Dreaming of an aggressive 29er for the North Shore and PNW

conjecture: because they don't actually change the actual chainstay length, but alter the pivot position in relation to the bb to change effective cs length, pushing everything back (assuming the seat stays and rocker are fixed length as well) would require moving the upper pivot rearward in relation to the bb, resulting in a slacker sta. or maybe they just wanted it slacker to balance the longer rc. no eye deer.

so my plans tomorrow have be driving right by a Norco store so I will be stopping in too see these amazing new Norco,s , or am I mistaken and this is only the publication release and the bikes are still months away :|

So we have a Sight, and it looks really nice. No Range yet.

Range is next month … hopefully sooner than the end of the month.

not really impressed by the PB write up will have to see one in person .

on a purely aesthetic level, i prefer the previous iteration better. this one looks a bit less aggressive; more docile / generic. was hoping the 29'er numbers would be a bit more aggressive as well. i guess there's the range.

I saw the catalog which says that the ESTA gets slacker as the sizes go up, which I found bit perplexing. But Norco is also the only company which varies chainstay length by size so maybe that's got something to do with it. I'm an XL rider and I like where 74' puts me relative to the BB for climbing. Not sure I'd want it any slacker regardless of chainstay length. Does someone in the loop know more about their reasoning for this?

Isnt that standard for a bendy seattube? Starts steep then gets very slack, and the more you extend the seat the slacker the esta gets. Maybe im misunderstanding the question cuz im sure youre well aware of this.

Isnt that standard for a bendy seattube? Starts steep then gets very slack, and the more you extend the seat the slacker the esta gets. Maybe im misunderstanding the question cuz im sure youre well aware of this.

The ESTA is 74.5' for the M and 73.7' for the XL. That's almost a full degree slacker in XL which translates to being 1-2cm further back at full extension. That's a lot.

on a purely aesthetic level, i prefer the previous iteration better. this one looks a bit less aggressive; more docile / generic. was hoping the 29'er numbers would be a bit more aggressive as well. i guess there's the range.

was just comparing the ##s in the image craw posted , 29" has 175mm cranks and a BB that is a few mm lower than the 27.5" model , so I think I will wait the month and check out the Range when it eventually drops .

and after looking at the frame specs the two bikes are night and day , in the front triangle

Im not as impressed as i expected….cant put my finger on it but they just look…tame?

pricing also bothers me, In 2016 the base model Sight C was $4199 CAD/ $3750 USD but the 2017 is $5499 CAD/ $3799 USD… $1700 CAD difference?! I know thats the 29er model, but the 27.5 model is still $5099

Maybe I don't fully understand how it works for different markets, but that seems like a huge price difference when I compare to Giant where the new Trance Advanced 2 is $4299 CAD/ $4125 US

can anyone shed any light on why this is the case?

Im not as impressed as i expected….cant put my finger on it but they just look…tame?

pricing also bothers me, In 2016 the base model Sight C was $4199 CAD/ $3750 USD but the 2017 is $5499 CAD/ $3799 USD… $1700 CAD difference?! I know thats the 29er model, but the 27.5 model is still $5099

Maybe I don't fully understand how it works for different markets, but that seems like a huge price difference when I compare to Giant where the new Trance Advanced 2 is $4299 CAD/ $4125 US

can anyone shed any light on why this is the case?

even when comparing the entry level YT Jeffsy carbon to the entry level carbon 29" Sight the price is stupid , the YT has a much better groupo for the same price , plus its 140mm , and guys are dropping 160mm air shafts into the forks , setting it on the high chip and it rides like it did with the 140mm fork for climbing and shred on the downs .

as far as cost go , look at all the different frame spec sizes , that means multiple molds in multiple sizes so they have to recoup that expense some how

Im not as impressed as i expected….cant put my finger on it but they just look…tame?

pricing also bothers me, In 2016 the base model Sight C was $4199 CAD/ $3750 USD but the 2017 is $5499 CAD/ $3799 USD… $1700 CAD difference?! I know thats the 29er model, but the 27.5 model is still $5099

Maybe I don't fully understand how it works for different markets, but that seems like a huge price difference when I compare to Giant where the new Trance Advanced 2 is $4299 CAD/ $4125 US

can anyone shed any light on why this is the case?

Giant's CAD/USD pricing hasn't made sense for the last few years. The current FX rate is approx. 1.3 so a bike that costs $4,125 USD should be like $5,400 CAD. Seems like a sweet deal for Americans to come up to Canada, buy a bike and take it back over the border.

Perhaps there is some info that I am missing? Perhaps tariffs for bikes that are imported to the US or something…?

even when comparing the entry level YT Jeffsy carbon to the entry level carbon 29" Sight the price is stupid , the YT has a much better groupo for the same price , plus its 140mm

This x1000 … the spec differences on the Sight C9.2 vs the Jeffsy CF Pro Race are insane for only a $500 difference.

Yeah and frame only is $3398.98, vs. DeVinci Troy @ $2799.00

I like how their spec sheet lists the radius of the wheel/tyre combo they used to arrive at the bb height. All bike manufacturers should do same.