Riding For those of you who read my
Commencal Supreme DH review recently, I share many of the same feelings with this bike, and it's hard not to re-write that review as they are very similar machines. Like I have said many times, I am a big fan of high-pivot designs, especially for downhill riding and flat pedal pilots. The way these bikes simply melt away the bumps is unreal, and having your feet planted on the pedals however hard and fast you attack is hard to go back from.
I also love the way the suspension sits into the travel when braking; I prefer the bike's geometry to be preserved under braking even if it is said to be not as effective. I find you will end up with more grip on the back wheel, which helps the back wheel to slow down. If your body weight and geometry are staying in a more central position, you can then also brake harder on the front wheel, again, helping you slow down faster. If you can slow down faster, you can brake later and save time. I took a trip to the park purely to test this characteristic and found that the Norco will out-grip and out-brake the Trek Session (which has its 'Active Braking Pivot') as well as the Cube Stereo. I think that even though the suspension is inhibited, the high pivot and lack of pedal kickback gives a more active ride and grip.
The frame did feel stiffer and harsher than the Commencal Supreme DH, and I think this is could potentially be due to me being outside of the range of the 'Size Scaled Tubing.' Making the frame stiffer as the size increases is a great idea, and the opposite of what happens with alloy frames, which will generally have more flex in the larger sizes due to the longer tubing and bigger triangles. At only 75 kilograms, I think I would find a more forgiving and smoother ride by choosing a smaller frame size from Norco. Norco say they don't have recommended rider weights, and getting the right size and fit is the most important; the increased stiffness should be the icing on the cake.
The Norco's suspension system seems to have a more progressive than curve than the Commencal, meaning better performance taking on big hits, but it didn't feel like there was as much mid-stroke support, so the bike rode slightly lower in the travel when it's up to speed. The Commencal seems to generate speed slightly better when pumping than the Norco, but it is slightly easier to lift the front wheel on the Norco.
On rough off-cambers when you want maximum traction, the Norco outperforms any four-bar bike I've tested, but it doesn't quite have the grip the Commencal offers. However, the Norco is more planted in corners than the Commencal when grip isn't at as much of a premium due to the lower ride height. Switching between corners and directional changes are slightly faster on the Andorran rig due to the higher bottom bracket and ride height, but we're talking fractions at most.
The headtube angle is set at 62.5º, and I did experience some vibration from the front of the bike, this is something I've also noticed with another 29" DH bike going under the 63º mark. On fast and flat or mellow terrain with stutter bumps, a classic feature of bike parks, the fork feels as if it's bending and sticking more than sliding up and down, as it should. As a trail becomes steeper, this issue disappears. Maybe the longer 29" forks at full travel, combined with the long offset and slack headangle are over their limits?
(Have ridden the new Fury now and it works very well.)
I want to try the fury, it looks like a sick bike
Also should it be called the: hhfbl?
Half high four bar linkage
I understand that it is all about fitting a large range of rider heights but when a guy @ 6’1” needs that many spacers you know they got it wrong. Not sure when these guys will figure out geo for taller riders. ????
@jclnv @mollow I should've bought a L or XL V10C. Bike feels like a children's bike after my G16. Also LOL@ tall AF people not buying a Geometron or Pole frame then taking to the web to complain.
I found some nifty reach/stack/stem angle calculator that shows how little the numbers change.
Aston really annoys me and his bias toward idler pulleys and high pivots really shows but I really enjoy these detailed write ups and appreciate the honest review.
But yeah, above 6 grand you should get real hubs like I9 or 240's.
The bike companies, as always are screwing us. In Norco's defense, this is an extremely low volume bike with expensive carbon construction and it's not going to have a long shelf life. (this is not a park bike they can keep around for a while, it's a race bike that needs constant updates) They need to cut costs and get profit where they can.
how did it feel like in the air? thanks homie.
Would be nice to steepen it a bit for flatter trails and tracks.
Does someone happen to know why the Supreme SX has disappiared in favor of the new Clash?
I guess they can use lockouts?
There's some suspiciously unmarked bikes that have been looking eerily similar to the HSP showing up at local BC races...
No idea about the 29er issue tough...
1. Why 29" bikes had problems in MSA? Do they ride on their own, or are they "piloted" by someone?
2. Which of top riders crashing were on high pivot bikes? Thank you...
I am a troll and I don't ride but something tells me that given minute differences between all those bikes, it's pretty much about the rider not the bike. Some facts here... Minnie and Bulldog were NOT on high pivot bikes. Each one of them has taken tricky inside lines on the right hander which was a make it or break it choice. If you look at the demeanor and general stance of the winners you'd get a clue or two that those dudes (apart from being freaking amazing) had a god damn good day. and BTW high pivot SINGEL PIVOT 29er won the overall one race before it's over.
You see the problem with this wheelsize debate bullshit is that many of you guys look at it as Dude A on 275 and Dude B on 29, which bike is faster? That is a ridiculous comparison given the dominating human factor. The only way you can look at it is Dude A on 275 and Dude A on 29. And I guarantee you that there is less time difference to be made in that arrangement than in Dude A and Dude B on same bikes.
