[Inclag]

There are. Some parts of the state are flat, some parts aren't. I don't only ride in Maine though.

The degree people are up in arms about isn't the difference between riding steep terrain fast and not. These aren't downhill bikes. Steep generally correlates with errosion, and tech. The rider still needs to be on their game with a 66* XC bike the same as they do with 68* when things get that steep, because the suspension, tires, and general body position still aren't there like they are with a DH bike. However, unlike a DH bike, those two degrees actually effect the bike everywhere else, which is the majority of the ride. (the non-steep fun descents, the flats, the climbs, etc...) This thread, and all the other previous trail bike threads on here, make me question whether the majority of bloody-murder's being called out have comparatively ridden XC bikes with the head angles they're demanding, or are simply trying to compare apples to oranges from a desk somewhere. From experience, sub 67* XC bikes have more -'s than +'s, and in situations where that isn't the case, the bike best suited for the job is actually an AM bike.

^
This man speaks the truth.

Just rebuilt a C-Dale rush frame that I had floating around. Needs alot of work/parts to get it optimized for XC/trails, but go figure, I want to raise the bars up and the bottom bracket too! Heck if I put on a longer axle to crown fork, I may even be inclined to put on a negative offset headtube insert.

 

[dropmachine]

A good rider will get on any bike (almost) and blast around having fun. A bad rider will pick everything apart and blame the bike.

This bike is a stellar starting point, end of story. Stock, you could rip trails on it all day long, with a big **** eating grin on your face. If you want to, you can tweak it to make it more customized to you, and really why not.

Fact is though, if you can't go fast on this thing, it ain't the bike.

 

[-BB-]

Hey Luc, I have a spitfire that should be at my local shop today or tomorrow. Can I join the Goon-squad?

As for making this more "mini-DH", what about putting on a 140mm fork WITH an angleset. The fork will raise the front and slacken it one degree (to a 67) and then ALSO put on an angleset to slacken it 1 degree more (67) and also LOWER the front to make up for the longer fork.

Banshee goons are out in force..

the title of this thread is a bit misleading, it's not a 4x bike but a TRAIL bike, thus the name TRc.

They are saying that the TRc was inspired by the now defunct 4X blur, but it's not advertised as a 4X bike. Just a trail bike with more modern geometry. yeah the 68degree HA sounds steep, but that's spec'd with a 130mm fork. Like Dogboy mentioned, use a 140mm or 150mm fork and you'll have a much slacker HA. Want to keep the BB low, then use an AngleSet. There are tons of option out there - pick your poison.

I think this bike is pretty sweet (minus the price)

I personally wouldn't want to ride a trail bike with a 41" WB - but that's just me.

 

[-BB-]

Do they still sell those?

Yes, they still have some path edition Ventana's. I was over there looking at them a few weeks ago.

 

[Huck Banzai]

A good rider will get on any bike (almost) and blast around having fun. A bad rider will pick everything apart and blame the bike.

This bike is a stellar starting point, end of story. Stock, you could rip trails on it all day long, with a big **** eating grin on your face. If you want to, you can tweak it to make it more customized to you, and really why not.

Fact is though, if you can't go fast on this thing, it ain't the bike.

Point wasnt rideability, point was SC has 2 bikes so similar in geo, travel, 'segment' (all XC/Trail) (and a 3rd pretty close). There is very little difference between these 2 blurs, and most companies wouldnt overlap - not good for sales. Its great if they sell a ton, Im a big SC fan, thus the 4 SC bikes I own currently, and I ride fast on my stock geo BLT2, no blame - just grins.

I like this frame, it is a little longer, a little lower and has the option of going slacker or steeper -- but so does the BLT2c and the 'major' difference is .5" of travel.

 

[bdamschen]

A good rider will get on any bike (almost) and blast around having fun. A bad rider will pick everything apart and blame the bike.

This bike is a stellar starting point, end of story. Stock, you could rip trails on it all day long, with a big **** eating grin on your face. If you want to, you can tweak it to make it more customized to you, and really why not.

Fact is though, if you can't go fast on this thing, it ain't the bike.

