Santa Cruz 5010c - Review
REVIEWED
Santa Cruz 5010c
WORDS Mike Kazimer
PHOTOS Colin Meagher
When Santa Cruz first introduced the 5010 it was called the Solo, but it turned out there were a number of items already on the market with that trademarked name. After a little creative thinking, and the realization that some numbers look a lot like letters, the Solo became the 5010. The bike itself remains the same – a 27.5” wheeled trail bike with 125mm of travel intended for long adventures far from civilization. It's available in both an aluminum and a full carbon version, with multiple build kit options for both. The base model aluminum 5010 retails for $3299 USD, and the base model carbon version goes for $4199. Of course, once you start draping high zoot accessories like carbon rims and SRAM's XX1 drivetrain on a bike the price starts to climb, and all kitted out our 5010c test bike retails for $9775 USD.
Santa Cruz 5010 Details
• Purpose: Trail
• Rear-wheel travel: 125mm
• Wheel size: 27.5"
• Full carbon frame, forged links
• 12 x 142mm rear axle
• ISCG 05 tabs
• Weight: 25.8 lbs (size L, without pedals)
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL
• MSRP: $9775 USD
Frame Details
The 5010c's front and rear triangle are constructed from carbon fiber and connected to each other with two short, forged aluminum links. Santa Cruz uses a process that compacts the layers of carbon fiber on a mandrel before the frame is put into the final mold to help prevent any of the layers from slipping or becoming misaligned, which is what can happen if an un-compacted frame is forced into a mold. Another technique used to prevent frame misalignment occurs during the initial layup process, when the front portion of the shock mount is integrated into the top tube rather than adding it on later.
 |
 The 5010c's cabon frame has a simple and well finished look, featuring niceties like room for a water bottle and cable routing that doesn't look like a rat's nest. |
Cable routing on the 5010 is clean and uncluttered; the brake and derailleur cables are routed on the top of the down tube, along with the dropper post housing once it emerges from the seat tube. In a departure from the trend towards press fit bottom brackets, Santa Cruz has gone with a tried and true 73mm threaded bottom bracket shell. ISCG 05 tabs are in place for riders who wish to run a chain guide, while a molded chain stay guard helps minimize chain slap noise along with protecting the frame. There is also a down tube protector to help ward off flying trail debris.
 |
| The 5010 uses a VPP suspension layout, with two short links connecting the rear swingarm to the front triangle. The thickness of the upright, the portion on the non-drive side of the bike between the seat stay and the chain stay, helps to prevent unwanted flex at the rear of the bike. |
Suspension Design
The 5010 uses a VPP suspension layout, a dual short link suspension design that relies on two counter-rotating links intended to provide a firm pedalling platform with a supple midstroke, and a slight ramp up at the end of the travel. It's a combination of a falling and rising rate suspension design, one where the positioning of the two links allows for Santa Cruz to tune a bike's instant center, also known as the virtual pivot point (VPP). This point is what the rear axle is rotating around during its travel.
Santa Cruz uses angular contact bearings in the 5010 with a collet type axle retention system, a design intended to keep the bearings running smoothly for as long as possible. In addition, the lower link, the one exposed to the most possible contaminants, has two grease ports that can be used to push the old bearing grease out and new bearing grease in. This helps prevent the rust and corrosion that riding in wet, muddy conditions can cause.
|  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riding the 5010c
 | Spend a few minutes bobbing and weaving through a section of tight corners and it quickly becomes crystal clear that hidden somewhere inside the 5010's carbon frame is the soul of a slalom bike. |
Climbing and Fit
The 5010's cockpit has a very compact feel – the reach on the size large is shorter than most other bikes with comparable travel and wheel size. This put us in a more upright riding position than we typically encounter on a large frame, but it was one that proved to be comfortable, even after multiple hours of saddle time.
When the trail pointed upwards we found the 5010 to be a nimble climber, no doubt aided by its light weight (even with a dropper post and a set of Maxxis' beefy High Roller II tires our test bike weighed less than 26 pounds). The VPP suspension design's bob-free performance also deserves accolades, since it allowed us to run the Fox CTD rear shock fully open in most instances, only switching it to Trail mode for extended dirt road sections. Even in the open position, standing up out of the saddle to climb was rewarded by quick acceleration and no undue suspension movement. The 5010 scampered up short, tricky sections of trail without any problem, but it does take a little more technique to make it through longer, more technical climbs, the type with multiple stair steps in a row, where traction must be maintained on the rear wheel to avoid spinning out. It seemed like the bike's shorter wheelbase was the culprit here – it lacks the trail spanning length that can help provide more grip in this type of scenario. Once we adapted our riding technique and started carrying more speed into these extended technical sections it became easier to successfully power our way through.
