# Fox 40 RC2 or Boxxer WC? (not a newb thread)



## cummings (May 21, 2005)

Hey, you probably look at the title and figure "Damn, another newb asking about a fork he'll never buy..." Well, I've took advice from here in the past on my frame choice, just recently asked about brakes, and I just bought them. So the help is appreciated. 
I've found 2 forks. a 2007 Fox 40 RC2, and a 2007 Boxxer world cup. Both are barely used, both pretty much scratchless, and look in the same condition. And they are the same price. Im looking for a fork for my RMX to race with. But one thing I look for as a big factor is "reliable with less maintenance". I want adjustable (which Im sure both forks are very adjustable.) and a plush ride. I don't want the fork to have problems every time i get to the bottom of the hill, or have oil leaking out of it. So basically I'd rather take a fork that is works great and is reliable and less problematic, than a fork that might work a bit better on the race run, but needs tuning and fixing all the time. 

So which fork would be best for me? 

Thanks


----------



## Rb (Feb 28, 2007)

Flip a coin.


----------



## bigmike00 (Sep 6, 2007)

Both are great but all my experience is with the 40. Great adjustability for everything, high speed, low speed, pre-load and rebound. springs and seals are super easy to change and maintain. Im 225 with gear and been riding them 2 mo. every weekend no problems. The only disadvantages I can think of is, if your my weight and need to use a stiffer spring(yellow) then your adding weight to the fork. Fox don't make a yellow spring in Titanium. The weight diff. is very noticeable. With the RS you get direct mount stem that you don't have with the 40(need to use a stem) and if you racing and biff you can lose time straightening your bars or just trying to get them some-what close to straight. More peps will chime in and give you more input but thats my take on the 40 vs WC thread. :thumbsup:


----------



## all-yeti! (Aug 21, 2007)

I would say go with the 40 because Fox is reliable, works great and looks cool. Fox is also at most major races, (I haven't seen RS at any) so they can help you if you need it...


----------



## timotious (Aug 9, 2006)

weaker lowers vs higher maintenance 

go 40's




no boxxers.

think i'd actually take the 40's


----------



## Wizard4620383 (May 12, 2007)

i always been a sold between Marzo/RockShox but you know what this year ill be riding a Fox 40 Rc2 2008, and let me tell you that you should buy one ! it is a nice fork, it is stiff but at the same time it react to small bump extraordinary well ... i was suppose to go with a 888 ATA wc first but i had a bargain on a 40 rc2...


----------



## boogenman (Sep 22, 2006)

Boxxer
You can rebuild the entire thing yourself, direct mount stem, the performance is going to be about the same as the fox. It does not have beer can lowers like the fox.


----------



## ich_dh (Jan 19, 2007)

boxxers take alot of maintenance... after reading your post i think the 40s are definitely a better fork for what your looking for


----------



## Pistol2Ne (Apr 2, 2006)

well here is a vote for the wc instead of the 40 My best riding buddy had one also had a totem and also had a 888 rc2 and he is on his wc still the 40 is a great fork don't get me wrong but as far as racing and feel goes, i don't think its a question I also had a 40 on my old bike granted it was an r still I switched to a boxxer team which is the old world cup and could not be happier.... WC all the way and its about a pound lighter that is unless you have ti springs in your 40


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

Ironic that I posted the exact same thread. (FOX 40RC2 vs Boxxer wc), and not too much came out of it....sucks!


I already had a DH 40 at the time, and was wondering why so many people run boxxers until one day, I had the unique privalege one find day of testing both of them down one of my favorite runs a couple times each on the same model of bike. 

Other than weight, .85 lbs, the boxxer has nothing on the 40. As far as maintenence goes, the DH 40 takes 40cc/ml of 7wt fork oil every now and then. You have to check out the condition of the seals every other ride or two, and you don't have to service the RC2 cartridge for the better part of 2 years! Compared to the boxxer, needing to be serviced every 24-26 hours of riding time.

And as far as stiffness for the boxxer, unless you weigh 130lbs max, you will feel flex in that fork when you hit rugged $#!T. 

