# I knew my shiver was special



## MM_Freak (Feb 28, 2006)

I've been looking around forever trying to find out why my shiver is like no other around so I shot an e-mail over to the good people over at Marzocchi and I final got my answer. This is what they had to say. 

"YUP!! you have one of the 22 that were actually hand built here in our Valencia California location. It was the last batch sold from our office in the states!! That fork was never produced black and red. it was only black on black or gold on red or sliver on black.

You actually have a rare version of the fork."


----------



## pro (Oct 7, 2007)

Woah. I have the same stickers on the shaft, but blank black protectors, and black axle holder things. It's not the special one is it?


----------



## 62kona (Mar 25, 2008)

Very nice! Take care of that thing.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

62kona said:


> Very nice! Take care of that thing.


what?! this is where the legendary "marzocchi reliability" should actually mean something! go beat the snot out of that thing!


----------



## MM_Freak (Feb 28, 2006)

For the last 2 years I've been raping this thing and have had to do nothing but a seal change at the beginning of this season. Its been an amazing fork, a little on the heavy side put the performance has been so good that I wouldn't change it for anything.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

I'd settle for a Monster.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

pro said:


> Woah. I have the same stickers on the shaft, but blank black protectors, and black axle holder things. It's not the special one is it?


No it is not, but it is special....that fork was taken apart and hand built at Marzocchi too. You can order stickers tomatch the bottom. I took them off


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

MM_Freak said:


> For the last 2 years I've been raping this thing and have had to do nothing but a seal change at the beginning of this season. Its been an amazing fork, a little on the heavy side put the performance has been so good that I wouldn't change it for anything.


here is some information for you. They had left over parts and decided to build the forks....when you get a rebuild they are all hand put back together so I don't understand what makes that special except the red anodized legs.

Shivers are amazing forks period....*best fork I have ever ridden*.....very plush


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

You should trade that for a "One of the many of thousands made in China!" So good that it'll break on you.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Raptordude said:


> You should trade that for a "One of the many of thousands made in China!" So good that it'll break on you.


Shivers never made in China


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> Shivers never made in China


Referring to the 08 888s.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> I'd settle for a Monster.


That can be arranged.


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

i had been looking at shivers my self a few years ago and i think i saw one with the same colours 


forgot to say that my shock is rare, one of 50 OE modals, the reason its rare is becuase of the configerasions, it was a prototype that was acherly put on a bike and sold, it is 57mm stroke to 190 eyetoeye, fox vanilla rc, once i get it pushed then it wont be changed for any thing


----------



## ruralrider528 (Nov 8, 2008)

nice, I really want a pair of shivers for my 04 big hit. Marzocchi should come back to the inverted market.


----------



## boogenman (Sep 22, 2006)

Shiver = twisty pile of crap that was scrapped for a reason. Melt that hunk of poo down into something more valuable like a beer can


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

boogenman said:


> Shiver = twisty pile of crap that was scrapped for a reason. Melt that hunk of poo down into something more valuable like a beer can


you never rode one....plushes fork ever made.....most people who felt them twisting didn't have axle all the way tight and 2 twisted fork while it was extended instead of with weight on fork


----------



## MM_Freak (Feb 28, 2006)

boogenman said:


> Shiver = twisty pile of crap that was scrapped for a reason. Melt that hunk of poo down into something more valuable like a beer can


Well your entitled to your opinion but I love the fork and seems like everyone who has reviewed it in the review section likes it too an 4.81 chillies average out of 5 chillies seems pretty good to me. It may not have all the bells and whistles like the forks of today but for what I need its perfect.


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

boogenman said:


> Shiver = twisty pile of crap that was scrapped for a reason. Melt that hunk of poo down into something more valuable like a beer can


wow thats a very strong opinion care to explian why?


----------



## boogenman (Sep 22, 2006)

bxxer rider said:


> wow thats a very strong opinion care to explian why?


all of 2001 on a 2001 shiver, all of 2002 on a 2002 shiver. Nuff said:thumbsup:


----------



## dh_drew (Sep 9, 2008)

That looks sick and it does have good reviews. Are they going to put it back into production anytime soon?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ruralrider528 said:


> nice, I really want a pair of shivers for my 04 big hit. Marzocchi should come back to the inverted market.


But you can only put one on your bike at one time?

