Norco Range 9.2 - First Ride

Feb 22, 2017
by Mike Kazimer  



It was less than a month ago that Norco launched their updated Sight trail bike, but the Canadian company doesn't show any signs of slowing down, and they've now released the details of the revised Range, their venerable all-mountain / enduro bike.

The bike grows longer and slacker for 2017, but it's the addition of a 29” wheeled version that will undoubtedly turn some heads. The big-wheeled option has 150mm of rear travel paired with a 160mm fork up front, while the 27.5” version has 160mm of rear travel and 170mm up front. Both versions have a carbon front triangle and seat stays, and aluminum chainstays are found on all models.
Norco Range Details
• Intended use: all-mountain / enduro
• Wheel size: 27.5" or 29" options available
• Rear wheel travel: 160mm (27.5"), 150mm (29")
• 65º (27.5") or 65.5º (29") head angle
• Frame material: carbon front triangle and seat stays, aluminum chainstays
• Metric shock sizing
• Boost hub spacing
• MSRP: $4249 - $7399 USD (complete bikes) / $2899 USD (frame w/ Fox Float X2),
www.norco.com

What exactly does it mean when a bike is described as being 'enduro ready'? Well, according to Owen Pemberton, Norco's senior design engineer, the Range “can take crashes. It can take being thundered through rocks and roots. That's what this bike is designed to handle.” In order to achieve their goal of creating a reliable, dependable bike, many of the new Range's design cues were inspired or borrowed from the Aurum, Norco's downhill bike. Whether it's the head tube junction to the derailleur hanger, “We took everything we learned from the Aurum, which is the strongest bike we've ever made, and took that learning and employed it on the new Range,” says Pemberton.

Similar to what was first seen on the revised Sight, the Range now uses a trunnion mounted rear shock, with the upper link oriented in a more horizontal position. The amount of chain growth has been reduced, and the suspension curve has grown slightly more progressive, changes that are intended to improve the bike's pedaling performance and give it a more bottomless feel towards the end of its travel.

There are three models for each wheel size, with prices starting at $4,249 USD. The Range 9.2 shown above goes for $5,799, and the top of the line model is $7,399. In case you hadn't guessed, the first digit of each model number denotes the wheel size. For instance, the 9.2 has 29" wheels, while the 7.2 has 27.5" wheels.


Norco Range 2017
The Range will accommodate up to a 2.6" tire.
Norco 2017
A trunnion mounted RockShox SuperDeluxe takes care of the 9.2's 150mm of rear travel.


Norco 20178
The Range 9.1 retails for $7,399 USD.
Norco 20178
The base model Range 9.3 is $4,249 USD.

Geometry

The 27.5" Range gets a 2° steeper seat angle and a longer front center compared to the previous version, and the head tube angle has been knocked back to 65°. When designing the 29" wheeled version of the Range, Norco wanted to make its handling feel as similar to the 27.5" version as possible, so they went with a 65.5° head angle, a fork with 51mm of offset, and a 40mm stem. All of the bikes use Norco's Gravity Tune geometry, which sees the rear center measurements increase as frame sizes grow larger in order to preserve the optimum weight balance. You'll notice that there's no small sized 29er - Norco felt that too many compromises were necessary to package the bigger wheels and that much travel into a frame that would fit a smaller rider.


Norco 20178






Norco's headquarters are located within close proximity to some of British Columbia finest trails, rugged, rocky, and often wet testpieces, and the 29" wheeled Range 9.2 is spec'd accordingly. The wheels are shod with the proven Maxxis Minion DHF / DHR tire combo, and the wide bars, short stem, and a 150mm dropper post from Race Face make it clear that this bike is ready to rumble right out of the box. Despite Old Man Winter's decision to deliver an extra helping of snow, ice, and rain this month, I've still been able to get in a handful of rides on the Range, enough time to start getting acquainted with its on-trail personality.

It wasn't until I was halfway through my first extended climb aboard the Range that I noticed I'd left the RockShox SuperDeluxe in the fully open position, a testament to the Range's improved pedaling performance. Gone is the tendency of the shock to extend and compress during out-of-the-saddle pedaling; it's been replaced by a design that feels much more efficient and composed whether you're seated or standing.

I was a little surprised to see that the Range 9.2 checked in at 32 pounds when I hung it from the scale after those initial rides – I would have guessed it was a touch lighter than that. The good news is that it didn't feel overly heavy while climbing, and those extra grams were the last thing on my mind when it came time to descend.

The Range has what can best be described as 'sneaky speed' - it's similar to what happens when you rent or borrow a car that's smoother and more powerful than what you typically drive, and all of a sudden you look down and you're doing 100mph. That's how the Range feels, especially on steep straightaways - it has a plush, bottomless suspension feel, and it's very quiet to boot – all the ingredients necessary to encourage bombing down the trail a little faster than usual. One of my usual test tracks has a section that plunges straight down the fall line, a brake burner that typically has my hands begging for mercy by the bottom, but on the Range that wasn't the case - it sucked up everything that came its way, giving my hands and forearms a welcome reprieve.

I'll admit that there were a couple times when it felt like the bike started to get away from me on tighter sections of trail - I found myself a little further back than I meant to be, instances that served as a reminder that remaining in an aggressive, more forward position is key. Those moments could have simply been a matter of getting accustomed to a new bike – we'll see how things shake out as I spend more time on it.









251 Comments

  • + 127
 "The bike grows longer and slacker for 2017" I've read this about so many bikes for the last 3 or 4 years. We're all going to be riding DH bikes soon.
  • + 57
 Most trail bikes have much longer reach than DH bikes already
  • + 94
 If technology allows us to run dh bike geometry on AM bikes then that's great news.Modern enduro bikes are capable of delivering the benefits of a dh bike without its inherent negative characteristics i.e. weight and poor pedaling efficiency. Long, low and slack makes for a bike that handles well when descending - this is a good shift!
  • + 20
 I have read DH bikes are designed to have slightly shorter reaches due to the way you ride off the back more on steep, make them too long and you can't get your weight far enough back. Hence, for instance, Mondraker never applied 'forward geometry' to their DH bikes.
  • - 79
flag Husker2112 (Feb 22, 2017 at 8:04) (Below Threshold)
 @IllestT: not so sure about that dude. I have a 2014 Specialized Stumpy and its reach is about the same as my old Super 8, from like 2001. Both are medium frames. I think trail bikes are actually getting shorter and more nible, more fun and flickable
  • + 10
 My local trails getting so many braids last 2 years or so there's no more corners left. Viva la long y slack!
  • + 43
 @webbe: I don't think technology dictates geometry. You can run a long wheelbase, slacked out bike if you want.

