PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
Santa Cruz Blur TR
Words by Henry Quinney, photography by Tom RichardsSanta Cruz doesn’t tend to have bikes that come and go. Instead, once established in their lineup they often hang around for a while. The Blur is no different - it was first launched two decades ago, although that’s not to say it hasn’t seen rolling changes over the years.
The idea of bolting on two letters or numbers to the end of a model name isn’t new. In fact, there was once a time where there was even the Blur 4X. This, however, is the Blur TR but, as Santa Cruz are at pains to point out, this isn’t a downcountry bike. Then what the hell is it doing here?!
Blur TR X01 AXS Details • Travel: 115mm rear / 120mm front
• Wheel size: 29"
• Head angle: 67.1°
• Seat tube angle: 74.9°
• Size tested: large
• Reach: 457 mm
• Chainstay length: 436 mm
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL
• Weight: 23 lb 12 oz (10.8 kg)
• Price: $9449 USD
•
santacruzbicycles.com Well, it’s got the right amount of travel and a long dropper post, but it also has features that harken back to its XC intentions, including the small brakes, the flat bar, as well as the suspension layout itself. Santa Cruz’s new Superlight design might look similar to previous versions of VPP but it is very different. It uses a flex pivot in the rear and this means it can go without the associated weight gain that comes with a standard pivot.
The consequence is that, in terms of all-out seat grip, Santa Cruz may have just played a masterstroke. Whereas every new bike release seems to include claims of an increase in anti-squat, Santa Cruz has actually reduced this value on the Blur, as well as tuning the linkage to require a lower spring rate. We’ll come back to this and its ramifications later in the climbing section, but in short, it delivers on its promise.
So, if it’s not a downcountry bike, then what is it? Well, I would contend the increase in travel is very welcome, and not only for descending performance. It’s a very comfortable bike to ride, especially when seated, and manages to mute or deaden a lot of the small vibrations that might normally come through the saddle.
It’s also the lightest bike on the test. If you compare it to other bikes, it is nearly six pounds lighter than the heaviest. No surprisingly, it rides like a very light and dynamic bike. To call it unstable would be unfair, but its steeper head angle, flat bar, and slightly longer stem, when combined with this low weight, do make it feel slightly more flighty than the more aggressive, longer bikes on test. This is something Mike Levy commented on and really enjoyed. I, however, am somebody that probably leans more towards more stable feeling bikes than playful ones.
I would also say this bike, and its relatively conservative geometry is given a large helping hand from Fox with the simply excellent Fox 34. The Stepcast version on this bike, pound for pound, has to be one of the best forks I’ve ever ridden. The fact that something so lightweight can be treated so appallingly and still come up smiling is a testament to Fox’s expertise. I think if you had a fork that was more prone to diving, not dissimilar to the XC forks of only a few years ago, then it would lay the drawbacks of the steeper geometry of this bike bare for all to see. However, thanks to its superb tracking and ample support, that isn’t the case.
The spec elsewhere is similarly XC-inspired. The SRAM Level 2 pot brakes prioritise lightweight but it’s nice to see them with 180mm rotors. There is also routing for a remote lockout, should you want one.
The bike can fit two water bottles inside the front triangle, and has a universal derailleur hanger, along with internally guided routing.
ClimbingThe Blur is a great climbing bike, that becomes apparent very quickly, as one would hope. It’s clear from the geometry chart that this isn’t the most downhill focused bike but it does what it intends to do very well. When compared to the similarly focused Canyon Lux Trail, which is also an XC race bike that’s been trail-o-fied, I think the Blur TR is a far better execution of the concept. It climbs better, its geometry may be conservative but it’s got things such as the long drop-post to help quell any nerves when pointing the bike towards the descent. It’s also far more comfortable.
But how does this compare to the more aggro bikes on our test? Well, when riding the Santa Cruz, it feels like your center of gravity sits closer to the front axle than other bikes and the front wheel does feel a shade more loaded on climbs. Compare this to something like the longer Trek Top Fuel, and the Blur takes far less manhandling up the tight stuff.
It also, thanks to the high level of rear-wheel grip, means you can control your pacing up technical features. It has enough grip that it isn’t about hitting everything at pace - it offers large amounts of traction even when climbing stepped roots or rough ground at a slower pace. I would put it down to the changes Santa Cruz made when making the Blur TR, and the already mentioned reduction in anti-squat.
