Question for those riding both "Sultan" and "RFX type bikes- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 43 of 43
  1. #1
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310

    Question for those riding both "Sultan" and "RFX type bikes

    I have spent the last two years or so riding exclusively 29" wheels in formats from single speed rigid through 5" travel full suspension.

    I have recently spent some time on a Bionicon Edison that a friend is selling. This nifty bike has 6" of travel front and rear, and a very clever way to vary head and seat angle....but that is another story.

    My usual 29" tire is the Kenda Nevegal in 2.2 format. The Bionicon sports 2.5 Nevegals. Same tread pattern, but 6mm wider. I believe these tires are about the same weight. Both bikes are tubeless.

    Here is what I notice: The Bionicon has simply awesome slow speed traction. Climbing or descending. Cornering traction is about the same on the bikes. The Bionicon is also a bomb downhill with the big meats, big fork, and 66 degree HTA.

    Here is the problem: Dear lord, who put out the anchor? The Bionicon can't roll flats or uphill to save its life. It is an amazing chore (for me) to climb any sustained grade. It will go up anything, but it feels slow and energy sapping. Waaaaay worse than my 29" suspension bike with the 2.2 Nevs.

    Here is the question for those of you who spend time on both big travel, big meat type bikes, and 29"ers:

    Is the slow laborious rolling just the nature of the bigger tires?
    They have their advantages and this is the disadvantage.

    Are there tires out there that will keep the grip of the Nevs, but lose the rolling resistance or are these mutually exclusive?

    If I want to ride a bigger travel bike with bigger meats, is this simply the price I have to pay? In other words: will I have to man up and stop being a weenie?

    Is the issue more the tires or the wheelsize?

    I don't ride enough of the small wheel format to know if it simply the tires, or the 26 vs 29 that is the issue. I have to say, I really enjoyed the ride of the bigger bike for the most part, (especially downhill) but I think, if I had to push it around all the time, I would come to hate it for general riding.

    Turner content: lots of Y'all spend time on lots of different wheel formats. (Unlike 29" weenies like myself).

  2. #2
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    you need to try a bike with shorter chainstays

  3. #3
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    All (most?) other things being equal, 29ers should only carry more momentum through rough stuff where the wheel needs to change from the forward direction to the vertical when encountering obstacles. The closer the obstacle's height is to the level of the wheel's axle, the greater the amount of your forward momentum that gets eaten up overcoming that obstacle, and that is where the 29er has a noticeable advantage. If the fatter tire 26" tires feel slower on smooth trail sections, then the problem is not in the overall wheel diameter but most likely in the tire itself.

    Are either of the the Neves DTC tires? Sticky rubber can feel slow, and having a harder center line of knobs can help. Most of the perceived effort in keeping a tire up to speed comes from the rear wheel. Maybe use a more pedal friendly meat in back and keep the fatty up front.

    I have nearly 100 tires in my shop, and I have not found a silver bullet yet.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  4. #4
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,399
    If they are the DH casing 2.5 version then the anchor feeling is def the tires, I have these on my DH bike and they weigh 1500g each. I used these tires on my RFX last year a few times at Keystone and loved em but tried em on a trail type ride and it seriously felt like someone had filled the tubes with water, or concrete!

  5. #5
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    If the fatter tire 26" tires feel slower on smooth trail sections, then the problem is not in the overall wheel diameter but most likely in the tire itself.

    Are either of the the Neves DTC tires?
    That is exactly where I notice it the most. They are great in the rough stuff. Impressively so.

    I'll have to check the tread compound.

    Also, FWIW, it is a hoot to ride a bike that can change it's angles in an instant at the push of a button. Of course this gives you the opportunity to have exactly the wrong geometry for any given situation. It's very educational, cuz when it's wrong, believe me you know.

  6. #6
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    If they are the DH casing 2.5 version then the anchor feeling is def the tires, I have these on my DH bike and they weigh 1500g each. I used these tires on my RFX last year a few times at Keystone and loved em but tried em on a trail type ride and it seriously felt like someone had filled the tubes with water, or concrete!
    They feel like they weigh 1500 grams, but unfortunately, they are not the DH casing.

