First Ride: Santa Cruz's Updated Bronson and 5010

Sep 11, 2015
by Mike Kazimer  



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


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.


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)


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.

Santa Cruz Bronson
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.


Santa Cruz Bronson
Like the Nomad, the Bronson's upper link is now attached to the top tube.
Santa Cruz Bronson
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.

Santa Cruz Bronson
If Kalimotxo isn't your color, there's always classic black.

Geometry
Bronson geometry

Madeira - 21 July 2015 - during the Santa Cruz Bicycles Bronson product shoot with Josh Bryceland of Santa Cruz Syndicate amp Cut Media. Photo by Gary Perkin
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.





Santa Cruz 5010

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.


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)


Santa Cruz 5010
Santa Cruz 5010

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.

Santa Cruz 5010

Geometry
5010 Geometry

Mike Thomas photo

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.





Visit the high-res gallery for more images.





www.santacruzbicycles.com


381 Comments

  • + 169
 "How does it feel? Nearly identical to the previous version, which certainly isn't a bad thing."
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?
  • + 52
 This guy gets it. Let someone else get suckered into 148
  • + 27
 Yep. I'm not even mad I just bought a V1 5010 after I learned this had Boost
  • + 27
 And buy an angleset...that said, sc really did need to lengthen these cockpits.
  • + 31
 Yep, just done exactly that. Bought a 5010 CC frame for less than 1/2 price, added a DBi line, -1 angleset with 2016 34 150mm forks giving me 66.2 degree HA, and whacked my existing 142x12 carbon hoops in! Climbs like a squirrel, descents like a beast!
  • + 2
 If you can, sure. Or if you just want a new bike, get this one. Not sure sure what the hostility is about bro.
  • + 68
 Sevensixtwo must be new here..
  • - 5
flag MasterSlater (Sep 11, 2015 at 11:08) (Below Threshold)
 Not to mention it didn't actually need an update. (Front derailleur wtf?!?!)

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.
  • - 7
flag WAKIdesigns (Sep 11, 2015 at 12:15) (Below Threshold)
 The thing they haven't addressed is chainstay dropped stupid low, exposing relatively slim part of the frame for the hits, which particularly in case of making them from carbon is not a good idea. As it happened to structure around lower bearing on my Blur. If books on business are true, as they are currently going through exponential expansion, they will be running into managerial problems, also in terms of product design so... let's forgive them and buy other bikes through next few years.
  • + 34
 Santa Cruz isn't telling us to sell perfectly good 5010s and Bronsons to get the updated one; rather they are making these running changes to stay ahead of the curve. If you're getting a new one anyway, I don't think it hurts to be as current as possible.
  • + 4
 @waki at first I didn't know what you meant but aftwr taking a closer look at the photo with rear triangle, I would say you have a valid concern. Nomad v3 doesn't have that issue as the lower rocker link is exposed instead of the carbon.
  • - 4
flag khaki (Sep 11, 2015 at 13:54) (Below Threshold)
 @mrbrett: maybe they shouldn't try so hard to stay ahead of the curve and rather try to remain with the crowd, just in case they end up going one way while the rest of us decide to go another...
  • + 0
 @waki @someguy101: it seems they're at least aware of that - if you notice there's a small alu plate under the chainstay; remains to be seen how effective it can be.
  • + 4
 "that said, sc really did need to lengthen these cockpits."

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.
  • + 2
 ^ The metal piece on the chainstay is just a chainstay protector, same as on my old Bronson. The chain hits there a lot even being that close to the BB. I glued some inner tube over it to cut down on noise a lot.

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.
  • + 3
 khaki - that is same plate I have on mine and it is a chain slap/ suck protection. These are surely some fantastic bikes and Santa Cruz put a 16 ton building block for how current trail bikes look like with the first Nomad, but well these days 90% of bikes are dialled, and the only thing apart form the price that can make you by one over another is some marketing metaphysical value that exists only in your mind. Give me an SC, a Cube, Spesh, Trek, GT, Cannondale and I'll ride them happily - that wasn't the case in 2010.
  • + 25
 Of course they're aware of it which is why they changed it on the current Nomad and now Bronson. But hey, "since it wasn't broken" they didn't change much of the 5010 (because you would have bitched about it). Anyone notice that anything larger than a 28t chain ring will be the first point of contact in a 50/50 or rock impact scenario? In working for an SC dealer since carbon became the norm more than the exception, I have never warrantied or crash replaced those swing arms for anything other than customer induced over torque of the pivot axles. #stopwhining And thanks for the business consultation Waki... my guess is this is an industry problem with a lot of R&D and investment going into a broad diversification of wheel sizes, axle sizes, etc. In my opinion SC seems to be the least volatile in their reactions to current trends and they tend to only settle on the shit they know is going to be the norm going forward... companies like the Big S, Trek and others seem to be far more trigger happy and risky with their emerging trend moves.
  • + 7
 I agree with bngofast. For instance SC still uses threaded BBs
  • + 6
 bngofast nailed it
  • + 0
 the reach is still tiny
  • - 4
flag c-dale99 (Sep 11, 2015 at 18:26) (Below Threshold)
 148 spoiled it for me
  • - 6
flag dropoffsticks (Sep 11, 2015 at 19:46) (Below Threshold)
 @MasterSlater the question is why the f*ck do you need so many high end bikes?
  • + 1
 @dropoffsticks probably because he likes riding and has chosen to spend his money that way
  • + 3
 Bought the Remedy used, rode it for a couple years, then sold it to help finance the SB66c (got it for a song since its 26")

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...
  • - 1
 oh you sold them to buy the next, I got the impression that you currently on all those bikes at this moment. My bad. Smile
  • - 5
flag darkgiant (Sep 12, 2015 at 6:52) (Below Threshold)
 While I agree for the most part on a number of your points of only changing what's necessary (don't fix what ain't broke, I also think threaded bb is a must) but what I cannot get over, myself being a Santa Cruz fan, is their continual drift from their beautifully crafted frames and beliefs that following industry changes was unnecessary. My main points of frustration are the now flat square-like molding of these carbon frames. No intricate or beautiful forming of carbon just straight flat tubes with that sh*t times new roman font decals. They once believed that fancy paint jobs were unnecessary as well as the thru axle itself, QR axles tested to the same stiffness (which I still find hard to believe) I love thru axles but now they are the among the first to bring forward this "new" standard. Santa Cruz you have come so far, yet sunk so low IMHO
  • - 8
flag WAKIdesigns (Sep 12, 2015 at 9:46) (Below Threshold)
 Dark giant - thank you. I can only add that their matte carbon finish is terrible, unlike their first carbon frames that were really mouth watering, first Nomad C in particular. I am lucky to have glossy, carbon finish on my Blur TRc. Perhaps the latest revamp of V10 with their paint jobs is a move in good direction, but this? Some time ago you saw their bike and you recognized exact model from a mile, now? I'm hard pushed to see difference between 5010, Bronson and Nomad. Give all those three bikes same big fork and shock, and you'll be in trouble saying which is which unless you come close. And they had the nerve to show that they have numeorus volumes of World Design Review on their shelves when they were throwing crap at trolls for not liking 650B. Their graphic design is on par with 2004 Konas.
  • + 2
 It doesn't matter what you think about the 148 standard. The fact is that a lot of new bikes are coming with it in 2016 and I would guess more than half sold in 2017 will have it. YOU and people like you are not the driving economic force behind the market. Personally I'd rather not see another incremental standard like this, but if you add up all of the incremental standards over the last 20 years it makes a huge difference. After I buy a new bike I have yet to ever replace the rear hub or even the rear wheel, which I would guess is most of the market. Therefore most people will simply adopt the 148 standard and it's supposed benefits, and go on with their lives.
  • - 5
flag WAKIdesigns (Sep 14, 2015 at 5:15) (Below Threshold)
 Boost 148 should be replaced by a wider spacing ASAP because the effect they wanted to achieve simply isn't there for non PLUS sized bikes. It shortens chainstay by 6mm at best (while they present it as if it could cut a whole inch) and flange spacing increase is too small to matter for regular rims.
  • + 0
 The name says it all: it's all about boosting new kit sales...

