Santa Cruz 5010c - Review

Nov 24, 2013
by Mike Kazimer  
Santa Cruz 5010c

WORDS Mike Kazimer
PHOTOS Colin Meagher

When Santa Cruz first introduced the 5010 it was called the Solo, but it turned out there were a number of items already on the market with that trademarked name. After a little creative thinking, and the realization that some numbers look a lot like letters, the Solo became the 5010. The bike itself remains the same – a 27.5” wheeled trail bike with 125mm of travel intended for long adventures far from civilization. It's available in both an aluminum and a full carbon version, with multiple build kit options for both. The base model aluminum 5010 retails for $3299 USD, and the base model carbon version goes for $4199. Of course, once you start draping high zoot accessories like carbon rims and SRAM's XX1 drivetrain on a bike the price starts to climb, and all kitted out our 5010c test bike retails for $9775 USD.

Santa Cruz 5010 Details

• Purpose: Trail
• Rear-wheel travel: 125mm
• Wheel size: 27.5"
• Full carbon frame, forged links
• 12 x 142mm rear axle
• ISCG 05 tabs
• Weight: 25.8 lbs (size L, without pedals)
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL
• MSRP: $9775 USD

Frame Details

The 5010c's front and rear triangle are constructed from carbon fiber and connected to each other with two short, forged aluminum links. Santa Cruz uses a process that compacts the layers of carbon fiber on a mandrel before the frame is put into the final mold to help prevent any of the layers from slipping or becoming misaligned, which is what can happen if an un-compacted frame is forced into a mold. Another technique used to prevent frame misalignment occurs during the initial layup process, when the front portion of the shock mount is integrated into the top tube rather than adding it on later.

Santa Cruz 5010 review
  The 5010c's cabon frame has a simple and well finished look, featuring niceties like room for a water bottle and cable routing that doesn't look like a rat's nest.

Cable routing on the 5010 is clean and uncluttered; the brake and derailleur cables are routed on the top of the down tube, along with the dropper post housing once it emerges from the seat tube. In a departure from the trend towards press fit bottom brackets, Santa Cruz has gone with a tried and true 73mm threaded bottom bracket shell. ISCG 05 tabs are in place for riders who wish to run a chain guide, while a molded chain stay guard helps minimize chain slap noise along with protecting the frame. There is also a down tube protector to help ward off flying trail debris.

Santa Cruz 5010 C review
  The 5010 uses a VPP suspension layout, with two short links connecting the rear swingarm to the front triangle. The thickness of the upright, the portion on the non-drive side of the bike between the seat stay and the chain stay, helps to prevent unwanted flex at the rear of the bike.

Suspension Design

The 5010 uses a VPP suspension layout, a dual short link suspension design that relies on two counter-rotating links intended to provide a firm pedalling platform with a supple midstroke, and a slight ramp up at the end of the travel. It's a combination of a falling and rising rate suspension design, one where the positioning of the two links allows for Santa Cruz to tune a bike's instant center, also known as the virtual pivot point (VPP). This point is what the rear axle is rotating around during its travel.

Santa Cruz uses angular contact bearings in the 5010 with a collet type axle retention system, a design intended to keep the bearings running smoothly for as long as possible. In addition, the lower link, the one exposed to the most possible contaminants, has two grease ports that can be used to push the old bearing grease out and new bearing grease in. This helps prevent the rust and corrosion that riding in wet, muddy conditions can cause.

Price $9775
Travel 125mm
Rear Shock Fox CTDK
Fork Fox 32 Float CTDK 130mm
Headset Cane Creek 110
Cassette XX1 10-42
Crankarms XX1
Rear Derailleur XX1
Chain XX1
Shifter Pods XX1
Handlebar Easton Carbon Havoc 750mm
Stem Thomson 70mm
Grips Lizard Skins Peaty lock-on
Brakes Shimano XTR w/ Ice Tech rotors
Wheelset ENVE Carbon
Hubs DT Swiss 240S
Tires Maxxis Highroller II 2.3"
Seat WTB Volt SLT Ti
Seatpost Reverb Stealth
Santa Cruz 5010 review test

Riding the 5010c

bigquotesSpend a few minutes bobbing and weaving through a section of tight corners and it quickly becomes crystal clear that hidden somewhere inside the 5010's carbon frame is the soul of a slalom bike.

Climbing and Fit

The 5010's cockpit has a very compact feel – the reach on the size large is shorter than most other bikes with comparable travel and wheel size. This put us in a more upright riding position than we typically encounter on a large frame, but it was one that proved to be comfortable, even after multiple hours of saddle time.

When the trail pointed upwards we found the 5010 to be a nimble climber, no doubt aided by its light weight (even with a dropper post and a set of Maxxis' beefy High Roller II tires our test bike weighed less than 26 pounds). The VPP suspension design's bob-free performance also deserves accolades, since it allowed us to run the Fox CTD rear shock fully open in most instances, only switching it to Trail mode for extended dirt road sections. Even in the open position, standing up out of the saddle to climb was rewarded by quick acceleration and no undue suspension movement. The 5010 scampered up short, tricky sections of trail without any problem, but it does take a little more technique to make it through longer, more technical climbs, the type with multiple stair steps in a row, where traction must be maintained on the rear wheel to avoid spinning out. It seemed like the bike's shorter wheelbase was the culprit here – it lacks the trail spanning length that can help provide more grip in this type of scenario. Once we adapted our riding technique and started carrying more speed into these extended technical sections it became easier to successfully power our way through.

Mike Kazimer testing the Santa Cruz 5010 in Sedona AZ
  The 5010 remained predictable and composed even on high speed downhill sections.

Descending / Technical Terrain

Spend a few minutes bobbing and weaving through a section of tight corners and it quickly becomes crystal clear that hidden somewhere inside the 5010's carbon frame is the soul of a slalom bike. The relatively short chainstays and a low bottom bracket make for a bike that's happiest when its rider is drifting into corners and stomping on the pedals to accelerate out of them. Direction changes are lightning fast, and it couldn't have been easier to get the rear wheel exactly where we wanted it. But the 5010 isn't a one trick pony, and we found that it was just as capable on chewed up, rock strewn trails, exhibiting excellent stability and precise handling even when riding at high speeds through choppy rock gardens. The ENVE wheels deserve partial credit here, nicely complementing the stiffness of the 5010's carbon frame to create an extremely stable package. While the 5010 doesn't have the feel of a long travel, bump gobbling machine (and that's not its intended purpose), it was much more composed when pushed hard than we would have expected a bike with 125mm of travel to be. The rear suspension remained supportive and active even when sucking up the biggest ruts, and it never bottomed out harshly. The bike's short reach, which we mentioned earlier, didn't seem to hinder its downhill performance, but with the recent push for bikes with longer top tubes and short stems, we did find ourselves wondering how a slightly longer front center would affect the bike's handling.

Our ideal build would have something more robust than the Fox 32 fork that was specced on our review bike, since the combination of a stiff frame and wheels means that any flex that's going to happen will likely occur at the fork. This turned out to be the case, especially when pushing hard on the front end in steeper terrain. Something along the lines of a lowered RockShox Pike or even a Fox 34 would be our preference, bringing in additional stiffness that would make it possible to rally even harder aboard the 5010. We're not looking for more travel, since the 5010 feels very balanced as it is, we'd just like to have front end stiffness to match the rest of the bike. Granted, there would be a slight weight penalty incurred by this change, but it's one we'd happily take for the increased performance.

