Take one part new-school geometry, one part short yet capable suspension, then add in a sprinkling of components that you're more likely to see on an enduro bike before it's baked for a year or so behind closed doors. That isn't a new recipe, of course, but with each ingredient getting better year after year, it's one that's tastier than ever.
With 125mm of travel, a 140mm fork, and 29" wheels,
Norco's all-new 2020 Optic is their take on short-travel and big fun.
Our test bike, the $4,500 USD C2, gets an SRAM GX / X1 drivetrain combo and a Pike Select Plus fork. All six models get carbon front triangles and aluminum rear ends.
First, what the heck is this thing? I mean, 125mm is light-duty trail bike stuff, yet all six Optic models come with four-piston brakes, a Magic Mary tire up front, and a custom-tuned RockShox DH-specific shock without a pedal-assist lever. So, not exactly your warmed-over cross-country rig that's been over-forked to under-deliver. I've used the new Optic for everything from all-day missions to all day in the Whistler Bike Park and, spoiler alert, it's been a blast.
Trail bike? Yeah, sure, but that’s probably not giving it enough credit.
Sticky tires and four-piston brakes come stock on all version of the Optic.
GeometryForget about how much travel it has - let’s talk about the Optic’s geometry. At 5’10” Norco says that I should be on a large with a 480mm reach, so it’s relatively roomy upfront. It doesn’t feel too big when you’re seated, though, thanks to that 76-degree SA and the 435mm rear-end length. The head angle is a relaxed 65-degrees, and there aren't any silly geo adjustments to be seen.
Norco is doing something called ‘Gravity Tune’ with their geometry that sees the rear-end get longer as the bikes go up in size, but they also say they didn’t just use the longer, lower, slacker sprinkles to sweeten up the Optic’s handling. Instead, they looked at a whole bunch of already available data that told them the dimensions and weight of the average person, which then told them where the center of gravity would be when the bike is being ridden. That let them come up with geometry for each of the four sizes that put that COG where they wanted between the front and rear axles.
The large-sized Optic gets a 480mm reach and 435mm rear-end, while all sizes get 76-degree seat angles and 65-degree head angles.
There are small, medium, large, and extra-large sizes, which each one growing 5mm at the back and 30mm at the front. The forks are all sporting 42mm of offset, and every model comes with a 40mm stem that Norco says shouldn’t be changed out. Instead, they want riders to use different width handlebars should they need to tweak the fit; wider bars mean a longer reach and vice versa.
Suspension125 millimeters isn't many millimeters, but Norco has squeezed a lot of performance out of what they're working with. The previous Optic used a suspension layout that looked a lot like this, a Horst Link, with a little rocker arm that compresses a vertically-mounted air-sprung shock. Nothing crazy, and the same idea is used here, but the pivot locations have changed and it’s going to perform very differently to that older bike.
Big shock on a little bike, and there's no pedal-assist lever to be seen on the Super Deluxe Ultimate DH shock.
The leverage ratio at the start is higher, for one, which should make it relatively supple for a short-travel bike that’s meant to smash into things. Norco says that it’s far more progressive, too, and there’s an aggressive high-speed compression tune in the shock, all of which should make it more capable than one might think.
Speaking of the shock, let’s take a look at it because it’s a bit out of the ordinary. It’s a RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate DH shock that, as the name suggests, you’d usually only see on longer-travel bikes. The piggyback means that it has more oil in it than a lighter weight in-line shock, so it should be more consistent over long, rough descents. There’s no lockout-lever to make the bike pedal better, but any bike with this little travel should move well without a cheater switch.
ModelsNorco is offering six different complete Optics, starting with the SRAM AXS or Shimano XTR-equipped versions pictured above that go for $7,500 USD and $6,600 USD.
The C2 and C2 W retail for $4,500 USD C2, with a spec that includes a SRAM X1/GX drivetrain, Shimano BT520 four-piston brakes, and a Pike Select Plus fork.
The entry price for a complete bike starts at $3,600 USD for the C3, and Norco is offering both it and the C2 in women’s models as well. If you want a bare frame and that Super Deluxe Ultimate DH shock, it’ll cost you $2,299.
