Norco Range Killer B - First Ride
The Range Killer B - 1 is assembled around Norco's 160mm travel, 650B all-mountain platform.
The Range Killer B - 2 (left) retails for $4150 USD and uses a SRAM X7/X9 drivetrain and FOX suspension, while the Killer B - 3 (right) goes for $2899 USD with it's X-Fusion Vengeance fork, O2 RL rear shock, and SRAM X5 running gear.
650B Commitment Norco is jumping into 650B headfirst, with six different models utilizing the 'tweener wheel size for 2013 - There is no 26" wheeled Range option for 2013. The 160mm travel Range Killer B platform consists of three of those models, with the top-tier Killer B - 1 ridden here. Norco has designed the Killer B lineup with hard charging riders in mind, and the bike has a 66.5° head angle to match those intentions, as well as replaceable ISCG-05 tabs and some very clever dropper post cable routing. Further enforcing the the bike's aggressive ambitions, Norco has employed their 'Gravity Tune' geometry ethos onto the Range. A geometry layout that was first used on their acclaimed Aurum DH platform, Gravity Tune sees the bike's rear/center measurement (chain stay) change to match each frame size's front/center length. Most frames use one length of rear/center regardless of frame size, but Norco's goal is to preserve weight distribution throughout the sizing range. It is also worth noting that the 2013 650B Range actually uses shorter chain stays than that of the 26" wheeled 2012 model. | • 650B all-mountain platform • Rear wheel travel: 160mm • FOX 34 Talas fork, 120 - 160mm • Dropper post routing • Tapered head tube • ISCG-05 guide tabs • 360 locking pivot hardware • 'Gravity Tune' geometry • MSRP $5850 USD |
The Range's A.R.T. rear suspension is a variation of the Horst Link that Norco has tuned to have slightly more rearward axle path than what is found on many other Horst Link designs. The goal is one that is talked about often: better square edge performance, which in turn can result in a bike that carries good speed over rough terrain. The bike's rearward axle path can also be used to tune in a certain amount of anti-squat by way of chain tension, something that Norco says they have used to improve the Range's climbing abilities.
A sturdy looking, one-piece welded rocker link (left) is used to active the shock. Both the main and the rocker link pivots utilize an interesting hardware arrangement that has been designed to take point loading off of the sealed bearings to increase pivot life. A split, expanding collet is used up against each bearing's inner race, with the pivot axle than pushed through the collets (usually it would simply be the axle up against the bearings). As the pivot is tightened, the collets expand and exert even pressure on the inner bearing race. Contrast this to a standard pivot axle that must fit lose enough to be pushed through the bearings, which then allows it to rock ever so slightly and apply a concentrated load to one specific spot on the bearing. Will it make a difference in the long run? Only time will tell.
The bike's chain stays feature clevis pivots that forgo using a welded on pivot location. Instead, the tubing thickness has been increased slightly at the stay's ends, allowing Norco to machine-in the clevis joint rather than weld one on.
Norco employs a Syntace X12 thru-axle out back, as well as a sturdy derailleur hanger that is held in place with a break-away bolt (left). This greatly lessens the chance of bending the hanger and putting the derailleur into the rear wheel, simply because the hanger bolt has been designed to fail before that can happen. A spare hanger bolt is threaded into the frame just above the bottom bracket (right), keeping it out of the way unless it's needed.
We spent two days aboard the 160mm travel Range, with the first on smooth-ish trails that were fast enough to have our eyes watering. The green machine felt like quite a lot of bike on this sort of terrain, with the slack head angle, forgiving suspension, and short cockpit keeping us from getting the most out of the mountain. Those same attributes perfectly suited the next day's route, though, that saw us on some classic North Vancouver singletrack, starting with Executioner and working our way down the hill, although we first had to get to the top under our own power.
The Range made its way up the gravel access road without much fuss, although leaving the FOX shock's ProPedal lever in the open position resulted in a very active ride; the sort of thing that you'd expect from a 160mm travel bike - it wasn't uninspired, but it certainly doesn't have the 'jump' of some other offerings out there. This won't concern many Range riders who will obviously put their ride emphasis on pointing the opposite direction, but take note if you often ascend monster climbs to access your trails. Flipping on the ProPedal on quelled the bike's suspension action, and using the FOX 34's Talas dial to drop the front end helped to keep it from wandering, but the Range still has a very clear "I'm here for the descents" air to it.
