Construction and Features Let's talk about the previous Blur platforms before we get to the new one, just for a bit of perspective. The first time Santa Cruz used the Blur name was on a 115mm-travel, aluminum model that debuted in 2002 and lived until 2005. Back then, this was a sort of cross-country / trail bike machine that still had V-brake mounts, a max fork travel of 100mm, and a 70.5 to 71.5-degree head angle. Reach? Who knows - that wasn't a thing back then, but I bet it was short.
We'd probably think it was scary if we rode it now but, as I said above, we all had lower expectations for this genre back in the early 2000s. The LT1, with 135mm, was next and it was around from 2005 to 2007, and we can't forget the spunky Blur 4X that was one of their earliest off-the-shelf short-travel hoonigan rigs. That thing is legendary.
The OG Blur (left) was born in 2002, but it's the Blur 4X (right) that is probably the most loved iteration.
The next version saw some updates, but it wasn't until 2008 that Santa Cruz completely re-worked the Blur from a cross-country bike to a 140mm-travel, burlier trail machine. The Blur LT2 was still aluminum, but a carbon version, the LT2C, was debuted in 2009 that stuck around until 2013. There was also the racy Blur XC2, with 105mm, which lived from 2009 to 2013.
The 29'' wheeled and 27.5+ compatible Tallboy of today, with 110mm of travel, also plays a part in the story, but that machine is more of a quick trail bike than a cross-country weapon.
Looks like a... Santa Cruz? The new Blur follows the same design language as most of the US brand's other offerings.
Santa Cruz needed a bike for those FTP-knowing, suffer-seeking cross-country types, and that brings us to the all-new Blur.
The carbon CC-level frame, which is said to weigh 2,060 grams with all its ancillary bits, looks every bit the Santa Cruz that it is, with a rear triangle attached to the front via its two short VPP links, and the shock mounted to the underside of the top tube. But while the old Blurs (and the current Tallboy) forgo a vertical carbon element on the drive-side of their rear triangles, the lighter weight Blur sees that treatment on both sides, presumably to increase rigidity.
There's a vertical strut on both sides of the Blur's swingarm.
It's also not compatible with front derailleurs which, at the risk of pissing off those clinging to the past, makes a ton of sense for a bike of the Blur's intentions. If you need two chainrings, this ain't the type of bike for you. There are two bottle cage mounts, with enough room inside the front triangle for the largest of large bottles, and the second being on the underside of the downtube.
Cables and hoses go inside the frame, including the one for a dropper post if you're not a crazy person and choose to install one, and in typical Santa Cruz-ness, the bottom bracket shell has threads in it. What else... Boost spacing out back, and there's a bolt-on downtube guard to keep rocks from making speed holes in your expensive frame.
The Fox shock's remote cable (left) disappears inside the toptube, but I'd like it to disappear altogether.
A bolt-on rock protector (left) adds a few grams but keeps the dents and holes to a minimum.
You can get the new Blur in small, medium, large (tested), and extra-large sizes, and Santa Cruz says that the fancypants XX1 Reserve version comes in at a more than reasonable 21.9lb. My test bike, which came with the slightly wider Reserve 27 wheels and X01 Eagle running gear, weighed 22.4lb on my scale, which is also damn reasonable. That's with the stock and very light Syntace straight post and Santa Cruz handlebar, and sans pedals, but still, I'm impressed.
The other number that you'll want to know is the price: This Blur 3 CC X01 Reserve test bike goes for a not paltry $7,599 USD. That's with the high-end carbon frame, Santa Cruz's own carbon wheels, and all the things, don't forget. There are six complete bikes to choose from, with the $8,999 USD XX1 Reserve version sitting at the top of the list, but you can also get on a base-level Blur for $3,699 USD. That sum gets you the slightly heavier C frame and the R build kit, or you can pick up a Blur 3 CC frame (with a Fox Float Factory shock) for $2,999 USD.
Agreed with your point, but ya triggered me all the same.
Sometimes I want a one trick pony! What's the problem with that?
In my experience, steep xc climbs on a short-stemmed 67degree bike are not as pleasant or efficient as steeper angles. Are they doable? yes, of course. Are they better downhill? Yes, of course. If you just want a do everything just 'ok' bike isn't that what the Trail category was for? But hey, if 67degree hta bikes get more of you to feel safe enough to come race with us then so be it, love to have you.
I’d take camber over epic for steep technical climbing any day because it is easier to move over the bike and keep balance. Epics front wherl wanders more and gets hanged against rocks due to steep head angle.
