Sinister R9- Opinions, Input, Thoughts?
- Thread starter T-Pro
- Start date
Yep. Long and strong.
Damn Trevyn, you ridin a Sinister this year?
The ones I've ridden have all felt quite long and steep. Weird combination, and personally I thought it felt pretty crap; I'd rather have something slacker. Whatever floats your boat though.
It was set up for someone who's about 80kg (I'm 100kg). It had more than enough sag. And it wasn't "very slack", it was "too steep for a race bike".bballe336 said:
I don't know how slack you like your bikes. But, with a 7 inch boxxer and drop crown, four inches of sag makes it more than slack enough to be raceable. And it will still plow over anything and is very stable even if you consider the head angle to be too steep. Most people I know find the geometry to be spot on once you start riding the bike.thaflyinfatman said:
pm dexter, i believe he's still sporting one
they are pretty low/slack/stable bikes. i love 'em. it's kinda like a demo 8 crossed with a dhr...
There was likely something wrong with the fella's setup. 7" boxxer with the drop crown puts the head angle at 66degrees, and bb at 14.2" static. Stock '05 888 crowns puts the bike at 65 and 14.5"thaflyinfatman said:
This is the same as .5" static eye-to-eye difference when compared to the undisputed kickass geometry king, the Sunday, as the Sunday runs about %25 rear sag, and a properly setup R9 runs between 50 and 60% sag (FTW and I both run 60% sag), at ride height they are within spitting distance of each other.
My guess is that he had his shock setup too stiff, or with too much compression damping, or he had a 888 with flat crowns and no low-speed compression.
Even if you are 10kg heavier than someone, if the sag isn't set correctly and the suspension is improperly tuned, it isn't set correctly!
Obviously I have an R9, and I love the piss out of it. Unfortunately I think everyone on Ridemonkey who has an R9 rides for Sinister, so you aren't going to get a whole lot of unbiased opnions. I try to be honest in my assesment of bikes, like I try to assume all the other sponsored riders who post here about their frames are....:hot:
And yes I have a Splinter MX, which I also love, but to be honest the frame could be a few pounds lighter for me to use for 4x. And for '06 they will be!
I've tried two with 8" Fox 40s, both of which had the firm spring in, no idea about the compression settings though. It feels noticeably steeper than my SGS with a 7" Boxxer and flat crowns. Maybe it's a bit of a stereotype, but I'm Australian and as such I tend to like my bikes preeeetty slack (pity I can't live up to the other half of the stereotype and actually ride fastSuspectDevice said:
). BB height doesn't worry me too much, it felt kinda high to me but I think that might just be because of the positioning of the rider in the cockpit rather than because it actually is high.I've never heard of anyone running 60% sag though, that's pretty nuts... not only do you only have 4" of positive travel then (the R9s are, iirc, actually 10" travel correct? Something of a joke on FTW's part?) but you have 6" of sag to try and pull the bike out of every time you need to hop the thing. By my estimation, I was getting a good 4" of sag on both the R9s I tried, which to me is on the soft side rather than the stiff side. BTW, I'm pretty sure DW said the Sunday is designed to be run with anywhere from 25-50% sag. With both at 50% sag they are pretty different bikes!
Honestly - I realise I came across as pretty harsh on the bike; I can see a lot of guys love it but it's just not for me. I think anyone else who likes slack head angles without having really long wheelbases will probably tend to agree with me. Anyway... as long as you have fun on your bike, who gives a shït really?
The 50-60 percent sag makes them track a lot better and allows the bike to stay glued to the ground. R9 also stands for revision 9. It is the ninth revision of the bike so the 10 inches of travel and R9 isn't really a joke. And I have never heard of anyone running a sunday with 50 percent sag, It would make the geometry absolutely rediculous.thaflyinfatman said:
hey, man you copying my fork? haha, you should have hooked up with kelly at camp. mikey said you have no game.
search man, i have written many a things about the r9
I don't know how many Pushi got, but see if you can snag a ride on the smaller-sized R9. The wheelbase is a good 1.5" shorter. The shorties are fun, but they don't work for my riding style. I still maintain that there was something wrong with the bikes you rode, they really should not feel steep! The cockpit does have unique feel to it, and that may have been part of what you were noticing You feel like you are "in" rather than on the bike. It fosters a sort of "under-the paint" style.thaflyinfatman said:
I actually had to switch out bars when I was first testing from low-rise easton's to Mid risers.
My comment about the wheelbase wasn't so much that I find the wheelbase too long (it did feel a bit longer than my SGS but I can deal with that), more that I prefer a bike that sits your weight back a bit further (like the SGS's, Sundays etc do). The steepER head angle on the R9 (I'm not saying it's hardtail steep or even close... but it's not as slack as my bike or any of my mates' M1s/Sundays/DH9s/Oranges) and relatively long reach kinda put your weight a bit further forward or more upright or something (compared to the hanging-off-the-back feel the other bikes seem to give), and it just feels a bit unco to me. There was nothing wrong with the bike, I just didn't like it.SuspectDevice said: