• Hi everyone,

    As you all know, Coffee (Dean) passed away a couple of years ago. I am Dean's ex-wife's husband and happen to have spent my career in tech. Over the years, I occasionally helped Dean with various tech issues.

    When he passed, I worked with his kids to gather the necessary credentials to keep this site running. Since then (and for however long they worked with Coffee), Woodschick and Dirtdame have been maintaining the site and covering the costs. Without their hard work and financial support, CafeHusky would have been lost.

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working to migrate the site to a free cloud compute instance so that Woodschick and Dirtdame no longer have to fund it. At the same time, I’ve updated the site to a current version of XenForo (the discussion software it runs on). The previous version was outdated and no longer supported.

    Unfortunately, the new software version doesn’t support importing the old site’s styles, so for now, you’ll see the XenForo default style. This may change over time.

    Coffee didn’t document the work he did on the site, so I’ve been digging through the old setup to understand how everything was running. There may still be things I’ve missed. One known issue is that email functionality is not yet working on the new site, but I hope to resolve this over time.

    Thanks for your patience and support!

Marzocchi 45mm Shiver Forks - Discussion

Fork measurements:

~300 mm to the bottom of the dust seal/wiper
~885 mm to the top of the cap

I am running my forks with nearly 1 inch of fork exposed above the upper triple. Probably about 3/4 of an inch, I would guess. I would drop it more (for quicker steering), but I already don't have enough ground clearance.
 
Kyle Tarry said:
Fork measurements:

~300 mm to the bottom of the dust seal/wiper
~885 mm to the top of the cap

I am running my forks with nearly 1 inch of fork exposed above the upper triple. Probably about 3/4 of an inch, I would guess. I would drop it more (for quicker steering), but I already don't have enough ground clearance.
Click to expand...

Thanks

I not really worried about the limited travel but rather the feel/handling of the bike
(1) - lost ground clearance and
(2)- suspect that the handling/geometry with the lower front end is more geared to hard pack or graded road surfaces and may suffer in soft sand and mud environments.

Could be all in my head but the bike seems to oversteer (front wheel tucking) in mud/sand and the only way to compensate for that is to drop the forks as much as possible in the triples and also run significant rear sag..105mm. I thought that the 610 with longer forks might provide improved geometry thus being more conducive to sand and mud conditions.


It may be that I'm just trying to make a 300 lb bike handle like a 250 lb bike in the mud and sand...


Have you ever spent any time on a 630 to compare the handling vs your 610?
 
I have not spent any time on a 630.

I have the front end of my bike dropped almost as much as the fork length difference, and I don't have handling problems. The 610/630 has a LOT of rake, so dropping the front end can only help the bike turn better. Even dropping the front several inches won't get the trail even near to the amount of trail that a "regular dirt bike" has.

Try raising and lowering the rear end via sag changes and see if either one helps the handling.
 
Hi all. I have some info to add to this thread. I've had a 630 for a bit, and fairly quickly I swapped the forks for TE510 ones I acquired on ebay as I wanted full-length travel & compression adjusters. I was pleased with the travel but they were a bit soft, so the wheels churned in my head. The handling was definitely improved, IMO. I'm more accustomed to real dirtbikes, though.

I took the 45mm Marzocchi Shivers from the 2005 TE510 apart, and put the pieces side-by-side with the TE630's forks. The 630s are shorter, but that appears to be caused only by the shorter damper unit & spring mount point. The springs are exactly the same length, but are obviously a different rate. I calculated the rates and came up with roughly .47kg/mm for the 510 springs & .50kk/mm for the 630s. The outer tubes are also identical except for color.


The compression shim stacks were notably different. I didn't disassemble them, but it looked like the 630's non-adjustable assembly had at least 2 or even 4 more more face shims than the 510s did.

My reassembly was of the 630 outer tubes with the damper assembly from the 510 and the springs from the 630. I now have full travel with the higher rate springs. (I only used the 630s outers because I like the black better than the gold on that bike.) I'm going to run the 510s shims as-is for now, but I may end up adding some face shims if the travel seems uncontrolled.

I hope this adds to the knowledge base for these forks.


15722912627820.jpg

15722912629641.jpg
 
I run a set of Zoke 45's on the 81 430 I call Test Mule. It's my test bed for new engines and valving changes. It's a high quality fork, but was usually sent out with terrible valving.

IMG_8493.jpg
 
Damn, i could have spent less 100 euros on new springs for my swm rs650 300mm forks :).
Have to say that with new springs, new shimm stack and 300mm forks the rs650 is damn nice offroad.

climberevan said:
Hi all. I have some info to add to this thread. I've had a 630 for a bit, and fairly quickly I swapped the forks for TE510 ones I acquired on ebay as I wanted full-length travel & compression adjusters. I was pleased with the travel but they were a bit soft, so the wheels churned in my head. The handling was definitely improved, IMO. I'm more accustomed to real dirtbikes, though.

I took the 45mm Marzocchi Shivers from the 2005 TE510 apart, and put the pieces side-by-side with the TE630's forks. The 630s are shorter, but that appears to be caused only by the shorter damper unit & spring mount point. The springs are exactly the same length, but are obviously a different rate. I calculated the rates and came up with roughly .47kg/mm for the 510 springs & .50kk/mm for the 630s. The outer tubes are also identical except for color.


The compression shim stacks were notably different. I didn't disassemble them, but it looked like the 630's non-adjustable assembly had at least 2 or even 4 more more face shims than the 510s did.

My reassembly was of the 630 outer tubes with the damper assembly from the 510 and the springs from the 630. I now have full travel with the higher rate springs. (I only used the 630s outers because I like the black better than the gold on that bike.) I'm going to run the 510s shims as-is for now, but I may end up adding some face shims if the travel seems uncontrolled.

I hope this adds to the knowledge base for these forks.


View attachment 97883

View attachment 97884
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top