The PUSH "speed service" is simply a lower (or upper😀) leg service, it has nothing to do with the damper.
While it's nice to be able to change the bath oil without dropping the legs, I clean the entire leg out when doing a lower service anyway. Injecting clean oil into a dirty fork seems counterintuitive. If you ride in wet conditions it can get nasty in there pretty quickly.
The best feature of the PUSH 9.1 speed service oil ports is that you can assemble the fork "dry" and then add bath lube after it's fully together.
The PUSH "speed service" is simply a lower (or upper😀) leg service, it has nothing to do with the damper. While it's nice to be able to...
The PUSH "speed service" is simply a lower (or upper😀) leg service, it has nothing to do with the damper.
While it's nice to be able to change the bath oil without dropping the legs, I clean the entire leg out when doing a lower service anyway. Injecting clean oil into a dirty fork seems counterintuitive. If you ride in wet conditions it can get nasty in there pretty quickly.
The best feature of the PUSH 9.1 speed service oil ports is that you can assemble the fork "dry" and then add bath lube after it's fully together.
Don't you complete rebuild on any other fork dry and add bath oil at the end?
Just looking at the new Maxima SG920 grease that SRAM claim is a step up from the usual suspension grease and was keen to try it...
Just looking at the new Maxima SG920 grease that SRAM claim is a step up from the usual suspension grease and was keen to try it in my forks. Unfortunately the service info on the SRAM site says it isn't backwards compatible and can only be used on MY27 forks, they say it will cause mayhem with older forks/seals.
Can anyone confirm this or is it BS, has anyone tried the new grease?
The Maxima site doesn't say anything about issues with using it in older products.
RS started using it last year. One of the RS shops is actually trying to blend it with older SRAM butter. Parking lot, butter feels better...
RS started using it last year. One of the RS shops is actually trying to blend it with older SRAM butter. Parking lot, butter feels better, but at temp 920 is better. I run it blended, no issues.
Slickoleum/sram butter is one of those products I've always found so good and reliable that there is literally no reason to change from it - I...
Slickoleum/sram butter is one of those products I've always found so good and reliable that there is literally no reason to change from it - I was thinking they might have done it to reduce the cost and stick to one manufacturer, but if thats true they certainly aren't passing those savings on 😅
It's probably really good - but so is sram butter so just use whatever you feel like or can easily get. From the little info I can get out the MSDS it just looks like calcium sulfonate grease (like slickoleum) with there own 11 herbs and spices so I don't see any reason it wouldn't be interchangeable (that would also be very stupid - All the seals are the same old elastomers)
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant have been good so far. I have been running a the mix, but no way to really objectively measure the difference.
RS started using it last year. One of the RS shops is actually trying to blend it with older SRAM butter. Parking lot, butter feels better...
RS started using it last year. One of the RS shops is actually trying to blend it with older SRAM butter. Parking lot, butter feels better, but at temp 920 is better. I run it blended, no issues.
Slickoleum/sram butter is one of those products I've always found so good and reliable that there is literally no reason to change from it - I...
Slickoleum/sram butter is one of those products I've always found so good and reliable that there is literally no reason to change from it - I was thinking they might have done it to reduce the cost and stick to one manufacturer, but if thats true they certainly aren't passing those savings on 😅
It's probably really good - but so is sram butter so just use whatever you feel like or can easily get. From the little info I can get out the MSDS it just looks like calcium sulfonate grease (like slickoleum) with there own 11 herbs and spices so I don't see any reason it wouldn't be interchangeable (that would also be very stupid - All the seals are the same old elastomers)
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant...
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant have been good so far. I have been running a the mix, but no way to really objectively measure the difference.
Ok, I just realised they will probably be comparing it to the dynamic seal grease in rear shocks (not sram butter) which I never felt worked particularly well. I don't know why, but I don't think they actually ever recommended sram butter in their air shocks? So yeah it probably is much better than the Dynamic seal grease
Correct, from everything I've seen it's butter for forks and Reverbs and DSG for shocks. Or forks with some oil added to the grease for the air spring if you're going DSG over butter.
Just looking at the new Maxima SG920 grease that SRAM claim is a step up from the usual suspension grease and was keen to try it...
Just looking at the new Maxima SG920 grease that SRAM claim is a step up from the usual suspension grease and was keen to try it in my forks. Unfortunately the service info on the SRAM site says it isn't backwards compatible and can only be used on MY27 forks, they say it will cause mayhem with older forks/seals.
