# 2009 Dorados



## pvflyer (Dec 7, 2004)

It is back, AIR cartridge dumping, 36mm stantions, 6lbs it is all i can say, i rode it last weekend and it is the BOMB.


----------



## stepanov (May 9, 2006)

Holy ****, that thing looks pretty sweet. Never thought those things would come back.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

woa that's gnarly. but why is it back? the Travis is a good fork, though portly, and i have heard the Dorados were flexy as all hell. are they gonna bump up to 8" travel too?


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

uhuh.... wow that's sweet.. never thought i'd see the return of those. nice re-design though!


----------



## Dirtman (Jan 30, 2004)

OMG I just think my bank acct just got lighter....:skep:


----------



## mace2 (May 3, 2004)

interesting... what are the benefits of an inverted fork over a normal one? obviously it will be less stiff..... so what's better about it?


----------



## pvflyer (Dec 7, 2004)

Lower center gravity, rigid......cool as hell.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Torsionally?



pvflyer said:


> , rigid.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 19, 2004)

damn that thing is sweet! maybe hayes buying manitou was a good thing?


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

looks nice..........snaf












....
still not a fan


----------



## jamesdc (Oct 31, 2005)

Its still a manitou and it says it has spv.:nono:


----------



## Bulldog (Jan 13, 2004)

"'09" in July '07? Is this the flippin auto industry now?


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

sneak peek, probably won't be here until the '09 season. but who knows, maybe they found some magical way to make them stiffer. you can make an inverted fork stiff, but it's gonna be weighty. if they made those axle blocks wider and uses a longer axle, that would stiffen it up. many supercross riders' forks have works axle blocks that have a wiser clamping surface for stiffness.


----------



## Nagaredama (Aug 2, 2004)

Looks cool but the SPV sticker scares me.


----------



## todd_freeride (Aug 9, 2005)

yea, they better not put stupid SPV in that fork. if they do, no one in their right mind would buy it.

Dorado's were less flexy than the shivers.


----------



## -Insomnia- (May 9, 2007)

What is spv?


----------



## bElliott (Jul 7, 2006)

Nagaredama said:


> Looks cool but the SPV sticker scares me.


i think they're trying to stealth it

or this guy is fooling all of us


----------



## KomodoRider (Jul 14, 2004)

hahahahah its allready leaking oil!!!! last pic


-but seriously an inverted fork "sould have" better high speed bump reaction because of the lower mass of the moving parts


instead of having to stop and revers direction of heavy lowers a half a million times a run the inverted fork moves the heavy crap out of the lowers to make that action more nimble


----------



## Ojai Bicyclist (Nov 4, 2005)

pvflyer said:


> Lower center gravity, rigid.


Are you retarded? It's got a higher COG but less unsprung weight, so it is more responsive to bumps, but they're way flexier than a conventional fork with an arch.


----------



## Monohan (Jun 28, 2007)

jamesdc said:


> Its still a manitou and it says it has spv.:nono:


I hope this is just a bad dream!

SPV? WTF?!?

Yeah, go ahead and trust a carbon inverted SPV fork from a company that can't even get regular forks right.

Does RST still make their forks? Well, that should say it all...

They must be using the old Rockshox business plan...

"if it sucks, just cheapen it up more and people will want cheaper sh*t!"


----------



## Snowpug (Apr 23, 2007)

Not a fan myself. The old model was flexy as hell.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

pvflyer said:


> Lower center gravity, rigid......cool as hell.


slightly higher cg.......


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*that is identical to the old mrd x works forks, just in gold. ^^^everyone above me is a retard, its some cute custom painting, but its not 09. SPV in DH forks is done with* Post a pic of the fork with a thing to measure the stanctions, then i might beleive you. until then, i call BULLSIHT!!