  7. #7
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,804
    I don't have a lot of time to respond right now (writing a &*#$ing paper), but 29ers are easier to keep going, harder to accelerate. 26ers are easier to accelerate, but harder to keep going. The bigger the tires you use on the 26ers, the closer they come. I know the exiwolfs suck eric, but I don't see much more, if any, difference in traction, I just see a big difference in stability, whether it's in a turn or not. The 26er won't be better in these regards, but I don't think it's hugely worse either. Perhaps a lot of 29ers previously rode bikes with 2.3" tires or less, and now with 29ers they feel a huge difference between what they previously rode. I'd also be curious about the bionicon's geometry and how "short coupled" it may be, because there's a lot more to stability than just the wheels.

    ASFAIK, it's just price you pay, less stability and less momentum with the smaller tires, but less stability=maneuverability.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  8. #8
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,399
    The 2.5 Nevy's have huge knobage for sure, especially compared to the smaller 2.1 or 2.2 version, they ride completely diff in my experience.

    A 2.5 in the back is really overkill for trail riding, try a smaller tire in the back or better rolling 2.5 tires, DHF's?

  9. #9
    TLL
    TLL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Here is the problem: Dear lord, who put out the anchor? The Bionicon can't roll flats or uphill to save its life. It is an amazing chore (for me) to climb any sustained grade. It will go up anything, but it feels slow and energy sapping. Waaaaay worse than my 29" suspension bike with the 2.2 Nevs.

    Here is the question for those of you who spend time on both big travel, big meat type bikes, and 29"ers:

    Is the slow laborious rolling just the nature of the bigger tires?
    They have their advantages and this is the disadvantage.

    Are there tires out there that will keep the grip of the Nevs, but lose the rolling resistance or are these mutually exclusive?

    If I want to ride a bigger travel bike with bigger meats, is this simply the price I have to pay? In other words: will I have to man up and stop being a weenie?

    Is the issue more the tires or the wheelsize?

    I don't ride enough of the small wheel format to know if it simply the tires, or the 26 vs 29 that is the issue. I have to say, I really enjoyed the ride of the bigger bike for the most part, (especially downhill) but I think, if I had to push it around all the time, I would come to hate it for general riding.

    Turner content: lots of Y'all spend time on lots of different wheel formats. (Unlike 29" weenies like myself).
    I have about 15 months on 29ers (3 bikes total) but have switched over to an RFX in the past few months.

    I think a lot of the slowness you describe on the flats and hills has got to be the tire. I run a WTB Prowler XT on the back of the RFX, and while it is a slooow tire, it absolutely rails going uphill. I seem to remember that even the Neve 2.3 felt really slow on the Flux. Dropping to a 2.3 faster rolling tire on the rear would probably solve that problem.

    I think that if you want to run bigger meats you are going to give up some speed--but you will gain a lot of control.

    My impressions of the RFX, compared to my last three 29ers:

    Easier to accelerate uphill. Easier to pedal (in the saddle) uphill, even tho my wheelset weights the same as the 29er set and I am running beefier tires. I had a 20t granny on the 29er.

    Rails corners much better, and I have much more control. Faster DH accelleration. Easier to throw the bike around.

    Does not carry momentum as well, and sucks to pedal out of the saddle. Does not roll over some stuff as well as the 29er. Not really a fun bike for extended riding on the flats; a Spot or Flux would be better (but so would a 29er).

    29er much better in sand and gravel, and a much better out of the saddle climber.

    My two cents. YMMV.

  10. #10
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    The 2.5 Nevy's have huge knobage for sure, especially compared to the smaller 2.1 or 2.2 version, they ride completely diff in my experience.

    A 2.5 in the back is really overkill for trail riding, try a smaller tire in the back or better rolling 2.5 tires, DHF's?
    The rider I am borrowing the bike from outweighs me by at least 50 lbs, so he really likes the big, big meats. I could probably get away with less.

    The tire is the 2.5 Stick-E folder which according to Kenda is 900 gms. My usual 2.2 is the DTC compound and weighs 827 gms. Not a big difference. Also the knobbage is at least 1-2mm greater on the 26" tire. The compound and knob difference probably explains what I am feeling.

    Man, climbing the road back up to my house I wanted to blow my brains out.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    891
    TLL: Which 29ers were you on? I'm just curious so I can have a frame of reference. Would you rather be on a FS 29er or RFX at a place like Moab?

