The Sprint X 26 Tour with rear suspension. feels heavy and sluggish compared to my bicycles. Got it for touring, but going to put a motor in it and just use it as comfortable runaround instead.
For touring will just use my Kona Sutra touring bicycle.
For fun , have a Ribble Endurance Ti with Ultegra Di2 gears.
I may get a VTX for fun.
I tour on my Sprint X Tour in EU, 1-2 months and it's brilliant. In my view well suited to touring. Sprint X Tour with rear suspension (no front suspension) and Marathon Plus tyres all round.
1st tour (1 month NL) I used large'ish Radical banana bags which worked well but 2023 used Ortlieb back roller panniers and Radical banana racers which also worked well and I'm uncertain which I'll use next time. I have my suspension set pretty firm and I think with rear panniers I set it to the official guidance which is softer than I was used to so it felt a bit more bouncy.
The Sprint X 26 Tour with rear suspension. feels heavy and sluggish compared to my bicycles. Got it for touring, but going to put a motor in it and just use it as comfortable runaround instead.
For touring will just use my Kona Sutra touring bicycle.
For fun , have a Ribble Endurance Ti with Ultegra Di2 gears.
I may get a VTX for fun and light touring.
Remove the front mudguards and the top load rack extension if you have them, fit 32mm Conti Urbans on the front and a 28mm Grand Prix on the back and I'm sure it will feel a lot more responsive and a lot more fun. Also a firmer setting on the rear suspension might help although the chain line looks pretty good on the ICE trikes. You might try D-Tek to see if they have a hard shell seat that would fit. The old style seat would probably be OK. You can then recline the seat some more.
Psamathe wrote: ↑12 Feb 2024, 12:28pm
I tour on my Sprint X Tour in EU, 1-2 months and it's brilliant. In my view well suited to touring. Sprint X Tour with rear suspension (no front suspension) and Marathon Plus tyres all round.
1st tour (1 month NL) I used large'ish Radical banana bags which worked well but 2023 used Ortlieb back roller panniers and Radical banana racers which also worked well and I'm uncertain which I'll use next time. I have my suspension set pretty firm and I think with rear panniers I set it to the official guidance which is softer than I was used to so it felt a bit more bouncy.
Ian
Have a similar setup, but put a rohloff on the rear and 44-32-22 chainring on the front.
Got the Ortlieb bannana bags but got the 70L Back-Roller XL Plus as not happy with the bannana bags due to not much ground clearance which decreases when loaded due to contents bulging through the soft bottom, resulting in them grounding on a test run.
Did you wild camp during your EU tours? If so, as you would have to stealth camp, was it a challenge with a trike?
UpWrong wrote: ↑12 Feb 2024, 12:47pm
fit 32mm Conti Urbans on the front and a 28mm Grand Prix on the back
Will they fit on rims that have 47mm tyres ?
The measurement is critical so take a look at your rims. They might be marked as 20-406 for the front for example, where the first figure is the internal width and the second is the diameter. In the old days ICE used 20mm rims for tourers and 16mm rims for sports models but I don't know now so check. If their internal width is 20mm, then they are fine for 32mm-50mm tyres but 28mm might be pushing it.
If a 28mm Grand Prix is too narrow for the rear then a 32mm Panaracer Pasela PT is an alternative.
Psamathe wrote: ↑12 Feb 2024, 12:28pm
I tour on my Sprint X Tour in EU, 1-2 months and it's brilliant. In my view well suited to touring. Sprint X Tour with rear suspension (no front suspension) and Marathon Plus tyres all round.
1st tour (1 month NL) I used large'ish Radical banana bags which worked well but 2023 used Ortlieb back roller panniers and Radical banana racers which also worked well and I'm uncertain which I'll use next time. I have my suspension set pretty firm and I think with rear panniers I set it to the official guidance which is softer than I was used to so it felt a bit more bouncy.
Ian
Have a similar setup, but put a rohloff on the rear and 44-32-22 chainring on the front.
Got the Ortlieb bannana bags but got the 70L Back-Roller XL Plus as not happy with the bannana bags due to not much ground clearance which decreases when loaded due to contents bulging through the soft bottom, resulting in them grounding on a test run.
Did you wild camp during your EU tours? If so, as you would have to stealth camp, was it a challenge with a trike?