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

Seriously, custom decals on an old fork, woopitydeedoo!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

KomodoRider said:


> hahahahah its allready leaking oil!!!! last pic
> 
> -but seriously an inverted fork "sould have" better high speed bump reaction because of the lower mass of the moving parts


BS, the tire, the tube, rim strip, spokes, nipples, hub, rotor, disc bolts, disc caliper, lowers, axle, misc parts in the lower part of the fork, are all also unsprung weight. Subtract the half a pound difference between Mg fork lowers and what an inverted fork has, and you've saved maybe 5-10% of total unsprung weight. If you can feel that I'd be suprised. Better lubrication can help inverted forks out a lot, but manitou has never been very good at that.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

Cmac said:


> *that is identical to the old mrd x works forks, just in gold. ^^^everyone above me is a retard, its some cute custom painting, but its not 09. SPV in DH forks is done with* Post a pic of the fork with a thing to measure the stanctions, then i might beleive you. until then, i call BULLSIHT!!


yeah guys! jeez, can't believe that you fell for this....ok i got suckered in, i think there could maybe be some truth to this, but that makes sense that this is a trick. we'll see in a year.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

Jayem said:


> BS....If you can feel that I'd be suprised.


I can *definately* feel a difference between my Shiver and my 888....(for whatever the reason ). I can feel it when riding. It's a HUGE difference.

edit: both have their pros and cons. For small bump compliance the shiv wins hands down. Jayem you are more full of sh!t than a sh!t-house mouse.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

2009 Ha Ha yeah right...


----------



## bighitboy (May 16, 2004)

i dont think that is a true new deal going on. the old dorado felt amazing, when it was running correctly, which was 2% of the time:madman: manipoo wont touch them for any warranty work


----------



## captain spaulding (May 7, 2006)

jeez, looks like they still haven't figured out how to make it look cool.. ick..


----------



## pvflyer (Dec 7, 2004)

Ojai Bicyclist said:


> Are you retarded? It's got a higher COG but less unsprung weight, so it is more responsive to bumps, but they're way flexier than a conventional fork with an arch.


 No, not really but you sound a bit stupid. I wonder why all supersport motorcycle and MOTO-GP will use upside/down forks? Not having a bridge allows you to lower or slide your lowers on the crown much more than a convesional fork. Given the bike or motorcycle
a lower center of gravity, stupid. That, same bike with a TRAVIS it is over a inch higher on it BB!! YOU DUMB ASS.

I, have two Dorados, the first genaration 30mm stantion flexy, second gen 32mm with tapered CARBON legs very stiff, this one have 36mm stantion there is no flex what so ever!
. WHO T F you think you ARE coming here and calling people names?
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DON"T THINK THIS IT IS A 09 PRODUCT JUST WAITE AND WATCH THE CRANKWORKS THIS FORK IT WILL BE THERE, WITH SOME MORE NEWS.

REGARDS


----------



## GnaR9 (Jul 7, 2007)

pvflyer said:


> No, not really but you sound a bit stupid. I wonder why all supersport motorcycle and MOTO-GP will use upside/down forks? Not having a bridge allows you to lower or slide your lowers on the crown much more than a convesional fork. Given the bike or motorcycle
> a lower center of gravity, stupid. That, same bike with a TRAVIS it is over a inch higher on it BB!! YOU DUMB ASS.
> 
> I, have two Dorados, the first genaration 30mm stantion flexy, second gen 32mm with tapered CARBON legs very stiff, this one have 36mm stantion there is no flex what so ever!
> ...


Take your Ritalin, OK?

- OK, you're in a forest.
- Forest?

With Heather Locklear.

- With Heather?
- And you're very warm. Very...

- ..warm?
- Warm.


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

*oh no you didn't!*



pvflyer said:


> No, not really but you sound a bit stupid. I wonder why all supersport motorcycle and MOTO-GP will use upside/down forks? Not having a bridge allows you to lower or slide your lowers on the crown much more than a convesional fork. Given the bike or motorcycle
> a lower center of gravity, stupid. That, same bike with a TRAVIS it is over a inch higher on it BB!! YOU DUMB ASS.
> 
> I, have two Dorados, the first genaration 30mm stantion flexy, second gen 32mm with tapered CARBON legs very stiff, this one have 36mm stantion there is no flex what so ever!
> ...


relax... whoosh frabaaah.

as far a c/g it seems that you two were referring to different centers of gravity. 
an inverted fork *IN ITSELF* has a higher c/g compared to that of a conventional one.

by having a lower axle to crown high, the dorado will make the *complete bike* have a lower c/g.

