S. Anderson said:Well, it never made sense to me, in a Mag 21, to put 60 or 70psi into a fork, creating huge
stiction problems. They were great for big hit stuff, but their ride quality in "normal" XC stuff
was either too stiff or too limp, mostly due to stiction limitations.
It had nothing to do with seal stiction. The forks were rigid except for big hits by design, via a
blow-off valve. This is because racers and racer wannabes were convinced that their tremendous
horsepower was being sapped by forks bobbing up and down. Keep in mind that this was the first
mass-market suspension fork, and suspension itself was a controversial subject. Rockshox responded
to the retrogrouches by putting in a blow-off valve, so you could adjust the point at which the
forks would start to move. The original Rockshox, the black ones with the pink lettering, had no
blow-off valve, and were very plush indeed. So were the special Bontrager-modified Mags that had no
blow-off valve. Any stiction that occurred on these forks was because they were too flexy, which
caused them to bind.
Quoted message said:The bad-taste thing was going riding with people who had seals blow on their Mag 21's and having
to ride out on a hobbled fork.
It happened occasionally, but was really pretty rare. Rockshox Mags were very reliable, and fairly
maintenance free forks, even by today's standards.
Quoted message said:They were certainly light though, especially the Ti/Mag 21..
...but too flexy, especially the ones with aluminum stanchions, like that Ti model (which had Ti
bolts, whoopee). In fact, riders in-the-know sought out the "cheapo" OEM forks or even Mag 10s,
which had stiffer, steel stanchions. They were a few ounces heavier, but worked a lot better.
As I mentioned, the flex caused the forks to bind. Also a problem was that the bushings were too
close together. The Judy solved these problems with fatter, stiffer stanchion tubes, and bushings
that were further apart, like a Manitou's. This explains the Manitou-like appearance, with the
fat-to-the-bottom lower legs and offset provided by a tab, rather than the inline design of the Mag.
Since then, fork tubes have gotten even fatter and stiffer, becoming even smoother and more
precise-steering. A Judy seems stiff enough, until you get on a Fox.
Quoted message said:For me, riding a 2001 Judy XC or the like makes more sense. The worst-case scenario is you develop
an oil leak and have a messy ride home. Maintenance, for me, has been zero and it's a pretty
decent performing fork.
Yup, and if you really trash it, you can pick up another from Supergo or ebay for a hundred bucks.
What's scary is that I have about $500 invested in a '96 Judy XC -- they cost $325 when they came
out, plus another $150-200 for an aftermarket cartridge and coil springs. Like computers, this stuff
gets better and cheaper every year.
But the White Bros. cartridge I have has been absolutely dead reliable. I've only opened it a couple
of times in 6 years, mostly to experiment with different oil viscosities. The things that wear out
in in my Judy are the seals and bushings, which last about a year if I'm riding a lot. Wet
conditions are what really does them in. If you hear water in your fork, you need to take it apart
and clean it. This is very easy with the Judy. I also dump a bunch of Phil Wood oil in there to keep
the bushings wet -- it does a better job than plain grease, which gets scraped dry.
Matt O.
