[myitch]

I love my 2002 SB. It rides awesome and is strong enough for all my endeavors, no hucking here. BUT I'd like a coil and the larger chainstay for 2.4+ tires. Then I though about the Quasimoto, since it already has both of those. BUT the SB is lighter, and since I'm not the strongest climber in the world, I thought I'd better stick with the SB in a coil. BUT the Quasi has 6 inches travel vs. the 5.7 I'm getting now (Air shock though).

Now both of these are now longer being made. '05 SBs are the last. '04 was the last for the Quasi (right?).

What are the differences really? How much heavier is the Quasi? Anyone ridden both for real world comparisons?

 

[Markv]

Own a 2001 Quasi and have ridden SBs....

My Quasi is set up with a Vanilla fork and a PUSH'ed Float.......biggest difference between the Quasi and a long travel SB (my brother has one) are the slacker seat and head angles on the Quasi. My frame has the regular chainstays (narrow.....run a 2.1 Nevegal in the rear) and doesn't have the extra gusseting so it weighs maybe 1 1/2 lbs more than a SB.

2002 and newer Quasi's have the wider chainstays and the extra gusseting.....

The Switchblade climbs better and the Quasi is a more stable descender....

Have a coil Vanilla R that I've never used

 

[myitch]

wow, the quasi's are that much heavier! i think i'd better stick with the SB then. hmm, but the longer travel is attractive. i guess it depends on which frame i can find and the price.

 

[Markv]

I'm guessing on the weight difference...

I've weighed my bike on a good scale......29lbs even and I have lightweight wheels (317s/w dble butted spokes, alloy nips, & King Isodisc hubs), carbon bars, Magura Martas....all xc stuff. My brother's long travel Switchblade with pretty much the same setup is between 27.5 and 28 lbs.

We're talking 5.9" travel on the Quasi and 5.75" on the Switchblade......no real difference in rear wheel travel.

Have you had your rear shock PUSH'ed? Allows you to run with lower air pressure in the shock, it won't wallow in the travel on climbs, sticks to the ground better on descents, and you will get full travel.....your ride will feel like a new bike.

 

[myitch]

I've weighed my bike on a good scale......29lbs even and I have lightweight wheels (317s/w dble butted spokes, alloy nips, & King Isodisc hubs), carbon bars, Magura Martas....all xc stuff. My brother's long travel Switchblade with pretty much the same setup is between 27.5 and 28 lbs.

We're talking 5.9" travel on the Quasi and 5.75" on the Switchblade......no real difference in rear wheel travel.

Have you had your rear shock PUSH'ed? Allows you to run with lower air pressure in the shock, it won't wallow in the travel on climbs, sticks to the ground better on descents, and you will get full travel.....your ride will feel like a new bike.

Yeah, that travel difference isn't enough to notice on the trail. The weight might be though, since I need all the help I can get for climbing. I hate huffing and puffing too much. I thought of the PUSH service, but for the money, I might as well spend a bit more and get the coil. A coil will always ride better. Then I thought, shoots, I really want the wider chainstay too. So, I might as well wait for a used 2005 SB with the coil and be able to have the wider chainstay too. Then I can build up my 2002 as a lighter weight bike with V-brakes and other XC stuff.

Of course, the new/used frame will cost some $$$ and are hard to find.

 

[demo_slug]

Yeah, that travel difference isn't enough to notice on the trail. The weight might be though, since I need all the help I can get for climbing. I hate huffing and puffing too much. I thought of the PUSH service, but for the money, I might as well spend a bit more and get the coil. A coil will always ride better. Then I thought, shoots, I really want the wider chainstay too. So, I might as well wait for a used 2005 SB with the coil and be able to have the wider chainstay too. Then I can build up my 2002 as a lighter weight bike with V-brakes and other XC stuff.

Of course, the new/used frame will cost some $$$ and are hard to find.

myitch.

A coil shock is going to add a pound to your SB. the free ride lower is going to add 1/2 a pound. a larger rear tire is going to add 1/2 a pound+

doesn't seem like you want to add 2 pounds to your bike. and that extra weight is the kiss of death for smaller riders.

have you thought about a motolite?

 

[zorg]

myitch.

A coil shock is going to add a pound to your SB. the free ride lower is going to add 1/2 a pound. a larger rear tire is going to add 1/2 a pound+

doesn't seem like you want to add 2 pounds to your bike. and that extra weight is the kiss of death for smaller riders.

have you thought about a motolite?

