When it comes to mountain bike geometry, the pace of change seems to have slowed down slightly this season. Yes, there are plenty of new bikes being released that are longer and slacker than before, but rather than seeing two degrees slashed off a bike's head angle and 10 – 20mm added to the reach, the revisions are more subtle, refinements rather than drastic transformations.
All of that holds true for the new Santa Cruz Hightower, which has undergone a slight geometry update and received a few new frame features, including a snack storage compartment, for 2023. It retains its 29” wheels and 145mm of rear travel paired with a 150mm fork, and it still slots into that do-it-all category, that sort of nebulous zone between shorter travel trail bikes and longer travel enduro machines.
Hightower 3 Details • Wheel size: 29"
• Travel: 145 mm, 150 mm fork
• C & CC carbon frames, aluminum option on the way
• 64.5º or 64.8º head angle
• 76.4º seat tube angle (size L, low)
• 438mm chainstays (size L, low)
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL, XXL
• Weight: 31.5 lb / 14.3 kg (size L, Hightower C GX AXS RSV)
• Price: $5,499 - $10,699USD
•
santacruzbicycles.com According to Santa Cruz, “It's a mountain bike.The mid-length travel and confidence-inspiring geometry means anywhere tires will roll, then so will this bike. No fussing, no nonsense, no silly category names.”
There are two different carbon frame options – CC and C – and there's an aluminum version in the works. As for colors, riders can choose from translucent purple or a matte evergreen option. That purple option is one of the best-looking paint jobs I've seen in recent memory – the red / purple blend looks absolutely amazing in person.
Frame DetailsThe Hightower's overall frame shape remains the same as the previous version, with a lower link-driven VPP suspension layout and a 210 x 55mm shock. Grease ports on the lower linkage simplify service, and once the bearings are too far gone for fresh grease to salvage Santa Cruz will replace them for free.
The in-frame storage first showed up on the Megatower, a panel that sits under the bottle cage with a small latch that allows access to the inside of the frame. The storage capacity is quite generous – there's plenty of room for a small pump, a tube, and tools with space to spare. Santa Cruz includes two padded sleeves (a tool wallet and a tube purse) to keep the Glovebox's contents from rattling around.
Another feature that adds convenience to the frame is the cutout on the non-driveside portion of the shock tunnel. That port makes it easier to check sag – with the previous design it was tricky to get a straight-on view of the shocks o-ring. One feature that hasn't been added to the Hightower is coil shock or Float X2 compatibility - by keeping the shock tunnel just big enough to fit an air shock like the RockShox Super Deluxe, Santa Cruz was able to gain an extra centimeter of room for dropper post insertion.
GeometryThe slight geometry updates mentioned earlier come in the form of a .5-degree slacker head angle and size-specific chainstay lengths. On a size large, that equates to a 64.5-degree head angle and 438mm chainstays, which are paired with a 472mm reach (that's a scant 2mm longer than before). The seat angles remain roughly the same, hovering between 76.4 and 77-degrees depending on the frame size and flip chip position.
Speaking of flip chips, that little thing hasn't gone anywhere. Changing its position results in a head angle that's a whole .3-degree different and a 4mm alteration in bottom bracket height. I feel like Santa Cruz could scrap the whole flip chip thing and most riders wouldn't complain at all, but it's there if you feel like tinkering in tiny increments.
Suspension LayoutThe new Hightower has slightly lower anti-squat values for the first 40% of its travel compared to the previous version, a change that was implemented to improve suspension sensitivity. The values are still on the higher side, sitting in the neighborhood of 135% at sag, and then dropping off further into the travel.
The leverage ratio was adjusted as well, and it's now a little higher at the beginning of the travel and a little lower at the end in order to maintain consistent damping and bump up the bottom-out resistance a little.
Spec CheckThe bike that I have in for review is the Hightower C GX AXS Reserve model, which retails for $9,799 USD. That's a whole bunch of money, and this isn't even the top-of-the-line model. Bike prices have increased across the board over the last couple of years, but to me it seems like Santa Cruz's prices have gone up more than others – this isn't the place to look if you're on the hunt for a killer value.
