First Ride: The 2023 Santa Cruz Hightower Gets Tweaked, Not Transformed

Jun 21, 2022
by Mike Kazimer  

When it comes to mountain bike geometry, the pace of change seems to have slowed down slightly this season. Yes, there are plenty of new bikes being released that are longer and slacker than before, but rather than seeing two degrees slashed off a bike's head angle and 10 – 20mm added to the reach, the revisions are more subtle, refinements rather than drastic transformations.

All of that holds true for the new Santa Cruz Hightower, which has undergone a slight geometry update and received a few new frame features, including a snack storage compartment, for 2023. It retains its 29” wheels and 145mm of rear travel paired with a 150mm fork, and it still slots into that do-it-all category, that sort of nebulous zone between shorter travel trail bikes and longer travel enduro machines.

Hightower 3 Details

• Wheel size: 29"
• Travel: 145 mm, 150 mm fork
• C & CC carbon frames, aluminum option on the way
• 64.5º or 64.8º head angle
• 76.4º seat tube angle (size L, low)
• 438mm chainstays (size L, low)
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL, XXL
• Weight: 31.5 lb / 14.3 kg (size L, Hightower C GX AXS RSV)
• Price: $5,499 - $10,699USD
santacruzbicycles.com
According to Santa Cruz, “It's a mountain bike.The mid-length travel and confidence-inspiring geometry means anywhere tires will roll, then so will this bike. No fussing, no nonsense, no silly category names.”

There are two different carbon frame options – CC and C – and there's an aluminum version in the works. As for colors, riders can choose from translucent purple or a matte evergreen option. That purple option is one of the best-looking paint jobs I've seen in recent memory – the red / purple blend looks absolutely amazing in person.


Photo: Grant Robinson

Frame Details

The Hightower's overall frame shape remains the same as the previous version, with a lower link-driven VPP suspension layout and a 210 x 55mm shock. Grease ports on the lower linkage simplify service, and once the bearings are too far gone for fresh grease to salvage Santa Cruz will replace them for free.

The in-frame storage first showed up on the Megatower, a panel that sits under the bottle cage with a small latch that allows access to the inside of the frame. The storage capacity is quite generous – there's plenty of room for a small pump, a tube, and tools with space to spare. Santa Cruz includes two padded sleeves (a tool wallet and a tube purse) to keep the Glovebox's contents from rattling around.

Another feature that adds convenience to the frame is the cutout on the non-driveside portion of the shock tunnel. That port makes it easier to check sag – with the previous design it was tricky to get a straight-on view of the shocks o-ring. One feature that hasn't been added to the Hightower is coil shock or Float X2 compatibility - by keeping the shock tunnel just big enough to fit an air shock like the RockShox Super Deluxe, Santa Cruz was able to gain an extra centimeter of room for dropper post insertion.

There's plenty of room for tools and snacks inside the downtube.

A cutout on the shock tunnel makes it easier to check sag.



Geometry

The slight geometry updates mentioned earlier come in the form of a .5-degree slacker head angle and size-specific chainstay lengths. On a size large, that equates to a 64.5-degree head angle and 438mm chainstays, which are paired with a 472mm reach (that's a scant 2mm longer than before). The seat angles remain roughly the same, hovering between 76.4 and 77-degrees depending on the frame size and flip chip position.

Speaking of flip chips, that little thing hasn't gone anywhere. Changing its position results in a head angle that's a whole .3-degree different and a 4mm alteration in bottom bracket height. I feel like Santa Cruz could scrap the whole flip chip thing and most riders wouldn't complain at all, but it's there if you feel like tinkering in tiny increments.


Suspension Layout

The new Hightower has slightly lower anti-squat values for the first 40% of its travel compared to the previous version, a change that was implemented to improve suspension sensitivity. The values are still on the higher side, sitting in the neighborhood of 135% at sag, and then dropping off further into the travel.

The leverage ratio was adjusted as well, and it's now a little higher at the beginning of the travel and a little lower at the end in order to maintain consistent damping and bump up the bottom-out resistance a little.

Hightower C GX AXS RSV

Spec Check

The bike that I have in for review is the Hightower C GX AXS Reserve model, which retails for $9,799 USD. That's a whole bunch of money, and this isn't even the top-of-the-line model. Bike prices have increased across the board over the last couple of years, but to me it seems like Santa Cruz's prices have gone up more than others – this isn't the place to look if you're on the hunt for a killer value.

This particular model has a parts kit that won't hold anyone back, but there are a few items that don't seem to align with that hefty price tag. The shock is a RockShox Select Plus, which has a stubby lockout lever instead of any low speed compression adjust. Not the end of the world, but at this price point some more adjustability would be nice. The brakes are Code RS, with 180mm rotors front and rear. Once again, they work well, but lack the pad contact adjust of the RSC version, a feature I find very useful, and I'd prefer 200mm rotors front and rear, or at least up front.

While I'm nitpicking, EXO+ tires would have been a more appropriate choice rather than the EXO casing versions that are spec'd. At least the front uses Maxxis' MaxxGrip rubber – I'm a big fan of that softer compound. And finally, the size large comes with a 175mm RockShox Reverb dropper. There are lots of adjustable cable actuated dropper posts on the market these days that work great – I'd much rather have a 200mm cable actuate post over the Reverb with its hydraulic remote.

Product managers don't have it easy these days, and I'm sure that supply chain issues and delays played a part in some of the parts selected for this build. Still, for a bike that's nearly $10,000 I'd expect to see higher end parts, even if this one does have carbon wheels and a GX AXS wireless drivetrain.

Photo Sterling Lorence
Photo: Sterling Lorence

Ride Impressions

I've only managed to squeeze two rides so far, so I won't be digging in too deep just yet – that'll have to wait until I rack up more miles on a wider variety of terrain. That said, my initial outings did allow me to get a decent handle on the Hightower's character.

The trait that stood out the most was just how well this bike jumps and corners. My local trails are littered jumps and berms, and I instantly felt at home on the Hightower. It has a lively, poppy feel to it, and its slightly shorter dimensions compared to some of the longer enduro machines out there make it extremely easy to maneuver in the air and on the ground.

I really enjoyed the previous Hightower's handling, and so far that remains the case with the new version. The wheelbase has grown, but it's still an easygoing ride, one that doesn't take much effort to get to the top of a techy climb. There's enough travel to take the edge off bigger hits, but not so much that it feels like overkill on mellower trails.

Of course, part of me does wonder what a 160mm fork, some bigger rotors, and some beefier tires will do to its manners. There's a chance it could dull some of the liveliness that I like so much, or it could turn it into a really fun not-quite-an-enduro bike, one that feels even more at home just about everywhere. I'll start playing around with different setup configurations and report my findings in a longer term review later this year.





479 Comments

  • 409 4
 Can we all just be happy that the cable routing does not go through the headset!
  • 47 6
 It might actually convince me to buy a Santa Cruz.

Actually.. who am I kidding?
  • 26 0
 Yeah, none of the weirdest current "standards" to be found is a huge plus nowadays.
  • 20 0
 Literally, this is now a feature.
  • 32 0
 External headset cable routing and threaded BB seem like features to buy for these days.
  • 27 31
flag lastminutetech (Jun 21, 2022 at 15:11) (Below Threshold)
 wildly overpriced for a 5 year old design
  • 19 2
 @lastminutetech: Yeah we should all be running 63 degree XC bikes and 54 trail bikes.
  • 7 12
flag lastminutetech (Jun 21, 2022 at 18:04) (Below Threshold)
 @alxrmrs: i assume youre talking about seat tube angle? look at that thing ....and for a trail bike too
  • 1 0
 That should not be a thing worth commenting on. It just should be an industry-wide standard.
  • 4 0
 @JohSch:

Santa Cruz has always done an amazing job staying away from the gimmicks. No problematic Trunion shock mounts either.
  • 1 0
 whats cable routing again? i think ive seen that term somewhere on pinkbike before
  • 2 1
 @z-man: I mean they offer mullet bikes and e-bikes, so what you say isn't true. They just seem to embrace some fads more than others.
  • 2 0
 @Muscovir: unfortunately mobility bikes are not a fad and mullets actually make a lot of sence, especially for riders under 5'10.
  • 278 5
 For the low low price of $5.5k usd you get some NX and The base level lyrik.
Nice
  • 54 139
flag endorium (Jun 21, 2022 at 0:51) (Below Threshold)
 Thats the norm now. Not a SC thing
  • 166 9
 @endorium: It's always been a SC thing.
  • 54 5
 @endorium: That's not the norm whatsoever. From small UK brands like Bird to DTC massive companies like Canyon all offer great value for money and great spec for £4K
  • 59 62
 @ben13bm: Direct sales companies though. As for Canyon, good luck when it goes wrong getting service. I'm happy to pay more for good aftersales service
  • 31 8
 SC even removed all prices from its Australian website some time ago. Must be embarrassed about something.
  • 6 0
 @boozed: You can find the prices on Lusty
  • 186 18
 News just in. Pinkbike commenters in 'expensive things are expensive' outrage
  • 40 1
 Considering the YT Capra Uncaged 9 has Ohlins suspension, gx groupset and a threaded bb for £3700 and a 5 year warranty, you are paying a bit for the name and the plastic frame. Saying that I am on my 4th Santa Cruz and loving it.
  • 69 5
 @drjonnywonderboy: do you mean 5 year warranty turn around?
  • 6 5
 What a bargain
  • 3 4
 @heinous: You mean they expect you to need to use the warranty so build in the failures to the price
  • 27 1
 Or a better way to look at it paying $8,500 and $9800 and only getting a FOX 36 Float Performance fork. No top tier suspension. One can only hope that is a mistake on the website
  • 10 1
 @ben13bm: I got the canyon stoic four for two grand, it came with a pike select and and an nx drivetrain pretty great deal.
  • 10 1
 @endorium: or you could get a Trek Fuel EX 9.7 with equivalent warranty and service, better drivetrain for over 1K less. $1,170 can get you lots of upgrades too.
  • 23 3
 @mb23: Not expensive things, it's the prestige pricing. $5.5k for NX has me on the floor laughing. I wouldn't be surprised to see a $6k price next year with SX drivetrain and no fork.
  • 3 0
 @endorium: you’ve been turned away for service? Neither have I
  • 26 0
 You can get a Commencal for that price with full XT, EX511's, and Ohlins all around for the price of a 3-4lb. penalty. Not even a choice honestly.
  • 7 0
 @endorium: Idk dude, I bought a Canyon road bike and I had a small issue when I received my bike. They let me take it to a bike shop and reimbursed me. I didn't have to argue with them at all.
  • 3 0
 *edit* sorry, 2lbs.
  • 6 0
 Having bought a bike that retailed at 2500 with NX, this shipping with NX does really suck. That cassette is heavy at 600+g, shifts poorly, and then you don't have XD driver hub for an easy upgrade.
  • 3 0
 @boozed: people in Australia were comparing the AUD price to the USD price and it wasn’t a very favourable conversion.
  • 8 0
 I built up a 160 Specialized Status with 36 Performance Elite, Renthal bars + stem, Onyx hubs, DT Swiss alloy rims and XT drivetrain for $5,500. Weighs three pounds more than a plastic frame with similar spec and cost several grand less.
  • 3 0
 @RickRossovich: With this name you should be riding a red Trek Y33, not some newfangled Status Wink
  • 3 0
 @SvenNorske: I’m looking closely at the Fuel EX also. The price/component ratio is better than what I’ve seen on SC. And still get lifetime frame warranty.
  • 4 1
 @endorium: 5.5k at companies like Fezzari, Marin, etc get you a hellofa lot more.
  • 150 9
 Sometimes I wonder, am I the only person alive who just doesn't want an SC? Just doesn't do it for me, not even sure why...
  • 25 5
 @saladdodger I'm with you, I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one, and considering their ridiculous prices I'd have to go pretty far out there. However, I'm sure it's a good time to throw a leg over one of these.
  • 18 17
 No i dont get the fuss about them, I think they are a marketing over substance and a huge price to pay for the wonderful warranty you will need along with the so called free bearings
  • 23 3
 I’m not a SC fan, but the new Bronson won me over. Especially when my friend said he had a “big discount”. The paint, the frame stiffness. The newer suspension. It’s a shredder bike if if SC is a bit of a dentist brand.
  • 8 31
flag trillot (Jun 21, 2022 at 8:41) (Below Threshold)
 Maybe because this is so fugly? I have to say, I can't figure how the V10 looks so good (just my opinion) and this can look so bad. That said, they do ride great (haven't actually tried one with the new lower shock mount though)
  • 7 3
 Wanted one till I tried one. Before buying a Megatower V1, I decided to demo a huge haul of bikes- yeti B130, ibis ripmo, rm altitude, trek remedy, pivot switchblade, sc hightower and a megatower. Both SC were by far my least favorite of the lot... but maybe I just don't get along with VPP as the only other bike I've truly disliked (as did everyone in my riding crew) while demo-ing was an intense tracer a few years previous. Definitely recommend a demo before purchase if possible and so glad I did.
  • 14 0
 @saladdodger That's what makes the world go round. Imagine if we all liked the same vehicle and in the same color... You do you, I'll do me and they can do them.
  • 11 5
 @trillot: funny, cause i think the V10 looks so ugly and dated right now. ive gotta imagine they will release a redesign on that relatively soon. the lower-shock mounted SCs look really good to me.
  • 13 2
 I'm with you. I don't have anything against SC in particular, but even if I were going to put that kind of money into a bike, I'd probably want something a little more boutique. It feels like sort of an "uncanny valley" problem - I'd consider a more mass-produced bike/frame/whatever if it were a bargain, but when they're charging that much for something it feels like it should be more bespoke.

