Results 1 to 41 of 41
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    131

    Tracer2 vs SB-66

    What do you think of this? Price is almost identical...

    Intense +
    Adj geo - I am going to ride almost flat terrain 80% of time - so 5.5" is nice (the most significant for me)
    Intense -
    The geo is outdated compared to Yeti and for my likes (love longish TT, low BB)
    My friend snapped one, despite being not the most brutal rider...

    Yeti +
    Progressive geo
    Efficient suspension (based on many reviews)
    Awesome look!
    Yeti -
    Not proven design
    Really heavy (but should be stiff and strong)

    What bike pedals better?
    Torsional stiffness? Who is better? I really want a stiff one!

  2. #2
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Those would both be way down the list for me... but if the Yeti fits you better then go w the Yeti if those are the ones you can get a good deal on. I wouldn't be surprised if you can get a ReignX for the same price with no discount tho.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shalom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,005
    Personally, I would not be looking at either of those.

    However, judging by your own comments, the Yeti sounds like it fits better/has better geometry.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Drth Vadr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    781
    Quote Originally Posted by GTIgor View Post
    I am going to ride almost flat terrain 80% of time
    Based on this comment, both of these bikes are totally wrong. But good luck talking your ego into buying the right bike for the job.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    179
    I really want a stiff one![/QUOTE]




    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

  6. #6
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,010
    Quote Originally Posted by GTIgor View Post
    I am going to ride almost flat terrain 80% of time - so 5.5" is nice
    5.5" of travel for flat terrain?

    WAY overkill . . . . a 4" XC bike sounds more fitting.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by induction View Post
    I really want a stiff one!



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

    you are just proving you latent gayness

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Drth Vadr View Post
    Based on this comment, both of these bikes are totally wrong. But good luck talking your ego into buying the right bike for the job.
    It's not really flat - more like rolling, 50-100m elevation, lots of roots and jumps. And I ride aggressively, so front 15/20mm axle is a must. Stiff frame also and a 68HA too.

    Why the stupid "ego" comment?
    20% of the time I'll be riding really hard, lots of steeps, lots of rocks and super-D races - I should ride an XC bike for that??? Nope thaks I like to ride FUN and FAST, whatever is under my wheels.

    If you are a "dirt roadie" that doesn't mean everyone is

    Sure If I choose two bikes, one of them would be 6''/66HA one and the other 5" or 5/4" 68HA. Probably I'll buy an XC/trail bike the year after, but not the next season... And actually I think I can cope with one but better speced.

    Right now I ride Cannondale Prophet, it is not enough on my AM rides in mountains (travel and stiffness wise), and a little bit sluggish on my XC rides. BUT is has pretty outdated suspension design and the frame is soooo flexy when I pump it on trail not saying about blasting through rocks, rocky high speed corners! I ride AM in DH style.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    Suspension travel isn't solely determined by what terrain you ride, weight is another factor to take into account. Given the same terrain, riding style, suspension design...etc.......a lightweight person isn't going to need as much suspension travel as a heavier person.
    ***

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    Suspension travel isn't solely determined by what terrain you ride, weight is another factor to take into account. Given the same terrain, riding style, suspension design...etc.......a lightweight person isn't going to need as much suspension travel as a heavier person.
    I can't agree on this. Why is that? If the sag is set correctly, why would a lighter rider need less travel? The wight of the rider influences only on the suspension setup, period.
    Hint: do you see many ppl compete DH on 5-6-7" bikes?

    In this particular case I am more concerned about "quality" of suspension travel. 150 of the Yeti should be ok, not a big difference with my prophet 10mm is nothing actually. But the prophet has a falling rate design, so a medium compression tune - it'a compromise. Modern bike are much more advances in these terms from personal experience.

    I have already made a decision, it's gonna be SB-66, the GEO is much more important then anything else.

