Blur TR, Tallboy AL - new bikes from Santa Cruz!

Two of these for sure could be great bikes for around here.

The third? You be the judge here...

HT angle only 68 on the blur. thats pretty normal these days isn't it? After reading the text "but mated to a relaxed head angle that is sure to make any dedicated gravity fiend weep with joy" I was expecting a little more raked out.

HT angle only 68 on the blur. thats pretty normal these days isn't it? After reading the text "but mated to a relaxed head angle that is sure to make any dedicated gravity fiend weep with joy" I was expecting a little more raked out.

its a smaller version of the lt, basically - same angles, less squish

nice of them to make a budget version of the tallboy; the bike gets such incredible reviews its great they're willing to spread the love around. pricepoint on the entry level complete is $2299 :damn:

It seems weird that the curved seat tube is a selling feature. Modern geometry seems to be shifting toward slacker HA for downhill confidence, and steeper SA for climbing prowess, yet those bikes have slack SA. This is all speculation having not been on the bikes, but from my experience, slack HA, steep SA is fun, and really works.

That was my thought. I think the mountains must be less steep in California. My Marin has a 66 degree head angle. Great for around here. I would find that Blur uncomfortably steep. My Samurai has a 67 degree head angle.

hey Ferrentino. the bikes are nice and all and I know you dont run the show but how come Mark Wier and WTB switch teams with out so much as a wimper? no eulogy. nothing. like the whole industry has tuned it out. we are talking about the guy who was proving that long travel bike can smash large days before it was cool. small fries maybe, but some of us would rather read about people who kill it up and down the mountains then the two and change crowd.

I'll take a tall boy in the black and green paint of the blur. thanks.

In fairness the geometry chart indicates that the head angle is measured with a silly 501mm axle to crown height.

When you put a real fork on the bike (even a 140mm fork which are almost all around 520mm a2c) it would probably slack it out to close to 66 degrees.

This would also raise the BB quite a bit and slack out the seat angle at the same time.

All things considered it's probably not the bike I would choose for my daily driver but could be nice third or fourth bike (light weight xc bike that I ride once a month?).

It seems weird that the curved seat tube is a selling feature. Modern geometry seems to be shifting toward slacker HA for downhill confidence, and steeper SA for climbing prowess, yet those bikes have slack SA. This is all speculation having not been on the bikes, but from my experience, slack HA, steep SA is fun, and really works.

I'm still trying to figure this out too. What these curved seat tubes do is create an effective seat angle that gets increasingly slacker as the post goes higher. It also means you can't get a wide range of seat height adjustment without shelling out for a dropper post.

I'm not gonna lie, though, I do lust for the Blur TRc. The frame and shock weighs less than my hardtail! :damn:

It seems weird that the curved seat tube is a selling feature.

I'm still trying to figure this out too.

while i love me some steep seat tube angles, i imagine this goes hand in hand with chainstay length: short chainstay + big wheels = modified or curved seat tube. to get around this compromise many companies simply seem to be going with longer chainstays on their wagonwheelers - but their bikes don't get the kind of praise the tb does, so maybe they're on to something? remember too that with the big wheels, an extended seat tube won't put you as close to the rear axle as it would on a 26er

That tallboy in a less expensive costume could be my next bike.

I loved my Hecklers.
Like my Stumpjumper FSR 29er, but damn. That tallboy in black -- :rocker:

Really nice what Santa Cruz is putting out these days!

Greetings Znarf

In fairness the geometry chart indicates that the head angle is measured with a silly 501mm axle to crown height.

When you put a real fork on the bike (even a 140mm fork which are almost all around 520mm a2c) it would probably slack it out to close to 66 degrees.

A Talas 150 has an ATC of 521mm. That's 20mm, which would slacken the head angle by just over 1 degree - not quite 2 degrees. If you can't ride a 67 head angle on the Shore, the bike is not the problem.

A Talas 150 has an ATC of 521mm. That's 20mm, which would slacken the head angle by just over 1 degree - not quite 2 degrees. If you can't ride a 67 head angle on the Shore, the bike is not the problem.

I don't think I was disputing the fact that a 67 degree head angle is completely ridable on the shore. My comment was intended to point out that the "real" (local part spec) geometry of the bike is slacker than the geo chart indicates.

When you swap the fork you will certainly be making compromises elsewhere in the geometry. As others have pointed out having a steeper seat tube isboth trendy and functional. Taking a 72.5 degree seat tube and making it slacker by raising the a2c doesn't seem ideal. (although you can likely play around with a zero offset post and your seat rail positioning to get the angle you want)

When you swap the fork you will certainly be making compromises elsewhere in the geometry.

qft. you'd also be raising the bb height, making the bike a bit less stable and nimble… why does everyone always want to "shore" a new bike up? horses for course: maybe best to leave this bike as a true 5" ripper - not great for the shore, but perfect for squamish, the valley, etc.

yup 67 and about 13.4" BB with a Rev/32