All that, and they somehow just don't get my heart pounding. It just looks like a bike, and there are other bikes that are also nice.
  • 2 1
 I'd agree with this but for a different reason. I like them, but around here almost everyone is riding them. Just too common, but they do like great so I can see why. It's got to be like 70%+ on SC in Northern California.
  • 5 0
 Totally agree w/ you about their bikes, regardless of price- not even sure why, they are good looking, I'm sure they ride well, etc. I will say, their carbon wheels are freakin awesome. I've ridden mine on my Enduro (lol I don't care, brand loyalty be damned!) and they are still completely true, every spoke tight, etc. And they are super compliant.
  • 3 1
 Had a few 10 years ago, but I bought a bike with a steep actual seat angle about 5 years ago and could never ride an SC again when the actual seat angles is slacker than the head angle...
  • 5 0
 @mthamster: I think the term you were looking for is, “ubiquitous “.
  • 4 2
 I'm guessing you haven't ever ridden one then? They ride phenomenally.
  • 9 2
 @seraph: Have you? They don't ride $5,500 for NX good. They ride almost as well as a lot of other brands. Honestly, I've always found the VPP jarring on square-edged hits and I'm not alone. The last SC I rode was a MegaTower: the weight and geometry were pleasant but I always find SC's VPP disappointing.
  • 3 1
 Nah, I’m not interested, either. Back about 10 years ago, I loved their bikes. They were among the best looking out there. Now they’re just kinda meh.
  • 3 0
 The last Santa Cruz bike I really wanted was the VP Free.
  • 7 0
 Judging by the fact you can get a Stumpy Evo Expert for $400 less than the "S" build, with better suspension (Fox Performance Elite vs. Performance), better brakes (Code RS vs. R) and a better drivetrain (XO1 Eagle vs. GX) I couldn't justify it. People are buying SC as a "boutique" brand, without getting the boutique benefits.
  • 4 0
 @adamszymkowicz: What’s a benefit of a boutique brand?
  • 3 0
 @TheR: Literally just perceived superiority to a "big name" brand. Some brands might have proprietary suspension designs (like Yeti). Some may be manufactured in the States (like Guerilla Gravity), or have a cult following as a "local" brand (Kona, Transition, Niner, Ellsworth, etc). Some of these companies offer genuinely awesome bikes and great perks along with them, like actual direct customer service and warranty support, or community engagement like trail building/development (see Yeti and Transition). Behemoth companies like Specialized, Trek, and Giant don't generally do these things on a local level, but it doesn't mean that they don't make amazing bikes. People don't really get how much SC has grown in the last 10 years in terms of marketing and sales.
  • 1 1
 @adamszymkowicz: I hear you. So in your head, are boutique bikes all the other companies except the big 3 (Specialized, Trek, Giant)? Because I’m not sure I’d consider Santa Cruz, Kona or ever Yeti “boutique” anymore. I’m not sure boutique really even exists these days. They can’t keep up. Maybe Guerilla Gravity, Revel and Ellsworth (Ellsworth is so boutique it barely exists! Does it still exist?) to name a couple. Now it seems boutique brands are limited to the steel and titanium hardtail worlds, and are direct to consumer.

I think in the old days, when there were true boutique brands, you paid a little extra, got something a little more custom and unique, and then the company and its dealers took care of you a little bit of something went wrong. It seems those days are gone.
  • 2 0
 @adamszymkowicz: And also it used to be Boutique brands were hand made in an in-house factory, and they paid a little closer attention to details. They had limited inventory, but considered higher quality. Now everything is made overseas somewhere, no in-house quality control and all that. I’m not saying anything is any better or any worse, although im sure many could argue one way or the other. It’s just not what it was, for sure.
  • 1 0
 @TheR: Counterpoint: what's the point of mass production if it doesn't get you an economy of scale and better resources in terms of support?

I'm not saying that a boutique brand is going to be better, but I don't see why I should pay more to have a bike that was designed, produced, and supported in a way that is more economical for the manufacturer. That feels upside down to me.
  • 1 0
 @mthamster: I’m not on a side either way. I rode a Specialized Enduro and loved it, and a Turner RFX (love/hate). Now I’m somewhere in between on a Kona and love it. So there’s no point -counterpoint to be had. I’m just saying there doesn’t seem to be a real boutique brand anymore. If a brand has a dealer in any just about any sizable town or riding hot spot, it’s not boutique. And that’s pretty much all the brands these days.
  • 3 0
 I mean, having 2 alloy bikes for the price of one base spec SC is pretty rad.
  • 1 1
 @ryanandrewrogers: I've owned over 17 Santa Cruz bikes, so yes I've ridden one. My last SC was the Tallboy 4, and I miss it every day.
  • 2 0
 @seraph:
Ha so you don’t know what your missing out on ;-)
  • 2 0
 @seraph: you've owned 17 santa cruz bikes lol what a brand hoe. your money, your choice dude. I'm just saying that for 3 grand less you could have a Norco Optic that rips harder, has better spec, and reviews better. With less than half as much money you still get suspension with more tuneability than this money-grab
  • 90 2
 Spend 10k on a bike and then you can't even adjust compression on the shock. Wtf.
  • 19 2
 I guess Apple considers the inability to adjust things a feature. Unfortunately probably not what SC was going for here...
  • 4 4
 You get rebound and lockout.
  • 24 1
 @seraph: So like almost any entry-level shock. For 10,000 bones you get the tuneability of an entry-level shock.
  • 1 3
 @ryanandrewrogers: The build is not about the shock. You get a lot of bike for $10k. Obviously they didn't think that you needed much more than rebound and compression to make the bike ride nicely.
  • 3 0
 @seraph: How the hell does this get you "a lot of bike for $10k"? I could literally buy 2 Propain Hugenes at that price. A bike that has reviewed better, has braver geometry, and weighs less (if you care so much). I'd literally be buying twice as much bike.
  • 68 2
 This is a near-perfect Rocky Mountain daily driver. Burly and slack enough for a park day or 3, climbs well enough for all day adventures in the high country, lively enough to be a fun side-hit hunter on mellower trails.

Unfortunately, SC has become THE brand at the vanguard of charging too much. Considering that they're part of a conglomerate and get their frames/groupsets/etc. at the lowest possible price, this is straight-up price gouging.

When a small company like Guerilla Gravity can offer a US made frame and build kits for less money, paying SC prices just isn't worth it.

Everyone has to eat-but the margin Pon Holdings (the SC brand is just their fancy-pants stuff) is making on these is too high.
  • 34 1
 Agreed. SC is not a rider owned brand. It’s a massive company under a even more massive company. They are charging over boutique bike pricing but are just a big time brand in every other bike shop. I know we have a lot of idiots in this sport but you’d have to be a even bigger idiot to buy a 10k bike with GX AXS and not even a Lyrik Ultimate..
  • 18 1
 @MillerReid: Pon Holdings is massive. And lets get something straight, they 100% care about maximizing profits, not the riding community. I am sure that the employees of SC care about the cycling community, but they are ultimately beholden to a 8bn euro a year conglomerate.

pon.com/en/activities
  • 23 3
 There is little reason to buy a Santa Cruz these days. Value is completely non existent. The pricing is insulting to bikes that are handmade or made in places with a high manufacturing cost base. I’m sure they ride great, VPP is my preferred suspension. But we’re not beholden to SC or Intense to get that suspension under us anymore.
  • 4 3
 @Afterschoolsports: Dual link suspension is great, Intense is at least in line on price with other brands. Giant also uses a dual link design (they quietly settled in court over that years ago) and the Reign 29 (despite Giant's claim it's a full-on enduro weapon) is a great biggish trail bike.

But yeah-eff Pon
  • 4 2
 They charge what because people are prepared to pay. Seems to be working for them.
  • 2 0
 @peterknightuk: We will see how that works out. This pricing is mind blowingly high and I feel like it has really been the last few bike releases that push it this much.
  • 2 0
 Agreed. They will sell because they eu be bought using finance and enough people will pay the extra monthly amount. That’s what they rely on
  • 3 0
 @peterknightuk: like overwhelming consumers with false choices, unreasonable profit is a sign of free markets gone awry.

Yeah-Pon will probably keep this up, sheeple who don’t understand supply chains etc. will pay.

But it isn’t ethical. It’s possible to make a fair profit without making unreasonable margins.
  • 3 0
 @wyorider: Do you know what the margin is on a delivered SC bike? Genuinely curious
  • 3 0
 @Rmcfarland: The margin for a shop on the SC bike isn’t very good. SC is going the route of the Big S with the price increases but then so are other companies. Whack to think a C GX Axs reserve build is basically 10k. Better deal to get xo1 least its better parts. Bike industry is greedy now
  • 2 0
 I’m a big Santa Cruz fan but the prices are ridiculous now. It was a stretch for me to afford a discounted carbon Tallboy (with full SLX, $3900 list) No way I could spring for even the lowest spec carbon SC now. Maybe an aluminum version. But I’m starting to look at other brands now for my next fs bike.
  • 1 0
 @space-robot: I was faced with this decision a few years ago. I had a SC high tower on my short list, but I wasn't prepared to pay what it cost, so I brought a Bird AM9 instead because it was more affordable and I'm really pleased with it. (Not sure if you can get them in the states though). I still say fair play to SC though, if they can sell them then so be it - other brands are available!
  • 1 0
 @peterknightuk: Yeah, I’m looking at Trek Fuel EX. They have builds with XT and SLX for around $4k. Lifetime warranty also. Not seeing the extra value in SC for over $1k more with bottom rung Sram components.
  • 70 1
 Can we go back to calling this segment of bikes “all mountain” ?
  • 175 2
 I don't disagree, but "all mysavings" might be more appropriate?
  • 30 8
 Isn't "All Mountain" a bit of a vague term? I guess technically everything that isn't a DH bike could be "All Mountain".

I think we should just call everything that isn't an XC or DH bike a "Trail" bike and then just add the appropriate prefix of "short travel", "mid travel" or "long travel".
  • 12 0
 Bring back the all mountain bikes!
  • 3 13
flag toad321 (Jun 21, 2022 at 5:53) (Below Threshold)
 @Muscovir: isn’t an xc bike just a short travel trail bike though?

Then downduro, a short-mid travel bike

Then a trail bike

Then an enduro bike

Then a super enduro bike
  • 12 0
 It won't be long before DC bikes are slightly more capable and then we're calling them All Country
  • 5 0
 @DizzyNinja: That sounds like a horrible radio station. At least with a name like Down Country it gives us an idea where to put that genre of "music." Wink
  • 3 1
 DH-Enduro(All Mountain)-Trail-XC
  • 4 1
 But then what would all the marketing departments have to do? The end of their merciless pursuit of unnecessary acronyms, tag lines, and adjectives for basic product features or uses would definitely mean the average rider simply couldn't decide on which bike to purchase. Right?
  • 2 0
 Downduro+
  • 1 0
 @kleinschuster: They could do what they are supposed to do and market things that are real as opposed to made up terms like Downduro+. Sorry @pink505 lol
  • 5 0
 @warmerdamj: Fine, Allduro Factory Supreme CC+?
  • 1 0
 @pink505: Are you saying Santa Cruz has a more expensive carbon then regular CC now?
  • 2 0
 @warmerdamj: if you need to ask then I can't tell you. The international association of bike category naming
  • 3 0
 @warmerdamj: If companies would only realize that actual features and value sell products not social media posts and jargon to spiff up regurgitated ideas. Maybe if they all cut marketing department expenses in half we could recoup some of the corona cost creep?
  • 1 0
 @pink505:
Downtrail ?
  • 2 0
 @Muscovir: that's how I refer to them, dh, xc, and trail bikes (regardless of travel) - my personal trail bike is an Enduro sled because that's what suits my trails, but I call anything with less travel that is not an xc race bike a trail bike too, lazy I guess...
  • 2 0
 I thought Pinkbike was all mountain bikes.
  • 2 0
 @Muscovir: unless it's purpose built for racing or tricking i call it a trail bike.
  • 3 0
 @DizzyNinja: Transition already beat you to it with the marketing for the Spur.

