Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Az HS Cycling League
Joined
·
325 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well I have a little bit of time on my new Sultan 2.0 and thought I would share some of my comparisons. Both are XXL size. Version 1.0 currently weighs 28.05 lbs and version 2.0 weights 29.40 lbs.

Photobucket

First of all, I really dig my 1.0. It rides great and it does everything I ask of it. It was originally set up with a WB F135 and most of the parts you see on my 2.0. This frame works great with this fork and could easily keep up with the longer travel.

With the order of DWL Sultan I sold my Racer X 29 and planned on using my original Sultan for my race bike and the new one as the play bike. I used most of the parts from my Racer X on the 1.0. I plan on using it for races this season (24 hour stuff and longer races).

Photobucket

Photobucket

I have noticed some distinct differences between the 2 however. First of all, the new frame seems more maneuverable. There is only a .5" difference in the wheelbase between them (1.0 = 47.5" and 2.0 = 47.0") as well as top tube length (1.0 = 26.5" and 2.0 = 26.0"). I am not sure how to explain it but, I feel more balanced and agile on the 2.0.

Photobucket

The DWL rear suspension is sweet. It is very active and supple in the rock gardens. It does not seem to use too much travel and always has some reserve for larger hits (square edge). I am running 30% sag. It seems to brake well in the rough also. It maintains excellent control while slowing in the rocks.

Photobucket

I think the stiffness of the frame has been improved. I did not notice an issue with version 1.0 however there is a difference in the slower technical stuff. I do realize I have a 20mm front axle on the 2.0 compared to the QR on the current version of the 1.0. I did originally have the F135 on the 1.0 and do believe it is improved regardless of the fork or front axle.

These are just some of my thoughts. I guess I should acknowledge the fact that it is quite a luxury to have 2 great bikes to compare. I wouldn't hesitate to own either. I would estimate that the version 2.0 is as much fun as Britney Spears on New Years eve. How's that for stokage. :thumbsup:
 

·
T , V , & K Rider
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
Nice..........yeah , I like the fact the top tube was lowered for more stand over clearance !

From the photo it almost looks like both the seat tube and head tube have a tad steeper angle than the original Sultan ! TIG.
 

·
Expert Crasher
Joined
·
6,359 Posts
I'm surprised version 1.0 weighs that much - I would have guessed 27 to 27.5 lbs - maybe it's the frame weight adding a bit since you ride the gargantuan size.
 

·
trail fairy
Joined
·
9,546 Posts
Great review, awesome to see both side by side!

DTs details on design and implementation are unquestionable and and on the dwl models by far the best yet, I still think the earlier versions routing is still better form wise and from me it worked best functionally of any bike Ive ever owned and Ive had a few, all type of routes, still without trying it I can't be objective so its speculation at best and only opinion that is open to change!

Seeing the 2 vers side by side like that its interesting to hear ya thoughts because on the Sutans especially the dwl versions all look very steep compared to v1 version supposedly with lower a2c forks or even similar :confused: !

I'm not sure if its me or the pic or what but every Sultan built up Ive seen so far look like this too me, I'm sure they ride great and that's all that matters, but they do look more funky than the dwl Spots, where as I always thought the V1 Sultans looked kinda cool compared to any of the other 29ers in existence I'd seen especially of any other brand!

Anyways cool to be able to have both models very cool enjoy, always hard to compare things like stiffness unless comparable components though but others have said the same thing, and based on the the mini links shorter rockers, rear triangle design I'm not surprised there''s a stiffer feel there, the rocker design alone would help there!

The raw looks great too, congrats HNY for 09 :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
Enel said:
I like the way that shows how the mass is more centralized on the newer model. It shows how DT sweated the details.
Ummmm. Not to nitpick, but "shows how the mass is more centralized on the newer model."? What does that mean? The center of mass amy be exactly the same on both models. You can't tell by comparing pics. I also doubt if the change in the location of COM has much influence on riding... at all.

I also like DT's designs, but it's a bit of a stretch to look at that pic and declare that it's proof of "...how DT sweated the details".

Sheesh. This forum has gone from appreciation of great bikes and riding to a more religous bent.
 

·
Powered by ice cream.
Joined
·
6,359 Posts
Blue Shorts said:
Sheesh. This forum has gone from appreciation of great bikes and riding to a more religous bent.
Yeah, I'm Turner's biggest fanboy for sure.

PS I totally agree it would not be noticeable in the ride, but it looks cool and standover is improved.

What I meant is the polar moment of inertia of the frame itself appears less on the new design. Center of mass would be near identical as you noted. Unimportant because the mass of the wheels and rider dwarf any frame effects.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top