# Difference between Mag 10 and 20



## konadownhill (Mar 25, 2007)

Can anyone out there tell me the difference between a Rockshox mag 10 and mag 20 circa 1992? Weight, performance, high end / low end? Thanks


----------



## thekid (Mar 13, 2006)

*Read much German?*

KD,

This is a bit more modern, and in German language, but at least it's a start...

http://www.mtb-kataloge.de/Bikekataloge/PDF/Rock_Shox/Info94.pdf

Good luck with the search...
The Kid


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

I have an old GT Backwoods with a Mag 21 on it and I have to say that it is aweful..AWEFUL!!!

I think I have maybe 5 mm of travel on it now. Unless you are dead set on everything being a specific time line on the bike, I would skip that fork line for sure.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Mag-10 was 1993, Mag-20 was 1992. Essentially the Mag-20 was replaced by the Mag-21, and the Mag-10 replaced the Mag-30 (yes I know that makes no sense, Paul Turner was an idiot when it came to model names). The changes from the 1992 to 1993 years included different bushings, negative-springs to help with the small-bump performance (small is relative on a 1.9" travel fork, yet people expected forks to work well on 1" tall rocks and sticks and stuff) and new crown and brace designs. Also new lockout-adjusters for the Mag-21. The Mag-20 also had lockout-adjusters. The Mag-10/30 models did not, and their lockout threshold was preset about midway between the 3 and 4 settings on the 21/20 forks.

Are they still good today? Well for use on similar vintage bikes they're fine if properly maintained still, but they're poor performers compared to current forks. Even cheap 100mm travel elastomer/coil forks like the Rockshox Dart 1 are lightyears ahead in performance and ride quality. Only thing where old XC forks really shine is the weight department. Mag forks were around 3 pounds whereas to get that kinda weight from a current fork, requires spending a whole lot more than it did in 1993.


----------



## Caffeine Powered (Mar 31, 2005)

The short of it is this... Mag 20 was an Air/Oil replacement for the RS-1 and at the time was light and costly. Mag-10 looked just like a 20 but was an Elastomer shock meant to compete with the Manitou 2/3/4 but it weighed more than both. 

Both were good shocks but the Mag 20/21 needed to have diligent service by the rider or it turned to ****. The seals were terrible at keeping water and crud out.

My wife's GF has a Mag 10 on it and it is doing fine for as little as she rides it. When it dies I'll either put rigid PVC spacers to replace the elastomers for a quick fix or I'll replace it with a rigid fork. V-brakes and current suspension forks don't mix at an economic level.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

Caffeine Powered said:


> Mag-10 looked just like a 20 but was an Elastomer shock meant to compete with the Manitou 2/3/4 but it weighed more than both.


You're thinkng of the Quadra 10. The Mag 10 was air sprung and oil damped.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Caffeine Powered said:


> The short of it is this... Mag 20 was an Air/Oil replacement for the RS-1 and at the time was light and costly. Mag-10 looked just like a 20 but was an Elastomer shock meant to compete with the Manitou 2/3/4 but it weighed more than both.


No, the Mag-20 was the redesign of the RS-1 which was also an air/oil fork. But whereas the RS-1 was made mainly for DH racing of the period, to get rank and file XC racers to accept suspension forks it needed to go on a diet. This is why the machined aluminium sliders of the RS-1 went to cast magnesium for the Mag series forks. Its also why the tubular chromoly brace of the RS-1 was replaced with the cast aluminium brace of the Mag-series.

And because the RS-1 was longer than a rigid fork it slackened the frame geometry, which while find for DH racers, wasn't so useful for tight singletrack XC racing. So the replacement fork also had to get shorter in length, and this was partially achieved thru reducing the wheel travel.



> Both were good shocks but the Mag 20/21 needed to have diligent service by the rider or it turned to ****. The seals were terrible at keeping water and crud out.


The seals were among the best at the time among the forks available at keeping water and crud out. They were double-lip MX wiper seals. The seals were so good in fact its why the forks were criticized for excessive stiction.



> My wife's GF has a Mag 10 on it and it is doing fine for as little as she rides it. When it dies I'll either put rigid PVC spacers to replace the elastomers for a quick fix or I'll replace it with a rigid fork. V-brakes and current suspension forks don't mix at an economic level.


As pointed out by others, you're confusing a quadra series fork with a mag series forks.


----------



## Caffeine Powered (Mar 31, 2005)

Yup, it's a Quadra. Considering the fork is on a bike in Seattle and I'm in Wisconsin I think I did pretty good remembering that it is even a Rock Shox  

As for the RS-1, while it may have been designed as a DH for, I don't remember Rock Shox giving us any direction as to the cutomer it was intended for... other than it was meant for XC use. Granted, it was heavier than the Manitou 1 of the day, but the Manitou was definately an XC fork. We sold dozens of them in Dallas and I bought one for my DB. It rocked compared to the stock rigid fork, but the Ritchey fork on my Mongoose was better.

but if it will make you happy to hear me say "you're right and I'm wrong" I will.


