAGs that is (Hope Mono in mine but you do need to modify the fork to fit these, quite a difference from a Shimano traditional or Hope lightweight ;))


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:47 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:14 am
Posts: 1871
Location: Kuranda DH circa 1991
LGF i agree with you, the Zaskar frames, of the early years, certainly handle better with a rigid fork. (though they are STIFF!)

It would appear my issues with Judy are mainly operator error... :oops: lowly tyre pressure yesterday (25psi or so) but back at 32-35 today and the handling is much better, with no particularly adverse characteristics.

My apologies Judy, if you were offended in any way :mrgreen:

A picture from my ride this morning, perfect trail conditions after a few days rain, then some time to dry out overnight..bulk traction!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boswell, Klein-aficionado, My_Teenage_Self, shinobi and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group