Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76

    Heckler vs. Butcher

    Can anyone tell me, besides the small amount of travel, what the difference is between these two frames? I was set on a Heckler, but the Butcher is also very nice.

  2. #2
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,927
    app. butcher is 2.5* slacker. butcher for an am bike, heckler for trail. think the butcher is just a little heavier too.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul
    app. butcher is 2.5* slacker. butcher for an am bike, heckler for trail. think the butcher is just a little heavier too.
    Thanks. Just for my own info, can you explain what "slacker" means? This is something I haven't heard about and I never took it into consideration when buying a bike.

  4. #4
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,927
    by slacker im refering to the headtube angle. the ha on the butcher is 67.5* while the heckler is 69*. the slacker the bike the more comfortable it will be decending, in a nutshell. hope this helps!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lew242's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    494
    Yeah, the Heckler is 69 degree head tube, which is not so slack these days, so will climb maybe a little better. Doesn't mean it can't be a blast to descend on it, maybe not as capable at descending as the Butcher though.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by lew242
    Yeah, the Heckler is 69 degree head tube, which is not so slack these days, so will climb maybe a little better. Doesn't mean it can't be a blast to descend on it, maybe not as capable at descending as the Butcher though.
    Thanks. I'm looking for something that can climb, so perhaps the Heckler would suit me better.

  7. #7
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,927
    either will do anything you want fine. if you are all about the climbs the heckler will probably be a bit better but the butcher is no sloutch. but to me it seems like you want more of a trail bike, why not consider the nickle?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul
    either will do anything you want fine. if you are all about the climbs the heckler will probably be a bit better but the butcher is no sloutch. but to me it seems like you want more of a trail bike, why not consider the nickle?
    I looked at the Nickel, but I think I want want a little more travel. Plus there seems to be a decent price difference. I'm considering doing a build myself and I will have a budget of about 3k. I can build a pretty sweet Heckler for that, no?

  9. #9
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,927
    for sure. a nickle or butcher is only like $300 more though...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul
    for sure. a nickle or butcher is only like $300 more though...
    I'll have to consider it more carefully then. The Heckler has been around a while and has a good reputation so that was playing a part.

  11. #11
    T.W.O
    Reputation: pfox90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,729
    If the HA is *2.5 slacker I would get the butcher. Descents make you feel like a champ. I'd rather feel safe on the downhills and have better climbing technique than vice versa.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    The Heckler is a bit lighter than the Nickel and the Butcher.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by lew242
    Yeah, the Heckler is 69 degree head tube, which is not so slack these days, so will climb maybe a little better. Doesn't mean it can't be a blast to descend on it, maybe not as capable at descending as the Butcher though.

    The Heckler is basically just as slack as the butcher. It's marketing that makes us think the heckler is more xc. Heckler geo is based on a 515 axle to crown fork, butcher 529 axle to crown. Put that longer fork on a heckler (160mm) and it slackens out to 68.1ish. Butcher is 67.5 with 160 fork. Lower headset cup could make a heckler 67.5 or under. Both have 150 rear travel. Really the butcher is an app heckler. The heckler can run a fat 2.5 rear tire like the butcher, and both are rated for 160 forks. The Heckler is marketed as a trail bike now whereas in the past it was their burly AM bike, mini bullit if you will. I knew guys that ran dual crowns on the old ones and the new ones are stronger. Marketing works, but don't be fooled. It's still an AM machine with the right build. After backing up the heckler, I would buy a butcher because I see it as an updated heckler with a new name.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Haus Boss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,391
    FYI: a head tube has extremeley little to do with a bike's climbing abilities. What really matters is your bodies position over the pedals + bike. Things that effect your body position are the seat tube angle, top tube length, and stem length.

    FWIW, I think the few extra bills to go with the Butcher is more than worth it. Depending on how you equip it, you'd be getting a bike that should keep up with the Nomad.

  15. #15
    Big Boy
    Reputation: texasnavy05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by Haus Boss
    FYI: a head tube has extremeley little to do with a bike's climbing abilities..