Santa Cruz 5010 review
  We ran into a slight issue with DT's 240 rear hub, but had no trouble with Shimano's XTR stoppers. It wasn't surprising to see Fox's 32 Float on a bike like this, but it wasn't quite up to the task.

Component Check

• DT Swiss 240 hub: Our first outing on the 5010 was cut short when the DT 240's freehub body stopped engaging. We've had good luck with DT's freehub design in the past, but in this instance no amount of trail side MacGyvering was able to fix it, and we ended up scootering the bike out sans chain. The culprit turned out to be one of the springs that pushes the two star ratchets together – it wasn't allowing them to engage properly. We put in a different one and had no further problems.

• Shimano XTR brakes: We've praised Shimano's hydraulic disc brakes before, and we continue to be impressed by their ideal blend of power, excellent lever feel, and low maintenance.

• Fox 32 Float Fork: Much of our riding time these days is spent on bikes with 34mm stanchions, and the difference in stiffness was very apparent. We also had trouble getting the fork to go through all of its travel – it would go through the first portion without issue, but would then ramp up harshly towards the end of its stroke.

• SRAM XX1: SRAM's 1x11 drivetrain worked flawlessly, and there were no dropped chains or shifting issues during our time on the 5010c.

• Easton Havoc handlebars: Easton's Havoc bars fit well with the 5010's intended purpose, and at 235 grams they're quite light, but we'd like another 20mm of length, since 750mm is close, but not quite wide enough for our tastes.

Mike Kazimer testing the Santa Cruz 5010 in Sedona AZ

Pinkbike's take:
bigquotesThe 5010 epitomizes the definition of a "trail bike." It's playful and light, but with enough brawn to remain composed even when faced with menacing terrain that would push other trail bikes out of their comfort zones. A stouter fork would be on our wish list, but the rest of the build is well matched to the bike's intentions. And although we tested one of the top tier models of this bike, Santa Cruz offers a build kit for nearly every budget, letting customers select a bike that best suits their needs (and bank account). If we were heading out on a multi-hour (or day) backcountry mission the 5010 would be on our short list of bikes we'd bring along for the ride, since its trail manners place it solidly into the upper echelon of exceptional mountain bikes. - Mike Kazimer


  • 234 19
 Wtf? We're just getting adjusted to 650b and now were having 5010c shoved at us? What the hell does 5010c even translate to in inches???
  • 55 2
 and that just put a smile on my face.
  • 191 1
 Yeti clearly set this out for us with the SB66… the 5010 has Fifty inches of rear travel with ten inch wheels.
  • 31 116
flag mr-lynch (Nov 24, 2013 at 22:42) (Below Threshold)
 I'm pretty sure its just a name, they changed it from SOLO to 5010 because it looks similar
  • 31 158
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 24, 2013 at 22:46) (Below Threshold)
 I think someone at Santa Cruz got laughed at too often for saying: I ride Solo... 125mm of stroke - Dunno why are you telling me this mate but as you reached out I can tell you that I ride with my girlfriend man and it's 7 inches...
  • 33 0
  • 58 4
 Wow… that wasn't really needed. Comparing the size of your johnson to how much travel you have and if you ride solo or in pairs isn't that necessary.

You could say that was a bit below the belt….
  • 18 4
 ...I chuckled... Frown
  • 7 16
flag MasterOfStone (Nov 25, 2013 at 2:36) (Below Threshold)
 Please tell me/everyone that you are joking...
  • 22 21
 Another bike most can't afford
  • 36 5
 10,000 dollar bike, money has definitely lost total respect...
  • 17 26
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 25, 2013 at 6:24) (Below Threshold)
 TT road bikes get pricier... And they are way less complicated. There are more things you can add to the price, like those German hydraulic gesrs, Thomson dropper, Tune hubs, Sapim laser super spokes, Next SL crankset, CCDBAir, Formula R1 brakes with Ti Rotors... You could easily take that to 12 000
  • 33 2
 $3000 is the new norm for a mid level alu bike. The base spec on this bike is reasonably good. The top of the line version is $10,000, but most people will never buy that and they know it, but VW sends the R8 to top gear and most of us don't complain it wasn't a golf. And when they do send the golf it is a hot hatch. Companies want to showcase their stuff at its best.
  • 10 1
 But it misses the point of a bike which is riding! 12000 dollar bike is for photos, sponsored riders, and for people that love to sit outside the trail to talk crap and show off for 3hrs after riding half an hour... We get a lot of those here in Puerto Rico. I know people who buy a 10000 dollar bike just to see if they like the sport! One of my bikes comes from someone like that. So at the end, it's good that some people spend all that money on expensive bikes! Smile gotta love Craig's list!
  • 3 3
 You just made this thread more interesting then the article.

Probably should at least read the first part of an article (like the first sentence), if you are going to comment.
  • 2 0
 True, the al version is affordable just like the al bronson, and most other al entry models. (Kona)
  • 1 0
 ^ don't get bent outta shape! Compact your layers just like the article.
  • 6 15
flag AlexArmanetti (Nov 25, 2013 at 7:56) (Below Threshold)
 A couple things. First, Santa Cruz needs to venture away from making several bikes that look like the Bronson. The Bronson seems great but don't be like Trek and make everything look like one another. Now about the people buying 10000 bikes as their first bikes- I know a guy (nice guy) who bought a $3000 bike for his first bike. One would think, "That's fine if you can afford it and you can justify the price". The bike had Avid Juicy brakes, a custom shock with a rubber sleeve over it (looked old), and crappy components. He still rides it but I always thought to myself "why did he buy a bike for $3000 with crappy parts". I started (and sadly still have) on a $500 Giant Rincon and I only paid $250 for it. Most of the people I know started on bikes that are less than $1000 but had good parts due to the fact that they were used.
  • 8 6
 why downvote waki? it was funny
  • 21 1
 Because he's waki.
  • 16 0
 Who cares that they review a 10K bike? If they started reviewing 1K bikes all the haters would come out bashing on "walmart" bikes. I think this bike looks sweet and it's good to see how all the components work together. If the bike was 7K you'd complain that it doesn't have sram 1 x 11 on it. You can buy the "same" bike for $3300. That's a pretty big gap. Or just hunt down a frame. Or just make more money.
  • 5 1
 I think the $3000 base price isn't that bad, but what makes this design different or better than the last. All the SC trail bikes still look like the tallboy.
  • 2 0
 i agree with rat hunter. i work at a santa cruz dealer and i just get stoked about seeing a devinci in the door.
  • 6 15
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 25, 2013 at 9:44) (Below Threshold)
 Blur LT was their best selling bike until Tallboy came and became the new best seller. They are just trying to cater to the tastes of their average clientelle. I am quite anxious to see the new Nomad whenever it will come. So far not to be a dk but the most successful Santa Cruz bike in EWS was a 26" Nomad... Oh I love the irony...
  • 2 0
 I work at a Devinci dealer (20 min from the factory) and I just get stoked about seeing a santa cruz in the door Wink
  • 4 0
 TT bikes are less complicated? tell me again how many trips to the wind tunnel the 5010 has gone through...
  • 2 1
 SOlO - 5010
  • 1 6
flag tdoyle1995 (Nov 25, 2013 at 12:02) (Below Threshold)
 its a solo 27.5... read before you comment. and no one is shoving anything at you. its simply mountain bike progression
  • 11 10
 tdoyle1995 - Please explain how does 650B progress mountain biking? I'm sure they said the same thing when they were making CTD damper at Fox or when Shimano made the reverse spring on their rear mechs. How exactly did 15mm axle which is also an intermediate thing, push anything forward? Can we "simply" have that argument in 10 years, and then you can say it with such assurance that it is progression?
  • 4 8
flag tdoyle1995 (Nov 25, 2013 at 13:16) (Below Threshold)
 well I for one have ridden 26", 27.5", and 29" wheel sizes and I can tell you that the 650B, and 29" definitely land on top for trail bike use. They're faster, smoother and more fun as a whole. 10 years ago people thought 24" downhill bikes were the way to go. Things progress and change for the better that's the way it goes.
  • 13 11
 I was just merely pointing out that there is only one thing that we can be certain and that is that nothing is certain. Evolution is not a linear process, even if we count out disasters of a Biblical size. You say that "Things progress and change for the better that's the way it goes". For the better? Better for whom? For some of mountain bikers yes, but if we say that we are all one, and at this point everything in the gravity field of Planet Earth is interconnected and dependent on one another, then maybe there are people who's life become worse because of 650B wheels? I am full aware of the possibility that if 26ers never took off and we all rode 29ers instead, the world would be a better place. It is perfectly possible...