Thst said, the Spur is a rad bike.
  • 1 0
 @cornichons: ALL OF THEM
  • 41 0
 Seems like a very odd spec when you look at the others they offer. $9,800 for GX AXS RSV gets you a mid-tier electric drivetrain, crappier brakes, and carbon hoops that only save 0.1 lbs for $1,300 (comparing the GX builds).

Or you can move up to the $8,800 X01 build and *save* $1,000 and half a pound of weight while getting better suspension at both ends, top brakes, a higher-end "analog" drivetrain, and more robust rims.
  • 7 1
 You're pretty much paying for the name of the wheels. But then you consider the fact that you're getting the vastly superior X01 cassette, the nicer shock and fork with more adjustments and fancier coating, and nicer cranks...just so you can say you have carbon hoops? I'm good.

If I was somehow being given the selection of both these SC for free, IMO the X01 is clearly the better choice. Just sell the X01 shifter and derailleur if you really want AXS, it'll probably be like a net extra of $200-300 and you're on a cassette that will last you thousands of miles more than a GX will.
  • 2 1
 @nickfranko: Yeah 100%. I've ridden carbon wheels and did like how it felt like they spun up faster... but that was because they were actually lighter than the comparable aluminum wheels I was riding. With no real weight savings here, I don't see the point unless you just really want the name/bling or maybe a different ride characteristic like stiffness. To each his own, I guess.
  • 2 0
 @nickfranko: that’s exactly what I did with my nomad.
Gx axs is all you need when you like electric shifting. Have to say that is totally worth it if you wanna go down that route
  • 34 0
 I don't think I'll ever pay that kind of money for a MTB again. There will be an aluminium version of this new Hightower, apparently. If SC make it frame only, I'm interested.
  • 33 4
 Most likely frame only will be 2/300€ cheaper than the cheap build, definitely not worth it especially if you are tight on budget. Not sure why bike companies have such ridiculous pricing applied to framesets but it is the norm.
  • 32 1
 @Balgaroth: it's like they want you to buy a full bike hmm
  • 4 0
 @alexisalwaysonfire: What, really?!?!?
  • 1 0
 This is exactly what I was thinking.
  • 11 0
 @alexisalwaysonfire: same reason a medium fry is $3, large is $3.50, and XL $4. Just applied to $5k-$10k bicycles
  • 10 0
 If you bought a modern bike before the pandemic, it's like you bought bitcoin at $5k. You thought it was a high price at the time, but were happy with the results and you're sure as hell not getting back in at today's prices.

Bought my 2020 "dream bike" at the end of 2019 for $7,400... today they're charging $9,100. At $9,100, I'd be out today even if I can afford it. Or at least I'd be cross-shopping an Orbea Rise, etc. so it actually feels like I'm actually getting something worth close to $10k that isn't "just a bike!" in wife-speak.
  • 2 0
 @Chippps: I hear you. I did the same thing. Bought great bike in July 2019 and it's gone up by about 20% now. Gulp. But given that I don't race, or even ride particularly gnarly stuff, I'm wondering if I'll ever need the expense of a carbon MTB frame again? I can hang chi-chi parts off a nicely made alloy frame and worry a whole lot less about the inevitable scuff or scrape. (Yeah, I know carbon is repairable, but you know what I mean.)
  • 9 0
 Frame only is listed as $4099 on the website. That is ridiculous.
  • 8 0
 What's the point in buying an aluminum SC? Their aluminum frames are heavy AF. If you are going Santa Cruz just accept that you need to remortgage your house and go all in.
  • 1 0
 @Chippps: was it SC Hightower XT Reserve by any chance?
  • 2 0
 @Chippps: Same. I got lucky with timing and received my Spot Ryve 115 the week of lock-down in March 2020. Today the bike is over $1K more and that was before the team discount my club manager got for us (that we no longer get). I had similar discount deals with my Santa Cruz Megatower V1 and Chameleon (both frame only) that we don't get anymore. I feel quite fortunate I don't feel the need to upgrade any of my bikes all that much. All are far more capable than I am. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.
Eventually I do want a new road bike and at some point an e-bike (the Orbea Wild FS M-LTD checks a lot of boxes for me), but neither are high on my list of purchase priorities. I still think e-bikes have another couple of years of evolutional progress before I'm ready to pull the trigger on one.
  • 30 2
 In true SC style the price is simply ridiculous for what you are getting. Im sure the fanboys will buy every one they make but its getting silly. I know they have to price in all the warranty replacements and all the bearings they are “replacing for free” but this is just greedy.
  • 15 2
 Yeah, I love they way their bikes look and they perform well, but I can't justify their prices for the components. When Trek, Giant and Specialized are beating you on value that's not great.
  • 2 3
 I have no clue what SC has as a market share in the industry but if you just search Santa Cruz on the buy/sell under complete bikes: all mountain, the most popular brand is Specialized followed by Santa Cruz.
  • 5 1
 @rustiegrizwold: You might want to look at market shares, because Trek, Giant, and Specialized are top of most lists. SC doesn't often get an individual mention. It's much more complicated than looking at what's for sale on PB - all that might show is who has the money to switch bikes more often, or a bias for where PB is a useful listing facility, or any number of other variables.
Here are worldwide sales by brand from 2021 - bikefaff.com/mountain-bike-statistics-and-facts
Here are some other stats from 2017 which show roughly the same - www.sauserwind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/top-bikes-brand-sales.png
SC doesn't get a specific mention, so they are lumped in with "other brands" so hard to say what their share is. Just to highlight that it's very, very spurious to make any assumptions or implications based on almost no data. Needless to say, without conducting surveys, it's very difficult to get sales data on specific brands.
  • 1 0
 @Quartz: I was just making an additional comment about the "fanboys" but thanks for the info! I should clarify I also searched just in the USA.

Do you have any information on sales that don't include brands like Electra, Schwinn, Haro, and Redline? I wouldn't really say they're in the same industry but I couldn't find any sales info on my own. I'm assuming that the numbers come straight from all bikes above a certain ISO rating which isn't really fair for Santa Cruz.
  • 2 0
 @Quartz: You can't get a cheap entry level SC, so without the entry level bikes they wont even show up on the radar. A shop will sell 10 2k G, S and T bikes for every 1 5K plus bike. Like comparing Toyota sales numbers to Lexus sales numbers, they might both be cars but not the same game.
  • 11 0
 @Quartz: SC is owned by Pon Holdings, so the total sales of bikes under the Pon umbrella is the relevant metric. Since Pon is huge, SC is getting their frames and build kits at the lowest industry prices.

That's why it's so insulting that SC charges so much more for a comparable build kit than even freestanding boutique brands like Yeti or GG, let alone the big players.
  • 3 0
 @Quartz: Santa Cruz is the top MTB brand if you look at bike purchases above $3000
  • 1 0
 @Quartz: SC doesn’t exist as such. It’s just a department of pon holdings
  • 1 0
 @Quartz: IIRC in the last PB rider survey SC shared the top two spots for "current bike" and "next bike" with Specialized. That also says a lot about the PB audience, but it was surprising.
  • 3 1
 @boozed: what that says about PB survey takers isn’t particularly flattering……
  • 1 2
 @pink505: Sorry human, Toyota and Lexus are the same game like Giant and Merida, there's that corporate cummunism hidden from the "time is money" buyers. Maybach like bs, or whatever they call "premium".
  • 4 0
 @8088yl0n: Lol that's not communism, it's the opposite in fact.
  • 1 0
 @pedalingbobby: Where do you find the data on purchases above $3000?

@wyorider Yep, they function the same way designer clothing brands do. You pay for the name. They get their materials for the lowest costs around but charge among the highest and provide poor value.
  • 2 0
 @8088yl0n: how insulting to label me human, I am actually gen2 of the PB comment generator bot!

Fine call me out on my slightly flawed car example...it would be like comparing Gap sales figures to Versace.

Check your cpu you might be overheating!
  • 29 0
 Damnit. Now I need a whole new frame with two extra holes.
  • 20 0
 Right? I have the 2021 hightower and it's great but I'm not quite brave enough to cut my own snack box compartment into it Razz
  • 18 3
 @elsb0048: technical name is bud bay
  • 18 28
flag brass-munky (Jun 21, 2022 at 0:33) (Below Threshold)
 Hot take: in frame storage is rattly and has the potential to destroy your frame from the inside
  • 18 0
 @brass-munky: Not an issue if you're carrying a trailside carbon repair kit!
  • 1 0
 @JacobyDH: Hatch also gives great access to inside frame for using that carbon repair kit, pro level repair with bladder. Seriously!
  • 3 12
flag iamloz (Jun 21, 2022 at 5:25) (Below Threshold)
 @brass-munky: not an issue if you fill it with a battery
  • 3 3
 I don't want a trunk, boot, bonnet, glove box, or phone mount on my bike though.
  • 2 0
 @brass-munky: That sounds like a possibility, but has it ever actually happened?
  • 1 1
 Just take your fork out and you can slide all of your stuff into the down tube as-is. Kind of a pain to get at trailside, but the cavity is there......
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: if I don't have my stuff pressed into mine pretty tightly it rattles on longer downhills enough to take the knurling off of a fitting on my pump, no real damage to the frame aside from some marring from the single trip it was banging around. I would imagine the effect would be similar to cable rub over time. I store soft stuff in my storage box now and no rattles but the potential is there if something rattles in there over a long period of time.
  • 1 0
 @brass-munky: I mean has any frame ever failed from storage box sorry I mean bud bay item damage? I've never heard of it happening before.
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: maybe putting the jazz cabbage incinerator into the frame too hot? Although that might be resolved by the resin released by said incinerator….
  • 2 0
 Add a battery and £2k and I’m in.
  • 33 5
 Boring.
  • 8 6
 That's exactly my thought. As sexy as liteville, maybe even the same target group.
  • 5 0
 @effeffeff:
When you say ‘as sexy as lite ville’ you mean ‘puke your guts out ugly’ right? Because I’m not sure that’s quite fair to Santa Cruz…
  • 2 1
 @effeffeff: That's quite a burn... ow.
  • 27 1
 Same same, but different! But still same!
  • 12 1
 Identically different
  • 4 1
 Identically similar.
  • 6 1
 But more expensive for the same.
  • 5 1
 Which is a good thing if you own the previous version. No need to go shopping, just keep on enjoying the ride Wink
  • 2 1
 It seems a lot of these people have no idea the movie you're quoting.
  • 18 1
 Frustrating to still not have coil compatibility
  • 2 0
 You can fit a coil. I'm running a DVO jade x currently and it doesn't rub. Although the coil does have to be rotated to the perfect spot...
  • 2 0
 @Jezza99: are you running it with a cascade link?
  • 1 0
 @Jezza99: you can fit a coil if you’re not too heavy…buddy of mine is 200lbsish and the larger coils don’t fit
  • 2 0
 Same here... Hoped for coil compatibility too... But I'm running a CC DB Coil IL on my V2 without any problems, without a cascade link. Does an amazing job, but would have loved to go bigger with the new HT.
  • 1 0
 @Mkrol: nah just running the stock link. And it heavily depends on which brand of coil you have, they all have slightly different outer diameters. But yes, I suspect larger coils wouldn't fit
  • 1 0
 yes, its so sad to read that bike like this is not coil compatible.. but, with cascade link, 150mm rear travel , 160mm HELM fork, DB IL coil shox it will be beast Smile
  • 16 3
 I mean yeah, this does seem very underwhelming. But maybe this also just means that people who bought Hightowers were very content with their bikes and didn't feel like the bike needed to be something different. Maybe this just means there IS a market for mid-travel, do-it-all dad bikes with mildly progressive geometry.
  • 11 0
 Don‘t fix it if it ain‘t broken…
  • 8 0
 @Muscovir what exactly is a "dad" bike? Am a dad, need new bike.
  • 7 0
 @dsciulli19: I think he was making fun of us, and two days after Rad Dad Day. The nerve!!!!
  • 7 1
 @dsciulli19: I think people usually use that phrase to describe the sober gentlemans' choice. Something that is mainstream, conventional, a safe bet and will work reliably, but also isn't amazing or revolutionary, maybe a bit boring even, and won't stand out much.

But I'm not a native english speaker so please forgive me if my usage of that idiom wasn't correct.
  • 11 0
 @dsciulli19: the only time I could afford a Santa Cruz was before I had kids. This is definitely not a dad bike for me until they leave home.
  • 3 0
 @Muscovir: Makes sense to me, appreciate the explanation. I definitely am in the market for a dad bike then. Likely the new Fuel EX when it shows up in aluminum, as long as it doesn't have a proprietary rear shock dimension.

@kevinturner12 no kidding, this dad isnt buying a Santa Cruz any time soon
  • 5 1
 When did 64.5* HTA become "mildly progressive"?
  • 2 1
 @DizzyNinja: How slack have you gone on a trail bike? I went to just under 63deg on my last one and it was amazing. I'm back at 64.5deg now and it's OK, but I'll probably slack it out by a degree at some point.
  • 1 2
 I'm a dad and here's my sequence of FS bikes over the last decade:

2012 Santa Cruz Tallboy (Aluminum) -> 2016 Ibis Ripley LS -> 2019 Intense Primer -> 2022 Specialized Stumpjumper Evo

The older I get, the more squish I need...