    A slacker HA will definitely make a difference in climbing ability. I agree body postion is very important, but you ever try to pedal a bike with a flippy-floppy front end up a hill?
    -It's time to shred some mild to moderate gnar!!

  16. #16
    Perpetual Hack
    Reputation: mykel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,810
    ...but in the past, a floppy front end was usually paired with a slack seat-tube and a short cock-pit.

    The new school IMO seems to be slack HT, Steep ST and a decently roomy reach.

    michael

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Haus Boss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by texasnavy05


    A slacker HA will definitely make a difference in climbing ability. I agree body postion is very important, but you ever try to pedal a bike with a flippy-floppy front end up a hill?
    Both of my bikes are pretty slacked out. Just got back from a quick ride on my Banshee Scythe that is running 66.5*. My Butcher is probably closer to 66* since it has a 170mm fork on it. I've never had any issues with wheel flop going up hill. When started riding a more aggressive bike it definitely took some getting used to the slacked out geometry on flowy singletrack, but never going up. And I would hardly categorize the butcher as having a flipping floppy front end.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    Would it be possible to build a trail bike that is 30lbs or less using either of these frames?

  19. #19
    T.W.O
    Reputation: pfox90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,729
    I'd imagine it wouldn't be that hard at all. Especially if you got a lighter fork. I believe the heckler is designed around 140mm fork, usually higher travel then that and they start getting pretty beefy/heavy. Lighter wheels.

    It really depends on how much you are willing to spend to sacrifice weight savings.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by mummer43
    Would it be possible to build a trail bike that is 30lbs or less using either of these frames?
    Butcher frame is heavier than a nomad. Heckler frame is around .5lbs lighter than a nomad and about 3/4lbs lighter than the butcher. Use that as your guide. Santa Cruz built up a 35lbs V10 with dual crown, coil over, and DH tires and the carbon v10 frame is 10lbs. You can build up any 6" bike under 30 if you have the cash.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99
    Butcher frame is heavier than a nomad. Heckler frame is around .5lbs lighter than a nomad and about 3/4lbs lighter than the butcher. Use that as your guide. Santa Cruz built up a 35lbs V10 with dual crown, coil over, and DH tires and the carbon v10 frame is 10lbs. You can build up any 6" bike under 30 if you have the cash.
    Any suggestions on where to start as far as components go? Would a full XT setup get me there with Avid Elixer R brakes? Probably gonna go with XT hubs and mavic 321 rims. I was thinking of something out of the Fox lineup for forks and I thought a 150mm model would fit whichever frame I decide on nicely.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,358
    I would build according to your budget and riding style/needs. XT stuff is great. 150 fork will bias the heckler more towards climbing, and steepen up the HA on a butcher to 68.2ish. If that's what suites your style perfect. The butcher is designed around a 160, and even though the heckler comes with a 150 I feel a 160 makes it ride MUCH better. I owned an 08 heckler and ran a 36, and a marz 66sl 170. 69 Head angle for a 150 rear travel bike is too steep IMO. However, if someone is looking for a 6" bike with geo biased towards climbing and fast steering, you can't beet the heckler with a 150.

  23. #23
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,095
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul
    app. butcher is 2.5* slacker. butcher for an am bike, heckler for trail. think the butcher is just a little heavier too.
    69 - 67.5 = 1.5
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  24. #24
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,095
    Quote Originally Posted by pfox90
    If the HA is *2.5 slacker.....
    69 - 67.5 = 1.5
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Haus Boss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,391
    The 321s are kinda heavy- I'd take a look at Stan's ZTR flow rims, you'll save around 1/2 lb and they're still supposed to be plenty strong. If you're set on the 321s for durability, I'd just suck it up and go with the 721s, which are only like 20g heavier per wheel but can take some reaaaal abuse. If you're running an air fork + air shock, it shouldn't be too hard to get the butcher or heckler down to a 30lb build.

    Are you building this thing up from scratch or will you be going with one of Santa Cruz's build kits? The Butcher has quite a few options for builds through Santa Cruz. I'd go with a fox float 36 or Lyrik SA RC2DH- I think you can open the Lyrik up to 170mm too- not bad for a 4.8lb fork.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •