I was idly looking at the specs of the Santa Cruz 5010 the other day and was struck by how sort it was. When the rest of the world is going longer, why have Santa Cruz stuck with these relatively short reach figures? Is it just that they need to use the moulds for long enough to make them pay (so are stuck with an “old” geometry for now), or do they really think that everyone else has got it wrong and modern bikes are too long?

hmm, looking at the numbers, the ‘small’ has a reach of 375, the XL has a reach of 449mm.

that’s roughly the same as my wife’s bike / my bike – which are both fashionably ‘long’.

so maybe, in santa Cruz land, a ‘small’ rider is about 5’1″, and an XL rider is about 6’2″

which doesn’t sound miles out…

?

loads of cheap +50mm stems available,ofsets the cost of the frame/bike

or do they really think that everyone else has got it wrong

There isn’t really a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Just differences of opinion.

Probably one of the reasons why a 5010 remains on my ‘to buy one day’ bike list.. 8)

I just don’t get the whole long TT (fashion) thing. I run all my otherwise-unfashionable bikes with 50mm stems – and I’m at the upper size limit for each of these. May be its something to do with the way I ride (or I’m just not ENDuroooo – enough), but shorter TT, short stem seems to work well for me and the style of riding I prefer. Maybe I’ve got a strange body:arm:leg length ratio, I dunno.

Just go to wait a few more years for SH prices on the 5010 to come down a bit.. :sigh:

Trouble with all the SC bikes is the seat tube grows a bit long for me as you size up. Whereas with say an Orange you can stay 17 inch seat tube and still have the same (or longer) reach as a SC Large and still have plenty of dropper seat adjustment available. I’m 5’11.

Depends how you’re shaped. If you have longer legs and shorter arms then a SC will be a great fit!

Recent demo day and the reps knew about it. I’m pretty sure they’ll fix it in the next proper new frame refresh.

I loved riding the Nomad Large, wasn’t taken with the Bronson L but the Heckler L was ace. Demo ride as many as you can. I thought the Bronson would have felt better on a normal trail than the Nomad but the Nomad was brilliant and the Heckler nearly much fun. Awesome bike the Heckler.

I also hate the newer longer tt lengths. Front wheel just seems too far away

They’ve always been shortish, their current frames are noticeably longer than the old ones though, not ‘bad’ just different, not everyone gets on with massively long TT and front centres (or silly slack HA for that matter), and it’s nice to have some variety out there for the extremes, but also in the middle.

What? I thought one thing we could all agree on was that longer was better. Now you’re telling me that’s just fashion too. Where will it end 🙂

Seriously, it’s interesting to hear that some people don’t like the current trend for ever longer bikes. I can see how moving the front wheel further away would increase confidence on the steeps, but presumably it also makes it harder to lift the font wheel up.

Not short, just their take. It makes the bike very manoeuvrable which is something I was looking for. There isn’t a right or wrong. Bronson here, great alrounder for my riding. As the OP says demo bikes and test them for yourself. I like the VPP suspension as well. Horses for courses though.

It would be a bit dull if every bike manufacture did the same thing. Also remember the 5010 is a trail bike for weaving through twisty trails.

SC seem to be quite selective to which trends they follow and which they don’t. For example they committed massively to 650b, but point blank refused to do press fit BBs. They seemed to have held back from going to the extremes of geometry figures. But I think they’re doing something right. They’re making bikes which in my opinion are very good to ride.

It’s not a bike for sitting at the top of the trail heads and saying my bike’s better then yours because the top tubes longer, the head angles slacker, the tyres are super +wide 😉

It is currently very fashionable , that doesn’t mean it’s just fashion through, but I know you were only being tongue-in-cheek when you said that 🙂

It’s good for a lot of things, not so great for others, it does depend not only on personal preference but also what kind of riding you’re into.

I have both long and short bikes, steep and slack, I like them all and for different reasons, it’s certainly not the ‘One True Geometry’ that often gets evangelised in media and some forums, but then we go through this every time there’s a significant trend change, I still remember reading a review for a full-suss Spesh back in the late 90’s where they absolutely slated it because the BB was way too low and it was ‘impossible to ride offroad’ because of it, but they did praise it for having a ‘nice steep head (71deg) angle for snappy steering’ because at the time that’s where things were focused, funny that a few years before the magic head angle was 69deg.

Modern* bike are great!

*this holds true whatever year you say it in 😉

I quite like Santa Cruz’s geometry as I’m just on the cusp of a large frame (6ft) but with long legs and a shorter torso. Their seat tube to ETT ratio fits me perfectly. Shame they’re so overpriced though and I’d never buy one personally.

As has been said, its all about test riding til you find your magic numbers.

What? I thought one thing we could all agree on was that longer was better. Now you’re telling me that’s just fashion too. Where will it end

Seriously, it’s interesting to hear that some people don’t like the current trend for ever longer bikes. I can see how moving the front wheel further away would increase confidence on the steeps, but presumably it also makes it harder to lift the font wheel up.