I'm with @IllestT on this - my park bike has a much shorter reach than most trail bikes because it's built for jumping. A super long front center is great if you are riding fast on rough, rocky steeps. Otherwise I'll take a bike with a shorter front end, please. Helps getting that front wheel up.

And IMO a 160mm enduro bike does not have the stability and descending capability of a true 200mm DH bike. That's advertising hype. Hell even my 180mm park bike isn't as stable and glued as a true DH. People do definitely ride 160's on the DH trails, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's as good as the real thing.
  • + 6
 ...and will do for the next few years until seeing Geometron / Pole numbers.

I think this trend will continue for a few more years.
  • + 10
 I think we've seen enough long , low and slack carbon bikes for the year,thanks.
  • + 8
 @kanasasa: tell me about it! What happened to riding the trail?
  • + 6
 Enduro bikes are basically downhill bikes tweaked to be able to climb back up. They are in danger of becoming irrelevent to most riders as you have to have access to long and steep enough trails, and be prepared to go fast enough to benefit from the DH ability whilst loosing the singletrack up and down nimbleness.
  • + 1
 @webbe: Only if your trails are long enough, steep enough and you ride them fast enough to need a DH style bike.
  • + 3
 @zzRider: Mondraker was one of the first companies, if not THE first company to make a drastically progressive DH frame. I think 2013 was the first production alloy frame, followed by the carbon version in 2014.

www.pinkbike.com/news/mondraker-summum-carbon-first-ride.html
  • + 7
 @mecabeat: To clarify perhaps I should have said: "Mondraker never applied 'forward geometry' to the same extent on their DH bikes." But, they may have used the marketing term 'forward geometry' on the Summum but that was an exaggeration compared to what they did on their range. As a large Summum is pretty conservative in reach at 442mm, compared to (for instance) their AM bike Foxy large at 495mm reach. I think this illustrates the point; that most/many DH bikes are designed a bit shorter (than AM) in reach to allow you to get your weight back on the steep.

Just add, loving the dark green, of the Range 7.1.
  • + 2
 @chrismac70: I know - and if only all bikes had 420mm chainstays so that they could corner (sarcasm). Such is life!
  • + 16
 @zzRider: I agree with you but would go further to add that a slightly shorter reach allows a good rider to be more dynamic in general, not just to get off the back. Just the same as super wide bars aren't great unless you're a massive human. Shorter reach and sensible bar width just allows more range of movement. I'm all for long reach and slack head angles, they allow the average rider (like myself, and the majority of riders) to blast terrain and feel like a hero. But once you begin to progress as a rider (thanks to all that added confidence and blastability) I'm not convinced it is the best geometry for an all mountain/ Enduro/ trail bike. If you genuinely are riding EWS-like terrain, maybe. But, if my experience is anything to go by, once you've maxed out on the rewards of this long-slack-low thing you'll be wishing for a more sensible, nimble, cornerable, whipable, ruttable ride. Seems to me we all want the 'enduro' dream bike but maybe the modest 'trail' bike is really where it's at?
  • + 3
 @WaterBear: How about a slackish short wheelbase? Stanton Switchback is intriguing and unique in this regard. Short stem trend sacrifices a lot of steering input. I bet a short-travel full-squish version of this with a 110mm 36 H/LSC would be more all-around fun. Make it 29" as well. If there are going to be 29" DHs, why not DJs as well, with XCability? It's not just the amount of travel, but its quality. How fast downhill vs. how fun.
  • + 2
 @chrismac70: You make a good point. Who the hell is buying these bikes? Here in Ontario you would be hard pressed to find any trail that would warrant the use of such a bike , yet every day there is a new review of one on Pinkbike. I think the reason may be that many people are over biked for the trails they're riding.
  • + 14
 @DJ-24: with the advent of the internet pinkbike is able to saturate a market far beyond Ontario where the "need" for such bikes is greater. Ironically there will be a Canadian National Enduro race in Ontatio this summer.

Maybe pinkbike should have a "lame trail" switch like they did for mobile so riders aren't negatively affected by awesome descending bikes.
  • + 13
 And I have become shorter and wider in the past 3 or 4 years!
  • + 4
 @DJ-24: We bikers like to think that we're sicker than we actually are. (As sick as I am) 60-70% of my riding is more fun on a trail bike vs all mountain rig so that's what I own. If I had room in my life, I'd own both though.
  • + 3
 @zzRider: I suspect it also has to do with the wheelbase. The Summum still has a longer wheelbase than both the Foxy and the Dune despite its much shorter reach due to the slacker head angle and longer chainstays.
  • + 10
 @Husker2112: One can't compare any bike from 2001 in most ways to what we have today. Apples and oranges in so many ways. Hell, it's hard to even draw comparisons to bikes from 2014 and today.
  • + 5
 @pdxkid: Exactly, the bike posted here today could have possibly won a WC DH and XC race in 2001. Mid 90s for sure.
  • + 4
 @pdxkid: that makes sense. My point is simply that I don't think trail/enduro bikes are necessarily 160mm dh bikes
  • + 1
 @mecabeat: All they did was call a medium a small, then a large a medium, then make a bigger large. And put a zero reach stem on them. Which nobody chose to use anyway.
Gary fisher invented the idea like 25 years ago.
As usual all the other companies were sleeping on it while riding their gay ass cross country bikes all over California and saying long stems were the shit and ignoring what would have made riding safer and funner for everyone because they were too scared to make a change that the punters weren't yet keen on.
As usual.
And progress stumbles along at a pathetically incremental rate and we keep being told we are at the cutting edge.
That edge wouldn't cut through warm cheese.
  • + 4
 They should just whack the angle to a vertical one. Save us the time and this stupid one degree angle steeper bs for every new model. Lol
  • + 9
 @jflb: That's not exactly accurate about the Mondraker sizing, but what they did do is make all the seat tube lengths the same length as the small, so you choose by front end length, removing the limitations of not being able to get the seat low enough if you wanted to ride a size up.