I agree with you. Myitch can build a Motolite with air shock around 27# with light components, and about 30-31# with coils and bigger tires. The travel will be nearly the same, but the geometry will be a bit more slack, since I believe that the SB has a 70 or 71 HA.

 

[myitch]

thanks for the suggestions on the ML. I thought of that one too. the ML doesn't have the larger chainstay area, nor a coil, am I right? The ML also has less travel, only up to 5" and is not as beefy as the SB. I think the SB is the best choice since I have the option to run the coil and have the larger chainstay area that I'm after. I also do want the more slack HA of the SB.

I'd only be running 2.4+ tires on occassion, and would like to switch between the air and coil rear shock, and want at least 5.7" of travel like I have now on my current SB.

 

[DaveX]

thanks for the suggestions on the ML. I thought of that one too. the ML doesn't have the larger chainstay area, nor a coil, am I right?

Nope, as of 06 you'd be wrong

The freeride chainstays are now standard and the coil shock is as it's always been an option.

IMHO the ML is superior design to the SB. In fact I don't miss my SB one bit

 

[zorg]

thanks for the suggestions on the ML. I thought of that one too. the ML doesn't have the larger chainstay area, nor a coil, am I right? The ML also has less travel, only up to 5" and is not as beefy as the SB. I think the SB is the best choice since I have the option to run the coil and have the larger chainstay area that I'm after. I also do want the more slack HA of the SB.

I'd only be running 2.4+ tires on occassion, and would like to switch between the air and coil rear shock, and want at least 5.7" of travel like I have now on my current SB.

The 06 ML has the wider chainstay of the Quasimoto, and you should be able to run 2.3 tires in the back. You can have your choice of shock (float, RP3, coil, etc). The frame weighs about the same as the SB, so it should be as sturdy as the SB. As for the geometry, I'm pretty sure the HA is more relaxed on the ML than on the SB. The only thing you'll lose is some rear travel.

 

[myitch]

I stand corrected then. So, the chainstays on the ML only fit up to 2.3 tires, not 2.5? The ML does sounds good if in fact its lighter and has the coil or air option, but I will lose nearly an inch of travel. Then the question becomes quality vs. quantity of travel. Is the 5" of ML travel better than the 5.7" inches on my '02 SB?

 

[DaveX]

I stand corrected then. So, the chainstays on the ML only fit up to 2.3 tires, not 2.5? The ML does sounds good if in fact its lighter and has the coil or air option, but I will lose nearly an inch of travel. Then the question becomes quality vs. quantity of travel. Is the 5" of ML travel better than the 5.7" inches on my '02 SB?

Ughh, I hated my SB set to 5.7! So of course I gotta say, "quality over quantity."

 

[zorg]

I stand corrected then. So, the chainstays on the ML only fit up to 2.3 tires, not 2.5? The ML does sounds good if in fact its lighter and has the coil or air option, but I will lose nearly an inch of travel. Then the question becomes quality vs. quantity of travel. Is the 5" of ML travel better than the 5.7" inches on my '02 SB?

The chainstay is wide enough for bigger tires than 2.3 but the seatstay brace would limit you to about 2.3. Then again, you stated early that you don't want a heavy bike, so do you really plan on running 2.5 rear tires? Realistically, if you run a 2.3 rear and 2.5 front, you should have enough traction to go up and down a tree.

I can't compare the SB and the ML, but I can vouch for the ML quality. I've taken it to Tahoe, Demo, Rockville, Skeggs, and the bike was never ever the limiting factor as to what I could ride.

 

[myitch]

Again, I only use 2.5 tires once in awhile. Weight is not a problem for those occassions. The Maxxis DH tires that I put on once in awhile in the summer add about 2.5-3 lbs., but its only for the those Downieville days. .I usually run Panaracer XC Pros up front, Specialized Adrenaline Pros in the rear.

The seatstays never had a problem on SB, its only the chainstays. Is the ML chainstay more narrow than the SBs? That wouldn't do me any good if it were since I want that option for 2.5 tires. On my SB, the chainstay is only shy about 1/4" of space. Otherwise, the tire would be fine.

As for travel, I'm sure the ML would not be a "limiting" factor to a ride, but I was looking for real world experiences between the the ML and SB given the near 1" travel difference.

My '02 SB is awesome at 5.7" even with the Float R. But an extra inch is always nice to have.