The argument with motorcycles isn't valid IMO, as mountain bikes are on a smaller scale. just that simple difference changes A LOT of the characteristics of a fork, as well as what design is better for which application.

for motorcycles (especially moto GP bikes) :
the inverted type fork is a better design as it offers less unsprung weight, as well as they have better small bump absorption characteristics. It is not the case that they utilize these forks solely because they have a lower axle-crown distance therefore lowering the c/g. Conventional forks on motorcycles don't have arch's period... and so on motorcycles it is actually stiffer to have an inverted fork then that of a conventional one simple as that. the axle to crown would be the same on either effectively creating equal c/g.

for mnt. bikes :
Because of the smaller scale, and longer travel of the mountain bike forks, having an inverted type fork provides the problem of torsional stiffness. those long tubes can twist under load! Yes it is true that a conventional fork has more unsprung weight then that of their inverted counterparts, however because we are on a smaller scale this difference is so negligible, as well as far outweighed by the torsional stiffness brought about by the arch. By tying the two legs together farther down on the fork you create a platform that is superior in torsional flex.

I don't know if anybody has done this, but i have so i'll use it to explain. Take two long pieces of balsa wood. glue two cross members at the top, and one at the bottom (like double crowns and then the axle). twist that and see how much flex you get. then glue another cross member halfway in between. it takes a much greater amount of force to make that model flex, as opposed to the previous.

If product designers for mountain bikes wanted to have inverted forks to be as stiff as conventional forks, with the same dampening characteristics etc, they would need extra material (think bigger tubes, more bushings, wider axle, etc). this brings about the weight issue as well. typically inverted forks are heavier then conventional forks all factors being equal.

Manitou tried to kill two birds with one stone by using carbon on the dorado. not only is carbon torsionally stiffer then aluminum or magnesium, it's lighter (for the most part). This created a decent platform that rivaled most conventional forks (in it's day). poor dampening and high maintenance killed this fork, however.

I guess all my rambling and technical jargon is just to point out my pet peeve of people trying to compare motorcycle technology with bikes. it just isn't valid IMO.

ok my rant is done. bring on the flaming


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Khemical said:


> I can *definately* feel a difference between my Shiver and my 888....(for whatever the reason ). I can feel it when riding. It's a HUGE difference.
> 
> edit: both have their pros and cons. For small bump compliance the shiv wins hands down. Jayem you are more full of sh!t than a sh!t-house mouse.


Uh, it's because your shiver has far better lubrication.

I had two shivers.

It's not because of "less unsprung weight.

Your 888 setup is probably within 150 grams of the unsprung weight of the shiver. 66 lowers weigh about .75lbs, in other words almost nothing. How much does the axle clamp, large stanchions, and other parts of the shiver weigh? Probably more than nothing.

If you don't believe me, do the math:

Rim, 550g
Nipples, 33g
Spokes, 200g
Rim strip, 30g
Tube, 400g
tire, 1200g
hub, 200g
disc rotor, 180g
disc bolts, 10g
20mm axle, 100g
Disc caliper, 200g

3103 of unsprung weight EXCLUDING any fork numbers.

Now, several fork lowers have been weighed, and for forks like the fox 40, boxxer, and 888, those lowers are very light, usually less than a pound. It's not a lot of material, and it's usually low density magnesium or aluminum.

So, add 340g to the 3103g for the unsprung weight of a conventional fork for a grand total of 3443g.

Now, figure that the stanchions on your shiver are not weightless, nor are the axle clamps, nor is the foot nut, nor is the oil sitting inside, so figure a total difference between the magnesium lowers as about 1/2 pound. That's all you're saving in unsprung weight, the lower bits of the shiver DO weigh SOMETHING, and there are other parts besides the stanchions. So, add maybe 225g to the 3103g for the inverted shiver. You're at 3328g.

Now, lets see how much difference between the two?

5% difference. Almost nothing. Sorry, going to an inverted fork does NOT save a bunch of unsprung weight, and it is NOT why your shiver rides so well.

BTW, if changing unsprung weight made it ride so much better, then simply going to a lighter tube and tire would automatically make your 888 ride like the shiver, because you just decreased the unsprung weight by at least the same amount.

I suppose since I recently changed my front tire to a heavier one that my fork shouldn't be performing as well, but then again it's such a small percentage of the overall unsprung weight that you know what? It's imperceptible.

Good call.


----------



## KomodoRider (Jul 14, 2004)

Jayem said:


> BS, the tire, the tube, rim strip, spokes, nipples, hub, rotor, disc bolts, disc caliper, lowers, axle, misc parts in the lower part of the fork, are all also unsprung weight. Subtract the half a pound difference between Mg fork lowers and what an inverted fork has, and you've saved maybe 5-10% of total unsprung weight. If you can feel that I'd be suprised. Better lubrication can help inverted forks out a lot, but manitou has never been very good at that.