XC/ Marathon is the biggest market for mid and high end mountain bikes, possibly bigger than all other combined, with least skill Thus interest in handling performance and understandably so. You can’t shock them as you will scare them away. Hence progress is happening at snails pace.
Same with road bikes but much worse. Are 99% of people better off with gravel bikes? Hell yeah, could you make such geos and tyres and call it a road bike? No, you’d lose sales, but call it a new thing and here you go.
The point being, don’t base your opinion on conservative patterns.
tl;dr: I think @mikelevy has tested the bike in ways that make sense for the kind of (multi-stage) XC racing you see at the top level nowadays. If he can demonstrate the far end of the spectrum, you also know what lies within it. If you expect to stay far and clear off these ends (the actual ends might actually lie even further) you may also consider a more specialized (no capital) bike. As for the changes he made to his contact points, if that is what it takes for him to ride that bike properly then it is all good to me. If this really bothers readers and PB intends to review more XC specific bikes, they may want to attract a tester specifically for that who's comfortable with the standard hardware and fit. Like some ex WC XC athlete.
However I don't agree with insinations as if running short and wide cockpit was detrimental, at least as long as you don't race every second weekend on narrow singletracks. Just look at Marc Baumonts take on it on GMBN.
I think Mike runs a short travel bike only to train for BC race just because he tries to humble a few Strava heroes. othewise why would he, living in BC, would run a fkng 120 bike?! How fun is riding gravity fed trail on short travel, where you just can't miss the fact that bike is holding you back every 3 seconds after you let off the brakes.
In fact, some blokes in the UK are currently welding this up for me:
www.pinkbike.com/photo/15714606
Designed for 120mm travel forks for this very reason. They feel longer forks would upset the geometry when deep in the travel. But it is still getting the appropriate geometry. Just use a longer headttube. This one has a 150mm headtube. I think they're correct so they've got my money now.
Either way, I may also be a bit lost with all the nomenclature. I considered XC racing and Enduro racing typical racing disciplines. And when you do similar riding but not in a race format, it would be called "trail" and "all mountain" respectively. Isn't it? Pretty sure if PB would be riding those WC XC trails in South Africa they wouldn't say they were out XC riding. They were doing some proper trail riding, right?
I tend to skew towards the endurance xc side of things, which, nowadays, can mean races as short as 30 miles (lame, but it happens) or as long as 12 hours, but my sweet spot tends to be 6-8 hours. I chose the Tallboy 3 specifically because the thing pedals well, holds speed well, and works perfectly for after-work rides and weekend rides with my friends.
The Blur looks amazing, but tons of people are going to put a 120 fork on their, especially because they're not that much heavier than a 100mm. Putting a 120 fork on this bike would make the geometry very similar to the Tallboy 3, no?
As for the hardtail, I must admit that I am indeed running these 130mm forks quite hard. The chart says I should run it at 4.5bar for my weight, I'm running about 7bar. The forks are quite linear so I might not get that much sag. Not sure how much it is but this works nicely to keep it stable and avoid harsh bottom outs. The next frame has a longer front end which is going to redistribute my weight considerably. I'm currently running 130mm forks, about 69deg head angle (unsprung, guess) and 375mm reach with 420mm chainstay and 50mm stem. Next frame will get 120mm travel forks, 63deg HA and 460mm reach with 415mm chainstay and 35mm stem. I definitely felt I currently have my weight too much forwards (I usually stand up riding) ever since I moved to Catalyst pedals when they came out (and shifted my feet forwards). I was already on the limit of what I could safely control and this shift (effectively 30mm more CS and 30mm less reach) pushed it way beyond. I love the comfort of the larger platform vs my older concave pedals, but the consequences of the forwards shift got me looking for a different frame.
WIthout changing front centre, or seat to handlebar reach, for every degree slacker head angle the top tube needs to be ~10 to 20mm shorter and the stem ~10 to 20mm longer
I find putting a short stem and wide bar on an XC bike makes the front end feel light and squirrelly, like it has very little trail (even with a much wider than normal for me handlebar; whereas, long stem with wide bar feels more stable)
you can even use a longer stem, slacker head angle and more reach/offset and end up with a bike with longer front centre and less wheel flop
As for my weight distribution, I think I'm usually pretty much on the front of the bike. Not sure why mortals would ride too far back as I don't mind losing the rear end but I really want grip from the front wheel. Obviously also due to the geometry of my current bike I just quite simply end up pretty far over the front. So good thing is I usually don't loose the front. When straightening out I indeed shift backwards again especially if the rear end is already losing it. Downside obviously is that I feel that my forwards weight bias kind of causes more drag. Not sure about it but I do feel it on really soft terrain. When terrain is loose or muddy and I need to pedal hard I lean back to unload the front a little and get some more traction from the rear.