You'll be able to watch our Field Test video review of the new Optic soon, and while Kazimer told me that I'm not supposed to spill the beans until then, I'll leave you with this: It was the most popular - and most talked about - test bike of them all.
Not a beep of waterbottles or wandering bite points.
Are Mike ok?
Its not 'short'
Its 'sporty'
Its not "short"
Its"Trail focussed"
Jesus... people around the world dream of trails like you guys have up there and you ride them on Down Country bikes... f*ck you! What's next? trailforks feature with reviews of best chicken lines on Squamish gnarliest trails? or Friday fails of folks sending 45degree chutes and 20ft gaps on XC bikes? We've all seen this self filmed edit recently with a bloke in yellow jacket getting wobbled around like a ragdoll on a trail that could easily use 160-180 and would look super fast on DH bike. "oh, he is shredding on short travel bike - so couragous" - no the word you are looking for is "concussed". You guys are concussed from riding baby heads sized stuff with giant features on little bikes.
The last thing we need now to be able to say that we've seen everything is HT category in EWS. Some will call it hardcore, and I will call it Special Olympics. If you think that you are overbiked when living in the mountains - ride faster, do hard, late braking instead of constant, squealy bitch braking, send shit. And if you think you are getting older and want to take it easier? Oh yeah, less travel and elss error margin is a great idea! yeah! Some ideas are so stupid only intellectual would find them attracive
Why not to have xc bike at least?
When the first edition of the Kona Process 111 frames came about, the market shifted - and now they're antiquated. It's been fun and interesting to see the producers finally make trail rigs that split the enduro/dh and xc rocket rig sector for people who just like to ride bikes.
There are quite a few brands that are pushing out short travel trail bikes
Banshee spitfire back in the day
Bit heavy, but it was amazing to ride
Which is common practice even on GG and Pole and others that seem to get the Geo dimensions we all want. Frustrating. Norco gets it.
Still looking the Nicolai/Geometron to truly emphasize the steep seat angles and centered Geo.
Norco at least make the effort to tune this, tube gauge and suspension tuning too from what I understand.
Well done to them and it makes their bikes worthy of consideration when looking at XL sized bikes for me.
A 120mm travel bike used to be lighter than a 150-160mm bike, but if you run a bigger fork (Rockshox 35mm or Fox 36mm), beefier rims and a double casing rear tire, the weight difference is within a pound or so.
Shorter travel bikes used to be more efficient, but the best modern enduro rigs climb as well as their shorter travel cousins.
As bike geometry skews towards enduro numbers (head and seat angles, reach, etc.) all you're getting on a shorter bike is.....lower limits.
I just picked up a firebird 29, and I'm currently around mostly XC and AM trails. The firebird pedals well, but I still spend most of my time on a 120/120 FS and a hardtail with a 120mm fork.
If you're pinning a race number on, a shorter travel bike will be faster than an enduro bike on mellower terrain and a dh bike will be faster at the park.....but not by much. I'm currently on a Slash, and it's faster uphill than most short-travel bikes. Ditto for Yeti (SB 5.5 and 150) and the Ibis Ripmo.
Sure, most people don't, won't or can't ride bigger lines, but if you're buying a slack, capable bike that's not a delicate XC race bike or a purebred DH race bike, might as well get the extra squish.
Source: I rode a Smuggler for two years
I guess my point is that a lot of riders are fond of telling others how fun short travel rigs are, how snappy and reactive they feel, and how everyone else is over-biked blablablabla. To be honest, they are often right. But the new breed of low slung, heavy, slacked out 100mm-120mm rippers are no more reactive and 'snappy' than their 150-170mm brothers, by virtue of their super aggressive attitudes. They just feel like they are lacking 50mm in suspension travel.