Can anyone confirm this or is it BS, has anyone tried the new grease?
The Maxima site doesn't say anything about issues with using it in older products.
From the manufacturer's website:For use on all forks, shocks, and reciprocating hydraulic systems where smooth action is critical. Safe for NBR, Fluoroelastomer, Urethane, and Silicone seal...
From the manufacturer's website:For use on all forks, shocks, and reciprocating hydraulic systems where smooth action is critical. Safe for NBR, Fluoroelastomer, Urethane, and Silicone seal materials.
Almost certainly BS,but I'm not brave enough to try it in my 2025 Zebs, going to stick with the SRAM butter.
I say send it! I've used, semifluid greases, a random o-ring assembly grease used in centrifugal separators, ISO 1260 oil and currently using Lubriplate low-temp grease.
Slickoleum/sram butter is one of those products I've always found so good and reliable that there is literally no reason to change from it - I...
Slickoleum/sram butter is one of those products I've always found so good and reliable that there is literally no reason to change from it - I was thinking they might have done it to reduce the cost and stick to one manufacturer, but if thats true they certainly aren't passing those savings on 😅
It's probably really good - but so is sram butter so just use whatever you feel like or can easily get. From the little info I can get out the MSDS it just looks like calcium sulfonate grease (like slickoleum) with there own 11 herbs and spices so I don't see any reason it wouldn't be interchangeable (that would also be very stupid - All the seals are the same old elastomers)
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant...
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant have been good so far. I have been running a the mix, but no way to really objectively measure the difference.
Ok, I just realised they will probably be comparing it to the dynamic seal grease in rear shocks (not sram butter) which I never felt worked...
Ok, I just realised they will probably be comparing it to the dynamic seal grease in rear shocks (not sram butter) which I never felt worked particularly well. I don't know why, but I don't think they actually ever recommended sram butter in their air shocks? So yeah it probably is much better than the Dynamic seal grease
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles it should stay in place longer, which might be better for a lot of owners who seldom do fork rebuilds. Not sure why dynamic seal grease was around when sram butter seemed better.
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles...
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles it should stay in place longer, which might be better for a lot of owners who seldom do fork rebuilds. Not sure why dynamic seal grease was around when sram butter seemed better.
SRAM Butter is relabeled Slick Honey, right?
A mechanic friend of mine (hi Zeb!) was told years ago by SRAM tech to use a heavier grease in shocks so they're more reliable and feel better over time. PM600 (aka military grease) was the recommendation back then, and it's still what I use when a heavier grease is appropriate.
I'm curious how this new stuff works in forks, particularly air seals. I'm sure Slick Honey/Butter feels better in the parking lot, but almost no one services their forks regularly so it's probably a good upgrade. I'm personally more interested in how my fork performs at hour 30 than hour 3 after a service.
I'm not riding it any more, but would be good to try in a Mezzer. Those felt like the best fork ever (by far) after an air piston lube, but needed more regular service to stay plush. Big downside to that fork, but maybe a heavier/longer lasting grease would be the ticket. There's a new one coming, so maybe a moot point, but a good thought experiment.
In all, going heavier should be the right call given how infrequently even my MTB addicted friends service their forks. The average rider literally never does service.
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles...
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles it should stay in place longer, which might be better for a lot of owners who seldom do fork rebuilds. Not sure why dynamic seal grease was around when sram butter seemed better.
SRAM Butter is relabeled Slick Honey, right?A mechanic friend of mine (hi Zeb!) was told years ago by SRAM tech to use a heavier grease in...
SRAM Butter is relabeled Slick Honey, right?
A mechanic friend of mine (hi Zeb!) was told years ago by SRAM tech to use a heavier grease in shocks so they're more reliable and feel better over time. PM600 (aka military grease) was the recommendation back then, and it's still what I use when a heavier grease is appropriate.
I'm curious how this new stuff works in forks, particularly air seals. I'm sure Slick Honey/Butter feels better in the parking lot, but almost no one services their forks regularly so it's probably a good upgrade. I'm personally more interested in how my fork performs at hour 30 than hour 3 after a service.
I'm not riding it any more, but would be good to try in a Mezzer. Those felt like the best fork ever (by far) after an air piston lube, but needed more regular service to stay plush. Big downside to that fork, but maybe a heavier/longer lasting grease would be the ticket. There's a new one coming, so maybe a moot point, but a good thought experiment.