----------



## konadownhill (Mar 25, 2007)

So what did that make the Mag 10, a higher end or lower end? Oil over air or is there a spring in there somewhere? Reason being, I just ended up with one on the Xizang I just bought.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Manitou 1s were 3 Ibs 7 oz with a 6.5" threaded steerer, which isn't particularly light, and only had 1.5" of effective travel. The RS-1 weighed the same amount straight outta the box. In fact, in July 1991 MBA ran an article on a 20.9 pound hardtail they built using a GT Xixang LE frame and a customized RS-1 that they shed a half pound from (bringing it down to 2.9 Ibs) but it required titanium hardware and custom machining away material in the sliders.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

konadownhill said:


> So what did that make the Mag 10, a higher end or lower end? Oil over air or is there a spring in there somewhere? Reason being, I just ended up with one on the Xizang I just bought.


The Mag 10 could be considered second in line from the top of Rock Shox' lineup in 1993.

Air sprung, oil damped, short steel coil negative springs -- and internally adjustable low speed compression damping/threshhold lockout.


----------



## disraeli (Mar 8, 2007)

*You guys are making me feel terrible...*

I just sold this set up two days ago on the bay for $227.

A collector perhaps?


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

GT Xixang LE ?

Are you sure that was it. I've never heard of one of those but they did have a Zaskar LE and of course the Xizang.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

disraeli said:


> I just sold this set up two days ago on the bay for $227.
> 
> A collector perhaps?


That's abnormally high for a '94 Mag 21. $50 seems to be the upper end for one in good shape.


----------



## holden (Jul 27, 2004)

Zanetti said:


> That's abnormally high for a '94 Mag 21. $50 seems to be the upper end for one in good shape.


i think that king headset was a slight factor. those alone are worth say $60-120.


----------



## disraeli (Mar 8, 2007)

Zanetti said:


> That's abnormally high for a '94 Mag 21. $50 seems to be the upper end for one in good shape.


That's my point. That's what I expected to get from this sale. Between the Cook's cranks I auctioned the same day and this fork, I walked away with $270 more than I was expecting (Got $362 for both). I hate to say it guys but you may want to get out your 0000# steel wool, degreaser and start going though your dust bins....


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

disraeli said:


> That's my point. That's what I expected to get from this sale. Between the Cook's cranks I auctioned the same day and this fork, I walked away with $270 more than I was expecting (Got $362 for both). I hate to say it guys but you may want to get out your 0000# steel wool, degreaser and start going though your dust bins....


you expected 50 bucks for it w/ a no logo??

i though you wanted 1k in the suspension forum


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

holden said:


> i think that king headset was a slight factor. those alone are worth say $60-120.


What King headset? The headset in the photo sure does not look like a King.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Toff said:


> GT Xixang LE ?
> 
> Are you sure that was it. I've never heard of one of those but they did have a Zaskar LE and of course the Xizang.


That's what it says in the magazine. I pulled it out of the collection an hour ago to check what the stock RS-1 weight was.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Zanetti said:


> What King headset? The headset in the photo sure does not look like a King.


Looks like a 1 1/4" chris king to me. I got the same size and color one in my toolbox.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

Mag 20 - 1992 - adjustable bump threshold, air/oil - big brother to Mag 30

Mag 10 - 1993 - Adjustable air spring, not threshold adjustment - baby brother to Mag 21


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

Toff said:


> GT Xixang LE ?
> 
> Are you sure that was it. I've never heard of one of those but they did have a Zaskar LE and of course the Xizang.


Yup Sure! Sold this one on eBay last week.
Page three of this catalog link: http://www.mtb-kataloge.de/Bikekataloge/PDF/GT/TechShop92.pdf


----------



## Jkuo (Feb 7, 2007)

All this talk about the Mag makes me want to pull my brother's Mag 21 SL off the wall and slap it on the bike. Just to see how they stack up to current forks.

I had a Mag 21 SL for a long time, it was my first suspension fork. It was very light, but also a bit flexy. There was some stiction, but it wasn't an issue for me as I wasn't a lightweight. Surprisingly, I never had a problem with maintenance. I hardly ever maintained it, never had a seal problem. The only time I had to send it in was due to a crash at Conyers where I pulled the steerer tube parly out of the crown, no damage to the legs though.


----------



## EJ (Aug 29, 2005)

Toff said:


> GT Xixang LE ?
> Are you sure that was it. I've never heard of one of those but they did have a Zaskar LE and of course the Xizang.


The original Xizang was a Ti front end mated to a bolt-on cro-mo rear.
The Xizang LE was a full-Ti frame.

When they later dropped the mixed frame, they dropped the LE designation as well.


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

I still have a Mag 21 that's "watermarked" on the steer tube as a prototype for display purposes only. Was specing bikes for a living at the time and received it to build samples. Rode it on my Xizang for at least five years before putting on a 96 Judy SL. Thing is still beautiful as the day I got it and it works great.


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

GT_guy said:


> The original Xizang was a Ti front end mated to a bolt-on cro-mo rear.
> The Xizang LE was a full-Ti frame.
> 
> When they later dropped the mixed frame, they dropped the LE designation as well.


Very cool, I didn't know that.

In college, our local shop carried GT as their main bike line so I will always have a soft spot for GT frames.

I went thru a Pantera, Backwoods, Zaskar LE and now my precious Xizang.


----------