 |
| The 5010 remained predictable and composed even on high speed downhill sections. |
Descending / Technical Terrain
Spend a few minutes bobbing and weaving through a section of tight corners and it quickly becomes crystal clear that hidden somewhere inside the 5010's carbon frame is the soul of a slalom bike. The relatively short chainstays and a low bottom bracket make for a bike that's happiest when its rider is drifting into corners and stomping on the pedals to accelerate out of them. Direction changes are lightning fast, and it couldn't have been easier to get the rear wheel exactly where we wanted it. But the 5010 isn't a one trick pony, and we found that it was just as capable on chewed up, rock strewn trails, exhibiting excellent stability and precise handling even when riding at high speeds through choppy rock gardens. The ENVE wheels deserve partial credit here, nicely complementing the stiffness of the 5010's carbon frame to create an extremely stable package. While the 5010 doesn't have the feel of a long travel, bump gobbling machine (and that's not its intended purpose), it was much more composed when pushed hard than we would have expected a bike with 125mm of travel to be. The rear suspension remained supportive and active even when sucking up the biggest ruts, and it never bottomed out harshly. The bike's short reach, which we mentioned earlier, didn't seem to hinder its downhill performance, but with the recent push for bikes with longer top tubes and short stems, we did find ourselves wondering how a slightly longer front center would affect the bike's handling.
Our ideal build would have something more robust than the Fox 32 fork that was specced on our review bike, since the combination of a stiff frame and wheels means that any flex that's going to happen will likely occur at the fork. This turned out to be the case, especially when pushing hard on the front end in steeper terrain. Something along the lines of a lowered RockShox Pike or even a Fox 34 would be our preference, bringing in additional stiffness that would make it possible to rally even harder aboard the 5010. We're not looking for more travel, since the 5010 feels very balanced as it is, we'd just like to have front end stiffness to match the rest of the bike. Granted, there would be a slight weight penalty incurred by this change, but it's one we'd happily take for the increased performance.
 |
| We ran into a slight issue with DT's 240 rear hub, but had no trouble with Shimano's XTR stoppers. It wasn't surprising to see Fox's 32 Float on a bike like this, but it wasn't quite up to the task. |
Component Check
• DT Swiss 240 hub: Our first outing on the 5010 was cut short when the DT 240's freehub body stopped engaging. We've had good luck with DT's freehub design in the past, but in this instance no amount of trail side MacGyvering was able to fix it, and we ended up scootering the bike out sans chain. The culprit turned out to be one of the springs that pushes the two star ratchets together – it wasn't allowing them to engage properly. We put in a different one and had no further problems.
• Shimano XTR brakes: We've praised Shimano's hydraulic disc brakes before, and we continue to be impressed by their ideal blend of power, excellent lever feel, and low maintenance.
• Fox 32 Float Fork: Much of our riding time these days is spent on bikes with 34mm stanchions, and the difference in stiffness was very apparent. We also had trouble getting the fork to go through all of its travel – it would go through the first portion without issue, but would then ramp up harshly towards the end of its stroke.
• SRAM XX1: SRAM's 1x11 drivetrain worked flawlessly, and there were no dropped chains or shifting issues during our time on the 5010c.
• Easton Havoc handlebars: Easton's Havoc bars fit well with the 5010's intended purpose, and at 235 grams they're quite light, but we'd like another 20mm of length, since 750mm is close, but not quite wide enough for our tastes.
 |
Pinkbike's take:
| The 5010 epitomizes the definition of a "trail bike." It's playful and light, but with enough brawn to remain composed even when faced with menacing terrain that would push other trail bikes out of their comfort zones. A stouter fork would be on our wish list, but the rest of the build is well matched to the bike's intentions. And although we tested one of the top tier models of this bike, Santa Cruz offers a build kit for nearly every budget, letting customers select a bike that best suits their needs (and bank account). If we were heading out on a multi-hour (or day) backcountry mission the 5010 would be on our short list of bikes we'd bring along for the ride, since its trail manners place it solidly into the upper echelon of exceptional mountain bikes. - Mike Kazimer |
www.santacruzbikes.com
Author Info:
Member since Feb 1, 2009
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
You could say that was a bit below the belt….
Probably should at least read the first part of an article (like the first sentence), if you are going to comment.
