Has anybody tried both of them? Lacroix claimed that there trucks lower risk of speed wobble, it that due to the trucks or just a side effect of the mountain board style trucks? how does the matrix compare to them?
I have ridden both a good amount. You 100% can get speed wobbles on hypertrucks. The anti-wobble stuff is marketing. Don’t buy trucks based on that. The hypertrucks are great trucks, but they don’t have any special anti wobble properties. If you ride light bushings, loose and go too fast, you can wobble into eating pavement just like any other truck.
MBS makes good trucks, but the M2 had problems with breaking occasionally because they really weren’t made for esk8 loads. M3 are supposed to be stronger, but they haven’t really been out long enough to confirm if they hold up to esk8 abuse.
Hypertrucks are stronger and wider. Wider might not be a good thing depending on your preferences. Ride both and see what you like. I’m riding hypertrucks, but if I did another ground up build, I would probably go for hypertruck lites for a narrower hanger with a more responsive ride.
100% agreed with what @Shadowfax said.
Any anti-speed-wobble qualities related to Lacroix has more to do with the bushing set up and some slight split angle built into the deck geometry.
The same thing can be accomplished with MBS trucks. I’m running Matrix II trucks with split angle risers and Riptide bushings and haven’t had any issues with speed wobbles.
The magic is the riptide bushings.
The better question or comparison is hyper truck to matrix 3 since the matrix 2 are EOL potentially.
If your strictly on riding, the hypertrucks feel more planted with the same tires on both. Probably due to the mass. The matrix 2 feel more nimble.
Matrix 3 are far more configurable. And cheaper. Seems a no brainer to me.
A few more thoughts on this. I think hypertruck lites vs m3 is a good question. The price difference is pretty small ($40 per truck), and they are about the same width.
With HT lites, you get a machined truck with riptide blocks.
With m3, you get what seems to be a very good truck, but you can’t run boardnamic geardrives.
I kinda want HT lites. I miss how responsive my m2 were.
For me, the dual bushing positions is such a huge pro.
The hypertruck lites are indeed super nice, but if i had to choose it would be m3 hands down.
m3 axle side profile is not compatible with making a BN adapter. It’s too big
Wouldn’t they do the same thing as everyone else and just machine new adapters?
Unfortunately no, the hanger would exceed the OD of the adapter.
You have a few options for m3 gear drives I think, but BN isn’t one of them.
I don’t understand… matrix hanger profile is 22.4 square… hyper lite is 22.1 square
I think the axle is slightly offset on the m3, which requires a larger adapter for centricity.
EDIT: this is wrong - it’s because of the hanger width and 2mm edge radius. I have been corrected below.
Really!? How bizarre.
Can you confirm/deny this @MBS ??
I don’t have any direct experience with compatibility between the M3 and various gear drives. I can only confirm the Matrix 3 axles are not offset with respect to the square hanger profile. They’re concentric by design.
The square hanger profile does have larger radii on the bottom corners compared to top top corners (for grinding advantages). Could be what is causing the confusion?
Ah yeah, the 3mm radius at the top of the hanger would require a larger circle to accommodate than if the 22mm square had a 6mm radius all round.
@Shadowfax that doesn’t mean the m3 is incompatible with BNM1, it just means you’d need to get creative on the hangers with a file.
The BN M1-AT drive cannot work with M3 because the wheel gear bearing is inner diameter 30mm, and the cross section of their profile cannot fit inside this envelope.
It would take a new wheel gear to get them to work with the M3, which is definitely not desirable from my point of view.
I don’t see how filing the hanger can’t fix this
It would, but I imagine not many would want to do so.
Its not even DIY anymore. Too many softcocks
Although filing the hangar would indeed make it smaller, do you think this would create any alignment issues between the wheel gear and wheel or wheel gear and pinion given the imprecision of the manual method?