Tell me about these (Rock Shox content)
- Thread starter Pickle
- Start date
yes, they were the quadra replacement. one piece lowers, so slightly stiffer, and a variation of the "type two" springing system used in judy's from 97 on, but with no damping.
the indy SL was comedy light, and may even have pipped that year's judy SL on that front
the type two system as i recall was a short coil and then elastomer - it was meant to get around the initial stiction of elastomers.
a redecorated indy makes an ideal cheap quadra/mag substitute imho
oh and the long travel sticker refers to the fact it's the 80mm model - them was the days
the indy SL was comedy light, and may even have pipped that year's judy SL on that front
the type two system as i recall was a short coil and then elastomer - it was meant to get around the initial stiction of elastomers.
a redecorated indy makes an ideal cheap quadra/mag substitute imho
oh and the long travel sticker refers to the fact it's the 80mm model - them was the days
I'm sorry, but honesty comes before politeness sometimes. A Zaskar merits a way better fork than an Indy XC.Pickle":2rcza19u said:Intended as an immediate replacement for my next Zaskar build.
Not too bad then, good stuff
An impulse buy that I shouldnt regret!
I first came into mtb in 97 and I remember the first multi-bike test I ever read, with several bikes like a Cinder Cone and a Hoo-koo-e-hoo (or whatever) panned for their Indy forks and a rigid slime green C16R winning the test easily ('class in the grass'). A few months later, in an 8-bike test in TotalBike a Lava Dome with P2s won easily from a field including mostly Indy-equipped contenders. And those were at a way lower price point than a Zaskar.
I think the only point in favour of Indys was that they were ok for light weight riders who wondered why they were so unpopular, while heavy riders hated them.
And incidentally in reply to cce, an Indy weighed over half a pound less than a Judy SL, and this was reflected in being far more flexy. I don't dispute that a Judy SL was less stiff than a Z2, but it was a respected fork in its day and stiff enough, whereas most people felt that an Indy was too flexy to be an improvement over a rigid fork.
- Feedback
- View
Anthony":2vog2mp1 said:I'm sorry, but honesty comes before politeness sometimes. A Zaskar merits a way better fork than an Indy XC.Pickle":2vog2mp1 said:Intended as an immediate replacement for my next Zaskar build.
Not too bad then, good stuff
An impulse buy that I shouldnt regret!
I first came into mtb in 97 and I remember the first multi-bike test I ever read, with several bikes like a Cinder Cone and a Hoo-koo-e-hoo (or whatever) panned for their Indy forks and a rigid slime green C16R winning the test easily ('class in the grass'). A few months later, in an 8-bike test in TotalBike a Lava Dome with P2s won easily from a field including mostly Indy-equipped contenders. And those were at a way lower price point than a Zaskar.
I think the only point in favour of Indys was that they were ok for light weight riders who wondered why they were so unpopular, while heavy riders hated them.
And incidentally in reply to cce, an Indy weighed over half a pound less than a Judy SL, and this was reflected in being far more flexy. I don't dispute that a Judy SL was less stiff than a Z2, but it was a respected fork in its day and stiff enough, whereas most people felt that an Indy was too flexy to be an improvement over a rigid fork.
Obviously you do not realise this is RetroBIKE, and we ride RockShox MAG 21's
It's not what works well that counts, it's what looks good and we like
Anthony":2vjqcz8z said:I'm sorry, but honesty comes before politeness sometimes. A Zaskar merits a way better fork than an Indy XC.Pickle":2vjqcz8z said:Intended as an immediate replacement for my next Zaskar build.
Not too bad then, good stuff
An impulse buy that I shouldnt regret!
My Zaskar LE has Mag21's on it
