Marzocchi Fork Advice

I would put in a vote for Ohlins just for easy access to parts and service. I had Ohlins on all my bikes. The last bike I owned, I replaced the Ohlins with OE shock before I sold it, it felt like crap. You don't know what you're missing until you lose it.

How about the BPF Showa's from the 899?

CW AF 03 said:

How about the BPF Showa's from the 899?

Click to expand...

That's a good point, as a ton of comparison tests have the BPF forks rated very highly. I remember in a test of 2012 literbikes, one comparison had the reviewers rating the ZX-10Rs BPF forks as best of the test - and that was over the Ohlins of the 1199S also on test.

Problem is, how much are they if you buy in the aftermarket and they would probably require new triple clamps as well. So at that point you're at the same price as Ohlins FGRT forks. I know which ones I would choose, and cartridges are again still less.

Anyone have good numbers for air gap on the base Marzocchis? The svc manual I downloaded doesn't have suspension teardowns included, and I've seen varying numbers around. As much as 200mm from Bowdy69 on this forum to as little as 130mm for the previous (non-bladder) RAC50's from the Marzocchi manual for them. Measured mine at 195mm but the front is just collapsing under hard braking with 9.5N springs in it (I'm 150lbs or so out of gear). Trying it today with one 10N spring on one side as a stop gap, but the 9.5's should be good looking at the free/loaded sag numbers.

And no, the dampers aren't gone. Yet...

Steve B said:

Anyone have good numbers for air gap on the base Marzocchis? The svc manual I downloaded doesn't have suspension teardowns included, and I've seen varying numbers around. As much as 200mm from Bowdy69 on this forum to as little as 130mm for the previous (non-bladder) RAC50's from the Marzocchi manual for them. Measured mine at 195mm but the front is just collapsing under hard braking with 9.5N springs in it (I'm 150lbs or so out of gear). Trying it today with one 10N spring on one side as a stop gap, but the 9.5's should be good looking at the free/loaded sag numbers.

And no, the dampers aren't gone. Yet...

Click to expand...

190 should be a ballpark number.

fireman1251 said:

190 should be a ballpark number.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Surprised to hear mine were in range, as easy as it was to bottom them on the brakes with the 9.5N springs in. It helped running a 10 on one side yesterday, but the bike shouldn't need that much spring up front at my weight.

Think I'll refill them with fresh oil and maybe reduce the gap a bit. It's interesting that the air gap would be so different from the non-bladder RAC50 spec; they have the same travel and there shouldn't be any mechanical reason to run so much larger of a gap. Scratching head....

My marzocchi's went dead, no rebound, bit the bullet and upgraded to ohlins FRGT 203 in the front and TTXgp in the rear.

My dealer replaced my forks under warranty after i removed them from the bike.

So i ended up with new forks I can sell or keep for when i sell the bike.

Handling has greatly improved and with the added bonus of a lower ride height in the rear.

Haven't suffered the rebound failure issue in my forks as yet, and they feel fine pumping the damper rods with forks opened up. Not a ton of adjustment in them though, as shown in GilesR6's adjuster sweep test:

http://ducati1199.com/ducati-1199/3046-marzocchi-fork-cartridges-oem.html

With so little range you won't notice a lot bouncing on them with different clicker settings, but you can tell it riding.

Pretty sure my thing is just an oil height/air gap setup matter, just wanted to see what people who've had them open were doing. The total weight of this bike/rider is not really out of range from a number I've had previously and never needed to run springs as stiff. 9.5 really ought to be more than enough for the street with decent low speed damping and oil height. Am going to try fresh oil with a bit less air gap and think that should do it. If not, then it's off to the Ohlins store.

I would double check the damping with the forks fulling installed. Test rebound damping by backing out all the compression and have rebound full in, after the fork compresses, it should take 3-5 second to rebound. Trying putting compression to full n, you should't be able to compress the forks at all.

The Marzocchi is pain in the arse, small misstep and you release the pressurized cartridge.

jyli19 said:

I would double check the damping with the forks fulling installed. Test rebound damping by backing out all the compression and have rebound full in, after the fork compresses, it should take 3-5 second to rebound. Trying putting compression to full n, you should't be able to compress the forks at all.

The Marzocchi is pain in the arse, small misstep and you release the pressurized cartridge.

Click to expand...

Appreciate the input, but they really aren't toast. I've had a lot of forks apart in my day, and rebuilt my first shim stack around 30 years ago so I have a fairly decent idea what forks ought to act like.

Just trying to find some benchmark data on this model fork since neither Marzocchi nor Ducati appear interested in publishing any. Considering the nature of how air gaps work to affect progressivity in spring rate, it just seemed really odd that the non-bladder RAC50 would have so much smaller an air gap spec than what people were seeing with the Base forks. The air gap in the base forks is also a good bit more than what Ohlins spec for their forks, or for their NIX30 inserts, so I'm thinking that's really the issue. Running stiffer springs helps as expected as would jacking up the comp damping, but that's not the ideal solution on real world roads where you need more compliance mid-stroke.

By the way, a couple of points: As those who have had these forks apart have noted, they aren't really pressurized cartridges; the bladder just emulates the effect of such. And if I understand you to be saying it should take three to five seconds for the forks to rebound when fully assembled and at zero comp, full rebound then I'm going to have to differ on that. Take a look at the sweep test dyno charts GilesR6 posted; there just isn't enough adjustment in them to make them do that, and really, you never would want them to.

Cheers,

Steve

I totally get what you're saying.

I swapped out the springs on the OEM Marzocchi to no success, got the Ohlins cartridge kit but still felt the stroke wasn't quite smooth. Finally bit the bullet got me FGRT203. Now i am all smiles.

And yeah, i heard the air pressured forks use a lot less oil, applies to the Ohlins TTX25 forks as well.

farmind said:

I have just got replacement Marzocchi's and still the rebound don't work, I called Ducati, they called me, three weeks on and nothing! problem is the service sucks from Ducati and the dealers aren't any better, the dealer who sold it to me don't care less, I can't bore the .... out you all with a fact list since I bought the bike but it bores me to go on about it, sits like this with me now, the virgin experience of a couple weeks back has worn off, I don't mind the problem but they don't fix it or even look to, I like my 749 but I am fast coming to the conclusion the Panigale is junk, face it guys if any Jap firm produced this bike at this money with all its fault we would laugh at the dick who bought one, soon as I can I'm ditching it going buying a RSV4, look at my thread on WDW another Ducati rip off!!

Click to expand...

I had an rsv4 factory Aprilla are even worse for warranty!!