I absolutely agree with everything else you said, though. Geometry progress has been painfully slow for MTB. It's all because the Gary Fisher template was the one that "won" in the beginning. Mountain bikes based on square road bike geometry made popular by a group of stoners from Fairfax, California. They even built their own museum to pat themselves on the back for skidding down a fire road 40 years ago. If they hadn't sabotaged the reputation of the Lawwill Pro Cruiser, the first production mountain bike, designed to be fun to ride, like a BMX MTB, progression likely would have happened a lot faster. Instead, Fisher, Ritchey, and Specialized established the mountain bike as an uncomfortable, climb oriented off-ROAD bike. Fun was not part of the formula, just slogging up fire roads, and then skidding and twitching down descents, going over the bars, and scaring hikers so much that they made the trails in Marin illegal to ride bikes on. But the stoner roadies didn't care, they just went back to road biking. Mountain biking to them was just a goof that turned into business opportunity. If the roadies hadn't won, mountain biking could have been founded on fun and handling and dynamic riding.
  • + 2
 @DJ-24: Plenty of these trails in my neck of the woods on Van Isle
  • + 1
 @pdxkid: there are a few that still compare. Check out my Keewee Cromo 8 which was originally designed in about 2000. It's not far off.
  • + 1
 @mecabeat: Good call.

It would be interesting to see the geo numbers of the first klunkers. I bet they are similar to the numbers we have today.
  • + 2
 DH is the new enduro... hold on...
  • + 2
 @webbe: Buy an Orbea Rallon and voila, you have a long reaching bike with 420mm chainstays.
  • + 4
 @DJ-24: When you go out west everyone rides bikes. Places where these bikes actually have an application. In Onterrible the Revolver or Anthem SX are all you need.
  • + 2
 @doe222: I even wrote sarcasm in brackets mate...
  • + 5
 @WaterBear: THIS!!!

I bear a lot of people saying their enduro bikes are just as fast as downhill rigs and yet I never fail to get slowed down by an endu-bro at the bike park. I bought a 160mm this winter and after the first few rides I was almost thinking it was just as fast since it rides so well. Then I took my dh bike to ride the same trail and f*ck is it ever faster and easier. I'm sad to say that it is indeed more fun to ride an enduro bike, but faster? Don't you dare!
  • + 3
 @DJ-24: You live in Ontario mate, have some common sense. The bike scene is just a sample of what it is here on the west coast. There are more than enough gnarly trails that justify the need for such a bike.
  • + 2
 @ceecee: Yea dude, that's basically what I ride. NS Bikes Soda Evo. Super slack front end, short-ish to moderate reach, and super short chainstays. Result is a bike with very moderate wheel base but a slack enough front end to handle the same steeps a DH can. Not as stable at high speed though, for sure, and can't handle the rough stuff as well. Wheelbase really helps with that. Jumps like a dream, though Smile
  • + 2
 @webbe: low also means you're much more likely to hit a rock with your pedal, crank or chain ring.
  • + 3
 @webbe: sarcasm be damned I want slopestyle chainstays, DH HT angles and cross country seat tube angles.
  • + 1
 @chrismac70: That's where the all the recent aggressive trail bikes come in e.g. YT Jeffsy, Evil Following, Canyon Spectral, Santa Cruz High Tower, Giant Trance, Whyte T130. Trek Fuel and many more
  • + 1
 @choppertank3e: a yeti dj is almost there, just go rustle one of them up
  • + 1
 @Randalph: sorry should have said full suspension 150 mm plus as well. Make it with variable travel geo and made of scandium too with a gearbox while I'm dreaming. I can hot rod my current rig pretty close to that. Everything is a compromise until someone makes a bike for fun instead of racing.
  • + 1
 @choppertank3e: Intense Recluse with an offset shock bushing or, a Canfield Balance, or a Specialized Enduro actually wouldn't be too far off from what you're describing at least in terms of geometry and amount of travel. I think the Recluse actually is designed for fun rather than racing with its short rear end, higher BB, and shorter-ish travel.
  • + 1
 @dlxah: Nice bikes but I think the Kona Process 167 smokes all three of those geometry wise. Aggy had a free ride build come in at 33lbs for the old entourage so I reckon a high end enduro build could go under 30lbs. Give me that geo with the magic link and scandium frame of my current bike and a gearbox and that's my dream bike.
  • + 1
 Have you ever ridden a DH bike up a hill??
  • + 1
 @bmccandless55: Its fine as long as you have decent gearing and a long seat post. It's never going to be great for tech climbing but fine for fireroads.
  • + 1
 @DJ-24: people in onterrible read pinkbike? AND RIDE MOUNTAIN BIKES????!?!?!?!!!!!????
  • + 39
 Shots fired! 65.5 HA, 40mm stem 29r race bike with travel.
  • + 8
 New Enduro 29er has 66.0 HA and 165mm rear travel. You could upgrade to a 170 or 180 fork and and slacken it out even more.
  • + 66
 @Joegrant: But its a specialized.
  • + 22
 'Dangerwank' / 'shots fired!' LOL.....
  • + 24
 @yuroshek: at least they gave the consumer a threaded bb :'D
  • + 3
 My 1st enduro type race(2013) I did on my 2012 Entourage , 180mm fork up front , 170mm in the rear , 65deg HT angle , and my current bike a 2015 167 Process has the same HT angle but a much better seat tube angle allowing it to pedal up hill better . I would love to try a 29er with a similar HT angle and see how they compare on the up and downs .
  • - 18
flag goflowz (Feb 22, 2017 at 10:11) (Below Threshold)
 its ugly
  • + 3
 @Joegrant: And available in small - unbelievable.
  • + 2
 @Joegrant: Where are you going to find a 180mm 29er fork outside of a Dorado?
  • + 3
 @Joegrant: Or offset bushing and get to 65.5 and drop BB 5mm. Thats what I just did on my 17 E29
  • + 0
 @j-t-g: a lowered Fox 40! They are around.
  • + 1
 @Joegrant: No one's making a 170 or 180mm 29er single crown yet Frown
  • + 1
 www.sram.com/rockshox/products/lyrik-rc This and tha Yari I think are both available in 180 29 supposedly. Also 29ers will fit on a fox 40 27.5
  • + 1
 @Joegrant: hmmmm.... the 180mm air spring will only work with 650b according to that link
  • + 1
 @j-t-g: I'm not sure what your referring to, please explain. My enduro 29er currently has a 160mm 27.5+ fork 110 boost. Works great with a 29.
  • + 2
 @dthomp325: @joegrant you can actually build one from a Lyrik 29 with the 170 air rod. It is supported by RS as well
  • + 0
 @yuroshek: Specialized makes a great bike. Both of their new enduros are absolute monsters! That, and they are very competitively priced to keep up with all the consumer direct sales. I was planning to to get a Capra but when the 17 E29 came out at a cheaper price, and I could go pick it up al the LBS it was a no brainer. Being 6'2", I'm able to reap all the benefits of the 29 without noticing the disadvantages nearly as much.
  • + 1
 @salespunk: Ok. Is that how that works? It appears that they have a lyrik 29 170 and 180 on their web site (they link I shared above) but I can't find anyone selling them. So could I just put a 170 air rod in my Yari?
  • + 1
 @ScottB-408: ya after being the a*sholes that invented the whole pf30 shit show.
They coulda just been smarter in the first place right
  • + 1
 @dthomp325: Ohlins does Curtis Keane is running 170/170 on his Enduro , just seen a video of him talking about running a coil spring fork again
  • + 1
 @Joegrant: Yes that is accurate. Take a 160 Yari/Lyrik and buy the 170 air rod which is the same across both wheel sizes for the Lyrik line.
  • + 1
 @salespunk: so if I were to build my fork up with this: www.worldwidecyclery.com/products/rockshox-lyrik-b1-or-yari-air-shaft-solo-air-180mm-27-5-27-5-boost-15x110

