First Ride: Norco's New 2020 Optic is Short on Travel, But Big on Fun

Oct 15, 2019
by Mike Levy  


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.


n a
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.


n a
n a
Sticky tires and four-piston brakes come stock on all version of the Optic.



Geometry

Forget 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.

Suspension

125 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.


n a
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.


Models

Optic C AXS
Optic C1

Norco 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.

Optic C2
Optic C2 W

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.

Optic C3
Optic C3 W

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.


315 Comments

  • 163 2
 Oh my God, Mike Levy on a short travel bike build without a climb switch? How did you manage to ride this thing without your raging hard on getting in the way?
  • 22 4
 Wait a moment.
Not a beep of waterbottles or wandering bite points.
Are Mike ok?
  • 6 0
 @mlangestrom: Come on, he has to save some gold for the full review!
  • 8 0
 @mlangestrom: looks like 2 bottles on this one. one under the top tube back near the seat tube and one on the down tube as normal.... we may have a real downcountry winner here.
  • 82 0
 @j-t-g It’s too short to get in the way, so no worries there.
  • 25 0
 @mikelevy:

Its not 'short'



Its 'sporty'
  • 6 0
 @mikelevy:

Its not "short"



Its"Trail focussed"
  • 26 37
flag WAKIdesigns (Oct 16, 2019 at 2:45) (Below Threshold)
 @mikelevy: This year I realized I need more than 160mm of travel to get rowdy... If I lived in Squamish I'd had a DH bike with wide range cassette, dropper post and lockout switch. And I bet I could still hang out with Down Countrists who race to the top and then chat with friends while riding down chicken lines. Hah you see how I flipped it upside down?

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
  • 18 2
 @WAKIdesigns: you have definetely no clue...
  • 5 16
flag WAKIdesigns (Oct 16, 2019 at 4:09) (Below Threshold)
 @DrShovel: I’ve seen your pics mate at least as much as you in 2016. Good luck. I am mot saying these bikes have no place, world’s big, I just have a hard time finding it in Squamish under 30+ yr olds that is buying force.
  • 3 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I get what you mean but dont talk about this bike.Talk about special olympics in riding trails on Gravels for example. "oh, he is/I am shredding on gravel bike - so couragous" "Its so fun on gravel because its hard" "Why you have enduro on such a easy trail" etc.
Why not to have xc bike at least?
  • 26 4
 @WAKIdesigns: The day you decide to never comment again will be a brilliant day.
  • 8 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I'm under 30, I ride in squamish regularly. This bike looks exciting as all hell. Less squish means more skill development, then sh*t, maybe I'll go ride the dirt jumps on it afterwards, beacuse you know what? short travel!
  • 3 13
flag WAKIdesigns (Oct 16, 2019 at 11:38) (Below Threshold)
 @standard22: short travel more skills development? How? Biggest misconception ever
  • 4 4
 I have to agree with WAKIdesigns. What is the purpose of having 125mm “Trail” bike with big enduro bike geometry? You are going to run out of travel long before you run out of geometry. Having big enduro bike geo takes all the playfulness out of it and makes it suck in technical climbing and tight twisty stuff.
  • 7 1
 @WAKIdesigns: sounds like you've never visited the PNW, every trail i rode outside of the bike park has punchy climbs and flat tecky bits in between the dh portion of the trails. Vastly different to what I've found back home in the uk and the alps where we go up then come down. No point telling people what bike to ride when you've never seen their trails lol
  • 66 4
 Why is short on travel such a bad thing these days?
  • 9 0
 truth.
  • 39 0
 I think it's more about having short travel bikes with a typical enduro bike geometry (which I think is a great thing)
  • 61 0
 To me this is geo and travel is the ideal everyday trail bike.
  • 55 0
 Geometry over suspension travel all day.
  • 35 0
 100%.

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.
  • 48 4
 Since when is nearly 5 inches of travel on a 29er short travel?
  • 6 0
 Who is saying that it's a bad thing?

There are quite a few brands that are pushing out short travel trail bikes
  • 16 0
 Yeah, to answer the article's question "First, what the heck is this thing?" I'd say "Damn near the perfect all-round mountain bike."
  • 11 5
 @Mntneer: Because there are longer travel bikes with the same geo that do the same damn thing, but with the benefit of longer travel.
  • 7 0
 @Gibbsatron:
Banshee spitfire back in the day
Bit heavy, but it was amazing to ride
  • 4 0
 @Pyres: Banshee Phantom
  • 14 0
 Because in most people's mind,bigger still os better. People keep overbiking all the time.
  • 4 1
 @Gibbsatron: Close to my GG Pistola (alloy). I love the longer chainstays as the sizing goes up. It makes no sense to have same CS on the Small and XL versions of any frame. In my mind the Small bike will always be more balanced and the XL will be fighting sitting back on the wheel.
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.
  • 4 4
 To me short travel hard hitting bikes (except for hardtails) started with dual slalom fullies like the original Specialized Enduro SX with 80mm in the rear. Five inches is mid travel. The Orange Five used to have that. This bike is right up against bikes like the Cotic Flare. The BTR Pinner has 5mm more rear travel but is much much more hard hitting. This Norco is welcome, but not unique or revolutionary in any way.
  • 1 0
 @Foolcyclist: Since my 2000 Sworks FSR with MRP link had 3.5'' of travel 19 years ago and most XC racing bikes today have 4'' of travel.
  • 8 1
 @chasejj: 100% agree. Most other manufacturers claim to obsess over the geo and details but only when it suits them. Brands from Trek to Pivot and so many inbetween should really look at what they're doing to this level.