This might seem slightly counterintuitive for a bike's pedaling performance, but it depends on how you characterise efficiency. It certainly is active when you’re putting the power down, but it also achieves a level of grip some other bikes could only dream of. It’s completely different to something like the Niner, which offers an almost hardtail-like feeling, but doesn’t hug itself to the ground like the Blur TR can. The Blue offers a sensation not totally different from the way a coil-sprung bike just sucks itself to the ground. The interesting bit is that Santa Cruz managed to include this feeling on an air-sprung, short travel, and very light bike.
Much like the Canyon, the bike comes equipped with a 34T chainring and 175mm cranks. For a bike with TR in the name, its gearing does leave you going mandatory fast up steep climbs. I don't like this approach, it's not a race bike, after all, but at least it can rely on that low weight, comfort in the saddle and grip. People will tell me I'm wrong for this, most notably my colleagues, but I don't think it would be any worse of a bike for a 32T, and it certainly wouldn't be any slower, yet you would have more options when climbing.
In terms of timing, this was the fastest climber on technical singletrack. However, it was only the third fastest in our
absolutely watertight and scientific efficiency test. I think this reinforces my previous point. If you spend most of your time on singletrack climbs and want something to make your life easier as your search for all-out climbing grip, this is a bike worthy of your consideration.
Descending
So how does the XC friendly Blur TR cope when on the descents? Well, it’s an interesting bike, and I think it’s largely based on your perspective and what you want from a short travel bike.
It’s not a bad descender, but I would say it’s a bike that descends well considering that it clearly has its priorities elsewhere, rather than a bike that imposes its capabilities on you like the Trek or Rocky Mountain Element. Mike Levy really liked the alive and twitchy feeling the Santa Cruz gave. In fact, "liked" would be too soft of a word - he loved it. Personally, I did not enjoy that aspect so much.
It depends what you’re after. If you want a bike to open up terrain that perhaps is outside the typical XC remit or have you pushing harder than ever in your hunt for all out descending speed, then this might not be the answer. It’s very good at being a comfortable place to be. It’s going to get you to the top very quickly and really suits long days of pedaling. I don’t think, however, it suits people who have a downcountry bike because they want to absolutely shred - instead, it probably is better suited to those who want something lighter and more efficient on longer days.
What the Santa Cruz manages to do, and why perhaps they insist it isn’t a downcountry bike, is that it manages to keep all the great climbing characteristics without then having a massive blindspot on the descents. It’s not fatiguing to ride, which is important on a short travel bike, and once you train your eye in, doesn’t give you any nasty surprises. The long drop seatpost is a big part of this.
Where the Rocky Mountain and the Trek are bikes that climb incredibly well for how capable they are at descending, the Santa Cruz is probably the other way around. It’s an incredible climber, and it descends well considering that fact.
For me, this would make a great, and I mean simply fantastic all-day marathon bike. It’s comfortable, it’s fast, and its extra travel would provide a safety net for when you’re tired or riding fast on trails that you don’t know particularly well.
However, please do not downvote my comment on downvoting or else my butt will hurt all day.
This is exactly what was described by downcountry. Now every short travel trail bike wants to be called downcountry, while regular cross country bikes have evolved towards downcountry.
And as an Epic Evo owner I disagree pretty strongly with a lot of the e general statements made about the bike. To me the geometry feels extremely well balanced- maybe the best of any bike I’ve owned. The suspension is on the firm side, but there’s plenty of traction on tap for technical climbing.
I do hope Levy weighs in with a comparison- my guess is the blur is a bit more XC / XCO / marathon focused.
Roughest has to be AZ
The epic evo is not firm, its the exact opposite. It accelerates slow. It climbs slow. It is flimsy on descents because xc suspension is xc suspension even with enduro geo. Same problem the spur has. They both suck for fast xc racing. THE BLUR IS A RACE BIKE. For racers.
With this setup I'm not slower on climbs than on my previous bike (Cannondale FSI). If I'm standing and pushing hard, suspension could be supportive but I dare to say that it is not worse than new Spark RC in open position (i've tried that). I's hard to believe that Blur TR, that has very similar suspension design would differ greatly.
