'14 Sight vs '14 Range- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    65

    '14 Sight vs '14 Range

    Hi All

    About to put down some hard earned on a 2014 Sight 7.1. Looked at buying one from Nth America but the freight cost made up for the purchase difference in the end.

    Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the alloy frames for the Sight and Range? I know the travel difference is 140mm vs 160mm, the head angle is 1 degree slacker on the Range and the rockers are slightly different.

    I have troubles actually spotting the difference between the two.

    Could you safely put a 150 or 160mm fork on the Sight and not compromise it's performance?

    Thanks guys
    Nathan

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jhtopilko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    271
    I have ridden both bikes, here in Edmonton. I prefer the Range, because more travel will be handy at other locations as well. The Range 7.1 medium is 32lbs 5oz without pedals.The sight 7.1 medium is 30lbs 10oz. Both have the same dead feeling in the rear suspension, that doesn't give the pop to bunny hop. They are simple climbers. I climb well on anything but these are brain dead. The Sight would be better with a 34 or 36 for a fork. At 140mm of course. I prefer the Remedy feel because it has pop, but it also doesn't feel as glued traction wise as both Norcos. I may have to wait till September 20 to try a Slash.

  3. #3
    I wonder why?
    Reputation: i1dry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by nath69 View Post
    Hi All

    About to put down some hard earned on a 2014 Sight 7.1. Looked at buying one from Nth America but the freight cost made up for the purchase difference in the end.

    Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the alloy frames for the Sight and Range? I know the travel difference is 140mm vs 160mm, the head angle is 1 degree slacker on the Range and the rockers are slightly different.

    I have troubles actually spotting the difference between the two.

    Could you safely put a 150 or 160mm fork on the Sight and not compromise it's performance?

    Thanks guys
    Nathan
    I'm running a 150mm Pike on a Sight Carbon 7.2 with no compromise on performance. I think 160mm might be too much though.

    I don't know what jhtopilko is taking about when he says the rear suspension has a dead feeling or that they are simple climbers. The suspension is very active and the bike is easy to bunny hop. From my experience, the Sight climbs exceptionally well and others that I know that have ridden the Range (both bikes for that matter) say the Range does as well.

    Both the Sight and Range are very similar, with the Range the more burly of the two. If your doing bigger drops and more air I'd suggest the Range, otherwise the Sight is an extremely competent and FUN trail bike. I can't over emphasize the FUN factor.

    Good luck.

    i1dry?
    ...some drink from the fountain of knowledge..some only gargle...!!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr. Lynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,325
    My buddy is running a 160 Pike on his Sight. He is a smaller guy (5'5 140lbs tops) and the Range was just too much bike. He said it felt too tall with a higher center of gravity.
    I havent heard any complaints with running a 160 fork and he rips just as hard as anyone I know.

    I have another buddy who is 6'3 220 and he has a Range and said the Sight was nice, but he felt it wasnt enough bike for him. SO I think your size does have a lot to do with the bike you choose.
    20 SJ Evo 29, 20 DB Release 29, 18 Vitus Dominer DH

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jhtopilko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    271
    I did some more testing. On both bikes, with the fork in descend and the shock in trail, both bikes have pop, and can bunny hop. If both are in trail or descend the suspension has no pop at all. They are easy to climb with because the suspension is active enough. I am back with a sight this weekend, but still am leaning to the range.

    Quote Originally Posted by i1dry View Post
    I'm running a 150mm Pike on a Sight Carbon 7.2 with no compromise on performance. I think 160mm might be too much though.

    I don't know what jhtopilko is taking about when he says the rear suspension has a dead feeling or that they are simple climbers. The suspension is very active and the bike is easy to bunny hop. From my experience, the Sight climbs exceptionally well and others that I know that have ridden the Range (both bikes for that matter) say the Range does as well.

    Both the Sight and Range are very similar, with the Range the more burly of the two. If your doing bigger drops and more air I'd suggest the Range, otherwise the Sight is an extremely competent and FUN trail bike. I can't over emphasize the FUN factor.

    Good luck.

    i1dry?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-27-2017, 01:13 PM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 07:05 PM
  3. Wfo vs sight vs range vs carbine
    By PHeller in forum 27.5
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-21-2013, 01:14 PM
  4. Range or Sight?
    By cunningstunts in forum Norco
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-21-2013, 02:31 PM
  5. Sight/Sight KillerB BB height
    By skidad in forum Norco
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2012, 03:38 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.