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.
  • 4 0
 Rocky trails?
  • 38 10
 It's not that short travel is bad, just less relevant.

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.
  • 24 1
 @peleton7: every trail doesn't need 160mm of front and rear travel. You can't sprint on a long travel bike the way that you can on a shorter travel bike. Even with the most modern leverage curves on long travel bikes, you are more efficient on a modern shorter travel bike. If you only ride mellow trails or if you have the money to buy multiple bikes, than get the shorter travel bike. If anything, you are missing out on power output with a longer travel bike in those environments. This reminds me of people who say that you don't need a downhill bike because enduro bikes are so capable now.

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.
  • 1 0
 @Pyres: I had a Kona Howler in 2007/8. 100mm travel and built like a tank. With 150mm fork it made a great mini dh bike.
  • 2 1
 @Gibbsatron: yes. Absolutely. I had a Giant Trace with 140mm, and no matter what I did with pressure or volume spacers, it always bottomed out.
  • 1 2
 @Foolcyclist: just ask your girlfriend
  • 4 2
 @Shafferd912: Thats the maestro suspension at work!
  • 7 2
 @Mntneer: went to Keystone and Trestle this summer and.....lots of enduro bikes, not as many pure dh sleds anymore (and the ones people were on were usually old or rentals).

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.
  • 2 1
 @jurassicrider: Yes I love my Stumpy Evo 29 for trail and enduro riding. Only small penalty for slack bikes uphill.
  • 14 0
 @peleton7: I rode a Process 153 this weekend as a demo. It's a great bike, and really fun. Yes, it's more capable than my old 111 in exactly the ways you describe (climbs just as well, if not better; way more confident in the steep and rough. But where it didn't shine was cornering - with less travel and a lower BB, you can rail turns and snap transitions in a way you just can't do with the longer travel bike. Which is why when it's time to replace the 111, it'll probably be a 134, not a 153. Yes, at Warp speed, the 153 is more fun - and it's definitely faster. But on trails where it's not mach chicken all the time, less might be more.
  • 4 0
 @peleton7: not sure i csn completely agree on that one... My sb130 is considerably faster than my riding partners sb150 going up and not much slower going down..
  • 5 0
 @peleton7: Not everyone rides out west.
  • 8 0
 @isaacschmidt: False. The 111 still rips.
  • 1 0
 @SlodownU: I wonder this as well. Like how does it compare to a Ripmo?
  • 5 5
 @peleton7: I agree. A chunkily-built short travel rig with enduro geo numbers is writing cheques that its suspension can't cash; it initially feels like you can ride it like it has 170mm, but when you do, you get that horrible spike through your feet / a flat tyre. A sheep in wolf's clothing, if you like.

Source: I rode a Smuggler for two years
  • 3 0
 @Franziskaner: We can just realize what bike we're riding and adapt to that, can't we? Most of us ride suspension that's progressive so that kind of gives us a cue of how deep we are in our travel. Ten years ago I was riding with a coil sprung fork and yes I did bottom out much more than I liked even though it had heavier damping than the air sprung equivalent. But as things are now, I think anyone half sane who gets on a new bike gradually works towards the limits until that's clear. It isn't the an overly nervous geometry that needs to remind you where you are and what bike you're riding.
  • 4 3
 Just read nsmb review and you will see why. Those are bikes with geo for speed and not enough suspension for gnar. So those are pricey flow trail rippers. Nothing bad in this of course and can definitely be fun, but don't believe that 29ers need less travel. For the same terrain, it does not matter whether you have 26, 29 or 27.5 inch wheels, your suspension will have 10x more impact on your ride.
  • 4 1
 @vinay: sure, you're right. I loved that Smuggler, on smoothish groomed trails. But on chunkier terrain it encouraged the kind of riding that it wasn't suited to, and I felt somewhat held back by it, which was a shame.

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.
  • 1 0
 @Gibbsatron: but why wouldn’t you have geometry and long travel?
  • 3 2
 @Franziskaner: Yes, but correct me if I'm wrong but I see it this way. From your experience with different bikes you have ridden you have a perception of how much reserve the suspension is going to give you based on how a bike rides (due to the geometry). So you relate a low-slack bike with a bike that has a lot of suspension travel. Which in part I believe is also because it works the other way around. If you bottom out a long travel fork (because you landed nose heavy so didn't compress the rear that much), you still need a workable head tube angle to ride that out. Either way, you've build that connection so if you get on a bike with "DH" geometry but XC/trail amount of suspension you're going to expect something from it that it can't deliver to you. And it makes you feel like it is fooling you.

