JUDY weights vs...
she...@sierra.net
anybody know the actual weight of the 97judy dh?
how does it compare to the 96mach5sx with springs?
i know the 97sl is rather light but it costs a tad too much and i can't
find one with a longtravel kit .
thanks.
JBlack1062
Why are you so concerned with the weight of a downhill shock? Downhill
specific components almost always weigh more than would be necessary for
XC riding.
she...@sierra.net
racers use the judydh and many fsxc racers not concerned with weight use
it. I am neither of the aforementioned racers and just wondered how
much it weighed and found out, through others more helpful than you,
that the dh comes in a steel steerer only and since my bike takes a 1
1/4 it would just weigh too much. That's why I'm considering the 97sl
or sxti.
GearGrinder
97 Rock Shox weights
Judy SL 2.65lbs
Judy DH 3.5 lbs
Judy XC 2.95lbs
Judy C 3.25lbs
hope this helps
Best Regards
Andy, mpe...@fast.net
Mr D.M. Whittle
In article <332c0589...@news.fast.net>, mpe...@fast.net (GearGrinder) writes:
> 97 Rock Shox weights
> Judy SL 2.65lbs
> Judy DH 3.5 lbs
> Judy XC 2.95lbs
> Judy C 3.25lbs
> hope this helps
> Best Regards
> Andy, mpe...@fast.net
>
fantasies.............
Mark Woodhead
In article <E772o...@liverpool.ac.uk>, dwh...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr D.M.
Whittle) wrote:
> In article <332c0589...@news.fast.net>, mpe...@fast.net
(GearGrinder) writes:
> > 97 Rock Shox weights
> > Judy SL 2.65lbs
> > Judy DH 3.5 lbs
> > Judy XC 2.95lbs
> > Judy C 3.25lbs
> > hope this helps
> > Best Regards
> > Andy, mpe...@fast.net
> >
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. They guy asked for ACTUAL weights, not RoxSux advertising
> fantasies.............
While the weights in the 97 catalog probably vary from your fork weight,
they also each say that they are for a 1" steerer of 140mm length. That's
really skinny and really short. They do the weights the same way every
other fork company does. I've weighed the RS forks (most) and they are
very close to the printed weights. Try weighing them yourself before
taking cheap shots at the guys on the top.
Mark
--
ｳThat's the great thing about crayons...they can take you more places than starshipsｲ 給季uiynan, Starship Enterprise
All E-Mail replys must remove "NS" at the end of my address, in order to reduce the amount of junk e-mail that seems to spread like a virus inside my mailbox.
Matt O'Toole
Mark Woodhead <mark...@ix.netcom.comNS> wrote in article
<markwood-170...@scz-ca6-02.ix.netcom.com>...
> While the weights in the 97 catalog probably vary from your fork weight,
> they also each say that they are for a 1" steerer of 140mm length. That's
> really skinny and really short. They do the weights the same way every
> other fork company does. I've weighed the RS forks (most) and they are
> very close to the printed weights. Try weighing them yourself before
> taking cheap shots at the guys on the top.
So, tell us, what bike does a 140mm unthreaded steerer tube fit? This is a
perfectly legitimate consumer concern, and a perfectly fair criticizm of
the company's advertising practices. I don't think it's a cheap shot at
all. The cheap shot was RS quoting the weight of a fork with a steerer
that's "really skinny, and really short." I don't care who else advertises
like this, just because all the other kids are doing it, doesn't mean it's
OK.
Matt O.
Gabor Egressy
GearGrinder (mpe...@fast.net) wrote:
: 97 Rock Shox weights
: Judy SL 2.65lbs
: Judy DH 3.5 lbs
: Judy XC 2.95lbs
: Judy C 3.25lbs
: hope this helps
: Best Regards
: Andy, mpe...@fast.net
In my experience you have to add roughly 0.3-0.4 pounds to these
advertised weights. The way the forks are weighed is ridiculous. They
use a one inch steerer cut to about a 5 inch length. I doubt there are
any bikes out there that these sizes would even fit. Even if you're
using a bike with a 4 inch head tube, a regular stem and a low stack
height headset, you'd have trouble using a 5 inch steerer tube.
: On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:17:22 -0800, she...@sierra.net wrote:
: >anybody know the actual weight of the 97judy dh?
: >how does it compare to the 96mach5sx with springs?
: >i know the 97sl is rather light but it costs a tad too much and i can't
: >find one with a longtravel kit .
: >
: >thanks.
--
Gabor Egressy : ga...@quickweb.com
Typically, I don't use JAVA -- I think that strong typing is
for weak minds (and lazy compiler/interpreter writers).