In any case, the inverted design fails for a lot of reasons, not that a shiver wasn't good, but it's not an efficient way to build a fork at the amounts of travel that mtbs use.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Jayem said:


> In any case, the inverted design fails for a lot of reasons, not that a shiver wasn't good, but it's not an efficient way to build a fork at the amounts of travel that mtbs use.


I disagree.....that's why the dorado coming back


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Jayem said:


> But you can only put one on your bike at one time?
> 
> In any case, the inverted design fails for a lot of reasons, not that a shiver wasn't good, but it's not an efficient way to build a fork at the amounts of travel that mtbs use.


I'll have you know that you can actually put a fork on the back as well. That's all in the sad history of mtb, along with those Shockster conversions around 2000 or so that retrofitted suspension to most any hardtail made.


----------



## Nick_M2R (Oct 18, 2008)

Nice forks, keep em nice!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> I disagree.....that's why the dorado coming back


Well, then justify your comment.

The only real benefit is the increased lubrication.

The lower-unspring weight thing is a myth, the actual amount saved is such a small percentage of the total unsprung weight (~10% is being generous, less than that is more realistic) as to be insignificant.

There is greater fore-aft strength and rigidity often, but if you increase the size of the stanchions on an non-inverted fork, you're back at square one, with 35, 38 and 40mm stanchions on all the leading forks, this doesn't really hold up at all. Motocross bikes often have inverted forks for this fore-aft strength, but it's not practical in that application to enlarge the size of the stanchions on a non-inverted fork, and you end up with extended-lowers due to not-enough bushing overlap. There isn't enough travel with mtb forks to justify needing the increased bushing overlap for all the other negatives associated with the inverted fork.

You get reduced torsional rigidity due to missing the brake-arch, huge negative here. The only way to make up for this is to increase the size of the stanchion/sliders and the hub. In the end, it's a far less efficient structure as far as this is concerned. You can get the same torsional rigidity at a lighter weight with a non-inverted fork.

There's the negative of having a seal failure. No-brake (and wasted front brake pads) can be pretty scary, heck with manitou's track record the dorado will be pretty scary in it's own right, or they could just not put any lubricating oil in there like they did with the first dorados (that self destructed). While this isn't a common occurance with a DECENTLY sealed fork, it does happen.

So then what is the point? Why would you want all the negatives or even just the fact that to make a fork with the same chassi-performance you'll need much more exotic engineering and possibly materials. In other words it's simply not efficient.

Yeah, my shiver was good (better than my stratos S8), but there's no way I'd take it over an 888 (loving my WC RC3 so far) and a "new" shiver would be pointless, it would cost a lot to develop and wouldn't give any real advantage.

Even the increased lubrication isn't really much of an advantage, when you consider that it requires an open-bath and all of that oil is heavy, the inverted fork already weighs more for the same travel (the old dorados weighed almost exactly 8lbs with the stem, while lighter than the shiver, nowhere near as light as a boxxer or 40), so you could have that great open-bath lubrication with a right-side-up fork and retain the rigidity without increased chassi weight.


----------



## boogenman (Sep 22, 2006)

Jayem said:


> You get reduced torsional rigidity due to missing the brake-arch, huge negative here. The only way to make up for this is to increase the size of the stanchion/sliders and the hub. In the end, it's a far less efficient structure as far as this is concerned. You can get the same torsional rigidity at a lighter weight with a non-inverted fork.
> 
> .


twisty poo pile= shiver


----------



## D-G (Nov 18, 2008)

Wow, I would say that the pirate dude just got his arse shanked by Jayem...maybe you should read more instead of getting your posts up to 35,000....geeze!!! do you have a life man or do you just spend it on here typing B.S.?


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Well, then justify your comment.
> 
> The only real benefit is the increased lubrication.
> 
> ...


I agree the non arch on a Shiver gives it more flex, but the Shiver has the same stanction size as the older 888's....even the new 888's have bigger stantions....yeah there are more bells and whistles on an 888, but I cannot get my 888 any where close to the plushness I had with my Shiver...I have tried lighter springs, heavier springs, more oil less oil.....it is just not as plush. I have owned 2 Shivers and they are still my favorite fork of all time. Furthermore about weight....If people really gave a shiat's a$$....they wouldn't be riding with heavy tubes and would be riding 2.5' tubeless if they really cared about weight. 8 pounds is nothing....my Recoil weighed 39.5 with a Shiver. Just cut weights somewhere else

Bottom line....You can post up why we shouldn't have this fork, but it is like a foreign language because my real world experience *(FOR ME)* was nothing but the most positive experiense

39.5 pound Recoil with a Shiver


----------



## tibug (Dec 5, 2006)

I definitely think that the shivers look cool enough to make up for any design or manufacturing issues that they have. Seriously...I would so much rather have "a flexy pile of poo" that looks cool than a fork that actually works that looks like poo. 