I still believe that the limiting factor would be an absence of remote lockout and no middle position. And that applies for both Blur TR and Epic Evo. Since I've started to race more seriously I'm swapping my shock and fork damper for remote versions and 3 position suspension lockout to address that.
Have you considered that you may not have a monopoly on being a knowledgeable, experienced race dude? I mean, you're coming off as quite a twerp. "I don't ride fire roads" "I've owned both... On the roughest trails in America." Eat a piece of humble pie my dude, your ego is getting in the way of any actual fair points you might make. And allow that other people's experience may be different and valid. I built my Evo as my first race bike and crossed over from casual trail rider. I built my Evo with a 150 dropper post but still got the weight down to 23lbs. Compared to a 28lb trail bike, this of course feels like a rocket ship - it begs me to accelerate all. the. time. Combine that with my love for the steeps, the geo felt natural and comfortable to me to drop any trail in Pisgah *almost* as fast as I can on a big bike, hitting the gaps and dancing through chunder. I don't need to own every bike to give the Epic Evo my full throated endorsement. It's fast and fun, and yes it can win races!
I don’t have any desire to enter a Cat 1 XC race. For Cat 2, I’ll happily ride a slightly slower bike if I really like the bike. The Blur is billed as more of a race bike, and I accept your feedback that it is.
I have a hard time believing that a Stumpjumper outclimbs the Evo… unless you’re looking only at rough tech climbs where traction is the single most important variable. I also don’t find it to be flimsy… quite the opposite- for the frame weight the stiffness and precision of the bike are astonishing. Pushing downhill through rock gardens, 5-6fft drops, big jumps… no problem. But I weigh 155lbs …
I know 4 other Evo owners who I ride with regularly, and the consensus is it’s a really amazing bike. I’m sorry you had a different experience.
www.pinkbike.com/news/specialized-epic-evo-review-s-works-2020.html
Its definitely a good bike for cat 2 Clydesdale racing.
I only ride my stumpy on tech trails, the epic evo suspension does not support huge power on climbs through rocks. The stumpy does. The stumpy uses the same size shock as my Blur. I can swap them, thats a bonus. The blur is for racing. I train with the Santa cruz factory race team and none of them have ever talked about descending performance of an XC race bike. As soon as someone talks about how good their xc bike descends, I know we are speaking two different languages. It doesn't matter how fast you can descend if I am 40 seconds faster up every climb. You can make up 5 seconds on the DH, maybe.
The 120/115 top fuel also blows the epic evo off any climb.
It's different to categorize it and say "It accelerates slow. It climbs slow. It is flimsy on descents."
The latter is disingenuous.
Let me know a single pro rider who chose the epic evo over the epic, for an xc race, or marathon race. Based on all these dad bods saying so, the epic wvo should be raced in world cups. Because I guarantee no one is racing that technical of a course, at those power outputs, in amateur racing. So cool, the epic evo makes you feel confident. I obviously don't need my bike to make me more confident. I need it to go fast. The epic evo is a good bike, but its not an XC bike. Which the Blur is. If anything this article should be about the Epic evo in the downcountry bikes. Its definitely the fastest downcountry bike, where sacrifices are made. It's cheating in that category. Its DEFINITELY not an xc race bike, and they never claimed it was.
These things are all very degrees of difference. Does the regular blur render the blur TR slow?
The bike doesn't agree with you and that's fine. I myself didn't love the Top Fuel when I tried it. The sweeping categorizations are what folk are pushing back on I'd guess.
I have remote lockout on both setups because without it’s really not a race bike, with no remote it’s a trailbike.
He was joking...soggy --> over dampened
Let me go ahead and write your response for you: blah blah blah you don't know anything and I'm an expert blah blah blah I'm way faster than you blah blah blah I've ridden every bike ever made blah blah blah.
So your argument is because Nino uses a lockout, lockouts are good? Have you ever talked to suspension engineers about lockouts? Have you ever tested in real world conditions with and without lockout? On the same bike with the same shock but different damper?
What is your experience testing with and without a lockout?
Several frame manuf, (with input from engineers) put shocks with lockouts on their bikes.
I have a shock with lockout on my Enduro bike and "XC" bike (Banshee Phantom), they work great IMO but since I've heard the point you are making from more than one person, I'm trying to be open minded and understand the issue.