So yeah again sure under smooth conditions I can corner a full susser as well as a hardtail. It is rougher conditions where the hardtail is more predictable than the fully. Both steepen when suddenly losing speed there though but my experience is that the raising rear end of the fully steepens it considerably more. And the steeper geometry sends me into an even tighter turn that puts even more load on the front and less on the rear.
Now again it doesn't bother me too much as I think I'm having enough fun on the hardtail. But as I have the bike already and it is great for some riding, I might indeed put in some time indeed and try ride it in some more tight stuff and anticipate to its quirks. Maybe it just has too much travel (140 or 160mm up front, 140mm in the rear). I once got to ride a bike with 100mm front and rear in South Germany. I think it was from Focus. Unfortunately the pedals I got were those stamped steel ones with a clip system on one side (with me riding in flat shoes). I was surprised to find out that even with those pedals I could do quite fine and the geometry remained stable. One other option would be to get a DMR Bolt long frame. Pretty much everything from the Prophet fits straight onto that one and reviews claim it rides like a hardtail. So that should be good. What put me off was, if I want to ride it like a hardtail I may just as well just ride a real hardtail.
I think the stock stem is a 70mm (I'll have to double check that), which also isn't out of line for this bike and its reach number. Pure XC bikes don't have slack-ish head angles because, as anyone who has had to climb something while completely gassed or in a race setting knows, it only makes it more difficult to control the bike on a steep, technical ascent. I'm not saying that those angles won't happen someday, but they don't make sense on an XC race bike right now. But yes, when it comes to the average racer/weekend warrior, a slacker bike is probably more rewarding.
But in seriousness, and especially in contrast to the Nomad (which I like, by the way) - is this not the cleanest VPP iteration we've seen in years? The way the rear triangle's driveside strut tucks right in under the chainring is almost German. Very impressed by this whole new crop of XC machines. I feel a real renaissance coming on.
Mine would also be a Santa Cruz, but for me it's the Bullitt. Looking back the geo is probably awful, but I had so much fun on that thing. Rode it everywhere
Now that was a playful bike, so next time someone talks about playfulness as an argument against 29ers but thinks 160 Gemetron in 27,5 is fun - think again.
Blur TR wasn’t already as good in that department as 4X
And
Blur 4x - trying to get off the race addiction and play around - then old geezer bmxers started texas enduro ad racing was back.
Those 2 bikes Id definitley stil like to have.
Maybe I was just fitter but the 26” blur xc was a rocket up and handled descents and stupid lines with no fuss.
This new blur may be a Bday idea over summer if i can earn some pennies!
Oh, and SRAM brakes that don't make noise? I call bullshit.
I know that if I got on a bike, and took it out on my most ridden trails, I can’t feel the difference between a half degree change in the head angle.
Obviously buying an XC bike and wondering why it doesn’t feel like a dh bike would be stupid. Different bikes built for different purposes to those extremes will feel extremely different, as they should.
But maybe we spend too much time picking apart every detail and mm and angle, which I think can be shown by the amount of people that reminisce on their old bikes with “terrible,” or “unrideable,” geometry, but rode them into the ground and had a blast on them.
What do I know though, excuse my ramblings
1: Take off outer cable from remote (and ditch all that remote nonsense from the bars)
2: Keep the outer ferule in the lockout-tab on the shock as is.
3: Slide through the inner cable until the point that usually attached within the remote gets pulled into the ferule.
4: Turn the lockout-dial on the shock in the open position, While keeping it there tighten down the inner-cable.
5: Enjoy clutter free bars with an open shock, remove one of the ''cons'' in this review.
Really is an easy fix that I've done many times without problems!
The 5010 and Bronson lack this vertical carbon element as
well
The "780mm bar,50mm stem,dropper post" thing on all bikes makes me lose all interest on this articles.
Adapt to the bike,and take your conclusions in stock more,please.
*now I wait for the negs....
Fact: this bike will be outsold by a factor of 1000/1 in favor of bikes that are WAY over spec’d and over “geo’d”
Takeaway: buy the bike that suits the terrain you’re actually riding, not what the bike industry is trying to sell you. You’ll have more fun!