Interestingly, the new Hightower geo seems to be creeping closer the the Stevo's slighly more progressive geo. Maybe we've converged?
  • 1 0
 The bland increments mount
  • 4 0
 @dsciulli19: It’s more the type of person who can afford this bike not who the bikes designed for. It’s for BKXC and the type of people that go out on rides with him. Middle aged guys who’ve been working a while and they want something nice to treat themselves with.
  • 2 3
 @DizzyNinja: Head tube angles around 65° became the gold standard around 2017-2018, so like 4-5 years ago.

So yeah, 64.5° is only mildly progressive these days.
  • 7 2
 @dsciulli19: Dad bike - its a good all rounder. not necessarily expensive, though this one is.
These days its probably a mid travel 29er, which is not the bike of choice for any race discipline, nor is it the ideal park bike, jib bike, etc.
But it will handle pretty much any descent or feature that a man with a mortgage is willing to try, and you can ride it all day.
  • 2 0
 @AyJayDoubleyou: I hereby propose that we re-name the category once known as all-mountain to "dad bikes", with the definition including your last sentence. That is gold!
  • 12 0
 If 14.3kg (in reality it'll be more, so lets say 14.5 minimum) is for the carbon version then alloy is going to be 15.5kg+, add pedals and it'll be about 16kg. That's enduro bike weight territory. Not a complaint as I don't generally think weight matters very much, just an observation.
  • 4 8
flag carvalhorf (Jun 21, 2022 at 3:47) (Below Threshold)
 You should! Have a Yeti Sb6...Mullet...160mm Enduro fork...DH Casing tires and under 14kg with pedals...Hightower should be an All Mountain...Descent very capable but still light and fun...same problem for Tallboy (enhanced)
  • 7 3
 @carvalhorf: I should what? And not everybody has silly money to spend to save a couple of kg. It doesn't matter, once you put yourself on it a couple of kilos makes very little difference.
  • 5 1
 @carvalhorf: You're talking about a much more expensive and lightweight frame there.
  • 2 0
 @carvalhorf: well my sb6 was 13kgs, didn't really check weight of sb150 as I think it's close to 15
  • 8 0
 I agree with the notion that if you want a light bike and want to race uphill, get an xc bike. Otherwise I'd rather spend less money and have more durability. enduro-mtb.com/en/mtb-weight
  • 13 13
 @redrook: this putting yourself on it and the weight not mattering is bullshit.
You still have to push it.

Try carrying some breakfast cereal home from shop maybe even run with it home in a rucksack.

Then go back and do the same with a couple of six-packs. Tell me a few kg doesnt make a difference to your overall mass.
  • 15 5
 @BentonFraser: Congrats on your very fist PB comment Wink

You're talking about completely different kinematics and weight distribution.

Your analogy would only work if we were on a bicycle in those examples, and the weight was on the bike, not you - because where the weight is matters a lot, having weight on your back makes a difference because it's so high above the centre of gravity, and it has a direct affect on your body. There's also sprung and unsprung mass, one the former matters much less.

If you put 2kg on your frame and pedalled it I highly doubt it would make much difference to your uphill performance under normal conditions - as I say, if you're racing xc, then weight matters more.
  • 9 4
 @BentonFraser: Sorry but your analogy is bullshit. And the beauty of bikes is that you DON'T have to push it, you have to pedal the bike and so through the magic of mechanics it takes a LOT less effort to move the mass.

Carrying weight on your back is COMPLETELY different, and only someone who has done absolutely no reading on the subject would regard that as analogous to bike weight.
  • 10 2
 @BentonFraser: Nobody said that it doesn't make a difference to your overall mass. It obviously does, since you're adding mass. The difference is that a backback is essentially adding weight to you, not the bike, and therefore how that mass affects performance is going to be very different. You're ignoring some basic physics there. Between a 13kg and 15kg bike you're adding a small amount of weight to the bike itself (about 15%), not you. And if it's on the frame then it's part of the sprung mass (along with your body).
Having weight on your back hinders your body directly in completely different ways and doesn't work as an example at all, you need to add weight to the bike in order to evaluate the difference, which is going to be fairly minimal unless you have your eyes on uphill KOMs.
  • 9 3
 @BentonFraser: Call me crazy but I ride my bike, I don't carry it. You can obviously feel the difference between carrying nothing and even single tallboy in your hand. There's definitely a difference between a light bike and a heavier bike, but that difference probably doesn't actually matter once your sat on the thing and it's lugging your ass up the trail too.
Suspension design, kinematics, anti-squat all matter way more to pedalling efficiency than small weight differentials. And heavy wheels are much more noticeable than a heavy frame, which is why I use lighter tires.
  • 11 3
 Add 21% weight to a bike and a 95kg rider is only going to be 3.3% slower uphill. www.mtbphd.com/post/the-science-of-weight-in-mtb-does-it-matter
  • 3 0
 @redrook: pulling my +150g spare rear wheel into air via the handlebar is 20% less fun
  • 2 8
flag iiman (Jun 21, 2022 at 8:47) (Below Threshold)
 @redrook: funny, my newer bmx is 2kg lighter than the old one, as soon as I got it I could bunny hop 10" higher...
  • 10 1
 @iiman: Any better at pedalling uphill? Wink I don't think anyone would dispute a lighter bike is a bit easier to throw around.
  • 9 1
 @iiman: Funny, I don't remember pedalling my bmx up a fire road or technical climb lol, but I'm pretty sure you're talking our your arse.
  • 7 1
 @iiman: 2kg off a bmx is a much bigger relative difference, since they are much lighter than mountain bikes. My last bmw was about 10kg, so dropping 20% weight is obviously going to make it easier to hop. But we weren't talking about hopping a bmx (or mtb for that matter). Weight is a factor when you're doing tricks etc.
  • 4 0
 *my last bmx. I have never owned a bmw but presume they are heavier than 10kg lol
  • 1 0
 @mb23:
The one I rode was about 31.5lbs. Not really enduro heavy…
  • 1 0
 @notthatfast: Not sure who you're tagging but doesn't look like they've posed in this thread.

As I said, that's the official weight of the carbon model without pedals (31.5bs = 14.3kg). With pedals it'll be about 14.7kg (32lbs). I'm saying that the alloy version will likely be closer to 35lbs with pedals, which is enduro territory. I'm also saying that doesn't matter very much.
  • 1 0
 @redrook:
Aimed at you, and oops, didn’t realise you meant the alloy model. Yes their alu bikes are generally a fair bit heavier. I’d actually be interested to ride one to see how different they feel
  • 2 0
 @notthatfast: Your aim is a bit off lol Razz Yeah I'm talking about the alloy.
  • 2 9
flag Baller7756 (Jun 21, 2022 at 10:23) (Below Threshold)
 he@redrook: These studies are all over the place. A general rule has always been 1% weight increase equals 1% decrease in time. Rider weight is misleading and cant be used in any equation because there are a wide range of 95kg body types and power outputs. Really you would need to say "at some standard pedal power" ex. 200w).

www.pinkbike.com/news/field-test-12-trail-and-downcountry-bikes-face-the-efficiency-test.html

In this real world efficiency test a 26lb Top Fuel is approximately 21% lighter than the 31.5lbs Stumpjumper and it is also approximately 21% faster.
  • 2 0
 @Greeta25: my bmx is 12.5 kg lol
  • 4 1
 @rbeach: I'm not speaking about uphill performance, that doesn't worry me much. But 2 kg going downhill make a hell of a difference when it comes to throw the bike around and leave the ground, more so for someone weighting 60kg like me.
Imagine riding a bike 1/4 of your weight Wink
  • 10 1
 @Baller7756: Top Fuel vs Stumpy doesn't work as a comparison since they are different types of bike, with different suspension designs and travel. Even if the stumpy was the same weight, it still wouldn't be as efficient.

That was a controlled study, using the same rider with the same power output (fulfilling your standard pedal power criteria).

Rider weight absolutely HAS to be part of the equation, because the impacts of weight changes are very much relative to the rider. But in this instance it was to be the same rider doing the test, so it was entirely consistent. Increasing bike weight by 21% only reduced efficiency by 3.3% for a 95kg rider. That's entirely valid. It also factors for rider tiredness, which these PB don't do.

The PB videos are entertainment and should be treated as such.

Here's another experiment, showing that (for road bikes) decreasing weight by 6% only resulted in a 2% average speed gain. ridefar.info/bike/cycling-speed/weight

Here's another which showed the same in reverse, a 2% reduction in speed with an addition of 4lbs
www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez

Here's another which shows a 13.6% drop in speed with 50% weight gain between bikes (18kg vs 9kg) (which is obviously a very exaggerated weight gain) middleagecyclist.blogspot.com/2011/09/weight-matters-study.html

Here's another showing a time gain on the Alp De Huez of 1.5 mins. Relevant for pro racers, but entirely irrelevant to recreational riders -https://cyclinguphill.com/time-saved-weight-loss-bike/

There's absolutely nothing to support the "general rule" (which I've never heard of) of a 1% drop in efficiency for a 1% weight gain - which, as already discussed, would be entirely relative to the weight/power of the rider.
  • 5 0
 @iiman: Yep the effects of weight will be relative to the rider. Every bike is going to be relatively heavier for you than a heavier rider, obviously.
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Lol, sorry PB videos are not evidence of anything. For a start, they make Leavy or whoever do the same thing over and over, as if tiredness isn't a massive factor. And if these studies are everywhere why didn't you use one to back up what you're saying, rather than a PB video lol
  • 6 0
 @Baller7756: I've never heard that "general rule" and I've worked in the industry for 20 years.
  • 4 1
 @Baller7756: I mean, you undermine your own "general rule" immediately by pointing out the flaw in making any general rules, that you need to control for rider weight/power etc.

So let's forget general rules and look at specific examples where the rider was consistent. Greeta25 has posted a bunch of such examples and they all show much smaller efficiency sacrifices. It's not scientific by I'm much faster on climbs on my newer, heavier bike simply due to better geometry and suspension design. So it's about so much more than weight, which is why it's wrong to place so much importance on weight, especially if you're not chasing seconds.
  • 3 10
flag Baller7756 (Jun 21, 2022 at 11:34) (Below Threshold)
 @redrook: Wow... didnt realize I waded into the "Extra Weight is Cool Club". I didnt offer the PB test as a scientific study, I offered it as a real world example (which I stated). I also submit the race I entered last weekend as another real world example (Blue trails). All the top finishers rode light weight bikes. In general, the heaver the bike, the further down the podium they placed. Yes, there are hundreds of other factors, but the most obvious was bike weight.

I dont understand how there could even be a case against a reduction in weight saving time and energy! Its everywhere there is competition (bikes, cars, boats, track and field, bobsled, on and on...)... its a undeniable fact of the universe! You guys are operating in some Bizzaro world, where scientific studies can contradict reality and you believe it.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: A proportional rule for bike weight where a 1% weight decrease equals a 1% faster time is literally insane! By this logic, a 5% lighter bike would be 5% faster, a 21% lighter bike would be 21% faster, and a 100% lighter bike would be 100% faster. That means that if you could somehow make a racer's bike weigh nothing, perfectly 0 lbs, then they would do the race in 0 seconds, faster than the speed of light. You're 1 for 1 rule is senseless and idiotic. Even if you were saying that somehow a rider might put out the same amount of power while BOTH THE RIDER AND BIKE were losing a given percentage of weight (which you clearly were not), it still doesn't make sense because that rule would mean a weightless rider would go at infinity speed, again faster than light. And your real world "data" reference is bullsh!t. You're assuming that the only reason for a 21% faster time on a Top Fuel compared to a Stumpy is the 21% decrease in weight, which is very very wrong. The handling and efficiency characteristics between these two bikes is very different and that is mostly due to suspension design, suspension setup, and geometry, not bike weight. I'm definitely not in the "Extra Weight is Cool Club", I love a lighter trail bike as it's easier to jump, toss around, wheelie and it makes my laps times a few seconds faster. But I've got 100s of rides between different bikes that show that dropping 10-15% bike weight on otherwise similar bikes will give 1-3% increase in average speeds.
  • 4 0
 @Baller7756: Who was against weight savings? And who said extra weight was good? Who was making a case for extra weight? Why are you so butthurt?

Scientific studies don't contradict reality, they aim to explain it.

As has been said if you're literally chasing seconds (i.e. racing) saving small amounts of weight makes sense. For average Joe on his pushbike, the gains are very much marginal. Nobody is saying not to do it, just that the difference isn't very big.