And the descents are exactly where the bike shines, which isn't much of a surprise given the its character. While many of today's 160mm travel bikes are positioning themselves as long-legged trailbikes, the Range really doesn't shy away from doing a spot of monster truck-ing when the need arises. Lean back and let the bike's supple, yet progressive, rear suspension handle the trouble underfoot - it does a very good job of it. The active rear end made short work of steps and sharp impacts, blunting high-speed impacts quite well and proving to us that Norco's A.R.T. rear suspension layout certainly functions well. The 16.8'' chain stays and short cockpit also made lifting the front end a breeze, making it easy for us to manual for fun or out of necessity off of a slow speed drop.
The 650B Factor
While the Range certainly proved its mettle on North Vancouver's challenging trails, the bike's 650B wheels have left us in a bit of a quandary. After all, just how much do the mid-sized wheels actually factor in? We have to admit that, at least in a blind test, we feel that we'd be hard pressed to truthfully say we took note of the difference between the 650B hoops and standard 26'' wheels. The fact that the 650B size actually measures much closer to the 26" wheel than the 29" wheel isn't lost on us, and while physics prove that 650B wheels carry more momentum over bumps than smaller wheels, that doesn't mean that the bike as a whole will perform better overall on the trail. The Range did perform well in its intended environment, though, but we feel that it is down to the entire package - the sorted suspension, geometry with a DH slant, and a solid frame - rather than just the bike's 650B wheels.
www.norco.com
Member since Oct 18, 2005
Now after 10-12 years every skis are carving skis, some more some less.
I do not say that it is gonna be the same with bikes.
Not at all. All I wanna say that from my own perspective I like the idea and I am sure we will see more and more of 29"
Maybe still some technical issues to be solved but when they do it....oh man, it will be boom for 29".
And I am already waiting for Santa Cruz 29" New NOMAD
Why not buy frame only and run 26" wheels?
Well done Specialized.
I will explain exactly why I am so resolute about owning a bike with 26 inch wheels.. It similar to the reason I still ride flat pedals although perhaps slightly more complex given the different amount of options involved. There are many other standards that fill the marketplace for all riding disciplines of which many have been in use for years by people who have deemed them best for their own preferences. I've ridden 26 inch wheel bikes ever since I was old enough and therefore tall enough to ride them, it's all I've ever known and its what now feels perfectly natural to me and I'm not prepared to shell out some serious outlay for a new wheel set or frame to accomodate something I probably won't like. Given the chance to try a 650b or 29er bike out properly instead of looking at them/sitting on them in bike stores, I'm sure I would be able to acquire a better understanding and therefore an even more reasoned view as to why I would or wouldn't want to own one. Having only sat on a 29er, I can merely state that the bike felt clumsy. I understand that the rolling inertia of the wheels would help to reduce this when riding the bike but I'm sorry to say I just don't fancy it. As for 650b, the wheel size is so minutely increased over 26's that I'm afraid I just cannot see where the reward lies for using them, just like the author of this article.. Seeing as I can only afford one bike to cover all bases for me, whether its riding trail centres, trails, downhill tracks or the alps.. I'm going to stick with the 26" wheels that I know and trust.
Also if you question the role of 29ers in downhill, then you should agree as to why 650b or 29" wheels don't interest me.. mainly because I just don't think they're up to the task of coping! Cheers
Also, @cwpioske - "mute point" is not a thing.
This may be the most well pointed and definitive quip on PB ever. Not truer statement has ever been assembled!
- kenda
- pacenti
- wtb
- panaracer
- schwalbe
- michelin
- hutchinson
- ritchey
- syncros
- rubena
- maxxis
- vee rubber
- geax
And don't for one minute should you or anyone start to believe that they'll restrict the wheel format to XC/AM segments. Niner, Trek and others have TRIED to make a 29er DH bike work, and no doubt there are manufacturers out there who are looking at their existing bikes and thinking of how easily they could implement 650Bs on them, if they only had the right tires being made by their team sponsors.
Weird
How about some new wheel sizes?