\

its all about the priniple of inversion

ie thats why they do it, I wasent saying its better bc god knows ill never ride that fork


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 14, 2005)

The Dude said:


> damn that thing is sweet! maybe hayes buying manitou was a good thing?


The Dude 
Say Car Ramrod!!

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,037 __________________
I wish my grass was emo so it would cut itself...

ill send you the bill for cleaning the root beer out of my laptop

that fork is sweet


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

KomodoRider said:


> \
> 
> its all about the priniple of inversion
> 
> ie thats why they do it, I wasent saying its better bc god knows ill never ride that fork


Well, it is true that if you say something that makes no sense, it's hard to say it's "wrong".


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 14, 2005)

there mavricks with manipoo stickies


----------



## AKRida (Feb 26, 2004)

i'll stick with my 07 Boxxer WC thanks  lol


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

Cmac said:


> *that is identical to the old mrd x works forks, just in gold. ^^^everyone above me is a retard, its some cute custom painting, but its not 09. SPV in DH forks is done with* Post a pic of the fork with a thing to measure the stanctions, then i might beleive you. until then, i call BULLSIHT!!


Dang the original fork was around beffor you were born, you must read allot of mags with pic's, gosh your special.


----------



## moshelove (Jun 8, 2005)

you know on motocross bikes, one of the biggest reasons they switched to inverted forks was because of the increased stiffness. I wonder why it is the opposite with MTB? perhaps less metal?


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

well, on motorcycles there was no arch on "upright" forks. i had an RM 80 with standard forks and now have an RM 250 with inverted forks. i also rode various CR and YZ 80s with inverted forks and for the life of me, none felt more responsive than the other. with motorcycles, you dont have that 3-4" under hang after the axle with inverted forks, and you have those big wide tapered outer tubes that extend all the way down to the wheel. then you only have a foot of smaller inner tubes. but they are steel and have another 8 inches inside the outer tubes to further eliminate flex. and the upper tubes are ticker and beefier than any Dorado would ever be. motorcycle forks can be made stiffer because they don't have to weigh under 7 pounds. and because they use 48mm inner tubes. but on a bicycle, you have weight to deal with and on an inverted fork the main thing making the inner tubes (lowers, stanchions, whatever) stiff it the axle. so in mountain biking, the best compromise in weight vs. stiffness seems to be a standard fork.


----------



## acdcfan1283 (Mar 20, 2004)

that thing looks siiick xD


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

moshelove said:


> you know on motocross bikes, one of the biggest reasons they switched to inverted forks was because of the increased stiffness. I wonder why it is the opposite with MTB? perhaps less metal?


That stiffness and strength is direction specific, with motocross they are talking about fore-aft strength/stiffness and casing jumps and that type of force is handled by increasing the size of the uppers, so the inverted fork works well for this, although it decreases laterall stiffness with mountain bike applications due to the lack of a brake arch. The same benefit can be had by increasing the size of the uppers on a conventional fork, although out at extreme travel lengths an inverted fork gives you enough bushing overlap, and therefore is the only choice.


----------



## bighitboy (May 16, 2004)

go inverted with 40mm tubes and a 40mm axle! u need a bigger axle to get that stiffness back AKA FOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! only if it wasnt 10grand lol


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

Jayem said:


> That stiffness and strength is direction specific, with motocross they are talking about fore-aft strength/stiffness and casing jumps and that type of force is handled by increasing the size of the uppers, so the inverted fork works well for this, although it decreases laterall stiffness with mountain bike applications due to the lack of a brake arch. The same benefit can be had by increasing the size of the uppers on a conventional fork, although out at extreme travel lengths an inverted fork gives you enough bushing overlap, and therefore is the only choice.


yeah he's right. i just took apart my 250's fork day before yesterday to replace a seal. there is so much overlap it's unreal. you only see a little bit more than half of the lower tube when the fork is assembled. if you do make a stiff inverted for for a bicycle, you would have to have a big beefy steel axle (if you keep it at 20mm) and big ol' axle blocks and beefy fork tubes, so any weight savings would be eclipsed by weight gains.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

Jayem said:


> Uh, it's because your shiver has far better lubrication.
> 
> I had two shivers.
> 
> ...