This particular model has a parts kit that won't hold anyone back, but there are a few items that don't seem to align with that hefty price tag. The shock is a RockShox Select Plus, which has a stubby lockout lever instead of any low speed compression adjust. Not the end of the world, but at this price point some more adjustability would be nice. The brakes are Code RS, with 180mm rotors front and rear. Once again, they work well, but lack the pad contact adjust of the RSC version, a feature I find very useful, and I'd prefer 200mm rotors front and rear, or at least up front.
While I'm nitpicking, EXO+ tires would have been a more appropriate choice rather than the EXO casing versions that are spec'd. At least the front uses Maxxis' MaxxGrip rubber – I'm a big fan of that softer compound. And finally, the size large comes with a 175mm RockShox Reverb dropper. There are lots of adjustable cable actuated dropper posts on the market these days that work great – I'd much rather have a 200mm cable actuate post over the Reverb with its hydraulic remote.
Product managers don't have it easy these days, and I'm sure that supply chain issues and delays played a part in some of the parts selected for this build. Still, for a bike that's nearly $10,000 I'd expect to see higher end parts, even if this one does have carbon wheels and a GX AXS wireless drivetrain.
Ride Impressions I've only managed to squeeze two rides so far, so I won't be digging in too deep just yet – that'll have to wait until I rack up more miles on a wider variety of terrain. That said, my initial outings did allow me to get a decent handle on the Hightower's character.
The trait that stood out the most was just how well this bike jumps and corners. My local trails are littered jumps and berms, and I instantly felt at home on the Hightower. It has a lively, poppy feel to it, and its slightly shorter dimensions compared to some of the longer enduro machines out there make it extremely easy to maneuver in the air and on the ground.
I really enjoyed the previous Hightower's handling, and so far that remains the case with the new version. The wheelbase has grown, but it's still an easygoing ride, one that doesn't take much effort to get to the top of a techy climb. There's enough travel to take the edge off bigger hits, but not so much that it feels like overkill on mellower trails.
Of course, part of me does wonder what a 160mm fork, some bigger rotors, and some beefier tires will do to its manners. There's a chance it could dull some of the liveliness that I like so much, or it could turn it into a really fun not-quite-an-enduro bike, one that feels even more at home just about everywhere. I'll start playing around with different setup configurations and report my findings in a longer term review later this year.
Actually.. who am I kidding?
Santa Cruz has always done an amazing job staying away from the gimmicks. No problematic Trunion shock mounts either.
Nice
All that, and they somehow just don't get my heart pounding. It just looks like a bike, and there are other bikes that are also nice.
I think in the old days, when there were true boutique brands, you paid a little extra, got something a little more custom and unique, and then the company and its dealers took care of you a little bit of something went wrong. It seems those days are gone.
I'm not saying that a boutique brand is going to be better, but I don't see why I should pay more to have a bike that was designed, produced, and supported in a way that is more economical for the manufacturer. That feels upside down to me.
Ha so you don’t know what your missing out on ;-)
I think we should just call everything that isn't an XC or DH bike a "Trail" bike and then just add the appropriate prefix of "short travel", "mid travel" or "long travel".
Then downduro, a short-mid travel bike
Then a trail bike
Then an enduro bike
Then a super enduro bike
Downtrail ?
Thst said, the Spur is a rad bike.
Unfortunately, SC has become THE brand at the vanguard of charging too much. Considering that they're part of a conglomerate and get their frames/groupsets/etc. at the lowest possible price, this is straight-up price gouging.
When a small company like Guerilla Gravity can offer a US made frame and build kits for less money, paying SC prices just isn't worth it.
Everyone has to eat-but the margin Pon Holdings (the SC brand is just their fancy-pants stuff) is making on these is too high.
pon.com/en/activities
But yeah-eff Pon
Yeah-Pon will probably keep this up, sheeple who don’t understand supply chains etc. will pay.
