gingernuts/badger
Senior Retro Guru
Barneyballbags":2vb94lfs said:gingernuts/badger":2vb94lfs said:i love SL's.
got 'a few' pairs
Fancy sending a pair my way?
sorry - i've tipped out the pair that was unassigned to a project.
Very nice Rock Shox Judy SL's on ebay
- Thread starter mhenness
- Start date
sorry - i've tipped out the pair that was unassigned to a project.
- Feedback
- View
mhenness":3mmpmlvo said:
Give all the spiel you want, we know what they are and there are many fine example around, some even without chips in them.
Postage is heigh as well, twice what it'll cost to package and post them.
KeepItSteel
They are if original MCU stacks and usually perished due to the age of them, not much stops it.
You can swap them for springs and they tend to perform better, though it increases the weight.
They use an oil damper cartridge, though you would need to check if it's still ok as the 95/6 one had a tendency to die quickly.
They do look in good condition. You can often tell duff elastomers in a Judy by the height of the crown relative to the brace. Here it is correct, usually they are closer.
Shouldn't exaggerate how good a Judy SL is though:
a. if these are the original elastomers, they won't last long and can only be replaced with steel springs
b. if this is the original cartridge, then it won't last long and will be difficult to replace
c. if this was a good design, they wouldn't have abandoned it after 1997
d. they may be fairly light, but not all that light, and they're also flexy
I have two pairs, but only because I like the colour.
Shouldn't exaggerate how good a Judy SL is though:
a. if these are the original elastomers, they won't last long and can only be replaced with steel springs
b. if this is the original cartridge, then it won't last long and will be difficult to replace
c. if this was a good design, they wouldn't have abandoned it after 1997
d. they may be fairly light, but not all that light, and they're also flexy
I have two pairs, but only because I like the colour.
Guys,
The "Spiel" was only listed as Mr Keep it Steel innocently asked about the spec. So I posted the spec.
So obviously not everyone did know what they were. And great - if there are other box fresh examples around without chips in them - fabulous. Nobody is saying there isn't.
Anthony - you're points are all valid on the whole, but I thought this forum was about Retro? Things change, designs change. Elastomers are more expensive to produce and assemble than a single spring, but they are also lighter. and offer a little bit more by way of tuning. Admittedly they have the down sides as you point out as well. But this fork is 14 years old! Fork technology moved on after this and things became quite a bit heavier. The point that was made is that it is only recently with air sprung forks that weights have returned to these levels on the whole (There will always be exceptions). And I don't think there are many suspension forks lighter than this, especially from 1996 with this amount of travel, or as stated, even by todays standards???
The "Spiel" was only listed as Mr Keep it Steel innocently asked about the spec. So I posted the spec.
So obviously not everyone did know what they were. And great - if there are other box fresh examples around without chips in them - fabulous. Nobody is saying there isn't.
Anthony - you're points are all valid on the whole, but I thought this forum was about Retro? Things change, designs change. Elastomers are more expensive to produce and assemble than a single spring, but they are also lighter. and offer a little bit more by way of tuning. Admittedly they have the down sides as you point out as well. But this fork is 14 years old! Fork technology moved on after this and things became quite a bit heavier. The point that was made is that it is only recently with air sprung forks that weights have returned to these levels on the whole (There will always be exceptions). And I don't think there are many suspension forks lighter than this, especially from 1996 with this amount of travel, or as stated, even by todays standards???
graham1975
Senior Retro Guru
Im sure a proper 80mm fox fork with air comes it at around that weight and the fox ones work properly, old forks are ok and the Sl' s i must say are about the best of the crap if i can say that, but id rather carry an extra 100g and have a Fox/Rockshox fork knowing if i hit something hard i will ride out the other side. but then again my 1991 Kona would look daft with a fox fork on it.
Judy's work ok - modern forks work better. (like comparing a 1970's escort to a modern Focus)
If i could get a modern "short travel " (80 mm or so) fork that takes my cantilvers i'd buy it.
Given the frankly huge range of current RS forks it wouldn't be hard for them to take one of their budget to mid range forks revamp it a little add a canti hanger and make a killing (especially if they offer a 1" steerer)
If i could get a modern "short travel " (80 mm or so) fork that takes my cantilvers i'd buy it.