Make no mistake. Any bike with a lockout is because the product manager wanted it there not the engineers. Its all about what sells not what's best.
Don't shock engineers talk to frame engineers?
I can say without question that an enduro bike with lockout (at least with the shocks I've tried) works just as good downhill and is much better on the climbs.
Shocks with open and locked are different than open medium firm. Most enduro type shocks ive seen are open or firm. The sid is open or locked. Imagine if you have open and firm on xc bikes. Two different pedaling platforms not one, with a pure lockout. Imagine some compression adjustment too.
Theres always a compromise with lockouts. Yes frame designers talk to suspension engineers. But do you honestly think anyone other than the specialized marketing team wanted the brain? The engineers just build what they are told. Then have to hear everyone complain. Product managers give a list of buzzwords the frame needs to cover, features "the people want". Then frame designers design it on a computer using a hypothetical shock. Then they have the shock made.
As for what "sells", I honestly don't know. It seems like you have the people like Mike Levy and @detroitcity who'd rather not have it and you have the people who @detroitcity talks about. Whether it sells depends on who's buying. Me personally? It wouldn't attract me to a bike nor would it push me away. What matters to me is whether the bike works well for how I want to use it. Though mind you it isn't so black and white as lock-out or not. Some brands have a climb switch which often implies a heavier compression damping or, in the case of Cane Creek, also heavier rebound damping. Where would you draw the line?
I guess my point is that "locking" out suspension to feel like a hardtail on the climbs is good, hardtails normally climb better than FS especially when out of the saddle hammering and smoother trails. If that comes with a decrease in shock performance on the down, maybe it's not worth the trade-off, but that is just an engineering problem vs an inherent issues with "lockouts" or as you point out a marketing term.
I would rather have a dropper than a lockout. Even on pavement.
There are MANY climbing situations, both XCO and "normal" where a lockout is definitely going to help you climb faster and more efficiently. Other times traction is more a priority. You have some shocks designed around XC racing with full lockouts, and other shocks designed around trail and enduro that to maximize damper performance don't have a full lockout, just a firm setting. Until all our suspension is brained, live-valved or flight controlled, lockout levers are great for XC racers who need to keep hands on the bars but switch between platforms.
The SID shocks and forks lockout. As in they are locked out. Can't make it any clearer than that. You have open and locked out not moving. Fox and other brands have firm settings. That still move a little.
I need a shock with 1 setting. Open. Lets ride. I ride my stumpy in open on the pavement. Because its more efficient to have the bike doing what it was designed for.
And NO ONE wants to ride a bike with you, not because you're faster, because you're an A HOLE.
youtu.be/BR10jYyJ4yE
When are you going to start talking about real world experiences and not things you saw on TV or read online?
It defies common sense as to why lockouts wouldn't work....if it's hard to articulate that either means you are not good at articulating a good point, you don't understand the issue well enough to articulate it or it's simply wrong. Was trying to be open minded with the first and second since I'm always up to have my mind changed but have not heard any great arguments...
Doesn't the Loic example illustrate the point? What about all the other XC folks who run them? I've used them and they seem to work great.....
Dylan does good work - I like his stuff. He's also not a dick about it, a quality you might learn from.
That vid is neat, but he's much lighter than me, climbing at 150 W less than I do and not sprinting. It's also highly dependent on sus design, some probably work better locked out than others. I'd guess the difference between XC bikes locked vs unlocked would be smaller than a 8" enduro bike locked vs unlocked.....I think that's the nuance you are missing.
I never got to race Dylan, but I looked at his time for the P55 and I beat him by about 17 minutes (granted, I think the weather was awful that year). I have plenty of real world riding and racing experience.
The only person to consistently beat me racing around here this year was Thomas Turner. He raced everything on a hardtail with no dropper. I guess that proves... that TT defies physics and is bad ass? but I didn't need science to tell me that.
At the end of the day, maybe you don't have all the answers, aren't the fastest rider, and don't need to be such an a*shole. Have reasonable conversations and people will listen. Allow for things to be more nuanced than black and white, right or wrong. Come in saying people are slow and stupid, and people get their hackles up.
If you want to keep talking, DM me and tell me when you were riding in Pisgah. We probably have friends in common in this little community. Whatever you do, just please stop acting like a jerk.