Form over function my friends!

This is coming from a loving and infatuated owner of a 2004 Marzocchi Shiver SC.


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Apr 29, 2006)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> I agree the non arch on a Shiver gives it more flex, but the Shiver has the same stanction size as the older 888's....even the new 888's have bigger stantions....yeah there are more bells and whistles on an 888, but I cannot get my 888 any where close to the plushness I had with my Shiver...I have tried lighter springs, heavier springs, more oil less oil.....it is just not as plush. I have owned 2 Shivers and they are still my favorite fork of all time. Furthermore about weight....If people really gave a shiat's a$$....they wouldn't be riding with heavy tubes and would be riding 2.5' tubeless if they really cared about weight. 8 pounds is nothing....my Recoil weighed 39.5 with a Shiver. Just cut weights somewhere else
> 
> Bottom line....You can post up why we shouldn't have this fork, but it is like a foreign language because my real world experience *(FOR ME)* was nothing but the most positive experiense
> 
> 39.5 pound Recoil with a Shiver


Bathroom scale?

So with swapping the fork (boxxer wc?), the cranks (hone? xt? atlas?), the pedals (mg1s?), the guide (gamut?), and the seat (devo? or just anything slimmer) you could have easily have easily morphed that into a 34 pound downhill race bike... That frame must be really light! Especially seeing as that weight is with those Michi 32s, burly tires. Silly weight-weenies, they should all just go for the Azonic frames.

In regards to the main topic, nice fork. I wouldn't entirely mind replacing my Boxxer WC with a Shiver. The reliability would be awesome, and they look great too!


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Hack On Wheels said:


> Bathroom scale?!


after switch these parts and weighed at LBS....thompson seat post, WTB Lazer seat(ti-rails) Ti-mag pedals, Ti-springs in Shiver(not much weight savings-not worth it), 2.5 UST tires running tubeless


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Apr 29, 2006)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> after switch these parts and weighed at LBS....thompson seat post, WTB Lazer seat(ti-rails) Ti-mag pedals, Ti-springs in Shiver(not much weight savings-not worth it), 2.5 UST tires running tubeless


Ti-mag pedals? Which ones? The weight-weenie in me wouldn't mind a set, they don't really make sense though.

That is still a heck of a lot of weight to be saved, how much does/did that frame weigh? I have a hard time imagining Azonic doing anything but overbuilding it. Though perhaps not as much as something like the Gravity.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Hack On Wheels said:


> Ti-mag pedals? Which ones? The weight-weenie in me wouldn't mind a set, they don't really make sense though.
> 
> That is still a heck of a lot of weight to be saved, how much does/did that frame weigh? I have a hard time imagining Azonic doing anything but overbuilding it. Though perhaps not as much as something like the Gravity.


Azonic Ti-mag A-frames....they don't make them anymore....would love to have another set because mine our so beat up.....2 pedals weighs less then one kona jack shict pedal

Hands down...The Recoil was the best frame Azonic put out period,....it was the same dimensions as an M-1...bike rocked


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

12345


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

I agree with SMT. My 2002 Shiver was more plush than my 05 888RC. I never noticed any flexing in this fork, or I just didn't have the "skills" to notice the flex. I hope they do come out with a new Shiver, as rumored, I'll buy one.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> I'll have you know that you can actually put a fork on the back as well. That's all in the sad history of mtb


Yes, yes...c'mon tell me you didn't also drool over those Manitou frames back in the day :thumbsup:


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

Hack On Wheels said:


> Bathroom scale?
> 
> So with swapping the fork (boxxer wc?), the cranks (hone? xt? atlas?), the pedals (mg1s?), the guide (gamut?), and the seat (devo? or just anything slimmer) you could have easily have easily morphed that into a 34 pound downhill race bike... That frame must be really light! Especially seeing as that weight is with those Michi 32s, burly tires. Silly weight-weenies, they should all just go for the Azonic frames.
> 
> In regards to the main topic, nice fork. I wouldn't entirely mind replacing my Boxxer WC with a Shiver. The reliability would be awesome, and they look great too!


Thats what I've been saying. No friggin way that RECOIL is 39 lbs with a flippin Shiver.


