Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTIgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    95

    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    The geo is outdated compared to Yeti and for my likes (love longish TT, low BB)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
    4,146
    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
    2,002
    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
    5,338
    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
    95
    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
    95
    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
    493
    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
    95
    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
    493
    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 03:07 AM.
    ***

  12. #12
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,146
    Sorry dude, Igor is right.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: denjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    406
    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
    2,215
    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
    493
    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
    2,132
    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
    4,146
    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
    406
    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
    2,215
    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 10:48 AM.
    Gotta get up to get down.
    LMB

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    493
    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
    5,338
    lemme get my popcorn . . . BRB.

  23. #23
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,973
    Subscribed.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BaeckerX1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,215
    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
    5,338
    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.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tracer2 and CaneCreek Angleset
    By lmgarcia in forum Intense
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2011, 11:04 AM
  2. Tracer2 custom colors
    By stiksandstones in forum Intense
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-13-2011, 03:50 PM
  3. Official Tracer2 info?
    By epic in forum Intense
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2010, 03:33 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
  •