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.
  • 2 0
 @peleton7: Interesting point from someone with your claimed background. If you really think you could put down the same time on a slash as a fuel ex, you are demented. Usually its the people with the endurance background that understand the importance of pedaling platform, vs. those who are more the mindset of "just need to make it to the top of the climb without getting off". Lets put it this way; if you were faced with day full of long ass rowdy descents that would require 7k of climbing and your choice was "efficient" long legged enduro machine vs. a fun, quick, and extremely capable short travel trail bike, what would you choose? Keep in mind 80% of the day will be spent grinding away, and no one gives a shit how fast you are on the descents.
  • 1 0
 @rpdale: If you are doing super long grind climbs like that and worried about efficiency...couldn't you just flip the pedal switch and the differences be marginal going up (especially with some of the better pedaling suspensions like Ibis's)? Its not like these downcountry bikes are XC geometry...they have the same as the Enduro bikes but just less travel. Seems like you'd get close enough on the ups and have a lot more on the downs.
  • 2 0
 @Svinyard: I used go think that myself, until i back to backed sb130 and 150...(one of the best climbing platforms available). Even locked out the 150 on the climbs becomes cumbersome after long duration.. It still climbs exceptional for what it is dint get me wrong.. I just had way more in the tank climbing the 130..That being said there's no denying the sb150 capability on the decents.. The 130 comes much closer to the 150 on the downs than the 150 to the 130 on the ups... Hence my decision to go with the 130...Especially for Canadian Rockies climbing.
  • 1 0
 @bohns1: very cool. If the shock was locked out, what about the SB130 made it that much more efficient? The fork? Geo differences? The shock still?

Agreed on the downs, tho the 130 is that nice midrange travel that seems to do well at most.
  • 1 0
 @bohns1: Exactly, this is where people who only care about descents get lost. You spend the majority of the time on your bike climbing, why wouldn't you want that time to be more enjoyable? The compromise on the descent in short vs. long travel is so negligible, especially if your style isn't that of a snow plow. I've ridden a 5010 and a Nomad back to back, the former climbs like a CX bike, and is capable of getting down pretty much anything short of 30 ft. drops. The Nomad took so much more effort on the ups I knew the only place I'd ever enjoy having one is a bike park.
  • 1 0
 @JockoJones: Lol. It suuuucked.
  • 1 0
 @Svinyard: I dont know... Less weight, bit shorter wheel base, less travel and probably a bit of the geo as well.. Its just more pronounced the longer the climb and as u start to wear down.. Probably the x2 shock on the 150 as well. If i was shuttling and park riding most of the time id be on the 150.
  • 1 0
 @rpdale: agreed.. I thought the same as the 150..This is where i disagreed hugely with mtbyumyum review on youtube.. He says if your thinking 130 to just go for the 150 if you are more decent biased. But if you enjoy climbing as well to just go for the sb100 and skip the 130.. Thats great if your 145lb.. I bottomed that sb100 repeatedly no matter the set up.. The 150 would simply not be as fun here in the rockies with the majority being huge climbs to get to the fun. I can see that being the same with the nomad.
  • 1 0
 @Shafferd912: really? with an air spring? I am 195lb on a Trance Sx and I used the grease technique to space the rear out and its never bottoms...
  • 1 0
 @JoshMatta: yeah man. I am 145lbs, and absolutely nothing helped. Granted, I did pretty hard riding.
  • 39 0
 Recipe for a Pinkbike review sure to put a smile on the CEO's face:

1. Give Levy a bike to review without a pedal assist lever.

2. Enjoy your new role as President of Marketing.
  • 49 2
 S T O N K S
  • 53 18
 What is up with those colours? Norco snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Just make a black one FFS!
  • 43 12
 @norcobicycles: Disappointed in the lack of Fox/Shimano builds. Especially with the arrival of the new SLX.
  • 11 42
flag dude-brah (Oct 15, 2019 at 10:00) (Below Threshold)
 @norcobicycles: C3 = poverty spec.
  • 13 0
 @ratedgg13:
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.
  • 21 8
 I’d almost be willing to pay more for a raw frame than to run with those colors. It looks like they used the off-color paint returns from Home Depot.
  • 4 1
 @norcobicycles: Nice job on your 2020 bikes. When will you release info on the sight?
  • 2 4
 @ratedgg13: Norco is Sram Canada. That might explain it to some extent...
  • 15 1
 Gotta say i like the colours. Its nice to see something a little bit different than everyone else.
  • 10 9
 100% agree - norco... good god. Amazing bike ruined with these graphics and colors!

