650b?

I'm in no better position to know the specufic numbers for warranty rates of any frame manufacturer then you are… But, Google "Norco Range Carbon" and click on any forum link. I think you'll agree the replacement rate would qualify as "insane" without any hyperbole, and wait times for many riders was way beyond what you would consider acceptable.

If you are going to call them out at-least give all the known info.

The main problem with 2014 Range was ISCG tabs cracking. We're not talking catastrophic head tube failures or anything. It stems from using a longer bolt than the frame was designed for. Also Norco has stepped up and is replacing all the front triangles.

http://www.norco.com/range-support/#

To Xpresso owners : You can't tell your bike wouldn't rip if it had been designed around wheels with a radius that is ~1cm smaller.

I am not referring to the bike but just the wheel size.

If you are going to call them out at-least give all the known info.

The main problem with 2014 Range was ISCG tabs cracking. We're not talking catastrophic head tube failures or anything. It stems from using a longer bolt than the frame was designed for. Also Norco has stepped up and is replacing all the front triangles.

http://www.norco.com/range-support/#

Really?

If the only issue is a bolt that is too long why are they replacing all the front triangles not just the bolts?

You've been around bikes and manufacturing in general way longer then that.

D

Got a nomad a month ago the thing is sick it's basically a light weight free ride bike that pedals well . Money well spent and I got mine to 27# with 170mm travel on the new fox 36

…

First off, apologies for derailing your thread Ted. It wasn't intended.

Got a nomad a month ago the thing is sick it's basically a light weight free ride bike that pedals well . Money well spent and I got mine to 27# with 170mm travel on the new fox 36

There are enough discerning/picky riders on these bikes now that I think you can claim their love of them goes beyond justifying the $$$ barrier to entry (specifically as you note for being a mini-DH//Freeride bike that is very light in terms of self-shuttling).

What Ted didn't mention in his original post was that he is both tall and Mighty.

Santa Cruz bikes tend to fit quite short -- especially if you want to run a relatively short stem -- so an XL Nomad may have a ~ long enough top-tube.

Bikes like the Nomad, or Giant Reign, or Rocky Altitude that have have very supple initial suspension rates don't tend to make great pedaling bikes for larger dudes because they wallow so far into their travel when things get a little steep. You can compensate with firmer valving but this tends to negatively affect descending performance.

Bikes that stand taller in their travel tend to be better climbing bikes for big dudes.

.

Ted, I haven't ridden the Xpresso -- but Rob (GPb) is not a tiny dude, he is very discerning when it comes to his set-up, and he invests a fair amount of money in trying different things, so that is definitely a bike I would look at if you can find one to throw a leg over.

Also, Norco suggestion aside, Alex is a tall/heavy dude and if you aren't set in stone on riding little wheels his experience with // journey to 29'ers is worth reading about before you make a decision. Proprietary shock mounting aside, I think you would very much enjoy the Enduro 29'er.

If you are willing to consider a shorter travel but still aggressive bike the Banshee Phantom could be a great choice in a 29'er (for 650b you may really like the Spitfire). Their suspension design is initially firmer then many and you would probably find it a revelation in terms of pedaling position. They also fit on the roomy side. They have threaded BBs and press-in headsets which is nice.

Sorry again for the derail.

-D

Thanks for everyone's comments so far.

I drooled over the new nomad for a few weeks. I think this is a great option for a single bike quiver. I do own a dh rig so I'm thinking something more along the trail or am spectrum is better suited for me.

Anyone have experience with the altitude? I see a lot of riders on the shore with these.

What about a warden?

I just grabbed a dixon. its 26" but there are a tonne of deals on new 26" 2014 bikes. I threw a leg over a troy and it felt pretty darn good too. but they only had L and it just felt a little too long.
Even the beater models of devinci trail bikes in 2014/2015 come with pikes so at least you know you wont need to upgrade that.

To the OP: this is the best bike buying bike you will receive in 2015.

Chances are your new bike will have 650B wheels -- because all new aggressive but pedal-able mountain bikes are 650B wheel -- unless if you buy a 29'er.

There are big wheels (29") and small wheels (26"/650B) and it sounds like you have already decided on small wheels.

