Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 6.6 vs Nomad

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    733

    6.6 vs Nomad

    I am really interested in getting a 6.6 but I have a couple of worries. The derralleur hanger seems very fragile. And the seattube angle seems ultra steep. Can anybody elaborate on how this bike works with a 68 head 73 seat angle.

  2. #2
    Recovering
    Reputation: jbogner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by gkler
    I am really interested in getting a 6.6 but I have a couple of worries. The derralleur hanger seems very fragile. And the seattube angle seems ultra steep. Can anybody elaborate on how this bike works with a 68 head 73 seat angle.
    It's kinda weird getting worried about seat angles, as your fore-aft seat positioning and choice of setback/no setback seatpost could completely alter that effective angle by more than a few degrees. Lets just say the 6.6 *starts* in a more XC position, although with a setback seatpost, you could certainly end up with as slack an angle as you wanted.

    Same thing with the head angle. It's 68 with a 145mm fork (Nixon). Put a longer fork on it with a larger a-c height, and it'll slack right out to something more freeride-ish. The Intense geometry lets you go either way with it...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    307
    jbogner is correct, you can use a layback seat post.

    The reason for that seattube angle is for tire clearence at full bottom out, we run the rear stays slightly shorter than SC, hence the steeper angle.

    The der hangar is replaceable and is used on many models over many years. I always carry a spare, would rather tear that off than waste a rear derailleur.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,559
    I don't have any of these two but I sure consider them for my next purchase. I'm a bit like you on those two topics.

    - I like the Nomad's dropout more then the 6.6, it "looks" more solid to me but I guess it can be good or bad.

    - The fact that the 6.6 starts with a steeper seat angle looks to me like it will be a bit more "flexible" to accomodate a longer travel fork (axle to crown lenght) without having the rider suffer too much when pedaling uphill.

    Looking forward for what others will be saying.
    Last edited by BanzaiRider; 12-23-2005 at 12:40 PM.

  5. #5
    Recovering
    Reputation: jbogner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,483
    You could also try and dig up Tscheezy's comments on both over on the Turner forum. I think he preferred the 6.6 over the Nomad when putting them head-to-head...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    354
    i'd declined for 6.6 cause MBACTION 6.6 test reports 6.6 head angle 69,5 with nixon fork , same mags reports NOMAD head angle 68 with 36 TALAS, i have a FOES INFERNO 67,5 head angle i don´t feel it wandering too much when climbing,I think NOMAD long wheel base is more stable at high speed ,maybe a little bit lightweight frame than 6.6 .there are some threads people complains about 6.6 front derailleur issues ,chain misaligments .Nomads suspesions rate is falling rate( it i prefer ) 6.6 is more rising rate.anyway i'm going to order nomad frame next week i have time to change my mind.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by mentawais
    i'd declined for 6.6 cause MBACTION 6.6 test reports 6.6 head angle 69,5 with nixon fork , same mags reports NOMAD head angle 68 with 36 TALAS, i have a FOES INFERNO 67,5 head angle i don´t feel it wandering too much when climbing,I think NOMAD long wheel base is more stable at high speed ,maybe a little bit lightweight frame than 6.6 .there are some threads people complains about 6.6 front derailleur issues ,chain misaligments .Nomads suspesions rate is falling rate( it i prefer ) 6.6 is more rising rate.anyway i'm going to order nomad frame next week i have time to change my mind.

    My other issue i with the durability and maintanance of the vpp suspension, I have been known to put a ton of miles year (7,500-10,000). And I wonder if I am going to be a slave to this design. My concern is with bearing wear and pivot torquing and keeping it tight.

  8. #8
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Santa Cruz quoted me an expected bearing life of about 7 months for riding up to 10 miles per day, 5 days per week in wet conditions on a Nomad. That's about 1/3 of the miles you state you ride, so your bearings would last about 2 months on my trails.

    fwiw
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by mentawais
    i'd declined for 6.6 cause MBACTION 6.6 test reports 6.6 head angle 69,5 with nixon fork , same mags reports NOMAD head angle 68 with 36 TALAS, i have a FOES INFERNO 67,5 head angle i don´t feel it wandering too much when climbing,I think NOMAD long wheel base is more stable at high speed ,maybe a little bit lightweight frame than 6.6 .there are some threads people complains about 6.6 front derailleur issues ,chain misaligments .Nomads suspesions rate is falling rate( it i prefer ) 6.6 is more rising rate.anyway i'm going to order nomad frame next week i have time to change my mind.
    I'll address a couple of your comments. My 6.6 with a TALAS 36 has a 67.5 degree and there are zero front derailleur issues-assuming you get the correct top-swing style derailleur. I'm not sure what the Nomad weighs, but my 6.6 frame is 7.73lbs with the Fox DHX 5.0. If that's heavier than a Nomad, I welcome the extra material. I can't comment on the rising/falling rate of the suspension designs, but the DHX is VERY linear, so big guys (240lbs or more) will have issues on the Nomad if it is a falling rate design. That said, I was looking at both and it came down to availability. I'd still ride a Nomad with no regrets.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr_Kaizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    147
    Then again: Santacruz uses much smaller bearings than Intense does. Here in Norway, we have alot of wet riding throughout the year, plus the cold winter. According to the norwegian Intense distributor some people have used their frames for more than two years without changing anything.

    The head angle kan easily be changed with other headsets and higher forks than ZeroStacks together with Nixons. The shorter chainstays of the 6.6 is a positive imo.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    354
    Dogboy , which one headset are you using?what are yours frame size? i´m 6,1feet tall i think 6.6 large size frame 21" seat tube is better to me than NOMAD large size frame 18,5" ST numbers

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by mentawais
    Dogboy , which one headset are you using?what are yours frame size? i´m 6,1feet tall i think 6.6 large size frame 21" seat tube is better to me than NOMAD large size frame 18,5" ST numbers
    Im using an FSA Orbit Xtreme 1.5r lower cup and e13 reducer top cup. The e13 lets me get my bars a bit lower. My frame is a medium and I'm 5'9" tall.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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