Where in my post did I mention _anything_ about weight, sprung or unsprung?

All I said is that I feel a difference ("for whatever the reason") between a Shiv and a 888 on small bump compliance. I never made any implications towards a reason why.

So there. rft:


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Khemical said:


> Where in my post did I mention _anything_ about weight, sprung or unsprung?
> 
> All I said is that I feel a difference ("for whatever the reason") between a Shiv and a 888 on small bump compliance. I never made any implications towards a reason why.
> 
> So there. rft:


YOU QUOTED ME originally, and in that post I was most certainly talking about unsprung mass from the post that I was commenting on. Go look at the post that I originally quoted, which looks something like this;



> -but seriously an inverted fork "sould have" better high speed bump reaction because of the lower mass of the moving parts


So if you say "no Jayem is wrong", then you're saying that my theory about the unsprung mass is wrong, if it wasn't your intention to comment on that discussion, then why quote my post in the first place?


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2007)

How about 48mm uppers, 40mm lowers and a 35mm axle and only 6.8lbs? I have ridden this thing and its one of the plushest forks I have touched, even compared to my Works 888RC2x. It is also super stiff, with no more noticeable flex than any other regular DC fork.


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

I'm not buying it. The diameter of the handlebar at the clamp (31.8mm) looks way too close to the size of the uppers for there to be any way that they could have stuffed 36mm stanchions in there. I could be wrong, but I'm very skeptical.


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

sixsixtysix said:


> How about 48mm uppers, 40mm lowers and a 35mm axle and only 6.8lbs? I have ridden this thing and its one of the plushest forks I have touched, even compared to my Works 888RC2x. It is also super stiff, with no more noticeable flex than any other regular DC fork.


Plus it comes with a cup holder! (the lower crown... or should i say the massive hole in the lower crown)  i hate those forks. felt like poo when i pushed on one. maybe they ride better... but i won't take my chances. :nono:


----------



## potvinwannab (Jun 23, 2006)

this REALLY appears to be jus a normal dorado with a sticker kit.

#1-The person who made this up (its on several forums-either its a hoax, or its word of mouth) was clever enough to use 2009 as a model year. This is soon enough to sound realistic, but still alot of time before the actual 2009 models are revealed, couldnt pick 2008 as a model year because manitou has either already shown off its 2008 models or will be in the very near future-even though if manitou were to showcase a fork it would be a 2008.

#2-if its so new and in prototype mode why do the stanctions show sign of wear, as well as the qr20 dropout-which also is outdated (compare to a travis)

#3-Polished aluminum crowns? what was the last high end fork to do that?, and it looks way too similar to an 04

#4-it still has the mrdx stickers on it, now im not sure what exactly that means, but i read here- http://www.vorb.org.nz/ftopict-63313.html that is has something to do with the 04 dorados

i think its a hoax and the con artist even has a sense of humour-he kept the spv sticker on


----------



## potvinwannab (Jun 23, 2006)

i dun get it


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> lol
> 
> potvinwannab This message is hidden because *potvinwannab* is on your ignore list.


Actually he aported an excelent post to this forum :eekster: :eekster:


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Apr 29, 2006)

potvinwannab said:


> this REALLY appears to be jus a normal dorado with a sticker kit.
> 
> #1-The person who made this up (its on several forums-either its a hoax, or its word of mouth) was clever enough to use 2009 as a model year. This is soon enough to sound realistic, but still alot of time before the actual 2009 models are revealed, couldnt pick 2008 as a model year because manitou has either already shown off its 2008 models or will be in the very near future-even though if manitou were to showcase a fork it would be a 2008.
> 
> ...


#1-The person who posted this has connections... I would refer to him as being "hooked up". Check some of his older threads if you want to.

#2-They could potentially be using an older fork chassis to try out new technology. By the way, that is not qr20. qr20 suggests a quick release, not pinch bolts.

#3-The latest fork seen with polished crowns is probably one of the 2008 Manitou offerings... poke around online, you might see some.

#4-Old stickers wouldn't attract unwanted interest for a very early prototype. Also, as I stated above, they might be using an old inverted chassis to try out some new technology while they are doing parallel development on a new chassis. However, I am not sure about this part, hopefully pvflyer can chime in about this.