----------



## G4VNJ (Jun 3, 2008)

fukin BLING!


----------



## ducktape (May 21, 2007)

Pedals - you can also get Ti axles for the DMR V12 Mags, but I'm not sure where that would bring them compared to others because as a stocker even a set of MG-1's weigh less.


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

when the shiver sinks a bit into it's travel where the bushings are contacting the stanchions then it is not as flexy as most people who stand over the front wheel and move it side to side think. 888's are less flexy. But James tweaks his 888 on a regular basis and has to bend it back, I didn't believe it until it happened.


----------



## wyrm (Jan 19, 2004)

rep_1969 said:


> I agree with SMT. My 2002 Shiver was more plush than my 05 888RC. I never noticed any flexing in this fork, or I just didn't have the "skills" to notice the flex. I hope they do come out with a new Shiver, as rumored, I'll buy one.


Ooooh.... those are some though words. The 05 888RC was HSCV dampened. Very plush fork. As a matter of fact you had to buy an aftermarket part to get it to be less plush. But if the 02 Shiver is that plush.... I want me one.


----------



## remember1453 (Aug 20, 2007)

tibug said:


> This is coming from a loving and infatuated owner of a 2004 Marzocchi Shiver SC.


the 100 mm travel SCs are some tough SOB. I just can't seem to break it,


----------



## tibug (Dec 5, 2006)

remember1453 said:


> the 100 mm travel SCs are some tough SOB. I just can't seem to break it,


Same here...I removed all the decals and put on my own...the original decals were way to flashy for this bike...


----------



## gremlyn (Feb 27, 2007)

wyrm said:


> Ooooh.... those are some though words. The 05 888RC was HSCV dampened. Very plush fork. As a matter of fact you had to buy an aftermarket part to get it to be less plush. But if the 02 Shiver is that plush.... I want me one.


I don't know about '02 Shiver, but my '05 is definitely plusher than 66/888RC2X '07, Fox 40RC2 '07/'08 and Boxxers Team/WC '08. And yes, Shiver DC is heavy enough to be an ship anchor, and yes - it lacks some adjustments options... but still it is one of the best made forks ever. That said, I can live with its 4kg.


----------



## WeekendWarrior93 (Nov 10, 2008)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> I disagree.....that's why the dorado coming back


I am rolling the dorado on my DH rig. It is a very nice fork.


----------



## ducktape (May 21, 2007)

Yep the Dorado is coming back!


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

gremlyn said:


> I don't know about '02 Shiver, but my '05 is definitely plusher than 66/888RC2X '07, Fox 40RC2 '07/'08 and Boxxers Team/WC '08. And yes, Shiver DC is heavy enough to be an ship anchor, and yes - it lacks some adjustments options... but still it is one of the best made forks ever. That said, I can live with its 4kg.


Nice Shiver DC
Here's My Shiver DC RC2X 200mm travel


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Mark McLeod said:


> Nice Shiver DC
> Here's My Shiver DC RC2X 200mm travel
> 
> View attachment 1051271


frickin sweet....looks like a 2001 Shiver


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

frickin sweet....looks like a 2001 Shiver[/QUOTE]

Thanks man actually it's a 2002 world cup last year they made the gold one least to wha Marzocchi had told me when I sent them my manufacture number, even my other Shiver is as well, need a part for it though.
I made the guards myself as well they are a bit taller to fit with my RC2X cartridges, planning to get another RC2 cartridge to have dual RC2 high/low speed cartridges but going to mod one to have bottom out and putting a set of Ti springs in.
Got a whole new design as well for the guards I'm constructing DVO styled guards for my Shiver my uni-form guard set, I sel guards as well.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

frickin sweet....looks like a 2001 Shiver[/QUOTE]

Thanks man actually it's a 2002 world cup last year they made the gold one least to wha Marzocchi had told me when I sent them my manufacture number, even my other Shiver is as well, need a part for it though.
I made the guards myself as well they are a bit taller to fit with my RC2X cartridges, planning to get another RC2 cartridge to have dual RC2 high/low speed cartridges but going to mod one to have bottom out and putting a set of Ti springs in.
Got a whole new design as well for the guards I'm constructing DVO styled guards for my Shiver my uni-form guard set, I sel guards as well.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