Are FOX's lowers the strongest on the market? NO... but neither are the boxxers. 

In that particular thread, the one thing I did find out to be useful, was that a vast number of riders use the Boxxer because SRAM is such a big company and sponsors so many riders, that of course they are going to use their stuff. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

On a further note: Go-ride.com, the website that sponsors the DH/FR forum, sells a direct mount stem, as well as a duel rated spring kit for the 40.

GEE??? Who else uses duel and triple rated springs? Moto cross bikes, ATV's. you name it... I've been wondering why, as well as waiting for someone, to put out a duel or triple rated spring for a while now. I think its pimp that fox holds that option.


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

Gravity Assist said:


> Ironic that I posted the exact same thread. (FOX 40RC2 vs Boxxer wc), and not too much came out of it....sucks!
> 
> I already had a DH 40 at the time, and was wondering why so many people run boxxers until one day, I had the unique privalege one find day of testing both of them down one of my favorite runs a couple times each on the same model of bike.
> 
> ...


I don't feel like arguing w/ you, but you just spewed out a lot of mis-information.

Fox may have slightly better small bump than a WC, but both overall provide great damping.
Both need to be serviced more than a Marzocchi. Boxxer's are said to be completely user serviceable while Fox's carts aren't. Both are easy forks to work on. 
Both forks aren't as durable are a Marzocchi, but are not fragile in any way. Fox's lowers are thin and puncture easy(ier) though. 
Both are great forks, and you really gotta weigh out the one big difference. Arguably better small bump compliance to a little over half a pound. 
I picked the half pound, I'm happy w/ my choice.


----------



## Wizard4620383 (May 12, 2007)

One thing thought .. that i personnaly hate when people put it as a argument over the Boxxer WC .. it is not true that the Fork Flex in roug stuff .. i race that fork 2 season in a row it is stiff and it won't flex .. probably cause some people use too much Stanchions? i always set mine at 8.5" and they never flex .. but i am recommanding the 40 .. i dont have a BIG argument but i just feel to try a new fork...


----------



## cummings (May 21, 2005)

Thanks for all the input, keep it coming. 
I found out a little more about the two forks that Im looking at.
-boxxer doesn't come with integrated stem. don't know why. 
-40 has stock springs, came off a 07 giant glory.

1)Since the boxxer is air, I can adjust it for any rider weight, correct?
2)And does the stock 40 springs suit a 145lbs- 150lbs rider? If not, can I get replacements, and about how much do they cost? Need to figure out my total costs. 

Thanks alot, great help here.


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

cummings said:


> Thanks for all the input, keep it coming.
> I found out a little more about the two forks that Im looking at.
> -boxxer doesn't come with integrated stem. don't know why.
> -40 has stock springs, came off a 07 giant glory.
> ...


Yes with the Boxxer WC you can infinitely adjust the SoloAir cartridge for your weight riding style etc. all you need is a handy-dandy shock pump.

The stocks springs in the 40 may be a tad firm for your weight, however if you are a fast rider who prefers a stiffer overall fork feel, then they should be just about perfect. I may be wrong on this, but steel springs for the 40 run about 40-50 bucks, and i'm not sure how much the Ti counterparts go for. I know I have a few sitting around I can check for you.

I've extensively rode both forks, and really like both. It's a this-or-that situation with this comparison. The Boxxer is lighter, has less small bump sensitivity, yet has high quality damping. The 40 is a hair heavier, is stiffer, yet has very thin lowers. I've seen many punctured lowers. Maintenance is about the same on both. Both are very easy to work on, however I give the nod to the Boxxer on complete serviceability. Fox still prefers that you send in the fork to have them bleed the cartridge, whilst any joe-schmo can completely overhaul his or her Boxxer.

Hope that all helped

Tough decision in the end, but I made the choice for a Boxxer WC next season.


----------



## free_rideman (Feb 25, 2006)

First of all check if that Fox is strictly an OEM, or a normal aftermarket used as OEM. Many companys use different parts in OEM forks and that is not something to argue about, so check it out. Even if specs match up, make sure internals and such are the same. Sometimes internals can be of a cheaper quality!

