A winding two hour drive from Reno, Nevada, is all it takes to trade the sleazy neon gaudiness of the city for the remote peace and quiet of Downieville, California. With a population of less than 300 full time residents, limited cell phone reception, and a growing network of superb mountain bike trails nearby, it's the perfect place to put away the glowing screens that pervade our lives and escape into the hills to ride.
It's also where Santa Cruz Bicycles chose to launch the revised versions of the Bronson and the 5010, bikes that were due for an update, a nip here and a tuck there to keep them on the cutting edge. Both bikes get slacker head angles, steeper seat tubes, and longer front centers, along with shorter chain stays and 148 x 12mm rear spacing, changes that keep them thoroughly modern. Over the course of two days we were able to ride both bikes on the high speed, rocky, dusty, and grin-inducing trails outside of town in order to begin getting acquainted with the refreshed models.
Bronson Version 2.0
When the Bronson was first released, Santa Cruz found themselves in the fortunate position of having the right model available at the right time, and they saw the 150mm all-mountain rig's popularity skyrocket, fueled by riders looking for a longer travel bike that could climb almost well as it could descend. That's still the updated version's intention – Santa Cruz bills its intended usage as “all-around,” and all of the tweaks are simply meant to make it even more capable than before.
To give the bike a little more stability in the steeps, the head angle has been relaxed by one degree to 66° with a 150mm fork, a change that's accompanied by a steeper seat angle of 74° for a better pedaling position. The chain stays have also shrunk, and they now measure 433mm, compared to the 439mm length of the prior version. The reach has also been increased by up to 25mm depending on the frame size, a welcome change from the previous version.
To give the bike a little more stability in the steeps, the head angle has been relaxed by one degree to 66° with a 150mm fork, a change that's accompanied by a steeper seat angle of 74° for a better pedaling position. The chain stays have also shrunk, and they now measure 433mm, compared to the 439mm length of the prior version. The reach has also been increased by up to 25mm depending on the frame size, a welcome change from the previous version.
Details
• Intended use: trail / all-around
• Travel: 150mm
• 27.5" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 66° head angle
• 433mm chainstays
• 12 x 148mm rear spacing
• Threaded bottom bracket
• Sizes S, M, L, XL
• Colors: Kalimotxo, black/grey
• Price: $3599 - $8099 USD (ENVE wheel upgrade available)
• Intended use: trail / all-around
• Travel: 150mm
• 27.5" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 66° head angle
• 433mm chainstays
• 12 x 148mm rear spacing
• Threaded bottom bracket
• Sizes S, M, L, XL
• Colors: Kalimotxo, black/grey
• Price: $3599 - $8099 USD (ENVE wheel upgrade available)
Those shorter chain stays were made possible in part by the switch to 12 x 148mm rear spacing, a change that some riders will undoubtedly see as a point of contention, but it's a sign of things to come, and Santa Cruz are from from the only company making the switch. Although it was originally developed as a way to bring additional stiffness to 29” wheels, it works for 27.5” wheels as well, and according to Josh Kissner, Santa Cruz's Product Manager, the results of their in-house testing were enough to convince them that moving to the new axle dimensions was worth the effort.
The lower link has been tucked up further into the frame and out of harm's way.
The Bronson uses the third iteration of Santa Cruz's Virtual Pivot Point (VPP) suspension design, with the lower link now tucked up closer into the frame, keeping it out of the way of pesky rocks and roots, a change that was first seen on the longer travel Nomad. The bike's upper link has also been relocated, moving from the seat tube to the underside of the down tube, which helped the bike's designers lower the standover height even further. That low standover height, combined with the shortened seat tube reflects Santa Cruz's feeling that traditional bike sizing no longer applies, a sentiment that's becoming more and more common throughout the industry. Rather than selecting a bike based on its seat tube length, the way it used to be before the advent of dropper posts, Santa Cruz recommends looking at a bike's reach number instead.
Like the Nomad, the Bronson's upper link is now attached to the top tube.
Don't worry, there's still a threaded bottom bracket.
