Introducing the Blur TR Carbon

 totally agree with you.. They did an amazing job on the design.. The details, like the rounded area on the pivot links surrounding the pivot bolts is buttery smooth..

The carbon chain-stay protector and the metal anti-chain-suck plate are very nicely integrated too. even the paint is pimp!.. all well done.

Props to the design team, another bike on my wish-list.. (V-10c is currently at the top of that list.. a photo of the V-10 hangs next to my monitor at work. for inspiration, and to keep me on task!)

 So......this is NOT a new name for the LTcarbon?

 Good catch, I didn't even think about that...surely they'll incorporate some protection plate similar to what the v-10 has for the shock mudgard?

 I wouldn't take it down Downieville as is, that's for sure.

 I ride my 4x at downieville and it rips. I love my 4x. I have had people ask to trade me that have Nomads.

 when its compressed (which is the only likely way that it will hit something) that lower link will move upwards. i'm not sure how much but surely enough for the chainring to take the hit just like any other bike.
they will have thought it through, they aren't going to sell a bike that will snap on the first bottom out

 @ goathead...

I don't think the lower link will be a problem since a build like shown above has a large outer ring that covers the linkage.
s you'll wreck youre chainring instead of youre frame..

correct me if I'm wrong... (going back to my beer)

 Perhaps, but I highly doubt that one good hit -- depending on the hit, of course -- derived from most riding situations/conditions would completely wreck that frame. I've personally been given the privilege of using a hammer to hit a carbon front triangle -- kept on hand to demonstrate to customers the strength of carbon, which is a nifty sales tactic -- and it took several barn-yard swings to eventually put a small crack in the tube (perhaps I am a pxssy). One good hit might b!tch a carbon frame for good, but you'd still ride it home, I can say with confidence. As for the position of the linkage, that's a different story. It does look kind of low, but I'd say either the chain-ring would hit first, or the rear triangle would get shoved backward within its regular path. All this said, what the hell do I know? *Smile.*

I want one.

 Kripes! The linkage looks low...but that is minus the weight of a rider. Der! I totally forgot about rider-weight. I think she'd be alright.

 @ nutcase: If you are banking left it is quite possible, not sure if you been down D-ville but it is a complete brake burner of a trail. It eats bikes. I have bent pedal shafts and knocked the teeth out of the bottom side of them while while going down it. You are almost guaranteed to hit a rock in this manner if you ride it hard. Santa Cruz is one of the most popular bike brands to ride here in Tahoe, I am not knocking them. I am a larger fellow (6'2", 235lbs) and I just wouldn't be confident on that or any carbon bike for that matter. They can definitely have an Achilles heel. That part of the linkage is half as long as the crank arm as pictured, putting it at least two inches below bottom bracket height, and that is taking rider weight into consideration.

www.flickr.com/photos/benfish/2667077980

@ p-ball: As far as riding a 4x down it goes I would be all for it. what you would lack in suspension travel would be made up for with maneuverability, I am a BMX rooted rider and have thought since the days of my first MTB (89 GT Karakoram w/purple flecked paint) that frames should be less diamond-like (read road bike) and more like a BMX in geometry. It took a while for that to materialize but now you can buy all sorts of bikes for different disciplines.

 It is "from" $3799. That isn't the price of the build shown. The build shown will probably be something like $8000.

 good point.

 p-romano......... as in this guy?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwMGkqa6Sw

 that was sweet but I dont get the relation

 The guy riding the drop bars is named Pat Romano, a flatland freestlyer from the 80's

 oh sick hahaha

 but not me

 doesnt go faster, but it does add at least twenty horsepower.

 My thoughts exactly! But which do you think would be better? This or the Yeti AS-R5c? I had tried to buy the Yeti, but they haven't made the XS or XL's yet so now this has come along and will probably be ready before the Yeti's! Any advice for me?

 why not try a size in between an xs or an xl. seems pretty strange that your going for sizes on opposite ends of the scale

 The Santa Cruz will (probably, I haven't riden it!) have a plusher, more active back end, due to the VPP. The ASR's use the flex of the carbon back end, which gives a tight, precise feel.

To be honest, you could buy either, and have an incredible bike. Both different, but both amazing. Go for whichever you prefer the look of, or the 1 that your local shop has in stock. I bought the Yeti ASR 5 (alloy, not carbon).

BTW, the Yeti is properly long. I'm 6'2, and ride a medium, which is only 10mm shorter in the top tube than my large Giant Anthem X. Even if you're usually an XL, the large Yeti is very, very long. You can comfortable go down 1 size.

Sorry to high-jack a Santa Cruz article with talk of Yetis!

 lol - sorry, my question does seem a little ambiguous now that I read it!! I'm waiting for an XS, I just know that both the XS and XL are waiting on production! So, I'm more wondering if there is any difference between the bikes or if it's basically a Yeti with a santa cruz sticker??

 I would go for Yeti anytime, pivot placement on VPP is not too fortunate. Lower bearings are always gonna get lots of crap on them, plus this specific bike is gonna get it big time from stones and rocks. Yeti has this "flex link" which means two bearings less and that is only a good thing. Plus it seems that Yeti does their bikes "at home" so in a way you do a good thing for "local" economy by buying it.

 thhhatttt loookss awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww :0

 "With 5 inches of travel and similar geometry to the original Blur 4x, but with a frame weight that is 2.5 lbs
lighter"

Note that on SC website it says the carbon frame is 1 lb lighter than the aluminum Blur TR, and when selecting frames with shocks, its is only 0.6 lb lighter. So that would be $600 to save 0.6 lb.