Next time try reading a thread properly, don't jump to conclusions, and take a breath before you dive in with completely unverifiable claims.
  • 4 0
 @robw515: Exactly. The entire point of my original post was that there won't be very much difference, which is pretty self evident.
  • 4 1
 @Baller7756: You've just waded into the internet, where your claims can be challenged and verified. As has been said, your one for one tradeoff is beyond moronic. When you come up with things which involve very basic maths, physics and logic, people are going to tell you if they're moronic.

None of the links I provided were studies, but they were real world experiments.

Nobody said extra weight was cool. Nobody was against weight savings. Nobody here put that stick up your ass.

The available data shows that gains are marginal - not non-existent, not even un-noticeable, but marginal.

Now chill out and sit down (but remove the stick first).
  • 4 4
 @Baller7756: Dumbass. So a 50% lighter bike is 50% faster? Are you retarded?

And what race was this? What were the results? What are the riders' weights and power outputs? What bikes were they riding and what did they weigh? Did you weigh them yourself? How do you know they were lighter? Sorry but you can "submit" your mouth to my butthole if you think that's evidence of anything.

Obviously racers on light bikes are gonna be fast, but who here was talking about racing before you came along numbnuts?
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: Who said extra weight was cool? Did you even read the thread?
  • 6 0
 @Baller7756: Where was the case against a reduction in weight? I don't see that anywhere. I see posts about it not making a massive difference, but that's not the same thing...
  • 1 9
flag Baller7756 (Jun 21, 2022 at 13:36) (Below Threshold)
 @rbeach: My bad... I submit and conform.

But just to clarify... the 1% "rule of thumb"... Its 1% of total weight for a 1% gain in speed or reduction in time. Which can be a huge gap in a race... depending on the length of the race.

10 seconds, 20 seconds, 40 seconds, 60 seconds is a massive difference in a race... or in your Strava ranking.
  • 5 6
 @redrook: Nope. Bike weight is not just about moving a bike forward, it's moving a bike around underneath you. Lighter frames change direction quicker, require less effort to move, bunny, manual. It all adds up.
  • 8 0
 @Baller7756: But that rule is nonsense as has been shown pretty thoroughly above. Making huge changes to bike weight did not result in a commensurate time loss. @robw515 pointed out the obvious flaw in this logic right away. And can you present any evidence for it whatsoever? Because the tests @Greeta25 linked to showed very tiny time sacrifices for much higher weight gains (like a few seconds over many km).
  • 7 0
 @OnTheRivet: Sure, but enough to make much of a difference to a normal rider? Nah. Don't buy that. I've no problem bunny hopping my dh bike or my trail bike and there's a 4kg difference between them. Is it a little more effort with the dh bike? Sure. But is it worth it to me spending £2000 to shave off a couple of kg? Nah, because it doesn't make enough difference and I'm not racing or doing tricks for a living.
  • 7 0
 @OnTheRivet: Nope. A frame 1.5kg lighter (which is the weight change this thread is about) isn't going to move much more quickly or be much easier to move around, unless your technique sucks. Lighter frames aren't as stable through rough chatter, don't hold their line as well and aren't as stable in the air. It all adds up - except it doesn't, we all ride the bike we're used to just fine because these things don't actually add up, they are all distinct and we very quickly learn to adjust. We're talking about a 15% weight change in an object which weighs the same as a small dog lol
  • 5 0
 @OnTheRivet: Just to say I + propped you by mistake, I don't agree, Unless you're doing tricks a little bit of weight isn't going to make much difference. Nobody was denying that it would be easier with a lighter bike, but the difference isn't huge. We've all ridden heavy bikes and light bikes and you get the bike which suits what you want to do. This entire convo has been about uphill efficiency btw, but it's not that hard to do these things with a little bit of extra weight.
  • 6 1
 @OnTheRivet: How does it add up though? Mannys and hops are just techniques which involve moving YOUR weight around primarily.

It's not much harder to move around a heavy bike. EWS riders are on close to 40lbs rigs and they don't seem to struggle. Heavier bikes also have stability advantages. So it depends what you want to do with your bike, but for most people the only time they'll notice what their bike weighs it is when they lift it into their truck.

This thread was about a 3lb difference. Nobody is noticing that on the trail unless you are starting off with a very light xc bike. I love my light bike, but I'm not going to try to justify the extra $2000 it cost over the alloy just by the weight saving or pretend that it's making me all that faster. I get destroyed by friends on much heavier bikes.
  • 5 0
 Is nobody going to mention ebikes? Say what you like about them but they rock for descents. And if anyone's watched Sam Pilgrim they'll know that even those Haibikes can be tricked, and that's a 54lb bike!

I don't fancy pedalling a bike that heavy up a hill though, there's definitely a point where weight is too much lol
  • 5 0
 @Jackaboo: Lol yes 54lbs (about 25kg) is definitely going to make a difference all round, I'm no Sam Pilgrim Wink
  • 3 9
flag ceecee (Jun 22, 2022 at 6:36) (Below Threshold)
 @rbeach: somebody tell Dan Paley that his technique sucks and he's wasting his time with a 136g cassette. Hope you like your line, because you'll be staying on it
  • 7 0
 @ceecee: Dan Paley the professional rider who, as has been said a few times in this thread, can justify chasing grams and gets his parts through sponsorship rather than paying for them? That Dan Paley yeah?
  • 6 0
 Entire thread: *is about the average rider

ceecee: "oh yeah, what about this pro rider?"

Lol
  • 7 1
 Somebody tell @ceecee that Dan Paley is gonna notice a 3lb weight change a little more than the average rider.

I'm also pretty sure Dan Paley would be just as good no matter what weight his bike is (within normal bike weights).
  • 5 1
 @ceecee: Somebody tell Jack Moir than he needs a lighter bike, because winning EWS on a 34lb bike isn't ok. If you want to play that game, then I'll point you in the direction of some pro riders who are using heavier parts. Except the riding that Dan and Jack are doing isn't exactly what the average rider is doing now is it? So let's forget that pretty dumb line of logic.
  • 4 1
 @ceecee: Not quite the gotcha you thought it was eh Wink
  • 2 4
 Doode. that’s not a cool word to use. @Jackaboo:
  • 2 0
 @Tigergoosebumps: What's not a cool word to use?
  • 2 8
flag ceecee (Jun 22, 2022 at 10:00) (Below Threshold)
 @rbeach: so it's about not paying, and justifying? Better to go for a jog or a swim then
  • 6 2
 @ceecee: You've lost me with your analogy, but no. When it means spending say, $2000 more for the carbon bike over the alloy to save 3lbs, then yeah I (and clearly many others) can't justify that cost. Pro riders' livelihoods are about a very high level of performance which rests on thin margins (either of say, trick ease or mere seconds on a race course).

Average Joe isn't generally concerned with those thin margins. If he is, he can buy a lighter bike, nobody has said that he can't. But that doesn't change the fact that the gains/losses over 3lbs are very marginal.
  • 6 0
 @ceecee: So everyone should buy the lightest bike because the pro rider you cherry picked does, regardless of cost?
  • 7 1
 @ceecee: Oops, another gotcha swing and a miss Frown It's almost like not reading the thread properly isn't working out.
  • 7 1
 @ceecee: Nothing wrong with justifying going either way, pay more for a lighter bike or paying less for a heavier one. Who said different? Last I checked this thread was about the small sacrifices associated with weight gains. Straw men burn easily.
  • 2 10
flag ceecee (Jun 23, 2022 at 6:50) (Below Threshold)
 @Greeta25: okay, let me try again: the average rider is best suited to average weights and average costs, especially the average rider who ignores margins and wishes to remain average. The only risk here is that average riders become exceptionally average
  • 7 1
 @ceecee: "exceptionally average". Oh dear buddy *facepalm. Your gotchas just aren't hitting.

We're talking, in one example, about a 3% efficiency cost when introducing a 21% weight increase. That's exceptionally unexceptional for the average rider Wink
  • 7 1
 @ceecee: By definition you cannot be exceptionally average. If you're still average then therefore no significant change has occurred - something all the available data supports too (unless, as has been said, you're racing, in which case 3% might indeed matter).

I'm not sure what your argument actually is at this point, and I'm not sure you know either.
  • 1 7
flag Baller7756 (Jun 23, 2022 at 11:45) (Below Threshold)
 @Blerger: Based on the influence in this thread, I have decided to go out and buy a 35lb+ bike. Cant wait to see the minimal impact in performance, feel, fun, speed, and time! 10lbs today is like 3lbs back in the day...
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Then you didn't read the thread. Nobody was trying to influence you. In fact only the weight weenies seem to have got butthurt.

Go for it. 35lb isn't an unusual weight for an enduro bike at all. If you're going from a 32lb bike to a 35lb bike - which is what this thread was about - then you probably won't notice much difference. But I would rather buy the bike I like, rather than buy it based on its weight.

My Slash is just over 35lb. I'm not going to enter any xc races on it, but it does me well in enduro races, and there's quite a bit of ascent in those. I doubt anyone on a 35lb alloy Hightower is going to be bitching as much as you weight weenies either lol Wink
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: This thread was about a 3lb (15%) increase, so if you're gaining 10lbs from 25lb to 35lb, that would be a 29% increase.

But hey you'll be buying an average weight alloy trail bike! Enjoy! I'm sure the owners of alloy Hightowers are enjoying theirs Smile
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: That another one of your rules of thumb?
  • 1 7
flag Baller7756 (Jun 24, 2022 at 9:22) (Below Threshold)
 @Greeta25: FYI Gretta... "my" rule of thumb aligns with your data.

100kg total weight (average bike, rider, and gear)
remove 3kg (which is 3%)
~ 3% increase in speed, or ~3% reduction in time

That 3% will put you nearly a minute ahead in a 30 minute race or ranking. Which can be and entire field of racer times.

I would also say that weight has a bigger impact on acceleration vs steady state pedaling... so a bigger impact on MTB than road biking.
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Lol no sweetheart. You said 1% weight increase = 1% efficiency cost. You also didn't say it was about the total weight, so you're now moving the goalposts. My data relates to the bike weight alone.

We're also talking about 3lbs, not 3kg.

As has been said countless times in thread, this isn't about racing. If you're literally chasing seconds (1 min over a 30 min race) then weight is a factor.
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Wow, you just didn't read any of this thread did you chief
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: 3kg would be 6.6bs, so more than twice the weight difference that's been discussed.

The 3% was in relation to a 21% weight change to the bike, with a 90kg rider. Not sure where you're getting your 100kg total weight of rider bike and gear from.

If you're a recreational trail rider then 31mins vs 30mins is irrelevant. It's been said a bunch of times in this thread that if you're a racer, and therefore very tiny margins like you've just described would be a big deal, then yeah weight matters.

Are you deliberately ignoring what's been said, or do you actually not understand what's going on?
  • 5 1
 @Baller7756: The 3% efficiency decrease was the result of a 21% weight change to the bike. In your example a 3% weight change would (if the effect is linear) result in a 0.42% efficiency difference - i.e. a 7.5 second increase, not 30 seconds.

But even your basic maths is wrong: 3% of 30 minutes is 54 seconds not 30. But that's irrelevant because you're incorrect about the efficiency cost in the first place as I describe above, which would actually be 0.42% with a 3% weight change.

To add 30 seconds to your time you'd have to increase the bike's weight by a lot more - if the effect was linear you'd have to increase the bike's weight by 104%, but the effect is not be linear because the effect of weight change is exponential - by which I mean, the lighter the rider is in relation to the bike, the bigger the effect of weight change will be (i.e. lighter riders lose more time when adding weight to their bikes than heavy riders do). This also means that a 3% weight change would actually, for the 90kg rider, result in an even smaller efficiency change than 0.42%.

This is something discussed in depth in the MTB PHD experiment, which was a MTB experiment, not road. They also say in their summary that weight can have a significant (in racing terms, so still only a few seconds over many minutes) effect on time but this hugely dependent on the rider's weight, with weight changes having no measurable penalty whatsoever for some riders (as they say, not surprising, since it's exponential).

Stay in school.
  • 1 1
 I remember my mother telling me, 'son, whatever you do, never acquire an XTR 10-45t'
  • 6 0
 @redrook: Really excellent explanation, because it's exponential and so dependent on rider weight/power, and being talking about in such tiny increments (as you say seconds over long periods of riding) we can be pretty sure that small weight changes are irrelevant unless you're racing xc. I still love my 26lb bike lol but I'm not going to pretend that it makes me much faster on the climbs - it's probably easier to put on top of the car though Wink
  • 6 0
 @Greeta25: Haha absolutely
  • 1 7
flag Baller7756 (Jun 24, 2022 at 14:18) (Below Threshold)
 @redrook: How much does this hypothetical bike weigh if 21% represents 3lbs? That's a 15lb bike!

21% of a 30lb MTB is 6lbs (or 3kg for you Gretta).
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: No you complete muppet. 3lbs was the weight difference between carbon/alloy bikes which I mentioned in my very first post (although I was speaking in kg).