    PS the only other alternative is Cannondale Jekyll, but this one is quite exotic and seems to have some drawbacks in the design.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by GTIgor View Post
    I can't agree on this. Why is that? If the sag is set correctly, why would a lighter rider need less travel? The wight of the rider influences only on the suspension setup, period


    Suspension travel reduces the impulsive force (the integral of force with respect to time) created by rapid changes in elevation. A lighter person doesn't need as much travel to maintain the same impulse as a heavier rider.

    Sure, you could set up your bike to not go through as much travel so that you'd maintain the same suspension characteristics as a heavier rider on the same bike...

    .....but you'd effectively have a much higher center of gravity than if you just had less travel to begin with.


    So to answer your question....with sag correctly set, a lighter rider can significantly reduce their center of gravity by picking a bike with less travel.

    Edit: Obviously there are other things that go into choosing a bike, but I'd hate to see a 130 lb guy on a 7" bike.
    Last edited by Kyle2834; 09-14-2011 at 04:07 AM.
    ***

  12. #12
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Sorry dude, Igor is right.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: denjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post


    Suspension travel reduces the impulsive force (the integral of force with respect to time) created by rapid changes in elevation. A lighter person doesn't need as much travel to maintain the same impulse as a heavier rider.

    Sure, you could set up your bike to not go through as much travel so that you'd maintain the same suspension characteristics as a heavier rider on the same bike...

    .....but you'd effectively have a much higher center of gravity than if you just had less travel to begin with.


    So to answer your question....with sag correctly set, a lighter rider can significantly reduce their center of gravity by picking a bike with less travel.

    Edit: Obviously there are other things that go into choosing a bike, but I'd hate to see a 130 lb guy on a 7" bike.
    That logic makes no sense at all. If you have 2 people with the same bike, one is 200Lbs and one is 100Lbs and they both set the sag to exact same point the center of gravity will be the same for both bikes. With your logic a female DH racer would never ever need a full blown DH race bike.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post


    Suspension travel reduces the impulsive force (the integral of force with respect to time) created by rapid changes in elevation. A lighter person doesn't need as much travel to maintain the same impulse as a heavier rider.

    Sure, you could set up your bike to not go through as much travel so that you'd maintain the same suspension characteristics as a heavier rider on the same bike...

    .....but you'd effectively have a much higher center of gravity than if you just had less travel to begin with.


    So to answer your question....with sag correctly set, a lighter rider can significantly reduce their center of gravity by picking a bike with less travel.

    Edit: Obviously there are other things that go into choosing a bike, but I'd hate to see a 130 lb guy on a 7" bike.
    WTH? 30% sag is 30% sag. Why would the lighter rider have a higher center of gravity if they're using less air pressure or a lighter spring? They're going to be going through the same amount of travel in the exact same leverage curve. Travel is travel. More travel helps lighter riders through rough terrain the same as it does heavier riders. I see a lot of big words used here to disguise a post that doesn't make any sense.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    WTH? 30% sag is 30% sag. Why would the lighter rider have a higher center of gravity if they're using less air pressure or a lighter spring?
    You misread what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by denjen View Post
    That logic makes no sense at all. If you have 2 people with the same bike, one is 200Lbs and one is 100Lbs and they both set the sag to exact same point the center of gravity will be the same for both bikes.
    You also misread what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Sorry dude, Igor is right.
    Yeah....not really.

    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    I see a lot of big words used here to disguise a post that doesn't make any sense.
    Big words? It's just dynamics...
    ***

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socalMX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Quote Originally Posted by induction View Post
    I really want a stiff one!



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

    YETI!!!

  17. #17
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    You misread what I said.


    You also misread what I said.


    Yeah....not really.


    Big words? It's just dynamics...
    LOL, I'm a mechanical engineer and what you said is the result of flawed logic. You are completely, 100% wrong.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: denjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    LOL, I'm a mechanical engineer and what you said is the result of flawed logic. You are completely, 100% wrong.
    +1 on that

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    You misread what I said.


    You also misread what I said.


    Yeah....not really.