I do not believe this to be a hoax. Other trustworthy sources have also vouched for there being a new DH fork in the pipeline for 2009. Granted, a lot could change by the time it is being released, and things could always stretch out into 2010, but either way a new fork is coming.


----------



## potvinwannab (Jun 23, 2006)

how could they use an older fork chasis if the stanctions were beefed up to 36 mm? oh and sorry i said qr20 i just read somewhere that thats what they used :madman: 

i do however agree with you about the stickers throwing of competition, but why out of all the sponsored riders and big name people manitou has, would they let pvflyer or some other joe be one of the first very privileged people to actually see it 

yes there is a new fork coming-but it isnt a dorado


----------



## Nagaredama (Aug 2, 2004)

Seems rather odd Hayes would put a competitor's brake system on one of their prototypes.


----------



## Nagaredama (Aug 2, 2004)

More pictures from Pinkbike


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

Nagaredama said:


> Seems rather odd Hayes would put a competitor's brake system on one of their prototypes.


At least it has a Revox....


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Aparently only 2 have been made and they are "80%" done in the R&D. Someone said it will be on Hayes tent on Crankworx so I'll take a took and some pics when I get there


----------



## PLURPIMPIN (Nov 3, 2005)

i'm pretty sure its real. the pinkbike article says

"On my way back to my truck I spotted a fancy looking fork over at the Hayes trailer. Seems to me that this Prototype might be a new version of the Dorado. The stickers are there to lead us astray, but that there is a nice looking prototype from the Manitou camp. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of the wood work in the next few years from Manitou."

here's the whole article, the fork section is toward the bottom
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Gala-set-up-Crankworx-2007.html


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Hm...... I'll have to ask Hayes technicians this weekend


----------



## cHoc Nr1 (May 31, 2005)

Nagaredama said:


> More pictures from Pinkbike


 Did former Dorado's have a cableguide at the lower crown?
And if it is a standard MRD X works dorado 04/05, then why does it have a normal dorado uppercrown, instead of de MRD uppercrown


Nagaredama said:


>


 To my knowlegde Dorado's always had 3 bolt lowercrowns, not 2 bolt.


----------



## potvinwannab (Jun 23, 2006)

> i'm pretty sure its real. the pinkbike article says
> 
> "On my way back to my truck I spotted a fancy looking fork over at the Hayes trailer. Seems to me that this Prototype might be a new version of the Dorado. The stickers are there to lead us astray, but that there is a nice looking prototype from the Manitou camp. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of the wood work in the next few years from Manitou."
> 
> ...


its already been cleared up-its really going to happen and manitou did indeed disguise it with older stickers, it seems its under wraps (probably doesnt even use spv)


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2007)

chooofoojoo said:


> Plus it comes with a cup holder! (the lower crown... or should i say the massive hole in the lower crown)  i hate those forks. felt like poo when i pushed on one. maybe they ride better... but i won't take my chances. :nono:


Typical... feels like poo when i push on it, so its gotta suck. If you havn't ridden one, then you really can't comment:nono:


----------



## kenneththecurtain (Jan 7, 2007)

Did anyone ever find out if these are for real?


----------



## joketin (Feb 22, 2006)

They seem to be on display at eurobike.. http://picasaweb.google.de/TFJ777/Eurobike07Part1/photo#5104588454402662162


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

mace2 said:


> interesting... what are the benefits of an inverted fork over a normal one? obviously it will be less stiff..... so what's better about it?


 Advantages to inverted forks:

1.) they look cooler, 
2) no arch to limit tire sizing
3) better turning radius
4) almost complete protection from ever scratching your stantions.
5) why do you think they use inverted forks on Moto cross bikes?

On a further note for everyone else:

*MYTHS BUSTERS!!!*
For the record, the ond dorado might have flex'd a little because was carbon wrapped, which did flex after you crashed it hard because of carbon fiber's horribly weak tollerance to blunt force trama.

This Dorado, however, seems to have completely metal stantions. Plus 6lbs? thats rediculously light! Right up their with the Boxxer WC!

The Travis line was an improvement, and was more than capable of taking over The Sherman line. It was, however, NOT a better fork than the Dorado.. The Dorado was the best DH fork ( probably manitou's best fork period ) that manitou ever put into production. They where stupid to discontinue it, and are smart to bring it back, After their achievment of a more than horrible record for crappy products i.e.) stance kingpin, the older swinger 6-ways, etc...

