Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gsxrawd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    106

    older (2005) 5.5 questions

    Has there been much change on the 5.5 since 2005? I saw one for sale for a decent price. The only thing I see bad on the frame is the 5th element rear shock.

    Should I just save my lunch money and go the a newer 5.5 or even the new Tracer VP?

  2. #2
    Commit or eat sh!t
    Reputation: Cable0guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,376
    I would only get a 5.5 if you don't plan to sell it later on. Great deals on used ones out there. I would not get a new 5.5. Otherwise, get the Tracer. I think they changed the rear triangle a bit (wider to fit bigger tires), otherwise 2005 rides fine. Great bike. I rode one for 2+ years.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IntensevCare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    192

    Intense 5.5

    The only change that we made to the 5.5 was the rear triangle. In 2006 we started using a rear the offered a bit more tire clearance up to 2.5". We also went with a one piece top link.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,980
    Quote Originally Posted by IntensevCare
    The only change that we made to the 5.5 was the rear triangle. In 2006 we started using a rear the offered a bit more tire clearance up to 2.5". We also went with a one piece top link.
    Are you saying that a true 2.5 tire will fit in a 5point5? I'm keen to get a pair of the new Schwalbe Fat Albert UST tires which are claimed to be 2.4 ( 62mm. ) but I'm worried that it will not fit in the rear triangle. The Fat Alberts are front and back specific. I'm using a pair of Continental Mountain King 2.4 UST but they are reputed to be narrow for their claimed size.

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IntensevCare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    192

    Tire Size

    The problem with MTB tire sizing is that it varies depending on the manufacturer. Many times brand A's tire's run smaller than what we feel is accurate, and that brand B's tires seem huge for the same size. I once had a single ply AM/ Light FR 2.4 with huge side knobbies, and it was much wider than a couple of the 2.5's that I had around. All that said, I am not to familiar with the Schwalbe tires, so I am not sure if they will fit or not. You may want to contact Schwalbe, and ask them about how their sizing runs on these tires. Good luck!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,980
    Quote Originally Posted by IntensevCare
    The problem with MTB tire sizing is that it varies depending on the manufacturer. Many times brand A's tire's run smaller than what we feel is accurate, and that brand B's tires seem huge for the same size. I once had a single ply AM/ Light FR 2.4 with huge side knobbies, and it was much wider than a couple of the 2.5's that I had around. All that said, I am not to familiar with the Schwalbe tires, so I am not sure if they will fit or not. You may want to contact Schwalbe, and ask them about how their sizing runs on these tires. Good luck!
    Thanks, I usually find that the ETRTO ( millimeter ) sizing, especially on German tires is pretty accurate but the inches is simply rounded. If you are saying a true 2.5 will fit that is 63.5mm. The Fat Albert is claimed to be 62mm.

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

Posting Permissions

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