Duh, I don't think anyone is contesting that. But if I had to choose between a trail bike with XC geo and a trail bike with a slacker HA, I'm always going to pick the slacker HA. They're more fun to ride down hills.

 

[Acadian]

A good rider will get on any bike (almost) and blast around having fun. A bad rider will pick everything apart and blame the bike.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff....

that's a generalization....

Someone who can jump on a bike and immediately points out what they like or don't like isn't necessarily a BAD rider (and vice versa). There are guys out there who are insanely fast, but aren't very good at pointing out what they like or don't like on their bike when doing testing - and unless you're a frame/suspension manufacturer looking for feedback, there is nothing wrong with that.

Then you have the Vouilloz and Barel's of of the bike world.

May I also point out that some of the best feedback might come from a rider who isn't necessarily the best/fastest.

this thread is ridiculous...

 

[FlipFantasia]

this thread is ridiculous...

truth, like most threads on this board....full of know-it-alls who don't really know-it-all.....anyone who pedals semi-frequently and actually climbs hills knows super slack geo is a pain in the ass, and even with a slightly steeper ha you can still rip gnarly stuff, all while actually enjoying the rest of your ride too.

 

[bdamschen]

Food for thought-

This thread was posted in the DH forum.

Many people on here are looking for a fun mini DH bike with trail bike weight and travel because they're fun to ride.

 

[OGRipper]

Food for thought-

This thread was posted in the DH forum.

Many people on here are looking for a fun mini DH bike with trail bike weight and travel because they're fun to ride.

True enough. And there are also many others who ride DH and XC (and everything between and beyond) who are of the opinion that a bike with the same angles as a DH bike, just less travel, is less fun when you want to cover a wide variety of terrain over a really long day on the bike without any shuttles...

It is funny though how all of this is opinion yet some people argue about it like there is an objectively best set of numbers.

 

[slowitdown]

truth, like most threads on this board....full of know-it-alls who don't really know-it-all.....anyone who pedals semi-frequently and actually climbs hills knows super slack geo is a pain in the ass, and even with a slightly steeper ha you can still rip gnarly stuff, all while actually enjoying the rest of your ride too.

Exactly.

Ain't nothin' "fun" about climbing a 66HA for 5 hours above treeline.

What these poseurs want is a slopestyle bike at trail bike weight. They want slack HA because they lack the skill to ride a steeper HA on any terrain but flat ground or mild rolling terrain. And they don't descend fast enough to need a slack HA to prevent pinging deflections.

But they know how to talk a big game on the Toobz, and pump up a "market segment" tailored for non-riding ePoseurs.

Many people on here are looking for a fun mini DH bike with trail bike weight and travel because they're fun to ride.

I'm gonna go ahead and suggest this:

 

[xy9ine]

what's this us hardcore (climbing oriented geo loving) riders vs them poser (dh oriented geo loving) dialogue? choose to buy what works for you, but don't slag those whose tastes differ.

i'm absolutely fine w/ climbing my 65* long travel 'trailbike', as going up is just a means to what i love doing the most - going down. any incremental loss of climbing performance is a worthwhile tradeoff - for me. to that end, i'm all over the new slackness - or even better, bikes which allow you to adjust into that territory (ie, the chilcotin - able to keep both camps happy).

 

[bdamschen]

I'm gonna go ahead and suggest this:

Yes, because my wiener is clearly smaller since I prefer my trail bike to have a 67* head angle instead of a 68

Will mine be bigger than yours if we meet on the trail and you have a shiny new blur TR and I'm rocking a blur xc?

I didn't realize that my head angle was already going out of style thereby causing my junk to shrink.

 

[cableguy]

Not sure why people are so amped up about this thread. Use a 140 or 150mm adjustable fork for descending (with or without Angleset), and set it to 130mm for climbing, thereby preserving the original geometry.

 

[Jeremy R]

Head angle threads really bring 'em out. As far as the eye can see......