But being a Luddite is a tough job as well... for instance there is this argument some people have about some products, (not necessarily bike products) that long time ago things were better because they were built to last. Some say that some time ago we could repair our car by ourselves these days it is impossible. I always reply that it is rarely true, and car example is unbelievably stupid, but there are cases where such person is right - things did become less durable because since 70-ies we humans progressed in "counting" money, getting more profit from our production... whether such economical angle makes it a good thing or not, is a matter of own perception - I'm on your side because everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of our common reality
My interpretation goes like this: 650B is a "mindless growth induced waste of a questionable performance-increase value" just like 15mm axle...
So, this bike only costs 12 bitcoins.
I hope press-fit bb's go away, but we'll see.
When all is said and done what I see is better axle systems on the back of bikes, many with replaceable drop outs that might even allow the frame to switch axle heights, allowing for 650b or 26 about the same number of choices under 5 years old, and stiffer front ends all around.
Darn, what a dark and scary future ahead.
I for one enjoy these high end bike reviews and think that you guys do a good job of keeping the reviews of different bikes fresh. Keep it up and thanks for the great read!
Also I'm pretty such you can build an equally nice bike for 5k if you know where to look.
Otherwise nice bike - 9k MSRP is way to steep for a sweatshop bike. Looks like they get into the 30% discount game...
Once in a while they review something in the $5000 group, which believe it or not is the mid range, and once in a great while a $3000 rig shows up, which is the entry level these days.
They did review a wally world bike once. It didn't get a lot of props.
Driving it since 2008.
@powpow: Wheels been around for thousands of years ;-). There is no old technology - there is only reliable technology.I buy basic US-Pickups because they are comfortable, great engine, loads of space, completely trouble free for 2-300kmls. My 16 year old Ranger just passed 160kmls. And I like benchseats.
Around here it is excepted that the Japnese build reliable trucks. Americans build oversized toys for pulling oversized toys.
My brother and I fight about who will inherit his toyota in 20 ears when he passes away.
@dual: Got the same experience with the S-10 I4/M. Ran 16 years and 200 000mls. Brakes, tires, oil, filter and two reardampers. Still running somewhere, still looking good.
Built in japan.
But if you doubt just ask top gear. They put one on top of s building and demolished it, after leaving to roll around in the ocean all day. The guy got it going with a scree driver and starter fluid. It still drove.
Invincible.
Small diesel engine are not as well built as larger truckdiesel. Usually they are more expensive in the first place. If the CR, injectors or turbo go awry - and it will - TCO will be alot worse than a gas engine. Economy is a subset of TCO. That is why I stay with simple low reving petrol engines, especially since I had two CR-Turbodiesels runaways and subsequent blowups. Replacement engine cost is such in this segment that if this happens the vehicle`s value is that of junkmetal.
I always wonder if my cars are going to crap out and cost time and money that will make them less profitable than just buying a new machine, but so far I've been able to keep up with the repairs for very little. Way less than $200 per month. More like $400 annually.
Non-turbo diesels seem to last forever. I can live without acceleration since it means I have more to spend on bikes.
I am hoping to see more diesels in the USA soon. You can't get them in small cars except in VW and now the chevy cruz.
I am the same way with my cars. I like subaru because so much interchanges form one car to the next. I am sure to find anything I need in the junkyard.
No boutique stuff for me. Can't afford it.
BTW there is a better than 80% chance that my new 2014 bike will not have a Fox 34 on the front as they do not seem to have recovered from their CTD gaff. Thinking RS Pike DPA, BOS DEville or Manitou Mattoc.
If it is flexing it is also prematurely wearing the bushings. Can't handle the heat: time to leave the kitchen fox 32.
Other than that, I think the 5010 and Bronson bikes are pretty f*cken awesome. An LBS near me had a custom BronsonC sitting out the other day and I almost died when I saw it...
Why is that xc bikes, at one end of the spectrum, use ultra narrow bars while dh bikes, at the opposite end of the spectrum, use super wide bars? I've always assumed it had something to do with steering quickness and body position.
I find that only bars between 680 and 710 feel 'right' to me.
The rider in this test might have long arms for his height or just be really tall anyway and prefer a more compact frame.
Bar width is important and there are a lot of smaller people riding bars that are too wide for them because it is fashionable. If bars are too wide for the shoulder/ chest width then the rider has trouble using their arms to effectively to absorb the trail and extend the bike into the trail.
I am 6'2" with reasonably long arms and ride a extra large SC Blur TRc (with a 60mm -6 deg Syntace Megaforce 2 stem) and a 750mm 25mm rise Answer Carbon DH bar but prefer a large SC V-10C for my DH bike with a 50mm zero rise (Thomson) stem and a 780 mm 12.5mm rise Answer Carbon DH bar. The difference in spacers under the stem on my trail bike means that I end up with an almost identical feeling set up, but one that allows me to keep enough weight forward on steep climbs on the trail bike to not 'loop out'. As I am travelling slower when descending (normally) on my trail bike and it is lighter and generating less force than the Dh bike I do not need as much leverage from my handle bars either.