Being a mechanic and in the industry for a while you start to appreciate when a company lets the user work on its product. There is something to be said in this situation. Fox has always been the bling product that is very highly engineered. Working on them is not the best experience.

On the other hand, Sram has manuals that guide you step by step through the whole procedure. So if you are not a noob as you said, then I am sure you would appreciate this. I hate when someone else works on my stuff no matter how good they are.

In the end of the day this is really my only argument. Rock shox has improved so much over the last couple years.


----------



## Djponee (Dec 20, 2006)

boxxers, they are sexy. ugh, fox is too. get both.


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

I really like the Boxxer for the sheer fact that you can infinitely adjust the spring and you really aren't giving away much performance. Ti springs cost bank and messing around trying to find the right one takes time and alot of money. With the Boxxer you get stronger lowers and the ability to hit your spring rate perfectly for nothing more than a little bit of your time. I haven't ridden either so I'm purely bench racing here but the boxxer is on my short list when I can scratch up enough money for a full on DH bike.


----------



## Nut! (Nov 2, 2007)

Yeah, but this Boxxer doesnt have springs: it has an air cartridge. What you say is true, though: The boxxer is easier to adjust.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

i heard its the new style to have forks on your bike, so you should get both and duct tape them to your bike


----------



## splatman (Jan 30, 2007)

It's CUMMINS, not cummings. Sheesh.


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

neewby!!!!


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

splatman said:


> It's CUMMINS, not cummings. Sheesh.


maybe his last name is cummings or something... 

I know a person who's name is that.


----------



## splatman (Jan 30, 2007)

It's called a joke? It was supposed to be funny. :lol:


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

GnaR9 said:


> HAB dosn''t feel like arguing w/ me, but I just spewed out a lot of mis-information.


The 40 cartridge is user sevicable.


----------



## mothahucker (Feb 6, 2006)

splatman said:


> It's called a joke? It was supposed to be funny. :lol:


yeah, well, you're stupid. 

Back to the original topic, between those two forks, I would rather have a 40. However, the two are so close for me that I might have to flip a coin as well.

I would rather have the compression adjustments on the 40 than the ones on the boxxer. It's hard to tune motion control to that perfect sweet spot with the number of clicks offered. And I'll never understand what the hell that gate knob does. I had a boxxer team with motion control, and could never feel a difference with that adjustment. plus, looking down at such a massive fork under your chin is pretty confidence inspiring, compared to the more spindly-looking boxxer....


----------



## Nut! (Nov 2, 2007)

lol, yeah, you can run a couple forks


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

Hardtails Are Better said:


> The 40 cartridge is user sevicable.


Rephrase, the 40 uses a sealed cart, making it not as user friendly as the boxxers. Plus, doesn't Fox void the warranty if you open the cart? If so, it doesn't sound user serviceable, I mean "user sevicable," to me.


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

GnaR9 said:


> Rephrase, the 40 uses a sealed cart, making it not as user friendly as the boxxers. Plus, doesn't Fox void the warranty if you open the cart? If so, it doesn't sound user serviceable, I mean "user sevicable," to me.


Yes, the cartridge is sealed, but you can pop it open and change the oil. I guess it's a little harder than, say, a Boxxer, but it's totally doable. I actually havn't done a 40, but I have messed with a 36, and they're essentially the same cartridge design. Opening the cartridge does not void the warranty. Fox even has directions (damn good ones, too) on their website.


----------



## Rover Nick (Jul 13, 2006)

I ride in a very rocky area, and I have crashed alot in said rocks. I have never had a problem with the lowers of a 40, I'll admit they are pretty scratched up though. Heck, I've punctured myself way before I've puncters a 40


----------



## cummings (May 21, 2005)

Is there alot of cases of puntured lowers for 40's?

Im leaning towards the 40 abit. I like that its stiff, small bump sensitivity, and looks mean. The only thing I'm worried about is the spring weight. Its the stock ti spring, and I dont want it to be too stiff for me at around 145lbs. Does anyone have expierince with this? I dont want to have to get heavier steel springs, or expensive new ti springs.