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.
  • - 1
 Gents! Gents! how am i getting neg propped? Its not Boost that bothers me ... its SANTA CRUZ's lack of Quality where they were to me the front runners in overall frame quality! They are no different than anything else now... oh, cept for that price tag..... I'll ride my V10 for sure but I've spent more time on my Norco now... and that is sad! Frown
  • + 1
 This is exactly what I'm doing -- plus -1 Works Components -- on a Bronson v. 1
  • + 3
 bought a 2016 5010 with a 150mm fork -> great bike
  • + 2
 Betting against Santa Cruz is pretty much a dumb idea. They've been right on pretty much every decision they've made. Bottom Brackets, Carbon on DH bikes, sponsorships, component specs, and shockingly – cost (their budget C line is really accessible). If they're doing Boost, it means its for real and it's time to get over it.
  • + 3
 BTW. I've seen a bunch of these pink Bronsons around here in Norcal. They. Look. sick.
  • + 1
 Love me a Santa Cruz. Rented a nomad in Downieville a while ago, and I loved it. Sickest bikes around
  • + 1
 @ vhdh666 got any photos? want to see it with 150mm fork
  • + 1
 ho-lee-shite that's a nice bike
  • + 32
 "Those shorter chain stays were made possible in part by the switch to 12 x 148mm rear spacing". Care to elaborate on that?
  • + 2
 The extra stiffness to accommodate the stiffness lost from the asymmetric stays? That's my guess
  • + 77
 With 12 x 148 spacing the chain rings are spaced slightly more outboard (3mm), which creates enough additional clearance to shorten the chainstays without running into interference issues.
  • + 14
 So how then did they manage 433 CS on the Nomad with 12x142? #miracle !
  • + 84
 @ukr77 - the Bronson and 5010 can both accommodate front derailleurs, while the Nomad cannot.
  • - 2
 I was almost expecting there to be a plus option, especially for the 5010. What is the Max.Tire size for these frames do you know?
  • + 3
 I would have thought that tucking the lower link inside the frame is the solution for getting shorter CS and gaining more clearance. Anyway, it's a great opportunity to justify Boost I guess.
  • + 20
 My out of date and totally last year Enduro 26er has 412mm stays and can accommodate a front mech.
  • - 30
flag Incrimination-proclamation (Sep 11, 2015 at 2:12) (Below Threshold)
 Another "26er" convert... The bikes are 26". Please dont ruin the rep of the wheel size by marrying 26" and 29er.

That is all.
  • + 15
 @headshot , the reason for that is because your 26" wheel is obviously smaller than the 27.5" wheel....so they're able to make the CS short, without having clearance issues.

I'm not defending boost etc (at all!), but thought it's worth pointing out Smile
  • + 6
 Well aware of that, but even for a 26er, the Enduro managed to have extremely short stays and a clever mech mount on a suspension pivot. Not that short stays are the be all and end all off course, its just interesting how they are touted as a feature of frames these days because bigger wheels have made them a little harder to engineer.
  • + 53
 Specialized made a 29er with 150mm travel, 430mm stays, 142x12 axle and a front mech. So why is is the new axle necessary to make 433mm stays on a 650b bike again? Why can't they all just talk straight and say that Boost is good for 29ers for the wider flange spacing and good for + wheels for the clearance, so they're using it across all models because it doesn't hurt the other bikes and it's cheaper to use one OE part than three or four.
.
On a less pedantic note, nice to see Santa Cruz sticking to the sensible BB standard.
  • + 14
 @headshot: my Orbea Rallón has 420 (hehe!) mm chainstays, a front derailleur, and accepts tires up to 2.5" in some cases. Did I mention it's 27.5?
  • + 19
 @fix-the-spade because Spec uses fsr, and they don't have to cram a linkage in-between the bb and chainstays.
  • + 3
 Can you fit "normal" hubs to a boost bike? I'm assuming most wheel manufacturers will sell adapters just like they did for QR?
  • + 39
 @mikekazimer did you notice that these people complaining about BOOST literally do not understand why exists or what it claims to do?
  • + 22
 Do people have garages full of blinged out wheel sets for their future builds? I have one pair of nice wheels... they are on my bike. I had a few spare wheels, but eventually sold and gave them away. Every person here would buy a new set of wheels for their new bike so I don't get the objection other than "it's something new, kill it."
  • + 15
 Many of us are well aware of what BOOST brings to the table. The issue is simple: none of our existing wheel-sets fit into this new standard. So we are ultimately forced to buy new wheels if we want to buy a BOOST frame which makes the cost go up considerably. Essentially, many of us will turn our heads when we see BOOST due to the sheer investment required.
  • + 5
 Actually thinkbike some of us do have old wheels and hubs in our shops. I just got rid of an XTR quick release front hub. Sold a pair of 26 Easton Haven wheels for $75 because who would want those small wheels and shitty rear hub. But I think you are right that most people sell off whole bikes when they buy a whole new bike and won't have any spare stuff.
  • + 4
 @thinkbike: I'm with you; it makes more sense to me to buy a new bike complete and help pay for it by selling the old one. Personally, I think Boost is a meaningful improvement, though more for tire clearance than for stiffness. But I don't think it's that people have garages full of expensive wheelsets - I think the people who have the biggest objections to Boost are the people who prefer to buy a new FRAMESET instead of a new complete, and then swap as many of their current parts onto it as they can. From that perspective, I can certainly understand the frustration, particularly because standards haven't changed for this many parts at once in several years.
  • + 1
 @aoneal then don't buy a boost frame in the first place! Any article that mentions boost, you are are the first one to start complaining.
  • + 3
 While I certainly see some of the downsides of boost it clearly has enough upsides that even Santa Cruz though it merited use. And they are generally not very frivolous with standard changes (see threaded BB). To be fair most people buying a new trail bike (especially a 650b bike) probably aren't sitting on 3 sets of extra usable wheels.
  • + 8
 @ryan83: Not practically, no, because Boost moves the rotor outboard. It isn't just a matter of endcaps. To put a 142 hub in a Boost bike, you'd need to have some kind of spacer between your brake rotor and your hub... if the thought of doing that doesn't make your spine prickle, I don't know what will.

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.
  • + 2
 Doesn't the new shimano front deralr allow for shorter cs, boost not withstanding?
  • + 1
 The direct mounts you mean with the shorter cages? Yes, but that's also because the chainrings have shrunk even on triples (down to a 40T diameter). But optimizing a frame around the present availability of a particular front derailleur seems pretty short sighted to me.
  • + 8
 @Fix-the-Spade It's harder to design very short chainstays with a VPP (or DW link or any other that uses a short link) configuration compared to Specialized' traditional Horst link design. With VPP they're squeezing in a short link between the bottom bracket and the tire, and that takes up space. With the Horst link, the chainstay itself performs the same function which allows for a tighter rear center.
  • + 1
 Santa Cruz doesn't typically bullshit or jump on new trends for no reason. Case in point, threaded bottom brackets. They could have made a lot of money on switching over.
  • - 3
 @mikekazimer @TEAM-ROBOT yes but the whole "excuse" that the industry gave to us for going boost 148 instead of adding 1 mm repeat 1mm per side (150mm spcaing) to the endcaps was to not mes with the chain line!
  • + 9
 150mm spacing is for the vast majority of hub makers no different than 135mm spacing. The flange spacing is the same, they simply increased the length of end caps, and also requires 83mm bottom brackets as well which increases the Q-factor of the crankarms. I wish people would learn the differences in hub standards and stop comparing based on the dropout spacing numbers alone.
  • - 4
flag OLTI27 (Sep 11, 2015 at 10:32) (Below Threshold)
 Well I have a 150mm frame and could have benefited from a 150mm boost hub but no they made it 148. And don't even mention that the disc mount is placed in a different spot because I would have no problem fabricating a brake adapter to fit
  • - 13
flag jclnv (Sep 11, 2015 at 10:34) (Below Threshold)
 I hear what Team Robot says but 5 seconds of thinking about it will tell you that Boost is a shit solution for manufacturers and pylons who think sub 435mm chainstays equal fast bikes. Oh and so the same guys can run 34T rings to "crush" those fire road descents.

