REVIEW: 2011 Marin Attack Trail 6.9

[skifreak]

Originally Posted by Dan Austin

That is a great question, the axle path was/is the secret to the Quad Link 2.0's success. Have a look at this link
http://www.singletrackworld.com/2011...9ers-and-more/

judging by the geometry of the links as they are in the photos, it seems it would be hard to get the wheel to move in a rearward direction at all, let alone for the first 1/3rd of the travel.

If we do a 2012 Marin test, I'll be sure to include axle path comparison (if available)

the lower link looks to be set so it would rise and extend rearwards in the early travel to continue the current pattern.

[biggles604]

Originally Posted by clarklewis

for what climb do you need an easier gear than 26x34?

Physiotherapy, for one off the top of my head.

[Dan Austin]

Originally Posted by skifreak

the lower link looks to be set so it would rise and extend rearwards in the early travel to continue the current pattern.

yes, potentially, but I envision that taken up by sag/squat alone. Hard to say for sure.

Cant imagine they would want to stray too far from the QL 2.0 path as it works very well

That said, none of the releases about the 2012 bikes have they mentioned the big bikes and I do wonder, silently in the back of my head, if they will keep the QL 2.0 for the long travel bikes and move to this new QL 3.0 system for the shorter travel ones. still needs to be cleared up.

[shirk]

Originally Posted by clarklewis

for what climb do you need an easier gear than 26x34?

Spin to win.

The ratios.

22*30 = 0.73
22*32 = 0.68
22*34 = 0.64

24*30 = 0.80
24*32 = 0.75
24*34 = 0.70
24*36 = 0.66

26*32 = 0.81
26*34 = 0.76
26*36 = 0.72

By day four of the Queens I was certainly using 22*34 at the top of Middle Earth. But I prefer to spin an easier gear at a higher cadence. I won't be moving to any of the new 2x10 gearings any time soon.

[DarylMac]

Rearward moving wheel is so en vogue right now. Those Balfa guys were onto something - which is (coincidently?) another bike that rode well despite how some people thought it looked... With the Balfa's I'm one of the ones that are in the camp that thought they looked good.

[walleater]

Originally Posted by DarylMac

Rearward moving wheel is so en vogue right now. Those Balfa guys were onto something - which is (coincidently?) another bike that rode well despite how some people thought it looked... With the Balfa's I'm one of the ones that are in the camp that thought they looked good.

Is any other mainstream company doing it though? In the past there's been Balfa, Brooklyn Machine Works, Trek (Diesel / Session 10, hell even their first one back circa 1991 had the same wheel path) plus others like Hood that looked rad but without an idler pulley probably pedaled like shit. Shame there's nothing else around as I couldn't ride a bike as ugly as a Marin (and I ride an old Nomad....) but I can't stretch to a Zerode or Superco just yet....

[Woodro]

Originally Posted by DarylMac

Rearward moving wheel is so en vogue right now. Those Balfa guys were onto something - which is (coincidently?) another bike that rode well despite how some people thought it looked... With the Balfa's I'm one of the ones that are in the camp that thought they looked good.

En vogue? I know of three bike designs that are doing it.
It's what any sensible suspension design strives for but can't achieve due to the limitations of chain growth.

[boomforeal]

that was a great review/read

i'm in the seemingly small camp of people who think the v1 and 2 quad link marins look distinctive and attractive. i get the move towards a common frame design - i think there was a guy from rocky defending the new slayer design by saying engineers/designers across the industry are realizing there are common optimal design elements, hence the "looks like a trek" meme, but a frame that is both aesthetically unique and works well is double happiness in my eyes

i also feel like i'm in the small camp of riders who appreciates as low a gear as i can get... glad to hear i'm not alone. i was climbing some nasty decomissioned fsr in nelson last week, pining for 34 tooth bailout ring on my xc wheels

[Dan Austin]

Originally Posted by boomforeal

that was a great review/read

i'm in the seemingly small camp of people who think the v1 and 2 quad link marins look distinctive and attractive. i get the move towards a common frame design - i think there was a guy from rocky defending the new slayer design by saying engineers/designers across the industry are realizing there are common optimal design elements, hence the "looks like a trek" meme, but a frame that is both aesthetically unique and works well is double happiness in my eyes

i also feel like i'm in the small camp of riders who appreciates as low a gear as i can get... glad to hear i'm not alone. i was climbing some nasty decomissioned fsr in nelson last week, pining for 34 tooth bailout ring on my xc wheels

Glad you liked it, hope it was informative as well. sounds like you would have the same take on the Marin as I did. Granted, there may be an engineering reason to go for a 'typical' design, but like you, if it looks good to boot its a plus.

And no, you are not in the minority when looking for a 'bailout' gear, we all want one, its just defined differently by different people. One man's bailout is another man's death.

Anyhow, thanks for the positive feedback.

[morgman]

This guy here can't wait for a 22 tooth 10-speed chainring

[Dan Austin]

Originally Posted by morgman

This guy here can't wait for a 22 tooth 10-speed chainring

You and me both!

[shirk]

Why stop at 22? Find some old 5 arm cranks and slap a 20t on there.

With 20*36 you will be able to climb Everest.

Guys,

I am seriously thinking about buying 6,7 trail attack 2010, but i cannot try it, and i'd have to buy it on internet. Well, a short top tube confuses me alot. I am 188cm, 516 inch, the sizing chart says L would be ok for me, but top tube is only 59, usually Large bikes have a top tube 61, even 62, which is what i usually ride.

What is your opinion in that, does the short top tube bother you, or is it actually longer???

Thanks

[Dan Austin]

Originally Posted by asaad

Guys,

I am seriously thinking about buying 6,7 trail attack 2010, but i cannot try it, and i'd have to buy it on internet. Well, a short top tube confuses me alot. I am 188cm, 516 inch, the sizing chart says L would be ok for me, but top tube is only 59, usually Large bikes have a top tube 61, even 62, which is what i usually ride.

What is your opinion in that, does the short top tube bother you, or is it actually longer???

Thanks

Sorry for the delayed response. I am 6'1" tall, long arms and legs...this bike fit really well. Its definitely not long but it really doesn't feel short. I would suggest at least throwing a leg over one if you can otherwise, its a great bike and you should be pretty happy with it. You can do a lot with stem length to adjust fit as well so a stem swap could make the fit just right for you if you feel its either too long or short.

[Wayne P]

I just picked up a used Quake 7.2 and even though she's ugly, damn that bike rides nicely. It has a lot to do with the X Fusion Vector HLR coil over shock on the back, but I am thoroughly impressed by this bike. I came off a Giant Reign 0 last year (29lbs) and then an On One 45ss hardtail (29lbs) and this Marin (34lbs) climbs and descends better than either of those two bikes. The rear tire grabs so well it makes climbing almost fun.

Unlike Dan, I hate travel adjust forks. I never used the feature when I have a fork like that, so I don't miss it when its gone.

On the Quake, even though it has almost 7" of travel, I don't really see a need for a 12x150 rear hub. Plus the head tube is really long, forcing me to run a zero stack headset. The rear shock is almost impossible to get at. Those are the major complaints I have, otherwise its so much fun!