About the boxxer, I know most people say the 40 has it beat in small bump sensitivity, which is understandable. But is it by much? Is the boxxer still plush?


----------



## cummings (May 21, 2005)

anyone?


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

The boxxer is very plush once broken in... 

The 40 is a better all around fork, as it can easily be a racer style 'hop' fork but can also plow it's way through a lot of stuff. 

The boxxer on the other hand, is more suited to the group who pump everything and 'hop' if you will. The travel is uniquely linear, and so most people have them set up stiff to compensate for bottoming, so they get a relatively harsh initial stroke, hence they say it has poor small bump absorption.


----------



## splatman (Jan 30, 2007)

mothahucker said:


> yeah, well, you're stupid.


Right back at ya sister. rft: haha


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

cummings said:


> anyone?


The fact that nobody has chimed in on punctured 40 lowers should tell you somthing. I've heard of one or two people denting them slightly, but never enough to actually matter.


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

Hardtails Are Better said:


> The fact that nobody has chimed in on punctured 40 lowers should tell you somthing. I've heard of one or two people denting them slightly, but never enough to actually matter.


Ok.. well i'll chime in. i've replaced two in the past season. buddy put a nice hole in his, replaced it. put another hole in it, epoxied that one so he could ride it until his new 888 showed up 

it happens, but not as frequently as everybody makes it out to be. The 40 is a sweet fork, no doubt, but you can't have everything in one fork.


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

chooofoojoo said:


> Ok.. well i'll chime in. i've replaced two in the past season. buddy put a nice hole in his, replaced it. put another hole in it, epoxied that one so he could ride it until his new 888 showed up
> 
> it happens, but not as frequently as everybody makes it out to be. The 40 is a sweet fork, no doubt, but you can't have everything in one fork.


OK. That's the first time I'd ever heard of anyone actually poking a hole in one, but I can believe that it could happen. The lowers are thin. If you want big stanchions and light weight, that material has to come out of somewhere.


----------



## Rover Nick (Jul 13, 2006)

I guess one question I think about when hearing about punctured lowers, is would it have punctured a boxxer, or a travis, or an 888. Wheater it be on a 40 or an 888, it takes a relativley good hit on a pretty sharp rock to puncture it.


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

chooofoojoo said:


> The boxxer on the other hand, is more suited to the group who pump everything and 'hop' if you will. The travel is uniquely linear, and so most people have them set up stiff to compensate for bottoming, so they get a relatively harsh initial stroke, hence they say it has poor small bump absorption.


There is a quick fix for that. You glue a pre-load spacer under the top cap on the air side. Makes the fork ramp up more so you can run it softer. Making the difference in small bump between the 40 and the WC near the same. 
IMO, the down fall of the 40 is the Ti springs. They are the only real weight savings in that fork, but only work for a specific range of people. Above of below that range you have two options; 1, buy the ~$250 appropriate Ti spring set. Or 2, throw the appropriate steel spring set included from Fox and loose the forks light weight aspect (might as well just get a 888 because that's how much it's gonna weigh). 
That's what kept me off a 40. I know if I buy one, I'm going to have to blow another $250 on after market Ti to get the thing *somewhere in the ball park* of where it needs to be. W/ a WC, the weight saving element, the air-spring, can be dialed *EXACTLY* to the rider. + 1 for Boxxer.


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

GnaR9 said:


> There is a quick fix for that. You glue a pre-load spacer under the top cap on the air side. Makes the fork ramp up more so you can run it softer. Making the difference in small bump between the 40 and the WC near the same.
> IMO, the down fall of the 40 is the Ti springs. They are the only real weight savings in that fork, but only work for a specific range of people. Above of below that range you have two options; 1, buy the ~$250 appropriate Ti spring set. Or 2, throw the appropriate steel spring set included from Fox and loose the forks light weight aspect (might as well just get a 888 because that's how much it's gonna weigh).
> That's what kept me off a 40. I know if I buy one, I'm going to have to blow another $250 on after market Ti to get the thing *somewhere in the ball park* of where it needs to be. W/ a WC, the weight saving element, the air-spring, can be dialed *EXACTLY* to the rider. + 1 for Boxxer.


