|   Blur or Switchblade | Ddiddy
Nov 25, 2002 9:19 AM | | What bike to buy...very tuff choice. I have a 2000 FSR [ Many upgrades, betd link 100mm fork sealed bearings] bike rides great but may be looking for newer frame soon...so whats everyones opinion |
| For 2003 Switch gets new rear shock... | sdbelt
Nov 25, 2002 1:17 PM | | I think it's called the Talus. It lets you switch the rear travel with the shock from 3.5 to 4.5 to 5.6, with no tools. Fox has a similar front fork, and mated together on a SB, you'd have one versatile trail rig that would be difficult to pass up.
I demoed a 2002 SB, and thought it was most excellent on very technical downhills (like National Trail in Phoenix). In the end I got a Racer-X, but with this new rear shock, I may have thought differently.
--sdb |
| For 2003 Switch gets new rear shock... | Ddiddy
Nov 25, 2002 1:36 PM | | Well i wasnt planning on getting a new fork , just the frame & because i have a 100mm fork it wouldnt make sense to get the new SB with the Talas because i can not benifit from the 5.7 inches in the rear with that fork. The only reason i mentioned the blur is because the SB seems alot like my bike just a lot more money |
| re: Blur or Switchblade | RP
Nov 25, 2002 6:08 PM | | I've ridden a SB for two seasons. It's as good a designed/constructed bike as you'll find. The frame is as stiff as it was when new. In the 4.5" mode the steering and suspension action is good with both 4" and 5" forks with the expected pro's and con's for each.
Even though I really like the SB, I do see some problems with a bike that tries to be a "do-it-all" frame. For XC riding the SB's weight and more stable handling make it a second choice to bikes like the RacerX, Tracer and Superlight (haven't ridden a Blur).
The SB is best suited built up for aggressive trail riding. Mine weighs ~28lbs and still climbs well. But at ~30lbs there are a lot of bikes (Heckler, Joker, 5-Spot, El Chamuco) that would still make good trail bikes, decent climbers and would be a lot better for freeriding and occasional DHing/ski lifts.
If your FSR has a bunch of upgrades and you like the way it rides with a 100mm fork. Why not look for something a little higher up the suspension food tree.
Of course it really depends on your riding style... |
| re: Blur or Switchblade | tf7676
Nov 25, 2002 10:55 PM | | 2002 blade |
| re: Blur or Switchblade | litephil
Nov 26, 2002 6:38 AM | | the switch blade does not have to be built heavy.mine is 23.9 lbs and is plenty strong for any thing i can throw at it and thats with a
marzoki fork.it could be a bit lighter.
i would just use the fork you have for now.the 4.5 inches is probably where i would keep it most of the time any ways. think the switch blade is a perfect x/c bike that can be used for lite free rideing like morman national and can still blaze the desert clasic trail with any thing out there.and then you can slap the light weight 80mm fork from your hard tail and ya got a killer race bike thats even lighter. |
| 23.9 lb Switchblade comments... | RP
Nov 26, 2002 10:23 AM | | A 6.5 lb (Med) 4.5" travel frame built into 23.9 lb bike used for light free riding. Right.
I've had my RacerX at 24.5 lbs with race tires and tubes and a Xfly 80mm fork. Going with SID it might be under 24 lbs.
I've had the SB at 26 lbs with a Xfly 100mm, CK wheelset, V's, 100gm tubes and 550gm tires. All of the other components were reasonably light (XTR/XT, Team Stylo, Flite, 747s). The problem is the SB handles best at speed. Speeds where light tires and tubes pinch flat at reasonable pressures (35-45psi). Speeds where a XC racing fork feels like a rigid fork. If you're going to run all that light crap you'd be better off with a RacerX or Superlight.
The benefits of the SB are seen running tires with enough rubber to sail through the rock gardens without having to run 50psi, with disc brakes for stopping power and reasonably priced cranks/chainrings and derailleurs that don't break the bank when a rocky chute takes it's toll.