    Big words? It's just dynamics...
    I never said I didn't understand the words. I just get a kick when people bust out engineering/physics terms to sound smart on a damn bike forum, when they're in fact incorrect. You also failed to account for the fact that the lighter rider will not be applying force on the same suspension. With a lighter spring and different tune, they're effectively not even the same shock for practical purposes. So I stand by my statement that what you said doesn't make sense. The lighter spring/less air pressure will make the bike easier to sink into its travel, so the bike will sit about the same height for both riders through the same rough terrain, taking the same line, at the same speed (which would never happen in real life) Theoretical physics aren't worth trying to apply here. If you're saying lighter riders can't utilize all their suspension travel on a long travel bike, I call bullsh*t.
    Last edited by BaeckerX1; 09-14-2011 at 11:48 AM.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    Forming my reply, everyone just hold on a minute, will edit in a couple minutes...lol.
    ***

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KTMDirtFace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    753
    Obviously there are other things that go into choosing a bike, but I'd hate to see a 130 lb guy on a 7" bike.
    Eh whut???

    Thats like saying a 2000 bound baja bugy racer shouldn't have as much travel as a 4000 lb trophy truck. Made those weights up but you get the idea.

    That doesn't make any sense.
    2011 Yeti SB-66 XL Fox Float 36, Fox DHX RC4
    Yeti SB-66 Gallery

  22. #22
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,010
    lemme get my popcorn . . . BRB.

  23. #23
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    Subscribed.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by OO7 View Post
    lemme get my popcorn . . . BRB.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Subscribed.
    All the people waiting for the next reply is making me laugh here at work. I'm eagerly awaiting this as well.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  25. #25
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    Suspension travel reduces the impulsive force (the integral of force with respect to time) created by rapid changes in elevation. A lighter person doesn't need as much travel to maintain the same impulse as a heavier rider.

    Sure, you could set up your bike to not go through as much travel so that you'd maintain the same suspension characteristics as a heavier rider on the same bike...

    .....but you'd effectively have a much higher center of gravity than if you just had less travel to begin with.


    So to answer your question....with sag correctly set, a lighter rider can significantly reduce their center of gravity by picking a bike with less travel.

    Edit: Obviously there are other things that go into choosing a bike, but I'd hate to see a 130 lb guy on a 7" bike.
    You sir, clearly have little to no understanding of physics, how a suspension bike works or how to properly set up a shock.

    Can you expand on what you mean by "center of gravity" . . . . I suspect that you have something very different in mind in comparison to the rest of us. I think that I understand suspension bikes pretty well, and as far as I'm aware there is little to no relationship between a persons center of gravity and the amount of travel on a [properly set up] bike.

  26. #26
    Picture Unrelated
    Reputation: zebrahum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,119
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    LOL, I'm a mechanical engineer and what you said is the result of flawed logic. You are completely, 100% wrong.
    As am I

    +1

    Back to the OP's question perhaps?

    I have to say that I wouldn't consider buying either of those bikes without a test ride. We can throw out this vs. that all day long but in the end you're going to feel better on one bike more than the other. If it were me, I'd get the Yeti but only because of the claimed pedaling performance. I haven't had a chance to test ride one yet, so it's all just e-speculation.
    Don't you hate it when a sentence doesn't end the way you think it octopus?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    My original post was at 5am. I've had a cup of coffee and am a bit more awake now, so here goes nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by denjen View Post
    With your logic a female DH racer would never ever need a full blown DH race bike.
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    If you're saying lighter riders can't utilize all their suspension travel on a long travel bike, I call bullsh*t.
    Ah, that is not what I'm trying to say. I completely understand that all of the shock's travel can be utilized regardless of rider weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by denjen View Post
    That logic makes no sense at all. If you have 2 people with the same bike, one is 200Lbs and one is 100Lbs and they both set the sag to exact same point the center of gravity will be the same for both bikes.
    What I'm trying to say is: If the force of a landing is to be equal between a heavy rider and a lighter rider, the heavier rider will require more travel.