  12. #12
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueMountain
    TLL: Which 29ers were you on? I'm just curious so I can have a frame of reference. Would you rather be on a FS 29er or RFX at a place like Moab?
    I'm not TLL, but I'll be bringing my 6" 26er (Ventana Terremoto) to Moab. The Sultan is capable for most of Moab but is overmatched by the superchunk. After Moab my Terremoto will be on the market.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    After Moab my Terremoto will be on the market.
    Making room in the stable to buy my RFX?


  14. #14
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    Making room in the stable to buy my RFX?
    Is "RFX" another way of saying Roubaix SL2?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    I'm not TLL, but I'll be bringing my 6" 26er (Ventana Terremoto) to Moab. The Sultan is capable for most of Moab but is overmatched by the superchunk. After Moab my Terremoto will be on the market.
    Thanks, Squeaky! So what will you take to Moab next year?

  16. #16
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    you need to try a bike with shorter chainstays
    Chur.

  17. #17
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueMountain
    Thanks, Squeaky! So what will you take to Moab next year?
    Don't know. Will worry about it next year.

  18. #18
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,399
    Yours and Fo's matching Moto's will be so cute at THC, have you discussed matching outfits as well?

  19. #19
    try driving your car less
    Reputation: jh_on_the_cape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,099
    i have a 29er SS and hear you.

    nothing is perfect. you have found the reason people have lots of bikes.

    i want an rfx or 5 spot for less smooth rides. 29er for smoothies.

    seriously, try a highline.
    Only boring people get bored.

  20. #20
    TLL
    TLL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueMountain
    TLL: Which 29ers were you on? I'm just curious so I can have a frame of reference. Would you rather be on a FS 29er or RFX at a place like Moab?
    I owned the following 29ers:
    On One Inbred with a Rigid fork (later put the F29 on it just for fun)
    Turner Sultan with WB Fluid 135
    Ventana El Padrino with Fox F29

    Of the three, I liked the Sultan the best. The only reason I got rid of it was that it was too long in the toptube for me. This was confirmed to me when I jumped down to the Ventana--It had an inch shorter TT and it felt alomost perfect. The RFX has a 24.6 TT; with a 50mm stem it is perfect. Actually, better than perfect.

    If I had it to do over or was buying another 29er it would be the Sultan, but in a smaller size, and I'd deal with the mile long seatpost. Had the Sultan had a shorter TT I doubt I would have sold it.

    Having never ridden Moab, I can't say, but Squeaky has answered that. I'd guess for me it would be the RFX.

    Hope this helps.

  21. #21
    TLL
    TLL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    Yours and Fo's matching Moto's will be so cute at THC, have you discussed matching outfits as well?
    Doesn't Fo have Ironic CamoFo paint on his?

  22. #22
    trail fairy
    Reputation: trailadvent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,546
    Why not mount 2.5 tires on your Sultan I think that will clear things up
    Just riding a muddy trail. . ..

    MAXXIS 4C!
    Helmet for your neck

    Leatt FAQs


  23. #23
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by trailadvent
    Why not mount 2.5 tires on your Sultan I think that will clear things up
    Because they don't exist (at least outside of prototype form). 2.2 is the largest for the Nev and others are not appreciable larger despite boasting larger numbers.

  24. #24
    trail fairy
    Reputation: trailadvent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Because they don't exist (at least outside of prototype form). 2.2 is the largest for the Nev and others are not appreciable larger despite boasting larger numbers.
    Really my bad didn't know that, carry on, learn something everyday!

    chur..
    Just riding a muddy trail. . ..

    MAXXIS 4C!
    Helmet for your neck

    Leatt FAQs


  25. #25
    Living the Dream
    Reputation: Alpenglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,723

    How tall are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by TLL
    Of the three, I liked the Sultan the best. The only reason I got rid of it was that it was too long in the toptube for me. This was confirmed to me when I jumped down to the Ventana--It had an inch shorter TT and it felt alomost perfect. The RFX has a 24.6 TT; with a 50mm stem it is perfect. Actually, better than perfect.