In all, going heavier should be the right call given how infrequently even my MTB addicted friends service their forks. The average rider literally never does service.
New Mezzer is already out, it has a 50hr service interval for the air spring. Yes Sram Butter, Slick Honey, Slickoleum all the same.
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant...
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant have been good so far. I have been running a the mix, but no way to really objectively measure the difference.
Ok, I just realised they will probably be comparing it to the dynamic seal grease in rear shocks (not sram butter) which I never felt worked...
Ok, I just realised they will probably be comparing it to the dynamic seal grease in rear shocks (not sram butter) which I never felt worked particularly well. I don't know why, but I don't think they actually ever recommended sram butter in their air shocks? So yeah it probably is much better than the Dynamic seal grease
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles...
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles it should stay in place longer, which might be better for a lot of owners who seldom do fork rebuilds. Not sure why dynamic seal grease was around when sram butter seemed better.
Yeah it will be interesting to try but it would need to be pretty spectacular to replace slickoleum on my shop....In my experience the slickoleum/Sram butter already sticks around better than everything else I've used while also being super slippery and reasonably priced so I'm curious how much they think it can be improved on?
@JVP yeah PM600 was introduced about 20 years ago now (replaced Judy butter I think!!) but I found it too sticky/tacky for suspension...lasted pretty well but definitely added more drag. I couldn't find a proper data sheet so don't know for sure but it felt more like a lithium bearing grease than a calcium thickened one you would normally use in suspension. You reminded me I have about 1/4 tube of it still, just don't ever find much use for it! Even when I did it was normally greasing springs instead of seals
Anybody else here have time on a Cane Creek Tigon yet? I’ve been curious about it since it came out (when I had a Stumpjumper Evo), and just finally picked one up for the V3 Sentinel. Honestly the most notable thing so far is how extremely normal it feels, even with a decent amount (10PSI so far) in the ramp chamber.
I really like CC’s philosophy of “set sag, start with adjusters in the middle” because it feels less like you’re deviating from the suggested setup as you dial things in.
Anybody else here have time on a Cane Creek Tigon yet? I’ve been curious about it since it came out (when I had a Stumpjumper Evo)...
Anybody else here have time on a Cane Creek Tigon yet? I’ve been curious about it since it came out (when I had a Stumpjumper Evo), and just finally picked one up for the V3 Sentinel. Honestly the most notable thing so far is how extremely normal it feels, even with a decent amount (10PSI so far) in the ramp chamber.
I really like CC’s philosophy of “set sag, start with adjusters in the middle” because it feels less like you’re deviating from the suggested setup as you dial things in.
Been running Tigon on my Levo Gen 3 since Feb 2025 (bought BF 2024). It has been good, and even better since I moved to Cascade links with the same shock. I'm running 30psi, and maybe a slightly less stiff spring than I should. That keeps the shock deeper in travel - love it on Santa Cruz steeps - but still feeling bottomless. I definitely enjoy it better than the Kitsuma DB I also have (both coil and air) - I guess I never could configure those to match Tigon feeling.
Quality-wise, it's a typical CC suspension product, I guess. I had aeration issues on the second month or so of riding, warrantied it, and it's been fine for a year or so. I should say that CC the company has been flawless user-support-wise. All the interactions were easy, not trying to haggle out, they just fixed the issues for me, which is awesome. This March '26 the shock developed a clicking sound on compression, and a local shop fixed it during a rebuild (which was waaaay overdue). My notes say I had around 3500 miles on Tigon, and I estimate about 140 rides a year.
I am on a journey to do stupid things with my enduro bike (nomad 6) and put a dual crown fork on it. Yes, I know it's not approved/rated for this and I mostly don't care. There is obviously a chance I get talked out of this by the hive mind of the vital forums... but for now, I am considering it and starting to do the research.
Interestingly enough, not quite all of the information you would need to figure this out is readily available and if it is, it is sometimes not easy to find. Since this is taking some amount of research and I still can't find every bit of info I may need, I'm going to leave my research here in case it helps someone else. There are also a few dimensions that people here may be able to provide.
Step 1 - Can you even bolt the fork to the frame. Most DH bikes have rather short head tubes and that is to fit within the crown clamping min/max dimensions of the fork. That is head tube length and resulting stack height of the frame being compatible with the crown to crown dimensions of the fork.