Sorry, going off-topic here but I've been considering a Rohloff to replace my rear dangly. I have the same front chainrings but when I talked to ICE they said that would give max torque outside rohloff specs and void warranty. Maybe I'll ask again.
Thinking again now as my chain, cassette and rear dangly are probably ready for replacement (at least chain and cassette @8000 miles).
Reason I'm thinking about this (again) as under load (touring) after a bit the rear changing becomes "poor" and slips sometimes. Adjusting doers not seem to improve it. Whilst I can always find alternative explanations I keep coming back to maybe upgrading. But I don't want low gearing to get higher (and would like to keep high as it is if possible).
Question: Was your rohloff from ICE? or something you did/had done independently? I understand the lacing on the rear wheel is a bit weird.
They give a minimum outer ratio of 2.0, which for the default 16 tooth rear rohloff sprocket is a 32 chainring.
This is aimed at cyclists who stand on the pedals with thier full weight which you don't do on a trike.
I am however very careful not to pedal when changing whilst in the 22 chainring.
If you only use the 44 chainring, you will esentially have 2 less lower gears. By using the 3 chanrings though you essentially get 5-6 more lower gears doubling your range, which for me is enough to maintain my cadence of 90 up a 15% hill at a leisurely pace, whilst hitting about 30mph at 90 cadence on the 44 chainring.
To use the 3 chainrings , you will need to keep your rear derailer rather than use the rohloff chain tensioner.
I believe the rohloff was purchased from ICE. The rohloff makes your life alot easier.
It's interesting reading Bryan Balls review of the Sprint X 26 FS. He reckons he was only 0.6 mph down on the VTX and that;s with full suspension, https://www.bentrideronline.com/?p=10806
Psamathe wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 11:02am
Does suspension make a difference?
Yes... But depending on the suspension and depending on the surface it might slow you down (more weight and pedal bob) or speed you up (preventing energy loss through having to have bike and rider climb over every bump rather than just the wheel).
In general the rougher the surface the more the benefit, but it needs to be the right sort of suspension for any given surface, e.g. the full sus on my Moulton with an inch or two of travel is great on roads and practically useless off, while my MTB forks are good for rocks and drops but are dead weight on a road (I can at least lock them out so they don't suck power climbing).
Psamathe wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 11:02am
Does suspension make a difference?
Yes... But depending on the suspension and depending on the surface it might slow you down (more weight and pedal bob) or speed you up (preventing energy loss through having to have bike and rider climb over every bump rather than just the wheel).
In general the rougher the surface the more the benefit, but it needs to be the right sort of suspension for any given surface, e.g. the full sus on my Moulton with an inch or two of travel is great on roads and practically useless off, while my MTB forks are good for rocks and drops but are dead weight on a road (I can at least lock them out so they don't suck power climbing).
In summary... "it depends".
Pete.
ICE suspension has the advantage of no stiction as it's elastomer based, compared to oil and spring shocks anyway.
Psamathe wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 11:02am
Does suspension make a difference?
Yes... But depending on the suspension and depending on the surface it might slow you down (more weight and pedal bob) or speed you up (preventing energy loss through having to have bike and rider climb over every bump rather than just the wheel).
In general the rougher the surface the more the benefit, but it needs to be the right sort of suspension for any given surface, e.g. the full sus on my Moulton with an inch or two of travel is great on roads and practically useless off, while my MTB forks are good for rocks and drops but are dead weight on a road (I can at least lock them out so they don't suck power climbing).
In summary... "it depends".
ICE suspension has the advantage of no stiction as it's elastomer based, compared to oil and spring shocks anyway.
I don't want to suggest I'm anything like a suspension expert, but my impression is that someone competent can design good and appropriate suspension using air, mechanical springs, elastomers, combinations thereof, and someone less competent can also do poor and inappropriate suspension using any of these approaches. All approaches seem to do some things better/worse than others.
And part of the good/bad and appropriate/inappropriate is there doesn't seem to be an objectively "your bike is always better with this" option. Which is why the pro peloton may have some suspension on Paris-Roubaix but never on the Tourmalet, and why cross country sprint MTB sometimes means a hardtail depending on the course (and if they're allowed a different bike for the longer course) and sometimes full sus, and so on.
