|   Switchblade vs Tracer ? | 4 bar bound
Apr 11, 2002 10:06 AM | | Which bike is the better all around bike. May do some local races but am just after an effieient active bike that can be used for both trail and race? |
| which ever fits you better | derby
Apr 11, 2002 12:30 PM | | Both are excellent. The Tracer has a bit quicker steering, and a few more adjustment options. SB's slower steering may be better for desert sand, steeper technical drops, and higher speed stability. Titus warrantee support may faster now since resent department changes at Intense, although rarely needed from either company.
- ray |
| which ever fits you better | 4 bar bound
Apr 11, 2002 2:51 PM | | Thank you for the reply. I f it matters I live on east coast ,( rocksy, HILLS,roots,etc) . Is either more efficient? |
| more | derby
Apr 11, 2002 3:56 PM | | I own a Tracer due to having the best handling and efficiencies for my interests. The Tracer is 3 - 4 (actually 4.4) inches adjustable travel stock and there is an optional 4.5 (actually 5+) inch travel Uzzi SL link that will work well with a 5 inch fork.
For racing the 3 - 4 inch setting would work best with a 80 mm fork. Both the SB and Tracer it climb very well seated and OK when standing (get a shock lock-out for racing). Although semi-active monopivots such as the Superlight or the more radical Horst Linked NRS or the coming VPP's will accelerate and climb - while standing - better than other full suspension designs without the need for a shock lock-out, possibly better than hardtails due to the traction advantage and stability in the rough and loose.
(I've test ridden and demoed all these bikes.)
- ray |
| more | 4 bar bound
Apr 11, 2002 7:36 PM | | Ray, is it just me or does the NRS suffer from some serious brake jack. I notice this a little less on Superlight. What else would you suggest I look into for a full suspender that can do it all? Is there any one bike that is that much better? |
| NRS, others, and truly free acting suspension | derby
Apr 12, 2002 11:05 AM | | The NRS rides most efficiently as designed with next to no sag. When I test rode one at the last Napa WC race a mechanic showed me a bike setup for one of the pros. The factory racers used no sag and some moderate preload for that rather rough race course. I was used to my Superlight which rode far smoother than the NRS with the standard no sag set up. So I asked the mechanic to dial in some sag and the bike really felt very smooth over rocks then with maybe 15% sag (the mechanic said he set up his own NRS with some sag too for non race riding). But you are correct there is jack (extension) upon applying the brakes when there is sag set up, but there is little sag to rise through compared to bikes that extend more freely with more sag. The problem is with braking the NRS, it tops out with or without sag and locks the suspension like a hard tail, so braking traction in the rear is not nearly as good as a more freely floating rear wheel of any monopivot or multi-link, especially the FSR tuned links. But for racing as you know if you race XC, the competitive advantage goes to those who can accelerate and climb the hardest and fastest. This is where the NRS excels over nearly all other bikes. Only the Susperlight (and very similar higher monopivots) and especially the coming VPP's from Santa Cruz and Intense will be more effective race bikes than the NRS. (Of course Roland Green could race a Wal-Mart bike and still bake everyone. The rider's strength and preparation are the biggest factors.)
Damping (friction) is the true test of suspension free activity. Damping is like modulating brakes, the less use of brakes allows the wheel to turn more freely, same with damping and suspension. The high forward monopivots are truly the freest acting overall because they require the least slow damping near sag for a stable ride overall with little pedal bob ( but there are comfort, momentum, and traction sacrifices in slower pedaling situations due to chain kickback). It is a fallacy that either FSR (or the related ICT) is the freest acting suspension design because more damping is required to stabilize those bikes than higher forward monopivot (much more in the case of ICT which pedal similar to lower rearward monopivots). The FSR (and ICT) design optimize comfort and traction and momentum through obstacles over acceleration efficiency and speed, travel must be reduced by damping and firmer springs (or lock-out) to produce greater acceleration efficiencies. The Isis and Superlight are actually truly much freer acting suspensions than the Truth. It maybe that the new VPP's will require even less slow damping than any design yet for quick, stable, and smooth riding, and chain kickback when hitting bumps will not be so sharp.