But being a Luddite is a tough job as well... for instance there is this argument some people have about some products, (not necessarily bike products) that long time ago things were better because they were built to last. Some say that some time ago we could repair our car by ourselves these days it is impossible. I always reply that it is rarely true, and car example is unbelievably stupid, but there are cases where such person is right - things did become less durable because since 70-ies we humans progressed in "counting" money, getting more profit from our production... whether such economical angle makes it a good thing or not, is a matter of own perception - I'm on your side because everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of our common reality Smile

My interpretation goes like this: 650B is a "mindless growth induced waste of a questionable performance-increase value" just like 15mm axle...
  • 2 2
 More highly specialized gear can be considered an advancement. 15mm axle backs off from things that might be over done. I don't see how, but then i would never pay an extra 2k to drop 800grams off a frame so I am not that market. 650b might be where it is at for a certain terrain type. Just not the kind I ride. I also have weaknesses a lot of rider don't. I know guys on ss29ers that can pop around like bmxers. I can't do that on a big wheel, but for them it is a different game. I think changing up wheels size is a move forward, so long as 26 is not done away with.
  • 7 8
 I am a basterd @taletotell - we are always shoveled with "race record" reference. So I propel it back as in the face of EWS results, that argument renders 650B next to useless... I rode various 26ers and 29ers, including super bikes of the calibier of that 5010c, I even own one - I admit it never rode a 650B outside car park. Thing repeated often by many industry people who really know what they talk about is: it is about the whole package, not the wheel diameter - every position in geo and component charts matters. It's about a 26er, a 650b, a 29er that is a good or bad bike. So I say: if 26er can be made stable and ride uphill like a goat, then if 29er can be made nimble and easy to pop, why the hell do we keep on deluding ourselves rationalizing the next purchase with failed arguments about capability of 650B to be the top contender for taking us from A to B in shortest possible time and/or delivering increased "fun" experience? It is not any better, it is different! 650B is the 15mm axle stupidity times three - now the whole sht gets recalibrated and flipped upside down - the second hand market will be a mayhem, for forks particularly. Good luck in 5 years to buy a second hand fork that will fit your wheel-size, hub axle and head tube. You will just want to skip the trouble and buy a new fork.
  • 5 1
 Doesnt even come with pedals :/ haha
  • 3 2
 All I'm saying is people on pinkbike here tend to be extremely closed minded to new things (particularilly new wheel sizees) when they have never even tried them. if you don't want a 650B or 29er don't buy one, most bike companies still offer a 26" alternative. However, there's a reason the companies are moving toward new wheel sizes, that is they are tested proven to work better..
  • 4 7
 tdoyle1995 - (...)they are tested to work better(...) - that is off course your assumption but you MAY be right - despite the "race record" proving otherwise... ehhh... I envy you your belief in level of saturation of good will in technological progress, sometimes I wish i could get back there again. I wish I could dream again
  • 6 0
 On the internet black market they use these things called "bitcoins" as currency. If I'm correct, the current exchange rate is 1BTC=$818USD
So, this bike only costs 12 bitcoins.
  • 1 0
 The 2nd hand market will be alittle worse, and I don't know if there is a use for 650b, but it won't be all that bad. 9mm has been replaced with 15mm. No big deal. 1 1/8 straight replaced by tapered.
I hope press-fit bb's go away, but we'll see.
When all is said and done what I see is better axle systems on the back of bikes, many with replaceable drop outs that might even allow the frame to switch axle heights, allowing for 650b or 26 about the same number of choices under 5 years old, and stiffer front ends all around.
Darn, what a dark and scary future ahead.
  • 4 4
 taletotell - but don't you think big business is going not towards compatibility but instead towards optimization? Look how many bike look bloody the same. It is small companies providing solutions for compatibility. Just so you know I am a seriously big fan of tapered steerers and 142x12 Big Grin . If I pick two wheel sizes does it make me a double a-hole about it?
  • 1 0
 @tdoyle1995 your first comment seems aimed towards my original comment - you do realise that was a joke right?
  • 3 0
 650 was and is a way to get guys who refused to add 29 to ther stable to buy new bikes. I don't care and I will ride them when the time comes for me, but there is a marketing agenda at work here. I am realistic and therefore do not blame them, however the simple fact that a 26 with large tires is so incredibly close in size confirms that.
  • 1 0
 This Santa Cruz is a sick bike btw, i would have no problem riding one
  • 3 0
 WAKIdesigns is the troll that lives under pinkbike, every page since i can remember has been him with a avalanche of negatives on his perspective of the sport.
  • 2 0
 @waki go home you are drunk and trying too hard
  • 2 0
 waki, I am sorry but you really do annoy me. And I hate myself for having wasted my time reading all your clutter instead of riding my bike. well, it won´t happen again!
  • 4 4
 Riding your bike? It's 3 at night in Germany... wtf dude? I do hope I am annoying to you
  • 3 0
 3am? you've never gone dirt jumping at night before? you're missing out man!
  • 2 0
 I too have ridden all three wheel sizes and i must say that for southern ontairos trail systemsn (non gravity trails) a 27,5 or a 29er is the way to go. You can be just as agressive on a 650B as you can be 26er while pushing your speeds as well. Who gives a shit about race results- ride what suits you and your riding style, Its an improvement to some of us and some of us need to learn to shut up. So really the makers are going to put out what sells and clearly this does.
  • 3 1
 750mm bars are now not long enough for a 125mm trail bike?!? this stupidly wide bar craze needs to stop
  • 2 0
 @enduro27 - You can always cut your bars, but I still haven't found a good way to make them longer. I wouldn't say that 20-30mm more length is 'stupidly wide.'
  • 63 6
 *obligatory comment about how all the reviews are too unrealistic and pinkbike rides everything that's too expensive*