Some people just pick a bike that they like the look of and just ride it.

Think less and ride more would be my advice…

I still remember reading a review for a full-suss Spesh back in the late 90’s where they absolutely slated it because the BB was way too low and it was ‘impossible to ride offroad’ because of it, but they did praise it for having a ‘nice steep head (71deg) angle for snappy steering’ because at the time that’s where things were focused, funny that a few years before the magic head angle was 69deg.

Yes (going slightly off my own topic) I remember when everyone was criticising 29ers for being far too long. Now a modern 650B bike will often be longer than those old (or even some new) 29ers. For example, a medium 650B Orange Five is as long as the Large Segment 29er. The large is as long as the XL 29er. The head angles have got slacker too, increasing trail, so the steering is also just as slow as those old “barges”.

I guess the lack of “one true geometry” makes MTBs more interesting than road bikes (where the geometry was pretty much fixed many years ago), but it can make it confusing. I can imagine somebody who dropped a few grand on a 5010 this year being a bit miffed next year when Santa Cruz bring out a longer model and claim that it’s better.

“Just pick something you like the look of and ride” is a good a philosphy as any, but some of us enjoy a good think too 🙂

^ I’m pretty sure most of that was tongue in cheek.. 😉

see how moving the front wheel further away would increase confidence on the steeps

…undoubtedly, but I don’t really like riding steep stuff all that much. Yet somehow ‘the industry’ has decided that is all we are going to want ride now. Stuff like Jacob’s Ladder* I can do okay on an unfashionably older XC hardtail if I need to, but as a form of riding – steeper stuff just doesn’t really do it for me. Much prefer riding fast over flowy stuff, for which all this log top tube nonsense is probably unnecessary.

* Of course, someone will be along now to say JL isn’t steep.

Some designers (and it seems to be US ones mainly) make shorter bikes. Picot, Turner and Ibis (though less so recently) are al similar.

Was utterly amazed by the new Pivot Mach 6 – reach on the XL is 425.2mm – a full 14mm shorter than an XL 5010. Must be icnredibly cramped.

Someone should make a properly sized DW-link bike.

but I don’t really like riding steep stuff all that much

Are you allowed to say that out loud 🙂 I’m with you all the way, but never felt it was something I should admit to. Maybe it’s time to “come out” 🙂

Same deal with chainstay length, look back over the last 20-30 years and see how many times we’ve swung between long and short for $REASONS, and BB height, high for clearance! no, low for stability! no middle for compromise, and repeat… very much horses for (your local) courses, it’s interesting to compare some older boutique brand US bikes from when geometry was very much biased towards to locale of the builder, there were some very striking differences and it was very driven by where the bikes were built and ridden, and a lot of the praise and complaints were aired when their bikes started becoming more popular and getting sued in areas with very different kinds of trails with then accentuated the differences, either for better or for worse.

I’m very much in the camp of ride what you like not what the mags/industry tell you to like, and if what you like happens to be different on a monday to a wednesday then that’s fine too 🙂

But also, don’t be afraid to try different things and evaluate them on your own.

There was a downright weird tech article they did a while back in nmtb or enduro or something, telling us how interesting it was that half their team riders ride XLs with offset headsets to lengthen the ETT/reach. And it was interesting, but the conclusion seemed to be “make bigger bikes” not “buy works components headsets to make your bike fit” To be fair they do seem to hire enormous riders to exaggerate that.

Quite a few US companies like this, an XL Mojo HD3 is millimetres bigger than my medium BMC. Seems to often go in hand with the whole “160mm travel, 68 degree head angle” thing too. I don’t think geometry’s necessarily better/worse but I just don’t really get the whole “big bike with little bike angles” thing, if you’re going to drag around 160mm of travel you might as well bolt it to a beast, if you want something more XC then fair enough but why not less travel?

I don’t recall 29ers ever having a long front centre, they were too long at the back and too short at the front. ETT makes 29ers look longer than they really are due to the tall stack heights that are typical.

They’ll probably have something new out within a year. The solo and Bronson have been around a few years now haven’t they?

And they went a bit longer on the nomad.

As others have said, no one geometry is ‘right’, but some are better for some riding.

Think less and ride more!

New Bronson out v soon, prob followed by 5010.
Lower shock links ala Nomad, prob shorter seat posts, not sure if geometry changes, but ain’t going to get shorter!!

Are you allowed to say that out loud I’m with you all the way, but never felt it was something I should admit to. Maybe it’s time to “come out”

Haaa Haaa.. Yes, there are lots of things on STW, that you are not allowed to say out loud. It’s very daft. 😆

don’t recall 29ers ever having a long front centre, they were too long at the back and too short at the front. ETT makes 29ers look longer than they really are due to the tall stack heights that are typical.

I was talking about wheelbase rather than ETT, but you are right, the “problem” with those early 29ers may have been the longer chainstays rather than the overall wheelbase. But as amedias points out, the “ideal” chainstay length seems to swing between long and short too.