- ray |
| Damping and efficiency | Steve from JH
Apr 12, 2002 11:50 AM | | If we're talking about genuinely rough terrain where suspension is definitely an advantage, then you have the correlation between damping and efficiency exactly backwards.
The more heat produced in the damper by the bike being ridden over rough terrain, the more efficient the bike.
This has to do with activeness: the more active the bike, the more efficient. Activeness also correlates positively with damping amount--the more the bike's suspension reacts to forces acting on it, the more the damper is activated, the more heat produced. |
| not exactly | derby
Apr 12, 2002 4:13 PM | | Faster damping generates less heat (and resistance to activity) for the same amount of travel in time.
The less damping the faster the suspension can move to the ground changes. This is particularly noticeable braking at higher speeds over rough surfaces.
Some light damping is needed just to reduce oscillation from the spring bounce forces that would send the suspension rebounding above sag.
The suspensions requiring the least slow damping are freest to move most quicky to terrain changes.
The freest suspensions use mechanical balance, not friction. And these suspensions can tune damping for coasting, without additional damping required for stabilizing pedal bob or brake jack.
There are very well balanced bikes that require slow damping, they just don't work as well at higher speed or in rougher terrain.
- ray |
| If you took two bikes | Steve from JH
Apr 12, 2002 6:15 PM | | and set them up with different suspension systems and let them both roll down the same course on the same hill without the rider doing anything other than keeping the bike balanced, the one that produced more heat in the dampers would be going faster at the bottom. |
| so a rigid bike should be quickest? (long) | derby
Apr 14, 2002 8:59 AM | | A rigid bike has 100 percent damping friction.
With suspension. The fasted bike down the hill will have no more heat and probably less than a slower one with more damping. The faster damped bike's suspension allows the tire to move faster out of the way of bumps and rebound faster to keep the tire on the ground for directional stability. Less damping has less (hydraulic) friction, producing less heat with each travel cycle. A slower damped suspension must go slower to maintain bump complaint traction. Now if you are just spending most time in the air with little direction change, more spring and more damping is required (but it doesn't make the damping slower if the spring is firmer), still the relatively faster moving suspension will comply better when on the ground.
Lower pivot (more BB concentric, "vertical" path) bikes can tune faster damping for speed, but then they sacrifice pedal bob stability and acceleration efficiency at lower speeds.
Now I understand why Santa Cruz calls their suspension "fully active". Very little to no extra damping beyond what is required for coasting is used on the Superlight to control pedal bob. My Tracer requires visibly slightly slower damping on the same trails. The lower pivot bikes and the Truth I rode on the same trails required very slow damping for pedaling bob and overall stability particularly over short rolling bumpy trail. Optimum damping for speed should be tuned for coasting needs of the terrain only. Adding damping to increase pedal and brake efficiency and stability reduces optimum compliance to bumps.
But the more comfortable pedaling bikes over rough terrain must have lower effective pivots (near vertical paths) near sag. So then come the new VPP's which do have low effective pivots (near vertical paths) near sag but smoothly ramp up rearward paths for biopace torque just below sag when the rider stands on the pedals hard, negating the need that vertical path (lower effective pivot) bikes have for compression damping or stiffer springs for more efficient acceleration. Plus it looks like the VPP paths reduce the rearward path increase reducing bio-pace deeper into travel, effectively becoming more vertical paths which would reduce the chain kickback feel in the pedals over bumps, and smooth the transition of reduced pedal input torque at the bottom of the pedal stroke cycle. These bike may not have a pedal feel quite as smooth as a low mono pivot or similar pathed ICT, but then again they may if the bio pace effect is very smooth and progressive. The bio-pace effect allows a rider to use a higher gear for the same acceleration needs and slows pedal torque bob cycle frequency, with less damping requirement.
And of course the wheelbase and fork angles make a big difference in coasting stability.
The low pivot or more vertical BB concentric path makes sense for a very smooth or very high speed pedal cycle, such as a motorcycle or car. But hard acceleration or slow climbing on a bicycle produces an irregular puling pedal cycle, which requires a bio-pace mechanical torque to mechanically balance the pulsing input. Without bio-pace mechanicals, slower damping is required for efficient acceleration and handling stability (but slower damping is less free overall to suspension efficiency).
Thanks again for the opportunity to try to clarify the efficiency tradeoffs for various suspension path effects.
