|   Saltamontes vs. 4" ti Racer-X | Chuck333
Mar 8, 2003 8:48 AM | | Hi,
Looking for some input. I thought that I had my mind all made up but lately I have been thinking ti. I live in Canada and read somewhere about aluminum and cold not getting along.
The choice is a Ventana El Saltamontes or a ti Racer-X with the geometry changed for 4". I do understand that they would be different styles of bikes, one leaning towards more x/c but the Salt would be used in the lower travel settings until I get used to having suspension.
The ultimate issues for me are reliability and durability. I am coming from a ti hardtail that couldn't be hurt.
I have made my mind up between these two but have to decide in the next couple of days.
Thanks |
| re: Saltamontes vs. 4" ti Racer-X | DCS
Mar 8, 2003 9:18 AM | | I have a Hammerhead 100X Ti and think its a great performer and great looker. Nice feature is that the bike's geometry is customized for you at no extra charge. The 100X Ti is more XC oriented than the Salty, but is a very capable trailbike as well.
The Ventana Salty can have more travel (travel is adjustable), use a coil rear shock, is more of a trailbike than XC bike, and is a decent amount heavier than the Hammerhead/Racer-X. I don't know if Ventana does customized geometries and how much that costs.
While Ti tubing is definitely more durable than comparable Al tubing in terms of scratch, dent and corrosion resistance, the tubing on the Salty should be plenty durable, as it does not use ultra thin tubing like something like a Giant NRS or Ellsworth Truth. Don't hear too much about Saltys breaking. Your concern about AL and cold weather is a non-issue, as the temperature would have to be far below anything a human being could withstand riding before it would compromise the reliability of the AL.
In summary, just pick the bike that suits your needs better. A lighter, customized XC oriented bike (Hammerhead 100X Ti) versus a longer travel, more adjustable trailbike (Ventana Salty). |
| Wow, two different animals | Green Giant
Mar 8, 2003 11:33 AM | | As I haved owned both (hammerhead 100x)
The Salty is much more plush, the hammerhead much more efficient. Both are built excellent. Depending on headtube (if you get a custom Ti you can choose) but based on standard geometry the Hammerhead is a much more precise handler.
I loved the salty, great build quality great company. However I found the front end to be too tall and it really made it more difficult to climb.
I'm on a XCE now. Still learning the bike. Honestly as much as I love the build quality of the salty the XCE climbs better. However I believe this is because the front end rides lower. The horst link makes a difference but it's not huge.
As always... call charles at hammerhead bikes. He can sell you both, has great prices and frankly has more time on all the high end stuff than anyone out there. |
| Surprised to see you go the Turner Route..... | Shylock
Mar 8, 2003 1:11 PM | | ...after our past conversations regarding build quality etc..
I do think you're right about the headtube having quite a bearing on climbing and that Sherwood is running things on the high side in the top tube department. But as we've discussed, I think the fact that he still rides flat bars has alot to do with why he's designed his bikes with such tall headtubes.
I've recently been running my Fuego with a flat bar and no spacers. It climbs beautifully. Before, with a 1" riser. I could not get more than a 1" seat/ bar differential and it really slowed down my climbing. Now, with a flat bar, I've got 3 inches between seat and bar, can run the rear softer, and climb loads better.
Feel the gin |
| Please compare Hammerhead & XCE, reason for change nm | poser
Mar 8, 2003 8:16 PM | | |
| Ok, lots of stuff... | Green Giant
Mar 9, 2003 8:21 AM | | As for why the change.
Well, I'll tell you this much. The Hammerhead 100x is my favorite bike of all time. God knows I've owned several, previously my favorite was the Yeti Arc AS short travel I owned in the mid 90's. (keeping in mind technology changes, and several since that bike have rode better than it did, but I'm kind of talking favorite based on what was available). But I've owned a marble peak, truth, el saltamontes, racer x and now the Turner.
I don't have enough time on the XCE so far to decide if I like it better than the HH100x. Frankly at this point I lean towards the HH100x still.
I needed something more plush this year. Screwed my back up, plus frankly like many I always wanted to try a XCE. In a brilliant marketing move, they discontinued it... so like many I decided now or never. I just had a child, so keeping both bikes was out of the question. So far, it's more plush as expected, a bit heavier, a bit less efficient, and a slower handler. Not horrible, but slower than I probably like. I wish the HT angle was .5-1 deg steeper on the XCE. But, it rides great, but different. As my back gets better and I loose more weight I will be weighing the pros and cons of going back to the HH.