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.
  • - 4
flag deeeight (Sep 11, 2015 at 11:21) (Below Threshold)
 I said the "vast majority" of hub makers didn't change the flange spacing... that means of course a minority of them did widen the flanges on their 150/157 hubs. Its not mine or the rest of the bike industry's fault you never bothered to find that out for yourself for your own frame. The bike industry, in general, as a rule, and this is the same in practically every consumer industry in the world, are not overly concerned with being backwards compatibility to appease a minority of consumers who hate change. Most people came to 650Bs or 29ers or Fat bikes or whatever new thing that's come along by buying entirely new bikes with those features. They did not do it by trying to upgrade their existing bikes because it might be marginally cheaper, or because they refuse to let go of the past.
  • + 8
 @ TEAM ROBOT - it's not that people don't understand what it does or what it is for, it's the collective fatigue from yet another standard that renders their current shit obsolete. It is not a simple matter of swapping end caps...if it was, you'd hear a lot less griping.
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).
  • + 2
 @aoneal: maybe people just have a problem with the loss of value due to #plannedobsolescence
  • + 2
 150 hub works great with 73mm BB on my Banshee Rune, you dont need 83 mm. Reagarding flange spacing, you cant really blame a perfectly fine standard for companies choosing to build sub par hubs. Someone is always going to cheap out.
  • - 3
 Except 150 was never a perfectly fine standard, which is why it was quickly replaced by 157 for most brands with any sort of wisdom. It may have been ok for freeride/DH bikes but it was never the best thing that it could have been.
  • + 7
 @deeeight , 157 is identical hub spacing to 150, but with standardised 3.5mm fittings at each end of the hub and frame, just like 142 is to 135. 157 is more convenient thanks to that, but it's no better or worse than 150 in all other aspects.
  • + 3
 if anything they could've easily adapt current 150/157mm width and simply adjust flanges/chainline, meaning at least there would be some continuity.
  • - 1
 So. is this Boost Hate Club just an off-shoot of the "27.5 is a industry conspiracy to increase sales" club or is it an entirely new group? For now on, if you criticize Boost you need to disclose when you bought your last bike and how much it cost. I bet the hate is proportional to how recently you purchased your "dream" machine. I know, it's hard to not have the sweetest rig during your parking lot parade anymore. Maybe all your crying will get the industry to stop innovating. Well, keep trying.
  • + 3
 @ryan83 you cannot fit a 142 hub in a boost frame to my knowledge. Boost 148 is not just an axel change, the actually hub body is different. I'm sure someone will create an adaptor for the brake mount thought that will make a 142 hub shell work in a boost frame.

The other kicker too is that Boost 148 requires a different crank/spider as well... Can't just swap stuff over.
  • - 7
flag deeeight (Sep 11, 2015 at 18:12) (Below Threshold)
 I know. I've forgotten more hub standards that have existed than anyone else in this debate is likely to have ever even heard of, let alone held an example of.
  • + 3
 @deadtime: I don't "need" anything; I don't owe anyone a thing - but if you want to know, in my case that'd be around 2011/2012, iirc (make of that what you will).

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...
  • + 1
 Sworks Enduro 29er 430mm cs front der. compatible. How did Spesh do it?
  • + 6
 They don't have a lower link...
  • + 8
 *****Le Sigh*****

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...
  • + 1
 @djcrossmax

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
  • + 1
 @khaki Alright, "need" for "should". And I don't claim to know big business, but it's easy enough for me to see that Boost is on 29ers, it's on 29+, it's on 27.5 and 27.5+. If you can't see the future cost savings for consumer and industry than maybe you don't know big business as much as you think. So, for the 7 years I've been riding there has been a group who hated something,... It started with 29ers, then droppers, then the term all-mountain, then 27.5, now the term "enduro" and Boost and anything to do with "plus". 5 yr's ago 30% of the bikes weren't 26", now less than 20% ARE 26". BUT 50% of the naysayers on PB were crying about wheel size, so, I've been conditioned to doubt any crybabies on Pinkbike. BTW, I too have a 2011 (26) also a 2013 (29) and I can't wait to get a 27.5 with Boost.
  • + 0
 Fact is standards may change with time for many reasons, but the way and reason they change isn't necessarily in the benefit of users. So maybe Boost will replace all other hub standards... for a while, that doesn't mean it was demanded, necessary or even an improvement. As it is it seems more of an attempt to fix a flawed standard (29) no one asked for to start with and which, before even establishing itself, is already on the way out... go figure!

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.
  • - 2
 And if you want to know how big business works and what they're really concerned with, all you need is to read this - Trek Bicycle’s Three-Decade History Of Pedaling Around Taxes « Republican Governors Association: www.rga.org/homepage/trek-bicycles-three-decade-history-of-pedaling-around-taxes
  • + 4
 Nobody asked for air-bags or anti-lock brakes or seat belts even. There were an equal number of hard-headed people who scoffed at those ideas as well. And to say 29 is "going away", well, that's not what I see at all. All I see is an equal amount of 29ers and 27.5's. I didn't ask for a dropper but glad I have one. I didn't ask for 29, but my Stache is one of the funnest bikes I've ever ridden. Your what we might call a "negative Nancy". I'm pretty sure there's a reason you can commit so much effort to your "opinion", and I'll just guess it's economic more than anything. Some people might cry about PDK in a Porsche but behind the curtain they're driving a '93 Ford. Is that you?
  • + 0
 Yes, and ironically, it was industry who resisted many of those changes! They didn't want to admit they cars were, has it was so aptly put, "unsafe at any speed"...

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...
  • - 4
flag jclnv (Sep 12, 2015 at 7:41) (Below Threshold)
 650b is dead. 10 minutes on a 650b+ bike will tell you that.
  • + 3
 @khaki your opinions are pretty worthless after a statement like this... "As it is it seems more of an attempt to fix a flawed standard (29) no one asked for to start with and which, before even establishing itself, is already on the way out... go figure!
"

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.
  • + 1
 @khaki In your last reply, the very first sentence... How can you not apply your OWN logic to the Boost issue? This new standard WILL bring costs down AND give riders more options. Your just being pessimistic. Try picturing a 650b for the summer with 30mm width rims with 2.35 tires and just maybe those same rims accepting Plus tires at 3" or slightly bigger to ride hard pack groomed snow. And now going forward almost all 650b and 29 will have Boost on the rear AND front. Meaning LESS standards. I doubt the industry is willing to throw new standards out there as often as you imagine. But the train has already left the station on this one and I'm going to bet this one sticks. Do you know of any lately that haven't? I'm in the same boat you are, waiting to see what's next, and it doesn't look like a 2016 650b will be under me like I had hoped and that's ok, because I'm sure Trek's 2017 Remedy 650b will be amazing and I'll be glad I waited. The bikes just keep getting better, the forks/shocks, drivetrains & brakes, helmets and shoes, it keeps getting exponentially better every year. I'd compare it to the car industry of the mid-late 60's, when stuff got better so fast it was hard to keep up. Times are good bro, I love my 2011 Fuel and can't stop riding it, but I'm looking forward to next fall when the 2017's debut and this Boost issue will be clearer.
  • - 3
 Opinions are just that: opinions, and each and everyone one necessarily fractional; that said, you're entitled to yours as much as anyone else...