-- Terry Lambert
Mark Woodhead
In article <01bc336d$b2ffed60$2bca...@Pmatt.deltanet.com>, "Matt O'Toole"
<ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
Hey Matt.
I think this is the first time you and I have been at odds here. A 1"
140mm will only fit bikes that have really short headtubes, mostly made
for very short women riders (13" -15" frames). Most advertisers don't even
have the disclaimer line, and many aren't even accurate if you use the
smallest one to weigh. I agree that in a fair and honest world we wouldn't
have to deal with this, but you can hardly expect any manufacturer to list
an average and accurate weight when the entire industry is in the habit of
lying and omitting. When I said it was a cheap shot, it was because the
poster was pointing their finger specifically at RS when their weights are
accurate, regardless of the rareness of that size actually being used.
Sorry if I ruffled anyone's feathers,
Matt O'Toole
Mark Woodhead <mark...@ix.netcom.comNS> wrote in article
<markwood-180...@scz-ca16-02.ix.netcom.com>...
> I think this is the first time you and I have been at odds here. A 1"
> 140mm will only fit bikes that have really short headtubes, mostly made
> for very short women riders (13" -15" frames). Most advertisers don't
even
> have the disclaimer line, and many aren't even accurate if you use the
> smallest one to weigh. I agree that in a fair and honest world we
wouldn't
> have to deal with this, but you can hardly expect any manufacturer to
list
> an average and accurate weight when the entire industry is in the habit
of
> lying and omitting.
The reason they're in the habit of lying and omitting is that nobody ever
calls them on it. I think the occasional public skewering is well
deserved. It's the only thing that will keep them even close to honest.
Like I said, I think one of the best uses of this forum is for consumer
information we all can use.
Cheers,
Matt O.
Mark Hickey
>anybody know the actual weight of the 97judy dh?
>how does it compare to the 96mach5sx with springs?
>i know the 97sl is rather light but it costs a tad too much and i can't
>find one with a longtravel kit .
I just got done weighing a Judy XC with a 6.5" steer tube. It
ACTUALLY weighed almost exactly the same as the '97 Manitou SX
(which is heavier than the '96 Mach 5SX). I'm going to get a
more accurate scale (I loaned mine out) to get a more accurate
reading before I post the actual weights.
What this means in a nutshell is that RockShox lies more than
Manitou (claimed weight of the Judy XC is 2.95 pounds, and the
SX, 3.2 pounds). Yeah, they're both heavier than advertised
(or as was postulated, weighing the 1", 140cm steerer fork).
In reality, the Judy *might* be 1/2 ounce lighter, not 1/3 of
a POUND.
OTOH, I have to wonder about the Excel catalog that lists the
Judy at 2.95 pound, and the SX at 3.75! There's NO WAY the
Manitou weighs THAT much - except maybe an uncut threadless
steerer version (that is MUCH longer than you could actually
use on a bike that wasn't designed for a NBA player). But
that would mean that they actually WEIGHED the Manitou, and
obviously didn't weigh the Judy.... strange.
Mark (Captain Weight) Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.cynetfl.com/habanero/
Home of the $675 ti frame
Jay Wenner
Mark Hickey (mhi...@cynetfl.com) wrote:
: I just got done weighing a Judy XC with a 6.5" steer tube. It
: ACTUALLY weighed almost exactly the same as the '97 Manitou SX
: (which is heavier than the '96 Mach 5SX).
: What this means in a nutshell is that RockShox lies more than
: Manitou (claimed weight of the Judy XC is 2.95 pounds, and the
: SX, 3.2 pounds). Yeah, they're both heavier than advertised
: (or as was postulated, weighing the 1", 140cm steerer fork).
: In reality, the Judy *might* be 1/2 ounce lighter, not 1/3 of
: a POUND.
This is from memory, but I took a '96 Manitou SX with _uncut_ alloy
steerer (1 1/8) and speed springs (the ones going for $280) to the Post
Office. After giving me the "are you serious look," it weighed
in at 3 lbs, 4.5 oz. If you're really interested in the weight,
I could look it up, and I also weighed the chunk of steerer I later cut
off. I could give you a linear density on that so you could
calculate exactly (to a gram or two) how much more a 150 cm
steerer would weigh than a 140 cm steerer. Ain't much....
Jay Wenner
Camiel Rouweler
Jay Wenner wrote:
> This is from memory, but I took a '96 Manitou SX with _uncut_ alloy
> steerer (1 1/8) and speed springs (the ones going for $280) to the Post
> Office. After giving me the "are you serious look," it weighed
> in at 3 lbs, 4.5 oz.