Things you need to consider when buying your next bike:

1) Fit
2) Geometry
3) Materials and Manufacturing
4) Suspension Design.

This is 100% true. Either decide big wheels (29") or small wheels (650b) and move on to the rest of the bike buying checklist. Don't cry for 26" wheels they still live on. They're just called 650b these days. For all the difference in handling the two are all but interchangeable IMO. The big difference is now we are seeing some bikes designed from the ground up with the 'new school' geo - long WB, slack HTA, steep(er) STA, long(er) TT - and they're only available in 650b.

To Alex: I think you should be careful recommending a bike you do not own without doing a bit more research.

1) What % of Norco Range Carbon frames had to be replaced under warranty for 2014? (Hint: It's a lot closer to 100% then 0%).

2) What a the negatives of the cost saving decision to forgo best manufacturing aluminum full suspension frames (hydroforming / fluid forming) in favour of mechanically forming the tubesets?

D

1) As someone who has ridden a Range 650b carbon, and seen first hand how Norco dealt with the cracking frames, I have no hesitation about plopping my money down on one, or recommending one.

2) Not sure what you're saying here? Perhaps "what are the negatives of mechanical shaping of tubes Vs Hydro forming? I haven't looked at the alloy Ranges, is this a change that has happened? Negatives would probably be either higher weight or lower strength. Either of which are dealt with in their own way.

Weight: If you want it lighter, buy a different bike.
Strength: Pick a brand that will support you if it goes pear shaped.

1)

2)

It is a bit … to be giving a bunch of credit to a company for replacing frames that are defective either due to materials, manufacturing, or design? Isn't that your most basic expectation?

It is a bit like giving an employee a bonus for showing up to work sober on Friday but they came in drunk Monday-Thursday.

.

I think it comes down to a matter of bias.

You have worked in a number of stores that have sold Norco bikes over a number of years, so we have seen all the same issues. You work for a company with multiple stores that sell Norco Bikes and are heavily partnered with their renamed distribution arm. It behooves you to ignore the epic failures of the past and focus on the current bikes -- which LOOK pretty awesome.

I have worked in a number of stores that have sold Norco bikes over a number of years, so we have seen all the same issues. I see their choice to go with the cheapest possible manufacturing process for aluminum frames -- that still look the way customers expect a current model aluminum full suspension frame to look -- and their recent carbon frame failures (I have no idea where they make their frames or what grade of material they use -- but I have to assume based on my experiences that it is the absolute cheapest bidder) as an extension of their past practices.

The difference between spec'ing the cheapest "bearings" that pennies can buy, pre-stripped-pre-rounded-pre-seized ultra crap frame hardware, etc, and cheaping out on your frame manufacturing/manufacturer/design is that the former issues are simply hidden future upgrades that the customer can, relatively cheaply, resolve. The later can result in depreciated resale values, and long walks out of the bush//risk of injury that are 100% not the riders fault (i.e. not maintenance related).

The biggest piss-off with the "it's just too long of a bolt" carbon Range crap is it sounds exactly like the "we have only had one frame failure we promise for real cross-our-hearts" bullsh*t that came along with the recall of cracking (top tubes and down tubes near the headtube) Team DH, A-Line, Atomic, and Shore frames: "The frames in question are not defective. This is part of Norco's overall efforts to enhance as much as possible the safety of it's riders." Hopefully your shop got paid a heck of a lot closer to your shop rate to swap over Range front triangles then we did to deal with this boondoggle "non-recall."…

(http://www.norco.com/pub/ftr/Frequently%20asked%20questions%20for%20Frame%20recall%20Updated%20April%2029%20(%20Consumer).pdf)

This is 100% true. Either decide big wheels (29") or small wheels (650b) and move on to the rest of the bike buying checklist. Don't cry for 26" wheels they still live on. They're just called 650b these days. For all the difference in handling the two are all but interchangeable IMO. The big difference is now we are seeing some bikes designed from the ground up with the 'new school' geo - long WB, slack HTA, steep(er) STA, long(er) TT - and they're only available in 650b.

Thank you -- this is exactly what I was trying to say.

