Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Carbon Santa Cruz Blur 4X anyone?
  • skidsareforkids
    Free Member

    My oh my! Always wanted a 4X, but didn’t think there would ever be a carbon one!

    Details up on the Pinkbike site… Looks real nice! Do I prefer this to my LTc? Hmm… Hope not! 🙄

    jockhaggis
    Free Member

    Details up on the Pinkbike site.

    Or details on the home page. 😀
    New Santa Cruz Bikes Released
    .
    Will take your LTc off your hands for a small sum. 😉

    glynP
    Free Member

    Yip got a LTC as well but that looks the dogs, can anyone give tips on how to get it by the wife without her noticing

    Hob-Nob
    Free Member

    Without wishing to be picky, it’s not really a carbon 4X replacement at all.

    It’s taller, higher BB, longer wheelbase, steeper head angle & longer chainstays.

    It looks like your average trailbike in numbers, albeit a very pretty one thats nice & light.

    No replacement for the 4X though, who are they trying to convince?!?!

    hora
    Free Member

    Will the real Blur4x please stand up

    Please stand up

    neil853
    Free Member

    thats does look nice like, even prefer the colours to my LTc, but i like the luxury of that extra bit of travel, 140mm is the sweet spot for me 🙂

    CaptainMainwaring
    Free Member

    I need one of those. Weird spec though – they give head angle measurement with a 501mm axle to crown fork which IIRC is something like a Rev wound down to 130mm. Why? The LT/LTc head angle is quoted with a 529mm A2C which is exactly a Rev or Fox 32 at 150mm. This is meant to be longer travel than an LT

    chakaping
    Free Member

    Even Santa Cruz must lose count of the number of different models they produce now!

    I’m sure that bike’s very nice to ride but the red/black colourscheme is horrid IMO.

    slowrider
    Free Member

    Agree with hob nob. All the 4x needed was the vpp2 and a longer top tube, not a geo rework.

    pastcaring
    Free Member

    CaptainMainwaring – Member
    I need one of those. Weird spec though – they give head angle measurement with a 501mm axle to crown fork which IIRC is something like a Rev wound down to 130mm. Why? The LT/LTc head angle is quoted with a 529mm A2C which is exactly a Rev or Fox 32 at 150mm. This is meant to be longer travel than an LT

    it’s a 5 inch travel frame?

    and not a 4x frame, just a trail bike.

    lets hope they do a aluminum one

    goog
    Free Member

    seat looks s wee bit high for 4X

    wysiwyg
    Free Member

    The angles of dangles are all too steep

    momo
    Full Member

    The 4X wasn’t a commercial success for SC, which is why it was dropped from the model line up. It was too big to be a proper 4x race machine, and they aren’t really all that slack in comparison to many of the current crop of ‘trail’ bikes, they are also heavy for a 4.5″ travel frame.

    This bike looks right to me, 68HA @ 120mm travel, so basically a slacker version of the Blur carbon, or possibly a short travel version of the LTc. Looks like it has guides for remote dropper post, only thing missing is ISCG tabs for running a chainguide.

    Running a 140mm fork should give c67 HA and a 150 closer to 66.5.

    pastcaring
    Free Member

    The angles of dangles are all too steep

    pretty much in line with other bikes in that category (niche)

    yeti 5
    transition bandit

    CaptainMainwaring
    Free Member

    Not sure who has said it’s a new 4X. Not mentioned in the SC release info.

    This bike looks right to me, 68HA @ 120mm travel, so basically a slacker version of the Blur carbon, or possibly a short travel version of the LTc

    But why would you even quote head angles for a 120mm fork on a bike with 5″ of rear travel? Surely the default will be a 150mm or 160mm

    pastcaring
    Free Member

    i would guess? that it will be limited to a 140 fork, same as the yeti 5

    iirc rev at 150 are 530 a-c, so 510 lowered to 130?

    amphibian
    Free Member

    [/quote]But why would you even quote head angles for a 120mm fork on a bike with 5″ of rear travel? Surely the default will be a 150mm or 160mm

    Ain’t necessarily so. The new Santa Cruz looks identical in concept to the Yeti ASR5 which works well with 120mm to 140mm forks (130mm is apparently the ‘sweet spot’). Looks like SC are wanting a piece of the ASR5’s market.

    pastcaring
    Free Member

    just read that it is limited to 140 mm fork.

    CaptainMainwaring
    Free Member

    Nope, I don’t buy that. It has more rear travel than an LT/LTc and both of those will officially take a 160mm fork, although designed for 150mm

    datsunman
    Full Member

    The LTr is exactly what I’m looking for, geometry seems spot on.

    Only problem for me (there’s always one) is the price, I just can’t bring myself to spend that much money on a frame.

    I hope, but doubt, that they will do an alu version….

    glynP
    Free Member

    It only has 120mm rear travel a LT/LTC has 140mm rear travel. It is also not a 4x bike it is a general trail bike that will take a 140mm fork and I need (want) one

    datsunman
    Full Member

    Nope, I don’t buy that. It has more rear travel than an LT/LTc and both of those will officially take a 160mm fork, although designed for 150mm

    I thought this was 130mm, isn’t the LT 140mm?

    momo
    Full Member

    CaptainMainwaring – Member

    Nope, I don’t buy that. It has more rear travel than an LT/LTc and both of those will officially take a 160mm fork, although designed for 150mm

    No it doesn’t, It has 5″ – so 125-127mm possibly 120mm – against 140mm on the LT and 105mm on the blur xc.

    Edit: Also 1lb lighter than the LTc

    CaptainMainwaring
    Free Member

    Ooops. Can’t convert to new money 😳 😳

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)

The topic ‘Carbon Santa Cruz Blur 4X anyone?’ is closed to new replies.