Disclaimer: I’m a convert to the short travel, “conservative” geo school of riding.
Otherwise you're totally right, it just adds weight at the expense of durability. I've seen three people snap their Eagle chains and faceplant on the sprint off the start line, and that was never an issue that I saw back in the 10/11 speed days.
Oh, and I love when a 157 lbs. waif of a man makes blanket statements on how many gears anyone and everyone should or shouldn't need.
Fair enough to disagree on the 50T, works great for me.
What I'm much more interested in is the Fox 34 120mm fork and how you think it worked on this bike? I'm interested to know because the Step-cast is just too flexy for my Clyde-ass.
"Because I'm not demented, I ditched the very lightweight Syntace carbon seat post for a 150mm-travel e*thirteen dropper. Given the bike's intentions, I can't begrudge Santa Cruz for not spec'ing a party post, but my own intentions definitely called for that addition. I also popped on a 50mm stem and 780mm wide handlebar, both from Race Face, for the same reasons that the dropper went on. "
Clearly Mike had no intent on testing it for the purpose of xc-riding so he skips the press release rides and turns the test bike into a Tallboy 2.5. Guess what? It's not ready to shred the gnar like a Hightower...Shocker! I get it, the bike doesn't serve much purpose for a majority of the PB audience, this review was probably to fulfill commitment to a paying advertiser. Other than a comparo hyperlink and yammering about the Tallboy over and over, there was little mention of the bikes the new Blur is intended to compete with.
Anyone looking for a trail bike wouldn't have this bike on their radar in the first place. Especially someone looking at the Santa Cruz lineup already full of excellent options in the trail category. Instead the conclusion is after adding an extra 2lbs of trail equipment and heavier wheels it didn't magically turn into a trail bike.
With the pics of the author in baggies and trail jersey, I was expecting a few comments about spandex commandos, but the generic snide remarks about XC racers filled the gap. Too bad he didn't review the new Highball at the same time, he really could have shit on that bike!
As for the changes to the bike to take is from an XC bike to a trail bike, good to see some changes, but would be cool to leave as intended and review as the bike is delivered rather than as a short travel enduro bike. Seems you are really reviewing the frame and not the bike...
I run my old Ironhorse Azure with a 150mm rev up front and have it pretty solid, a 50mm stem and a 711mm bar, anything wider just isnt right on an xc bike. She is 23lb and a rocket ship, no need for a dropper post, they are for enduro and this is an XC bike. Would be great to know how the geometry works without one, does the saddle get too much in the way etc.
There seems to be a trend of people moving away from the dropper post just now which isn't a bad thing as its a compromise on climbing efficiency and the old school QR lever never fails (I don't even have that on the XC bike, just up or up unless I take a tool with me).
2018 XTR Everything...literally everything (brake set, drive train and hubs)
Pro Koryak dropper 125mm, 780mm Carbon handle bar and 40mm stem
Stans Crest ZTR MK3
Maxxis XC tires
Fox factory 100mm step cast fork
Fox EVOL 100mm shock
Experience level: Expert (races master class locally on DH, enduro, XC and road.). I do podium (when I sand bag LOL!)
Uphill: 7 miles up SJT Ortega Highway up cocktail rock
Up SJ switchbacks - PR from all rides I did. Had to switch full open to full close from time to time with 13 hairpin turns but it doesn’t really matter. Pushed hairpins with no issue on a 29er. Climb was not a problem, rock sections passed like they dont exist. All thumbs up…I have 4! LOL
Lockout..this one is interesting, uses dual lock out level that locks both fork and shock in one go. Not that it matters to me but it really doesn’t matter to me. The best I can say about it is that no need to reach down when a steep climb is next in the horizon. So hit it and dang you have a rigid. The step cast factory fork and the rear shock fights like a boss.
Rest of the climbs are pretty much self-explanatory. Stand up and its go-time, the only limit really is me!
Downhill: 7 miles down SJIT….I forgot that I’m in an XC rig…nuff said.
So, if you're racing and looking at it seriously, choose a bike based on your weakness, not your strengths. That's my 2c anyway
Blur reach slightly longer by 5mm and stack shorter by 10mm.
Big plus for the Blur: not the horrific Kona color options.
Just a thought...
...so you can easily compare side-by-side with your current bike.
Definitely a bike that has stood up well to the test of time! Love it and it's 26" wheels.