Aesthetics are important when choosing where to spend so much money - Options less polarizing would sell more bikes. Seems like a no brainer.
  • 1 0
 @dmik: Later this month is what I was told.
  • 5 2
 @DeltaNiner: you should start a bike brand.
  • 9 4
 @norcobicycles: Frame only needs a black / charcoal / matte grey option. That purple is a little out there for many people.
  • 5 3
 @TheBearDen: just saying as a consumer id be interested in the bike... but those colors alone turn a promising option into a hard pass
  • 7 2
 @norcobicycles: l love the colors Norco!
  • 6 0
 I felt the same way looking at pictures and the catalog for all of Norco's 2020 bikes - I was pretty nervous. Thankfully my concerns were relieved at the launch. Every bike looks significantly better than the studio shots. Personally, I'm a really big fan of the green, even though I thought it was one of the worst colours in the catalog. And the C3 comes in low-key colours, which will likely be the most popular unit anyway.
  • 2 3
 @norcobicycles: where is the frame only option?? Its the only way I roll.
  • 1 2
 @nismo325: Umm, check out the 2018 Transition Patrol... Nearly identical green n black, maybe a shade lighter. Just sayin.
  • 3 1
 @bohns1: clearly mentioned in the review.
  • 2 2
 I get a new Norco every year and 2019 broke my streak as Norco just didn't offer good looking bikes at all. I'm personally stoked to see that purple and silver bike. I will order one the day they are available!!! So nice to see them making a good looking bikes this year!
  • 2 4
 The neon yellow and cyan bikes are cheap revolting colors. Nice bike undermined by crappy aesthetics. There’s nothing that says cheesy mass/produced bike than slathering your products with lines and patterns just for the sake of it. I don’t want lame stripes and multiple color ways on my car or personal belongings and the same applies to bikes.
  • 1 1
 @DeltaNiner: so basically you want a black bike?
  • 1 1
 @alexisfire: but clearly, not on the website... And clearly, if they don t offer the charcoal black in frame only, all is lost.
  • 3 1
 If you hate the color then get the purple frame, get a $1000 custom paint job, and it will still be cheaper than most other carbon frames.
  • 1 0
 @zcmyers89: fark that sb130 it is.
  • 29 0
 It's a trail bike for trails? Unholy
  • 20 0
 I bet you could even ride it in the mountains.
  • 18 0
 @MTBrent: All Mountains
  • 10 0
 I'd bet you could ride it both up and down country...trails.
  • 24 0
 an aluminum version with good suspension and 11-speed XT drivetrain would be a perfect birthday present to myself for my 30th. #opticAF
  • 3 0
 No alloy version... They are treating the fluid as the alloy version for this thing I think. Even though they are a bit different!
  • 1 0
 @j-t-g: I wonder if how close to this bike you could get by putting a Works angle set on a Fluid. Would be an interesting experiment.
  • 3 0
 @richulr: Sadly the fluid is one of those rare alloy bikes with an integrated headset. So no anglesets for you. Frown .


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.
  • 4 0
 Just get a 2018/9 Sight. You'll get a Pike, 11sp XT, alu, and 15mm more travel in the back end! Ok you don't get the fancy shock .
  • 3 0
 I'm running a Fluid with a 140mm fork and offset shock bushings. Virtually identical numbers to these new Optics. I've toyed with a longer stroke shock as well for even more rear travel than 125mm... it's a VERY capable and adaptable bike with less wallet pain than a carbon rig. Now I need to sell it to get a different Norco that may or may not be coming soon... Smile

www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2639912
  • 1 0
 @Chilliwacker: ya i'll probably wait to see what the new sight looks like. will probably be slacker than this, the current one has a 66* HA. If that doesn't satisfy me i'm really hoping for a ripley AF
  • 1 0
 @grizzlyatom: I saw your bike when it was BOTD! Is there any particular offset shock bushing that should be used?
  • 3 0
 @aciddrop: I work in manufacturing, so I actually just made my own. I was able to offset 2mm in each bushing for a total of 4mm offset, which equates roughly to 11mm BB drop. I'm not sure if anyone is making bushings specifically for the Fluid yet, but you may be able to search somewhere like Bergtec to see what they offer. The dimensions of the two bushings are:

1) 12.7mm diameter x 30mm length x 8mm through hole
2) 12.7mm diameter x 20mm length x 8mm through hole
  • 1 0
 Offsetbushings.com custom makes them for any ride. Personally, I wouldn't use offset bushings on a fluid. I'd remove the travel spacer or long shock it and let the extra sag bring the BB back down a bit. 130 to 140mm isn't enough of a difference in BB height for me to want to slacken the sta that much more
  • 3 0
 @j-t-g: There's no travel spacer in the stock 190mm x 45mm shock, it uses full stroke. You can swap to a 7.5" x 2.0" shock and add about 10mm of travel to the rear, which I have done, along with a 150mm fork. It is a fun setup, but the custom tune on the stock RS Deluxe is hard to duplicate, which is why I went back to it and dropped my fork back to 140mm. Norco have done a great job with these shock tunes.
  • 2 0
 @grizzlyatom: Sorry, I should have specified: the 27.5 models have spacers, which is what my girlfriend rides because she's a shrimp.
  • 1 0
 @Chilliwacker: And you don't get the geometry so NO...
  • 1 0
 @arrowheadrush: really looking forward to the new Sight.
  • 1 1
 @stiingya: It isn't that far off. Angleset/ bushing if your bothered. So part with your 3000 more dollars if you think it's worth it.
  • 1 0
 @j-t-g: put some needle bearings in it. The loss of friction will drop it down all you need.
  • 1 0
 @grizzlyatom: That's a hell of a deal right there, beautiful bike! Does it come with the wheels that are on the bike?
  • 1 0
 @Endurahbrah: It is the shortest travel bike I've owned but it's geometry has really blown my mind with how composed it is doing "big bike" things. It's just a bike you get on and ride without thinking about what you can or can't do with it. Tons of fun. I'm really only selling because I'm a bike nerd on a budget and I can't stop the urge to try new bikes. Message me privately if you have any questions. I have a few wheel and handlebar options for this bike and I'm willing to work out a fair deal.
  • 1 0
 @grizzlyatom: Great info on the bushings, thanks!
  • 1 0
 @Chilliwacker: 2019 Sight C3 is $4399.00, 2018 Sight C3 is $4199.00. The new Optic C3 is $3600.00. How am I spending $3000.00 MORE to get updated geo??? Even if your finding a good "end of season" deal on old stock Sights they aren't 600 bucks...
  • 1 0
 @stiingya: all he's saying is you don't need to buy a new bike to get the updated geo...pretty clearly
  • 1 0
 @arrowheadrush: He also pretty clearly said I'd have to spend an extra 3grand which doesn't seem true? And now your telling me I can get the updated geo which is also not really true.