Finally if I ran 780mm on my trail bike I would smash my knuckles on every second tree on the trail!
This is a good reference to compare set up (remember to add the height difference if your handle bars are different): www.brightspoke.com/t/bike-stem-calculator.html
Also now we've all read the review an decided if it's good/bad we'll know in a couple of years when they are going for half the price whether to get one or not (like the nomad).
There are also lots of people on here (myself included) who've been into this sport for twenty or so years, over that time have upgraded, swapped frames, searched for lots of cheeky eBay bargains and finally got to the point where they have managed to build top end bikes. Hate the whole he has a nice bike therefore must be nob, no maybe they've just pumped 20years worth of spare coin and hours of eBay trawling into a hobby they love.
So in summary: today's top end bikes are tomorrow's eBay bargains and if you don't like something ie expense, wheel size etc fine just don't be a dick about it!
Oh unless it's all the stupid funking names manufactures keeping coming up with (enduro, all mountain, trail) for what we've always done RIDE BIKES!
Seriously though, at 9k a bike should not want for anything.
It would seem poor or hasty engineering to increase the size of the wheel and not also increase the size of the fork too.
Top of the line 10g bike, not complaining much about that... that's about how much i spent on my Pivot Mach 5.7c
I have a fox 32 on my bike, recently lowered to 130. The only real fork that would fit at 130 with 34mm stanchions would be the x-fusion sweep. For 2014, the fox 34 and pike can only be lowered to 150. If they could be lowered to 130, i'd have a pike right now (or a BOS Deville).
I have a $2000 Kawasaki and they come up with new tech each year. I know for a fact that Kaw puts in a ton of $$ in marketing, sponsorships, and also into R&D.
It's about time manufactures drop this price bullshit they are playing on us. I don't know when they got the idea that we are busting our asses at work for them.
1) Can we see a stiffer fork offered?
2) Where are the rockshox suspension build kits for SC?
What is your opinion on needing a bashguard, or bashring for XX1? Not a guide, but something like the MRP XCG? During your testing are you running into situations where you are tagging the chain/chainring?
I'd love a bike like this but in general... all these new bikes are way too damned expensive. Can buy a dirt bike for the cost of some of these bikes and they have the same damn materials on them... and a motor.
the rest of the kit is a bit irrelevant really sending that money youll spec it how you want!, however 32mm forks are nice on an xc ride, but ill happily carry a few hundred grammes for the extra stiffness and confidence with a 34 or lets be honest the far superior Pike or even a 55RC3ti over fox. It just means you can push things harder and have more fun on the descents.
and as for XXI, well if youve got the cash then go ahead but really - any old clutch/type 2 mech and a narrow/wide chainring from wolftooth or raceface is going to deliver pretty much the same performance
are you saying that the toptube feels short compared to other 125mm bikes?
I personally think santa cruz just has its naming of its sizes slightly off. I normally ride a size medium, but a size medium bronson would be tiny on me. a size medium is more like a small by everyone elses sizing & a size large is like everyone elses size medium
edit: btw that compare-a-bike option is pretty interesting, except it doesn't say what year bike we are comparing it to. thanks!
My 7 year old aluminum 575 is 27.5lbs, and that's with a pair of 1st gen Mallets. Drop the pedals and it's high 26lbs, my build is fairly high end, but I did make a few concessions due to price, and obviously being 26" the wheels/tires will always be lighter, but dropping 1000 grams wouldn't have added more than $1000 or so to the build, making my bike lighter, and still $4000 less expensive. Something just isn't adding up.
Mike, any other bikes I should try to ride that compare to this? Between this and the RM altitude Rally, Norco Range, which would you go with?
The TRc was/is one of the most converted bikes from 26 to 27.5. So SC made what the people wanted.
I owned a TRc and rode it with 26 and 27.5 wheels. Rode the same trails. Same loop back to back and I liked the 27.5 better.
When I found out about the Solo, I put the TRc up for sale and ordered a Solo.
Built it up with parts from the TRc and put a Fox 32 on it. Pretty much had the same complaints about the fork. Swapped it out for a lowered Pike and am very happy with it. Defiantly the way to go.
The Bronson is more like the Blur LT
part# 11.4018.026.003
but it wasn't quite up to the task $9775 USD, room for a water bottle $9775 USD ...
Triumph Street Triple $10995.
I think I'll keep saving for a couple more months ...