[Tracerboy]

I'm interested in the new Specialized SX Trail 2. The one thing that gets me about this is the long wheelbase, so I was wondering, has anybody ridden this bike yet? I'm wondering how this bike feels going through turns, switchbacks, and berms. The rest of the gwometry of the bike seems fine for me, but the wheelbase (46.5" for the large) just seems a bit long to me.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Dnovick104]

I HAVE!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
NOT! SORRY tho

 

[dogonfr]

After that response im sorry!

 

[BJ-]

46" wheelbase too long on a large bike. are you kidding me?

 

[Tracerboy]

they don't have too long of a wheel base

 

[boone]

uuuuhhh...well,

the wheel base is kinda long yes. But the chain stay is 16.9 inches? Think about this a little....?!

 

[bjammin]

I'm interested in the new Specialized SX Trail 2. The one thing that gets me about this is the long wheelbase, so I was wondering, has anybody ridden this bike yet? I'm wondering how this bike feels going through turns, switchbacks, and berms. The rest of the gwometry of the bike seems fine for me, but the wheelbase (46.5" for the large) just seems a bit long to me.

Thanks for the help.

6.6 vs SX trail
6.6 vs SX trail
6.6 vs SX trail

 

[goRz]

46" is not that big wheel base, especially for Large frame. I've got 47" and I don't think it makes the bike turn worse or anything...

 

[Tracerboy]

6.6 vs SX trail
6.6 vs SX trail
6.6 vs SX trail

Yeah, I know...I'm so frikin' indecisive

I really like both of them. I think I'm gonna get a 150mm travel Marz 66; I just don't know whether I should go for the 66RC2X or the 66SL.

 

[PblcNme]

I would get the 66SL, because it is extremely versitile due to the travel adjustibilty. Another factor is weight, although it's not much, it's still lighter. Just a question, why would you get an SX with 150mm? or have you decided not to consider the SX anymore?

 

[Tracerboy]

I would get the 66SL, because it is extremely versitile due to the travel adjustibilty. Another factor is weight, although it's not much, it's still lighter. Just a question, why would you get an SX with 150mm? or have you decided not to consider the SX anymore?

I have considered the SL. It's an attractive fork, but if I don't get a fork with ETA, I might as well go for the 66RC2X. I like the 66 Light ETA, but I kinda feel I'm cheating if I go for a 170mm fork on a 6.6.

I already have an M3 w/888 on it for DH use, and a Giant AC1 w/Shiver SC for AM use.. I want a new bike with about 6" front and rear so I can do some climbing. Not full on XC, just something that can get me up to the top. I really like the looks of the 6.6, but I can get an SX for cheap.

I feel that if I go to a 7" fork, then why wouldn't I just use my M3 on those trails, except for the fact that I'm gonna be able to climb up. I know I'm just being a boob and over thinking this whole thing; sorry.

pblcmne, the SX comes with a 36 up front, so 150mm is o.k.; unless you're talking about the rear, then it's about about 165mm.