    Had the Sultan had a shorter TT I doubt I would have sold it.
    I have a large Sultan frame that is waiting for the 09 Reba. I am 5'11"and will have a 70mm stem. I think it will be a good fit. I had a large niner SIR that fit.
    "And I shout that your all fakes and you should have seen the look on your face"

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    blahblah...a Bionicon Edison..blah.
    Dude, watch your language! We have alot of children that view this board


  27. #27
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    Dude, watch your language! We have alot of children that view this board


  28. #28
    trail fairy
    Reputation: trailadvent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,546
    What about the WW 2.55LT always liked the look of this tyre was keen to try it in 26inch but Im a Maxxis man thru and thru now so unlikely, are these not a good volume, mind you Kenda are big compared to most brands!
    Just riding a muddy trail. . ..

    MAXXIS 4C!
    Helmet for your neck

    Leatt FAQs


  29. #29
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by trailadvent
    What about the WW 2.55LT always liked the look of this tyre was keen to try it in 26inch but Im a Maxxis man thru and thru now so unlikely, are these not a good volume, mind you Kenda are big compared to most brands!
    Bigger volume, but itty, bitty knobs were not for me on my terrain. The 26" version has deeper knobs I think.

  30. #30
    Expert Crasher
    Reputation: GreenLightGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,349
    the WW 2.55LT doesn't actually measure to 2.55, more like 2.3. IIRC, the full knobbed version will be out after I-bike.
    Happiness depends more on the inward disposition of mind than on outward circumstances. Benjamin Franklin

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,689
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    Is "RFX" another way of saying Roubaix SL2?
    Wrong forum, I guess, but that bike is the road bike equivalent of a Turner. Perfect in every ding-dong way.

    Well, I guess it's a little garish for my tastes, but that's it.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  32. #32
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo
    Wrong forum, I guess, but that bike is the road bike equivalent of a Turner. Perfect in every ding-dong way.

    Well, I guess it's a little garish for my tastes, but that's it.
    Perhaps....but I see that or the Tarmac SL2 in my near future

  33. #33
    TLL
    TLL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,060

    I think your sizing is spot on

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpenglow
    I have a large Sultan frame that is waiting for the 09 Reba. I am 5'11"and will have a 70mm stem. I think it will be a good fit. I had a large niner SIR that fit.
    well, I'm 6'3", but prefer shorter top tubes--and for me, a 24.5" TT is as long as I want to go. But that's just me. I think I am one of the two people that thought the TT on the Sultan was too long (for them), so I'm a pretty small sample size. Everyone else seems very happy with the TT length. I'm betting you will to.

    Heck I'd be OK if the TT on the RFX was 24"--But then I'd be riding a Terremoto.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    ASFAIK, it's just price you pay, less stability and less momentum with the smaller tires, but less stability=maneuverability.
    Oddly, I feel the RFX is more stable than my previous 29ers for certain types of riding. Most of it has to do with fit, I think.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,689
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    Perhaps....but I see that or the Tarmac SL2 in my near future
    A friend has that model (early 09 release), and it looks great. Mere grams heavier than mine, but as far as I know, not available frameset only.

    The best looking Specy by far is my wife's Ruby Expert.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  35. #35
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,352
    I'm already plotting to get the '09 Tarmac SL2 to replace my current Tarmac Pro. And yes, the Tarmac SL2 will come in a frameset only. Can't remember when the frameset will be available. There's the Bettini WC paint job that blows doors on the stock paint schemes IMO. I'm holding out for that one.

  36. #36
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo
    A friend has that model (early 09 release), and it looks great. Mere grams heavier than mine, but as far as I know, not available frameset only.

    The best looking Specy by far is my wife's Ruby Expert.
    My wife has a Ruby Pro. I agree..it's gorgeous.

    I have a Roubaix Expert but feel the "need" to upgrade. I "need" to do something with the proceeds from the Terremoto sale

  37. #37
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,804
    Quote Originally Posted by TLL
    Oddly, I feel the RFX is more stable than my previous 29ers for certain types of riding. Most of it has to do with fit, I think.
    My comment was all other things being equal. The headtube angle and other associated geometry is not equal on those bikes. A slack heatube angle will give you more stability, but I guarentee if you have a 29er slacked out to 67 or 66 degrees it would be even less maneuverable. That's why you get to have your cake and eat it to in some situations with the RFX, but that's also why 29ers can crawl over stuff on the downhill at slow speeds.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  38. #38
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I'd also be curious about the bionicon's geometry and how "short coupled" it may be, because there's a lot more to stability than just the wheels.
    Not sure what you mean. It slacks out to 67 degrees with 150mm fork downhill, and can steepen to 73 degrees uphill. Interestingly the fork has a ton of offset (52.5mm) not sure if that is typical for a bigger fork or not. The BB seems low for a bike with 140mm of rear travel, around 13.5". That annoyed me during the rock crawling I was doing yesterday. Spot lovers would like it, however.