Personally I simply haven't really ridden a real long travel bike. I've got a Cannondale Prophet I've also taken to the Megavalance one year. 140mm travel in the rear, 140 or 160mm travel in the front. It feels invincible in rough straightline stuff but on the real steep tech twisty stuff, I just always trusted my hardtail more. It may not solve anything for me but at least I rely on that, that it is going to leave it up to me. So the fully was great for the rubble just below the snow line but on the switchbacks way below Alpe d'Huez I wished I had my hardtail. Over a year ago I replaced my hardtail for one that had a similar amount of travel (from 130mm down to 120mm for the same 26" wheels) but geometry was lower and slacker (375mm reach up to 460mm reach, 69deg HA down to 63deg). Yes it does encourage me to ride harder and faster but not because it makes me think I've got more suspension travel available. The bike just stays more composed, I don't have to be as much on my toes that it gets bucked off line. So yeah, I do agree that if someone needs more suspension travel then there is no substitute. And getting more suspension travel should come with longer/slacker geometry to make it behave in those unbalanced bottom-out situations. But my experience is that longer and slacker can also have advantages in their own right, even without adding suspension travel.
Agreed on the downs, tho the 130 is that nice midrange travel that seems to do well at most.
1. Give Levy a bike to review without a pedal assist lever.
2. Enjoy your new role as President of Marketing.
www.norco.com/bikes/2020/mountain/trail/optic-carbon/optic-c3
Norco probably decided they were fed up of hearing about creaky CSUs. Can't say I blame them.
A Shimano spec would be nice though.
Aesthetics are important when choosing where to spend so much money - Options less polarizing would sell more bikes. Seems like a no brainer.
However, there are other things you can play with, there's some folks out there with fluids running longer front AND rear travel. It's not like the geo is out of date on those bikes or anything. My girlfriend is running a custom built fluid and she's a big fan.
www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2639912
1) 12.7mm diameter x 30mm length x 8mm through hole
2) 12.7mm diameter x 20mm length x 8mm through hole
You can for sure modify and in some ways improve the older geo. But your not going to get a 76 degree seat angle on the old XL frame without compromising some other aspect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for Bike Hacks! And depending on the rider/intent they might be better suited going with an older sight instead of the new optic. And if I had an older/current sight I'd totally look into the offsets, slam my seat forward and be happy!
But "if" I was buying a new bike anyway, for me — especially looking at the XL seat tube angles, I'd have to find a REALLY good deal on the old Sight for that to seem like a better option than waiting on a new Sight or going with a new Optic.
i.redd.it/8qtfyg0hwzp31.jpg
That is complete bullshit. Overall travel has _very_ little to do with pedaling feel. The whole system design makes that difference: 80mm of low single pivot with very little anti-squat is going to bob a shit-ton and pedal horribly compared to a 160mm dw-Link (or whatever) with dialed anti-squat.
You could have said "any bike with these kinematics should move well without a cheater switch." That actually makes sense.
Climbing:
The TB feels more like an eduro bike, that wants you to sit and spin. it has lots of traction and climbs well in this fashion but when you stand up and hammer it tends to wallow a little.
The Ripley climbs like an XC bike. If there is a steep punch you stay in the same gear and stand up, when you put the power down it leaps forward, the handling a is a bit sharper, outside of a pure XC race bike its the most efficient climbing bike I have been on. I did find that on the Ripley the amazing efficiency comes a bit of a loss to all-out traction. if you are used to climbing on a very active suspension platform you may find that the Ripley isn't for you. You have to utilize a bit more skill on technical climbs to maintain traction.
Descending:
This was honestly a draw. both are great. I couldn't say one felt better than that other, a bit different but not better or worse. TB wants to plow a bit more and is a little more glued to the ground. The Ripley is a bit poppier, sharper in the handling, leading to more precise line choices. I would also say that the Ripley cornered a bit better at slower speeds but as speeds picked up the Tallboy got exceptional, with the Ripley taking a bike more to maintain traction.
Conclusion,
for me it was easy the Ripley is the better bike, to the point that I came home with one.
About me 185lbs, been riding/racing (XC, DH and a few enduros) for almost 30 years now, I live in Squamish and mostly gravitate to our black to black + single track trails, I ride 100+ days a year, my ideal ride is a none stop loop with several ups and downs. I tested these bikes out in Cowichan on Vancouver Island and rode both on Maple Mountain, going up the single track climb trail and then down Maple Syrup. the loop had everything including, sustained none technical climbing, to sustained technical climbing, punching very technical climbing, to flowy descending, steep chundery chutes, some small rock slabs and lots of techy singletrack. the full loop is 15km long with about 800M of elevation gain/loss
To be fair, Atkinson is on a more flowy trail, and picked a better size--Medium I bet, with 150mm travel fork.