But it isn’t ethical. It’s possible to make a fair profit without making unreasonable margins.
Or you can move up to the $8,800 X01 build and *save* $1,000 and half a pound of weight while getting better suspension at both ends, top brakes, a higher-end "analog" drivetrain, and more robust rims.
If I was somehow being given the selection of both these SC for free, IMO the X01 is clearly the better choice. Just sell the X01 shifter and derailleur if you really want AXS, it'll probably be like a net extra of $200-300 and you're on a cassette that will last you thousands of miles more than a GX will.
Gx axs is all you need when you like electric shifting. Have to say that is totally worth it if you wanna go down that route
Bought my 2020 "dream bike" at the end of 2019 for $7,400... today they're charging $9,100. At $9,100, I'd be out today even if I can afford it. Or at least I'd be cross-shopping an Orbea Rise, etc. so it actually feels like I'm actually getting something worth close to $10k that isn't "just a bike!" in wife-speak.
Eventually I do want a new road bike and at some point an e-bike (the Orbea Wild FS M-LTD checks a lot of boxes for me), but neither are high on my list of purchase priorities. I still think e-bikes have another couple of years of evolutional progress before I'm ready to pull the trigger on one.
Here are worldwide sales by brand from 2021 - bikefaff.com/mountain-bike-statistics-and-facts
Here are some other stats from 2017 which show roughly the same - www.sauserwind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/top-bikes-brand-sales.png
SC doesn't get a specific mention, so they are lumped in with "other brands" so hard to say what their share is. Just to highlight that it's very, very spurious to make any assumptions or implications based on almost no data. Needless to say, without conducting surveys, it's very difficult to get sales data on specific brands.
Do you have any information on sales that don't include brands like Electra, Schwinn, Haro, and Redline? I wouldn't really say they're in the same industry but I couldn't find any sales info on my own. I'm assuming that the numbers come straight from all bikes above a certain ISO rating which isn't really fair for Santa Cruz.
That's why it's so insulting that SC charges so much more for a comparable build kit than even freestanding boutique brands like Yeti or GG, let alone the big players.
@wyorider Yep, they function the same way designer clothing brands do. You pay for the name. They get their materials for the lowest costs around but charge among the highest and provide poor value.
Fine call me out on my slightly flawed car example...it would be like comparing Gap sales figures to Versace.
Check your cpu you might be overheating!
When you say ‘as sexy as lite ville’ you mean ‘puke your guts out ugly’ right? Because I’m not sure that’s quite fair to Santa Cruz…
But I'm not a native english speaker so please forgive me if my usage of that idiom wasn't correct.
@kevinturner12 no kidding, this dad isnt buying a Santa Cruz any time soon
2012 Santa Cruz Tallboy (Aluminum) -> 2016 Ibis Ripley LS -> 2019 Intense Primer -> 2022 Specialized Stumpjumper Evo
The older I get, the more squish I need...
Interestingly, the new Hightower geo seems to be creeping closer the the Stevo's slighly more progressive geo. Maybe we've converged?
So yeah, 64.5° is only mildly progressive these days.
These days its probably a mid travel 29er, which is not the bike of choice for any race discipline, nor is it the ideal park bike, jib bike, etc.
But it will handle pretty much any descent or feature that a man with a mortgage is willing to try, and you can ride it all day.
You still have to push it.
Try carrying some breakfast cereal home from shop maybe even run with it home in a rucksack.
Then go back and do the same with a couple of six-packs. Tell me a few kg doesnt make a difference to your overall mass.
You're talking about completely different kinematics and weight distribution.
Your analogy would only work if we were on a bicycle in those examples, and the weight was on the bike, not you - because where the weight is matters a lot, having weight on your back makes a difference because it's so high above the centre of gravity, and it has a direct affect on your body. There's also sprung and unsprung mass, one the former matters much less.
If you put 2kg on your frame and pedalled it I highly doubt it would make much difference to your uphill performance under normal conditions - as I say, if you're racing xc, then weight matters more.