    Here are the numbers.

    http://www.bionicon.com/standard.xml...000001e5fbd349

    All I know is that raked out with those big tires, and low BB, it was very confidence inspiring in higher speed rough stuff. More so than my Lenz with 135mm travel, 68 degree HTA and nearly an inch higher BB. I prefer my bike for slower speed stuff and climbing and general riding, however. Cornering seems a wash, but I favor the 29"er probably due to familiarity. The only place I see the Bionicon having an edge is in pure, rough downhill, and in steep, loose not so bouldery climbs. With those sort of climbs, you just drop the front end and pedal. It is remarkably easy to keep traction and motor up (if you have the motor). On chunkier climbs, I found the low BB suffers pedal strikes a lot.

    Bionicon has opted for an air dual crown fork that is very, very stiff. I find myself wondering why dual crowns are not used more often now a days on the 6-8 inch travel forks. I really didn't see much limitation in my steering ability.

    It is a funny looking, but impressive bike.

  39. #39
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Not sure what you mean. It slacks out to 67 degrees with 150mm fork downhill, and can steepen to 73 degrees uphill. Interestingly the fork has a ton of offset (52.5mm) not sure if that is typical for a bigger fork or not. The BB seems low for a bike with 140mm of rear travel, around 13.5". That annoyed me during the rock crawling I was doing yesterday. Spot lovers would like it, however.

    Here are the numbers.

    http://www.bionicon.com/standard.xml...000001e5fbd349

    All I know is that raked out with those big tires, and low BB, it was very confidence inspiring in higher speed rough stuff. More so than my Lenz with 135mm travel, 68 degree HTA and nearly an inch higher BB. I prefer my bike for slower speed stuff and climbing and general riding, however. Cornering seems a wash, but I favor the 29"er probably due to familiarity. The only place I see the Bionicon having an edge is in pure, rough downhill, and in steep, loose not so bouldery climbs. With those sort of climbs, you just drop the front end and pedal. It is remarkably easy to keep traction and motor up (if you have the motor). On chunkier climbs, I found the low BB suffers pedal strikes a lot.

    Bionicon has opted for an air dual crown fork that is very, very stiff. I find myself wondering why dual crowns are not used more often now a days on the 6-8 inch travel forks. I really didn't see much limitation in my steering ability.

    It is a funny looking, but impressive bike.
    TT is pretty short on them for the size, and those types of forks can have some pretty strange steering characteristics. Other than that there doesn't seem to be anything wierd with the geometry. I had two stratos forks that had the same offset deal.

    In any case, I'm not a fan of those bikes at all, they sacrifice way too much in terms of suspension performance for me, and I'm not the kind of person that likes to try and optimize the bike for every 50 foot incline or decline. It's a neat adjustment that they have and it works and is reliable, but I don't find it any more usefull or exciting than ETA. Even with the big 8" bike I felt that the suspension was inferior to the 6" 6 pack's for absolute performance, not handicapping one for having more or less travel. I've tried the edison on a few occasions as well.

    I feel if I have the same amount of speed, I'd rather corner on the 26er, especially in technical situations where I want to get on a certain line. As you know, that is not always the case, and probably only the case if you're largely gravity-powered at that point. Nevertheless, I notice that the 29er doesn't "turn" better, it just holds a line better, and that line is often not the sharpest or tightest line due to the inertia of the wheels, but if you can set it up early and have ample space to do so, you can possibly carry more speed.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  40. #40
    TLL
    TLL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    My comment was all other things being equal. The headtube angle and other associated geometry is not equal on those bikes. A slack heatube angle will give you more stability, but I guarentee if you have a 29er slacked out to 67 or 66 degrees it would be even less maneuverable. That's why you get to have your cake and eat it to in some situations with the RFX, but that's also why 29ers can crawl over stuff on the downhill at slow speeds.
    Agree with your point. All things being equal, etc.