I for one enjoy these high end bike reviews and think that you guys do a good job of keeping the reviews of different bikes fresh. Keep it up and thanks for the great read!
  • 24 54
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 24, 2013 at 22:54) (Below Threshold)
 But... can we hate on 650B a bit?
  • 12 4
 If you are short you can...
  • 24 2
 Can we not turn this into reddit by using catch phrases like obligatory comment or the usual circle jerk in the comments? We are already half way there.
  • 6 2
 I was sold on 650b until a little while ago when I sold my 26" bike and had to switch to my wife's xc bike. Her bb was higher in relation to the axles and suddenly I could pop off the ground with way less effort. I realized I want a higher bb, even if it slows me down, because popping is where the fun is. 650b might be right for some people, but suddenly I am looking at sweet 26" rigs with higher bb's for my next mount.
  • 1 0
 Interesting, I am having a similar problem between two 26ers, I remember jumping with lots of confidence on my previous bike which had a higher BB (a fuel ex), now with a Stumpy EVO (with a lower BB)I don’t jump with that much confidence but I can certainly shred faster while going down the hill, anybody else had a similar experience? Any recommendation?
  • 3 1
 Try the new process(kona). I found it to be the most poppy 650 thus far. (16.75 chainstays)
  • 1 0
 thanks, whats with the chainstays?
  • 5 9
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 25, 2013 at 9:14) (Below Threshold)
 Shorter it is easier it is to pop.
  • 1 0
 well the EVO has 420 mm vs the fuelEX which 427 mm, I might be doing something wrong then
  • 5 10
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 25, 2013 at 9:30) (Below Threshold)
 There are more things in bike geometry than one two or even three dinensions... Suspension also plays a role, not only the linkage, also set up of the shock and fork.
  • 3 0
 Wait.. Did someone say circle jerk?
  • 4 0
 Short chain stay, progressive shock, higher bb in relation to wheel axle, and in my experience having the bars further back so you can easily place your weight behind the rear axle, all make for more pop.
  • 2 2
 @waki, you mentioned 3 dimentions, what about handlebar width? i would think a wider handlebar would help jumping, right? @taltotell thanks for the advice I've been thinking on changing to a shorter steam, I might do it now
  • 2 8
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 25, 2013 at 12:34) (Below Threshold)
 Narro2 - did you want to know what a shorter CS does to jumping, or you wanted me to acknowledge that you are right and confess to you that I am stupid? What do you mean with jumping? Not crashing or Tail whips?
  • 2 0
 Bar width is great for control.
  • 3 0
 wow chill out waki, didnt mean to offend anybody, cheers
  • 41 3
 Over 9,000 bucks, and a stouter fork is on a WISHLIST?Why would anyone pay 9,000 dollars for a bike that made them go "Gee, wish I had a better fork on this thing"....
  • 10 16
flag Daddybear (Nov 25, 2013 at 0:06) (Below Threshold)
 Price range goes from $3299 to $9775 so at pinkbike we decide to choose the most expensive... wtf?!? and cuz we're so cool we think of added on other fork so we can have a bike over $10 000 Heehaaw!
  • 20 4
 They don't choose, Santa Cruz sends them a bike to review. And obviously SC wants the best review, so PB gets to review a carbon dream machine.
  • 7 10
 useless you better review an entry or medium "level" bike instead of the top high end bike : how many people can afford this bike? not that much and you review the top of the line to suggest adding a new fork?.......better review a cheaper version and make the futur customer get a real idea bout the bike he/her gonna buy work.....
  • 2 1
 its not about adding priced they are simply saying that a thicker stanchion fork would reduce the flex. i personally know people who can afford this and have one and or a bronson. its $9000 because enve rim alone add $1500 and not many people choose the enve rims simply on price
  • 4 3
 Being the biggest MTB platform on the net, I think PB should be able to choose what bike/model they get to test. Getting your bike reviewed on here is about the best advertisement you can get so I'm sure companies are willing to negotiate about which bike they can send.
  • 31 7
 More pinkbike members can afford bikes like this than will post to whine about the price.
  • 13 6
 Of course the fork is crap, it says "FOX" on the side of it... money can't buy performance every time...
  • 20 5
 A lot of people can and do afford these bikes otherwise SC would not be selling out of them. Quit whining, get off your computers and work harder. I want to see the top offerings from companies. Thanks PB
  • 8 3
 The 32mm fork needs to retire to xc and dj use. 4" is as much travel as it should have.
  • 2 13
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 25, 2013 at 9:15) (Below Threshold)
 Deeeight that was the funniest thing I saw from you so far Big Grin golf clap to you Sir
  • 3 2
 @Deeeight -sure, anyone with an average income can afford a 10k bike, or a Lamborghini for that matter if they sell their house and live in a box. Wise decision or not, I rarely see people riding 6k+ bikes down here so there can't be that much demand for them.

Also I'm pretty such you can build an equally nice bike for 5k if you know where to look.
  • 2 1
 @Daddybear, no serious reviewers will review a mid entry bike if they can't choose what model they get. The company sending the bike dictate what they review. This review shows the spec they got, you can change out the fork on the SC page and it wont add any more of a price to the bike. Its the same with car reviews. You never see the lowest model being reviewed but do get told what is different about the lower models.
  • 1 0
 Just think of it when you buy a car or truck... you have your base model....then your decked out top of the line....on car and driver..or top gear... aint nobody care about seeing the base model.. we want to see the best.. and thats what they have done here.
  • 16 1
 Sweet that's only $11,932.56 in Kiwi dollars.. Total bargain... At least it rides nice on fast smooth downhills... Cause every bike I've ever ridden doesn't do that?
  • 6 0
 I completely agree, I could outfit myself with 3-5 solid bikes for every riding style for the $10,000 it costs for this one Santa Cruz...
  • 5 6
 You are missing the point - this is a top spec bike for one style of riding and either aimed at the rich guy who doesnt worry about the money or the guy who specifically does this type of riding all the time and wants the best bike he can buy and will treasure it for years. You want to buy 3 alloy bikes with average spec that last a season so you are hampered in all three riding styles you chose to buy them for that's fine but for me the money is better spent on one bike to do the majority of my riding - in my case I am tempted by a Bronson.
  • 1 0
 Don't know about SRAM's warrantee policy but most people overlook that XTR comes with a three year warrantee for the $$$ rather than one year for XT and everything else. That can be worth it if you ride a lot and actually keep your bike for that long. Santa Cruz - lifetime bearing replacement for the original owner: post in your old bearings and they post you a new set. A bit inconvenient if you decide that your bearings are shot in the middle of summer but that is what ski seasons are for (or a pump track/ DJ bike).
  • 11 1
 Although I would love to see a bike at a lower price point. From an advertising standpoint Santa Cruz wants the best review it can get, so why not send the best bike you can? If an extremely popular car reviewer wants to review a Chevy Silverado, you don't send him the base mode,l you send that mofo the LTZ with all the latest stuff.
  • 2 10
flag wakaba (Nov 24, 2013 at 23:12) (Below Threshold)
 Even if the lowly 4.8 WT is the real muscle truck @3400lb and outperforming 6.2l 4600lb LTZ?