True. Here's how I'd like to see Fox do it: rather than including a medium weight Ti spring, ship the fork with all three weight steel springs, and include a coupon you can mail in to get whichever weight you want in ti. It'd be a bit more work for them, and they'd need to up the price $40-50 to cover the extra steel spring and the shipping for the ti one, but that option would be WAY better for the consumer.


----------



## cummings (May 21, 2005)

Only one responce on my one question. IS the stock ti spring in the 40 too firm for me? Im 145lbs. Right now I have a 2005 888VF and the stock spring in that isnt a bad weight for me, could maybe be a bit firmer, but not by much if that helps. If the 40 is gonna feel shitty for me right off the bat, I'm not going to get it as I dont want to drop the money on heavier ti spring, or add weight with replacement steel spring.


----------



## cummings (May 21, 2005)

bump


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

cummings said:


> Only one responce on my one question. IS the stock ti spring in the 40 too firm for me? Im 145lbs. Right now I have a 2005 888VF and the stock spring in that isnt a bad weight for me, could maybe be a bit firmer, but not by much if that helps. If the 40 is gonna feel shitty for me right off the bat, I'm not going to get it as I dont want to drop the money on heavier ti spring, or add weight with replacement steel spring.


You might be on the lighter side of the stock range but I don't really know, couldn't find the range online but I didn't look all that hard. My buddies 160ish and rides stock springs and is fine. Another friend is maybe 130ish and she rides the stock springs as far as I know. I've never heard her complain. 
I think you'll be fine, but I'm no authority on 40s.


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

all-yeti! said:


> I would say go with the 40 because Fox is reliable, works great and looks cool. Fox is also at most major races, (I haven't seen RS at any) so they can help you if you need it...


 What kind of races have you been going to lately??? Rock Shox A.K.A. Sram, is HUGE, and sponsors tons of riders which, by the way, their bikes are pretty much spec'd with a ton of sram components via drive train, brakes, and that includes ROCK SHOX, Boxxer WC, and all the fixings..

The DH 40 and the Boxxer are comparable. they both have strengths and weaknesses. I do, however, believe that the 40 does out perform the boxxer by a noticable margin.


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

GnaR9 said:


> I don't feel like arguing w/ you, but you just spewed out a lot of mis-information.
> 
> Fox may have slightly better small bump than a WC, but both overall provide great damping.
> Both need to be serviced more than a Marzocchi. Boxxer's are said to be completely user serviceable while Fox's carts aren't. Both are easy forks to work on.
> ...


 SICK! :eekster: mis info??? :skep: Whatever man. My info was pretty lugit. The boxxer takes a ton more oil in the dampener, some 150 cc's in some models... and even still more in the lowers that the 40 despite thows tooth pick stantions. I have an old 2002 Junior T thats stiffer than the WC.

I'm not quite sure as to why you brought up Marzocchi. Everyone knows what Marzocchi is capable of. His thread is about The WC vs 40, and that is what I intended to help him with. I'm so very sorry it wasn't up to par with your standards... perhaps I should try a little harder???


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

Djponee said:


> boxxers, they are sexy. ugh, fox is too. get both.


 I like the way you think...


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

Dude, usually I'm not a grammer nazi but did you really spell legit with a u?


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

Gravity Assist said:


> Other than weight, .85 lbs, the boxxer has nothing on the 40.


Wrong... As I pointed out earlier in this thread. The one thing, IMO, the 40 has on the WC is small bump. But I pointed out there is an easy mod to run the WC plusher while still not bottoming constantly. Lack of stiffness in the WC is BS in my personal opinion. I'm 240 on a WC and don't notice any flex, but that's just me and not the majority. So other than weight, what the WC has on a 40 is a completely custom tuneable spring, unlike the Fox's which the Ti only works for a specific range of people. When 40's loose the Ti for those out of that specific range, they weigh as much as most other dual crowns on the market (7+). That is a big one to me, more adjustability while still maintaining a light weight package without the need to pay up the ass for after market springs. There are other small advantages to runner a "smaller" fork too. Clearance issues, RS doesn't need to make thin lowers to keep the weight down, etc... 