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.
  • 21 1
 This is spec'd like my "SuperSmuggler". Only I went 160mm in the front.

i.redd.it/8qtfyg0hwzp31.jpg
  • 1 0
 Over-shocked?
  • 1 0
 @scvkurt03: Nope, still 120mm with a 210x50 super deluxe in the back.
  • 2 0
 Oops, meant to upvote. Lovely bike @pandafoo.
  • 1 0
 Whats that put your head tube angle at?
  • 3 0
 @TransitionBikeCompany is about to release his/her versions of the Smuggler called the Plum and Yo-Yo.
  • 1 0
 @pargolf8: It's 66 at 140, and mine is 65.6 at 150. I'd venture to guess close to 65.
  • 1 0
 @pargolf8: Based on the guessing of internet information adding 10mm is ~.5ish degrees so I've been guessing around 65. It's a super fun set up, especially on steep steeps. I would love a carbon smug set up like this but ya know, money. @TransitionBikeCompany please make a carbon SuperSmuggler for me to waste my earnings on so I dont have to rebuild.
  • 2 0
 @Mntneer: I like that. I have a smuggler I'm very fond of as well.
  • 2 1
 I hope in the review they compare this Norco to a smuggler because on paper they are nearly identical
  • 21 3
 this is a trail bike with geo/travel that 99% of people should be riding
  • 3 16
flag McNubbin (Oct 15, 2019 at 12:06) (Below Threshold)
 Do 99% of people live where there are no rocks, drops, or jumps?
  • 6 1
 @McNubbin: l dont know about 99% but heck of a lot of people don't live near those things.
  • 2 0
 @McNubbin: You should go demo one or a similar short travel bike (smuggler) I think you would be surprised what a bike with geo/travel like this could handle and how much efficiency can be gained. This would be ideal for ALL my local trails here in SC and I tend to think that there are a lot more people riding similar trails or mellower than here. Also, hence my use of the term "trail bike"...I think there a lot of people riding big bikes that don't need them or use them for what they are intended for.
  • 14 0
 Glad the frame designers got rid of the top tube sway-backed donkey curve. Yes its for standover clearance but straight just looks better 10/10.
  • 14 3
 "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."

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.
  • 5 1
 @EKrum: He saying any bike in this travel category should have been designed to not need a pedal assist or the engineers f*cked up. He's not saying theoretically any bike with that little travel should pedal well without an assist
  • 9 0
 Finally someone is getting it. I don’t know if they are doing their size specific tubing or not, but spec your trail bikes with enduro geo and enduro parts (brakes,wheels,etc). And make the chainstays longer on larger sizes. Winning! Only thing it needs is a burlier fork. Throw a lyric or 36 up front.
  • 5 0
 Each front triangle (small, medium, large, xl) each have their own unique mold, so each frame size is specifically designed to match its size. Indeed the diameter of the DT and TT do increase with each frame size.
  • 14 2
 #griztour
  • 12 2
 @griztour on instagram!
  • 10 0
 finally Norco's with decent reach measurements
  • 6 0
 Well done Norco. Proud to say that I own more that one of your bikes. Great bikes and builds for a reasonable price ,in today's standards (: I like the colours too. It stands out and it should. It will get up up and down just about anything out there...in a hurry.
  • 8 0
 Piggly-back DH shock. Two inner-triange bottle mounts. Good build for the cost. Tight paint.
  • 9 0
 Norco Optic or Santa Cruz Tall boy?
  • 2 0
 This is the shootout I want to see
  • 3 0
 + Ibis Ripley would be prime.
  • 10 0
 If this is the comparison people are asking for, then Norco should be proud of themselves. They've been killing it with their new stuff and pricing.
  • 2 0
 Add transition smuggler to that shootout
  • 8 0
 Insert link to Bryn's video here ?
  • 3 0
 I liked Bryn's video just a little more than Levy's riding Wink
  • 2 1
 www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8o3ZiKM0lY&feature=youtu.be