Otherwise nice bike - 9k MSRP is way to steep for a sweatshop bike. Looks like they get into the 30% discount game...
  • 4 0
 Wakaba, what is the 4.8 WT? Is that some non-US market vehicle? I'm curious...
  • 3 0
 Why would you review a car with technology from 50 years ago anyway...
  • 2 2
 Because here in the US, these trucks are freaking ultra reliable......unlike their cars. Why do you think Chevy, Ford and Ram(Dodge) sells hundred of thousands every year.
  • 3 0
 Top gear reviews budget stuff, but only when someone makes them. PB is kind of the same. Think of Clarkson when someone makes him drive a diesel. He whines for a few minutes just so we all know he'd rather be in a ferrari 458.
Once in a while they review something in the $5000 group, which believe it or not is the mid range, and once in a great while a $3000 rig shows up, which is the entry level these days.
They did review a wally world bike once. It didn't get a lot of props.
  • 1 0
 Tombasic i think hes referring to the 4.3l v6 in the worktruck trim (WT). Or maybe im on crack cocaine
  • 2 0
 @Tombasic/jaycubzz: GMC Sierra oder Chev Silverado with the basic 300 Hp, 4,8l/292 Smallblock. WT stands for worktruck. No electronic driving aids, rubbermats, aircon, e-windows, big transmission cooler, engine oilcooler, dark windows, choice of axle ratio, crappy radio. What I own. Light and 18-22mpg.
Driving it since 2008.

@powpow: Wheels been around for thousands of years ;-). There is no old technology - there is only reliable technology.I buy basic US-Pickups because they are comfortable, great engine, loads of space, completely trouble free for 2-300kmls. My 16 year old Ranger just passed 160kmls. And I like benchseats.
  • 2 0
 Wakaba your experience with US pick ups is news to me. The only thing that last forever truck wuise I have seen is the toyota 4x4. My dad went through 2 silverados in 3 years. Real basic ones. He finally bought a little toyota, but he missed his roomy truck so he bought another chevy for $2500. $5000 later and it finally runs 90%.
Around here it is excepted that the Japnese build reliable trucks. Americans build oversized toys for pulling oversized toys.
My brother and I fight about who will inherit his toyota in 20 ears when he passes away.
  • 1 0
 You mean your Toyota built in the U.S. by Americans. I love me some Toyota trucks, no doubt about it. Truth is, they are not more reliable than the American counterparts. I've got multiple friends with all different year Tacoma's, and they all needed the same maintenance as anything else, in fact my old 91 s10 outlived all the yota's.
  • 1 0
 @tale: Buying a worn truck will cost you down the line. They are light duty trucks, no matter what marketing says. A 3400lb loaded longbed crewcab with fat tires will wear quickly. The white shortbed singlecab with the narrow tires @1700lb does go on for a long time. The roomy interior and the comfy benchseat is really something special today. J-trucks, I feel crowded in them.

@dual: Got the same experience with the S-10 I4/M. Ran 16 years and 200 000mls. Brakes, tires, oil, filter and two reardampers. Still running somewhere, still looking good.
  • 1 0
 Guys, thanks for all the info and education. Ford Ranchero/Chevy El Camino all the way!
  • 1 1
 85 4x4: 250,000 miles when i sold it.
Built in japan.
But if you doubt just ask top gear. They put one on top of s building and demolished it, after leaving to roll around in the ocean all day. The guy got it going with a scree driver and starter fluid. It still drove.
  • 1 0
 Hilux are great trucks. Drove one through Africa. Faultless on washboard and roughtracks. Less than great for sandtracks or desert. Small Diesel suck, not enough revs.
  • 1 0
 mine was petrol. Near where I lived the dunes were full of them.
  • 1 0
 Petrol is way better.
  • 1 0
 for performance yes, for economy, no. I sold the truck because I needed economy.
  • 2 0
 Some old trucks can be real guzzlers. Worn carbs, old single point injection, fat-tires, low compression can make things worse.

Small diesel engine are not as well built as larger truckdiesel. Usually they are more expensive in the first place. If the CR, injectors or turbo go awry - and it will - TCO will be alot worse than a gas engine. Economy is a subset of TCO. That is why I stay with simple low reving petrol engines, especially since I had two CR-Turbodiesels runaways and subsequent blowups. Replacement engine cost is such in this segment that if this happens the vehicle`s value is that of junkmetal.
  • 2 0
 Yeah, TCO is how I decide what car to buy pretty much every time. My current cars are a subaru that I can replace every part on for cheap that has very little rust (a big deal where I live) and an old honda mini van that only cost about $500 including parts.
I always wonder if my cars are going to crap out and cost time and money that will make them less profitable than just buying a new machine, but so far I've been able to keep up with the repairs for very little. Way less than $200 per month. More like $400 annually.
Non-turbo diesels seem to last forever. I can live without acceleration since it means I have more to spend on bikes.
I am hoping to see more diesels in the USA soon. You can't get them in small cars except in VW and now the chevy cruz.
  • 6 2
 Man every Fox fork I've ridden has that harsh bottom out, and I've spent time on 4 different ones, 32, 36 & a 40.. I've encountered similar on an older 888 I had too due to the hydraulic bottom out simply locking out the last 1/2 inch it was supposed to ease me in to... I have never been a fan, but I can't deny that every Rockshox fork I've spent time on has blown me away with how well they perform... seem to be the way to go for me!
  • 1 0
 Never had a fox I felt satisfied with either. One was a vanilla rlc (not terrible, but not what I'd wished for) and the other a float RL which was not worthy of a trail bike. Maybe if I'd reduced the travel to 100mm. My domain was pretty good and my lyrik was sweet. I'll try out the 34 that comes on my next bike, but I am pretty sure it'll be up for sale soon after. We'll see.
  • 1 0
 What you are looking for is BOS Suspension
  • 1 0
 Bos are no doubt good, but crazy expensive and somewhat more of a boutique brand, I'd rather stick with something affordable and with customer support. If only Manitou had better representation, I've only ridden a couple but they have been amazingly well damped.
  • 2 0
 Yeah, RS has a lot of cheap interchangeable parts so I can build my own suspension as needed at low cost. For example: if I had a lyrik and wanted new lowers, I could buy a newish domain for cheap and use it's lowers. Say I want a boxxer. I buy a blown one and cheaply pick up the parts to fix it.
I am the same way with my cars. I like subaru because so much interchanges form one car to the next. I am sure to find anything I need in the junkyard.
No boutique stuff for me. Can't afford it.
  • 2 0
 My 2012 Float 130 w Kashima on my Blur TRc is a lovely fork. Sure I can feel it flex a little in the really rough stuff but I am trying to ride technically difficult trails on a 130mm travel bike. There are a few sections where the terrain shape and bike speeds combine to mean that I really would be better off with a little more travel. So I either: a. use my head and ride those sections a little slower than I am actually capable of doing; b. ride the lines that don't demand quite as much from bike (when they are there); c. really concentrate and make sure my body position and timing are perfect or d. accept that I like riding those trails enough that I really should sell my current bike and buy something with a little more travel.

BTW there is a better than 80% chance that my new 2014 bike will not have a Fox 34 on the front as they do not seem to have recovered from their CTD gaff. Thinking RS Pike DPA, BOS DEville or Manitou Mattoc.
  • 2 0
 I feel like a 130mms of travel (over 5") should be able to handle pretty rough stuff. That is AM travel and therfore should be up to big roots and small rock gardens. I know my float 32 150 flexed a lot.
If it is flexing it is also prematurely wearing the bushings. Can't handle the heat: time to leave the kitchen fox 32.
  • 5 1
 While this model is the top of the crop, it would have been nice to have a cheaper kit or even a mid priced aluminum model tested. I think it is more realistic. The price is $1400 more than the other orange bike I want and that bike actually had a $1900 MSRP price drop from the previous model and it has way more stuff on it, including lighter wheels! So it's proof the pricing of this stuff is more than it should be. Given most bikes in my area are SC or Trek, even a $10k S-Works is running around here, they are selling a ton of these high priced bikes. I guess as long as people spend, the price will keep rising. I will make no more comments about the price of these as it always seems to be an issue with people that have money.
  • 4 0
 can people just grow up and just have something nice to say once and for all, most of the comments your rants to bitch about the bike, just enjoyed the article and if you have nothing good to say but just to bitch about how expensive it is, or its a 650b no one cares, so shut up and move on!
  • 4 0
 What's with the constant complaints about needing a wider bar? It's on like every single PB review. 750mm is pretty damn wide already, especially considering that this is a trail bike, not a downhill bike. Just my 2¢

Other than that, I think the 5010 and Bronson bikes are pretty f*cken awesome. An LBS near me had a custom BronsonC sitting out the other day and I almost died when I saw it...
  • 5 1
 In this case it's because the bars are so close to exactly what we want. And why should bars on a trail bike need to be narrower then those on a DH bike? It's nice to have the same cockpit feel on all bikes, no matter their purpose.
  • 1 0
 I guess I just assumed there was a correlation of bar width to intended bike use. I always use the same width bars no matter what type of bike it is.

