Forum menu
Just reading the review on the main site - is the Tracer really that heavy?
Santa Cruz quote 6.9lbs for the Large Nomad ( http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/santa-cruz-unveil-2009-nomad-17543/)
Now, quoted weights I can tak ewith a pinch of salt - but is the Tracer really a lot heavier?
Do both include shock and all hardware or not?
Looks like they weigh pretty much the same amount:
http://www.sicklines.com/weights/fullsuspensionframes/
Member
Do both include shock and all hardware or not?
Thay include shock, yes.
kamina - Member
Looks like they weigh pretty much the same amount:
That's the old tracer, Nomad's not on it.
Ah yes, the new tracer is probably heavier then the old one, seems to be quite a lot beefier too (not that the Nomad is not beefy).
But looking at my first google result it claimed the M Tracer 2 with an RP23 is 7lbs which seems more realistic. However if the first Tracer is anything to go by I would not get it with the RP23 (it had a tendency to really blow through it's travel).
Yes, the weight is right - Intense make reference to extra bulk on the new bike, because the old one was too fragile.
A pound heavier than the Nomad though? Seems a huge amount of extra weight.
Yes, the weight is right - Intense make reference to extra bulk on the new bike, because the old one was too fragile.
That not the real reason. The new Tracer2 is intended to cope with harder riding than the old Tracer and compete with Trek Scratch etc...
The replacement long travel trail bike is the Carbine.
Basically the Tracer 1 was supposed to be the balance between long travel XC and AM but had penalty's for either , so has essentially been replaced with 2 models.