23.9 lb SB ... you'd be better off with a HT and a decent fork and pair of tires. |
| 23.9 lbs? that's precalculus! | dbAbuser
Nov 26, 2002 11:34 AM | | oh yeah, you're always better off w/ a hardtail w/ big tires...
lol
Take a look at the Titus website, they have a link there to an MBA story on the '02 SB, set up 3 different ways (race/trail/freeride). Race setup was 23.25 lbs w/ a SID xc. (add .65 lbs and that easily equals a lite marzocchi) Figure in a SID race and that gets you sub 23 lbs. The trailbike setup (w/ a psylo race, different tires/ bars/ stem) was 24.5 lbs.
Just b/c your bike's a pig (comparatively) don't think it can't be done...
On the other hand a bike like this w/o disc brakes seems like a tragedy to me...
oh, and 747's are reasonably light?
man, you're killing me...
lol |
| 23.9 lbs? that's precalculus! | tf7676
Nov 26, 2002 12:24 PM | | Aaaaaaaaahhhh 23.9 pounds???
I'd like to see the list spec on that(?)
The bike pictured above is a hair under
30 pounds with over-nourished wheels
and a fox forx vanilla. Can drop
it to 27.5 pounds without probably
too much trouble and I would surmise
it would still feel very stable. |
| Oh MBA says so ... | RP
Nov 26, 2002 2:26 PM | | Of course if it's in MBA it must be true...
I actually have that article and I couldn't believe the extent to which they low balled the bike weights. My small RacerX frame is a pound lighter than the medium SB and the RacerX builds up to 25 lbs with "light" components. Moving to a SID Race, semi-slick tires and 80gm tubes gets you to 24 lbs. The next half pound you're running Morati cranks, ti bolt kits, speedfrog pedals, ti BB, no headset cap, carbon fiber bars, FLR saddle, ...
That's for a 5.5lb RacerX. With the 6.5lb SB that leaves you at 24.5 lbs and that's being optimistic. Not to over look the fact that subtracting the last 1/2 lb run $2/gm and make the bike scared of the dirt...
BTW, if this is pre calculus, it's back to algebra with you. |
| its possible to go 23.9 | FoolCyclist
Nov 26, 2002 10:02 PM | | I have seen lots of stores selling 13lb kits. Thats everything but the fork. So there your at 19.5 and its not unreasonable to have a 4.4lb fork. My Z1 FR with cut steerer is just about 4.7. |
| Agree with RP | pedalAZ
Nov 29, 2002 11:36 AM | | I ride a large RacerX built up just under 23 lbs, despite running tires that could be lighter (Conti Vertical Protection 2.3 and Survival Protection 2.1). To get there, I used a lot of expensive, borderline stupid light parts that wouldn't make sense on a Switchblade that needs to stand up to free ride hits if you're riding it where it belongs. A Switchblade with disc brakes, sturdy wheels, fat tires, strong bar and stem would probably need to be at least 26.5-27 lbs or more. |
| re: Blur or Switchblade | Ddiddy
Dec 2, 2002 10:29 AM | | Hey yo know what i find amazing, is that i posted this question to get opinions on which frame would be more suitable for my needs, & all these responses are about how light they got there Racer X or Swtichblade. For one: Who cares how light the frigin bikes are or could be, i don't race, my FRS is 30lbs. cause of the heavy wheels & it does'nt effect my riding at all! so weight means nothing. My question was: WHAT BIKE TO BUY [ NOTE THIS FORUM IS NAMED WHAT BIKE TO BUY ] SANTA CRUZ BLUR OR TITUS SWITCHBLADE. I ride east cost were it can be pretty technical, rocky, & so on.... so lets try again.... no one cares about weight.. i ride for the fun of it, i know ppl who ride 45lb M1's cross country riding for practice .. so stop with the weight thing. |
| |