 

[roel_koel]

this is what I currently ride

Devinci Dixon Split-Pivot

145mm of Split-Pivot rear travel, Fox 36 Float lowered to 150mm on the front

66 HA, 71 SA, 23" top tube, 13.5" BB and setup with 55mm Easton Haven stem with 750mm x 19mm Renthal bars, never missed my old 36 Talas fork on the climbs..

2 x 9 gearing, Stan's ZTR Flows on Pro IIs, Specialized tires in tubeless setup, full complement of aluminium and titanium alloy bolts where appropriate

goes up the steep terrain very quickly, never use the Pro-Pedal switch on the Fox RP23 BV shock, and going down...damn its a ripper

27.4lb all in

not cheap to build, but SO much fun to ride....

 

[Huck Banzai]

Head angle threads really bring 'em out. As far as the eye can see......

Why is the mighty seat angle relegated to obscurity? I want to see some passion on that front.


68deg is for pansise....derp.

 

[Huck Banzai]

XC is for racing, AM is the reality; thus the questions.

 

[norbar]

Exactly.

Ain't nothin' "fun" about climbing a 66HA for 5 hours above treeline.

What these poseurs want is a slopestyle bike at trail bike weight. They want slack HA because they lack the skill to ride a steeper HA on any terrain but flat ground or mild rolling terrain. And they don't descend fast enough to need a slack HA to prevent pinging deflections.

But they know how to talk a big game on the Toobz, and pump up a "market segment" tailored for non-riding ePoseurs.




I'm gonna go ahead and suggest this:

The length of the uphill is not a problem with slack bikes. I did uphill rides on my 63-64deg dh bike. Its the angle of ascent and I doubt any human being can climb something steep enough to rise the front for 5 hours
I agree with you that too slack is bad but calling people who want slack Poseurs is silly. If I had lots of trails with easy uphills and rad downhills I'd gladly get a slack trailbike.

 

[Bikael Molton]

 

[Tetreault]

My only problem with this bike is..... what is it exatly?

A Blur LTc with a slightly steeper headangle, the same ST length, basically the same TT length, .1" shorter chainstay. Essentially identical geo if they were to be using the same axel to crown heights in their geo charts, minus .5" of travel... and a little weight.

it just doesn't fill any void in my eyes anyways that the blur LTc couldn't. Santa Cruz could have went off the map here and done different. o wait its carbon...and expensive

 

[Huck Banzai]

My only problem with this bike is..... what is it exatly?

A Blur LTc with a slightly steeper headangle, the same ST length, basically the same TT length, .1" shorter chainstay. Essentially identical geo if they were to be using the same axel to crown heights in their geo charts, minus .5" of travel... and a little weight.

it just doesn't fill any void in my eyes anyways that the blur LTc couldn't. Santa Cruz could have went off the map here and done different. o wait its carbon...and expensive

Better at making points win!

 

[sbabuser]

No its not. Some tech climbs can get steep enough that it will start lifting your front end. Than you will wish you had a steeper head angle. I didnt measure my bike yet but Im pretty sure at 140mm front it goes close to 67mm and the its unrideable over some steeper clims unless I lay on the bars. Hardly the most effective uphill method.

I can safely say I have never wished for a steeper headtube angle on any ride I've ever done on dirt. I've done 5 hour rides on my sx (and have raced the WP hillclimb on it), and after 4 seasons, am still not in need of a replacement trail bike. I can think of a bunch of other bikes I'd like to try, but I think they'd all be slacker than what I'm on now...

 

[sbabuser]

In my findings, a stem that short really isn't good at, well, anything? Glad the 50mm works out for you in Golden. I just came back from there, the riding is swell. I'd give a longer stem a shot and see what you think though. Or not. Shred White Ranch for me.

I guess b/c it's on a 4x bike, I am against doing anything that would make it not dj/ 4x friendly, even tho I don't often use it as such. Also makes it easy to transition to my hardtail dj'er, which is set up w/ identical stem and bars.

I think you can adapt to most anything, but I'd rather lean towards a dh/ dj setup and learn to make it work for uphill. I can't beat my neighbor on his 18lb singlespeed niner up the hills, but I do all right. WR is just 3 miles up the road from my house.