To be fair, Atkinson is on a more flowy trail, and picked a better size--Medium I bet, with 150mm travel fork.
  • 2 0
 @ceecee: I was getting annoyed with all the slow motion, but I like where they went with the video.
  • 1 0
 @Endurahbrah: The stop-motion punctuates the cuttie yoga. Considering 'modern' mtb is just as much about video tech and air travel, I still liked it.
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: To be fair, Bryn is Bryn and Levy (while a hell of a lot better than me!) is Levy.
  • 7 2
 This bike looks like it could be a nice quiver killer. Bikedigger.com scores are up for the C2 build -- 67 rowdiness and 47 nimbleness. The value is good on the C2 build, very well spec'd imo.
  • 7 0
 I feel bad for Levy because I just watched Atkinson ride this bike and am now judging him.
  • 4 0
 Love the geometry of my current trail bike but don't feel like I need all its travel. Had this feeling with my last few bikes so bikes like this are exactly what I have been wanting.
  • 3 0
 Interesting...I wonder how it compares to the Sight? Maybe just a bit more pep when you lay on the gas? Fairly similar numbers, not quite as slack but still. All I know is the Sight 29er may be my favorite bike of all time. That thing is so fun.
  • 14 6
 Only issue: Press-Fit.
  • 9 2
 Anyone else see a Transition at first glance?
  • 5 0
 Horst link and reminiscent paint job of the 2017 line of patrol/scout etc. Definitely did!
  • 3 0
 I love this! Bikes tend to get so much travel and I do in fact think that many riders overfork. So much to the extent that I don't even dare showing up to local enduro races on my 140/130 mm trail bike (66.5 HTA) amidst all those 160-180 mm rigs. Many of the enduro races in West Virginia are in fact not as gnarly that would warrant a long-travel bike, although I can see how you would want a longish travel bike for EWS-type races. Having said that, take a look at some mid-weight pro EWS riders such as Keegan Wright or Martin Maes riding rather short rear travel bikes (Wright: 85 kg/190 lbs, Devinci Troy, 170/140mm; Maes, GT Force, 170/150mm). Bottom line is, seeing bikes like these make me feel more confident again that I made the right bike choice.
  • 6 2
 Are you actually winning said races against the guys with longer travel bikes?
  • 4 0
 If you're not standing on the top boxes against guys on longer travel bikes, then what is your point?
  • 2 2
 @McNubbin: I admit that I am not winning said races. But I don't think that's the bike's fault Razz Also, I hope I didn't step onto anyone's feet who's riding a longer-travel bike.
  • 1 0
 We race the damn bikes, too. Remember that when your internal dialog says ‘That guys overforked’
Fork ewe
  • 7 2
 Clearly its a cross-trail bike. Sitting conveniently between downcountry and aggressive trail. But can you Mullet it?
  • 4 2
 Everyone is wasting their time on the review... just go see it in action with one of the best pilots in the business!! Don't care for the the review, just want to see Bryn shred!!! Thank me later!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8o3ZiKM0lY&feature=youtu.be
  • 2 0
 What's the weight?
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.
  • 4 0
 Geometry is in the database for comparison purposes...
geometrygeeks.bike/bike/norco-optic-2020
  • 5 1
 Don't get it you have Enduro/DH components, Enduro weight so why don't take the extra Enduro travel as a bonus?
  • 1 0
 big design convergence with all these horst link + rocker arm bikes. hard to believe the basic design has been around for over a decade. pick a color i guess? maybe OEMs will be forced to start differentiating with designer carbon layup, like they do with roadbikes.
  • 1 0
 i used to ride a 2013 trek fuel ex.. 130mm rear travel with 160mm pike at the front, 65 HA and i loved it! it was a very capable bike.. i went into the market for a new bike, i was looking at 160mm to 180mm travel bikes.. but ended up buying a super nice Shan N5 with 140mm travel in the rear and a nice 36 160mm up front.. which is great! i can outrun most guys riding >160mm enduro rigs in the descents at my local trails!
  • 1 0
 I keep reading reviews that say ‘short travel in the back isn’t much, but it makes the most out of it’. I’ve wanted to get an Evil The Calling for a couple years now, but that’s a 150/130 bike with very similar characteristics, so I ask — what’s up with this ‘mullet travel’ approach to trail bikes these days?

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.
  • 2 0
 I think the idea is that extra travel in front gives some extra time to react when you get offline: the fork has a few extra cm to eat up that rock you weren't ready to hit, but you'll be reacting by the time the rear wheel gets there and be able to absorb it a bit.

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.
  • 1 0
 @just6979: I wonder if it's because of slacker head tube angles. When you go through all the travel on your fork, the steeper the HTA, the more the bike dives in a way that would want to pitch you over the bars. So the slacker the HTA, the more travel you would be able to use up front without upsetting the overall balance too much?
  • 2 0
 I think it's because you sacrifice more for long travel in the rear. A longer travel fork is less likely to make a bike feel less poppy than more travel in the back, so designers are attempting to optimize a bikes overall fun generation performance.
  • 2 1
 "It’s a RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate DH shock that, as the name suggests, you’d usually only see on longer-travel bikes."

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.
  • 4 0
 That purple is awesome! This is the bike the GT Sensor was suppose to be..
  • 1 0
 Do you think a 250 lb rider is too heavy for 29er wheels? Or has the technology cought up and all 29er wheels are strong enough?