Step 2 - What is the resulting max steering angle when the crowns bottom out to the frame. This is impacted by crown offset (vs overall offset) and inside clear crown to crown dimensions.
I'm going to mostly focus on the most common forks on the market in the current meta. Specifically focusing on 29r forks/dimensions
Fox 40 - My 21-26
Travel Configurations: 203mm (stock), 190mm
Stack Height Range
Drop Crowns (29): 106.8 - 145 (15mm drop crown)
Flat Crowns: 106.8 - 130
Offset
Available Offsets: 56, 52, 48
Available Crown Offsets: 22mm, 18mm, 14mm
Lower's/Fixed Offset: 34mm
Axle to Crown
@ Extension
203mm Travel = 602mm
190mm Travel = 599mm
@ Compression
399mm
Adjustment Range of A2C
10.5mm
Clear inside Stanchion to Stanchion Dimension (tightest dimension between crowns)
???
Other Fitment Notes / Mods
Rissee Racing Drop Crowns (22.8mm drop +8mm over stock drop crown)
I am on a journey to do stupid things with my enduro bike (nomad 6) and put a dual crown fork on it. Yes, I know...
I am on a journey to do stupid things with my enduro bike (nomad 6) and put a dual crown fork on it. Yes, I know it's not approved/rated for this and I mostly don't care. There is obviously a chance I get talked out of this by the hive mind of the vital forums... but for now, I am considering it and starting to do the research.
Interestingly enough, not quite all of the information you would need to figure this out is readily available and if it is, it is sometimes not easy to find. Since this is taking some amount of research and I still can't find every bit of info I may need, I'm going to leave my research here in case it helps someone else. There are also a few dimensions that people here may be able to provide.
Step 1 - Can you even bolt the fork to the frame. Most DH bikes have rather short head tubes and that is to fit within the crown clamping min/max dimensions of the fork. That is head tube length and resulting stack height of the frame being compatible with the crown to crown dimensions of the fork.
Step 2 - What is the resulting max steering angle when the crowns bottom out to the frame. This is impacted by crown offset (vs overall offset) and inside clear crown to crown dimensions.
I'm going to mostly focus on the most common forks on the market in the current meta. Specifically focusing on 29r forks/dimensions
Fox 40 - My 21-26
Travel Configurations: 203mm (stock), 190mm
Stack Height Range
Drop Crowns (29): 106.8 - 145 (15mm drop crown)
Flat Crowns: 106.8 - 130
Offset
Available Offsets: 56, 52, 48
Available Crown Offsets: 22mm, 18mm, 14mm
Lower's/Fixed Offset: 34mm
Axle to Crown
@ Extension
203mm Travel = 602mm
190mm Travel = 599mm
@ Compression
399mm
Adjustment Range of A2C
10.5mm
Clear inside Stanchion to Stanchion Dimension (tightest dimension between crowns)
???
Other Fitment Notes / Mods
Rissee Racing Drop Crowns (22.8mm drop +8mm over stock drop crown)
I am on a journey to do stupid things with my enduro bike (nomad 6) and put a dual crown fork on it. Yes, I know...
I am on a journey to do stupid things with my enduro bike (nomad 6) and put a dual crown fork on it. Yes, I know it's not approved/rated for this and I mostly don't care. There is obviously a chance I get talked out of this by the hive mind of the vital forums... but for now, I am considering it and starting to do the research.
Interestingly enough, not quite all of the information you would need to figure this out is readily available and if it is, it is sometimes not easy to find. Since this is taking some amount of research and I still can't find every bit of info I may need, I'm going to leave my research here in case it helps someone else. There are also a few dimensions that people here may be able to provide.
Step 1 - Can you even bolt the fork to the frame. Most DH bikes have rather short head tubes and that is to fit within the crown clamping min/max dimensions of the fork. That is head tube length and resulting stack height of the frame being compatible with the crown to crown dimensions of the fork.
Step 2 - What is the resulting max steering angle when the crowns bottom out to the frame. This is impacted by crown offset (vs overall offset) and inside clear crown to crown dimensions.
