Marzocchi Mounting

[Chakka]

I have seen Marzocchi rear shocks mounted both ways. Reservoir side up mounted to the frame and reservoir down, mounted to the swing arm. Is there any difference in shock performance or is it just a matter of preference?

Chakka

[TGTech]

Chakka:

   Today, I can comment on this issue with a whole lot more knowledge than back in the day, so let me help you out. All of the shocks that have bladders, have them, to keep the oil in them from cavitating. As far as the oil in a shock is concerned, cavitation might as well be air in the oil, and that completely screws up the function of a shock. As long as there is no air in the oil chamber and there is sufficient pressure in the bladder, it doesn't make any difference how the shock is mounted.

   If you mount the shock with the bladder chamber on the frame end, that lowers the moving mass on the swing arm, and that's a good thing. The down side, is that you can get mud laying in the bumper, and if and when you bottom the shock out, you run the risk of slamming the mud into the seal of the shock.

   I hope this helps you out.

Dane

[Chakka]

Thanks Dane,

That's the information I wanted. I frequently see the MX Pentons with the bladder chamber mounted to the frame, only some enduros with this set up. The other day I was reading an old Dirtbike Magazine with a write up on Carl Cranke's ISDT mount. He had his Marzocchi's mounted chamber on the frame...it got me curious.

Thanks again

Chakka

[TGTech]

When I wrote the post last night, I couldn't think of the proper term for having more weight on the swingarm, but I just remembered it: unsprung weight. And you want to keep that to a minimum.

Dane

[Big Mac]

I've wondered the same, thanks for the view on it Dane. Makes sense. If you look at pictures of Euro or Italian KTM's from the day, they always had the Marzocchi's installed reservoir down, while virtually all the Pen/KTMs in the US had them installed reservoir up. Mystery solved.