The 21% weight increase was in the MTB PHD experiment using an actual bike, which resulted in a 3.3% efficiency cost. This was done by adding 2.3kg (5lb) to a 10.7kg (24lb) xc bike.

I strongly encourage you to read properly.
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Jesus christ, this is like watching you continually touching an electric fence lol
  • 7 0
 @Greeta25: At least he managed to calculate what 21% of 30lbs is, regardless of how irrelevant that is.
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Where are you getting that 21% is 3lbs? I'll ask again, are you deliberately ignoring what's been said, or do you actually not understand what's going on?
  • 1 7
flag Baller7756 (Jun 24, 2022 at 17:44) (Below Threshold)
 @rbeach: I must admit... it has been difficult to reason these "facts" with real world experience. So many numbers, so many insults... who can keep track?

I was hoping to get someone in the group to admit that weight matters... and that it is the primary controllable factor for all types of biking and other competitive sports and numerus industry applications were Work = Force x Distance and Force = Mass x Acceleration and Mass = Weight / Gravity.

Its like a group of Weight Deniers. Final words on the subject... Weight Matters!
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: Buddy, you've been presented with pretty straightforward facts, I think only one insult (if you call "dummy" an insult), and everyone seems to be able to keep track other than you.

As we've established weight matters if you are working with very small margins for error - such as chasing seconds on a race course. Weight does not matter if you're not doing that, because we're talking about a few seconds over quite long periods of time.

Final words on the subject: please read the thread and basic info you've been provided with. You have only sought to move goalposts to fit your opinion, without acknowledging anything you've been told.
  • 6 0
 @Baller7756: So you have real world experience of going from a 32lb bike to a 35lb bike and noticing a big difference?

As redrook says, you haven't even attempted to understand what you've been told - which has been pretty simple, and all you've done is randomly pick numbers and try to fit them to an obviously bullshit "rule of thumb" you've plucked out of the air. You can't answer the direct questions you've been asked, or provide any actual evidence for anything you've said.

Weight matters exponentially if the rider weight/power is a constant. Weight matters if you are chasing results in xc racing. Weight does not matter in general.

To quote the study you clearly still haven't read: "Mountain bikers spend way too much time trying to have lightweight stuff and trying to "buy" time, when in reality much bigger gains can be had by riding smoother, smarter and training right."

That doesn't mean weight loss doesn't mean gains, it just means very small gains, and there are far bigger gains to be had elsewhere.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: "Weight Matters!" - ok, please explain coherently why it matters. We know it can matter for racers (depending on a variety of factors) but why does it matter to average Joe? Why does average Joe need those extra couple of seconds? Why does average Joe need to spend $2000 (difference between alloy/carbon frames) for those seconds? I'm all ears.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: Just read some of your other really insightful (heavily downvoted) comments on other threads too. You seem to think that enduro bikes are shuttle/lift bikes. You seem to be confused and gatekeeping.
  • 2 8
flag Baller7756 (Jun 25, 2022 at 14:54) (Below Threshold)
 @Greeta25: IDK Greeta...Why does anyone want to do something quicker or more efficiently? In this case lets remain with MTB.
1. Obviously for competition (against others or against yourself... PRs, KOMs).
2. To reach higher riding speeds for the thrill of it, or for the challenge it presents.
2a. Riding skills improvements associated with riding faster.
3. To be able to ride longer and further with the same amount of energy exerted.
3a. Faster recovery time (so that you can ride more, or hike more, or run more, etc.).
4. So that you can enjoy climbs and flats as much as downhill.
5. So that you can keep up with others in a group ride and not slow the group down.
6. So that you can maneuver your bike more effectively (on the ground, or in the air).
7. So that you can stop your bike quicker (performance and safety).
8. So that you can carry more gear or fluids instead of more bike mass.
9. So you are less fatigued, and less likely to get injured.

I'm sure there are many other tangential benefits of a lighter weight bike, but I'm also sure that this group will not acknowledge any of them.

The money is relative to the individual. Yes, you can save up to 3lbs in the frame material, but lower end components are also heavier and/or lower performing. You can save ~5-6lbs and get better performing components for what recently used to be a $2000 difference, but likely inflated now to something more.

It seems that you are really asking if a more expensive bike is a better bike for the average rider... with weight generally being the primary difference. But that's like asking why does an average driver need a GT500 over a standard Mustang 'its only completing the 1/4 mile a few seconds faster". Those decisions a way more dynamic than weight and performance alone.

Bike A - Aluminum with low end components ~36lbs - $4000
Bike B - Aluminum with high end components ~33lbs - $5000
Bike C - Carbon with low end components ~33lbs - $6000
Bike D - Carbon with high end components ~30lbs - $7000

Pick your poison.
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Lol what happened to "final words"? That's an interesting pile of word salad . It completely ignores the original point - which was that a small weight change doesn't make a difference. Points 1-9 are real reaches, I mean really desperate reaches to find extremely tenuous benefits to saving 3lbs lol
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: Lets break down your points then shall we, as usual.

1. we've established that it makes little time/speed difference
2. we've established that it makes little time/speed difference
2a. as above, and do they?
3. nope, not supported by the data. Very dependent on rider .
3a. Not supported by data. Greater gains to be made by very slight fitness improvements rather than weight.
4. See points 1 and 2. And who says shaving a couple seconds off a climb makes it more enjoyable. Seems very subjective.
5. Irrelevant and extremely subjective.
6. See points 1 and 2.
7. Brakes do this.
8. Why not both?
9. See points 1, 2 and 3

Each of these is going to be imperceptible with a difference of 3lbs on a normal trail/enduro bike.

Money is relative to the individual, but the point is that it's diminishing returns. The rest of your comment is just a truism without a point - although the Mustang comparison doesn't work. People will buy expensive things because they can, not because they will benefit from the difference. You even say this yourself, so we can ignore this.
  • 6 1
 @Baller7756: Seems like the definition of what matters was set at the beginning of this thread, and that was time/efficiency. All the data shows there is minimal difference, so your numbered points aren't backed up by anything. I go riding with guys on much lighter bikes than me and I keep up just fine, because it's not a race. Nobody's slowing anyone down. You seem to keep relying on a competitive element to make your points, despite this being removed many times in this thread. But of course, you don't acknowledge, or even seem to have read, anything that's been said.

Religious zealots do the same thing. They make a point, which is then rebuked with evidence, they then change the parameters of their point or make a non-sequitur, attempting to change the parameters of the conversation. This process is then repeated ad nausea. Watch videos of people trying to espouse creationism, it's the same. They're too ignorant to understand the evidence, and continually fall back on subjectivity and speculation.

3lbs on a normal trail/enduro bike is nothing. That's basically a water bottle and a headset multitool. There could be a bigger difference between two riders on the same bike.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: Can't say I enjoy the climbs any more or less, they are just ways for me to get to the top. This is the way everyone I know rides. If you're super into chasing KOMs then you go for it, but don't pretend that 3lbs is going to get you there.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: "quicker or more efficiently?"

I'm gonna stop you right there. Go read this thread again, and I suggest the multiple links (particularly the MTB one) which were provided. As has been said so many times that I can only assume you haven't read this thread, we are talking about literally seconds gained/lost. This is not what most people are doing or what most people would regard as mattering. You cannot change what the OP said matters. He started this thread and set the parameters for what matters. If you think something else matters, you can start your own thread, but you cannot tell other people what should matter to them.

The rest of your comment doesn't appear to be making a point - the only point it does make is that people buy things for difference reasons beyond performance. And yes! You're absolutely right! Well done! It seems like you've make a breakthrough!

Now hunny. Nobody is trying to take your light bike away from you. Nobody is saying you can't love it. But what you are being told, with evidence, is that it's not giving you a big time/efficiency difference over someone with a heavier (and similarly designed/intentioned) bike.
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: Lol shut up, 3lbs on a 30lbs+ bike isn't making a lick of difference to any of those things. What a f*ckin chump haha
  • 6 0
 @Jackaboo: At this point he has to be trolling.
  • 1 6
flag Baller7756 (Jun 25, 2022 at 16:54) (Below Threshold)
 @Greeta25: Wow... appreciate the objectivity and respect. If we must limit the entire conversation to "minimal weight has minimal impact in non competitive situations", because those were the first words typed in this thread, then sure we have to leave it there. Why choose 3lbs? We could have been even more adamant saying 1lb has virtually no impact.

But why cant we grow our conversation a bit (without the belittling and insults). Why cant we admit that there is an entire world of light weight bikes and components that do indeed have an impact on riding? Why cant we admit that you cant keep adding weight without reaching a point at which each of us individually would consider too much?

My current fleet includes a Transition Spur at 26lbs and a Yeti Sb165 at 32lbs. Although I cant produce the data that proves what I feel and how I feel riding them, I will still say the weight difference is certainly noticeable riding and recovering.
  • 1 5
flag Baller7756 (Jun 25, 2022 at 16:56) (Below Threshold)
 @Blerger: Actually, I'm just trying to have a conversation with fellow MTB'ers. I'm not upset or excited (despite the lack of respect)... certainly not "trolling".
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: 3lbs was chosen because that's what I started this thread with, and is about the difference between an alloy and carbon bike like the Hightower.

Dude, you aren't having a conversation because that requires you to read/listen, which you haven't done. Come back when you've read what people have said and have read the evidence provided.

I already been explained extremely well that you would reach a point at which there would be too much weight. You comment just illustrates that you haven't even tried.

The spur is a 120mm xc bike, the SB165 is a long travel enduro bike, so were not talking about similarly intentioned bikes, so again you haven't read anything that's been said.
  • 6 0
 @Baller7756: Oh sorry I didn't realise there was any ambiguity, I don't respect your opinion at all based on what you've said, since you obviously don't respect anyone else enough to actually read.

Nobody needs to "admit" any of that because none of that was ever questioned. As redrook says, you haven't read any of the above, it's all covered.
  • 6 0
 @Baller7756: If you're trolling by accident you're even dumber than I thought.

An xc bike feels different to an enduro bike? You're a genius! This was discussed very early on in the thread, you need to compare similar bikes.

Hahaha why should anyone show you respect when you're clearly a complete numbnuts lol
  • 3 0
 @Baller7756: If you think the main difference between the Spur and the SB165 is the weight you don't sound the brightest Smile
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: "Why cant we admit that you cant keep adding weight without reaching a point at which each of us individually would consider too much?"

Read. The. Thread. Chump.
  • 15 2
 NX is unacceptable at this price point, especially for the cassette. It's true that buying an Eagle cassette isn't that great of an expense in comparison with the bike's price, but it's still a downright silly spec.
  • 2 0
 Did I miss something? Does this build of the HT have an NX cassette?
  • 3 0
 @dsciulli19: No, I was referring to the base model, but when I went to edit it I couldn't. My comment refers to the base model. I guess I'm not used to think of a $5500 bike as a base model.
  • 14 0
 Dont care about the bike - but I am here for Sterling's last pic in the article. 100/100 would view again.
  • 10 0
 "this isn't the place to look if you're on the hunt for a killer value." = Yeah this thing is way overpriced.

Imagine paying $10K for a bike and still having to replace the dropper post. No idea what they were thinking unless Sram had a shipment of them laying around and SC couldn't get their hands on anything else.
  • 12 2
 $300 more bucks gets you a GG Smash with Fox Factory suspension, XT drive train, and a Bike Yoke dropper. Santa Cruz is smoking that good sh@t!
  • 1 1
 But you still have a gg frame to put up with
  • 12 1
 No Shimano option Frown
  • 1 0
 komking.de and you can build one yourself
  • 3 0
 @pakleni: Half of the point of buying a new complete bike is I don't need to rely on my crappy bike maintenance skills Smile
  • 3 0
 @korev: Oh, you misunderstood. I would never frame you to actually build your bike yourself.

When I said it, I meant you can build one yourself by clicking on dialogue boxes. You can leave the wrenching part to them
  • 1 2
 Shimano XT option is on their website.
  • 2 0
 @NZRalphy: Where you you seen that? I looked on both their Swiss and Global sites and couldn't see one
  • 2 0
 @korev:
Sorry mate, I now realize it was the Hightower2 that I was looking at.
  • 2 0
 @NZRalphy: No worries, thanks for letting me know
  • 11 1
 10k and you can’t even adjust your shock
  • 8 2
 Any time a company touts something to make the bike easier to set up for novice riders you know they are out of ideas and it probably isn’t going to be great.

The sag window is the 2022 version of Specialized auto sag shocks.

Also, these builds are garbage.
  • 9 0
 No way does the bike pictured (with the longer dropper sticking way out of the frame) have a 76* STA.
  • 4 0
 That was my first thought too - looks waaaaay slacker than 76* STA. I rode a Tallboy 3 for years - size XL @ 187cm and it looked similar to that with the seatpost extension way out over the rear wheel. It wasn't until I also bought a Geometron with proper sizing and STA that I realised how poorly the SC fitted me. It only took 3 more rides on my Tallboy before it was promptly listed on the classifieds.
  • 1 0
 @a11y: what's the size/reach on that geometron?
  • 1 0
 @skiboot1: I’m riding a XL G15 with 535mm reach.
  • 1 0
 @a11y: damn man, I've never considered a bike over 500mm reach with my height of 185cm.
  • 6 0
 First Gen HT with the flat black, orange, teal, paint job was such an excellent bike with any rear shock as long as it was a bit overforked.