-D

i'm not sure where this came in with the timing of the norco range carbon frame failures - but back in july i met a guy with an absolutely macked out aluminum range. i mentioned that i thought it was odd he had such an incredibly expensive build on an aluminum frame, and he admitted that he'd ordered a carbon one a while back. but, he said, there have been some issues with the frames norco is trying to sort out (he didn't specify - at the time i thought it was just a production delay) - so they gave him an aluminum one to ride until the carbons are ready, at which point he gets the carbon one and can do what he likes with the alu frame…

i agree drew that replacing defective frames is to be expected. but even that can leave riders without a working bike if the fix takes a long time to work out. giving customers an interim frame to ride seems like going above and beyond, i was impressed

edit: also, wrt to "mechanically" shaping tubes vs. hydro forming. it has allowed norco to bring the cost of their alu offerings down - but i don't know anything about it as a frame shaping measure. norco's alu frame/bike prices seemed abnormally high a few years ago, i thought it was smart they worked on bringing that down. are there downsides; are the frames heavier, weaker? they haven't made a secret of the change, but neither are they trumpeting it from the rooftops

This is 100% true. Either decide big wheels (29") or small wheels (650b) and move on to the rest of the bike buying checklist. Don't cry for 26" wheels they still live on. They're just called 650b these days. For all the difference in handling the two are all but interchangeable IMO. The big difference is now we are seeing some bikes designed from the ground up with the 'new school' geo - long WB, slack HTA, steep(er) STA, long(er) TT - and they're only available in 650b.

Ah, the new school geometry Yeti has had for a handful of years;-). But yes, in general you are correct, as there is a lot more choice now with this type of bike. I went from a Mojo to a SB66c, and it was a knight and day difference. Really long, really low when sagged (and real world HTA of less than 66 degrees with a 160 fork) amazing. So much rubber in front of you one would swear it has bigger wheels :-D

So, so expensive now the new 650 ones though:(

Edit: lots of pedal strikes on the SB, I have no idea how you New Nomad owners can cope.

Ah, the new school geometry Yeti has had for a handful of years;-).

yeah, if you ignore the steep(er) sta part

yeah, if you ignore the steep(er) sta part

Well yes you are right, 72 degrees is old school. Steep STA is the new slack HTA. However, at least for me, being a bit over 6 feet on a large SB, straight post a Reverb, saddle in the middle of the rails--plumb bob per KOPS principal gives me a big range for efficiency (apologies for being an ex roadie). They make seat rails for a reason. YMMV depending on femur length of course.

As an example of newer school yet, the new SB6 is slightly slacker in the front steeper in the rear giving it a similar reach. However, for seated pedalling I would have to move the saddle rearward a little bit to prevent knee pain (again, MY problem)

mightyted,

I'm a bigger dude (6'2, 235) and i've been running a 2014 rm altitude 770 for a year now.

suspension-wise, running the bigdude/vanderham setting on the ride9 chip.
i havent played with that at all since initial setup with Arthur @suspensiontherapy.

I couldn't be happier with the rear suspension. it's plush, almost bottomless feeling on the descent, and feel more capable than my last ride ('13 giant reign x1)
when it comes to climbing, i use the CTD lockout A LOT, despite my initial misgivings that it was kinda gimmicky.
switched into Climb mode, there's a bit of suspension bob when really hammering on a steep climb, but conversely, the rear end stays planted.

the major complaint i have is with the front fork 2014 fox 34. i've never been able to find the sweet spot between slow and fast rebounds.
when it's running well on fast stuff, it tends to pogo on slower, tech sections. when it's running well on the slow, tech stuff, it feels overwhelmed when the speed picks up.
i've played around a lot with different air pressure, and rebound settings, and have been logging it all. still not there…

otherwise. spec is great. you can't argue with XT brakes and drivetrain. i'm running a oneup 1x10 setup, and atlas 35mm stem and sixc carbon bar. otherwise mostly stock.
oh, and i upgraded the wheels, but I see rocky is already doing that too on the 2015's.

Overall. Solid B+, and if i were to ever get the fork figured our (or replaced) it's an easy A.
oh, and carbon=dead sexy.