 

[zorg]

Again, I only use 2.5 tires once in awhile. Weight is not a problem for those occassions. The Maxxis DH tires that I put on once in awhile in the summer add about 2.5-3 lbs., but its only for the those Downieville days. .I usually run Panaracer XC Pros up front, Specialized Adrenaline Pros in the rear.

The seatstays never had a problem on SB, its only the chainstays. Is the ML chainstay more narrow than the SBs? That wouldn't do me any good if it were since I want that option for 2.5 tires. On my SB, the chainstay is only shy about 1/4" of space. Otherwise, the tire would be fine.

As for travel, I'm sure the ML would not be a "limiting" factor to a ride, but I was looking for real world experiences between the the ML and SB given the near 1" travel difference.

My '02 SB is awesome at 5.7" even with the Float R. But an extra inch is always nice to have.

The seatstay is different due to the uninterrupted seattube. So there is a brace that limits the volume of your tire on the seatstay. The issue is not how wide the seatstay is but how tall your tire will be. I haven't messed with it but 2.3 is probably the biggest you can can go on the seatstay assuming that you got the FR lowers. I think that pics of the seatstay brace have been posted before on this forum. Do a quick search, that should explain it.

As for travel, I hear you, more is always nice to have. I did Downieville for the first time this summer. I had a 2.1 rear Kenda Nevegal and a front 2.25 Intense system 4, and I was pretty happy, but then again, I'm no Mark Weir either.

Bottom line: if running a 2.5 rear tire is an absolute requirement, the ML is not the bike for you. I believe that the 5 spot will do that though.

 

[DaveX]

Bottom line: if running a 2.5 rear tire is an absolute requirement, the ML is not the bike for you. I believe that the 5 spot will do that though.

You beat me too the punch, was just about to type that... 5 spot or 6 pack, and if you're a Titus devotee then the Super-Moto.

I'm partial to the Moto-lite largely because it's a better climber then the Switchblade and I like to be the first one to the top. Well it's also a descends a bit better (read more stable and confidence inspiring). For me there is plenty of tire clearance, 2.5 tires are just to heavy for my personal tastes.

 

[myitch]

Ah, gotcha. So, its the height clearance. Shucks. I'm no pro-rider either, just that those DH tires are left overs. I guess I can always just use narrower tires.

As much as I love my Titus, maybe I should look into other brands with 5+ inches of 4-bar, horst-link travel. Turners are good too, though I think they run on the heavy side for FR-oriented riders.

Thanks guys.

 

[zorg]

Ah, gotcha. So, its the height clearance. Shucks. I'm no pro-rider either, just that those DH tires are left overs. I guess I can always just use narrower tires.

As much as I love my Titus, maybe I should look into other brands with 5+ inches of 4-bar, horst-link travel. Turners are good too, though I think they run on the heavy side for FR-oriented riders.

Thanks guys.

So, if I understood you correctly, for 95% of your riding, you want a light 5" travel bike that will climb and descend quite well. That's the ML (and others too).

Once in a while, you'd like to user bigger tires and you got a set of 2.5 DH tires. I'd say, spend $40 and get a 2.3 rear tire. That'll be plenty for Downieville. If you really need a 2.5 rear tire, then you're probably riding the wrong bike, and you'd probably be better off renting a DH bike at Northstar.

Warning: I'm heavily biased toward the ML...

 

[demo_slug]

Ah, gotcha. So, its the height clearance. Shucks. I'm no pro-rider either, just that those DH tires are left overs. I guess I can always just use narrower tires.

As much as I love my Titus, maybe I should look into other brands with 5+ inches of 4-bar, horst-link travel. Turners are good too, though I think they run on the heavy side for FR-oriented riders.

Thanks guys.

2 bikes. that is the answer. supermoto is the perfect 2nd bike. which will become the first bike.....

 

[myitch]

All good points again. My SB is already 5.7" though. So, it makes more sense for me to get something with the same or more travel in a coil. Especially since I just mounted a sweet PIKE 140mm fork up front.

The Supermoto, while a great frame, is a beast at 8.5 pounds (according the Titus person I talked to). The ML, another great frame, has less travel than what I'm looking for.

So, at this point, it seems my best options are:

1. 2005 SB w/coil, hard to find used
2. Quasimoto, hard to find used
3. Turner 6 Pack, need to check the weight
4. Ventanas? (Mucho bucks though)

Any other 4-bar, Horst-link, 5+ coil travel, less than 6.5 pounds, 2.3 tire accommodating frames out there? Or maybe I could just "suffer" (Haha) with my current SB and save the money for a rainy day.