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)...
  • + 1
 @khaki Thanks for answering a semi-rhetorical question.

I thought for sure SC would put PF BBs on these new frames since they went with PF BB on the Stigma
  • - 3
 @deadtime: 1st, *that I know* Boost is not a safety matter... 2nd, ultimately any standard is both flawed and fine at the same time, it all depends on what you compare it with.. so, for Boost, let's put it this way: imagine that instead of the brand spanking new(?) 15x110mm front hub standard (which, btw, I'm very fine with, though I suspect you probably can't just put an adapter on a 20x110 hub and use it straight away with the new forks, nor probably a 15x100 hub - or maybe you can, just didn't looked into it yet and it doesn't matter either way), they decided for a 15x105mm standard with different flange widths and brake mounts - what would be the point of that?

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.
  • + 0
 Thanks I was just poking fun at the whole anti-progression stink. I own an Enduro! Of course I knew that! Wink Spesh has some gifted Engineers working for them!
  • - 3
 Boost is only necessary because the industry as a whole decided the bikes they've been selling you for all these decades suddenly no longer (never were?) good for what they've been selling them for, so you now need a new standard (29) - that happened to be so broken and in so many ways it needed to be fixed with yet another new standard, as if that couldn't (shouldn't) have been foretold and avoided - this while at the same time backtracking on it with 27.5 and even going sideways with 29+, 27.5+, 26+ and who know what next - quite a display of technical and marketing competence, if you ask me. Biopace engineers should feel no longer forever alone...

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.
  • + 1
 @khaki just please stop. You have no idea what you're talking about.
  • + 1
 @khaki You just spew. Your completely wrong about Boost and 29ers and 27.5. Your arguments make less sense with every new mesg you post. Your getting nowhere, with me at least. Are you the guy who joked about "enduro" until you found your new cry "boost"? Just give it up dude, and while your at it, change your profile... try honesty.
  • - 1
 @treekilla: Well, enlighten me then; and if it isn't so, then why didn't 29ers (and even 27.5ers) came straight away with boost?

@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...
  • + 1
 @khaki So, again, your argument is baseless. You ask treekilla why 29 & 27.5 didn't come with boost when first used. Well, by the same token, why didn't hydraulic brakes come on the first mtn bike, or 2.35 tires, or full-suspension, or air shock/fork, or carbon fiber, or 1x11, or clutch mech's, or 750mm wide bars, or, on & on & on. Its called innovation. I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't Ted Kascinsky in disquise. Again, the industry doesn't release or debut new standards just for the sake of sales. If Trek did this and it was purely bottom-line motivated don't you think Spesh or Giant would pounce and try to gain sales by crying foul. You sound delusional. You should ban yourself from commenting on Pinkbike for 30 days. C'mon, you really think 3 dozen companies, who spend millions trying to better their competition, all of a sudden colluded on some new standard, that YOU and a few dozen other "26 for life" knuckelheads deem isn't necessary? Get a clue.
  • - 3
 29 (and 27.5) were an industry wide decision, reason why from one year to the next, everyone not only had them, but was pushing them hard; and it couldn't be any other way since no one makes all the parts needed to build a bike to the new standards (ie: frames, wheels, tires), which means it all had to be thoroughly discussed and agreed upon beforehand (well, should've; obviously, it wasn't quite so...). Most of those changes you mention are simply individual manufacturer's (competitive) gambits, not industry wide, and you forgot plenty other that failed so spectacularly - or only succeeded so much later - that everyone forgot about who brought them, but, since I'm the one "spewing" and with "no idea", let's see:

- 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!
  • + 1
 Yep...he's a troll...

"- 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.
  • - 1
 @deadtime: just reread your post and realized you were trying to make different point than I read, but it was late and and I was tired, so I got a bit carried away in a different direction. Still, my point remains that none of those other aspects you mentioned required major changes in the architecture of a bike (except fs, which anyway only implied a change of frame, not anything else, like wheels, etc.) or much if any involvement of 3rd parties on the industry.

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)?
  • + 2
 @khaki you sound stupider than Protour right now. Bikes evolve. We didn't just start out with 29 inch full suspension bikes in the 90ss. Company's like Trek have been working hard to produce the highest preforming mountain bike out there. They go through trial and error, test after test until they finally decide that this is what mountain biking needs. You can't just start with the best, you got to evolve and upgrade as time goes on, technology is only getting better and better each year.
  • - 3
 @deeeight: first, read my post above; second, well, buddy, if that's what you think, you shouldn't be "feeding" me, but since you did and since I'm better than that and don't need ad hominems to try to "win" arguments, here it goes:

- 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.
  • - 1
 @treekilla: thanks, "genius"; it takes one to know one, so your "accolade" really means a lot to me...

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...
  • + 1
 @khaki Sounds like someone boosted a 148 straight up your ass. Get over yourself and deal with the evolution of bikes, boost is here to stay. No body f*cked up on anything, their simply making bikes better. You must have never ridden one, or maybe you have and it was a short trail. Give it a good long term test and you'll notice the difference between 148 and 142. Please just try the bike before you start bitching. If you lived near me I would personally let you borrow my remedy 29 so you can give her a go.
  • - 4
flag khaki (Sep 15, 2015 at 16:22) (Below Threshold)
 Yeah, and just so that you know, I've reported you - way out of line dude.
  • + 1
 Hahahahahahaha tool
  • + 0
 Grow up, punk... and you know where you can boost your remedy.
  • + 1
 Be simpler to take this troll behind the woodshed for some proper therapy involving 3 feet of cherry wood.
  • - 2
 Sorry, baby, not interested in your cherry lmao nor on what goes down behind your "woodshed" with your under-aged friends ...so maybe just blow me instead?
  • + 3
 wah.. "I am going to report you"... wah... l am going to cry to mommy! LOL... I think the only ones we should punish are the cry baby "reporters".
  • + 1
 lol line up, ladies...
  • + 18
 I demand some serious edit of the text @mikekazimer it hurts the remains of my brain to read it sometimes Smile
  • + 61
 That's why there are pretty pictures...
  • + 25
 I directly into a rock garden today.
  • - 2
 Mike for the win
  • + 17
 Waiting for a new Tallboy LTc...
  • + 8
 A Tallboy LTc with these geometry changes is what the SC guys need to do next. I hope they keep the chainstays super short tho
  • + 3
 I believe I heard the tall boy ltc is unavailable at the moment, I'm assuming it's due to a new one getting released soon
  • + 4
 I'm hoping Interbike. Our SC shop said the changes will involve being able to switch between 29 and 27.5+ . . . which is exciting to no one.
  • + 1
 Bronson 29er please.
  • + 1
 @Murph86 I think if they want to, they could make the stays around as short as the Canfield Riot's, seeing as the new VPP bikes are very similar to Canfield's Balance Forumla suspension around the BB area. Compare the lower link and drive-side chainstay on the Canfield Balance to the new Bronson.