Carrying weight on your back is COMPLETELY different, and only someone who has done absolutely no reading on the subject would regard that as analogous to bike weight.
Having weight on your back hinders your body directly in completely different ways and doesn't work as an example at all, you need to add weight to the bike in order to evaluate the difference, which is going to be fairly minimal unless you have your eyes on uphill KOMs.
Suspension design, kinematics, anti-squat all matter way more to pedalling efficiency than small weight differentials. And heavy wheels are much more noticeable than a heavy frame, which is why I use lighter tires.
The one I rode was about 31.5lbs. Not really enduro heavy…
As I said, that's the official weight of the carbon model without pedals (31.5bs = 14.3kg). With pedals it'll be about 14.7kg (32lbs). I'm saying that the alloy version will likely be closer to 35lbs with pedals, which is enduro territory. I'm also saying that doesn't matter very much.
Aimed at you, and oops, didn’t realise you meant the alloy model. Yes their alu bikes are generally a fair bit heavier. I’d actually be interested to ride one to see how different they feel
www.pinkbike.com/news/field-test-12-trail-and-downcountry-bikes-face-the-efficiency-test.html
In this real world efficiency test a 26lb Top Fuel is approximately 21% lighter than the 31.5lbs Stumpjumper and it is also approximately 21% faster.
Imagine riding a bike 1/4 of your weight
That was a controlled study, using the same rider with the same power output (fulfilling your standard pedal power criteria).
Rider weight absolutely HAS to be part of the equation, because the impacts of weight changes are very much relative to the rider. But in this instance it was to be the same rider doing the test, so it was entirely consistent. Increasing bike weight by 21% only reduced efficiency by 3.3% for a 95kg rider. That's entirely valid. It also factors for rider tiredness, which these PB don't do.
The PB videos are entertainment and should be treated as such.
Here's another experiment, showing that (for road bikes) decreasing weight by 6% only resulted in a 2% average speed gain. ridefar.info/bike/cycling-speed/weight
Here's another which showed the same in reverse, a 2% reduction in speed with an addition of 4lbs
www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez
Here's another which shows a 13.6% drop in speed with 50% weight gain between bikes (18kg vs 9kg) (which is obviously a very exaggerated weight gain) middleagecyclist.blogspot.com/2011/09/weight-matters-study.html
Here's another showing a time gain on the Alp De Huez of 1.5 mins. Relevant for pro racers, but entirely irrelevant to recreational riders -https://cyclinguphill.com/time-saved-weight-loss-bike/
There's absolutely nothing to support the "general rule" (which I've never heard of) of a 1% drop in efficiency for a 1% weight gain - which, as already discussed, would be entirely relative to the weight/power of the rider.
So let's forget general rules and look at specific examples where the rider was consistent. Greeta25 has posted a bunch of such examples and they all show much smaller efficiency sacrifices. It's not scientific by I'm much faster on climbs on my newer, heavier bike simply due to better geometry and suspension design. So it's about so much more than weight, which is why it's wrong to place so much importance on weight, especially if you're not chasing seconds.
I dont understand how there could even be a case against a reduction in weight saving time and energy! Its everywhere there is competition (bikes, cars, boats, track and field, bobsled, on and on...)... its a undeniable fact of the universe! You guys are operating in some Bizzaro world, where scientific studies can contradict reality and you believe it.
Scientific studies don't contradict reality, they aim to explain it.
As has been said if you're literally chasing seconds (i.e. racing) saving small amounts of weight makes sense. For average Joe on his pushbike, the gains are very much marginal. Nobody is saying not to do it, just that the difference isn't very big.
Next time try reading a thread properly, don't jump to conclusions, and take a breath before you dive in with completely unverifiable claims.
None of the links I provided were studies, but they were real world experiments.
Nobody said extra weight was cool. Nobody was against weight savings. Nobody here put that stick up your ass.
The available data shows that gains are marginal - not non-existent, not even un-noticeable, but marginal.