Gravity Assist said:


> As far as maintenence goes, the DH 40 takes 40cc/ml of 7wt fork oil every now and then.





Gravity Assist said:


> The boxxer takes a ton more oil in the *dampener*, some 150 cc's in some models...


What does oil volume have to do w/ maintenance? And what is a "dampener," some kind of moist towelette? If anything, a smaller volume of oil will have a higher concentration of contaminants faster than a larger volume. Fox's sealed cart may moot that point though... Another thing to think about is, what's considered the best rear shock on the market? CCDB? And what's CC's explanation of why the twin tube design is better? "More oil running through the damper." That's why people say Marzocchi's are so plush, open bath = more oil... just a thought.


Gravity Assist said:


> you don't have to service the RC2 cartridge for the better part of 2 years!


What are you doing running 40cc's of 2 year old oil through your cartridge? :nono: :nono: :nono: 


Gravity Assist said:


> Compared to the boxxer, needing to be serviced every 24-26 hours of riding time.


Total BS! I'll assume this was hearsay on your part and wont even argue the point. 


Gravity Assist said:


> And as far as stiffness for the boxxer, unless you weigh 130lbs max, you will feel flex in that fork when you hit rugged $#!T.


Weird... because I'm two hundred and forty pounds and I don't feel flex in my WC when I "hit the rugged $#!T." BUT... I've only heard online reports of flex in the WC, although it was a lot. No one I know that owns one including myself has ever mentioned it... so I dunno.


Gravity Assist said:


> I'm not quite sure as to why you brought up Marzocchi. *Everyone knows what Marzocchi is capable of.* His thread is about The WC vs 40, and that is what I intended to help him with.


You answered your own question. It was a basis for comparison, one that most people would know.



Gravity Assist said:


> I'm so very sorry it wasn't up to par with your standards... perhaps I should try a little harder???


Maybe you should.


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

Clutchman83 said:


> Dude, usually I'm not a grammer nazi but did you really spell legit with a u?


He's to lugit to quit? Didn't you know?


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

*Alright Guy,*

:


GnaR9 said:


> Wrong... As I pointed out earlier in this thread. The one thing, IMO, the 40 has on the WC is small bump. But I pointed out there is an easy mod to run the WC plusher while still not bottoming constantly. Lack of stiffness in the WC is BS in my personal opinion. I'm 240 on a WC and don't notice any flex, but that's just me and not the majority. So other than weight, what the WC has on a 40 is a completely custom tuneable spring, unlike the Fox's which the Ti only works for a specific range of people. When 40's loose the Ti for those out of that specific range, they weigh as much as most other dual crowns on the market (7+). That is a big one to me, more adjustability while still maintaining a light weight package without the need to pay up the ass for after market springs. There are other small advantages to runner a "smaller" fork too. Clearance issues, RS doesn't need to make thin lowers to keep the weight down, etc...
> 
> What does oil volume have to do w/ maintenance? And what is a "dampener," some kind of moist towelette? If anything, a smaller volume of oil will have a higher concentration of contaminants faster than a larger volume. Fox's sealed cart may moot that point though... Another thing to think about is, what's considered the best rear shock on the market? CCDB? And what's CC's explanation of why the twin tube design is better? "More oil running through the damper." That's why people say Marzocchi's are so plush, open bath = more oil... just a thought.
> 
> ...


 Normally I don't like to start arguments over postings due to the moral decay and pointlessness to which it brings, but since you intend on being a little B**ch about this subject and scrutinizing every little thing I say and using it out of context for irelevant points that are worthless, here I am to do this, yet again! NOTE: I could just nit pick at the pluthera of stupidity that runs rampid within each of your postings as you have tried to do to me, but I have only this to say to you. This ends now, stop filling up this posting with unessesary garbage because you got your feelings hurt.

You are obviously a very big fan of the Boxxer, and that is good for you. If I weighed a whopping 240 lbs, I'd probably want to get my bike as light as possible as well; so I can kind of see why you choose weight over performance.