I mean, it will sound harsh from a troll but... do you even ride? Because if you did ride different kinds of bikes with different kinds of people, did some timed runs, raced a bit, how could you spew such nonsense? For instance: Waki on 275 160 bike vs Jon Session 29 - Jon (at one time semi pro) is f*cking gone, he is goooone. In s-e-c-o-n-d-s. Waki on 275 160 bike vs Martin on Slash 29 - I am hang on behind him, no problem. Kos behind me on Enduro 29 is hanging on, no problem but not really pushing me. Waki on 275 Anti Dark Matter DH behind Jan on 26 Lifeline DH. Waki is kind of hanging on but not really. What do we get out of that? As long as we remain in relatively comparable equipment level B.I.K.E.D.O.E.S.N.O.T.M.A.T.T.E.R. Keep whatever you have, get whatever you want. It will not make you faster/slower any more but by a second or two.
get that’s its a preference things. and comes down to rider ‘s skills. It becomes a problem when they stop offering the option to go for a smaller wheel... which is currently happening if you havent notice.If I want to buy the most performance oriented, racing bike from Norco ( never in a 100years btw) I have to go with the big wheels... Same for SantaCruz, Trek and many others.
There has never been a chance to test 29" wheels on DH bikes, so companies are using the opportunity to do it. They have always wanted to do it but Fork and tyre makers were not getting into it.
Finally, as I wrote above one has to always weigh a particular potential improvement against himself and only himself. You on 275 vs you on 29 is what matters and please remember how hard it is to measure it. Are you that good, that you can deliver consistent timed runs? If you ride one bike for 10 laps and your results are spread by 5 seconds per minute of track, you simply cannot use it as any good measure. So in reality what you are buying is an impression of being faster as if there was a paralell universe where everything is literally the same but you are riding the older bike and you are this tiny bit slower. And it goes the other way around too, look at Down Country, people buy shorter travel bikes thinking this will make them more skilled riders and will make them climb faster. It's all an illusion.
www.instagram.com/p/BY3SwSynhUo/?taken-by=saehatakeyama
www.pinkbike.com/news/riding-the-trek-session-29-2017.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/its-alive-santa-cruz-reveals-the-v10-29er-2017.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/which-wheel-size-is-faster-with-vanderham-and-gauvin-video.html
Its called marketing, if these arent commercials to you , Im not sure what is ?The intend of these is CLEARLY to sell new bikes.
You're actually proving my point with your comment, this is purely based on marketing and not reality for 99% of us riders.
As much as we all knows fraction of a second matters a lot for DH racing, a clear advantage would have to be much more than 2-3 seconds...Minaar could fart, miss his line and end up 2-3 seconds behind. If 29er repeatedly 10-15 seconds quicker , I'd have to say they provide a SMALL advantage for the top riders but they arent and never will be .
The problem with the bike industry is all the hypocrisy behind it.Just because they dont want to spend money developing and producing both platforms , it shouldnt automatically mean that one is better than the other.A large majority of riders are like lemmings..They like to follow trends, buy the latest, coolest gear.They dont their own research or experimentations and are buying all that bs they are being fed wit...Its absurd to think a wheel slightly bigger is a technological advancement.Its just a god damn wheel! wWhere it'll float better, it'll also make it harder to pump and generate more speed..pros and cons.
Why do you think we are still stuck with derailleurs? Money.No its not what most insiders, paid by bike companies ( Pinkbike anyone ? ;-) ) or manufacturers wants us to believe.It has nothing to do with WEIGHT. They have found a good gimmick to sell cheaply produced parts.
Seen the latest trend of e-bikes ? Heavy has shit but yet , some people love em and manufacturers arent talking about the 50 +pounds weight. that comes with those things.Gimme a bunch of options of 35 pounds trail bike with a GEAR BOX that wont get smashed on a rock, wont need to get replace 5 times a year, wont require maintenance and Id be happy ...That would be true advancement...a wheel size ? lol gimme a break !
(Hey! @Franzzz! Don't be trying to claim all the best brands for Canada... )
Why do people insist in defending aluminium?
Does carbon cost more than alloy? Sure. Is it for everyone? No. (But neither are Porsche's, Ferraris or Ducatis) Are alloy bikes good deal for the $$? Sure. However, the BS that somehow carbon has any less longevity with respect to normal use than alloy is laughable. Ride what you like, can afford. Bashing something else because you don't like it, can't afford it, or isn't your 'style' is such childish bullshit. NONE of us 'need' multi thousand $$ bikes of any kind. We are big kids on expensive toys. Why be a complainer? Why bitch about more choices? Don't like it, don't buy one
When it comes to reusability and recycling, aluminium is obviously superior, and, like you said, it is also cheaper.
Aluminium is not much more reliable in case of direct impacts to the frame, but it is better to have a deformed frame when you're in the middle of nowhere than one that's broken in half (cuz you can't ride half a bike all the way back home)