Now chill out and sit down (but remove the stick first).
And what race was this? What were the results? What are the riders' weights and power outputs? What bikes were they riding and what did they weigh? Did you weigh them yourself? How do you know they were lighter? Sorry but you can "submit" your mouth to my butthole if you think that's evidence of anything.
Obviously racers on light bikes are gonna be fast, but who here was talking about racing before you came along numbnuts?
But just to clarify... the 1% "rule of thumb"... Its 1% of total weight for a 1% gain in speed or reduction in time. Which can be a huge gap in a race... depending on the length of the race.
10 seconds, 20 seconds, 40 seconds, 60 seconds is a massive difference in a race... or in your Strava ranking.
It's not much harder to move around a heavy bike. EWS riders are on close to 40lbs rigs and they don't seem to struggle. Heavier bikes also have stability advantages. So it depends what you want to do with your bike, but for most people the only time they'll notice what their bike weighs it is when they lift it into their truck.
This thread was about a 3lb difference. Nobody is noticing that on the trail unless you are starting off with a very light xc bike. I love my light bike, but I'm not going to try to justify the extra $2000 it cost over the alloy just by the weight saving or pretend that it's making me all that faster. I get destroyed by friends on much heavier bikes.
I don't fancy pedalling a bike that heavy up a hill though, there's definitely a point where weight is too much lol
ceecee: "oh yeah, what about this pro rider?"
Lol
I'm also pretty sure Dan Paley would be just as good no matter what weight his bike is (within normal bike weights).
Average Joe isn't generally concerned with those thin margins. If he is, he can buy a lighter bike, nobody has said that he can't. But that doesn't change the fact that the gains/losses over 3lbs are very marginal.
We're talking, in one example, about a 3% efficiency cost when introducing a 21% weight increase. That's exceptionally unexceptional for the average rider
I'm not sure what your argument actually is at this point, and I'm not sure you know either.
Go for it. 35lb isn't an unusual weight for an enduro bike at all. If you're going from a 32lb bike to a 35lb bike - which is what this thread was about - then you probably won't notice much difference. But I would rather buy the bike I like, rather than buy it based on its weight.
My Slash is just over 35lb. I'm not going to enter any xc races on it, but it does me well in enduro races, and there's quite a bit of ascent in those. I doubt anyone on a 35lb alloy Hightower is going to be bitching as much as you weight weenies either lol
But hey you'll be buying an average weight alloy trail bike! Enjoy! I'm sure the owners of alloy Hightowers are enjoying theirs
100kg total weight (average bike, rider, and gear)
remove 3kg (which is 3%)
~ 3% increase in speed, or ~3% reduction in time
That 3% will put you nearly a minute ahead in a 30 minute race or ranking. Which can be and entire field of racer times.
I would also say that weight has a bigger impact on acceleration vs steady state pedaling... so a bigger impact on MTB than road biking.
We're also talking about 3lbs, not 3kg.
As has been said countless times in thread, this isn't about racing. If you're literally chasing seconds (1 min over a 30 min race) then weight is a factor.
The 3% was in relation to a 21% weight change to the bike, with a 90kg rider. Not sure where you're getting your 100kg total weight of rider bike and gear from.
If you're a recreational trail rider then 31mins vs 30mins is irrelevant. It's been said a bunch of times in this thread that if you're a racer, and therefore very tiny margins like you've just described would be a big deal, then yeah weight matters.
Are you deliberately ignoring what's been said, or do you actually not understand what's going on?
But even your basic maths is wrong: 3% of 30 minutes is 54 seconds not 30. But that's irrelevant because you're incorrect about the efficiency cost in the first place as I describe above, which would actually be 0.42% with a 3% weight change.
To add 30 seconds to your time you'd have to increase the bike's weight by a lot more - if the effect was linear you'd have to increase the bike's weight by 104%, but the effect is not be linear because the effect of weight change is exponential - by which I mean, the lighter the rider is in relation to the bike, the bigger the effect of weight change will be (i.e. lighter riders lose more time when adding weight to their bikes than heavy riders do). This also means that a 3% weight change would actually, for the 90kg rider, result in an even smaller efficiency change than 0.42%.