As for the Ventana...I do feel that the horst link makes a SLIGHT difference between the salty and XCE. But it comes into acceleration when putting the hammer down. once you get them going, they ride the same on flats. I always felt the salty really dove into it's travel and kind of wallowed in it when you were getting going. A big part of that could have been the leverage ratio being so low, which also gives those on the Fuego the feeling that it has more travel than it does.
It rides too tall up front for my tastes. I just like the feel of a low riser bar better now, coupled with the tall front end on the Salty, it didn't feel right. I tried flat bars and a 0 rise stem among other things, just didn't feel right. I talked with Sherwood also, and I think you are right Shylock, it's just his preference to flat bars. Not a bad thing, just different which is a good thing. Every bike can't or shouldn't be a carbon copy.
Build quality... in aluminum duallys I still put Ventana and Titus at the top of the heap. As I've always said I think turner is about 1/2 step below. Not just talking welds, paint etc. The turner looks great and is built awesome. That 1/2 step is little things like the huge oversized chainstays on the Titus with larger clevis points in the rear. Or in Ventana's case, the absolute perfection on thinking out bolts, tire clearance, stainless inserts etc. At this point we are splitting hairs anyways. My brother has an intense, and I put it more like 1 step below along with Ellsworth and Santa Cruz.
Like everyone I have an opinion and an a$$hole...
I will tell you this, without a full season on the XCE, if you told me I HAD to keep one bike for the next 5 seasons, I'd still go with the Hammerhead 100X. But, talk to me in a few months. I've learned over the years, and particularly with dually's you need to get them into different situations before you really know the bike. I reviewed some too early and regretted it later. |
| I was sad to see Sherwood nixed the stainless inserts..... | Shylock
Mar 9, 2003 2:00 PM | | ...on the latest Ventanas. I wonder why he did it. But hey -- he did do the quad-bearing kit. No one else is doing that from what I can tell.
One of the things with Ventana that I don't think other bikes suffer from is the need to really tune the setup of the cockpit (as well as the suspension) to really get the great ride that I associate with them. I've found other frames (ellsworth Truths, Intenses and other FSr style designs) are much easier to ride even if they haven't been setup for me; whereas with the Ventana you really need to tweak it to get to really perform beautifully. Of course, when you do get it right, you're left wondering what all the hype is about with Horst Links etc.
Congrats on the Kid, by the way. My expensive habits are going to need to be tempered if we are ever going to have children...My fiance isn't much better when it comes to Italian shoes.
Feel the gin |
| Can you expand on that a bit more? | Zag
Mar 11, 2003 8:51 AM | | You mentioned that the XCE steered a bit slower than you like. I have heard Charles mention the same thing regarding the XCE. Can you expand on that a bit?
Under what conditions does it feel slow? What can't you do, that you could do with a slightly quicker handling bike? I guess I am trying to get a feel for what "slow" really means, and when that would be a disadvantage. I have had bikes that felt too quick (for me), but never too slow. I don't like a "floppy" feeling front end (but that's different, right?), but I am still trying to figure out "slow" (or more specifically, when or why slow would be a disadvantage, as long as the front end doesn't feel "floppy"). |
| re: Saltamontes vs. 4" ti Racer-X | Hammerheadbikes
Mar 10, 2003 7:55 AM | | why go ti?
I would only do ti if you didn't fit on a stock size
aluminum is going to be lighter, stiffer and cheaper
between the ElSaltemontes and Racerx setup for 100mm I would go with the latter, in fact, I would go with a Hammerhead.
I rode both bikes and went with the latter as it just felt more "right" to me and accelerated and climbed quicker
RFR |
| Another Hammerhead vote... | Jgang
Mar 11, 2003 7:34 AM | | I bought a RacerX from Charles at Hammerhead Cycles a couple of years ago. What a great bike! A super fast XC machine with a fair amount of trail capability. But, I wanted a little more suppleness and travel, so I decided to build up a HH100X. This thing is everything the RacerX is and then some. Unbeliveably quick handling and 4" of travel front and rear, perfect for everything but freeride and downhill in my book. The Fox Forx Float RL up front is a perfect match for the frame. The build is right at 27.5 lbs with XT/WTB wheels (not the lightest, but strong), Avid Mechanical Discs (heavy, but extremely efficient and capable stoppers), Conti Vert Pros tires and an 8 speed XTR drivetrain. Call Charles. He'll give you a bunch of options and walk you through the pros and cons of a bunch of different frames. For my money, the aluminum HH100X is really hard to beat. |
| |