 I checked that one with possible built weights. With the following setup highlights:

fork: RS Revelation dual air
wheels:Easton Haven Carbon
tyres: Nobby Nic Evo DD 2.25 on sealant
drive:1x10 X9shift/mech with X0 cassette and chain
cranks/CG/: XTR single, Ethirteen XCX
brakes: Formula R1
controls: ENVE/Thomson/SDG
other: Ti bolt set,

You end up slightly over 9kg/20lbs without pedals on a fully capable Trail/AM bike - that is f***d...

I sort of like my 15kg/30lb AM bike...

 I think you guys are missing the point. Sure, there's a weight savings, but have you ridden a carbon bike? The ride quality is what you're paying for IMO. I went from an alloy Trance X to the Advance SL. The lack of noise and improved compliance are notable benefits.

 i'm a light weight (63kg) and I have no issue riding a 15.4kg (with pedals and coil fork, could spend some more and get it down to 14kg) 165mm all mountain rig, I can still climb faster then most, especially when dialling in U-turn and dropping the head set a bit, it all feels a lot more stable at over 55kmh in a forest, something under 10kg's at that speed would feel....................skittish, for me

 ooo thank you... it's good to know that I am not the only one thinking that too little weight is bad mmmkay... I just dropped my AM bike slightly under 14,5kg and under that border there's just thousand bucks per kilo to get lower. And I see no point in doing that as everything gets wrecked one day, and it's super expensive to replace and that light is just easy to wreck.

 C'mon UR from Switzerland you are one of few with solid argumentation to run a full on AM machine like NOMAD take BLT at least, TRc is for those who have hills around, not the most awesome mountains in the world

 Sorry but Switzerland isn't only mountains. At the place where I live are only Hills (tall up to 2000 over sea level) arround in a radius of 30 km. I think a Blur Lt fits better into it as an Nomad. But a Nomad would not be completly wrong.

 I still envy your "location". I own a Nomad and as a matter of fact it works exceptionally well in XC/trail riding, and it is an old version. The only thing i can recommend after trying Blur LT2 is if you are close the edge of sizes (for instance I am 180 and both M an L should fit me) I would go for bigger size as it is super short. On M I was a properly cramped, and if I would go for such bike as a daily basis trail/AM bike I would go for something longer, promoting a better, more effective pedalling position with a minimum loss to Dh performance/ fun factor. It's always better for a trail bike to be a bit longer and then fine tune your reach with stem length.

Cheers!

 I'm 5'9 with medium LTC and had to go to a 100mm stem to fit In the bike. If you are taller perhaps a large

 yea exactly. SC has it very strange with sizes, they always downsize stuff. It's cool when the trail points down as the shorter bike is easier to move around and more playful, but on uphills with light tyres it's a wheelie machine. It's always better to go for longer frame and shorter stem. 586mm TT in Blur TRc isn't the longest thing you can hope for M size either. These guys at Sc must be some mig... small people

 I couldn't place it but you are right, my wife had a schwin mesa back in the day, black and red scalloped graphics......

 What graphics are you trying to compare here? www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=schwinn+mesa&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1515&bih=928

 zzzzzzz

it was this scheme, but black and red, can't find it....

www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/BikeSpecs.aspx?Year=1999&Brand=Schwinn&Model=Mesa%20GSX&Type=bike

why did you neg fullbug, cause he doesn't like the paint job. Get a life dude.

 i originally remember a cheap full sus bike it was on. just an observation.

 i dont like the paint job either looks cheap

 i was just thinking the finish lookis damn good!

 It's the geometry and frame angles that change the bike and, because of that, the intended purpose and ride characteristics. More XCish than the LT.

 Propped myself, didn't know I could do that. I totally agree, sounds like interesting geometry, releaxed head angle with longer top tube. Shouldn't be a shock to me, santa cruz loves to have redundant bikes, I ride a heckler, cheap mans butcher, and even cheaper mans blur lt.....

 Not sure what SC considers a long TT, but it must be only relative to their own bikes and nothing else in the industry.

 Same thing with a 68 degree HA...I wouldn't consider that slack?? Maybe it is...Slack to me is around 66 for a trailbike, right? Either way, looks like a great all day XC epic bike from SC

 What's strange is that it's slacker than the LT but with .5" less travel and meant to be more of a XC bike.
Sort of wonder if they're doing this and will plan on dropping the LT in a year or two...

 Its such a sick bike but Santa Cruz is getting less creative. Come on make a cool Name

 Except for pretty much everything about it, least of which is VPP2.

 Oh yeah, I forgot , Who cares about Santacruz?

 I have seraph's old 4X and it is my number one trail bike. it has been beaten and abused and held up well. I am a big fan of the geometry especially the low BB, so I might need to look into this replacement.

 One of my 4Xs! I have had two at this point in time. I hope to have another one in the future.

 I still have 2 of the 4x's. Love it to death and when they were running low on them I picked up a spare frame just in case.... now that this is out I think one of the frames might be up for sale...... anyone??

 Are you insinuating that this frame will *snap* when you ride it, just because it's carbon? Or are you saying "Oh SNAP, that's a hot bike!"? I'm not sure whether to neg prop you or not.

 i meant oh snap thats shit hot!