I'm going to mostly focus on the most common forks on the market in the current meta. Specifically focusing on 29r forks/dimensions
Fox 40 - My 21-26
Travel Configurations: 203mm (stock), 190mm
Stack Height Range
Drop Crowns (29): 106.8 - 145 (15mm drop crown)
Flat Crowns: 106.8 - 130
Offset
Available Offsets: 56, 52, 48
Available Crown Offsets: 22mm, 18mm, 14mm
Lower's/Fixed Offset: 34mm
Axle to Crown
@ Extension
203mm Travel = 602mm
190mm Travel = 599mm
@ Compression
399mm
Adjustment Range of A2C
10.5mm
Clear inside Stanchion to Stanchion Dimension (tightest dimension between crowns)
???
Other Fitment Notes / Mods
Rissee Racing Drop Crowns (22.8mm drop +8mm over stock drop crown)
Clear inside Stanchion to Stanchion Dimension (tightest dimension between crowns)
EDIT: I'M STILL COLLECTING INFORMATION ON THE DORADO AND THE DH38 AND WILL EDIT THIS POST WHEN I HAVE IT.
I’ve seen a couple of people on Instagram that have DC’d their Nomad.
Its seems the biggest risk to the bike is from crashing and not from regular riding forces (Santa Cruz has even stated this themselves). So you’ll probably be ok for riding the bike but the bike may not survive an unplanned rapid dismount.
Introducing the ZETA Damping Cartridge by SIMONS.LAB
Externally adjustable compression and rebound tunes, Hydraulic Bottom-Out packaged in a drop-in cartridge design: ZETA is now available for FOX 38, RockShox ZEB and Intend upside-down suspension forks.
Many riders know the situation: changes to the compression or rebound damping do not produce the desired effect on the trail, or an improvement in one area comes with noticeable compromises elsewhere. This is often caused by the predefined internal base tune found in conventional suspension forks. External adjusters can fine-tune this base tune, but they cannot fundamentally change it. If the tune does not match the spring rate, rider or desired ride feel, the available adjustment range can quickly reach its limits.
This is where the ZETA damping cartridge comes in. Its HSC and HSR Tune Adjusters change the base compression and rebound tunes externally - comparable to modifying the internal shim stack, but without having to open the cartridge. ZETA is the first product from SIMONS.LAB, a young suspension start-up based in Freiburg, Germany. The technical foundations of the damping concept were developed as part of Simon Reiberg’s Master’s thesis. Building on this research, more than two years of development, several prototypes, numerous dynamometer tests and extensive testing on the trails have resulted in the now production-ready ZETA damping cartridge.
ZETA IN DETAIL
The compression unit uses a non-preloaded tapered shim stack. This creates a predominantly linear to slightly digressive damping characteristic. As shaft speed increases, damping force builds consistently and predictably, without sudden changes in the force curve. The HSC Tune Adjuster provides seven different base tunes. This allows the overall level of compression damping to be matched to rider strength, personal comfort preferences and trail characteristics. A separate Low-Speed Compression adjuster with 23 clicks then provides the fine adjustment.
Seven base tunes are also available on the rebound side. The HSR Tune Adjuster allows the damping to be matched to the spring rate, which is influenced by factors including rider and bike weight as well as the chosen spring setup. At the same time, it changes the overall character of the fork: depending on personal preference, the fork can be set up to feel calmer and more planted or faster and more lively. The Low-Speed Rebound adjuster offers 20 clicks for fine-tuning within the selected base tune.
A position-sensitive Hydraulic Bottom-Out system becomes active during the final 25 millimeters of travel. It increases damping force shortly before the end of the stroke, providing additional control during deep compressions and hard landings before the fork reaches a mechanical bottom-out. This allows the regular compression tune to remain more supple throughout the rest of the travel while providing additional reserves near the end of the stroke. Bottom-out resistance therefore does not have to be generated solely through a highly progressive air spring setup.
The hydraulic foundation of the cartridge is a dual-tube architecture. Displaced oil is directed through separate compression and rebound circuits and partially returned through the space between the inner and outer tubes. A spring-loaded IFP compensates for the oil volume displaced by the damper shaft and keeps the closed cartridge pressurized. This layout makes it possible to combine the two Tune Adjusters, the conventional low-speed adjusters and the Hydraulic Bottom-Out system within a single cartridge.
Despite the wide adjustment range and number of available settings, riders do not have to start from scratch. For every order, SIMONS.LAB provides a recommended starting setup based on rider and bike weight, fork model, travel, intended use and personal preferences. From this baseline, the setup can be adjusted towards greater comfort, more support or a calmer or more lively ride feel.
