2009 Specialized SX Trail - saddled up for the first time

It does have a touch of the Norcos about it (albeit, thankfully, without Norco's horribly interrupted seat tube).

It's a little slacker in the head tube too which makes it more like a mini DH bike than ever.

If that new linkage works - and you know that Specialized can afford plenty of R[HTML_REMOVED]D so I'd be amazed if it it didn't - then 2009 SX = win.

The standover for the previous bikes were an issue for a lady that stands 5'2".

I'm 5'0" in case you were thinking of buying me one. hahaha

[QUOTE=e-did's;1977744]I'm not so sure why they altered a product that works so well? If its not broken, why fix it?

so keep the SX the same forever while other manufacturers improve on their design ? Not a good business model. The changes to the frame are upgrades that makes the bike better.

It's funny how people want the same frame design but want a lower center of gravity, non-interrupted seat tube, more rearward axel path, etc, etc. Maybe they should quit there jobs and become engineers.

so keep the SX the same forever while other manufacturers improve on their design ? Not a good business model. The changes to the frame are upgrades and makes the bike better.

It's funny how people want the same frame design but want a lower center of gravity, non-interrupted seat tube, more rearward axel path, etc, etc. Maybe they should quit there jobs and become engineers.

Hey - I am an Engineer!:nerd: Does that mean I get a free bike with all those great sounding features??:idea:

:P

so keep the SX the same forever while other manufacturers improve on their design ? Not a good business model. The changes to the frame are upgrades and makes the bike better.

It's funny how people want the same frame design but want a lower center of gravity, non-interrupted seat tube, more rearward axel path, etc, etc. Maybe they should quit there jobs and become engineers.

This quote points out a long standing problem I have with the bike industry. Why should a company change a design that works really well, if the only change is cosmetic? Admittedly, the SX changes are very welcome, but I can't think of any more outstanding issues with the frame, so how long before Big S decides it just needs to update a perfectly functional, well received design?

Shorter chainstays, increased square edge bump proformance, and more bottom out resitance, and I though the old bike was amazing.

I thought last year's were pimp but that looks even better

Not so hot from the looks dept to my eyes.

Too many bends and curves and whatnot.

There are some fundamental issues with the bike. I like the front derailleur design, and I like the use of the IFP valve on the shock, but the heart of the bike took a step backwards. The rear shock is shorter for the same amount of travel. Remember the criticism of the Banshee scream. Long travel + short shock stroke = high leverage ratio and poor shock performance. Furthermore, as leverage ratio decreases through the wheel path, the resistance to bottom-out increases, giving the bike a "progressive, bottomless feel". Bikes like the VP-Free are opposite, where the suspension is digressive through it's travel, giving the bike a "plush, deep, linear" feel. However, with this design it depends on the shock to provide bottom-out control, which isn't inherently bad. Unless, it is combined with a high leverage ratio design. Then it overworks the shock and increases the risk of poor dampening characteristics and a blown rear shock. Lower overall leverage ratios provide better dampening and are easier on the shock. I don't like the new sx design. besides it looks like Transition Syren, a womens bike.

Will this not make for a very short rear end?
---I will have to try one to see how that works out.
(I am not an engineer)

Any idea of the shock length?

cam, will you be in sun valley for the trekstravaganza?

i like it. I want it. Full length seattube, slacker HA. tapered headtube. schweet

anyone looking to buy a SC nomad?

There are some fundamental issues with the bike. I like the front derailleur design, and I like the use of the IFP valve on the shock, but the heart of the bike took a step backwards. The rear shock is shorter for the same amount of travel. Remember the criticism of the Banshee scream. Long travel + short shock stroke = high leverage ratio and poor shock performance. Furthermore, as leverage ratio decreases through the wheel path, the resistance to bottom-out increases, giving the bike a "progressive, bottomless feel". Bikes like the VP-Free are opposite, where the suspension is digressive through it's travel, giving the bike a "plush, deep, linear" feel. However, with this design it depends on the shock to provide bottom-out control, which isn't inherently bad. Unless, it is combined with a high leverage ratio design. Then it overworks the shock and increases the risk of poor dampening characteristics and a blown rear shock. Lower overall leverage ratios provide better dampening and are easier on the shock. I don't like the new sx design. besides it looks like Transition Syren, a womens bike.

the leverage ratios are well within an acceptable range. I wouldn't comment on how the suspension feels/works until you actually ride the bike. The Specialized engineers probably know a little bit more than you and the bike has been tested thoroughly in the lab and out on the trails. And it's closer to looking like a Norco than a Syren and about 2 years ahead in technology. Nice first post.

A lot of arm chair engineers in this thread.

the leverage ratios are well within an acceptable range. I wouldn't comment on how the suspension feels/works until you actually ride the bike. The Specialized engineers probably know a little bit more than you and the bike has been tested thoroughly in the lab and out on the trails. And it's closer to looking like a Norco than a Syren and about 2 years ahead in technology. Nice first post.

A lot of arm chair engineers in this thread.

You have a point, I don't know how it rides, however, the principle still applies. On any given design, lower leverage ratio is not only easier on the shock, but is easier to dial in and will give the bike a better feel. For example. I own this years demo 7 1. Overall rear suspension ratio of 3.1:1. Great bike, and it is fun to ride, but the rear suspension feels numb, and takes huge changes in air pressure via the IFP valve to make any kind of difference in compression. Same with the pro-pedal adjustment. Classic symptoms of high leverage ratios. You don't have to agree, but the principle stands. How is that for my second post.