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.
  • + 3
 I can't wait to hear about how the Canfeild riot rides..... Looks like an absolute wagon wheel shredder @dlxah.
414mm For a chainstay length is short for any bike let alone a 29er
  • + 16
 And the boost complaints in 3... 2... 1...
  • - 3
 You must not have read the comments up above. LOL! Already started.
  • + 5
 @onemanarmy he posted his comment before all the others....
  • + 4
 pssht... I can't tell time.
  • + 10
 "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." This is so true. I see so many riders riding Nomads where I live and they ride them on blue and green trails only. It's a fun bike but I feel the rider would genuinely enjoy riding the Bronson or 5010 more 90% of all rides.
  • + 4
 I have something somewhere in between a Bronson & a Nomad(150mm rear, 170mm front) & honestly, I'm finding that the new 29er hardtail I built with only 120mm front is more fun on anything I can take it on.
  • + 4
 I agree that a lot of people have overkill bikes but then again most people cannot afford the perfect bike for every situation. The trend is toward "Do-it-all" bikes so if you have a 140-160mm you'll be overbiked for most XC loops and underbiked for some DH resorts but at least you can take it everywhere and have a good time, even if it's almost never perfect for any given spot.
  • + 1
 The nice thing about the the hardtail option is that if you're careful, you can put one together for a song. Most of mine was parts I had lying around from upgrades, a used fork, & a frame for $280. Even if you go a little more expensive on the frame, like a Yelli, it's still not hard to get one together on the cheap.
  • + 2
 @groghunter

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.
  • + 1
 Don't get me wrong though... I would be unhappy if it was the only bike I had. While it is amazing capable, I can still get into trouble with it quite quickly. But it's the perfect complement to a big bike, & helps erase the question of deciding between a 140mm trailbike & a 160mm bike. With the hardtail, I'm no longer wondering if I should get the 140mm, I can get the 160mm confident in the fact that any ride that wouldn't be fun on the 160mm, the hardtail will entertain. It's the perfect second bike, for me.
  • + 7
 $11,443 AUD for a high end Bronson.... c'mon now.

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.
  • + 4
 The Reign is more equivalent to the Nomad. If you think you want a Bronson, you don't want a Reign. If you think you want a Reign, you don't want a Bronson. Trance SX is Giant's option closest to the Bronson.
  • + 4
 "Trance SX is Giant's option closest to the Bronson." And one hell of a ride!
  • + 2
 I had a 2014 trance 27.5 before my SC. I demo'd a ton of bikes including the 5010 v1.

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.
  • + 2
 Once again santacruz pulls it off, awesome bikes
  • + 2
 Santa Cruz has issues with keeping their prices competitive in non-US territories, they're more competitive(if still a bit more expensive) in the states. Hard to compete with the big 3 (Specialized, Trek, Giant) in that respect, they seem to do a better job of keeping their pricing sane worldwide. Similar issues with pricing of European brands in the US, LaPierre, BH, Orbea, for example seem to be much more expensive here.
  • + 1
 The weight of a SC is very impressive as well. While most bikes at that price tend to hover around the 33 lb range, the Bronson comes in at slim 29 lbs. But if you don't care for all of that, they offer so many builds to fit your price-range. You really get what you pay for with Santa Cruz, no BS.
  • + 7
 Hey you all can hate but all I am seeing is 0.3" Shorter chainstays, 1 degree slacker head angles, and 0.5" longer top tubes on both Bronson and 5010... so = more fun. 5010 chainstay reduced to 16.77"!

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.
  • - 1
 What I'm seeing is that the new lower link and drive-side chainstay look an awful lot like the Canfield Balance's lower link and chainstay. I wonder what Santa Cruz has planned for the new Tabllboy LT?? *cough* Canfield Riot *cough*
  • + 8
 This is genius, every bike now looks like a Nomad; the last rites to the saying 'Looks like a Session' have been served, because these bikes 'Look like a Nomad'.
  • - 8
flag 5afety3rd (Sep 11, 2015 at 5:31) (Below Threshold)
 you mean "looks like a v10"
  • + 9
 The Nomad and the V10 look nothing alike.
  • - 1
 the nomad uses a v10 style upper link, a major selling point last year for the redesigned nomad, which trickled down into this.
  • + 4
 It may have the same VPP suspension design but does the Nomad look like a V10? shape and silhouette wise? I don't see the Nomad's rear shock outside the front triangle like the V10.
  • + 6
 In the coming weeks, should anyone pay big $$ for a 142/110 wheelset? I mean, odds are now that you can't take it to the next frame when your current frame is clapped out or cracked. Sure, you could buy your next frame used, but then no warranty. Same goes for a new fork based on 15x100 spec. I'd say that the only way that makes sense is if this stuff is on closeout and is a huge deal over the Boost stuff.

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.
  • + 4
 I had this same thought. I'm hoping this means sometime next year I'll be able to find some "cheap" ENVE 142 wheelsets that are apparently going to be obsolete. I guess one man's trash will be my treasure.
  • + 5
 Random question: Why is the rear triangle like that? like both sides have to be different? One side has a strut to support, while the other one doesn't? I've seen these kinds of rear triangles on trek and some other brands too.

Sorry for the very noobish question, still not familiar with the different kinds of layouts.
  • + 11
 Basically you dont need it on the drive train side, because its strong enough. Plus the fact it will not fit on drive train side, because there is no space due to chain line. You have to see the bike from different angle to realize the tubes are in a bit different angles too so it all makes sense Smile And also it saves the weight.
  • + 1
 well for the type of riding the bike is made for the triangle doesn't need to have both side's with the support . so they just make it without one on the drive side to keep it clean around the drive train and also lighten the frame up a bit .
  • + 2
 My guess would be shorter stays while still keeping an FD
  • + 4
 The drive side (i.e. the right side) of the rear triangle often does not have a strut connecting the seatstay and chainstay because it gets in the way of the chain.
  • + 2
 I think, thats its because the non-drive side can be built to be as strong as possible, which, if you did the same shape on the drive side the chain would be against the chainstay, so they compromise rigidity ever so slightly so that there are no complications with chainlines.
  • + 2
 I think I kinda get it now. Also i noticed that these kinds of rear triangles are mostly on "floating" rear suspensions (if that's the right term.) I thought adding that strut was kinda pointless if they made the seat stays and chain stay a little bit thicker.

thanks for the answers guys Smile
  • + 1
 Brake stresses on the non-drive side of the rear triangle demand some extra love in the form of the "strut". Same reason the disc side of the hub is typically larger diameter....