 

[Steve M]

I think ultimately the "problem" with bikes like this is the simple fact that they are somewhere along the sliding scale between full blown DH bike (only good for going down) and full blown XC racebike (majority of capability related to going up rather than down)... and anyone who's looking for anything between those two extremes could be looking for something ANYWHERE along that scale. As a result, most people aren't looking for "exactly" this bike (or any other) because it doesn't quite suit their wishes, hence why there's 50 million slightly different bikes in this "category" or lack thereof.

As for what it is - looks like a fun bike to me. If it isn't what you personally wanted, there are plenty of other options, at least one of which probably IS what you wanted.

 

[stiksandstones]

EC said it best in his vital interview, about the perils of slack HA's...and I am paraphrasing, but he nailed it about how he sets his bikes up and the slack angles make you lean, reconfigure, lean again, etc... (bad paraphrasing).

I'd link to it, but its like slide 6 or something on vital slideshow thingy.

 

[bdamschen]

Talking about the "turn neutral" statement? You never really hear a lot of people talk about that, seems to make a huge difference once you start messing with it though

 

[-BB-]

EC said it best in his vital interview, about the perils of slack HA's...and I am paraphrasing, but he nailed it about how he sets his bikes up and the slack angles make you lean, reconfigure, lean again, etc... (bad paraphrasing).

I'd link to it, but its like slide 6 or something on vital slideshow thingy.

slide 5
http://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/features/Bike-Check-Eric-Carters-GT-Fury,2109/Slideshow,16502/sspomer,2

 

[cableguy]

EC said it best in his vital interview, about the perils of slack HA's...and I am paraphrasing, but he nailed it about how he sets his bikes up and the slack angles make you lean, reconfigure, lean again, etc... (bad paraphrasing).

Not sure what you are getting at. He was talking about his DH bike which has HA of 64-65*, at least on paper, before he adjusts it. How does this relate to a 5" trail bike?

 

[jackalope]

In regards to the original issue, I will simply say that Socket nailed it - people like different geo's for different reasons, and thankfully we have a lot of choices.

Hell, I noticed EC was running 28" bars, which I couldn't even conceive of now (I run 745 mm bars on my Spitfire). To each his own.

Although I personally see an interesting parallel with tire choice on many trail/AM bikes. I run a porky 780 gram DHF on my Spitfire because I put a (much) higher priority on grip and DH'ish performance versus rolling resistance and light weight. If anything, tire choice (and overall bike weight for that matter) affects my climbing "performance" much moreso than a 66* HA.

 

[mattmatt86]

mmmm i love me some carbon trailbike

 

[bdamschen]

Not sure what you are getting at. He was talking about his DH bike which has HA of 64-65*, at least on paper, before he adjusts it. How does this relate to a 5" trail bike?

Every bike has that point somewhere? I've noticed it's different between my dirtjumper (setting the fork travel) vs my dh bike (moving the stanchions up on my fork). I think rear suspension sag and bb height mya have a lot to do with it as well.

 

[cableguy]

Every bike has that point somewhere? I've noticed it's different between my dirtjumper (setting the fork travel) vs my dh bike (moving the stanchions up on my fork). I think rear suspension sag and bb height mya have a lot to do with it as well.

Yeah, but EC was talking about cornering in DH. With trail bike you also have to worry about climbing, etc. So apples to oranges.

 

[GoodbyePorkPie]

I like it, def a different rig to the GHEY LTc

I think what this thread shows is the true level of internet riding skills

 

[JCL]

Seat angle is what's critical with AM climbing, not head angle.

 

[Dee Arr]

So much DH vs. XC hate! It's all good fun guys!

I have an '06 blur 4x and absolutely love it. I use it for XC, AM, DH... has served me very well! (I do get weird looks at Whistler though!) May I suggest running an adjustable fork? I run a Lyrik U-turn and absolutely love that I can change the HT angle for whatever I am doing.

The only thing keeping me from buying this bike is the lack of ISCG tabs. Since it is fairly low in the BB I would require a hammerschmidt!

Cheers