The revisions to the pivot link locations allowed the Bronson's suspension curve to be tweaked as well. It still follows the digressive / linear / progressive formula that's the trademark of a VPP design, but the initial leverage rate has been increased in order to increase the bike's small bump sensitivity, and the curve on a whole has become slightly more linear in order to create a more consistent feel throughout the stroke. All of the bikes in the line now come equipped with FOX shocks, a spec choice that was facilitated by the introduction of the Extra Volume (EVOL) air sleeve. That air sleeve provides the initial sensitivity necessary for it to play nice with the bike's VPP design, especially in the beginning of the stroke.
Specifications
As with many of Santa Cruz's other models, there will be two versions of the carbon frame, a C and a CC version. The stiffness of both frames is said to be identical, but the use of a less expensive (and slightly heavier) carbon fiber allows for a significant cost savings on complete bikes the uses the C frames. Complete bike prices start at $3599 for the Bronson C R AM, and climb all the way up to nearly $10k for the highest end, ENVE wheel equipped CC XX1 AM model. Carbon models will be available within the next week, and an aluminum version is due to be ready before April 2016. If the Kalimotxo (a Spanish drink that involves mixing red wine with cola) colored option doesn't suit your tastes, there's also a more subdued black and grey paint scheme.
If Kalimotxo isn't your color, there's always classic black.
Geometry
Josh Bryceland getting loose during Santa Cruz's video shoot in Madeira.
Ride Impressions
To get a feel for the new Bronson we headed to Packer Saddle, the starting point for the Butcher Ranch trail. Best known as the race course for the Downieville Classic, the trail's history dates all the way back to the California gold rush in the mid-1800s, when miners trudged through the hills hoping to strike it rich, and the population of Downieville ballooned to 5,000 residents. Those days are long gone, but thanks to the hard work of the Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship, the trail remains, and has been crafted into a singletrack masterpiece, dropping nearly 5,000 vertical feet over the course of 14 twisting and turning miles.
On paper, and in person, the new Bronson resembles the Nomad more than ever, but on the trail it has its own distinct personality, one that's livelier and more sporty than its longer travel sibling. Even with a fairly slack head angle there's still a satisfying quickness to its handling, and on flatter sections of trail it never felt sluggish or lethargic. There was also plenty of stability for the warp-speed sections of trail, those 40mph sections where the trees turned to a blur and it was all I could do to ignore the little voice inside my head telling me to grab the brakes. Although there isn't a massive amount of climbing on the Butcher Ranch trail, there are a few short punchy climbs, and in those sections the Bronson was well behaved, with minimal suspension bob even with the shock set to the full open position.
Over the last year or so there have been numerous bikes introduced aimed at the growing enduro race scene, the Nomad included, but the truth is, most riders don't live where the terrain is technical enough to really do those slack, mini-DH bikes justice. Sure, we all wish Whistler or the Alps were in our backyard, but that's not usually the case, which is why a bike like the Bronson makes a lot of sense as a daily driver. It can still take on technical terrain, but its handling is quick enough that it's enjoyable over an even wider range of trails, from tame to treacherous and everything in between.
The 5010 underwent similar changes to the Bronson, emerging with 130mm of travel (up 5mm from the previous version), increased reach numbers, and shorter chain stays. The head angle has also been slackened by one degree to 67°, and the seat angle steepened to 73.8°. It might be slacker and longer, but the 5010 is still a trail bike through and through, aimed at riders who are going on more cross-country style rides rather than seeking out the gnarliest trails they can find.
The 5010's suspension layout gets the same treatment as the Bronson as well, with the links relocated for better clearance and an improved suspension curve. Internal cable routing is now in place, using the clever internal carbon tube system that debuted on the Nomad, a system that eliminates the not-so-fun “fishing for housing” game that accompanies some other internal routing designs.
The 5010's suspension layout gets the same treatment as the Bronson as well, with the links relocated for better clearance and an improved suspension curve. Internal cable routing is now in place, using the clever internal carbon tube system that debuted on the Nomad, a system that eliminates the not-so-fun “fishing for housing” game that accompanies some other internal routing designs.