- ray |
| You've got everything bass ackwards. | Steve from JH
Apr 14, 2002 9:38 AM | | A rigid bike obviously has no damping.
The bike that produces the most heat in my test will be fastest. Its suspension has absorbed more of the energy produced by the negative work performed on the bike by terrain changes. The heat is the equivalent of that energy. Each bump tries to slow the bike by changing the direction of the center of mass. The less heat produced in the damper, the more the center of mass will have changed direction and the more the bike will slow.
In your next to last paragraph you refer to an irregular pedal cycle "which requires a bio-pace mechanical torque to mechanically balance the pulsing input." If you are referring to a pulsing change in the chain tension, then you are right. There should be ideally just enough anti-squat to counter the accelerational squat. If you are referring to pulsing input that is outside the drivetrain, i.e. getting out of the saddle and moving your center of gravity up and down as you pedal, then you are wrong. If the bike has just the right amount of anti-squat geometry then it
b will
bob under those circumstances. Just the way my car bobs around on its springs when I let the dogs in the back. If it doesn't bob under those circumstances then it will be inefficient when you are seated and pedalling more nearly perfectly. The best way to deal with this kind of weight shift induced bob is with a sophisticated damper. |
| Quality damping will improve any design | derby
Apr 15, 2002 10:09 AM | | The Superlght and the Tracer both work well seated and standing. The Superlight was certainly more efficient accelerating than the Tracer when seated in the granny or middle, and standing in the middle and big rings, but at the cost of comfort and traction. The Tracer has some moderately exaggerated bio-pace geometry near sag (slightly more than any other Horst link except the NRS, much more than a Specialized XC or Enduro) to make the pedaling very snappy while seated and standing. But deeper into travel the Tracer transitions to nearly the most BB concentric path of all bikes for very smooth pedaling bump hits and great traction. Both bikes require the fastest damping (mid range on the Fox shocks) I've adjusted into the many suspension bikes I've ridden and tested.
The bikes I've ridden requiring slow damping for are very smooth and comfortable when riding slowly, but just can't fly downhill like the Superlight or Tracer (or Switchblade or XCE). And the slow damped bikes lock the rear wheel much easier when braking at any speed.
Perhaps a highly sophisticated well tuned shock for a specific rider could bring a slower damped bike's performance close to the bikes designed for conventional faster damping. But tune those high zoot customized shocks for the faster damped bikes and they will perform even better too, with faster damping and even better compliance to bumps. Quality damping will improve any design. Less damping is faster and has better traction though bumps and loose rocks.
I'm very curious to spend more time on the new VPP, they may require even less damping than the Superlight, accelerate even faster, brake with the best, and pedal as smoothly as a Truth or Element.
- ray |
| more,should i consider other design | 4 bar bound
Apr 11, 2002 7:49 PM | | Should I consider other designs? I was under the impression that the 4 bar bikes are best, and better if fully active? |
| Might consider a Hammerhead 100X... | Metroid
Apr 12, 2002 6:10 AM | | I had a Switchblade last year and sold it to get a Hammerhead. The Hammerhead comes in more sizes to fit me better. It's also lighter and faster handling for slice and dice in the tight singletrack. The SB is stiffer than the Tracer because it has quad bearings in the main pivot, beefier swingarm and clevis style Horst link. With the straight gauge downtube and boxed chainstays, the HH is even stiffer than the Switchblade. The Hammerhead fits my riding style much better.
To me the 100X seems to be a good mix of factors. With 3.8" in the rear and 100mm up front, it's ready for just about anything (at least anything that I'm going to do). It's fast enough to be raced and plush enough for all day epics.