You're saying the 27.5 180 rod would still be 180 on a 29? I know on some forks like the Reba has air rods that, for example, the rod will be 100 for 29 and 120 for 27.5. I guess I could always just take my current rod out and see what length it is and compare, but it is a Yari which is open bath and I'd rather not pull it all apart just for that.
  • + 1
 @salespunk: Do you know what the part number of the airshaft is?

The 2017 parts manual lists all Lyrik air shafts beyond 160 as "27.5 only".
  • + 1
 @dthomp325: I contacted worldwide cyclery about this and they contacted sram to confirm that the air shaft in the link I shared above, will in fact lengthen a 27.5+\29 lyrik or Yari fork to 180mm travel. I'm still somewhat skeptical though. I may just spend the 38 dollars and find out.
  • + 1
 @Joegrant: @dthomp325 it will work. This is the setup that Keene was running on his Enduro 29 last year for 170 travel. Sram have them listed on the website, but do not sell them complete. It is build your own.
  • + 29
 Come On PB the enduro weapon 29r shootout must be incoming, maybe not direct comparisons but all the weapons reviewed and tested as a group with various riders. More along the lines which rider prefers which model and why
  • + 69
 Yep, there's a Ridden and Rated piece in the works. We need to get some more miles aboard the Range, but it'll be included in the mix.
  • + 16
 @mikekazimer: i would really like to see a Nukeproof mega in the mix
  • + 13
 How about adding the Canfield Riot to that test?
  • + 2
 yeah lets see all these other long travel 29er trail weapons step up to the range, lets see them shoot it out head to head, see which one is left standing after all the shots have been fired.
  • + 2
 @mikekazimer: the write up on nsmb , they mentioned they got the suspension pro tuned , do you feel there is a need for it ??
  • + 2
 @Jrsnot: let,s add the GG Mega Trail to the mix as well it can run a 29" combo as well
  • + 8
 @cheetamike, I don't think so - the Lyrik and the SuperDeluxe are both very user friendly, and with a little experimentation it shouldn't be that hard to get the suspension dialed in.
  • + 6
 Hrmm... Spesh Enduro, Slash, SB5.5, Range, Mega, Wreckoning, and...?
  • + 4
 29ers are straight.
  • + 25
 Bring on the long travel 29ers Smile
  • + 0
 WOHOO !!
  • + 20
 Well, according to Owen Pemberton, Norco's senior design engineer, the Range “can take crashes.

Sounds like there making a challenge!
  • + 2
 Hope it's tougher than the Sight from a couple years ago.. ooowee! We saw so many of those have rear triangle/frame breakage, it was awful. Maybe the people riding them were hooning too hard, it's hard to say, but still disappointing.

Bring on the Range! Let's put it through the paces!
  • + 20
 NX crank on a $4300 bike... No.
  • + 14
 Now I have a question to Norco: taller riders will be in average heavier than smaller riders. Though the seat angle is slacker on XL frames than on M (or S if available) frames. Shouldn't this be the other way around to compensate for weight bias towards the rear on uphills (as most of us only seat on uphills). OK, chain stays get longer with size, so in worst case a similar seat angle across size would make sense I believe. Just a thought.
  • + 1
 It shows that Norco doesn't have any tall riders giving input into the design. Making the ESTA so slack shows that they're using design methodology from 1970s road bikes. Very disappointing IMO. The XL ESTA starts at 73.7 and just gets slacker as you approach full saddle height. That starting point is already too slack so this is a non-starter for me. Bikes look fantastic otherwise.
  • + 0
 I think it comes down to the fact that majority of bikes nowadays don't run the straight seat tubes and thus the seat tube angles are most likely misreported in some geometry tables. Since the seat tubes are not straight, seat tube angle is not a linear function of seat tube length and actually slackens with seat height. That being said, I am with you that bikes should be designed in the opposite way, that both real and effective STA should steepen with frame size increase, not slacken. I find the STA on new range too slack. Props to Norco for increasing the CS length with each frame size, though.
  • + 3
 @bogey: It's not that "Norco doesn't have any tall riders giving input into the design", the declining effective seat angle as you go through the sizes is due to their 'Gravity tune' design where the rear-centre length increases as does the front centre through the sizes. They do this by moving the BB 5mm forward (chainstay is the same length) each size which lengthens rear-centre, but also has the effect of slackening the ESTA. Move your saddle forward 5mm, problem solved.
  • + 1
 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the absolute seat tube angle is the same across the frames, and the effective seat tube angle is measured when the seatpost is at full height for a suitably sized rider for each given frame size. Bigger frame size, higher seat height, so slacker effective angle because of the frame design. It's slacker than I'd ideally like, but still marginally steeper than my current Bronson V1 anyway and the rest of the numbers tick all the boxes for what I'm looking for in my next frame. I'll be keeping my eyes open for one of the 27s at a nice price this time next year, amongst other brands.
  • + 5
 To keep the optimal knee-over-pedal, taller riders need slacker ST angles to be farther from the BB because they have longer femurs. Longer chainstays can help to keep the rider balanced. Playing with crank lengths could also be a solution.
  • + 3
 I got a bit on insight into this. Evil measures its ESTA by drawing a line from the BB to where it intersects with the horizontal line from the head tube and the line that extends through the actual seat tube. That's why the Wreckoning lists the same ESTA for all sizes. Norco assumes an average seat extension for each size and measure against the line from the BB and the line through the actual seat tube. This results in having slightly slacker numbers as the sizes increase, which makes sense. If you measure an XL Evil Wreckoning the same way the XL ESTA is actually a little bit slacker than the Range's.
  • + 13
 @bogey: One of their product managers is 6'6" so that statement is false.
  • + 1
 @bogey: morning-fingers made me neg this post by accident. Wish I could give it plus 10
  • - 7
flag bogey (Feb 22, 2017 at 9:27) (Below Threshold)
 @fasian: that's even worse then because he doesn't listen to the feedback from the riders/buyers.
  • + 2
 @bogey: not sure what to say for you tall guys. He fits the bikes just fine (ridden with him lots). seems like its a common problem for tall riders.
  • + 1
 @bogey: I wonder how Sam Blenkinsop likes being called short? If you had any idea of the time that it took Norco to dial this bike in you wouldn't be questioning their dedication to taller riders. You not understanding the engineering =/= a poorly engineered bike.
  • + 0
 @allix2456: Really, so the fact that I'm 6'5" tall, a professional mechanical engineer, an active rider for 40 years and a designer of many custom bikes specifically for tall riders means that I don't understand?! Ha - NOT.