Details
• Intended use: XC / Trail
• Travel: 130mm
• 27.5" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 67° head angle
• 425mm chainstays
• 12 x 148mm rear spacing
• Threaded bottom bracket
• Sizes S, M, L, XL
• Colors: black, blue
• Price: $3599 - $8099 USD (ENVE wheel upgrade available)
• Intended use: XC / Trail
• Travel: 130mm
• 27.5" wheels
• Carbon frame
• 67° head angle
• 425mm chainstays
• 12 x 148mm rear spacing
• Threaded bottom bracket
• Sizes S, M, L, XL
• Colors: black, blue
• Price: $3599 - $8099 USD (ENVE wheel upgrade available)
Specifications
When we reviewed the 5010 back in 2013 a stouter fork and slightly wider bars were on the wishlist, and both of those features are standard on the latest version. A 130mm RockShox Pike is found on most models, and 760mm handlebars are in place across the board. Prices start at $3599 and head upwards from there, especially if you plan on springing for the XTR and ENVE wheel equipped version.
Geometry
Ride Impressions
Mills Peak trail was the ride venue for the 5010, a slightly shorter route than Butcher Ranch, but still filled with plenty of sharp rocks and high speed sections to get a feel for the bike. How does it feel? Nearly identical to the previous version, which certainly isn't a bad thing. The soul of a slalom bike remains somewhere in those carbon tubes, and it felt best on the tighter section of trails, darting through the dust and around the towering pine and cedar trees.
Even with the longer reach the 5010 still feels quite compact - the steeper seat angle and shorter chainstays likely play a part in conveying this feeling, and there's no doubt it'd be a blast to ride on flowier, jump riddled trails. It'll still take on the rough stuff without too much trouble, and I never felt it bottom out even on an ill-timed leap directly into a rock garden, but of course there isn't quite the margin for error that its longer travel sibling possesses. The "trail" designation is a broad category, but then again so are the 5010's capabilities, and riders looking for a snappy, peppy machine that doesn't back down from a technical challenge will enjoy its handling.
www.santacruzbicycles.com
Must Read This Week
381 Comments
Soo...buy the next size up on the fire-sale of 5010 v.1, put an Evol air can on it, keep my high-end 142x12 wheelset and call it good?
I understand that companies have to sell bikes and so they sometimes bow to the pressure of en vogue head angles and chainstay length etc., but the 5010 became a "mountain biker's bike" because it didn't emulate current trends.
It got it's reputation by giving the middle finger to what was popular. I've owned a Trek Remedy, a Canfield Jedi, a Yeti SB-66c, and my 5010cc is far and away the best bike I've owned.
Long story short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Well, I understand why some people feel that way but it all depends on the rider. I personally have shorter arms for my size so the short reach is something I absolutely love about the v1 Bronson as it allows me to get my weight back a bit more than a lot of other bikes in this class.
The old frames' lower pivots are exposed below the BB shell and do take some hits. I glued inner tube over those too for a little protection & absorption.
Bought the Canfield used from Lance Canfield himself, rode it for a while, then sold it to finance my 5010c, which was also used.
So I've only ever owned one bike that was brand new.
You too can have high end bikes for not so much money, as long as you can deal with a couple scratches!
To reiterate, the 5010 is my favorite bike to date. Oddly, I feel more in control on the 5010 than I do on my SB66, which contradicts what a lot of reviews have to say about how the 5010 can get a lil squirrelly. Go figure...
Obviously, when everyone finally is on them it won't matter any longer, but considering the amounts of "old" bikes around it will be years before that happens, and not before yet another sudden "need" for yet some other disruptive new standard will arise.
That is all.
I'm not defending boost etc (at all!), but thought it's worth pointing out
.
On a less pedantic note, nice to see Santa Cruz sticking to the sensible BB standard.
Less dramatic but similarly problematic, Boost also pushes the cassette outboard, so a normal hub in a Boost bike would put the cassette too far inboard of the rear derailleur.
Adding BB width makes miles more sense and before some f*ggot goes on about Q-Factor, there's more than 3mm difference in cleat location between brands of pedal.
Frankly, SC going for it, legitimizes boost in my mind, as their bikes are well thought out and well engineered. They don't just follow trends (e.g. sticking w/ BSA BB), usually they create them (see Tallboy. also, see original Nomad).
The other kicker too is that Boost 148 requires a different crank/spider as well... Can't just swap stuff over.