I definitely wouldn't run an 80mm fork on the Hammerhead though. If you wanted to do that, you should consider the standard Racer-X. |
| Might consider a Hammerhead 100X... | 4 bar bound
Apr 12, 2002 7:41 PM | | I got a brief demo on a racer x and loved it as a " race " bike, but doubt that it can ever be " plush" style trail bike. Maybe it was not set up properly ( Afterall it was someone nice enough to let me spin it, they had at least 12 lbs on me). Could the Racer X be set up to be more plush or trail sensitive? Have you ridden the Racerx , and if so , how does it compare to your HHX? You can race your HHX??? |
| Might consider a Hammerhead 100X... | 4 bar bound
Apr 12, 2002 8:09 PM | | Metroid, first let me say your blue ano ride is stunning. Have you ridden a RacerX? I got to spin one ( set up for the guy who was nice enough for a quick spin, but had about 8-10lbs on me), I just loved the race feel but question the ability of the bike to ever be trail sensitive/ friendly.."plush". Am I to understand that the hammerhead is built by Titus for Charles? Also the Hammerhead is just a racer x with more travel? Same efficient, quick,stiff, type of ride just ,again,more travel? Any problems with with steep climbs( traction or light front due to 100mm frok)? COULD YOU RACE THE HAMMERHEAD? |
| Can you race a HH? | NCBiker
Apr 13, 2002 9:09 AM | | In my opinion, for the type of racing in NC: definately yes. I can't speak for other types of terrain. The HH performs exceptionally well on tight, technical singletrack. The trails in these parts are very rocky with ruts and roots. Steep technical climbs usually. One of the very cool things that I am noticing when riding in a group, the suspension allows you to pick faster technical lines that a hardtailer and even bikes with 80mm up front struggle with going up or down.
If you race courses that have lots of long sprinting sections or climbs, I would suggest a fork w/ a lock out. No need to lock out the rear.
It may simply be that the HH fits my riding style, but I am completely satisfied with the bike's performance. |
| Can you race a HH? | 4 bar bound
Apr 14, 2002 8:56 AM | | I live east coast also! PA and Wva is whaere I ride! No problems in or out of saddle climbing? What other bikes did you look at? What about brske jack on HH. |
| Might consider a Hammerhead 100X... | KRob
Apr 13, 2002 11:38 PM | | The HH100x is basically a custom designed RacerX, Geometry speced by Charles, built by Titus. It is designed to be used with a 100mm fork, while maintaining the correct head angle, and seat tube angles of the efficent, quick-steering RacerX, and the rear travel has also been increased slightly (3.65 to 3.8). The HH can indeed by set up to feel quite plush over rocky tech stuff, and yet is still very stable at speed. A little more air in the shocks and voila, it can also race. IMHO,it is the best all-round, do (almost) anything bike available(Admittedly, I don't have a lot of experience with other bikes, but I had the same question as you and did a lot of research and bought the HH). Would I like a 22 lbs Ti hard tail, and a Uzzi SLX or Foes Fly in the stable also? You bet! But until I can justify another $8,000-$10,000 in new bike expense to my wife, I'll be very satisfied with my HH. |
| Might consider a Hammerhead 100X... | 4 bar bound
Apr 14, 2002 9:03 AM | | Krob,nice pic. Bike looks sweet! It is nice to hear someone in same boat. I can only afford on bike at this time, and I am looking at function and versatility. By the way, from your pic, do you live in Arizona? Was there on year end business meeting last year. Beautifull place. Unfortunate that I had no free time to ride or visit Titus factory. I am now more than ever wanting to ride Moab and in Arizona!
How is your bike set up and what does it weigh? |
| Thanks! No, actually, I live in northern Neveda | KRob
Apr 14, 2002 1:59 PM | | But I just got my HH the day before leaving on spring break. Southern Utah and Arizona are becomeing my favorite off-season riding destinations. It's cold and snowy here all winter (elevation 6500 ft.) so I make up as many excuses as I can during the winter to get down south. "Oh, honey there are some continuing education classes I could take in Sedona.... Well, you know, I might as well take my bike along in case I get any free time to ride." And so it goes. "Hey, babe, why don't we go visit your sister in Mesa for spring break. I think the kids are really tired of the snow. Yeah, I guess we could squeeze my bike in just in case." Very sweet riding (GO THERE) and I don't do xc skiing so I get cabin fever bad during cold winters.
Anyway, that's me. One bike will have to do for me too(my WR250 will have to satisfy my need for long-travel suspension and speed), so I wanted a bike that would do a lot of things well. At least for me, the HH seems to be it.