For road bikes it is common to use slacker seat angles for taller riders but it doesn't work the same for full suspension bikes because of the different dynamics involved.

On climbs, a suspension bike sags out too much under a taller, heavier rider because the mass is too high and far back. This only gets worse as the STA is slackened. It makes it tough to keep the front end down which becomes a real problem and is incredibly annoying. There have been many discussions on the boards about this but SOME manufacturers keep using a cookie cutter approach to geometry which is really disappointing. Others have figured it out by looking at the bike and rider as a system.
  • + 3
 @allix2456: btw, Sam Blenkinsop is definitely not a tall rider at 6'0" tall so I'm not sure why you'd use him as an example.
  • + 1
 @bogey: Sam's tall, but not XL-tall.

Out of curiosity, at 6' 5" do you feel that most XL frames are too small for you? I'm 6' 2" and ride in the XL size pretty much exclusively, despite the majority of companies thinking I should be on a Large (which feels terrible in pretty much every way)
  • + 1
 @bogey is right. Lots of Canadians here....
  • + 3
 Yep
  • + 11
 @fasian: He's a professional mechanical engineer who's been an avid rider since he was 5, we better listen up. If he was an amateur mechanical engineer I wouldn't even blink at his opinion.
  • + 4
 @blacksim549: I don't understand all the focus on STA and ESTA, to my understanding as long as your seat angle is close enough to get you in a range to be able to alter your saddle position on the rails to get a proper "knee over pedal" position then you should be gold right?
  • + 6
 @vpshore: the engineer card was an unecessary and risky play but he's still right.
  • - 1
 @vpshore: I don't know the guy personally, nor do I know his credentials, but Professional Engineer (P. Eng.) is, from what I understand, not a trivial designation to obtain. Lots of folks with engineering degrees don't have it.
  • + 1
 @allix2456: He's 6'0. That's hardly tall.
  • + 2
 @j-t-g: It definitely is a tough go getting a frame that is large enough AND that has the right geo. The road world figured it out our years ago with plenty of frames available for taller riders (definitely an easier task than designing a mountain bike though).

Let me tell you though, the last few years have been great with bikes getting longer and longer. I finally have one bike that fits perfectly (XXL Tallboy 3) and I have an XL carbon Honzo coming that should fit really well.

I've been through too many ill fitting bikes over the years to count. I'm still riding a Nomad 3 but only at Whistler because the XL just feels too small for any other riding after I've been spoiled with longer bikes and steeper seat tube angles. With the Nomad I constantly smack my knees on the shifter when turning uphill switchbacks and just can't keep the front end down (short reach + slack STA).
  • + 9
 @ThomDawson: it's a bold move cotton, let's see how it plays out
  • + 4
 @imho4ep: Yes. But a frame size is designed for a certain range of height (let's say 5'6" to 5'10"), so you need to design for the median human of the size (5'8"). Then, 5'6" rider can move the saddle forward and 5'10" backward. But the difference between sizes is too big for only the saddle fore/aft, so you need to have a different seat tube angle for each size. Just be careful with all the actual/effective/real, as where the measurements are made vary between companies. IMHO the ESTA should be done from BB to saddle rails at median seat height, as the horizontal line from the headtube will vary with headtube length and stack.
  • + 2
 @blacksim549: I don't care what you're saying: give me 75° or more with a straight seat tube from the BB and I'll be happy. It's not cause I'm taller than my hips should afford more angle! Big Grin And as I am not getting younger, it's even the other way around!
  • + 2
 @alexsin: What you describe as Evil method is in fact an industry standard way of calculating ESTA. I was (and still am) assuming Norco is using the same one. Do you also know that Evil changed the seat tube angle numbers for The Insurgent? When it first came out they reported for XL 72.8 (for 160mm fork) and 73.2 degrees (for 150mm fork). Then they changed these numbers to 74.3 and 74.8 degrees. If you calculate the the VTT for these new angles you will see that it does not match the numbers in the geometry chart, but does the initial, slacker ones.
When I approached them about this I was told:"The top tube / STA thing can be hard to wrap your head around and it's not something I'm going to attempt to explain but basically, there are A LOT of ways to measure it and our frame design doesn't make it any easier." At that point this bike was crossed from my list. So much for Evil measured ESTA.
  • + 11
 I saw glimpses of this bike on Bryn Atkinson's instagram, stoked to finally see it. Also saw Lar's Sternberg of Transition on a shiny prototype trail rig, can't wait for a long travel 29" bike from Transition!
  • + 13
 If transition drops a 29' 160mm bike I will sell both my kidneys if I have to, love my patrol but itching for bigger wheels.
  • + 7
 @NWuntilirest: Just picked up a smuggler and its the Bees knees, but if they drop a 140mm+ 29" bike that thing will be in the buy sell section faster than you can say "peter piper picked a pack of pickled peppers"
  • + 1
 @NWuntilirest: you read my thought !
  • + 7
 @NWuntilirest: Dont overlook the Riot. Crazy short stays make it so nimble it blows my mind.
  • + 2
 @NWuntilirest: @dynamatt: I feel the exact same. I'm a gangly 6'-1", 29" wheels just feel better, plus there's more rocks and less features here in CO. I'm about to order a Smuggler built up with an angleset and a Lyrik but I sure as shit will be ordering a new frame immediately if they drop a longer travel version.
  • + 3
 Hoping for a revised Smuggler any day now.
  • + 2
 @alexsin: the 2017 are still shipping, so I can't see that happening yet. But it's in the pipe I think...Maybe an early release? The current one will take a wide range of shocks so the lack of Metric on the current one can be negated by using a coil:-).
  • + 2
 @ukr77: The Carbon Patrol came out early 2016, then the Carbon Scout summer of 2016. I would imagine we will see an update to the Smuggler sometime this summer like the Scout, however, I'm not sure they'd put the money into retooling everything and making a carbon version without going to metric like the Patrol but I could be wrong.
  • + 2
 @ukr77: Indeed. I'm hoping for a Boost rear end, a 35mm seat tube and a reasonable amount of stack in the bigget sizes. Fingers crossed.
  • + 3
 @briceps yeah dude feel yah, I'm 6'6" so the bigger wheels look like nirvana to me haha
  • + 2
 @alexsin @briceps since there is a metric linkage floating around on KrunkShox bike for the last 8 months i can see an update soonish I guess. The geo is pretty dialled as they can take a pretty long fork without making the SA wonky. Judging by these 'enduro weapons' now rolling out at 32lbs without pedals, Transition doesn't really need to carbon it as they are pretty light as is:-)
  • + 2
 @ukr77: I got really nerdy and measured the shock stroke on his metric bike from a picture at the GoPro games last year and it's only a 55mm stroke shock which in theory wouldn't increase the travel THAT much. I'd be willing to bet they update the Smuggler AND introduce a new bike but that new one might be another year out.