This is something discussed in depth in the MTB PHD experiment, which was a MTB experiment, not road. They also say in their summary that weight can have a significant (in racing terms, so still only a few seconds over many minutes) effect on time but this hugely dependent on the rider's weight, with weight changes having no measurable penalty whatsoever for some riders (as they say, not surprising, since it's exponential).
Stay in school.
21% of a 30lb MTB is 6lbs (or 3kg for you Gretta).
The 21% weight increase was in the MTB PHD experiment using an actual bike, which resulted in a 3.3% efficiency cost. This was done by adding 2.3kg (5lb) to a 10.7kg (24lb) xc bike.
I strongly encourage you to read properly.
I was hoping to get someone in the group to admit that weight matters... and that it is the primary controllable factor for all types of biking and other competitive sports and numerus industry applications were Work = Force x Distance and Force = Mass x Acceleration and Mass = Weight / Gravity.
Its like a group of Weight Deniers. Final words on the subject... Weight Matters!
As we've established weight matters if you are working with very small margins for error - such as chasing seconds on a race course. Weight does not matter if you're not doing that, because we're talking about a few seconds over quite long periods of time.
Final words on the subject: please read the thread and basic info you've been provided with. You have only sought to move goalposts to fit your opinion, without acknowledging anything you've been told.
As redrook says, you haven't even attempted to understand what you've been told - which has been pretty simple, and all you've done is randomly pick numbers and try to fit them to an obviously bullshit "rule of thumb" you've plucked out of the air. You can't answer the direct questions you've been asked, or provide any actual evidence for anything you've said.
Weight matters exponentially if the rider weight/power is a constant. Weight matters if you are chasing results in xc racing. Weight does not matter in general.
To quote the study you clearly still haven't read: "Mountain bikers spend way too much time trying to have lightweight stuff and trying to "buy" time, when in reality much bigger gains can be had by riding smoother, smarter and training right."
That doesn't mean weight loss doesn't mean gains, it just means very small gains, and there are far bigger gains to be had elsewhere.
1. Obviously for competition (against others or against yourself... PRs, KOMs).
2. To reach higher riding speeds for the thrill of it, or for the challenge it presents.
2a. Riding skills improvements associated with riding faster.
3. To be able to ride longer and further with the same amount of energy exerted.
3a. Faster recovery time (so that you can ride more, or hike more, or run more, etc.).
4. So that you can enjoy climbs and flats as much as downhill.
5. So that you can keep up with others in a group ride and not slow the group down.
6. So that you can maneuver your bike more effectively (on the ground, or in the air).
7. So that you can stop your bike quicker (performance and safety).
8. So that you can carry more gear or fluids instead of more bike mass.
9. So you are less fatigued, and less likely to get injured.
I'm sure there are many other tangential benefits of a lighter weight bike, but I'm also sure that this group will not acknowledge any of them.
The money is relative to the individual. Yes, you can save up to 3lbs in the frame material, but lower end components are also heavier and/or lower performing. You can save ~5-6lbs and get better performing components for what recently used to be a $2000 difference, but likely inflated now to something more.
It seems that you are really asking if a more expensive bike is a better bike for the average rider... with weight generally being the primary difference. But that's like asking why does an average driver need a GT500 over a standard Mustang 'its only completing the 1/4 mile a few seconds faster". Those decisions a way more dynamic than weight and performance alone.
Bike A - Aluminum with low end components ~36lbs - $4000
Bike B - Aluminum with high end components ~33lbs - $5000
Bike C - Carbon with low end components ~33lbs - $6000
Bike D - Carbon with high end components ~30lbs - $7000
Pick your poison.
1. we've established that it makes little time/speed difference
2. we've established that it makes little time/speed difference
2a. as above, and do they?