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
  • 2 0
 How big are you? There are lots of 6' 190Lbs+ riders out there on 29" wheels. I do think it is important to buy a set of wheels that has been properly designed if you're concerned about durability. Offset spoke holes in the rim help a ton because they will equalize your spoke tension and make the wheel much more rigid. The WTB asymetrical i35 would be a good choice for a bike like this- sturdy and with good spoke tension balance. Talking to a professional wheel builder who builds wheels for the fast guys in your area might be the best thing to do. When in doubt consult a professional.
  • 2 0
 @WheelNut: Im 245 lbs
  • 1 0
 Looks like a fun rig. I'd ride it. My 2016 Orbea Occam 29 TR is a 130F 120R and it's a hoot to do everything from aggressive XC to serious Trail rides. That travel category is a great one to fit in because it does what most people ride very well.
  • 1 0
 compare to new django! these slack but beefy shorther travel bikes got me stoked! my 170/165mm enduro bike has me riding everything half asleep... the things too much of a couch, rolls over everything, waaaay too much traction! riding predominately bc gnar too. snipy fun little bikes with big bike parts! hell ya
  • 1 0
 I got to ride this thing this weekend and it can really shred, I over shot a massive step about 8 foot to flat and it took it like a champ. It really doesn’t feel like 125 of travel and pops like crazy, not to mention it climbs like a hard tail.
  • 1 0
 Had a chance to try this thing during the bike shop tour a while back .. I honestly have to say its HELLA fun … I can't even really explain it other than just plain fun. I can only describe it as slack but not too slack for it's size with a short rear end so its super playful … I currently ride a specialized Stumpy EVO 29 and I was totally blown away by how fun this was.. With the EVO you kind of expect it to just take it.. When I got on this thing, I was a bit skeptical but first run down the local enduro park was met with massive smiles.. So much so that the Pike kind of feels a bit Outgunned.. and the Brakes were not the greatest. But it doesn't even matter.. it was such a fun bike and it pedals so well. The day I'm done with the EVO I will likely move to something like the Optic... super impressed.
  • 3 0
 they have an XTR one, I wonder what it has for the cassette? Stans does't have the new shimano microspline freehub yet.
  • 4 1
 The Optic C1 comes with an XTR build, and a Shimano XTR M9100, 10-51T cassette. See the full spec list here: www.norco.com/bikes/2020/mountain/trail/optic-carbon/optic-c1
  • 4 0
 Looks like an amazing spec for the price, compared to Kona Process 134 and Ibis Ripley at the same price.
  • 1 0
 Stan's rims and DT hubs
  • 1 0
 @norcobicycles: What is the shock size on this new Optic? I looked for the dimensions, but couldn't find them.
  • 5 0
 You had me at #NORCO
  • 3 0
 I think you need to re-title this article. There are no words indicating that it was even ridden.
  • 4 1
 But there are moving pictures...