Also if you don't believe that at least partially all these shifts are revenue motivated (think about all the 2nd hand market putting a dent to mfg sales, and now virtually instantly rendered technologically obsolete), reason why they won't stop, not innovation, you don't really know that much about business (big, that is) - oh, and change isn't innovation; just ask those who've been trashing "oval" rings ever since they were had with biopace back then, or the "early-adopters" of all the many other technological absurdities that went practically straight to the dustbin of history, throughout time...
Click here www.hopetech.com/product/pro-2-evo-boost-148mm-rear-hub for some drawings comparing Boost 148 to 142 hub. You will notice the hubs are aligned by the driveside end cap. Boost 148 hub flanges are spaced outward from hub centreline by 3mm per side compared to 142.
How many people complaining about Boost 148 have $3000 USD right now to buy one of these frames? Also are you sitting on a set of Kings on Enves which leads to your anger? I'm sure some machine shop is going to be attempting to build some 142 to Boost IS-6 adaptor with another 6 tapped holes
The current hub configuration has been around since what 8spd and we are up to 10 and 11 spd now. Due for a change.
PS Chris King is also onboard with Boost 148 so there is your sign.
PPS I heard the same outcry with disc brakes, air suspension, 9spd, dropper posts, 10spd, X-12...
asked and answered already.
@gonecoastal
There's a guy on mtbr who's a machinist who makes all sorts of end cap / axle adapters / disc rotor spacers / bearing press tools and so on that he sells on ebay. He's already doing spacers for front hubs to go from 15x100 to 15x110 but they're just 5mm spacers you have to physically hold in place everytime you install/remove the front axle and wheel with the fork. I'm sure he'll make rear spacers for the folks who just can't accept giving up their existing whatever wheels.
stores.ebay.com/mtbtools?_trksid=p2047675.l2563
As for "hating", people have opinions, that's all; those who hate them for that are the ones that should stop crying. What people are hating about these last years of nearly constant shifting and jittering of standards is - 1st: no one really felt the need, let alone asked for them; 2nd: they imposed on they almost mandatorily, in some cases (ie: out with the "old"; in with the new and if you don't like it, though luck); 3rd: it devalues what they already have and by dropping support for old standards in order to push new ones, makes it harder to find new parts for old kit and impossible to swap them around between old and new bikes. This is roughly it, in my view anyway, now if you say someone coming around 10 years from now will care how we got there, of course they won't, but that won't change the fact this is mostly about business profitability, not protecting future user's investments.
Fact is innovation=/=improvement, and when bikes that first moved to 29 are now moving to "back" to 27.5 tells me 29 is going at least niche. Bottom line is the atomization of bike standards, like that of Linux distros, isn't good for either users or industry: more SKUs to design, produce, store, ship, maintain, recup=reduced profitability=higher prices than with less of them, specially in a relatively small industry as this (compared to cars, even just offroad motorbikes).
So "committing effort" is a negative for you... and has to be part of some hidden agenda (tin foil much?). Maybe you should call it quits, if you can't handle it. Also, I see your "Nancy" and raise you a "Industry Fanboy", instead.
And well, of course if I had more cash than I could shake a stick at I couldn't care less about anything, not just "standards"; in fact I probably couldn't care less about bikes at all, at least existing ones, and would probably be making my own, heck I might even be issuing brand spanking new standards just for the sake of it or because, in fact, I too have ideas about how to improve on them that apparently no one else had, so far, at least...
Fact is I did put buying on hold, though I need some parts replaced, not because of money issues (though it can't see how it could hurt *me*, not spending it - but go ask the industry about them...), but because shifting standards had me question whether it'd be a good idea buying "old" standards, or even new ones, when no one knows where/when this is going to end, if at all. So I keep riding it until it breaks or things are finally settled, whether by users choice (if they ever even can have that say) or by industry imposition...
Btw, you keep bringing droppers as if they needed you to throw away anything when they came about... ironically, though, that's precisely the point: innovation doesn't need to bring radical changes _at all_ - just that: gradual, continuous, non-disruptive improvements.
Cheers.
PS: couldn't give a f*ck about Porsche, Ford or PDK(?), sorry...