“Not every rider is looking for the same ride feel. Ultimately, ZETA is not intended to dictate how a fork should feel,” says Simon Reiberg. “The cartridge provides the adjustment range needed to find what actually works for the individual rider and their riding style.”
FACTS AND FIGURES
Adjustability
Low-Speed Compression: 23 clicks
High-Speed Compression Tune Adjuster: 7 tunes
Low-Speed Rebound: 20 clicks
High-Speed Rebound Tune Adjuster: 7 tunes
Features and Architecture
Hydraulic Bottom-Out system during the final 25 mm of travel
Dual-tube architecture
Closed cartridge with a spring-loaded IFP (Internal Floating Piston)
Weight: from 390 g
Compatibility
FOX 38 (model years 2021–2026)
RockShox ZEB (model years 2021–2027)
Intend upside-down forks with 35 mm stanchions (excl. Samurai models)
Further applications are planned.
Installation
Depending on the fork platform, the ZETA damping cartridge can be installed by the customer. Installation instructions are available online. Alternatively, SIMONS.LAB offers a Factory Installation service for customers within the European Union. The cartridge is installed as part of a lower-leg service, and the complete fork is then returned ready to install on the bike.
Pricing and Availability
The ZETA damping cartridge is now available directly through SIMONS.LAB. Prices start at €486,55 excluding VAT (€579 including German VAT).
Can someone smarter than me explain how an HSC Tune Adjuster is different from an HSC adjuster?
Think of HSC Tune Adjuster as adjusting the "shape" of the compression on a dyno chart versus a HSC adjuster that sets "where" that chart begins (the lower threshold of when that circuit is active)
For instance, you can have a HSC tune that provides a ton of HSC at higher shaft speeds but opens up early, or a HSC tune that produces a very uniform amount of HSC no matter what the shaft speed does.
The PUSH "speed service" is simply a lower (or upper😀) leg service, it has nothing to do with the damper.
While it's nice to be able to change the bath oil without dropping the legs, I clean the entire leg out when doing a lower service anyway. Injecting clean oil into a dirty fork seems counterintuitive. If you ride in wet conditions it can get nasty in there pretty quickly.
The best feature of the PUSH 9.1 speed service oil ports is that you can assemble the fork "dry" and then add bath lube after it's fully together.
Don't you complete rebuild on any other fork dry and add bath oil at the end?
I was told the 920 has better thermal stability and lifespan, but with slightly higher friction at ambient temp. From what I can tell, Maxima lubricant have been good so far. I have been running a the mix, but no way to really objectively measure the difference.
Ok, I just realised they will probably be comparing it to the dynamic seal grease in rear shocks (not sram butter) which I never felt worked particularly well. I don't know why, but I don't think they actually ever recommended sram butter in their air shocks? So yeah it probably is much better than the Dynamic seal grease
Correct, from everything I've seen it's butter for forks and Reverbs and DSG for shocks. Or forks with some oil added to the grease for the air spring if you're going DSG over butter.
I say send it! I've used, semifluid greases, a random o-ring assembly grease used in centrifugal separators, ISO 1260 oil and currently using Lubriplate low-temp grease.
Haven't exploded yet.
Sram is using 920 as direct replacement for Sram Butter. I ran a quick check, it's supposed to have better surface tenacity. So over long cycles it should stay in place longer, which might be better for a lot of owners who seldom do fork rebuilds. Not sure why dynamic seal grease was around when sram butter seemed better.
SRAM Butter is relabeled Slick Honey, right?
A mechanic friend of mine (hi Zeb!) was told years ago by SRAM tech to use a heavier grease in shocks so they're more reliable and feel better over time. PM600 (aka military grease) was the recommendation back then, and it's still what I use when a heavier grease is appropriate.
I'm curious how this new stuff works in forks, particularly air seals. I'm sure Slick Honey/Butter feels better in the parking lot, but almost no one services their forks regularly so it's probably a good upgrade. I'm personally more interested in how my fork performs at hour 30 than hour 3 after a service.
I'm not riding it any more, but would be good to try in a Mezzer. Those felt like the best fork ever (by far) after an air piston lube, but needed more regular service to stay plush. Big downside to that fork, but maybe a heavier/longer lasting grease would be the ticket. There's a new one coming, so maybe a moot point, but a good thought experiment.