Why is that xc bikes, at one end of the spectrum, use ultra narrow bars while dh bikes, at the opposite end of the spectrum, use super wide bars? I've always assumed it had something to do with steering quickness and body position.

I find that only bars between 680 and 710 feel 'right' to me.
  • 2 0
 I think it depends in riders size. You clearly are tall enough to ride a large frame, and do probably need wider bars than a small frame rider. It funny people haven't realized this yet.
  • 1 0
 It would make more sense to adjust bar width on rider size. The comment about wider bars can always be cut but narrow bars can't be made wider relates as well.
  • 1 0
 Watch the "Tech Tuesday" episodes on selecting bar width & stem length. There's good information in there about how they affect body position and bike handling.
  • 2 0
 Also a lot of people who ride a lot of DH are using 780mm or 780mm + bars these days so it is not so much about the bar width on the trail bike but the strange feeling when switching from 780mm to 720mm or narrower after spending a lot of time downhilling. A lot of us also prefer longer frames for our trail bike so we can still run short stems (and wide bars) for more control/ fun on the DH sections.

The rider in this test might have long arms for his height or just be really tall anyway and prefer a more compact frame.

Bar width is important and there are a lot of smaller people riding bars that are too wide for them because it is fashionable. If bars are too wide for the shoulder/ chest width then the rider has trouble using their arms to effectively to absorb the trail and extend the bike into the trail.

I am 6'2" with reasonably long arms and ride a extra large SC Blur TRc (with a 60mm -6 deg Syntace Megaforce 2 stem) and a 750mm 25mm rise Answer Carbon DH bar but prefer a large SC V-10C for my DH bike with a 50mm zero rise (Thomson) stem and a 780 mm 12.5mm rise Answer Carbon DH bar. The difference in spacers under the stem on my trail bike means that I end up with an almost identical feeling set up, but one that allows me to keep enough weight forward on steep climbs on the trail bike to not 'loop out'. As I am travelling slower when descending (normally) on my trail bike and it is lighter and generating less force than the Dh bike I do not need as much leverage from my handle bars either.

Finally if I ran 780mm on my trail bike I would smash my knuckles on every second tree on the trail!

This is a good reference to compare set up (remember to add the height difference if your handle bars are different):
  • 4 0
 I don't get the whole moaning about cost thing on here. Yeah it's expensive but top quality build kit just help the tester concentrate more on the attributes of the frame on test surely? If you got a decent frame then put non quality bits on it the review would be all about the flexy wheels, poor damped fork, overly long stem etc etc. I know you can get some amazing cheap parts (zee is amazing for the money for example), but if you were Santa Cruz for example you would want to try and eliminate any risk of a component spoiling the reviewers exeperiances of the frame.

Also now we've all read the review an decided if it's good/bad we'll know in a couple of years when they are going for half the price whether to get one or not (like the nomad).

There are also lots of people on here (myself included) who've been into this sport for twenty or so years, over that time have upgraded, swapped frames, searched for lots of cheeky eBay bargains and finally got to the point where they have managed to build top end bikes. Hate the whole he has a nice bike therefore must be nob, no maybe they've just pumped 20years worth of spare coin and hours of eBay trawling into a hobby they love.
So in summary: today's top end bikes are tomorrow's eBay bargains and if you don't like something ie expense, wheel size etc fine just don't be a dick about it!

Oh unless it's all the stupid funking names manufactures keeping coming up with (enduro, all mountain, trail) for what we've always done RIDE BIKES!
  • 3 0
 If Santa Cruz is going to put 650B wheels on the blur, the name should really be "BlurB.

Seriously though, at 9k a bike should not want for anything.
It would seem poor or hasty engineering to increase the size of the wheel and not also increase the size of the fork too.
  • 1 0
 Boom!! nailed it!
  • 1 0
 See i was gonna say the same thing, my dad just got a blur and the only difference on this 5010 is wheel size and carbon
  • 5 1
 4000 for a frame...........And a warranty of 5 years. Good to see you stand behind your product..........Im joking. How bout a life time crash replacement if your shelling out four thousand dollars just for a frame.
  • 2 0
 I'm sure that a lot of people can afford price tags such as this one, but for high school, and college students it would be nice to see a bike company making a quality bike for less then 2500 new. However I have a feeling this will never happen
  • 1 0
 If they made bikes this good for 2500 they'd never sell any 10k ones, so you are right that it won't happen unless forced by competition. Trickle down may mean a 2500 bike 5 years from now will be as good as this though...
  • 2 0
 I rode a Solo with a Fox 34 and thought it was wonderful. SC would have been more likely to put a Pike or Fox 34 on it, but it would have Blurred the difference between it and the Bronson. 32mm forks belong on XC race bikes ridden by the 32mm equivalent in human body types.
  • 3 1
 i just bough a $2000 supersport motorcycle....1000cc olny a couple yrs old......just sayin....a whole lot more moving parts and needs to pass saftey emissions and other gov regs...unless you are pro i cant see spending the cash on somthing like this and i have several bikes for different disciplnes that i ride regularly
  • 2 0
 5010 is a cool bike, seems comparable to the TRc.. I heard some guys using the TRc as a dual salmon bike. Looks like a pretty sweet XC/Trail bike.

Top of the line 10g bike, not complaining much about that... that's about how much i spent on my Pivot Mach 5.7c
  • 1 0
 My usual ride is a yeti asr-5, really a direct competitor of the old blur TRc. The new SB75 would be a good comparison to this bike. I have noticed that on wide open trails, I much prefer the longer top tube of the yetis (mine is 24.8", a comparable santa cruz would be about 24"). In the tight, choppy single track where turns are king- I really have to plan where I'm putting the bike. On a shorter wheelbased bike- its more natural.