Bike set up is pretty standard Charles Coker spec. XTR rd; XT: fd, splined BB, crank, cassette, and shifters. Avid mechanical discs. Thompson seat post and stem (120mmx5deg); Monkey lite riser carbon bar; American Classic hubs laced to VXC velocity rims; Panracer FireXC black sidewall tires; Selle Italia Flite Trans Am seat; Fox Float R fork and shock. I'm not sure of the weight. It feels a little heavier than my steel hardtail which was right at about 25lbs. 26lbs?
Check out my post above. Springtime in the Great Basin where I've included a few more pics of my local riding area and given a little more (preliminary) review of the bike. |
| Thanks! No, actually, I live in northern Neveda | 4 bar bound
Apr 14, 2002 6:30 PM | | I have also checked out your post above "basin". Now I want to ride there even more!!!!. Bike looks sweet! Thanks for response and info. |
| I can't believe I misspelled Nevada. Typing brain fade. nm | KRob
Apr 14, 2002 10:48 PM | | |
| Stiffness questions(long)... | fonseca
Apr 13, 2002 6:27 PM | | Do you feel the hh100x is noticeably stiffer? Are the boxed chainstays on the hh larger than the boxed ones on the switchblade? Are you using the same fork and wheelset on your hh as you were on the switchblade? HOw much stiffer does a straight guage tube make a frame...I thought double butted downtubes didn't lose any noticeable stiffness.
I want to test ride both of these before deciding, as well as some others...I'm wondering if I can really have a bike good for both tight, twisty, technical singletrack at slow speeds, and for 30-45mph descents on open singletrack and fireroads. It seems like I almost need two bikes, but I would like a do everything frame if possible.
I'd say 70% of my riding is 15mph navigating through rock gardens and rooty climbs and descents...typical VA singletrack. But my favorite rides are the other 30%...blazing downhills that need stable steering, the ability to ride right through rocky sections at speed, etc. If I had the money I would buy a racerx AND a switchblade...but the hh seems to be a good compromise between the two. Frankly I'm not sure which would suit my riding style better.
Do you know if you can run a coil shock on the switchblade?
Fonseca NADS 898 |
| Stiffness questions(long)... | NCBiker
Apr 14, 2002 7:34 AM | | I can't answer your stiffness questions because I have not experience w/ the SB to compare to. Except to say the HH feels very stiff.
I would guess VA riding is very similiar to NC. The HH is VERY stable on fast downhills. I would be very surprised if anyone would be disappointed in that respect. To be fair, I tend to get farther back behind the seat on the very steep gravity cavity type dropoffs. This is compared to my last bike, which felt like you could ride down a vertical wall with no problems.
Good luck in deciding. I looked around for at least 6 months before making the move to the HH. Charles has good prices on build kits and lots of first hand knowledge on selections as well. |
| Hard to say... | Metroid
Apr 15, 2002 6:51 AM | | Without a side by side comparison, I can't really say for sure that I can feel the difference. Again, I'm only 170lbs. Plus I was riding a hardtail for several weeks between the two. I can say the HH feels VERY solid.
If you're looking at a coil, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I know the Vanilla will fit the SB but don't know how it rides.
If you ever want to come down to NC and check out the HH, you're more than welcome. |
| Hard to say... | fonseca
Apr 15, 2002 7:19 PM | | Thanks for the offer!
Mabye someone in the Virginia/DC area will buy one and save me a few hours to see it in person. :)
I haven't had good luck with air shocks since I am a clyde, but who knows...it could all be in the linkage. |
| Consider the Truth | Steve from JH
Apr 12, 2002 6:24 AM | | The Truth is both more efficient and more active than either the Tracer or Switchblade. Of the latter two the Switchblade's linkage is slightly closer to the Truth's in efficiency and activeness.
The head angle on the Truth is 71 for the large and 71.5 for medium and small. That's racing type steering geometry. It definitely helps in climbing the technical steeps. |
| Is it really ? ... | dogbert
Apr 12, 2002 6:38 AM | | I always thought my med Truth SE was very quick in the handling dept., much more so than my older '99. I know the large had ½° slacker head tube angle, but I thought it was 71° vs. 70.5°. The 71.5° ht angle may explain how it handled at speed.