20 to 24 = (22) = the all new 550!!!!!!!
24 to 26 = (25) = the all new 500!!!!!!!
and repeat till money gained......
Bike shops needs to be creative and open to a multitude of strategies, probably the most important of which is getting potential customers out there on bikes they love, bikes they dream about, and bikes they can afford.
Case in point: I had a friend who only had $500 to spend. Demo'd some cheap bikes. Then he test rode a $2,000 bike. Week later, he had gotten a bank loan and bought the $2,000 bike. The bike shop who sold it to him let him ride every bike he wanted with a retainer and card on file.
My local bike shops on the other hand won't even let you take a bike out off shop property without a background check, 3 forms of ID and a GPS tracking device. They are going out of business.
What does this have to do with 650b? Test ride it, and determine for yourself if its worth your money. If its not, that's fine. Your local dealer should have a 29er, a 650b, and a 26" bike of varying components and travel, and they should be open to allowing you to ride it on the trail.
Is the author on crack? Just because the wheels perform better, doesn't mean the bike will perform better? Better performing wheels are the biggest improvement you can make to ANY bike. They need to compare the bike back to back with an identical 26" wheeled bike. This really is the point of 650b. You get the better rolling, and don't notice the problems as you do with 29ers.
Mike, if you rode this exact bike back to back with 26 and 650b wheels, the differences are obvious in comparison. The fact you didn't "feel" a difference is because there are really no drawbacks to the 'tween size. It isn't a compromise like 29ers.
If someone argues the geometry is optimized for 650b, use a 26" starting point and convert to 650b such as the Mojo HD. I don't know of anyone converting going back to 26,unless there is a clearance issue. The 2.25 650b rear tire barely clears in the rear on the Mojo SL. When tires become available again, I will try a 2.1 on a 24 or 28mm internal width rim. I currently am using 2.25 on a 20mm internal rim (sun equalizer 27, bought on clearout for $20.00 each to try his out.)
That is a ridiculous excuse. By mid 2013, most shops will have spares anyway, as there are a lot of production bikes in 650b for 2013.
Willie 1
Although i would love to take spares, bike bags are limited to 30kg when flying, Bike+bag+a few tools+body armour +shoes pretty much brings you to 30kg.
deeeight
You seem to be preaching about 650b without explaining any of the benefits do you have some vested interest? In my experience XC pros will race the wheels of anything someone is willing to pay them to race, so the fact he won on 650b is pretty irrelevant, he would have performed just as well on a 29re, 27.5re or 26er.
If you take a pen paper and calculator, draw a circle of 26, 27.5 and 29, add say 2.5 to the radius or represent the tyre. then draw a horizontal line 1cm up from the lowest point of the tyre to represent the tyres contact point squashing into the floor. Measure the intersection of the horizontal line with the tyre diameter and multiply it by a nominal equal figure say 1 inch to find a contact area. You will see that the jump in tyre contact area from 26 to 27.5 is quite small, but the jump to 29 is actual large hence the advantage.
You can do a similar *ag packet calc to see how the wheel sizes react to square edge bumps to see how much more time it gives as it rolls over them, and you find the same thing, the difference between 26 and 27.5 is small (The addition of some rearwards axle path on a full sus is going to make much more of a difference) but the jump to 29 is again quite large,
So yet again until someone shows me some hard number on the advantage im calling marketing B.S.
I posted 12 hours after you, after going to the cavern bar in Morzine, and sleeping. Woke up and rode Champery today (was scary awesome). There is a is a time difference between Canada and France! I read what you wrote and there is next to no 650b rims or tyres available in Europe from the usual suspect online retailers. And your still yet to provide any empirical information, just because some journo on a press launch in a swanky bike park seems to think they are better means jack shit. (not aimed at you mikelevy, your article was actual very balanced) yet my ruff hand calcs point to a negligent improvement, can you not do the maths? I can safely say that there has been no empirical back to back testing in the UK publications, so ad nauseum my arse, and at least in the UK this 650b wheels size has really came out of the blue as the next big thing.
Dont get me wrong id like to have a go on a 650b but with next to no support over here in Europe for very little potential gain in performance and an increase in rotational weight, how on earth as someone who build and designs bikes could i recommend the size? Remember 10 years ago 24in rear wheels were all the rage.....