Again - the tone of your posts is pretty off-putting, I was trying to have a honest convo vs a flame fest....
And on that note, I guess all the Enduro courses are not ridden on *trails* since the majority of the climbing in those events are on gravel roads as wel...
Why don't dirt bikes have locked out rear suspension? Because the back tire would spin. Just like what happens when you stand and hammer your locked out full suspension.
Dirtbikes....obviously, they have 40-60 hp, not 1/2 hp and you are going UP just as fast as going DOWN, you need the suspension on the ups.
My HT doesn't spin.....lots of people ride HT at a high level and don't have that problem.
You are all over the place with this and largely incoherent. I never said you were WRONG, I was just challenging the thought....
Pro XC racers set up the bikes to climb well first and descend well second. Nowhere did they say it's a poor descender, and I bet it's more than a match for anything I'd ever see in a XC race (or marathon XC). Pemberton bears very little resemblance to my local terrain, and even if it did - I'll take minutes on the climbs over seconds on the descents.
Not that many of us are racing at that level, but it's an interesting question
Everybody: Yay, take my money!
Bike companies: We have added more anti squat so you can finally climb efficiently.
Everybody: Yay take my money!
Sound familiar...
Bike companies: We now introduce 29" wheel so you can carry more momentum and get maximum roll over.
Everybody: Yay, take my money!
Bike companies: We now introduce 27.5 wheels so you can accelerate faster and still get good roll over.
Everybody: Yay. take my money!
Bike companies: We now introduce mixed wheel size bikes so you can accelerate fast AND roll over things! How were you even riding a bike before? We don't know...
Everybody: Yay, take my money!
Soon to come:
Bike companies: We now introduce 26" wheels for ultimate acceleration, still rolls over things fine, we promise!
Everybody: Yay take my money!
The new Blur looks sick though!
Most European riders have their brakes set up the same way as you, as do most actual moto riders in right side driving countries who switch between their pushbikes and motorbikes with zero issue.
I replaced my G2 ultimates with Dominion T2 and got like double the power. The Sram brakes just aren’t very powerful. Maybe it’s pad compounds, who knows.
Thanks to the whole team for the field test content!
More seriously, coming out on the loss side of that small a margin has got to infuriating, sorry to hear it.
@big-red: what kind of user error were you thinking? Asking as I'm a bit sensitive when people say that! I hear that often but I'm 6'6" 220lbs and it's tough to find stuff that is durable for us larger folks. A rear triangle with flex stays seems like a pretty important thing to "right size" based on the frame size rather than a one size fits all approach which has been a frustration of mine over the years!
However, when I say "user error" I mean crashes or improper care and maintenance of the bike.
But yes, when we're talking about 100-grams here or there, moving to a flex-pivot can save that kind of weight. If you really think about it, what's more likely to be reliable: a flex-pivot that has to move 0.05 degrees (pulled that out of my ass) or a pivot that's manufactured to have a couple of big steel bearings pressed into it for an interference fit and then a bunch of aluminum hardware holding it together? I've never seen a broken flex-pivot and have complete faith in them.
Feels super light just as advertised which makes it easy to throw around and really excels on climbs & long days. Downhills are not a problem at all on the blur but for sure there are much better bikes for downhill. I'll give up a little on the downhills for the quickness and light feel this bike has though. Is it a single quiver, do everything bike? Not really, but for a lot of us it's probably good for 70% of your rides. You just have to hang on a little more if you want to mach speed that downhill on the other 30%.
I started riding MTB in 1991. Raced BMX before that. I've raced XC, road, CX, gravel, and even DH for a season.
Our local trails are rooty, flowy (in places), rolling terrain, real mountains are 2 hours to the west.
A bike like the Blur would feel like almost too much bike for here and the riding and racing I do. I say "almost" because trails are becoming rougher and more eroded, and the extra travel and slacker geometry are more appropriate here now than before. I would never describe it as a "gravel bike" and though I'd ride it on gravel (locked out), I'd use a road or gravel bike instead.
For comparison, I had a Spur and it felt like a straight-up trail bike here, and far too long and low (and slow to accelerate) to ride fast here. It was more fun in the mountains but it still was a light trail bike, not downcountry.