"
because a lot of people DID ask for 29ers... way more than wanted to keep purchasing 26ers, and if not for 650B becomming a better solution to the "what's wrong with 26" issue, there'd be even more 29er models today. This site, even if every single member was a DH/FR/AM/DJ/Slopestyle exclusive rider who only wanted 26ers would still only be a minority of mountain bike consumers and not a significant enough minority to keep 26ers alive.
And well, your mileage may vary, but, anecdotal as it may be, Lapierre for instance just changed its 2016 Zesty AM from 29 to 27.5, which probably wouldn't be the case if 29 was all that good.
Also you don't really need to "lecture" me on wheel sizes; I've seen them all, from 12 to 16, 20, 24, 26 and 28, at least, even before mtb became a "thing". And ultimately you even could say that 26 was also unnecessary to start with, but that just helps portray the industry as (still) quite immature - take motorcycles as a comparison: they've barely changed, comparatively, in the same time frame, either standards or geo-wise (that even when swapping parts/aftermarket is comparatively barely existent).
And to answer @gonecoastal 's question about "How many people complaining about Boost 148 have $3000 USD right now to buy one of these frames?" - I do; whether or not I would spend it right now is another question (which I've already answered, btw)...
I thought for sure SC would put PF BBs on these new frames since they went with PF BB on the Stigma
That's what they did with Boost, as I said, they probably could've just as easily adapt the 150mm hub standard and with little trouble (spacers, moving chainrings in/out of spiders, even new ones) bring a new, improved standard that would've still allowed interchangeability between old and new kit (just has Syntace did with X12, in a way) without breaking compatibility. What would've costed them (other than the 2nd hand market for now obsolete parts)?
Obviously, once some (any) standard finally manages to establish itself, whichever it is and whatever way that may be, and dust settles, it won't matter any more; that will be _the_ new standard and that's what everyone will be using, so no biggie any longer... Until then, it's like shooting at a moving target; you just don't know what even the *near* future will bring, and thus your investment on the line... that's my whole point with all this standards' chair dance.
Also multiplying standards doesn't bring costs down any more than replacing old products with new, more "economic" ones saves natural resources; on the contrary, there will be more stuff produced and more costs associated with it. Eventually, when/if it all settles, then maybe yes, though you still have to compute the costs of shifting standards (including the loss of value of the now "obsolete" gear).
And I'm not being pessimistic, I'm just being realistic, which is why I'm disappointed and frustrated why all this shifting mess of recent years, at least since 29ers were suddenly "the" shit, until, just as suddenly, it was 27.5 instead, to which you now have to add Boost, 29, 27.5 and 26 "plus" sizes, and who know what next.
blog.artscyclery.com/science-behind-the-magic/wider-and-stiffer-but-necessary-boost-148-explained
And for those who can't handle criticism, my bet is if they had kept it as it was you wouldn't even be complaining, nor there would be half as much people criticizing them than there's now.
@deadtime: don't know what you're talking about - maybe try to make some sense, instead of just senselessly disparaging who you don't agree with...
- Hydro came on rim brakes first (heck, why not mention abs as well?), and, that I know, is as straightforward to adopt as it could be, but your mileage may vary...;
- 2.35? Still today there's bikes that can't take them, nor other sizes - what then? - pretty sure there were bikes that could carry them even before they came about without needing any change (and that without even calling klunkers to the debate! lol) it's ridiculous for you to even mention that;
- Full suspension exists for longer than you clearly could imagine - and make that _since before probably even your grand-parents were born_, let alone "mountain biking" (except maybe for early days Tour de France, that is)!... and again, on nowadays "canonical" mtb, suspensions started with front only, which is an as a trivial upgrade as you could do;
- Air? Is that a disruptive change now, too? File that with all the above...;
- And fiber (whichever!), 1x11, 750 bars, clutch - lolwut??? Are you serious - man, if that's a problem for incorporating on your (any) bike, let me tell you... no, just forget it..;
- Sorry, no clue about on & on & no; never heard about that; you may have point there... - what I heard about, though, is change=/=innovation=/=improvement and the way it's made it often more important them it's substance;
- Who's Ted Kascinsky, and more importantly why should he matter (other than apparently you obsessing with him)? Hmm...;
- No, they do it "for the children", don't you know...;