Thanks man actually it's a 2002 world cup last year they made the gold one least to wha Marzocchi had told me when I sent them my manufacture number, even my other Shiver is as well, need a part for it though.
I made the guards myself as well they are a bit taller to fit with my RC2X cartridges, planning to get another RC2 cartridge to have dual RC2 high/low speed cartridges but going to mod one to have bottom out and putting a set of Ti springs in.
Got a whole new design as well for the guards I'm constructing DVO styled guards for my Shiver my uni-form guard set, I sel guards as well.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

Thanks man actually it's a 2002 world cup last year they made the gold one least to wha Marzocchi had told me when I sent them my manufacture number, even my other Shiver is as well, need a part for it though.
I made the guards myself as well they are a bit taller to fit with my RC2X cartridges, planning to get another RC2 cartridge to have dual RC2 high/low speed cartridges but going to mod one to have bottom out and putting a set of Ti springs in.
Got a whole new design as well for the guards I'm constructing DVO styled guards for my Shiver my uni-form guard set, I sel guards as well.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> frickin sweet....looks like a 2001 Shiver


Thanks man actually it's a 2002 world cup last year they made the gold one least to wha Marzocchi had told me when I sent them my manufacture number, even my other Shiver is as well, need a part for it though.
I made the guards myself as well they are a bit taller to fit with my RC2X cartridges, planning to get another RC2 cartridge to have dual RC2 high/low speed cartridges but going to mod one to have bottom out and putting a set of Ti springs in.
Got a whole new design as well for the guards I'm constructing DVO styled guards for my Shiver my uni-form guard set, I sel guards as well.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

it's a 2002 world cup last year they made the gold one least to wha Marzocchi had told me when I sent them my manufacture number, even my other Shiver is as well, need a part for it though.
I made the guards myself as well they are a bit taller to fit with my RC2X cartridges, planning to get another RC2 cartridge to have dual RC2 high/low speed cartridges but going to mod one to have bottom out and putting a set of Ti springs in.
Got a whole new design as well for the guards I'm constructing DVO styled guards for my Shiver my uni-form guard set, I sel guards as well.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

*Shiver RC2X*



SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> frickin sweet....looks like a 2001 Shiver


Thanks man actually it's a 2002 world cup last year they made the gold one least to wha Marzocchi had told me when I sent them my manufacture number, even my other Shiver is as well, need a part for it though.
I made the guards myself as well they are a bit taller to fit with my RC2X cartridges, planning to get another RC2 cartridge to have dual RC2 high/low speed cartridges but going to mod one to have bottom out and putting a set of Ti springs in.
Got a whole new design as well for the guards I'm constructing DVO styled guards for my Shiver my uni-form guard set, I sel guards as well.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> frickin sweet....looks like a 2001 Shiver


Thanks man actually a 2002 world cup to what Marzocchi told me.
Need to find a part for my spare Shiver for my other bike.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

Also Make guards got a DVO styled one coming soon and going to toss another RC2 cartridge in to have dual RC2 high/low speed.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

*My A-Line Shiver DC*

Here's my other Shiver on my 2006 Norco A-Line before I tore it down to redo it all.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

You putting a Fox cart in? That would be a nice upgrade from the crude no-low-speed damping in there. Avalanche is also making a cart specifically for the shiver now...man, that would have been nice about 8 years ago...


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Wow, you guys resurrected an 8 year old thread!! Impressive.


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

rep_1969 said:


> Wow, you guys resurrected an 8 year old thread!! Impressive.


Hahaha should see the couple threads on PB hahaha

Sorry for all the reposts I have no idea why it did that


----------



## Mark McLeod (Feb 20, 2016)

Jayem said:


> You putting a Fox cart in? That would be a nice upgrade from the crude no-low-speed damping in there. Avalanche is also making a cart specifically for the shiver now...man, that would have been nice about 8 years ago...


Fox 40 Cart would be real nice, few guys have done the ATA RC2 cart setup and a my good friend Marzocchi Mark has built a few RC3X shivers, a fox 40 cart would be tough though probably have to get a large insert made to install the cap but it would also need to be taller to compensate for the taller cart, the RC3 and RC2 are a bit easier to do but must watch what cart you use since you may have to shorten the carts main rod by a bit.

My 888 RC2 Ti setup is very nice got the shiver just above 7lbs and the dampening is amazing don't really like the 888's Ti springs so going to order some custom ones from my friend at Lite-spring.com he does amazing work and top quality parts.

Also trying for a set of custom stanchions with slick coating a bit taller for my taller carts.

I may have dumped a lot of cash into the fork but it was fun to mod out and as of now nobody else has one like it  plus still to this day no fork has impressed me like the Shiver has.


----------