Now that Hayes took over, I think a lot of things will be changing. I hope its not too late for manitou to come out of their slump. I really hope they do make it... No one likes to see a company fall.


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

Stable PlatForm Valve... Manitous answer to competing with Rockshox's motion control, Fox's inertia Valve..etc...

Both SPV dampening In Manitou's forks kinda blows... Their TPC+ however, is OK.... 
can't say too much about the intrinsic in their forks, but it kicks ass in their rear shocks.


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

Gravity Assist said:


> Stable PlatForm Valve... Manitous answer to competing with Rockshox's motion control, Fox's inertia Valve..etc...
> 
> Both SPV dampening In Manitou's forks kinda blows... Their TPC+ however, is OK....
> can't say too much about the intrinsic in their forks, but it kicks ass in their rear shocks.


I stupidly forgot to quote this to another posting... sorry for it being out of place....Please ignore.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

I didnt see anything in the Hayes booth up there in Whistler


----------



## BLH2 (Nov 28, 2006)

When exactly are the new Dorados suppose to hit the market?


----------



## Slack_er (Aug 20, 2006)

1. It's a Manipoo :nono: 

2. It's ugly  

3. It's a Manipoo :nono:


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

mace2 said:


> interesting... what are the benefits of an inverted fork over a normal one? obviously it will be less stiff..... so what's better about it?


 Stiffness might be the only advantage standard forks have over Inverted forks.

It might not be as stiff, but the chances of the stantions being scratch during crashes and stuff is substantially less. Not having an arch might, in fact, make it a less stiff fork, but not having an arch also does not limit tire size like a lot of standard forks do.

It was said to me long ago from both Manitou's and Marzocchi's phone tech's, that the main reason for moving away from inverted was that you could basically get the same performance out of a standard fork without the weight.

If The guy who posted this is correct, and this fork is only 6lbs in weight, that pretty much puts it up their with the Boxxer WC, (the lightest fork I've ever heard of so far at 6.0lbs estimated) which is, in turn, lighter than any other standard fork so far. And from what I hear, the Boxxer WC has its fair share of flex issues. So for a fork in its class, it might not be a bad alternative to the current crop of forks available.

I think it will be interesting to see how it will handle. I have wondered for a while what would happen if one of the 4 major fork companies brought back an inverted fork and gave it their current technology. I must say that I am pretty exited... we shall se what this brings..

Who knows, maybe Marzocchi will bring back the Shiver! Imagine a Shiver RC2X( if that is even possible given an inverted set-up), or something along the lines of that? After putting a fork out like that, How many of you would still buy the 888?

After Manitou puts out the dorado, how many of you are going to still buy a travis???


----------



## kenneththecurtain (Jan 7, 2007)

Slack_er said:


> 1. It's a Manipoo :nono:
> 
> 2. It's ugly
> 
> 3. It's a Manipoo :nono:


It's a lot of things, but its not ugly. Plus, if it does exist, its not going to use that chassis if its 36mm. Also, now that hayes have bought manitou, the quality control should get sorted. People forget they made some good forks.


----------



## Acme54321 (Oct 8, 2003)

Gravity Assist said:


> Stable PlatForm Valve... Manitous answer to competing with Rockshox's motion control, Fox's inertia Valve..etc...
> 
> Both SPV dampening In Manitou's forks kinda blows... Their TPC+ however, is OK....
> can't say too much about the intrinsic in their forks, but it kicks ass in their rear shocks.


SPV was around before motion control.


----------



## DHFreak (Jan 11, 2006)

To my knowlegde Dorado's always had 3 bolt lowercrowns, not 2 bolt.[/QUOTE]

'05 Dorado's had a 2-bolt lower crown.

Mike


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

my bad sorry.


----------



## adamus (Jan 4, 2007)

Look at this:
http://picasaweb.google.de/TFJ777/Eurobike07Part1/photo#5104588454402662162

it's from eurobike 2007!


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

sorry pvflyer i stand corrected.


----------



## chooofoojoo (Feb 22, 2007)

i hope those stickers are a fake. i don't want to see more spv forks.


----------



## rm_racer (Feb 3, 2006)

doesn't look like an SPV fork. don't see any spv stickers on this one.


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

http://foto.mtbtr.com/eurobike2007/parts/

you will have to scrole through but its in there somewhere.


----------