Good weight measurements can also be done at the do-it-yourself scales
of the vegetables department of the supermarket. At least they have no
reason to downscale the readout :-)
--
Camiel Rouweler (cami...@surf.phys.tue.nl)
"I don't want to be called 'boy' anymore. I find that term
sexist and demeaning!". "How do you want to be called then?"
"I want to be called 'chromosomally advantaged youth." (Calvin&Hobbes)
Jason Jimenez
: of the vegetables department of the supermarket. At least they have no
I have experience with heading into Luckys in the early morning
hours to weigh frames, parts, and even complete bikes. Luckys has the
best scales since they go to 20 pounds in 1/8 increments and you can even
estimate beyond that. You can weight things more then 20 pounds because
the scale needle just keeps going around although I haven't measured more
then fotrty pounds. The scales are also good becuase you can put them on
the ground. My first experience was after I spend all night building my
single speed mountain bike. I started at 10 that night and finished at 4
o'clock in the morning (I had to build two wheels and install the
headset with a 2x4, O.K) then slightly buzzed from the beer and late night
I madly rode the 34x18 gear two miles to an all night Luckys to come up
with the weight of 22 pounds even.
Jason "Yes, I am a bike geek" Jimenez
Steve Hood
Sorry I missed this post and would like to hear what weights you found.
I weighed a 96 Judy XC - it was 1760 g
97 Judy XC was 1600 g.
Both are a fair bit more than what they advertise!
Ian Firth
Steve Hood wrote:
> I weighed a 96 Judy XC - it was 1760 g
> 97 Judy XC was 1600 g.
> Both are a fair bit more than what they advertise!
Don't they advertise dry weight ?
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
-------------------
Diversions Software
Multimedia Software Development
Cicli Milano
"Steve Hood" <sh...@aeratech.com> wrote:
>Sorry I missed this post and would like to hear what weights you found.
>I weighed a 96 Judy XC - it was 1760 g
>97 Judy XC was 1600 g.
>Both are a fair bit more than what they advertise!
No kidding, you would think that after getting caught at this for the
last several years in a row that they would eventually learn that the
can't lie and get away with it. Guess not. Typical RS
Larry
DWilhelmy
>>97 Judy XC was 1600 g.
>>Both are a fair bit more than what they advertise!
>No kidding, you would think that after getting caught at this for the
>last several years in a row that they would eventually learn that the
>can't lie and get away with it. Guess not. Typical RS
Their weights are for forks with the steerers already cut to 140mm and
in a 1" head tube. Not that they're spot-on for that but it's not THAT
grotesque of a lie. YMMstillV
Matt O'Toole
Cicli Milano <ma...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<5hdahu$e...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
> No kidding, you would think that after getting caught at this for the
> last several years in a row that they would eventually learn that the
> can't lie and get away with it. Guess not. Typical RS
> Larry
Sure they can. Last I heard, sales were better than ever.
Matt O.
Jin H Elkins
Steve Hood (sh...@aeratech.com) wrote:
: Sorry I missed this post and would like to hear what weights you found.
: I weighed a 96 Judy XC - it was 1760 g
: 97 Judy XC was 1600 g.
: Both are a fair bit more than what they advertise!
I just thought I would add that the Girvin Cross Link Expert a friend of
mine weighed on a digital scale that is accurate to +/- 1 gram was
1675grams. Not much more weight for alot stiffer and better fork IMHO.
It was a model with the GDT coil over unit... not a Noleen NR-2 which is
supposed to add a little weight. Of course I was not present when he
weighed them so so could be just lieing out his tail... but why would he?
--
__ _-==-=_,-.
` /--`' \_@-@.--<
`--'\ \ <___/.
\ \\ " / The wonderful thing about tiggers
>=\\_/`< is tiggers are wonderful things.
____ /= | \_|/
_' `\ _/=== \___/ Their tops are made out of rubber
`___/ //\./=/~\====\ their bottoms are made out of springs
\ // / | ===:
| ._/_,__|_ ==: __ Jin Elkins:elk...@eng.auburn.edu
\/ \\ \\`--| / \\ or elk...@mail.auburn.edu
| _ \\: /==:-\
(They're bouncy pouncy trouncy flouncy fun fun fun)
Jason Lombard
The reason that you found that the Judy weight was more than advertised
was because Rock Shox weighs their forks with a 1"x140mm steerer tube.
Most forks come with a larger diameter steerer that is almost twice as
long (threadless = 265mm). So it's a crappy way of measuring fork weight,
but it is a standard nevertheless.
Happy trails,
Jason
Palisades Mtn. Sport
Calistoga, CA