Doesn't matter much now anyway as the frame was sold yesterday...the same day my XCE arrived from Turner. |
| Those are the numbers they list. | Steve from JH
Apr 12, 2002 7:56 AM | | But they don't say whether those figures go with an 80mm fork or a 100. It could be that the smaller angles you give go with the 100 fork. |
| well, well, well... | retro slouch
Apr 12, 2002 2:51 PM | | What size XCE did you get? Please post your thoughts on it after you get it built up and get some saddle time. Of course, your opinions will likely mirror 99% of other XCE owners and riders. "Great bike." "Does everything well." "Best xc bike in the history of history." Despite the few reviews available due to Turner exclusivity, I do put stock in them. I'm just having a hard time believing a slacker, longer, 30-31# bike(21") will do everything better than my current bikes while not handling slow and being a very able climber. It almost sounds too good to be true. |
| XCE not so heavy | derby
Apr 15, 2002 10:25 AM | | The XCE frame is a 1/4 pound heavier than a Switchblade, 1/2 pound heavier than a Tracer, and a 3/4 pound heavier than a Truth (with the same shock on each). And built incrementally stiffer and more durable than each one. It is a very well balanced handling and weighted bike. I've never immediately felt more balanced on any bike hopping off bumps and laying into corners, any other bike has needed more time fine tuning to feel as good, if possible (rarely).
- ray |
| But... | Metroid
Apr 15, 2002 11:43 AM | | The XCE with an air shock doesn't get the full 4" of travel due to less stroke. |
| Yep, gotta agree there ... | dogbert
Apr 15, 2002 12:56 PM | | my initial impressions of the XCE were similar to yours (I just posted a "preliminary" Truth vs. XCE comparison towards the top of this page). One thing I didn't add was that on the Truth I felt like I was riding "on top" of it, whereas I felt like I was "in" the XCE. Definitely lended itself to a better feel. The top tubes are almost identical (23.5" on Truth, 23.6" on XCE), so I was surprised at the immediate difference in feel, i.e. better on the XCE after only two rides. |
| Hmmm | Louie
Apr 12, 2002 11:09 AM | | I don't want to get into a suspension argument here. I guess all I want to say is that a lot of this stuff is subjective. I was on a Truth for close to a year and then got a Switchblade. The Truth was probably a little more efficient, but I think the SB is without a doubt -- in my mind -- more active and gives a much better ride. Stiffer laterally too. Some of it may come down to the SB just fits me better, maybe some of it is the geometry, I don't know. I feel "at one" with this bike like I have with no other. It feels prefectly balanced, I don't even have to think about it, I just ride. My old truth never gave me that sensation, and believe me I tried to make it work with different forks, shocks, stems, etc. Well, like I said, not trying to start an argument, just wanted to state my opinion. For me, the SB is a much better bike (handling, fit, suspension). If I were to do it all over again, I'd get another Switchblade. Suspension efficiency and action are very important to me as well, believe me, my legs are still are still burning from yesterdays ride (going up, up, up). |
| What I mean by active | Steve from JH
Apr 12, 2002 11:27 AM | | I don't want to get into an argument either. What I said is a theoretical statement. But I should make it clear that when I say active I am talking about active while pedalling. The more active bike is the one in which pedalling has less influence on the suspension--neither making it move nor keeping it from moving.
It can be proven, although I don't seem to have any luck getting anyone to follow the proof, that the Ellsworth linkage bikes are more active than their competition, in that narrow sense. |
| ok | Louie
Apr 12, 2002 11:49 AM | | You are right, you could try and show me the proof, but I doubt I'd pay attention. I do hear what you are saying though, and I can't argue with it.
When you get to bikes of this caliber, I think we all can admit that most of them perform really freaking nice. Picking out the one that will work best for you is difficult, there is much more to consider than splitting hairs about suspension efficiency. Granted, all the theoretical stuff about why it works is interesting (to a degree), but ultimately... you know what I'm saying. Did you buy your bike because it theoretically has the best suspension design, or did you ride it and say "damn, this bike is sweet, fits great, woo hoo!" and then decide do buy it?