- Thanks for mentioning Trek along with sales - quite a trek err... track record they have there... bringing back another post from me on this thread, hope you enjoy the reading: www.rga.org/homepage/trek-bicycles-three-decade-history-of-pedaling-around-taxes;
- Like I said: Industry. Wide;
- It's all in your head... maybe look that up? - just saying...;
- You should apply fro the internet police; heck make that for pb mod; who knows, you might end up with a ban hammer, so that you don't have to deal with opinions you don't agree with and people you can't argue against...;
- No, they ALL had the SAME idea AT ONCE; I mean, frame, tire, suspension; every parts mfg company in the whole industry - it was like an true calling, maan... (btw, you believing that might explain the voices in your head...);
- "A few dozen others "26 for life" knuckelheads (in your clearly deranged mind, that is)" in this site alone, maybe, which considering the number of people actually debating it, is quite a percentage and pretty much on par, if not more than the cheerleaders like you, for whom anything "new" must be hailed upon as god sent wisdom, whichever way or reason it's thrown at you (and for whom any criticism is... well, you've just characterized it...) - and btw, pretty sure there was plenty, even harsher criticism about all this inside the industry than elsewhere outside, not that that could ever cross your mind...;
- Yeah, why not start by that, would you - could've saved me this wall of words at least, but hey, it's a brand spanking *new* post, so that's a good thing - I mean, "improvements", right?;
Enjoy!
"- Hydro came on rim brakes first (heck, why not mention abs as well?), and, that I know, is as straightforward to adopt as it could be, but your mileage may vary...;"
Actually no they didn't. Shimano had full hydraulic disc brakes for bicycles forty years ago. They were for touring and tandem bikes. I traded an NOS example to the head of Magura USA for his personal collection a decade ago.
" 2.35? Still today there's bikes that can't take them, nor other sizes - what then? - pretty sure there were bikes that could carry them even before they came about without needing any change (and that without even calling klunkers to the debate! lol) it's ridiculous for you to even mention that;"
There are hundreds of bike models than can take tires that wide or wider. 2.35 has been a tire size in mountain bikes for thirty years now.
"- Full suspension exists for longer than you clearly could imagine - and make that _since before probably even your grand-parents were born_, let alone "mountain biking" (except maybe for early days Tour de France, that is)!... and again, on nowadays "canonical" mtb, suspensions started with front only, which is an as a trivial upgrade as you could do;"
Congrats, you learned how to use google. However as far as mountain bikes in modern post 1970s terms are concerned, we had rear suspension before we had front suspension starting in 1985.
"- "A few dozen others "26 for life" knuckelheads (in your clearly deranged mind, that is)" in this site alone, maybe, which considering the number of people actually debating it, is quite a percentage and pretty much on par, "
I've said it before, even if the total site membership was only a 26er rider, it'd still be a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers who ride 650B and 29ers world wide.
And that's what's different with this (these) changes: no one makes both frames, wheels and suspensions, so you couldn't bring bring either 29ers or boost to the market without any sort of multi-party agreement (27.5 maybe could, but it came after 29), and since all major brands (and not just) came to the market with 29ers pretty much at the same time (year), that implies an industry wide debate and agreement (on standards, timing), even if informal/verbal.
And if you can't believe that or think that everything in business is competition, maybe you've heard of a thing called "cartels" (not that I'm implying any such conspiracy here)?
- Hydro: so maybe that was so; big deal. Doesn't detract from the point I was making and anyway it didn't came straight from there to today's hydro disc brakes, no less than non-circular rings, e-shifting, etc., which symptomatically is also another point I mentioned;
- 2.35: thanks for corroborating my point, I really needed it lol;
- Yeah well, I learned that well *before* Google even came about, but hey, now that I'm "validated" by *you*, I guess I must be officially 733t or something! Thanks again, Captain Crunch!... Btw, that was my point, but that's ok if you didn't noticed it...;
- Yeah, and that as well is a drop in the ocean, compared to all those (me included) who were riding 26ers/offroad, before americans "invented" both - so what? - this whole debate isn't about standards per se, but the (clumsy, amateurish, disruptive) way they were brought about, but that's ok if you missed that as well...;
Hey, but congrats on trading with the head of Magura USA... I myself just bought a speedtronic pin (I know, doesn't even compare), but I don't think it was from anyone important in the industry.