    Given:
    a) 100kg and b) 50kg riders
    change in shock travel = dY = 0.15m (unrealistic assumption of head angle perpendicular to the ground...)
    change in velocity = dV = 5 m/s
    change in time = dT = 0.15m/(Vavg) = 0.06 sec


    Impulse (J) = change in momentum (dp)
    a) 100kg*(5 m/s) = 500 N
    b) 50kg*(5 m/s) = 250 N

    Favg = J/dt
    a) 500N/0.06 sec = 8333N
    b) 250N/0.06 sec = 4167N


    Okay so here, we have the average force of the 100kg rider doubling the average force of the 50kg rider for a landing at 5 m/s. Shock travel is the same on both bikes, as is the time it takes for the shock to compress.

    Now we change the length of the shocks and recalculate. 200mm for the heavier rider, 100mm for the lighter. This gives us an average force of 6250N for either rider. So for both riders to experience the same average force on a landing, the rider that is twice as heavy requires twice as much suspension travel.

    The center of gravity comment is the conclusion I drew from this, because the heavier rider with twice the required travel is going to be higher off the ground.

    I think I see the flaw in my logic, and impulse was certainly not the correct term to use.
    ***

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KTMDirtFace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    753
    I don't see anything in your calculations that includes the spring and valving forces that are being applied back up on the rider.

    Anyway what the hell does this have to do with the yeti or tracer2
    2011 Yeti SB-66 XL Fox Float 36, Fox DHX RC4
    Yeti SB-66 Gallery

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    ^ because the OP is considering bikes with different lengths of travel...That's where it started anyway.
    ***

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KTMDirtFace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    ^ because the OP is considering bikes with different lengths of travel.
    Ok well,

    Your physics fail is still missing the spring/valving forces pushing upwards on the rider.
    2011 Yeti SB-66 XL Fox Float 36, Fox DHX RC4
    Yeti SB-66 Gallery

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by KTMDirtFace View Post
    I don't see anything in your calculations that includes the spring and valving forces that are being applied back up on the rider.

    Anyway what the hell does this have to do with the yeti or tracer2
    What KTM said. Again. This makes all your conclusions/calculations irrelevant. You can increase bottom out resistance without adding more travel. The 2 riders won't be on the same spring weight/shock pressure. Different springs/pressures won't compress at the same speed.

    2 riders jump up and down. The lighter one is on a trampoline, the heavier one is on concrete. Which one compresses the object below them more? Which compresses faster?
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by BaeckerX1 View Post
    You can increase bottom out resistance without adding more travel.
    But this is a given for either rider's suspension. Every fiber of my brain is still wanting to assume a lighter rider doesn't need as much travel to cushion their landing. I know the properties of the shock can be altered through other means.
    ***

  33. #33
    Picture Unrelated
    Reputation: zebrahum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    What I'm trying to say is: If the force of a landing is to be equal between a heavy rider and a lighter rider, the heavier rider will require more travel.
    Why would the landing force need to be equal for riders of different weight? Force is just mass * acceleration so anything of a higher mass exerts a higher force. You're just imposing a meaningless item into your argument. Higher force of a landing doesn't mean more travel, it means higher spring rate to keep the shock from bottoming. I think you keep loosing track of the real world aspects of bike dynamics in favor of fancier math.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    Okay so here, we have the average force of the 100kg rider doubling the average force of the 50kg rider for a landing at 5 m/s. Shock travel is the same on both bikes, as is the time it takes for the shock to compress.

    Now we change the length of the shocks and recalculate. 200mm for the heavier rider, 100mm for the lighter. This gives us an average force of 6250N for either rider. So for both riders to experience the same average force on a landing, the rider that is twice as heavy requires twice as much suspension travel.
    I guess I don't understand what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to equate impulse to shock travel? I think at the end of it all, you are failing to realize that the force of a heavier rider should never be expected to match that of a lighter rider. Where on earth did you decide that?