:) |
| Actually... | Steve from JH
Apr 12, 2002 11:57 AM | | I bought it because it theoretically had the best suspension design, but then I'm weird. Fortunately I did indeed have those reactions you describe after I got it. |
| Hmmm | 4 bar bound
Apr 12, 2002 7:47 PM | | How does your switch climb? I hear they are horrible technical climbers? Does it climb well in and outof the saddle? |
| I think it climbs great | Louie
Apr 13, 2002 11:32 AM | | Ok, I am sure there are better climbing bikes out there, but let me put it this way: The bike isn't holding me back at all. Only times I haven't made a climb on this bike is when I ran out of steam. As long as I can stay seated, I have been able to just motor up whatever gets in my way. Most of my climbs on it so far have been wet, steep, fairly rocky and loose, and I have always been really suprised as to how well it climbs.
Out of the saddle, it does bounce around a bit. On technical climbs though, I am always sitting to keep weight on the rear tire, about the same as I would on a hardtail. Fireroads I will sometimes stand up to stretch a bit, and on the road I'll stand up too and occasionally use the lock out. If I never touched pavement, I could have easily gone without the lockout. However, I'm really glad I went with the lockout as some rides have 2-3000 feet of climbing on the road to get to the singletrack.
One thing you may have to get used to is... it's kind of a big bike if you're coming off a hardtail (wheelbase). Front end is kinda high (well, on mine at least) and steering is 70.5 in 4.5" mode. I totally love the steering, I think it's perfect for what I ride. However, the steering combined with the wheelbase can sometimes be challenging when it gets really tight and twisty. I've found myself using a lot of front brake and riding the front wheel (lifting the back and doing a rolling pivot) thru tight slow corners and switchbacks. It's all a tradeoff though, I have a hardtail (spare / loaner) that is smaller and lighter, and is easy to maneuver in tight twisty singletrack, but I always choose the SB since it climbs better and is more comfortable. I don't even have to tell you that it is a blast coming down. It's all a tradeoff. My strength has typically been the technical singletrack and climbing, and blasting downhill was the weakness. So I don't mind that this bike is occasionally a challenge in the tight technical stuff. Climbing, it has made me a better and more efficient climber. Downhill... I've been faster and in way more control than I ever have before.
If I lived somewhere that was mainly tighter singletrack... I'd definately want to test ride the HH100x. My uneducated opinion on those two (SB vs HH100) is: Snappier acceleration and a little quicker steering vs. More travel / more plush and more stable at speed.
Lots of good bikes out there. Have fun picking one! |
| can't loose | andym
Apr 11, 2002 12:52 PM | | They are nearly indentical. If you get a better fit on one then go for that.
One small note. Look up close at the horst link on both bikes. On the DB, the member which goes from the SB to the rear has a linkage which goes on *both* sides of the derailer assembly (look from above). It is like a Y where the derailer assembly is in the middle of the Y. The Intese frame does not have this (more like two i's next to each other). The former is much stonger and better. Small detail but still. There are technical terms for this crap I just don't know them.
SB has a 5.6 travel option not avail on the Tracer.
SB head angle is more slack - better for downhill, worse for quick handling.
Good luck. |
| can't loose | 4 bar bound
Apr 11, 2002 2:54 PM | | Any truth to some reports of these bikes being bad technical climbers?
Is one more efficient? May want to do some local racing and team 24 hour events. |
| can't loose | Jrm
Apr 11, 2002 3:23 PM | | Four bar designs will get you up almost anything with power and method. But most of the time youll have to do it seated. |
| can't loose | andym
Apr 11, 2002 3:25 PM | | I don't know. I got short demo on the SB and it was fine climbing. Both bikes have a kinda slack head angle which can make climbing difficult. If you get a shock that lets you adjust the ride height this should not be a problem (ex psylo or ECC on Marzo's) All I have heard is great things about both of these bikes. They are pretty much the best 4 bar trail bikes around. |
| Depends | Spectre
Apr 11, 2002 6:31 PM | | The problem I have with my SB with an X-fly 100 is that the front end wants to pull up on steep climbs (as compared to the Kona HT that I previously rode). I don't have the ECC cartridge to reduce travel on my fork. I think the ECC would take care of this problem altogether.
I have been learning to compensate by getting lower above my handlebars. |
| Depends | 4 bar bound
Apr 11, 2002 7:42 PM | | So the bike climbs well? Seated or standing? Good at increasing traction? I would start out riding the bikes in the lower 3.7 settings so that I could run my zoki bam 80. Would this help the front end trouble you have. ( I assume you are running a 100mm fork.)