So glad they finally tucked in the lower link. Wish Intense would do the same....
  • + 2
 Without the strut the rear end would collapse and as the links provide lateral stiffness for the rear triangel, all that is needed is a pull/push rod between the links.
  • + 0
 Other short link brands like Pivot and Giant manage to have fully-braced rear triangles that one has to guess are stiffer than the single-side supported Santa Cruz style.
  • + 2
 Also this has been around for a while. The Blur carbons also had the asymmetric design.
  • + 1
 It's primarily designed that way to save weight. Compare to the Nomad which has struts on both sides for more strength & stiffness (which is appropriate given its longer travel and rowdier intentions).
  • + 3
 @loloTHUNDAH The reason you don't see this on a lot of other suspension designs is that most suspension designs have a pivot near the rear axle, which require the stays to be able to move independently of each other.
  • + 7
 Great write-up Mike. A question....Santa Cruz 5010, or Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt BC Edition? Both seem to have the same intention...
  • + 1
 santa cruz
  • + 1
 Rocky Mountains look so flexy with that long, unsupported seat stays with no bracing connected to a tiny linkage. Maybe they somehow figured it out, but it sure looks like it's flex all over the place.
  • + 1
 sosspeedy.....i was wondering the same thing .... rocky or santa cruz? i've been on santa cruz for a long time , but that bc edition is really turning my head, with the new changes to the 5010, it is even more similar? anybody ride both?
  • - 1
 Dthomp325 i am not sure what you are getting at...the SC seat stay design and linkage is very similar to RM's. If one "flexes all,over the place", then so would the other. RM has been building their bikes like that for a long time, and getting great reviews, so i dont think flex is an issue. Woulld be good to see a head-to-head test of these two bikes.
  • + 3
 They aren't anything alike. SC has a full triangle, fully connected on one side, chainstays and seatstays are one piece with no pivot, and two linkages. The seatstays on RMs are completely independent. They are not connected to either the chainstays, each other, or the bottom linkage. They are connected only by the top linkage, and two indepent pivots that depend entirely on the rear axle for structural support.
  • + 2
 The Santa Cruz uses a one-piece, braced rear triangle. The RM uses 2 independent seatstays that are not connect to each other and instead are held together only at the pivots and rely on the rear axle to resist rotating independently. Other companies that use fsr at least add a brace to connect the seat stays together as a single piece.
  • + 4
 I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but...bottom brackets have gotten seriously too low for a pedal bike. Do they ride these bikes anywhere with rocks? 13.1 inches? I'm riding a bike with a 13.2" bb height and I'm struggling to clean stuff I used to on my previous bike with ease. That had a 13.7 inch BB and I thought it was a nice compromise. I never felt like I couldn't rail corners on it. I was just as fast down and it was so much easier to clear rocky climbs. Even with a high engagement hub and lots or ratcheting, my new bike is still a struggle to get up some of the same stuff. I walk a lot more climbs now and smash my pedals way more often. I'm not sure why the 5010 has a lower BB height than the longer travel Bronson, but that seems backwards for a bike that's supposed to be more cross-country oriented. At least the Bronson is 13.4 I guess.
  • + 6
 The lower BB height on a shorter travel bike is because there's less suspension movement to deal with - out on the trail, your bottom bracket gets closer to the ground when the suspension compresses.
  • + 3
 You know that point where someone states the obvious and you're like...? I get that. I know there's a difference between sagged and unsagged as well. I'm just saying, it's still low for a bike that's aimed at more cross country riding. Super low BBs kinda suck in Colorado I'm discovering... =/
  • + 8
 You know what...that was a jackass comment on my part. Completely understandable that you couldn't judge my bike knowledge over the internet. You were just trying to help. I retract my previous statement.
  • - 2
 My bike has a 12.6" BB height. I never hit anything. I run a 1x 32 tooth without a guide. Unless you have something like a Giant, you just have to know how to manage your pedals and crank...
  • + 1
 @pball19ac What kind of travel do you have on that 12.6" high bike?
  • + 3
 I always love the "you just have to know how to..." posts. It doesn't matter how good you are at ratcheting or technical climbing. Run a low BB in chunky terrain and you're bound to hit sometimes. Even if you don't, it's far more work than pedaling hard and not having to worry about it. I'm not saying I don't like low bottom brackets, but I personally think the modern crop of trail and "enduro" bikes have gone too far for a bike that's meant to be ridden up as well as down. Unless your trails are all buff singletrack where you live, then you probably don't care.
  • + 1
 I have a Blur 4x, 115mm in the rear with a fox dhx air and a 160mm talas on the front. I live in Truckee California, we have a shit ton of rocks. My crank arms are pretty beat but its from brushing up against stuff or rocks coming up off my tires. I honestly never hit my pedals on stuff. I think some of it has to do with pedal awareness and not being tired...
  • + 3
 @mikekazimer Ok, I clearly missed a trick here... I thought all the cool guys run Maxxis Minion DHF on front and rear, but the Bronson and Nomad are running Minion DHR 2 on front and rear!

When did that happen?! Is it even grippier than a DHF?
  • + 2
 DHF is great in dry terrain, but but doesn't have great traction as a rear for climbing or wetter conditions.
  • + 4
 Minion DHR2 is the best all around tire Maxxis produces. Awesome braking traction combined with the corner knobs of the DHF. And it still rolls somewhat decent.
  • + 1
 Minnaar seems to think the DHR2 is OK, on both ends.
  • + 2
 DHR2 is a great tire, on the front, as well.
  • + 1
 I am running DHR II front and rear on my Nomad with Ibis Wheels.. these tires just grip! I ride on loose and rocky stuff and so far I have not washed out the front end yet.
  • + 1
 I actually [shockingly O_O] run the tire setup the way it was designed and it's working really well for me. The old DHR sucked, but the DHF front with DHR II rear is an awesome setup for an all mountain bike.
  • + 1
 DHR II's are awesome but I prefer to just have one in the front and something that rolls a little better in the back like a HR II. Makes for a pretty sweet combo.
  • + 1
 @JayTierney A HR II rolls better than a DHR II in the back???

Which compounds? A maxxpro HR II rolls faster than a 3C maxxterra DHR II i would agree.
  • + 0
 I am hoping every gets past the first grade, and it's ok to wear a skirt! Think function over looks... Pink and skirts might look gay, but they function great! right? And besides... what's wrong with being gay? Nothing wrong with being gay or riding gay colors... you guys are making too much of a big deal over this!
  • + 7
 Why is Santa Cruz still using IS brake mounts instead of postmount?
  • + 0
 I think it is a great thing, if your 135x12 or 142x12 hub accepts 148mm spacers, the only thing you have to do is to center your caliper on the rotor with longer bolts and some shims.
  • + 2
 And Hope has also a six bolt rotor spacer.
  • + 3
 @catsick, the spacer goes between the hub flanges, right?
  • + 2
 You would have to dish the wheel to, as you couldn't space the drive side
  • + 2
 And the spoke tension would be almost even on both sides after dishing the wheel, and this make more sense than uneven wider spaced flanges(boost).
  • + 7
 Really hard to destroy the thread on IS mounts as it doesn't have any. Good design decision.
  • + 5
 So anyone else goes Boost on the rear end and the comments just freaking blow up, but SC does it and everyone is mum?
  • + 1
 My thoughts exactly.