    In all honesty, you've completely derailed the OP's thread with faux physics and I think it's best you create your own thread discussing the finer points of suspension bike dynamics. People much smarter than I lurk here and would probably be happy to discuss such things in detail, but it doesn't belong in this topic.
    Don't you hate it when a sentence doesn't end the way you think it octopus?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    But this is a given for either rider's suspension.
    How so? The heavier rider will be riding a stiffer spring to compensate for the heavier weight. The lighter one will be using a lighter spring. The 2 bikes aren't the same. The springs aren't the same! To setup sag correctly, you'd need a different spring or different air pressure for each rider. Thus, your assumption that the bikes are the same is invalid. The 2 shocks aren't the same, despite the same amount of travel. Therefore, they won't compress at the same speed. With correctly setup suspension, they'll both still utilize the suspension effectively.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  35. #35
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    It's not the math, it's your basic assumptions about what works in real life that is flawed. Do you think a 100 lb girl wants to deal with the same forces as a 200 lb guy? Then there;s the issue of geometry and suitability of a bike for a certain purpose. Have you noticed that bike companies don't make bikes based on a person's weight, but on the type of riding they are doing? The suspension is just setup differently for different weights...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by zebrahum View Post
    In all honesty, you've completely derailed the OP's thread
    Quote Originally Posted by GTIgor View Post
    I have already made a decision, it's gonna be SB-66, the GEO is much more important then anything else.
    I'm not trying to. He was part of the discussion too.
    ***

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    It's not the math, it's your basic assumptions about what works in real life that is flawed. Do you think a 100 lb girl wants to deal with the same forces as a 200 lb guy? Then there;s the issue of geometry and suitability of a bike for a certain purpose. Have you noticed that bike companies don't make bikes based on a person's weight, but on the type of riding they are doing? The suspension is just setup differently for different weights...
    Exactly. If you're riding a world cup downhill course for example. A 150 pound rider on a 5 inch bike is still going to get beat up way more than a heavy rider on a 10 inch bike. The 5 inch bike will also get bogged down in rough sections easier and not have nearly as much traction.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  38. #38
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Drth Vadr View Post
    Based on this comment, both of these bikes are totally wrong. But good luck talking your ego into buying the right bike for the job.
    Can't spell assumption without "ass"...

  39. #39
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    Now we change the length of the shocks and recalculate. 200mm for the heavier rider, 100mm for the lighter. This gives us an average force of 6250N for either rider. So for both riders to experience the same average force on a landing, the rider that is twice as heavy requires twice as much suspension travel.
    What rattles your fillings out is acceleration, not force. Lighter rider needs less force for the same jolt. Force breaks bones (and frames). Lighter rider has smaller bones.

    Lighter riders could pick smaller bikes because they want and can get away with running lighter components, not because they need less travel. Also, air shocks typically operate a bit better for them, unless they are under 100lb..

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle2834 View Post
    But this is a given for either rider's suspension. Every fiber of my brain is still wanting to assume a lighter rider doesn't need as much travel to cushion their landing. I know the properties of the shock can be altered through other means.
    OMG!!! What the hell is all that?

    Kyle, I suppose you are confusing suspension travel and power-consuming ability (if that is a correct term in english)
    The second one depends on spring weight and compression tune of your shock.

    Assuming that the heavier rider will generate more energy on the suspension BUT the correctly tuned suspension will also consume this increased energy.

    Interestigly, how would you pesruade Danny Hart and Troy Brosnan to reduce their bikes travel

    Kyle, by the way, on one really needs suspension to absorb landings, it is needed to absorb rocks, roots and other obstacles and to increase traction.

    PS almost every time someone trying to link school level physics to complicated real life dynamics with tons of variables comes to wrong conclusions but this example is even worse...

    Back to topic. Probably I will be able to try SB-66 in my size

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    131
    I would like to broaden my choice a little - how about:
    1. Jekyll
    2. Mojo SL-R
    3. Mojo HD (with 140mm link for my local trails at least)
    4. Blur LT2 or LTc

    SL-R and Blurs have rear QR? What shame!

Similar Threads

  1. Tracer2 and CaneCreek Angleset
    By lmgarcia in forum Intense
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2011, 12:04 PM
  2. Tracer2 custom colors
    By stiksandstones in forum Intense
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-13-2011, 04:50 PM
  3. Official Tracer2 info?
    By epic in forum Intense
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2010, 04:33 PM

Posting Permissions

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