For those who haven’t owned an SC, when you own one, I’ve never paid full retail, but close, and never felt ripped off bc the quality of the carbon, paint, routing, everything is done a little better in my opinion and last a long time. I put 8k miles on my HT and went through 4 sets of wheels, 3 set of bearings, 2 shocks, and 3 forks. Zero problems with the frame.

Love this new HT but the lack of a coil kills it for me. I know it’s only 145mm but I REALLY like the advantages and feel of a coil now that there are adjustable springs like spindex.

Bike co’s are spending way too much time on “Snack Shack’s” the last few year IMO. What else do you need to carry!?!? I don’t wear any packs, bottle, with a multi-tool, C02, and racer plug patch and I ask people if they need help all the time. And they usually have massive packs on.
  • 4 0
 I used to be a SC fan boy but just bought a s-works stumpy frame for $3k where Hightower cc is $4k. Both are dealer sales so don't tell me that your costs have increased. Build the stumpy with xx1 axs, carbon rovals for $8k..
  • 4 0
 I've owned 4 full suspension SC's going back to 2014. I bought them all as frame only, 1 alloy, 3 carbon CC. All great bikes, never had issues with any of them (still own one). But their full suspension frame only prices basically start at $4K now, I can get a much better deal elsewhere. So that's what I'll be doing in the future.
  • 3 0
 I'm interested about your comment about 160mm fork on this bike @mikekazimer. I'm tempted to do the same on my hightower but I'm not certain I'd even be able to notice the difference with 150 vs 160mm. Thoughts on the amount of impact of that kind of change on other bikes?
  • 2 0
 It isnt uncommon to find a 160mm fork on the v2 but v3 might handle it a little better because of the steeper seat tube and more aggressive nature. Just watch out for that higher stack height creeping up to where it feels like you’re riding a chopper
  • 3 0
 I ride a 160mm fork on my HT2 and I think it is a great upgrade. No problem when climbing etc. Go for it.
  • 4 0
 If your riding more aggressive trials the 160 is definitely beneficial. I’ve had one on my Hightower since I bought it in 2020. Still pedals & hold traction great on steep climbs.
  • 2 0
 I have 2020 hightower, threw a 160mm with a coil spring on it..climbs about the same, descends a little better in steeper terrain.
  • 1 0
 @ethanbuttram02: Fortunately for me at 6'6" on the XXL I don't have to worry quite as much about stack heights getting too tall, if anything an extra 10mm probably brings it closer to something proportional
  • 1 0
 Ive got my v3 setup with 160mm fork and it feels great.
  • 8 1
 Comes free with pit vipers and Fox kit?
  • 3 0
 surprised they didn't add a degree to the seat angle. Also it's annoying they could have easily added in-frame storage to all previous generations (like the v4 5010 and v5 nomad) since they made the tubing so large. Clearly they were already thinking two models ahead for a future selling point.
  • 7 0
 This vs Ripmo, my $ goes to Ibis.... although the purple is nice.
  • 5 0
 I'm curious what they'll do with the third generation of the Ripmo
  • 6 0
 Lmao those NX and GX builds are just awful. Why is it so hard for brands to put a decent SLX build together?
  • 4 2
 because shimano didn't do a great job at increasing its manufacturing capacity to meet the demand? Because brands can actually get their hands on NX and GX within the next year and SLX stuff is over a year.
  • 4 1
 @Spencermon: ibis manages to do it
  • 5 1
 @norcalbike: Yeah. If the ice cream truck only has 3 strawberry flavor ice cream bars, 3 people will get one. But every one else is stuck with chocolate because the ice cream truck has 45 of those.
  • 1 1
 Shimano XT option is on their website.
  • 1 0
 Whoops, it is the Hightower2 that has the shimano build.
  • 3 0
 "keeping the shock tunnel just big enough to fit an inline shock"

Yet it has a piggyback shock in every single picture here. And a bulky piggyback at that.

Part of the air can seems to be inside the tunnel, surely there are some coil springs that are close to the diameter of a Super Deluxe air can...
  • 7 1
 That wine color is dope w the fluro yellow.
  • 3 0
 I much prefer the clean lines of the V2 rear triangle. Selling my Hightower V2 was emotionally difficult. So very easy to work on. So very hard to check sag. Easy to clean. Easy to ride.
  • 6 0
 Oh yes And No. It's not 3 times better than my Bird AM9.
  • 5 1
 "There's plenty of room for tools and snacks inside the downtube."
Man could say you could nearly put a battery in this downtube Smile
  • 9 5
 The actual seat angle on this bike is so idiotically slack. At 6.1 I'd sit right above the rear axle and couldn't get up steep hills without the front lifting.
  • 9 12
 I’m taller than you, this sounds like a you problem
  • 2 0
 I measured it off the photo and it was around 68 degrees
  • 2 0
 Still no coil? That’s pretty lame. Kind of funny considering a Tallboy… yes a Tallboy can fit a coil.. and you can do some tricks to it and have it closer travel to a Hightower yet it still pedals better and descends better due to the Geo you created with the beefed up version.
  • 2 1
 Also a bummer you still don’t get chainstay flip chip. Still pretty short on those longer sizes.
  • 6 1
 They must be paying Steve Peat crazy amount of money just to stand around in the pits.
  • 2 0
 Dream job really
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer Is there a reason why this article has stayed at the top of the feed despite new articles being published? Shouldn’t it have moved down like every other new bike post when newer articles are published. I smell conspiracy of Mike Levy proportions
  • 3 0
 Not when SC pays to keep it at the top.... Pinkbike isn't just all about the ads.
  • 3 1
 As a relative newcomer to MTB, I don't really understand the fascination riders have with this brand that allows them to command these kinds of prices. It is a mass-produced bike with very poor spec for each build level. It seems like the other big brands offer much better value. Even a lot of the boutique-ish brands offer better value. Again, I don't really get it.
  • 2 1
 Prices wont go down until bikes sit in showrooms. I know there is a huge inventory of parts over seas and once all this gets cleaned up going to be sales for days.

Couple shops ordered 40+ fatbikes in canada. They got single digit. Couple large shops in the usa had them in every model and color, also had them on sale when they didnt sell in spring. Could have sold out up here but salsa wanted the more margin in usa i guess…
  • 3 0
 Blows my mind SC didn't make the V3 coil compatible. The V2 is such a great bike, I thought that would be one of the selling features of the V3
  • 7 1
 SOLD TO THE MAN IN GOLD!
  • 1 0
 Best comment I've seen in a while!
  • 5 1
 10 grand for middling spec and 2 rides: this is pretty accurate for their target demographic.
  • 1 0
 After 4 back to back Santa Cruz MTB purchases (5010, Bronson, 2 Nomads), they just seem a little blah. Which is odd as they are great bikes. I hope they start innovating again. They make good bikes, just not interesting ones.
  • 5 0
 Why does the seat tube still look so slack?...
  • 7 1
 The actual seat angle is around 69-degrees, and the studio shots are with the seat all the way extended, which adds to how slack it looks. I measured my test bike, and at full seat extension my effective seat angle matches Santa Cruz's geometry chart.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: Fair enough, cheers Kaz.
  • 4 2
 @mikekazimer: I think there needs to be a clearer way of stating seat tube angle. I think some manufacturers are exaggerating how steep their STA's actually are.
  • 2 0
 @jqwan: It is pretty clear. 'Effective' STA is measured as a straight line from BB axis to the intersection of the actual ST line at the height of frame stack.

What consumers need to be mindful of, especially on larger frames (or if they have long legs), their saddle in the raised position will be above that height, so the effective STA for them is likely to be less. However... not much less - worth sketching out if you are really concerned.
  • 2 0
 @DaveRobinson81: Exactly, almost nobody runs their saddle at frame stack height. I think it's misleading to the general market and not guys that are willing to sketch it out to understand it. Everyone agrees that a steeper seat tube is beneficial, so let's make it clear to customers dropping big coin what they're actually getting.
  • 2 0
 @jqwan: Hi there, What BB-saddle height should manufacturers use then? I understand your point, but only to a point - we need an objective measure. The only way a 'clear' answer could be given is if the user specifies their BB-saddle length - and maybe I am just crap at life, but I guess based on previous experience and adjust...
  • 1 0
 @DaveRobinson81:
@jqwan:
Also worth noting differences in stack height as that plays a role in your measurement of 'effective STA' one thing I noticed recently is my hightower V2 has relatively tall stack compared to similar bikes (transition spire for instance) and therefore the effective STA is also changed. Definitely consider sketching out for long legged folks.
  • 1 0
 @DaveRobinson81: I think a more reasonable standard of measurement would be 10-15cm above the stack height That way it's less likely to mislead people and give more realistic examples of what STA they're actually buying. Santacruz are not alone here. The Stumpjumper evo is much the same.
  • 2 0
 @jqwan: what if it's on a size small 29er bike with even medium travel? It's not infrequent in those situations for bars to be higher than saddle
  • 1 0
 @elsb0048: Agreed - and although it may 'suck', the current measurement system we have is something that we can all understand if we want to investigate.


However not all manufacturers give actual STA at 'top of ETT' - this would be a fair thing to ask for.
  • 1 0
 @jqwan: Hi there - I think your last comment actually proves my point. both 10cm and 15cm would give different results for exactly the same frame! Which one is correct? It depends on the user. Hence, what we have now is overall the most appropriate point to measure effective STA.

I think the onus is on the user to figure out what works for them. Additionally we can adjust the saddle rails - rule of thumb is 20mm ~ 1 deg of movement - so there is always a bit of give for fine tuning.

Think that it would be fair for all manufacturers to add 'actual STA at ETT' - then we can figure it out for ourselves.
  • 5 0
 Seat angles should have been 78-79 on xl
  • 5 0
 Has SC surpassed Yeti as the official dentist brand?
  • 1 0
 I feel the hate for the price.
I also have had some brilliant riding Santa cruzes over the years …
But I can’t help but think that Santa Cruz missed a couple keys on this one…. Aaaand that’s including the stupid glove box that all bikes should have !!!
  • 1 0
 Prices are out hand. $9k for mismatched Fox fork and RS shock, crappy RS shock, non-Factory FIT4 fork, Codes are not RSC, and a Reverb dropper. No thank you. If you HAD to have this bike, get the cheapest one and strip it and get the parts you want.
  • 1 0
 SantaCruz lost me with the previous HT because of weight at an "all mountain" travel. There's a big gap between HT and MT...

I ended up buying a Stumpjumper EVO (150mm shock and 160mm fork) and while not as stylish as SC bikes I'm very happy with its 31lbs (all up). I'm pretty sure I'm faster overall.

You can argue about the speed of climb, but those few pounds do make a difference on 5k days. If you are a shuttler, none of this matters.

My heart is broken with SC adding weight to frames though, maybe it's warranty liability (durability, design for heavy riders, warranty fraud, etc) or maybe just the the low shock design.
  • 5 1
 So that's what $10000 gets you these days...
  • 4 0
 Bike looks sick but reactions are wild
  • 5 2
 Nx is heavy junk I had a shifter break in 2 weeks and a wheel just fall off the derailleur
  • 2 0
 Clutch stopped working in the derailleur after 2 weeks and it's not serviceable
  • 3 0
 What are yall doing to your derailleurs? I've had it one bikes that are two years old and they still work. They shift terribly but they still work
  • 1 0
 @ryd-or-die: all I know if my chain kept falling off, so I took it to a shop and they said the clutch wasn't functioning
  • 6 1
 Consider me whelmed.
  • 2 1
 Santa Cruz is keeping the value of my 2021 5010 up, one it's the beautiful blue, and was bought before all of the price increases at an eye watering $4100 shipped to my door for carbon NX build.
  • 2 1
 I bought a 2021 V3 Bronson for $3.5k, still comes with the lifetime bearing/frame warranty. Seems like such a steal these days after SC jacked their prices.
  • 2 1
 I think were all pretty much conditioned for the fat center look where its a swat box or a battery compartment. 2 bikes in one, a bloated mountain bike or a electric dirtmountain bike.
  • 1 0
 New SC frames with glove box are around 400g heavier than before (CC versions, HT v3 vs v2, MT v2 vs v1).
I held the MT glove box cover plate in my hands - must have 300g alone.
  • 2 0
 I'm not buying another SC until they have wireless brakes. 9k for a mid-level bike that still has cable entry ports? No, sir.
  • 1 1
 Damn this is expensive! Oddly enough nearly everyone I know that rides a modern SC, doesn't really care for the VPP suspension (are actively hate it for some reason). On the flip side, everyone I know that rides DWLink on a Pivot or Ibis loves the stuff. Same for the Canfield stuff. Its the first thing they rave about.
  • 1 1
 "I feel like Santa Cruz could scrap the whole flip chip thing and most riders wouldn't complain at all"

4mm of BB clearance is HUGE in some areas. I ride many trails where there are fun lines that pretty much require scraping pedals pins a bit, and 4mm higher means just that much less worrying about exactly what the crank rotation needs to be to change a hard pedal strike into a glancing blow.