Anyways enough of this forum debating you clearly have your mind made up, and you have gone quiet on the vested interest question, do you have a garage full of 650b rims and tyres your trying to make a quick buck on? i mean 26 post in total under the article, thats some serious forum bashing to try and bring people round to the idea.
Maybe your the guy that rides down the trail dragging the shit out of his brakes, creating braking bumps, causing tail backs and never breaks anything.
Im going to need a new rim for my session as it has 2 huge dinks as from my last day in Chatel, one from hitting a lagre rock at speed on ride humble trail and the other who knows! Good job i dont have a 650b rim size or id be waiting weeks to get out on my bike again!
You 're obviously sold on the idea (heck you have defended the shit out of them for no reason) where as i think they are a flash in the pan especially on 5-6in bikes . I cant talk you into seeing sense from my side and vias versa. So lets just leave it at that. I bid you farewell.
• Rear wheel travel: 160mm
• FOX 34 Talas fork, 120 - 160mm
• Dropper post routing
• Tapered head tube
• ISCG-05 guide tabs
• 360 locking pivot hardware
• 'Gravity Tune' geometry
• MSRP $5850 USD ------- I guess since its a " 650 B " YOU HAVE to pay more .. Seems like companies are just upping the prices an insane amount ....
"The Range Killer B - 2 (left) retails for $4150 USD and uses a SRAM X7/X9 drivetrain and FOX suspension, while the Killer B - 3 (right) goes for $2899 USD with it's X-Fusion Vengeance fork, O2 RL rear shock, and SRAM X5 running gear"
There are small differences between 26er and 29er for us, that people who ride a bike for pleasure, for recreation, not for races or competitions.
See my point ? Just because the difference isn't big doesn't mean that it doesn't make a huge difference ....
And everything else you've stated depends on the size of the person riding. I myself run 710mm bars on my DJ bike, because i'm 6ft2", and need the bars that width. My girlfriend however has hers chopped down to 680mm, because she's smaller. The same can be said about the stem, seatpost, seat etc..
The argument for 650b is application specific.. as i said in my previous comment, i want to have the choice.. between. But i don't believe that they are far superior platform to 26" or 29". It seems like a halfway house, which is nice to have, but ultimately unessential.
So now we have 26", 27.5" and 29" wheels to choose from?
So no.. i don't really see your point.. although i do think i know what you're getting at.
These are recent yet no article ive seen explains this. WTF?
650B is another old wheel size that could have been what mountain bikes were standardized around had it not been for a shortage of tires available in the 1970s california bicycle shop scene. In the simplest terms, it falls in between the twenty six inch's wheel size, and the 700C wheel size. I say wheel size because the tire that goes on that wheel size can vary in width and thus inflated diameter. Many ANTI-650B folks will try and argue (and this includes the idiots at Specialized who are so totally drinking and selling the 29er kool-aid as to do anything they can to keep their customers from shopping elsewhere) that because the 26er wheel is based around a tire bead seat diameter of 559mm and 650B is 584mm and 700C is 622mm that no, the 650B is not the midway point between the other two sizes (590 would be) and that its closer to a 26er than a 29er. But that ignores what tire is actually used for the comparison because many popular twenty-niner labeled tires aren't exactly 29" in diameter, and many popular 26er labeled tires are likewise, not exactly 26" in diameter.
I have so many bikes right now that deciding which is ridden (unless I'm going snow, road, or CX riding in which case there's only one bike option for each) usually starts with a coin toss to divide between hardtails and full suspension and then another toss to pick the wheelsize. Its almost never 26" though anymore unless I'm taking one of my vintage bikes out for a spin for nostalgia reasons. I did that on tuesday for a night ride, taking my twenty year old Rocky Mtn Stratos for a spin. During the ride, and several jumps, I discovered the elastomers in my fork, had turned solid, going from the banging noise that occurred when I used up the travel of the coil springs in the fork and the elastomers didn't compress at all.
Doesn't matter, they sound cool and poeple will buy muhahahaha!
still looks early to know where is industry is going
'No, we've got 26x1.5-2.1 or we've got 700x15-18C'.
Damn.