Blah blah blah, Trek... - you and @deadtime work for them or what? That would explain a lot... btw, it's not from me they're stealing tax money from...
And yeah, "evolve", because when you make a collective decision and clearly forget such important "detail" that you need to fix it soon after hitting the market (and btw, it wasn't the first screw up, far from it, and it won't be the last either, far from it), that's only natural and everyone should just shut the f*ck up and cheer on...
ps: "sounding" and being are two completely different things, just saying...
I'm not sure they have the balls to do something like that though. They aren't really the most progressive company as of late.
414mm For a chainstay length is short for any bike let alone a 29er
as we've both discovered--90% rider, 10% bike. 120mil hardtails are the bomb. and cheap. and super fun.
Go ahead and try to keep up with bike tech. You can't unless you want to spend an a$$load of cash.
I pass fools on expensive trail bikes all the time, both uphill and downhill. they look at me like I have a motor, or I'm cheating...or like a noob who doesn't get it, or who can't afford a real bike.
I'm all about these changes for these models. Well done. If this is any indicator of the new Tallboy LT then that could be a great update as well.
If the only draw back is the 148mm rear drop out, then let's do the math: It's stiffer, better, and it's a different hub. If you are getting a full build, or even just a frame, then how big a deal is that really... well if it's a full build then it's a moot point. If it's a frame then it's an opportunity for an upgrade. I love re-using wheelsets but given the 26 vs 27.5 vs. 29, are we really going to get that irate about 142 vs 148... we happily moved of 9mm a few years ago for stiffer/easier/better.
I can buy a 2015 Giant Reign Team 0 for $5000 right now, have both 130mm and 160mm on my fork. I get the best of both the Bronson and the 5010 travel. I can't justify it, I know others could though.
That bike is an unreal climber, it climbed better than my anthem advanced 29er, but it decended as well, if not better than my trance 27.5. That bike is the perfect bike for most riders, I'd pick that bike to race xc in a heartbeat over any of my giants.
If you are looking at the 5010, also look at the giant. Ride them both, the 5010 is a much better bike. Is it worth the extra money? That's up to you and your situation. After owning my first SC for a month, I think it's worth it.
If you want a reign, look at the nomad, but ride them both. My trance 27.5 large has a 1/2"ish longer top tube than my large nomad, wich people love, hate or get a bigger frame than normal. I personally love it.
So what does this mean? All those holding pre-build wheel stock are about to get the memo that SRAM has given their margins the royal salute. Got a 2016 frame to sell w/o Boost? Seems clear it will be just a year away from 148mm spacing by the way the industry is behaving now, so buyers won't want to be pay top dollar. Again, SRAM taking it to your margins.
Own a newish set of high-end 142mm wheels? Think fast - either get find a 142mm frame before they're gone or sell the wheelset pronto. Don't wait, or you'll be like the guy holding the 1 1/8" frame that can't find a decent fork.
Sorry for the very noobish question, still not familiar with the different kinds of layouts.
thanks for the answers guys
So glad they finally tucked in the lower link. Wish Intense would do the same....
When did that happen?! Is it even grippier than a DHF?
Which compounds? A maxxpro HR II rolls faster than a 3C maxxterra DHR II i would agree.
Because SC did it, people are going to accept it.
Glad i got a pre-boost nomad that i was able to put my old wheelset on
As for Boost148, my only hope is every dentist, corporate executive and small business owner who will flock to buy a new high end carbon trail/AM rig with the new standard and continues to use the bike more for social credit at their dinner parties than riding. That way two great things will happen for the rest of us: the cost of nicer wheelsets with 142 might lower and that in a couple years, someone who deserves a nice ride, may get a sweet deal on a wicked, unused bike.
Alu in 2016? Poor guys must wait!
On another note, it still pi$$es me off they don't offer nicer builds on Heckler's anymore. All they got to do is offer the same build kits they put on Bronson's! Totally capable frame, but they hold it back buy only offering low budget builds!
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't a dropper for the most part eliminate the need for LS geo ?
Both are 2016
The neon stuff is out there, though, I'm with you on that. Probably because I lived through the 80's as a teenager - excess neon triggers PTSD for me.
Uh, you mean top tube?
Post a Comment