Carbon would be nice though. When you start adding slightly beefier components for racing, or just being a trail hack like myself, all these bikes get heavy fast. I think with proper DD tires, chain guide, and aluminum rims a carbon Smuggler could still be right at 30 lbs which would be ideal IMO.
  • + 9
 65 degree HA and shorter stems 50mm and below...full suspension and bikes weighing over 30lbs and we keep reading it climbs well/great. Compared to what? Other bikes with the same spec?

I'd love to see this bike reviewed and compared with the Trek Slash....they are almost similar in geometry...almost. Weight wise Trek is lighter if you go high end. However, when I hear these reviews about enduro bikes being able to climb well I need context. Almost any trail/enduro bike these days can climb well so why not put these bikes against each other so us viewers can have some idea of what "climbs well" really means.

Am I asking too much?
  • + 3
 Those question will be addressed in a full, long term review. This is just a first ride - think of it as an introduction. We'll get into all the nitty-gritty details further down the line.
  • + 1
 Also is it just me or do they look VERY similar?
  • + 13
 32 pound carbon bike? Ouch...
  • + 20
 Around here that's a reasonable fighting weight for a bike set up with parts that will actually survive.
  • + 5
 @alexsin: With that weight, I continue to wonder about the purpose of carbon frames.
  • + 14
 @DJ-24: A lower frame weight allowing the product manager to spec heavier, better performing parts on the bike while keeping things competitive? We don't take kindly to thin tires, and flimsy rims on the west coast.
  • + 6
 @DJ-24: makes it lighter and stiffer than a similar aluminium bike with lyrics, 29er minions, etc.
  • - 2
 Well we don't shuttle much out here nor do we have much ski lift access, we earn our DH and pedaling a pig is not always fun... Oh and most of those parts on that rig are standard issue. Megh'
  • + 8
 @Elspecialized: We're not shuttling either. We're pedalling these bikes. The difference is that the bikes need to survive bike-park level abuse as well. I could get my 32lb carbon bike down to 28 but then I wouldn't want to ride it knowing I'd most likely have to carry it down the mountain. We've been riding stout bikes around here for years. Light weight is nice when you can get it but is easily outranked by fit, geometry and performance.
  • + 8
 @Elspecialized: I'm laughing at the idea of a 32lb bike being a "pig." Test your legs on our climbing trails and I think you'll be surprised at just how many "pigs" ride right on by you.
  • - 1
 @allix2456: I own a built 30 pound Transition Patrol ----Aluminum... Doesn't say anything special about this Carbon Norc I guess, Oh and my legs are just fine thanks.
  • + 4
 @Elspecialized: difference is that you don't ride the shore trails. Lots of people just don't understand the physical and technical requirements of north shore stuff until they've ridden it.
  • + 4
 @ratedgg13: easy fella. North shore trails are cOmpletly over rated. I'm sure buddy could ride you precious shore trails just fine. I'll take me 28 pound carbon enduro bike over a bike with the same parts that's four pounds heavier. North shore or not. Ps- your trails suck
  • + 3
 IMO, 32 lbs is not a reasonable fighting weight for a bike in this price range, spec'd for the North Shore..but whatever, looks sweet. The trails here are amazing and challenging for various reasons but so too are other trails around the world. To make superiority comments regarding the trails we ride vs what others ride only illustrates the ignorance of oneself.
  • + 1
 @rome28: Superiority claims were not made. Claims as to the difference in riding terrain were made. California is a completely different riding biome than Vancouver. That is what was claimed.
  • + 1
 @jbob27: read my comment again. I made no claim of superiority of trails, just that people don't understand the requirements of riding them.
Also, I am not a north shore rider. I have ridden them, but I live on the east side of the Rockies, so they aren't my trails.
I ride a 26lb full carbon trail bike. My bike would certainly get UP the shore, but back down...
  • + 1
 you guys are completely right...LOL
  • + 8
 29er enduro bikes seem to be a theme this year. Nearly all the companies into enduro are now releasing 29er versions of their enduro model. Trek Slash 29, Specialized Enduro 29, Yeti SB5.5, Evil The Wreckoning, etc. All but a few enduro-focused companies have released one, it leaves just Commencal, YT, and a couple others without 29er Enduro bikes. I wonder.... but in all reality the likelihood of Commencal releasing a 29er enduro bike is very low... they don't even make a 29er in their lineup whatsoever.
  • + 6
 Commencal is all little dudes. Small bikes with short reach.
  • + 3
 Indeed. Great for racers but not much use to most of us for the trails we ride 90% of the time. These are excellent bikes but for most of the time way more bike than you need.
  • + 0
 double post
  • + 0
 YT 29" 140 mm cut it for most enduros, they already on the next big thing.
  • + 1
 they did... what i meant to say above was that's why i snatched up a leftover 2014 Meta 29 frame last year, instead of a new Meta. 130mm rear, slap a 140mm Pike on it, XT stuff with RF cranks, overbuilt Hope hub/DT spoke/EX471 rims. coming off a Ti hardtail with short ass CS and a slack HT, its definitely heavier going uphill at 33lbs. compared to 25lbs., and not as much pop and sharpness... but it still puts a smile on the face and i feel way better about jumping it (compared to the Ti HT that eventually cracked the welds on the seat stays). it pretty much does everything. my ONLY complaint about it if there were one, would be the TIGHT tire clearance with HR2 2.35"s on it, otherwise its a dope bike.
  • + 6
 Does there not appear to be excessive amounts of extra cables hanging off the front on all of the provided photos? I could understand the demo bike may have not had the lines shortened up, but the ones for publicity photos it just looks lazy?
  • + 7
 I'd really like to see a back to back test between the Range and the new Slayer.
  • + 0
 Norco Mountain Slanger?
  • + 8
 Podium
  • + 4
 Looks mega fun! Heading to basement to tell my Sight i still love her. Damn you @norcobicycles for your long travel 29er wizardry, Damn you!
  • + 3
 Does anyone else get the feeling that companies are really pumping out the $4k-$8k bikes right now? Guess they will be for sale in 24 months for $2k-$4k on forums....good for used buyers I guess...
  • + 32
 Tell that to all these guys selling there 2 year old 6k bikes for 5500, and the get offended when I offer them a realistic number!
  • + 34
 Bikes are not a good investment, but a very fun expense.
  • + 3
 @philipmcm: Some of those rigs have been for sale (CL,mtbr, here, etc) ....for an entire industry design cycle it seems. I am not in market but lots of reasonable options now with the maker direct companies, used, CL, etc...that's why I wonder if there will be a cooling off of the 5k-8k market soon. I can see a doctor or whatever clicking away to their high end bike...for him or her maybe one week pay for someone else maybe one month or 3 mos pay. I always start with framesets which is not always best way financially, but now it can save you money if done right.
  • + 12
 @philipmcm: haha .. SO TRUE. Just browse the buy and sells. Gee paid MRSP $4500 two years ago "with receipts" (rode the crap out of the bike ... not mentioned of course) ... asking price $4000.