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.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: it's been a few weeks
  • 3 0
 Geo looks amazing and pricing seems honest. Paintjobs suck but I'd still get one
  • 1 0
 Bravo Norco, this thing looks like a blast. As a short rider, I applaud companies that adjust chainstay length for each size of bike. I hate riding bikes with a longer CS than reach. This could be my next bike.
  • 3 0
 How about that frame only price, every brand trying to sling $3,600 frames can suck it.
  • 9 6
 Still with the trash bottom bracket standards I see.
  • 3 0
 @mikelevy,
What is the frame weight for a common frame size such as large?
  • 1 0
 no word anywhere... maybe too heavy to brag?
  • 3 0
 Is that a second bottle cage mount under the top tube?
  • 3 0
 We need more short travel, aggressive geo rigs like this!
  • 3 0
 Circling back to the Shinobi...
  • 3 0
 Nice to see 170mm crank arms specced. Norco gets it.
  • 4 2
 175mm should be relegated to road bikes only
  • 2 0
 @bertbc: I only ride 175 because having super long legs wasn't planned....
  • 2 1
 @HopeFbn: sadly, bb height isn’t readily adjustable, luckily seatpost/saddle height is!
  • 1 0
 Bike looks sick. Now if I could ask 3600 of my fellow pinkbikers to each donate a dollar to me this would be my next bike. Thanks in advance for your generosity.
  • 3 0
 NORCO builds SICK bikes ..period!!
  • 2 1
 Use wider or narrower bars to get the cockpit length dialed in? Really? What if I really like my 800's but I want the bike to feel longer? Go to 850mm wide bars?
  • 2 0
 Raise your hand if you want an XT-equipped C1.5 for $5000 USD in any f&cking color besides purple!
  • 4 1
 NO MORE 27,5 ??? Frown
  • 2 3
 the question is can you fit 27.5+
  • 19 1
 @garb0: The question is why would you want to?
  • 5 6
 Some people still like 275x2.8 tires.
  • 3 3
 Giant anthem 2018 27.5. the bike the reviewers never knew existed
  • 3 1
 @bertbc: ot everyone wants 29
  • 4 2
 It feels like 29 is becoming the default these days for a lot of bikes, which is how it should have been all along.
  • 7 1
 @theelias09: Why? Because you like 29. I know a lot of really fast and good riders that ride 29, but I also know a bunch of really good riders that prefer playing and getting loose on trails...and they all ride 27.5. Not everyone likes the big wheels....me included. (Also depends where you live and the kind of trails you ride of course)
  • 3 4
 @GlassGuy: I can't argue that there aren't fast people on 27.5, or that some people just like the feel of them. However, for the majority of non-freeride riding (enduro, xc, most general trail riding etc.) 29 makes more sense due to the efficiency and lack of rolling resistance and I think they would probably be more comfortable for most people. Giant and Specialized are a couple of brands that have realized this as their new enduro bikes are 29 only. Maybe my comment was badly worded, I'm not saying 27.5 shouldn't be an option but I feel like 29 has been underrepresented for the last few years.
  • 5 0
 @theelias09: Yes, but you're just focusing on the going down part... Where I live (PNW), we have to climb to the trail heads! 29ers are harder to pedal, and accelerate with. They can be a lot of work on slow tech climbs.
  • 3 0
 @mybaben: that’s an old narrative. I have no doubt it was valid 5 years ago, but not so much anymore.
  • 1 0
 @CircusMaximus: LOL. Why did 29" wheels and tires magically become lighter in the last 5 years? Wink
  • 1 1
 @theelias09: Definitely underrepresented...I see a lot of bikes that look great..except that big wheel. I think the industry is trying to make mtn biking "easier"...easier roll over, more planted and stable bikes...appeal to masses. And that's all fine and good but some of us( a small percentage I suppose), want the twitchy, poppy bikes. A buddy of mine has a 27.5 enduro...he's that guy that does manuals approaching the jump then flys higher than any of us! Lots of MX speed and tricks on his bike. He got the new Stumpy 29..rode it a few times then put it up for sale. I used to race but that isn't my focus anymore, and like him I want a bike that's playful instead of stable. I'll be that guy that has a stock of "old school" 27.5 frames and wheels in a room...like I had to phase out all my 26 stuff(should've kept it all!)
  • 2 0
 @mybaben: seriously, if you have a hard time climbing or accelerating a modern 29er, it’s not the bike that’s the issue Wink
  • 1 0
 Bike looks nice. Kinda wish there was a fox build kit. If only it was the same green as that prototype nor I tron frame.
  • 3 0
 I miss core. Best bike shop
  • 2 0
 @theredbike: no doubt. Local scene died so hard when core closed.
  • 2 0
 @core-macneil-rider: Lol then i moved to BC.
  • 1 0
 @theredbike: lucky you. Though to be fair there’s some sweet new shit to ride, though a few pretty sick spots don’t exist anymore.
  • 2 0
 Frame is listed at $2,300 on Norco's site, not $2,800 listed above...
  • 5 0
 it's 2899 canadian pesos for us north of your border
  • 2 0
 @chris: I that like 100 billion trillion USD? ;-)
  • 2 0
 looks like new trek fuel EX. Geo optis similar to fuel EX
  • 2 0
 Good numbers but letters are my thing and F U N is what i'm seeing.
  • 1 0
 This bike looks so awesome. Well-executed, progressive 125mm rear/140 front travel is all you really need.
  • 1 1
 If I'm going to do a trail bike, I'd rather go for a 2020 Intense Primer or that sick Nukeproof Reactor! Deal with that haters. LOL. Wink
  • 1 0
 Sorry if it’s in here. But can someone explain the set of water bottle boses on the top tube?
  • 2 0
 They're for universal mounting solutions like Wolftooth's B-Rad system
  • 1 0
 The medium size is longer and slacker than my medium norco range from 2017. God damn!
  • 1 0
 Tale an 2018 sight , change the stickers and : a new optic 2020 better than ever.????????????????????????????
  • 1 0
 Certainly not the answer to the “1-bike quiver” but it’s a great excuse to be a pussy amongst all your 1-bike buddies.
  • 1 0
 Hey (insert bike co. name here) can we please have one Shimano option?
Imagine if this was your first bike, dang!
  • 2 0
 When I was young 125mm was considered freeride territory
  • 1 0
 looks like a nice rig.But cant see why it would be better than the sight.Similar weight and spec with less travel?
  • 1 0
 I see in the video its DT swiss hubs, no problem then
  • 2 1
 very Smuggleresque. even longer though. a very cool looking bike.
  • 1 0
 Bicycling, in the mountain style.
  • 1 1
 anybody know the weight on those bikes? C1 looks amazing at 8k Canadian. but that purple ......kinda gross
  • 1 0
 Whaaaaaa! room for 2 bottles! What the wha...
  • 1 0
 that reminds me a lot of my Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol Big Grin
  • 1 0
 By lever do you mean lever?
  • 1 0
 Levy
  • 1 0
 Travel schmavel; do you even norco bro.
  • 1 0
 Seems to be the perfect trail bike...
  • 1 1
 Are the chainstays being lengthened by moving the BB forwards again or has Norco moved past this design failure?
  • 1 0
 Whoa really? I wasn't aware of this. I always thought they had size specific rear triangles?
  • 1 0
 @Svinyard: that's what I read a while ago, but no idea where... It makes sense costs wise since you can use the same rear end components. And the effective seat tube got slacker the larger frame you chose, so i wouldn't be surprised if that was actually happening.

It is the exact opposite of what you want given that a steep seat tube angle is the most important for taller riders.
  • 1 0
 Super Deluxe Ultimate

Really?
They get away with that?
  • 1 0
 Surprised to see an alloy rear end. Cost saving or some other reason?
  • 4 4
 The colors and graphics look kinda CCM/Giant like.

Nice bike though!
  • 1 1
 All these colours come right out of norco's catalogue from a few years ago. Throwbacks galore!
  • 1 1
 Mk1 Scout 29er. Mk1 scout was an awesome bike.
  • 2 2
 No trunnion shock? Looks like it would fit in there nicely?
  • 2 3
 So Transition Bikes had the Smuggler for how many years now.....this is a copy of a Smuggler!
  • 2 0
 Somebody didnt pay much attention to the video. In fact it could be a straight copy of the Session when i look at it with my eyes closed.
  • 2 1
 looks like a Transition
  • 1 1
 No 27.5 options?!! Shame.
  • 1 1
 #downcountry
  • 3 4
 Buy it, chuck the 29s and put some 650Bs on that bih!
  • 8 10
 Not usually one to complain, but that purple color... it ain't it.
  • 1 3
 I just threw up a little bit in my mouth looking at those colors .
  • 1 1
 Santa Cruz didn't prepare you for them? It's a blueberry desert up in here
  • 2 0
 Who said sc has good colors?@ceecee:
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.106587
Mobile Version of Website