Anyway, just thought the contrast, likely based on experiences and local trails, was interesting.
Totally agree with you, much of the right bike comes down to what trails we ride in our local area too. Beyond that, I personally think most of us are over biked and this whole 'downcountry' thing is people slowing realizing this. Like you, I started riding mtb in the early 90's and many of the same trails we do today we all did on hard tails back then and never thought twice about it. But it sure didn't take long to get used to a little bit of cushion for the pushin'! However somewhere along the way people started buying 170mm travel bikes to use on the local bike path.
Anyway, coming from the camp of partying in the woods, comparing the blur tr to the spur warrants some interesting figures.
First, xo1 to xo1, the Blur comes out swinging with the factory 34sc, and at about half a pound lighter overall bike... But it's also $1150 more than the Spur. I would have preferred Fox squishy parts on my Spur initially, but I've been impressed with the sid/luxe ultimate parts so far.
As a hefty lad of 210lb, I can say that the level tlm brake isn't suited for anyone over say 170lb, and the g2 rsc on the spur warrant the trivial weight penalty of the parts for the extra oomph regardless of your size. Similar xo1 drivetrain, carbon cranks, but a better suited 32t on the Spur. The spur comes with the Gucci oneup carbon bars at 800mm and a raceface turbine stem vs a much more xc flat 760 and syntace stem on the Blur.
It's an odd amalgamation on the Blur honestly. The wheels are slightly overkill for the intended application especially shipping with rekon race rubber, the suspension is more downcountry than xc (sid ultimate and sidluxe ultimate rear shock combined are lighter than the 34 for comparison), and a reverb seems out of place outside of groupset budgetary requirements (iykyk).
Based on the review and sentiment of it being the least friendly downcountry bike pointed downhill, you'd think sc would go for broke on making it light. Sid parts, a oneup dropper (marginally lighter, more reliable, and half the cost of a reverb), and dt xr1700/350 wheels... Should shave 2-3 pounds and make it a bit cheaper.
Being both a biased fanboy as well as my legs falling asleep here on the toilet, I'll leave my final thoughts, that dollar for dollar, the Spur xo1 is THE "downcountry" bike. I think the tr looks like a damn fine bike, but the geometry, brakes, and cockpit choice... And the price penalty definitely kept it off my radar when it was time to get the new short travel whip.
Can someone bring me a roll of tp?
I wonder if they have changed things?
Still-wonder how much you give up dropping down a few grand to an “affordable” build kit. And I’ll bet it would be better with a 65 head tube angle.
How would you describe the suspension charakteristic on the downs? Does the Blur blow through its travel easily? I know it's an odd thing to ask for a capable country oriented bike.
Cheers, Tracy Jacks
#yourgenxfriend
The "very big house in the country", well played :-D
One of the benefits of more grip is better ability to consistently put down power because you aren't spinning out (or just unable to pedal) due to traction limitations.
I'd actually expect the more efficient technical climbing bike to be faster because average wattage is higher, because the bike makes that possible.
When they tested the bikes on a rough trail climb, the Blur was fastest.
I'd imagine putting the rear shock of the Blur into "trail" mode (middle setting) or locking it out would yield a better efficiency result on the smooth climb, which is what one would do if one cared about one's time up a smooth fireroad.
In short, it's unlikely that it's even possible to do so, and one of the things that makes it impossible is the differences in grip between the bikes - which is a big part of what decides the winner of the singletrack climb.
If you want a more obvious example, consider a hardtail vs a good full suspension, both XC bikes, both same weight. On a given trail I can put out a higher average power (I have years of data on this) simply because the extra grip from having the tires in contact with the ground more of the time on the FS bike.
The differences between a grippy and less-grippy FS bike would be less drastic, but still there.
On singletrack climbing it was the fastest, just not on the gravel road climb. I don't know about you but I avoid those road climbs all day long if there's a trail to the top.
We could only tell which bike is actually fastest up a gravel grind if all were locked out and ridden as fast as possible (in which case most likely the one with the lightest wheels would win). Even then, who cares? We're talking about mountain bikes here, not gravel or road bikes. As it is, the efficiency test is just a fun pseudo-scientific addition to the reviews and nothing else.
@ilyamaksimov The Blur was fastest uphill. It's right there in the review. It's OK to admit you were wrong in your first comment.