3. nope, not supported by the data. Very dependent on rider .
3a. Not supported by data. Greater gains to be made by very slight fitness improvements rather than weight.
4. See points 1 and 2. And who says shaving a couple seconds off a climb makes it more enjoyable. Seems very subjective.
5. Irrelevant and extremely subjective.
6. See points 1 and 2.
7. Brakes do this.
8. Why not both?
9. See points 1, 2 and 3
Each of these is going to be imperceptible with a difference of 3lbs on a normal trail/enduro bike.
Money is relative to the individual, but the point is that it's diminishing returns. The rest of your comment is just a truism without a point - although the Mustang comparison doesn't work. People will buy expensive things because they can, not because they will benefit from the difference. You even say this yourself, so we can ignore this.
Religious zealots do the same thing. They make a point, which is then rebuked with evidence, they then change the parameters of their point or make a non-sequitur, attempting to change the parameters of the conversation. This process is then repeated ad nausea. Watch videos of people trying to espouse creationism, it's the same. They're too ignorant to understand the evidence, and continually fall back on subjectivity and speculation.
3lbs on a normal trail/enduro bike is nothing. That's basically a water bottle and a headset multitool. There could be a bigger difference between two riders on the same bike.
I'm gonna stop you right there. Go read this thread again, and I suggest the multiple links (particularly the MTB one) which were provided. As has been said so many times that I can only assume you haven't read this thread, we are talking about literally seconds gained/lost. This is not what most people are doing or what most people would regard as mattering. You cannot change what the OP said matters. He started this thread and set the parameters for what matters. If you think something else matters, you can start your own thread, but you cannot tell other people what should matter to them.
The rest of your comment doesn't appear to be making a point - the only point it does make is that people buy things for difference reasons beyond performance. And yes! You're absolutely right! Well done! It seems like you've make a breakthrough!
Now hunny. Nobody is trying to take your light bike away from you. Nobody is saying you can't love it. But what you are being told, with evidence, is that it's not giving you a big time/efficiency difference over someone with a heavier (and similarly designed/intentioned) bike.
But why cant we grow our conversation a bit (without the belittling and insults). Why cant we admit that there is an entire world of light weight bikes and components that do indeed have an impact on riding? Why cant we admit that you cant keep adding weight without reaching a point at which each of us individually would consider too much?
My current fleet includes a Transition Spur at 26lbs and a Yeti Sb165 at 32lbs. Although I cant produce the data that proves what I feel and how I feel riding them, I will still say the weight difference is certainly noticeable riding and recovering.
Dude, you aren't having a conversation because that requires you to read/listen, which you haven't done. Come back when you've read what people have said and have read the evidence provided.
I already been explained extremely well that you would reach a point at which there would be too much weight. You comment just illustrates that you haven't even tried.
The spur is a 120mm xc bike, the SB165 is a long travel enduro bike, so were not talking about similarly intentioned bikes, so again you haven't read anything that's been said.
Nobody needs to "admit" any of that because none of that was ever questioned. As redrook says, you haven't read any of the above, it's all covered.
An xc bike feels different to an enduro bike? You're a genius! This was discussed very early on in the thread, you need to compare similar bikes.
Hahaha why should anyone show you respect when you're clearly a complete numbnuts lol
Read. The. Thread. Chump.
Imagine paying $10K for a bike and still having to replace the dropper post. No idea what they were thinking unless Sram had a shipment of them laying around and SC couldn't get their hands on anything else.
When I said it, I meant you can build one yourself by clicking on dialogue boxes. You can leave the wrenching part to them
Sorry mate, I now realize it was the Hightower2 that I was looking at.
The sag window is the 2022 version of Specialized auto sag shocks.
Also, these builds are garbage.
For those who haven’t owned an SC, when you own one, I’ve never paid full retail, but close, and never felt ripped off bc the quality of the carbon, paint, routing, everything is done a little better in my opinion and last a long time. I put 8k miles on my HT and went through 4 sets of wheels, 3 set of bearings, 2 shocks, and 3 forks. Zero problems with the frame.