I run my Stumpy LT in high-mode (5mm BB height change according to them. I think I measured at pretty damn close to that) most of the time, because an extra crank here or there, or avoiding a pedal strike to help carry momentum, are more important than a half degree of head angle. But I'll stick it in low for lift or shuttle days, since that half degree does add a little forgiveness when pushing the limits, and pedaling through jank is not really an issue.
  • 3 1
 so made in china "boutique" with mismatch suspension for price of hand made in house bike with top tier components??
i bet SC owner charge own warehouse workers for air.
  • 1 0
 Not a fan of this geometry. At my size, the small has more reach than I like but the top tube is shorter. I’d need the shortest stem, 32mm to make the reach good, but then the cockpit is too short and cramped.
  • 2 2
 Why not design the geo around a 160mm fork? I don't get bikes like this and the RM Instinct that spec a 150mm fork - a Fox 36 feels great at 160 so why would you not want the extra travel for barely any weight increase (I assume the 160 air spring weights ever so slightly more than the 150 air spring). An approach like the Ripmo with 160 Fork seems to make way more sense to me. But then I also similarly don't understand all the bikes designed around a 130 fork when a Fox 34 can do 140. 120 fork makes a lot of sense because you save a lot of weight with a SID or 34SC, but if you spec a 34 or Pike, why not design around a 140 fork, and if you spec a Lyric or 36 design around a 160 fork? Seriously, the only reason I've ever lowered my fork travel has been to get the geometry the way I wanted it on a bike that was not designed for a longer travel fork.
  • 3 1
 Just a heads up "That port makes it easier to check say". Did you mean sag? Smile
  • 3 0
 Just because someone has to. It looks like a sesion.
  • 2 0
 Hero
  • 3 0
 Well, 0.3° of head angle change indeed is a subtle change...
  • 1 0
 This is why I'll never again buy from a complete bike. Built my Revel Rascal up for 2K less than the XO1 cable shift spec and got better /equal parts
  • 1 2
 "Let's have our design and engineering team do the bare minimum, so our factories barely have to change anything, and we'll re-release it as a tweaked model at the same price tag."

SC's marketing team deserves a lot of praise, very few other companies are actually able to pull this off.
  • 1 0
 Now that we have frame storage, how about cable port/windows inside the frame so all brake orientations can have tidy cable routing at the cockpit?
  • 1 0
 I wish they would build a bike like this that supports the x2 shock. I loved the v1 LT, but the fact they won't support the bigger shocks just makes it a little too XC for me
  • 3 0
 Coil shock?
  • 3 0
 Mike says no.
  • 2 1
 @chakaping: Santa Cruz says “no”. Also no to Fox X2 and CC DB Air. Limited options for heavy riders. Guess Santa Cruz believes that the XXL riders are all skinny people.
  • 1 0
 @tiffe: dont forget wat sc china sized xxl are L size
  • 10 8
 Looks like a every other Santa Cruz.
  • 2 0
 Looks like Police Academy.
  • 4 0
 My favourite CS colour is 'Blue Oyster'
  • 4 2
 You don't buy a Santa Cruz for value.
  • 6 4
 Since when was maroon and lime green a disarable colour combo?
  • 1 1
 Since Santa Cruz said so. That's how it works mate.
  • 1 0
 It would be nice to know the max seat post insertion specs. The shock position limits that just like Specialized.
  • 4 2
 This bike with a 160 Zeb is a swiss army knife
  • 1 0
 That last Sterling Lorence photo is superb. Far more captivating than the bike itself!
  • 2 4
 Imagine if you just bought a 2022 hightower and see this, I think I would kill myself if that was me. Anyways, gonna go ride my nearly 36lb fake e-bike that half my local bike shops hate, because Marin Mount Vision Pro the best.
  • 3 0
 Why? There's really not much they changed with this bike to make it noticeably better... and now you have to pay a hefty premium to get the storage compartment in the downtube.
  • 2 0
 @stevemokan: substantially better colours tho haha. But yah.. i wouldnt have any buyers remorse with a 2nd gen.
  • 1 0
 Can we have little cupboards and draws on frames to fill with trinkets of rattle and clutter : )
  • 3 0
 You want an Orange
  • 1 0
 Everyone thinks this is price gouging - can't wait to see comments when the new Yetis come out
  • 1 0
 Not bad for a “status” bike. Look for it to be unloaded from a Ford Raptor soon near you.
  • 4 3
 Looks a little rinse and repeat , cold clone of the HT2.
  • 1 0
 And don’t steal my “Snack Shack” name BMFG’s!!!
  • 1 0
 Finally something other than a "dip it and ship it" colorway.
  • 1 0
 When's the Mega Mullet coming?
  • 1 0
 This is a smash with frame storage.
  • 1 0
 But 30% more expensive.
  • 8 11
 The SC hate continues on. These frames are top quality and come with a lifetime warranty for a reason, including bearing warranty. SC bikes are easy to work on/upgrade/modify, which is essential if you want to spend your time riding and not wrenching (not that that isn't fun too). Yeah, they are not known as a good deal, but you get what you pay for. If you don't break your frame and get a brand new one within a week or two, these will last forever. SC bikes, most importantly, ride incredible.
  • 6 2
 Why the hate? SC is owned by Pon Holdings, so they get the lowest price on their frames and build kits. Smaller independent companies like GG, Yeti and Transition also offer frames with good warranty, available spare parts, and waaaaaaaay better build kits for the money.

As for lifetime bearings, if you ride a LOT you might need a full set every year or 2 at about $110 all-in. It'd take more years than I want to keep a bike for that "added value" to balance out.
  • 5 2
 @wyorider: Ok sure that's reasonable (and this is not directed at you personally), but c'mon, mountain bikers get so bent out of shape when there is some review on a bike model put out by a manufacturer that is owned by a large corporation. And then without batting an eye, go fill up their full sized pickup with $100+ worth of gas. I support and appreciate boutique bike companies out there (my family also owns these sorts of bikes), but this obsession with consumer purity is disingenuous and a little ADD.

Oh and by the way, guess who owns Whistler bike park? Vail.

Plus, there are a lot of riders out there hard enough on gear, and ride enough days on a frame to justify paying that premium for the warranty. Those other companies have solid service and warranties, but they aren't quite as comprehensive as SC.
  • 2 1
 That’s why they are so expensive. All those warranty replacements and free bearings are so built into the price
  • 2 1
 @chrismac70: The quality is different too. I haven't worked on or owned all bikes, but I have with enough where I can tell there is a real difference in quality.
  • 1 0
 @chrismac70: no doubt, I’ve broken a few SC frames.
  • 1 0
 They are way too expensive now. Not worth it
  • 1 0
 Does it still like to catch rocks between the rear triangle and the frame?
  • 6 7
 Love santacruz geometries, very slack HA, steep ST, moderate reach. Very capable on any terrain and easy to handle.
  • 5 5
 Getting up to that Yeti/dentist level spending.
  • 10 6
 The tired Yeti joke should probably be retired. It is every bike now. Last time I checked, there are Trek and Specialized bikes north of $13k and plenty of others are at or above $10k.
  • 9 0
 Yeti is bringing a far better value.. pretty crazy to say that.
  • 4 0
 @MillerReid: 100%. The SB130LR was $8k until they just recently bumped their prices to stay in line w/ everyone else. At $8k that bike was actually a great value.
  • 4 0
 @Chippps: My Trek Slash 8 was $4200 and came with a higher end shock than this $10k Santa Cruz, it's not even remotely close. Trek's top spec stuff is ridiculously priced like most other brands, but at least they offer "affordable" aluminum bikes with decent spec
  • 3 2
 @NightFalcon: same with canyon torque. $4300, full gx, 200mil rotors, carbon, code brakes. Don't be suckers people
  • 6 3
 @Chippps: look at the prices for competitors like Canyon, GG, and Propain: the Yeti jokes are still well-deserved. It's just that Santa Cruz is trying to take the award for over-priced bike of the year for 2022, but I bet Yeti will come back with a "hold my beer" moment when they release the new SB130 or SB150 soon.
  • 9 7
 Not a dentist, I bought two SCs last year and I love them. Suck it, peasants.
  • 3 1
 @stevemokan: Why? Cause f*ck'em. That's why.
  • 2 0
 @stevemokan: I had a Spectral. LAF at 26lbs in XL. Coiled it. Happy as, but the carbon frame disintegrated to a bin job within 18 months. And I’m no double black. Lesson learned - cheap, light may not be best.
  • 2 0
 @Chippps: built up a 130LR with whatever parts were available during the pandemic. Still kept it down to 7k and got nearly every part i wanted.
  • 4 4
 WoW!!! Another Santa Cruz I'm not buying!
  • 1 0
 Where's the 2023 Blur?
  • 7 0
 It went by so fast we missed it.
  • 3 3
 Not a fan of the chunky frame design nor the high price.
  • 2 3
 "it's a mountain bike"

Really? I thought it was a pogo stick.

Do folks really like VPP or is it the branding?
  • 10 6
 Branding. I rented a v2 Hightower around Tahoe and it was the least supportive platform I've ridden. I think these bikes bikes are designed to feel "active" and "lively" on blue trails at 7mph, which is exactly where you will find them.
  • 5 4
 @fentoncrackshell: I have a buddy who hucks 40 ft gaps and wins pro categories at enduro races on his Hightower.
  • 3 5
 @MT36: probably a rebranded frame. No way that could be a Hightower.
  • 2 3
 @MT36: I’ve seen the same on neatly every bike made … so it’s probably not the bike. Did you watch Crankworks? Not a Hightower in sight.
  • 3 2
 @nurseben: Of course it's not the bike if you ride at that level. this comment was in response to the dude saying hightowers are only found on blue trails going 7mph. Santa Cruz pros also competed on the EWS on hightowers before the megatower came out.
  • 2 3
 What? No Mullet or looooong looooowwww slaaaaaaacccck geometry??? Both Fads are dead!!
  • 1 2
 Does anyone else find it strange they are building with fox forks and rock shock rear suspension?
  • 8 11
 All the people moaning about the price probably drive Nissans and moan about how expensive Porsche is. Meanwhile, Porsche owners are happy with the money they spent.
  • 7 2
 My friend wrenches on vintage 911s and says the only bad thing about Porsches are the people who drive them.


I'd like to add: people who pronounce it "PORSH".
  • 4 7
 Seriously. All the negativity smacks of jealousy.
  • 2 0
 @suspended-flesh: businessmen know a sucker is born every minute
  • 5 3
 Porsche is boutique. SC is a big brand sold in every other bike shop. They are a Honda with shiny bits but think they should be sold at Porsche price…
  • 2 2
 @MillerReid: Porsche is not boutique or exclusive. Porsche is a f*cking master of charging crazy money for pieces of shit
  • 4 1
 @Solorider13: like I said, you never here anyone who buys a Santa Cruz moan about the price. They know what they are getting
  • 2 0
 @MillerReid: Porsche is literally imported by PON! Come on man.
  • 3 1
 oh look a sc owner who compare his made in china "boutique"/great wall to porsche/nicolai/unno level product.
  • 7 9
 I've owned 4 SC's in the last two years, love every one of them, sorry peasants! No dentist either! haha
  • 5 2
 porSChe, eh?
  • 3 5
 Ha! I can afford them, I love SCs.
  • 6 3
 @MT36: I've had 3 Santa Cruz bikes. Since Roskopp was bought out, I see no reason to support PON. I'd rather spend money on a small, independent, North American brand.
  • 3 3
 @suspended-flesh: and shop at target and drive a Hyundai amiright
  • 2 2
 @Solorider13: HAHA Nope. I live near SC's native grounds and see way too many of them to be intrigued anymore. I ride a 7 year old enduro-beater and have much more expensive hobbies than MTBs these days.
  • 3 6
 Most of these people here have to worry about there wives finding out they spend $10k on a bike. They don’t own their balls. Just a bunch of broke people problems.
  • 7 1
 @AMDftw: A lot of people on PB are young and working on a degree or career - not hiding purchases from wives. They are just too cool to post comments here. You sound like a typical tech-rich elitist California transplant bragging about money and ruining Texas.
  • 3 0
 @suspended-flesh:
Hhahaha, love it!
  • 3 0
 @suspended-flesh: But if it does come up, the trick is to buy a SC for your wife too. Based on my personal experience, it is win win.
Below threshold threads are hidden





Copyright © 2000 - 2022. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.038338
Mobile Version of Website