or WHEELSET .. used ONE year. Paid $1400 ... asking $1200 firm (with no warranty any longer .. what a bargain!! (sarc).

or BRAKESET .. $250 .. (you can buy brand new cheaper). The list goes on and on and on .....

However, having said that, obviously somebody must be paying these crazy prices otherwise people wouldn't keep putting up the ads asking ridiculous prices.

Article note, these Norco's actually look decent.
  • + 2
 @TerrapinBen: You, my friend, need to work a little harder on your rationalization skills Wink

Or, to put that differently - yes, if you're buying a bike expecting it to keep its value, then that's a very poor investment. But you're not investing in a bike, you're investing in what you get out of it. And in that sense, these days you can buy a one-bike-quiver that will, as long as you actually get out and ride at every opportunity, make you a happier and healthier person. And that is a pretty damn good investment indeed - much better ROI than drugs, or most gym memberships, etc.

Because man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one... Wink
  • + 2
 @vokes: PB buy/sell is a funny thing. I'm never sure if the insane prices some people ask for are a result of delusion, or merely a pre-emptive defense against the bottom-feeding cheapskates (yo, give you $50 and a pack of gum for that? Trade for insert worthless piece of crap here>? etc.)

Part of it is the old lemon problem - if you're buying from someone you don't know, you don't know in how good a shape it is. So for a frame, you don't know whether it's taken hits and will die on you (leaving you stranded without a frame warranty), etc. Meaning you can't rationally justify paying more than a pittance. Then you have the odd seller who knows they have a great bike (never crashed, always taken care of, suspension beautifully maintained, all bolts torqued to spec, etc.), and are frustrated because everyone is suspicious that they're selling a clapped out piece of shit (and offering accordingly). Tough market.
  • + 1
 @g-42: You have a very level head, my friend. Excellent use of reason. And more to the point, an accurate portrayal of why we, or most of us i assume, ride! Gear lust and new bikes are both fun and good, but far from the basis of riding bikes. Getting out as much as possible and actually riding - 26", plus, rigid, old, new, whatever - that is the main thing.
  • + 1
 @g-42: ROI on drugs......that made me LOL........
  • + 2
 Bike companies keep making the front center longer, but the rear center remains short.
This creates an unfavorable weight bias where the rider has to move their body out of center to get proper weight balance over the wheels in situations other than very steep terrain. I understand this trend, as bikes are for selling, and most beginner intermediate riders feel better on a bike that is easy to lift the front wheel and where you feel safely behind the tipping point.

In my opinion it is a real shame that very few companies aside from KHS downillland enduro bike, are making frames that provide an option with longish chainstays. i'll also mention the Trek Session and Santa cruz V10 as bikes that dont have awquardly short chainstays, but their not, imo, long.

Even these norco's with longer chainstays on longer sizes are still quite short.

The industry is not providing options for people who are not afraid to have weight on their front wheel. Frown
  • + 0
 Great comment that I very much agree with...flickable isn't what it's all about, riding is what is!!!!!
  • + 0
 100% agree with this. I took a few laps this summer going back and forth between my Large Carbon Operator and an XL V10 and I felt 100% more balanced on the V10.

I also had the same sense when demoing a SB6C, perfectly centered in the bike. With these new 29" Enduro bikes being so race focused I think front-to-back balance is even more important. Super short stays on something like a Transition Scout that's meant to be fun, great, but not as great on a race-oriented bike.
  • + 1
 What's with those two extra fitting on the rocker link right behind the top shock mount? There's the same two fittings on the shock wiz thumbnail photo. Is that just for strength and/or to clamp the two piece rocker arm together?
  • + 2
 Bolts to hold the 3 piece rocker link together.
  • + 5
 Sorta, maybe, kinda... Looks like a Slash.
  • + 0
 Seconded. At a glance, and not comparing side by side, the only real difference I can see in the silhouette is a slight bump at in the toptube near where it meets the head tube (on the Slash).
  • + 3
 Who gives a f*ck?
  • + 0
 @ohrourkee: indeed. Just an observation. And this is a website about mountain biking, most of what goes on here is pretty inconsequential (except for the UCI bringing back XCE in favour of 4X. I mean, what the f*ck?).
  • + 3
 I think it's sad how little coverage aluminium/steel bikes get on PB considering they are still the only realistic options for most people.
  • + 1
 A few of the Enduro bike designs are very similar looking. Not the same but similar to just clarify so I don't get ripped apart by people telling me different. Is there a bennifit to one brand over another these days or do they all ride amazing these days?
  • + 3
 I guess the days of Norco making affordable bikes for the masses are gone. $9500 cdn! Yowza
  • + 4
 Definitely not in my price range Smile
  • + 4
 Makes that trek from a couple days ago look pretty weak
  • + 0
 How so? The Trek is far burlier.