I have a fox 32 on my bike, recently lowered to 130. The only real fork that would fit at 130 with 34mm stanchions would be the x-fusion sweep. For 2014, the fox 34 and pike can only be lowered to 150. If they could be lowered to 130, i'd have a pike right now (or a BOS Deville).
  • 3 0
 I contemplated a Yeti's SB but man those are freaking heavy.. I chose the Solo because of the weight and because I've had nothing but great experience with Santa Cruz
  • 3 2
 Yet another useless review of overpriced bike that probably nobody can afford. What is the point of reviving such bikes? It is obvious that even most crappy bike company will have great results with top class gear on it. Half of the job is wheels and suspension. Why I am coming back to this site anyway? It's like reading moto magazine with Ferrari in it. I will never buy Ferrari, I don't care about them I care bout stuff NORMAL people can but and good pice-to-components ratio and not this endless pockets bullshit.
  • 3 2
 The riders who complain about expensive gear probably don't appreciate that these developments will enhance the less expensive parts they will use eventually on there less expensive bikes. So don't whine so much and go ride the bike you own !
  • 1 0
 It is hard to argue on this topic without understanding the margins these companies work with.
I have a $2000 Kawasaki and they come up with new tech each year. I know for a fact that Kaw puts in a ton of $$ in marketing, sponsorships, and also into R&D.
  • 1 0
 I have this bike, the fox32 fork with 15mm axle is plenty rigid but it should come with 140mm of travel. The enve wheels are a little too stiff. XX1 is great but chain wears quickly. Other than that its a great bike. I also have a blur xc , now it has a super flexy fox 32 that doesnt have a through axle.
  • 2 0
 I would have like to read the difference between the bronson and the solo, these 2 bikes are really close, and I'd like to know exactly how do they feel and perform differently
  • 1 0
 You guys nailed it with the Lowered Rockshox Pike or Fox 34 comment. My preference would be the Pike, but that doesn't sound like it's available. This rig sounds like it would be awesome, albeit in a more modest build. Say $4k not $10k. At any level however, the fork is the weak link. Even if it were to be spec'd with the Revelation (hopefully with black stanchions) that would be an improvement. This does bring up two questions:

1) Can we see a stiffer fork offered?
2) Where are the rockshox suspension build kits for SC?
  • 1 0
 Great review. I was interested in this one, and hopefully the up-coming ones, about XX1. Specifically the quote "SRAM XX1: SRAM's 1x11 drivetrain worked flawlessly, and there were no dropped chains or shifting issues during our time on the 5010c."

What is your opinion on needing a bashguard, or bashring for XX1? Not a guide, but something like the MRP XCG? During your testing are you running into situations where you are tagging the chain/chainring?
  • 1 0
 We managed to avoid smashing the chainring on any rocks, but something like an XCG is definitely a good option for a little extra peace of mind, especially if your trails are really rocky. That's one of the reasons it's nice to see ISCG tabs on a bike like this - it gives you the option of adding some extra protection.
  • 4 2

It's about time manufactures drop this price bullshit they are playing on us. I don't know when they got the idea that we are busting our asses at work for them.
  • 3 1
 Very nice bike, but I would venture that it's out of reach for 90% of the readers out there. A review of the 5010c or 5010 spec'd for the average Joe would be awesome and more relevant.
  • 2 3
 Why FFS!!! Is it that hard to imagine the bike with say XT or SLX, heavier wheels, normal seatpost etc If it's shit with top end gear, then it will be shitter with 'normal' gear, if it's great with top end gear, then it will be slightly less great with 'normal' gear, it's not effin' complicated.
  • 3 2
 Santa Cruz needs a serious revamp. The frame designs look as dated as the geo is! I wish I were a little dud so I wouldn't have to worry about the shorter top tubes. At this price point I would also want to see full internal routing! Geo, see Norco. Price, see Norco. Internal routing and looks, see Norco!
  • 1 0
 So the Sight and the Bronson have the same head and seat angles, wheel base - the difference is reach - personally my short test spin on a Bronson felt amazing - great body position. You can get a carbon Bronson with X01 and Fox CTDK suspension for the same price as the Sight LE Carbon with XX1 and RS fork/Fox CTD rear shock - I dont see that being uncompetitive to your comparison plus I think the Bronson is a far better looking bike with 10mm more travel.
  • 1 1
 Problem for me is I am 6-2 and felt super cramped on a large Bronson I demoed, and the XL I sat on had too tall a seat tube. Its no secret SC runs shorter top tubes, basically one of the only companies left that do that! Not to mention the VPP is simply not active enough for my liking. Looks wise the new carbon Range just kills the bland Bronson IMO... Its a work of art!
  • 1 0
 Fair enough - I don't see the looks - the range could be a remedy from a distance - colours on the bronson are better, looks great and rides good to my way of thinking - we shall agree to disagree but I still think the prices aren't so far off between the two.
  • 1 0
 Just saying the lines are old school & bland, I had Nomads for 3+ years including a carbon version & looking back they look dated. The matte black carbon Range is the only color I am focused on! All stellar bikes though...
  • 1 0
 I can send you a pic of my 2001 Heckler if you want old school lines! Still riding it in the snow at Whistler though, until I can afford my Bronson!
  • 1 0
 Looks dope but they're crazy if they think nearly everyone's budget includes a $4000 bike.

I'd love a bike like this but in general... all these new bikes are way too damned expensive. Can buy a dirt bike for the cost of some of these bikes and they have the same damn materials on them... and a motor.
  • 1 0
 would like to see a review of the ally bike, wonder what sells more the carbon or ally version? I understand why santa cruz want their top end bikes reviewed, I can also understand why reviewers want to play on 10k dream machines ;-)

the rest of the kit is a bit irrelevant really sending that money youll spec it how you want!, however 32mm forks are nice on an xc ride, but ill happily carry a few hundred grammes for the extra stiffness and confidence with a 34 or lets be honest the far superior Pike or even a 55RC3ti over fox. It just means you can push things harder and have more fun on the descents.

and as for XXI, well if youve got the cash then go ahead but really - any old clutch/type 2 mech and a narrow/wide chainring from wolftooth or raceface is going to deliver pretty much the same performance
  • 1 0
 I must say I'm kinda surprised by this review refering to the reach comments. size large bronson & size large 5010 share the same length toptube.
are you saying that the toptube feels short compared to other 125mm bikes?

I personally think santa cruz just has its naming of its sizes slightly off. I normally ride a size medium, but a size medium bronson would be tiny on me. a size medium is more like a small by everyone elses sizing & a size large is like everyone elses size medium
  • 1 0
 hey mike, are you partial to riding flat pedals? i would assume for a trail bike like this, that you'd want to use a clipless system. i would think your review would be different (better/worse) if you were riding clipless. hot damn though, what a spankin sexy-ass bike, thanks for the review. -

edit: btw that compare-a-bike option is pretty interesting, except it doesn't say what year bike we are comparing it to. thanks!
  • 1 0
 I ride flats the majority of the time - they make sense for the wet and technical trails I prefer to ride. The review wouldn't have been any different if I'd been on clipless pedals.
  • 1 0
 Worth mentioning where the name 5010 came from: They first named the bike "Solo" but were sued for copyrights. So they changed the name to numbers that spell out SOLO [5010] in a visual way. By the way, if you translate 5010 to inches, it spells @#%$@ in Hebrew.
  • 1 0
 You'll never hear me complain about PB testing such an expensive bike, however, for how expensive it is, I'd have expected it to weigh much less.

My 7 year old aluminum 575 is 27.5lbs, and that's with a pair of 1st gen Mallets. Drop the pedals and it's high 26lbs, my build is fairly high end, but I did make a few concessions due to price, and obviously being 26" the wheels/tires will always be lighter, but dropping 1000 grams wouldn't have added more than $1000 or so to the build, making my bike lighter, and still $4000 less expensive. Something just isn't adding up.
  • 1 0
 This bike is definitely on the list for my next trail bike. Demod the Bronson and thought it was awesome, but like the idea of a bike that is a little lower slung, dare I say, whippable?

