Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch and reduce the travel to an inch.
I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less energy absorbed by bobbing, or both.
But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter of longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.
Anybody?
Work=Force*Distance. You're not exerting more force, and distance is smaller. Ergo, work is smaller. Work=Energy=Heat=Calories ~= Food
"(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch
and
Quoted message said:
reduce the travel to an inch.
I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less
energy
Quoted message said:
absorbed by bobbing, or both.
But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter
of
Quoted message said:
longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.
Two different things here. First, with the fork compressed enough and a steady pedaling motion there will be no movement so no energy loss. Second, the difference in resistance between the two is minimal, the damping characteristics aren't that different at the two the levels and the spring rate is the same, just preloaded.
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mAj_e.122985$Ep.107755@lakeread02...
Quoted message said:
(PeteCresswell) said:
Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch and reduce the travel to an inch.
I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less energy absorbed by bobbing, or both.
But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter of longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.
Anybody?
Work=Force*Distance. You're not exerting more force, and distance is smaller. Ergo, work is smaller. Work=Energy=Heat=Calories ~= Food
If he was thinking the way I think he was thinking then the force would be proportionally larger, but in reality it's not.
Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch and reduce the travel to an inch.
I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less energy absorbed by bobbing, or both.
But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter of longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.
I'm running a 120mm MX Comp ETA and find that the ETA lockout does help significantly on climbs for both reasons you mention below.
On 9/27/05 8:35 PM, in article [email hidden],
(PeteCresswell) said:
Marzocchi's ETA feature lets the rider lower a 100mm fork by about an inch and reduce the travel to an inch.
I'm not sure whether the claimed benefit is change in bike attitude, less energy absorbed by bobbing, or both.
But thinking about the bogging aspect, it seems like it might be a matter of longer travel through less resistance vs shorter travel through greater resistance. If that's true maybe the energy absorbed is a wash.