Maybe the ridiculous price of the Trek?!
  • + 0
 @bogey: Please define 'far better'. Same suspension design minus the split pivot axle Trek uses. All components can be swapped at owners discretion. Norco is a better deal $$ wise.
  • + 2
 @bman33: probably should reread my comment. I think we're in general agreement.
  • + 1
 @bman33: I think that makes it,
Not the same suspension design?
  • + 1
 @bman33: Trek is a link activated single pivot with a floating brake, Norco is a four bar descendant of one Horst Leitner... the more you know!
  • + 1
 @justincs: therefore my 'pivot axle' reference. So yes, there are different, but not the $$ Trek thinks it is.
  • + 1
 @bman33: Ahh I see!
  • + 0
 Steeper seat tube angle. When you look at the picture and compare the angle of the head tube and seat post on the 27.5 version, they sure look comparable... yet the "stats" say the "effective" seat tube angle is 74.5 vs head tube of 65 degrees - I would expect to see a more significant difference in angles in the pic when you're talking 10 degrees...? And when you sit on the bike the seat tube angle will only get slacker, making it look real close to the head tube angle... Sometimes I really wonder about the "stats" they throw around to make us think they've changed stuff...
  • + 1
 is the frame the same between the two different wheel sizes? can customers change from one size to the other easily or is the rear end assembly and/or shock sizing different?
  • + 1
 i just answered my own question after reading geometry chart, totally different frames and front triangles (head tube lengths are different) unless they are using a headset spacer
  • + 3
 Dear Norco, you've got my attention. Make an Alu version I can afford and hack about and let's talk. Beauty of a bike!
  • + 1
 Agreed, would like to see an affordable Alloy version
  • + 3
 Okay jees, if no one else is gonna do it...looks like a session....
  • + 1
 Owen Pemberton must be pretty smart, according to the Sight video he moved to Cumberland. Riding from home as part of his job!
  • + 1
 He's just made an even smarter move.
  • + 2
 Wouldn't reduced chain growth make pedalling performance worse due to lower anti squat figures?
  • + 1
 Well being as I have never ridden a range up hill without having to flip climb switch I will say... You are probably right lol.
  • + 3
 @mberrevoets, you would think so, but in the case of the previous Range, it actually had so much anti-squat that it would extend the suspension while pedaling. By reducing the anti-squat the amount of suspension motion while pedaling has been noticeably reduced.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: "in the case of the previous Range, it actually had so much anti-squat that it would extend the suspension while pedaling. "

As a Norco Range 2015 7.2 owner, this issue is very annoying. No amount of tuning in the Monarch helps.

I heard a bigger chainring could mitigate this issue a little, but moving from a 30t to a 34t with a 1x11 would make some of the tricky up-hill pedaling on my local trails much less enjoyable.

Any tricks to reduce the anti-squat on older Ranges ?
  • + 1
 @Bragelonne: nope appart from a floppy shock.
  • + 2
 @Bragelonne:
try a high idler pulley like blenkinsop was doing on his old aurum last season
  • + 1
 Depends. There's 2 components to anti squat, the tension on the chain pulling the suspension forward & down and the drive force of the rear wheel pushing forward on the suspension to either move it up or down (depending on where the pivots are placed). Add the 2 together and you get your overall anti squat. To a certain degree, you can get the same amount of total anti squat by moving the pivots around to get more anti squat from the suspension linkage and less from the chain tension or vice-versa, so it is possible within limits to have the same anti squat and pedalling performance with less chain growth.
  • + 1
 @Bragelonne: run a 38t. The first range was pretty much designed around 28/38 double.
  • + 1
 @mberrevoets I wonder the same thing. The previous range is a beast at technical climbing because of the anti-squat... It's calm and smooth at seated climbing... But it's not great sprinting out of the saddle.... That's the only down side, so I just don't stand to climb.
  • + 1
 Seeing as how the new 29'er Sights aren't even at dealers yet, how long will it be before they have the 29'er Ranges in stock? April? May?
  • + 1
 Late march everything will be in stock.
  • + 0
 @2bigwheels: is that what that googly eyed rep told you?
Lol
What crazy story will he make up next...
  • + 2
 @jflb: well no, more just the company told me. How do you know our Rep had googly eyes though? Lol
  • + 1
 @2bigwheels: ha he's famous!
How googly his eyes are is how late your bike is gonna be showing up.
  • + 4
 The Norco Range range.
  • + 6
 That's joke's a Sight for sore eyes....
  • + 3
 Oh no, I hope this doesn't start a Torrent of puns!
  • + 2
 I've got A-Line for you...
  • + 2
 what if... the 27.5" rear and the 29" front???
eh?
  • + 1
 @somismtb essentially the same front center & reach numbers as a sb5.5

Something about this bike seems legit.
  • + 1
 What size shock does it run??? Important info that I can't find anywhere including the Norco site.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer When you realize you only have one f*cking water bottle cage kicking around the house... lol
  • + 1
 Santa Cruz is falling behind, they need to come out with a 29er with 150mm travel.
  • + 1
 Canadian pricing for both wheels sizes.

C9.1 / 7.1 - $9500.00
C9.2 / 7.2 - $7500.00
C9.3 / 7.3 - $5600.00
  • + 1
 OHHH you had me at "Fall line""brake burner"bla bla bla.....good bike!
  • + 1
 Where do we put the front derailleur?
  • + 2
 Yes!
  • + 1
 27.5=65HTA 29=65.5HTA.

y tho?
  • + 4
 According to Norco, it's to make the 29er handle similarly to the 27.5" wheeled bike, but I question that logic - I'm not sure why one wheelsize needs to feel like another.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer: I'm unsure of that line of thinking as well.
  • + 2
 @mikekazimer: I'd guess the logic is more about making them all feel as close to an 'ideal' handling as possible. The rhetoric of making a 29er handle like a 27.5 / 26 seems more about overcoming lingering 29er naysayers. If 29ers can bring monster-trucking and speed while retaining a nimble feel, I say A Salut! Maybe it doesn't need to be one or the other?
  • + 2
 @beast-from-the-east: Mtn bike design is too conservative. Big companies attempt the "loved by all" approach all too often. We need more Nicolai/MOJO, Pole, Zerode, Unno, Robot etc pushing and evolving designs.
  • + 1
 Heavy in weight. Heavy in price tag.
  • + 1
 I want to know more about those DMR pedals!
  • + 0
 I don't read reviews anymore on pinkbike. I read comments. I watch reviews on YouTube bike mag great stuff!
  • + 1
 Not available in UK according to Dirt.
WTF?!?!?!
  • + 0
 Looks like a ... Slash 9.9
  • - 2
 Yet people complaine about the slashes price literally identical to worse special lmao and the slash I'd f*uckin Dialed
  • + 3
 The Slash comes with a TALAS that needs to be swapped out, a bunch of bontrager stuff and a little person dropper. All that and you get to pay $800 usd more.
  • + 1
 @packfill: you are just wrong my friend i have the 2017 9.9 and there isn't one thing to complain about yet! tell me why you need to replace a 900 fork? that is your opinion all the bontrager stuff is shiny and works without any problems!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.104121
Mobile Version of Website