In all, going heavier should be the right call given how infrequently even my MTB addicted friends service their forks. The average rider literally never does service.
New Mezzer is already out, it has a 50hr service interval for the air spring. Yes Sram Butter, Slick Honey, Slickoleum all the same.
Yeah it will be interesting to try but it would need to be pretty spectacular to replace slickoleum on my shop....In my experience the slickoleum/Sram butter already sticks around better than everything else I've used while also being super slippery and reasonably priced so I'm curious how much they think it can be improved on?
@JVP yeah PM600 was introduced about 20 years ago now (replaced Judy butter I think!!) but I found it too sticky/tacky for suspension...lasted pretty well but definitely added more drag. I couldn't find a proper data sheet so don't know for sure but it felt more like a lithium bearing grease than a calcium thickened one you would normally use in suspension. You reminded me I have about 1/4 tube of it still, just don't ever find much use for it! Even when I did it was normally greasing springs instead of seals
Anybody else here have time on a Cane Creek Tigon yet? I’ve been curious about it since it came out (when I had a Stumpjumper Evo), and just finally picked one up for the V3 Sentinel. Honestly the most notable thing so far is how extremely normal it feels, even with a decent amount (10PSI so far) in the ramp chamber.
I really like CC’s philosophy of “set sag, start with adjusters in the middle” because it feels less like you’re deviating from the suggested setup as you dial things in.
Been running Tigon on my Levo Gen 3 since Feb 2025 (bought BF 2024). It has been good, and even better since I moved to Cascade links with the same shock. I'm running 30psi, and maybe a slightly less stiff spring than I should. That keeps the shock deeper in travel - love it on Santa Cruz steeps - but still feeling bottomless. I definitely enjoy it better than the Kitsuma DB I also have (both coil and air) - I guess I never could configure those to match Tigon feeling.
Quality-wise, it's a typical CC suspension product, I guess. I had aeration issues on the second month or so of riding, warrantied it, and it's been fine for a year or so. I should say that CC the company has been flawless user-support-wise. All the interactions were easy, not trying to haggle out, they just fixed the issues for me, which is awesome. This March '26 the shock developed a clicking sound on compression, and a local shop fixed it during a rebuild (which was waaaay overdue). My notes say I had around 3500 miles on Tigon, and I estimate about 140 rides a year.
Little review we just published of the Öhlins TTX1Air m.2 for all you suspension nerds: https://www.vitalmtb.com/product/guide/rear-shocks/ohlins/ttx1air-m-2-rear-shock-mountain-bike-68426#product-reviews-820721
Hey guys, anyone here runs cc kitsuma shock?if so, could you tell me diameter of the piggyback reservoir? And maybe approx length of it?
I am on a journey to do stupid things with my enduro bike (nomad 6) and put a dual crown fork on it. Yes, I know it's not approved/rated for this and I mostly don't care. There is obviously a chance I get talked out of this by the hive mind of the vital forums... but for now, I am considering it and starting to do the research.
Interestingly enough, not quite all of the information you would need to figure this out is readily available and if it is, it is sometimes not easy to find. Since this is taking some amount of research and I still can't find every bit of info I may need, I'm going to leave my research here in case it helps someone else. There are also a few dimensions that people here may be able to provide.
I'm going to mostly focus on the most common forks on the market in the current meta. Specifically focusing on 29r forks/dimensions
EDIT: I'M STILL COLLECTING INFORMATION ON THE DORADO AND THE DH38 AND WILL EDIT THIS POST WHEN I HAVE IT.
Godspeed young man
I’ve seen a couple of people on Instagram that have DC’d their Nomad.
Its seems the biggest risk to the bike is from crashing and not from regular riding forces (Santa Cruz has even stated this themselves). So you’ll probably be ok for riding the bike but the bike may not survive an unplanned rapid dismount.
Introducing the ZETA Damping Cartridge by SIMONS.LAB
Externally adjustable compression and rebound tunes, Hydraulic Bottom-Out packaged in a drop-in cartridge design: ZETA is now available for FOX 38, RockShox ZEB and Intend upside-down suspension forks.
Many riders know the situation: changes to the compression or rebound damping do not produce the desired effect on the trail, or an improvement in one area comes with noticeable compromises elsewhere. This is often caused by the predefined internal base tune found in conventional suspension forks. External adjusters can fine-tune this base tune, but they cannot fundamentally change it. If the tune does not match the spring rate, rider or desired ride feel, the available adjustment range can quickly reach its limits.