I was wrong about the 24-26 hour scheduled maintenance according to the manual in front of me. My hear-say was from one of the reviews on the fork from someone who actually works for sram in the R,S dept. It was recommended 24-26 hours for oil changes, but required every 100 hours. I'll give you that. I apologize to the person of this posting for putting that out. Still, the dampener in the boxxer might be a bit easier to maintenance on, but it has to be changed a lot more than the 40.

I'm not even going to comment on your out-sourced comment on the 40 cartridge because I just changed the oil in mine the other day from some help I recieved earlier in one of my last postings, and it was slightly harder as opposed to that of the Boxxer because Fox's technology is a bit more complicated than that of the boxxer ( which holds no secrets) . And NO, I don't have 2-year old oil in my dampner you idiot! I stated that because that is what the maintenance intervals say in Fox's Manual! Don't take someones words and make them out to something they are not!

If you and your "Buddies" have never had them flex on you in the least, that is Good. I am happy for you. I hope it continues to work for you.

I'm done arguing over this posting. If you have something else personal to get off of you chest, PM me about it, and we'll settle it from there.

Thank you, have a nice day.:thumbsup:


----------



## GiantGeoff (Jun 22, 2007)

Gravity Assist said:


> Ironic that I posted the exact same thread. (FOX 40RC2 vs Boxxer wc), and not too much came out of it....sucks!


Thats not even remotely ironic..........



Djponee said:


> boxxers, they are sexy. ugh, fox is too. get both.


So, similar to this, but a bit burlier?


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

Gravity Assist said:


> You are obviously a very big fan of the Boxxer, and that is good for you. If I weighed a whopping 240 lbs, I'd probably want to get my bike as light as possible as well; so I can kind of see why you choose weight over performance.


I'm a fan of the Boxxer, and I'm also a fan of Fox. 
Don't get all butt hurt over e-arguments and feel like you need to attack my weight to defend your points... loser. 
I also noticed your favorite trail is ATT, you local?


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

Cummings: If you weigh 145, the stock Ti spring will cover your weight.

To close the pluthera of annoying rumors about FOX maintenance, check out *http://service.foxracingshox.com/consumers/index.htm * For all of you out there that keep claiming that the boxxer is more self servicable than the 40, this site should shut you up. bounce this manual off the one at the site, and it is untouchable.

The 40's dampener is a bit more advanced than the WC's, but its not really all that much harder to work on. It is pretty simple. the only remotely complicated thing about all of it is removing and and re-installing the bladder.. which ends up being pretty simple after doing it once. Its not quite as easy to rebuild as the WC's, but its pretty damn close. If you aren't a total idiot, then you shouldn't have any problem. Fox may prefer that you service it through them, but thats every company including SRAM. All of them would prefer you spend your cash on them to service it rather than you do it yourself.

I've severely crashed into trees, bolders, and fell off the side of more mountains than I care to admit, and my bike frame and components will usually dent or crack before the Lowers on the 40 have. Don't get me wrong, the aren't as strong as they need to be, but I seriously doubt the qualitly of the boxxers lowers are a giant hurl above the 40's lowers. Heck, I seriously doubt that they are any stronger: If you screw up and crash hard enough, **** will break no matter what brand you have.

The air cartridge in the Boxxer WC is a great thing,.. heck, its really the only thing the WC has going for it. If you take a look on at the other models of the boxxer, they are all heavy as hell! Yet they aren't nearly as beefy or sturdy as its Marzocchi and Fox rivals.

If it weren't for that air cartridge, that WC wouldn't be worth a $#!T. And keep in mind that scimming on weight with an air shock comes with a price. Mind you that you can ride out of the trail on a coil-sprung fork with no dampining, but if that air cartridge BLOWS from high heat, or pressure, etc. YOU ARE SCREWED! try to ride out of the trail run on a flat F*ck'n fork!!!

*CUMMINGS: * In all honesty, this argument will probably go on forever man. From this one thread, many of us have feeled you in with specs on maintenance intervals, and so on. But opinions, in the end, mean nothing. It won't get better until you try em both out yourself as I have. Just be aware. I hope this thread has helped you in some way... take care.


----------