    Funny, I went out for a ride and was thinking about my comment as I was riding. What I really meant to say, in thinking about it, is that I have a much better fit on the RFX than on any of the other bikes (29ers, Flux, Epic) that I have owned in the past two years. JRA, the bike is just . . . comfortable. Sure, it is more stable than a 29er (mostly), and more maneuverable, but in retrospect that is not what I was trying to get across , now that I think about it. The bike just . . FITS. Some of it is top tube length, to be sure, but I just came off a 29er with the same TT measurement and it did not feel as half as right. Some of it is the way the frame is sized (smaller triangle than a 29er) some of it is . . . well, I don't know. And I think the fit is why I have an easier time balancing at slow speed through rocky sections than I ever did on the Sultan. Of course, a lot of that is the slacker angles, but there is something else as well that I can't put my finger on. I'd like to try a size smaller Sultan, I'm betting it would feel as just as balanced.

    I'm not trying to make the RFX out the be a better bike than any 29er in any situation, of course that is not the case. And I'm not done with 29ers, by any means; I'd really like to build up a singlespeed. But I'm pretty happy chugging along on the RFX, for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Nevertheless, I notice that the 29er doesn't "turn" better, it just holds a line better, and that line is often not the sharpest or tightest line due to the inertia of the wheels, but if you can set it up early and have ample space to do so, you can possibly carry more speed.
    Could not have said it better.

  41. #41
    TLL
    TLL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    I have a Roubaix Expert but feel the "need" to upgrade. I "need" to do something with the proceeds from the Terremoto sale
    That should just rail at Moab.

  42. #42
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Quote Originally Posted by TLL
    Agree with your point. All things being equal, etc.

    Funny, I went out for a ride and was thinking about my comment as I was riding. What I really meant to say, in thinking about it, is that I have a much better fit on the RFX than on any of the other bikes (29ers, Flux, Epic) that I have owned in the past two years. JRA, the bike is just . . . comfortable. Sure, it is more stable than a 29er (mostly), and more maneuverable, but in retrospect that is not what I was trying to get across , now that I think about it. The bike just . . FITS. Some of it is top tube length, to be sure, but I just came off a 29er with the same TT measurement and it did not feel as half as right. Some of it is the way the frame is sized (smaller triangle than a 29er) some of it is . . . well, I don't know. And I think the fit is why I have an easier time balancing at slow speed through rocky sections than I ever did on the Sultan. Of course, a lot of that is the slacker angles, but there is something else as well that I can't put my finger on. I'd like to try a size smaller Sultan, I'm betting it would feel as just as balanced.

    I'm not trying to make the RFX out the be a better bike than any 29er in any situation, of course that is not the case. And I'm not done with 29ers, by any means; I'd really like to build up a singlespeed. But I'm pretty happy chugging along on the RFX, for now.

    Could not have said it better.
    I've had a ton of time on the Sultan and various 6" 26ers on steep, loose, rocky, chunky descents.

    The bigger 26" bikes just perform better in these situations - but I think that is due to the beefier tubing, slacker angles and better suspension of the 26ers. I'd love to try a long travel 29er with slack angles and top-shelf suspension in these situations but that just doesn't exist. I can definitely feel my Sultan twist in situations where my 6-Pack of Terremoto just bombs. Admittedly, some of the twist may be due to the larger diameter wheels which is an inherent disadvantage of the 29er.

    On the other hand, I've yet to encounter a climb, not matter how gnarly, where the 29er loses ground to the 26er.

  43. #43
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,310
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    I'd love to try a long travel 29er with slack angles and top-shelf suspension in these situations but that just doesn't exist.
    True. Even comparing the Box with WB 135 which is about as stiff, slack and top drawer suspension wise as it gets in 29"er world, to the Bionicon (maybe not so top drawer) on the rough downhills, the Box comes off feeling a little spindly and "XC." The smaller wheeled bike just seems burlier and stiffer. Granted, I don't have the stiffest possible wheelset available on the Box, but they don't suck.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    On the other hand, I've yet to encounter a climb, not matter how gnarly, where the 29er loses ground to the 26er.
    Chur.


    (until I rode the Edison with its big ass grippy rubber)

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
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.