Fork ewe
Sure it's not the lightest out there. Today there s not much difference between trail and enduro bikes. Coming from a similar bike like the optic and now opted for a 160 rig, I will never go back, on rougher trails 160 always beat 120mm. And there is no benefit on uphill passages... I m even faster with 160mm because of the steeper seatangle.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8o3ZiKM0lY&feature=youtu.be
The name suggest nothing more than that SRAM's naming schemes are stupid. The Super Deluxe "DH" is no different than the Super Deluxe Ultimate except that it doesn't have a threshold switch. And since SRAM claims that the threshold circuit is completely independent of the open circuit, this means having the switch or not gives no performance difference, and the lack of the switch is nothing but a deficit (ok, maybe a few grams less, but for a "DH" shock no one really cares).
The only reason an Ultimate DH is usually seen on longer travel bikes is because it usually only comes in longer stroke lengths.
Id like to eventually buy a frame and swap all of my parts over. This frame looks like a good fit but just wondering if 29er wheels would be strong enough for a bigger rider. The short suspension is awesome for my type of trails and I really want to test out the 29ers
Why 40mm stem? no longer or no shorter?
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/norco-optic-2020
I concede certain applications like EWS race bikes might justify the compromise in favour of climbing performance (efficiency) and the requirement for results vis a vis the timed-downhill, but do normal trail bikes for normal people need such an ‘over-forked’ bike? I can’t help but wonder the review of this Norco would be better if the rear-end travel matched the front.
OR
There is the weird argument that because the fork travel follows the head angle, then the actual vertical travel is less, and closer to the rear travel. Except no one knows how the frames have their travel measured: vertical, arc, straight line? So that argument is a bit flawed.
I've owned and ridden 160/140, 160/160, and 150/150, recently, and the actual suspension design matters way more than the precise difference between the front and read travel:
* The 140 rode higher but used 100% of it's travel quite often, and that's the intended design.
* The 160 rode lower, used about 95% of travel very often, but never noticably bottomed out. Also the intended design.
* The 150 is a mix: rides a little higher than 160, but still easily uses most of the travel, and very rarely bottoms noticably. Again, as intended.
And they all pedaled similarly! The 150 actually should have the worst climbing performance by the anti-squat numbers (150 has like 80%?, 160 is about 100%, and the 140 was like 120%, all at sag), but that's disregarding the awesome traction when the rear wheel is allowed to move up and over things without interference from the power being put down.
You'll be able to watch (and read) a bunch more about the Optic when the Field Test content is published in a few weeks.
What is the frame weight for a common frame size such as large?
Imagine if this was your first bike, dang!
It is the exact opposite of what you want given that a steep seat tube angle is the most important for taller riders.
Really?
They get away with that?
Nice bike though!
www.pinkbike.com/photo/14638767
This is likely going to be another case where one size feels better than the others. I bet it's size large, as it has the same CS and WB as many other top tier bikes (435mm CS 1235mm WB, like the SB130 L, Megatower L).
A few examples of top tier bikes with 430mm CS have ~1210mm WB (Patrol, Spectral, Evil Offering, Marin Alpine Trail), 425 with ~1190mm (Process 153 29 med, Devinci Troy L, GG Trail Pistol S2), 440 with ~1250 (Spec Enduro 2020 S3).
Privateer 161's design seems to put more thought into getting things tuned, regarding proportional CS and WB. Forbidden Druid kinda does too (XL kind of an exception to the formula). Seems the last Norco model to get things multiple sizes dialed was the Norco Range 29 (L and XL).
Gravity tune? Does that mean you have to defy gravity to weigh the front end? Like do a handstand on the bar?
I was just pointing out how dumb that is.
If it's going to fit at full saddle extension with a minimum acceptable stem length, the question is, as usual, actual STA. The cool kids don't care about in-saddle fit, because their moms drive them to the top.
FC/RC is saddle/dropper/sitting/crouching/standing height-dependent, and can be tweaked with air pressure and climb switches, so let's ignore it, or call it wheelbase. Okay?