Love this new HT but the lack of a coil kills it for me. I know it’s only 145mm but I REALLY like the advantages and feel of a coil now that there are adjustable springs like spindex.
Bike co’s are spending way too much time on “Snack Shack’s” the last few year IMO. What else do you need to carry!?!? I don’t wear any packs, bottle, with a multi-tool, C02, and racer plug patch and I ask people if they need help all the time. And they usually have massive packs on.
Yet it has a piggyback shock in every single picture here. And a bulky piggyback at that.
Part of the air can seems to be inside the tunnel, surely there are some coil springs that are close to the diameter of a Super Deluxe air can...
Man could say you could nearly put a battery in this downtube
Couple shops ordered 40+ fatbikes in canada. They got single digit. Couple large shops in the usa had them in every model and color, also had them on sale when they didnt sell in spring. Could have sold out up here but salsa wanted the more margin in usa i guess…
What consumers need to be mindful of, especially on larger frames (or if they have long legs), their saddle in the raised position will be above that height, so the effective STA for them is likely to be less. However... not much less - worth sketching out if you are really concerned.
@jqwan:
Also worth noting differences in stack height as that plays a role in your measurement of 'effective STA' one thing I noticed recently is my hightower V2 has relatively tall stack compared to similar bikes (transition spire for instance) and therefore the effective STA is also changed. Definitely consider sketching out for long legged folks.
However not all manufacturers give actual STA at 'top of ETT' - this would be a fair thing to ask for.
I think the onus is on the user to figure out what works for them. Additionally we can adjust the saddle rails - rule of thumb is 20mm ~ 1 deg of movement - so there is always a bit of give for fine tuning.
Think that it would be fair for all manufacturers to add 'actual STA at ETT' - then we can figure it out for ourselves.
I also have had some brilliant riding Santa cruzes over the years …
But I can’t help but think that Santa Cruz missed a couple keys on this one…. Aaaand that’s including the stupid glove box that all bikes should have !!!
I ended up buying a Stumpjumper EVO (150mm shock and 160mm fork) and while not as stylish as SC bikes I'm very happy with its 31lbs (all up). I'm pretty sure I'm faster overall.
You can argue about the speed of climb, but those few pounds do make a difference on 5k days. If you are a shuttler, none of this matters.
My heart is broken with SC adding weight to frames though, maybe it's warranty liability (durability, design for heavy riders, warranty fraud, etc) or maybe just the the low shock design.
I held the MT glove box cover plate in my hands - must have 300g alone.
4mm of BB clearance is HUGE in some areas. I ride many trails where there are fun lines that pretty much require scraping pedals pins a bit, and 4mm higher means just that much less worrying about exactly what the crank rotation needs to be to change a hard pedal strike into a glancing blow.
I run my Stumpy LT in high-mode (5mm BB height change according to them. I think I measured at pretty damn close to that) most of the time, because an extra crank here or there, or avoiding a pedal strike to help carry momentum, are more important than a half degree of head angle. But I'll stick it in low for lift or shuttle days, since that half degree does add a little forgiveness when pushing the limits, and pedaling through jank is not really an issue.
i bet SC owner charge own warehouse workers for air.
SC's marketing team deserves a lot of praise, very few other companies are actually able to pull this off.
As for lifetime bearings, if you ride a LOT you might need a full set every year or 2 at about $110 all-in. It'd take more years than I want to keep a bike for that "added value" to balance out.
Oh and by the way, guess who owns Whistler bike park? Vail.
Plus, there are a lot of riders out there hard enough on gear, and ride enough days on a frame to justify paying that premium for the warranty. Those other companies have solid service and warranties, but they aren't quite as comprehensive as SC.
Really? I thought it was a pogo stick.
Do folks really like VPP or is it the branding?
I'd like to add: people who pronounce it "PORSH".
Hhahaha, love it!
2: I do not believe Santa SA numbers.
3: more black frames.