Mike, any other bikes I should try to ride that compare to this? Between this and the RM altitude Rally, Norco Range, which would you go with?
  • 2 1
 Component Check: funny how you skipped talking about the ENVE rims Big Grin I wonder if it's to avoid any starting polemic or simply cause we've seen them on way too many tested bikes lately? Just wonder!
  • 2 0
 "The ENVE wheels deserve partial credit here, nicely complementing the stiffness of the 5010's carbon frame to create an extremely stable package." We didn't have any trouble with the ENVE rims - they remained true for the duration of our testing.
  • 1 0
 I didnt mean this as a suspicion about rim failure, rather as a way to avoid controversy about outrageously expensive bikes (the recurrent theme right?). And I was so far tired to read reviews of very dynamic bikes which were sporting light tyres and unrealistic rims. Not the case here, well yes the rims are too much money for me, but you did mention the role played by the magic rims. Thanks!
  • 3 0
 For that price I would expect my rear triangle to have two arms to the seat tube Big Grin
  • 4 2
 So, it's a Blur LTc with 650b wheels, yes? Funny how I would never have considered that bike for myself in 26", but in 650b it appeals so much more...
  • 4 0
 It's a Blur TRc adjusted to fit 27.5 wheels.
The TRc was/is one of the most converted bikes from 26 to 27.5. So SC made what the people wanted.
I owned a TRc and rode it with 26 and 27.5 wheels. Rode the same trails. Same loop back to back and I liked the 27.5 better.
When I found out about the Solo, I put the TRc up for sale and ordered a Solo.
Built it up with parts from the TRc and put a Fox 32 on it. Pretty much had the same complaints about the fork. Swapped it out for a lowered Pike and am very happy with it. Defiantly the way to go.

The Bronson is more like the Blur LT
  • 1 0
 Got a link on how to lower a pike? I didn't know it was possible
  • 2 0
 don't have a link, looked up the parts and service manual. Use the 150mm air shaft from the 26" fork, it lowers the 27.5 to 140mm. Very easy to do and the part is about $40 retail
part# 11.4018.026.003
  • 2 0
 Sweet. Thanks. I didn't think of that mod.
  • 4 0
 Why doesn't fox make a 120mm 34??
  • 2 2
 Rode the new Westside pump track that's directly across the street from Santa Cruz bikes today. Considering their employees hipster, shit don't stink, god's gift to the bicycle industry piss poor attitudes ....Santa Cruz can suck it. I will never spend a penny on their played out brand name product.
  • 1 1
 ... we ran into a slight issue with DT's 240 rear hub $9775 USD, It wasn't surprising to see Fox's 32 Float on a bike like this $9775 USD,
but it wasn't quite up to the task $9775 USD, room for a water bottle $9775 USD ...
  • 4 2
 dude, bikes are getting veeeeery expensive and at this point, i think they might be a little bit overprized
  • 5 2
 A guy at work got a "Solo". He only rides by himself now.
  • 2 1
 Complaining about 750mm bars on a 125mm travel trail bike? Rather than try to turn this bike into your DH bike, just go ride your DH bike.
  • 4 1
 wide bars are not for only for DH. Some of us like them for XC. The great thing with stocking bikes with wide bars is you can cut them! Imagine that. Can't make bars wider.
  • 1 0
 Mike! How tall are you? I´m about to get one of theese soon and I´m 5´10" and a half. So I´m right between size M and L.
  • 1 0
 I'm 5'11". I'd imagine you'd fit best on a size large, but I'd recommend trying them both if you can to be certain.
  • 1 0
 I'm 5'10" and ride a large nomad. Demo's a large bronson and it fit exactly the same. SC's sizing is pretty consistent through it's line. Large is my vote, but the best thing to do is to demo.
  • 1 0
 Mike do you think a L w/long stem or XL w/short stem would be good for someone 6'1" with short torso and long inseam (34.5")?
  • 2 0
 just reading and can't believe how much shite and arguments could possibly get posted on a bike review!
  • 4 3
 Anyone see the lower VPP link, looks like it's in a good place to be smashed to pieces of some carefully placed rocks.
  • 2 0
 some people already smashed the grease port on that link on their Nomads))
  • 1 1
 So many bikes have the compaint of a flexy fork/would be nicer with a stouter fork. Why hasn't Fox or RS caught onto this and started selling 130 - 140mm travel pikes/34s?
  • 1 1
 Someone else has blatantly said this: This would be a dream bike but for that money, I want internally routed cables. Tidy it up a bit.
  • 1 0
 how is that build nearly 26lbs? that seems like a heavy weight for no pedals with the $10,000 built kit...
  • 1 0
 a big chunk of the weight is the tyres which are 920g each. nobby nic or similiar that are normal fare for 125mm bikes are closer to 560g. so thats nearly 2 extra pounds for more capable tyres.
  • 1 0
 Santa Cruz 5010 $9775.

Triumph Street Triple $10995.

I think I'll keep saving for a couple more months ...
  • 1 0
 I bought a Polaris RMK 600 for 10,000$... The industry goes crazy about carbon... just like the road bike.
  • 1 1
 What i hate about pinkbike : 90% of people here ride 26'' DH rig, but 90% of the review are about 27.5 ou 29'' all mountain/trail bike. y u no review some dh bike?
  • 2 2
 For the love of god Santa Cruz, stop making the reach on your bikes so short. These things are unride-able for anyone over 6'3" (i.e. real men)
  • 4 3
 that sucks, it would be a sweet ride, but i already got one Frown
  • 6 13
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 24, 2013 at 22:42) (Below Threshold)
 I have the version with old wheels and it doesn't suck Big Grin
  • 3 5
 I got no complaint about the bike, I just got a different brand!!
  • 5 20
flag WAKIdesigns (Nov 24, 2013 at 22:51) (Below Threshold)
 What is it? If it's under 6000$ don't even bother replying!
  • 8 5
 Custom built intense tracer 2
  • 4 4
 Not the same at all.
  • 4 3
 Dear God I thought 5010 was a new wheel size...
  • 1 2
 30.5" wheels. They never knew about this size when the 26" came out.
  • 3 1
 buh nearly 10k gtfooh
  • 1 0
 Hey Mike, send that my way when your done testing it.
  • 2 0
  • 1 0
  • 1 0
 What a 5010 cents mktg plan..
  • 2 1
 A brand new 450 motocross bike WITH A MOTOR costs 2k less than this bike.
  • 2 1
 I'd have a Camber Evo C instead.
  • 1 0
 10K! Where's the engine?
  • 1 0
 This will be my next bike. Def gonna do me own build though.
  • 4 4
 how did they cycle this 9K bike without pedals?
  • 2 1
 Made in China?
  • 1 0
  • 1 0
 Nice bike
  • 1 0
 Have one. Is good
  • 1 2
 I would love to own that bike. We could have a lot of fun together...
  • 1 2
 oh man, more $10g bikes... looks like it'd be an epic ride though.
  • 1 2
 Nice bike
  • 1 3
 You could make a pretty steezey slope bike out of one of these!
  • 1 3
 The Maxxis High Rollers are installed in the wrong direction
  • 1 0
 actually, no.
  • 2 5
 XX1 biggest waste of money EVER!
  • 1 3
 Too good to be true.
  • 1 4
 Such a good brand name, such an awful frame.
  • 1 3
 Limp rear suspension, wheel size and so on. STOP MAKING BASTARDS!!!!!
  • 2 1
 What the hell are you talking about?
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2020. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.035826
Mobile Version of Website