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 Wink
  • + 2
 So Santa Cruz did a deal with SRAM to get a killer deal on the full OEM component suite. All they had to do was embrace 148mm. Would have been great if any of that savings was passed on to the end consumer, but all the profit goes right in to the pockets of Santa Cruz' Dutch owners. Same deal they have SRAM brakes too.
  • + 1
 Shimano supports Boost 148 as well.
  • + 2
 That pocket in front of the wheel looks like a nice little mud trash compactor. On my 5010 the dirt and rocks fall through when the suspension depresses. I've had a rock get stuck between the frame and linkage on my older 5010, but one good hop and it fell right out leaving only a small scratch in the linkage powder coat. But this looks like dirt would catch and even compact until the rear triangle is kept from moving at all. It wouldn't even take much dirt, just one little rock. The Nomad has a similar design but the rear triangle almost totally covers the linkage. Or maybe I am totally wrong and this just never happens.
  • + 3
 I'm glad the blue 5010 looks tasteful, but SC has gone the way with Giant of making their bikes look like kids toys. Hope the mtb industry hasn't run out of ideas after going stiffer, slacker, longer and boostier
  • + 1
 Okay what? Explain your comment please.
  • + 4
 The glossy, bright colours really compares itself to my old duplo play-set. I was not a lego kid
  • + 2
 wine + coke is what they refer to with the name of the pinky color of the bronson....
  • + 2
 I have been so disappointed with SC colors past few years. Enough with the pastels easter egg colors please.
  • + 2
 Stoked! After slaying it on my reverse mullet Blur 4x for 9 years now I think SC has finally made a bike I am willing upgrade to. 2015 Bronson was too tailored to the 5" crowd and Nomad was too slow on long climbs. The change to boost 148 sucks for a lot of people but not when you're coming from a 135mm bolt on! I do feel bad for bike shops with existing inventory of bikes and components. Hopefully they are still around in the next 5 years... This bike should be tits! Will definitely reverse mullet this puppy to 160mm though.
  • + 0
 How is your 4x setup?
  • + 2
 FOX 36 Talas, 1x10 xtr and xt combo, King hubs, king bb and headset, original saint brakes, dropper post, etc. Love that bike.
  • + 2
 Just bought a 160 Fox 36 and an EVOL'd Float X for my '15 Bronson... It still crushes trails and not leaving my garage. The new linkage design to match the Nomad is pretty rad. Kudos for keeping threaded BB's.
  • + 1
 How much of an improvement are you noticing with the Fox 36? Just that much more stable? Assuming you had the 150 pike or sektor gold on there before? or Fox 32?
  • + 3
 Went from a Pike 160 to the Float RC2 36 (2015). Yeah, the fox feels more planted on the front end and more mid-support. The pike tended to dive hard into hard braking. Fox lets you tune the LSC and HSC to make it smoooooooth!
  • + 1
 Funny thing is.... I've ALWAYS ignored traditional frame sizes. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've had bike shops tell me I need a bigger bike. I've always preferred lower longer bikes with more reach. That goes back to when I raced BMX. I always looked for the longest reach bikes with short chain stays. Part of the reason I used to stick with Redline's long models. I'm glad to see that it's becoming something that the bike industry is embracing as a large part of frame size selection.
  • + 1
 Like! Only request would be 1x specific and be cool if rear was fully triangulated like the Nomad for additional rear end stiffness. Maybe boost makes up for that by making the back end a bit stiffer laterally. I am on a 14' Bronson (all stealth black) with -1 degree Works angleset, nice 142x12 NOX carbon/King wheels and upgraded suspension with similar geometry as v2.0 with only 1/4" longer stays, 1/2" shorter WB, reach, top tube. Other than that, geo is about the same. I do like the revised upper link that looks like it doesn't place as much load on upper link bearing (mine always goes to pot in about 4 months or so of hard use) and newer upper link looks to be stiffer as well. The recessed lower link is nice as well. But, overall not enough for me to give up $3k for another frame and have to buy new cranks, rear wheel for Boost even though I get the advantages over 142x12. Definitely makes sense for 29 wheels.
  • + 1
 As of right now the first comment has 148 positive props. I was going to give the comment a positive prop when I realized that it said that they will stick with the 142 mm spacing rather than the new 148 mm boost spacing. Totally ironic!
  • + 1
 I have a 2015 5010 carbon c. I've popped my fork to 140 and have a shorter stem and 740 carbon bars. Rides like a dream. Very capable bike. I feel like a Bronson is a trendy choice, and the 5010is more of an logical choice; makes more sense for people who don't live in downyville. Either way, both great bikes.
  • + 1
 I'm curious how that bike rides with the bigger fork you installed, as I demoed a 5010, & was thoroughly unimpressed. Not the travel, really, but the geometry felt very twitchy & "on top of the bike" like.
  • + 1
 As of right now the first comment has 148 positive props. I was going to give the comment a positive prop when I realized that it said that they will stick with the 142 mm spacing rather than the new 148 mm boost spacing. Totally ironic!
  • + 5
 5010 stock w/ Minion DHR2 front and Ardent rear - Respect!
  • + 5
 5010 or transition scout? hmmmm
  • + 5
 scout by a mile
  • + 4
 Scout
  • + 2
 100% a scout
  • - 23
flag GetMounted (Sep 11, 2015 at 4:14) (Below Threshold)
 I see bike in girl color on MY trail I fight them. no one can do such on trail I build. I build big jumps on my trail no need for girl bike
  • + 14
 ^Do you piss on other bikes to mark your territory?
  • - 10
flag GetMounted (Sep 11, 2015 at 4:26) (Below Threshold)
 no I piss in toilet. why piss bike?
  • + 1
 Kalimotxo...... you mean bright Barbie girl pink
  • + 1
 GetMounted? ...not likely...
  • + 4
 I ride a 5010 and my twin brother rides a Scout. We live in different states and got together recently and rode each others bikes. VERY similar feeling. Either way is good. I bet the new 5010 is even closer to the Scout. I would say XC type riding the 5010 has a slight edge and tech downhill stuff the Scout has a slight edge. Both are super fun.
  • - 13
flag GetMounted (Sep 11, 2015 at 6:35) (Below Threshold)
 you need fight? ok let do it boy
  • + 3
 I bought a Scout and sold both Santa Cruz bikes I had....in my opinion SC suspension has nothing on the Giddy Up. The Scout is a VERY capable bike and a super fun ride!
  • + 2
 I've been going back and forth between the 5010 and the scout as well. With the updates made to the 5010 I think I'll probably go 5010. But quite honestly... it'll come down to who I get the better deal from. LOL!
  • + 2
 GteMounted is funny! How the hell did this guy get so many dislikes? You girls are way too sensitive and too serious!
  • + 2
 I thank you much. you kind man to me ok
  • + 6
 Bromance^
  • + 2
 What is wrong with Bromance? I know a real man when I see his words on the internet... everyone that gave him a dislike are women! Will you be my friend GetMounted???
  • + 1
 What, because he threatens to assault people? Anyway, I'm winding you up, don't be such a girl Wink
  • + 4
 do not call people girls as insult. it not fair to a man to say he like girl. if my girl look like man I fight him ok. I no sleep with man ok
  • + 5
 lolwhat?!
  • + 4
 wtf, that's some funny shit
  • + 3
 Pretty funny huh? These two just made my day, especially GetMounted.
  • + 3
 for realz man! these Santa Cruz colors are gay! yes they may be functional, but so is a skirt! a skirt is also functional and FYI... a skirt is also gay! I don't think GetMounted threatened anyone until they threatened him.. he was just saying these are girl colors.. and they are!
  • + 5
 I agree many time ok
  • + 1
 It looks like the new lower link setup is going to be even worse in muddy conditions than the previous layout. It seems like the recess for the link is just going to pack up with mud and crunch gravel into the frame....
  • + 0
 THere is a simple way to slacken the head angle on the original Bronson; ditch the crap 2013 Fox 34 FIT 150mm(which was unfortunately spec'd on the one I purchased in April 14) and replaced it with a 160mm Pike. Not only is the travel length and quality increased, the higher crown height slackens the head angle.
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.
  • + 3
 @mikekazimer - Do my eyes deceive me, or are they now offering an Industry Nine hub with Enve rim option?!
  • + 1
 You're correct - i9 Torch hubs are included in the XX1 and XTR build kits laced to either Easton or ENVE rims.
  • + 3
 Say what you will about the colors, it's nice to see that glossy is back in style
  • + 2
 Kalimotxo... with the specific spelling from the Basque Country (it would be calimocho elsewhere), where the infamous drink is actually popular...interesting.
  • + 2
 Wine with cola ? People really drink that ?
  • + 2
 Its a way to make the shitty cheap boxed Spanish wine fun
  • + 3
 enduro/am rigs seem to be getting just a little bit slacker every year, at this rate I'll be hyped to pick one up in 2020.
  • + 3
 Can someone give me a boost? I can barely see all the Bull$hit up in here!
  • + 1
 Both bikes are drop dead sexy! Santa Cruz nailed these once again! I love my Bronson a lot and can only imagine how much better the new one is. I wish I had a local shop near me to demo one Frown
  • + 0
 2 years late on fixing that lower link of the Bronson, now is too late to purchase it since I already bought another bike. Maybe next time. But this time it will be between the Nomad and the Enduro, or other aggressive riding bike
  • + 3
 How much slacker, lower, longer does it get? Eventually we'll be all riding downhill bikes.
  • + 14
 A DH rig you can efficiently pedal, that's the dream.
  • + 0
 Most modern DH rigs do pedal efficiently, it's mostly just the geo keeping you from riding it uphill.
  • + 35
 The longer you stay on the internet, and the less you ride, the more you'll believe that 90% of your riding is downhill, and that you're an Enduro god that needs a long and slack trail bike.
  • + 0
 Pedaling DH bikes uphill is not hard. As long as you dont lose momentum you should be fine
  • + 4
 The new Bronson has increased small bike sensitivity, that's sweet.
  • + 2
 How about dimensions of a rear shock, remains the same on Bronson II? 200x57