This is where the ZETA damping cartridge comes in. Its HSC and HSR Tune Adjusters change the base compression and rebound tunes externally - comparable to modifying the internal shim stack, but without having to open the cartridge. ZETA is the first product from SIMONS.LAB, a young suspension start-up based in Freiburg, Germany. The technical foundations of the damping concept were developed as part of Simon Reiberg’s Master’s thesis. Building on this research, more than two years of development, several prototypes, numerous dynamometer tests and extensive testing on the trails have resulted in the now production-ready ZETA damping cartridge.
ZETA IN DETAIL
The compression unit uses a non-preloaded tapered shim stack. This creates a predominantly linear to slightly digressive damping characteristic. As shaft speed increases, damping force builds consistently and predictably, without sudden changes in the force curve. The HSC Tune Adjuster provides seven different base tunes. This allows the overall level of compression damping to be matched to rider strength, personal comfort preferences and trail characteristics. A separate Low-Speed Compression adjuster with 23 clicks then provides the fine adjustment.
Seven base tunes are also available on the rebound side. The HSR Tune Adjuster allows the damping to be matched to the spring rate, which is influenced by factors including rider and bike weight as well as the chosen spring setup. At the same time, it changes the overall character of the fork: depending on personal preference, the fork can be set up to feel calmer and more planted or faster and more lively. The Low-Speed Rebound adjuster offers 20 clicks for fine-tuning within the selected base tune.
A position-sensitive Hydraulic Bottom-Out system becomes active during the final 25 millimeters of travel. It increases damping force shortly before the end of the stroke, providing additional control during deep compressions and hard landings before the fork reaches a mechanical bottom-out. This allows the regular compression tune to remain more supple throughout the rest of the travel while providing additional reserves near the end of the stroke. Bottom-out resistance therefore does not have to be generated solely through a highly progressive air spring setup.
The hydraulic foundation of the cartridge is a dual-tube architecture. Displaced oil is directed through separate compression and rebound circuits and partially returned through the space between the inner and outer tubes. A spring-loaded IFP compensates for the oil volume displaced by the damper shaft and keeps the closed cartridge pressurized. This layout makes it possible to combine the two Tune Adjusters, the conventional low-speed adjusters and the Hydraulic Bottom-Out system within a single cartridge.
Despite the wide adjustment range and number of available settings, riders do not have to start from scratch. For every order, SIMONS.LAB provides a recommended starting setup based on rider and bike weight, fork model, travel, intended use and personal preferences. From this baseline, the setup can be adjusted towards greater comfort, more support or a calmer or more lively ride feel.
“Not every rider is looking for the same ride feel. Ultimately, ZETA is not intended to dictate how a fork should feel,” says Simon Reiberg. “The cartridge provides the adjustment range needed to find what actually works for the individual rider and their riding style.”
FACTS AND FIGURES
Adjustability
Features and Architecture
Compatibility
Installation
Depending on the fork platform, the ZETA damping cartridge can be installed by the customer. Installation instructions are available online. Alternatively, SIMONS.LAB offers a Factory Installation service for customers within the European Union. The cartridge is installed as part of a lower-leg service, and the complete fork is then returned ready to install on the bike.
Pricing and Availability
The ZETA damping cartridge is now available directly through SIMONS.LAB. Prices start at €486,55 excluding VAT (€579 including German VAT).
Can someone smarter than me explain how an HSC Tune Adjuster is different from an HSC adjuster?
Think of HSC Tune Adjuster as adjusting the "shape" of the compression on a dyno chart versus a HSC adjuster that sets "where" that chart begins (the lower threshold of when that circuit is active)
For instance, you can have a HSC tune that provides a ton of HSC at higher shaft speeds but opens up early, or a HSC tune that produces a very uniform amount of HSC no matter what the shaft speed does.
I wonder if it's adjusting the clamp shim diameter similar to the Vorsprung Telum?
Other HSC adjusters, like Rockshox or Manitou, adjust preload on a spring that either contacts the edge of the face shim or the top of the stack
Minor correction but Rockshox external HSC adjuster changes the orifice size which creates a quadratic response.
Depends on which damper - on Charger 2.1, that's not the case, it just adds preload to a spring, orifice doesn't change. LSC is orifice via a needle.
Post a reply to: Suspension Component Technology/Functionality Discussion