Any other bikes you would suggest? |
| Try this... | Quattro
Apr 12, 2002 5:49 AM | | flip your stem over.It changes the weight distribution.I
put a 100 mm fork on a bike and it did this to me. The
reversed stem did the trick.What is your bar and stem
setup?Cannondale used to use this trick to compensate
for the Headshock. The SB is designed to use the longer
fork. Maybe a riser bar and a too high stem is the problem? |
| Both good climbers... | gurp
Apr 11, 2002 10:08 PM | | If you are coming from a hardtail with a long stem and quick steering, you will need to get used to the higher front end. Just lean forward and down more, its all in the technique. You can actually climb harder stuff than on a hardtail due to the extra traction.
You could set up either bike to race XC. Both bikes can achieve a 71 degree head angle with the proper fork, so you can get that slice and dice xc feel. |
| agree | Louie
Apr 12, 2002 11:19 AM | | It takes some time to get used to the steering and higher front end on climbs... not much though, it's pretty obvious what you need to do. Lean forward and down, kinda pulling the bars back and down a little bit, and keep on the gas.
This bike weighs easily a couple of pounds more than your average hardtail but I can climb stuff that I don't think I would have even attempted on a hardtail. I was thinking about that yesterday while going up a steep, wet, rooted, loose rock climb... conti survival pros, somewhat low pressure, just stayed seated and kept on pedalling... kept going right up. I was suprised how I barely lost traction at all, the rear tire spun 1/4 of a crank a couple of times going over wet roots, but nothing much at all. For me, the bike climbs awesome; it allows me to ride up things that I wouldn't be able to on a hardtail at all.
With that being said, on a smooth, groomed trail, a hardtail would typically go up faster than a heavier full suspension. |
| agree | 4 bar bound
Apr 12, 2002 7:54 PM | | Is your switchblade efficient, any bad riding traits? Have you ever been on aRacerx or HHx? If so how do they compare? How is your Switchblade set up, is there a difference in the3 inch and 4 inch modes? |
| Riding Charateristics | gurp
Apr 13, 2002 9:49 AM | | 3.75" mode w/ 80mm fork - Quick racer boy handling (71 degree head angle). Fast and efficient suspension feel. Not very plush in this mode, good racer feeling. BB feels a bit high compared to traditional xc racing designs though.
4.5" mode. Ive got mine set up with a 5" fork - Feels kinda moto, doesnt steer quite as quick, but leans better. Very stable ride, handles drops and rough terrain great, but still sprints better than anything else Ive ridden with comparable travel. |
| Switchblade owner... | RP
Apr 12, 2002 7:47 AM | | As others have stated the Tracer and Switchblade are similar enough that you really won't go wrong picking one over the other. In my case I chose the Switchblade because of the experience dealing with Titus from owning a RacerX. I also tend to think the Switchblade "feels" more efficient, but others say the opposite so who really knows. I'm not sure but I think the Tracer may be lighter.
I will say that neither climbs/sprints like my RacerX. Part of this is the difference in fork (80mm vs 100mm), but part is the RacerX suspension. I think this is why the HH100 is so popular.
There are also a couple of riders on this board who have made the RacerX to Switchblade to HH100 move. Just some food for thought... In my case I ride the RacerX on the rides were I want to race the clock and the Switchblade on everything else including rides with long trail climbs. |
| Switchblade owner... / vs the racerx and HHx | 4 bar bound
Apr 12, 2002 8:00 PM | | How does your switchblade in the 3.5 inch mode feel and compare to the RacerX? Am I to understand that the hammerhead is close to 4 inch front and rear and is still quick, efficient,"plush",great climber, and just all out RacerX with more travel? |
| Switchblade owner... / vs the racerx and HHx | RP
Apr 13, 2002 9:37 AM | | I didn't like the way the Switchblade handled with a 100mm fork and the rear in the 3.5" setting. Although the rear was stiffer and more efficient, the steering was too floppy. I would say that to do the 3.5" mode justice an 80mm fork is required.
I've only ridden the RacerX not the HH100, but most of the complaints I have with trail riding the RacerX are addressed by the HH100. Since the rears are pretty much the same I would guess that climbing is still excellent while the 100 front makes for better high speed stability and better braking. |
| |