Given the frankly huge range of current RS forks it wouldn't be hard for them to take one of their budget to mid range forks revamp it a little add a canti hanger and make a killing (especially if they offer a 1" steerer)
Graham, I've heard those carbon fibre Trek Top Fuel race bikes are slightly lighter and better than 1991 Kona's as well....
Seriously..???
I'm a newbie to this Retrobike discussion, and website, and I am quite wholly surprised at the whole tone of the discussions. I have a collection of old bikes, both road and off road, which I still race very competitively at a reasonable level, regularly beating brand new, carbon fibre bits of kit in both XC and road racing. I also have new bikes of various brands with top level kit on them, so i have a little experience of what can and cannot be achieved. My passion lies with the old stuff. Its immensely satisfying keeping an old charge running and competitive, and seeing peoples faces and interest in bikes that, for some, were child hood dreams and memories, still actually being used. Its great fun. And that's what I thought you guys were into as well. It seems everyone here likes old bikes, but is then obsessed with pointing out how crap they are compared to new stuff. Whats the point? Sorry if this is a bit blunt, but on the whole this is a more than obvious statement, but in a lot of cases also, with good quality "upgrades" and maintenance, it is not exclusively the case. I was hoping for a mix of nostalgia and technical know how mixed with competitive spirit and exciting projects. Does this exist amongst you guys? And please - unless you are riding at a very high level, and down some very technical terrain regularly, 90% of the trails in the UK can be ridden just as fast on an old bike, with good, well maintained old kit on, as they can be on any new kit. Just throw a good lightweight wheelset on and away you go. Its about making what you've got work, and developing a relationship with a machine. Honing both the machine and you're ability to create trust and something really special. That's when the performance really comes. I hope this isn't falling on deaf ears, but if it is then, best of luck to you all. I'm off for a ride!
Seriously..???
I'm a newbie to this Retrobike discussion, and website, and I am quite wholly surprised at the whole tone of the discussions. I have a collection of old bikes, both road and off road, which I still race very competitively at a reasonable level, regularly beating brand new, carbon fibre bits of kit in both XC and road racing. I also have new bikes of various brands with top level kit on them, so i have a little experience of what can and cannot be achieved. My passion lies with the old stuff. Its immensely satisfying keeping an old charge running and competitive, and seeing peoples faces and interest in bikes that, for some, were child hood dreams and memories, still actually being used. Its great fun. And that's what I thought you guys were into as well. It seems everyone here likes old bikes, but is then obsessed with pointing out how crap they are compared to new stuff. Whats the point? Sorry if this is a bit blunt, but on the whole this is a more than obvious statement, but in a lot of cases also, with good quality "upgrades" and maintenance, it is not exclusively the case. I was hoping for a mix of nostalgia and technical know how mixed with competitive spirit and exciting projects. Does this exist amongst you guys? And please - unless you are riding at a very high level, and down some very technical terrain regularly, 90% of the trails in the UK can be ridden just as fast on an old bike, with good, well maintained old kit on, as they can be on any new kit. Just throw a good lightweight wheelset on and away you go. Its about making what you've got work, and developing a relationship with a machine. Honing both the machine and you're ability to create trust and something really special. That's when the performance really comes. I hope this isn't falling on deaf ears, but if it is then, best of luck to you all. I'm off for a ride!
- Feedback
- View
taffy":1o7qgmb3 said:
Guess he/she's not read the rest of the site, just the forks being sold...
We only compare to the new stuff when claims being made in an advert are false comparing it to new stuff
Most the trails in the UK can be ridden on a rigid bike from the 80's/90's as many on here still do.
This a 'market watch' section, not the Retro MTB Chat section.
We are commenting on the fact they are over priced for a used set of SL forks the seller claims to be as good as a NOS set in a museum and nobody else has a set like them
The MCU are likely to be gone and you'll need new springs
The Stanchions could have the typical corrosion on the lower inside on the damper side.
I will say, my favourite fork on my bikes are the MAG's and JUDY's. I also have a set of bomber Z2 Superfly from a few years later and iirc they are lighter than even my MAG SL's
Similar threads
Wanted
Rock shox judy
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Is there a good resource to learn the hierarchy of 90s suspension forks?
- Latest: Frankenorange