Alu in 2016? Poor guys must wait!
  • + 2
 I stayed up late for this. So happy right now. Where are the other colors though?
  • + 2
 @mikekazimer, I get a not available error when trying to view the larger version of the photos
  • + 1
 * not found error
  • + 1
 i was just reading the other article about juliana bikes where it says the chinese factory got mixed up and placed the juliana stickers on the sc and sc stickers on juliana?!
  • + 1
 Rode one today. honestly astounded by how mch fun it is to ride and how much better it is than the Mk1. And thats wasn't a bad bike at all.
  • + 4
 pink bike on Pinkbike!
  • + 1
 What is the actual difference between a C and CC frame...better Carbon fibre but both still have lifetime warranty and weigh the same?? anyone know?
  • + 3
 CC uses a more expensive carbon fibre which equates to about 230g in weight savings. C frames are offered as a complete only as well.
  • + 2
 C frames in complete builds don't generally go to the same level of spec as the cc frames either, it's all about offering a cheaper bike for the consumer
  • + 1
 haven't read the article yet, but is this the end of aluminum for the 5010 and Bronson? Following the footsteps of the nomad? Just curious...
  • + 2
 nope coming in the spring
  • + 2
 Makes me wonder what's next for the Nomad if the Bronson is creeping further that way.
  • + 1
 Another ride coming stock with DHR II's front and rear... Haven't tried that combo. Might have to, especially if a 27.5x2.4 EXO comes out.
  • + 1
 I was hoping for that too but 2.4 & 2.5 Minions are the new DD casing so a little heavier.
  • + 0
 Ok its not the bigger axle spacing that kills me, it just pisses me off that they don't go another 2 F**king mm and so we can just throw DH hubs on them instead of some proprietary 148 wtf?
  • + 1
 Santa Cruz color name´s are a joke! Kalimotxo= half wine half cola...Santa Cruz speaks Castellano very well, it´s half spanish brand...
  • + 1
 240 post about a bike which didnt change much...really?? Is bad weather out there?? Nothing better to do??
  • + 1
 I guess this means something kalimotxo and yellow is going to arrive in my mailbox this month.
  • + 2
 What's up with the Fox and Rockshox suspension combo?
  • + 2
 Juliana = Santa Cruz? it`s the same ?!
  • + 1
 Yeah "womens" specific. Different bars, seat and color scheme...
  • + 2
 It's the same... but different... yet still the same...
  • + 2
 Sure I heard that somewhere, something to do with Thailand... 'Same same.. But different'.
  • + 1
 I actually don't mind the pink "pepto bismol" color. It's the yellow and pepto color combination that's too much!!!
  • + 1
 The Tallboy LTc is no longer on their website. Anybody know if a redesign is in the works.
  • + 2
 5010...................................................
  • + 1
 People complain too f#cking much, buy it great , don't buy it great. Good job Santa Cruz, new 2016 bikes are on fire.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer do you know the frame/complete bike weight for the Bronson? Thanks.
  • + 2
 on the website
  • + 1
 yeah saw that after I posted the comment. thanks!
  • + 2
 Threaded! Almost enough to make me forgive the boost. Almost.
  • + 2
 I'm wondering if Santa Cruz is going to update the Tallboy LTc?
  • + 2
 Early next year.
  • + 2
 I wonder what will happen to the Aluminum version?
  • + 2
 will there sill be an aluminum version
  • + 1
 The website formerly known as PinkBike may now be found under the new www. pinkpike. com domain.
  • + 1
 "Sleazy neon gaudiness"? Thanks for visiting the casinos downtown, Mike, and for the needless jab at Reno.
  • - 2
 Shorter chain stay Check 31,6mm seat post dia check Longer reach. Check Black option. Check Threaded bb Check Boost No thanks Not going to buy another wheel set.
  • + 1
 I love the new Bronson! It looks like such an epic bike to ride, I need to get one!
  • + 1
 148x12...really. Honestly the update was have been a slam dunk until I read that.
  • + 0
 The Bronson numbers (like a lot of other bikes) have moved closer to the Kona Process 153; albeit 2 years later. Well done.
  • + 0
 My Kona 153DL AND my wifes stumpy both have way shorter chainstays (without boost) but whatever SC.
  • + 1
 I am just excited for an aluminum nomad to come out. .
  • + 1
 where did it say that?
  • + 2
 It didn't, I'm just saying that I hope Santa Cruz releases an aluminum version. .
  • + 3
 gotcha, Bike.com did say they are still going to make aluminum versions of the new Bronson and 5010 coming out later in the year. So maybe they will do an aluminum Nomad too? But you'd think they would have already released it last year if they were ever going to?

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!
  • + 2
 BONER ALERT
  • + 1
 so... there wasn't enough pink on the previous year's Bronson?
  • + 1
 I like the next sl protector sticker thing.. A lot less loud.
  • + 1
 Falling rate, say 2:8 to 2:3, is progressive Wink
  • + 1
 Bronson looks aggressive. Second color option though?
  • + 2
 Look at the gallery or read the article. Black and grey.
  • + 1
 must have updated the article. The grey and black one wasn't there when I first looked.
  • - 1
 Trend is going slacker so that next year they can build a more "aggressive" HT angle which has improved steering response without compromising too much downhill performance.
  • + 2
 that pink ......
  • - 1
 The new look epic, I do feel that the INTENSE Spider 275 is a way better version of what the 5010 is trying to achieve. better numbers for stability and speed
  • + 1
 Great bike but so expensive.
  • + 1
 My Bullit was obe of the best bikes I had so the Nomad is in my sight
  • + 1
 Just a little heads up, it's not "Madiera" it's "Madeira".
  • + 1
 cool
  • + 1
 The colors look great.
  • - 3
 Longer and slacker is the trend but everyone forgets you actually gotta go uphill over technical and steeps.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't a dropper for the most part eliminate the need for LS geo ?
  • + 9
 Not at all. You still want to drop the chair to lower your centre of gravity. And long bikes let you run a short stem and not be sitting bolt upright. Short stems and long frames lets the rider keep the weight in between the wheels whereas a short stem and frame will put a rearward bias when a rider gets back on a steep trail.
  • + 3
 ^^ This guy explains it well.
  • + 5
 It's the dropper that makes LS frames viable. With a slacker bike you have to lean the bike over more to get it to turn. If seat is raised, it's in the way, or you're leaning with the bike, which isn't generally a good idea. That's why people can get away with rigid seatposts on steep XC bikes, but droppers are pretty much required to get the most out of a LS geo bike. Slack geo was never a problem on DH bikes, because they just have the seat dropped all the time.
  • + 0
 The colors man
  • - 2
 I feel like nobody knows how to design a good looking color scheme any more.
  • + 4
 Wait, did you see the black/gray one? That's subtle, stealthy, and seriously badass looking. I love it.

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.
  • - 3
 Please friends of pinkbike, i'm about t buy a new bike, SPECIALIZED ENDURO ELITE 650b or TREK SLASH 8 ????
Both are 2016
  • + 1
 I'd say enduro
  • + 6
 Probably a stinky
  • + 2
 Magma's are great
  • - 1
 New frame+new rear wheel, no thanks
  • - 3
 Agreed @dchill. The industry can f**k off with a new axle standard every 6 months..
  • + 0
 Oh so gangster
  • - 2
 148x12? Wtf man really?
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.153103
Mobile Version of Website