I’ve owned and ridden a lot of bikes over the years, and the ones that I’ve enjoyed the most have been ones with a slightly ‘extreme’ dimension in one way or another, or a least a few measurements that have put them outside of the normal envelope.

They may not have been the best all-rounders, and might have been positively annoying/crap in some areas, but in others they’ve been brilliant, and it’s that that I’ve enjoyed, the relationship between what they’re good at and when.

The most boring bikes I’ve had and ridden have always been the ones trying to be the perfect compromise, it might be what you’re after but I enjoy the oddities, both good and bad and I’d rather have those moments where it all clicks that this is what this bike is good for, and also the moments where its not for that*, rather than a bike that never excels anywhere, but that’s just me 🙂

* in ref to your other thread, it wouldn’t stop me riding it for that as I love being on the wrong bike as much as the right one!

Where are these long wheelbase 29ers of yore? Steep head angle and shorter fork offset and shorter reach equals short front centre. 30mm excess chainstay length won’t add enough to make the wheelbase long!

Maybe in the past but not so much with the better ones now… Random example, an Enduro 29 has more reach than an enduro 650, 445 in medium compared to 421. I think partly the companies making the long travel 29ers, often aren’t trying to please everyone, they know they’re selling massive bikes to people that want massive bikes?

So much of 29er development seemed to be about apeing 26ers and trying to minimise the difference so once 29ers were kind of accepted-but-minority, rather than breakthrough-niche the emphasis can change…

I think front centre’s maybe not an ideal comparison because of changes in fork offset, trail etc with different wheels, the ride experience varies a lot (and also, there’s less good numbers), reach isn’t ideal either but it’s rider focused rather than bike and the rider’s a universal when you change wheel sizes…

The other thing that sometimes hits the larger and smaller sizes is weird size increments… A lot of bikes don’t get much longer, they get taller. XLs especially have to cover a lot of ground and sometimes (I think SC do this) the size increments get smaller for XL. My medium Herb was far closer to the small than the large, weirdly.

Glad I’m a medium! But then a few years ago my medium would have been considered a big L or maybe an XL.

Depends what you want to ride, a 5010 is probably not targeted at people that like steep, tech trails. Those are who benefit from the longer from centre and slacker head angles. Although, try telling that to Ratboy and Peaty who appear to have no problems riding their 5010s rather rapidly.

I think they’re horrendously short, the XL is too short IMO and I’m only 178cm. But it’s also way too tall for me. I would’t buy one, but a mate has exactly that (XL 5010) and couldn’t be more pleased.

New Bronson out v soon, prob followed by 5010.

Any facts to back this up catvet?
I tried to order a large Bronson frame in Stifs 15% ‘summer sale’ yesterday to be told that there is no more stock coming from the US until the end of September. Post interbike announcement maybe???

Any facts to back this up catvet?

stif just put Bronson’s and Solo’s on sale

pick frame size to fit legs, pick stem to fit arms, is how i usually do it,

Probikeshop have Bronsons reduced cheaper than Stif

i bought an LTc from them a few years ago, 25 quid had it delivered next day

http://www.probikeshop.com/en/gb/search/bronson.html?search=bronson

I’ve had lots of bikes and always, always bought Large.
I sat on a L SC Bronson and it felt like my wife’s bike. Couldn’t be happier with the XL and found the 50mm stem I fitted too long so dropped to 40mm.
Friend has a M and should have bought a L ; another has just sold his L having had a quick ride on my XL.
You need to size up, for most people the L will be the correct size and for anyone about six foot the XL (as long as you don’t have short legs).

dirtyrider – Member

i bought an LTc from them a few years ago, 25 quid had it delivered next day

Bargain!

dirtyrider – Member
Any facts to back this up catvet?
stif just put Bronson’s and Solo’s on sale

Why did I have to read this.

I have no need for a fs bike BUT I have a huge soft spot for Santa Cruz. I love the look of the black Bronson and now I’m tempted. It isn’t even a 29er (which I prefer the ride of usually) and I’ve never ridden one and now I’m tempted to click buy.

Why oh why did I read this…

Bronson / solo are old models. May see the new one this week as there are photos around on the web of the new one (White proto like they did with the nomad)

September 1st
I would never reveal my source!

Just speculation about a new Bronson and Solo. So if it’s reasonable to assume they’ll update the linkage design to match the tidier version that’s on the Nomad. Maybe internal cable routing too like on the Nomad. Maybe a tweak to the geometry. They’ve toned the 2016 colours down on the others, maybe they’re saving our eyes for some eye wateringly offensive colour schemes on these. Maybe 650b+ and boost hub spacing 😉

Hmm new 5010 oh dear, I need a new bike. I think 5010 will handle most stuff well, not just trail. Jacobs ladder? Straight down over a few rocks. Spent more time waiting for a gap between walker groups. Way overated