Results 1 to 64 of 64
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545

    2013 Norco Sight 650B Killer B build and review

    2013 Norco Sight 650B Killer B

    Frame Size Med 140mm
    Fork 2013 Fox 34 Float 150mm
    Shock 2013 Fox DHX Air 7.785x2.25
    Bars Race Face SIXC Carbon 29.5”
    Stem Race Face Atlas 50mm
    Cranks Race Face SIXC Carbon 175mm 34t Ring
    Race Face Atlas I-Beam Seat Post and Seat
    Chain Guide MRP G3 Mini
    Brakes Avid XO 180mm Rotors
    Grips ODI Extreme Look-Ons
    Shifter Sram X9 10 Speed
    Rear Derailleur Sram X9 Type 2 10 Speed
    Cassette Sram X9
    Chain Sram X9
    Wheels Loaded X-Lite 650b/27.5
    Tires Continental X-Kings 27.5x2.4



    Bike is built up for All-Mt riding and Enduro racing. The soul purpose of this build was to find that happy medium All-Mt bike between 5” and 6.75” of travel. I was going back and forth between the Norco Range 650B Killer B with 160mm of travel and the Sight 650B Killer B with 140mm of travel. After talking to a lot of friends in the industry about 650B/27.5 bikes, I decided to go with the Sight.



    I am a seasoned Gravity Racer with 15 years of MTB racing and 8 years in BMX. I have been very lucky to have worked with a lot of great people in the industry and raced alongside some wonderful people. With a growing family and age creeping up on me, I have decided move more into Enduro and Super D racing. Let’s just say I have had a lot more urge for adventure and endurance riding. When I decided to do this, I started researching all I could find on the differences between 26”, 27.5”, and 29” bikes. I spent time on both 26” and 29”, but no time on the 27.5”. I like the sure speed of a 29” for climbing and straight lines, but we all know the 29er lacks corner speed. With that said, I choose to try the 650B/27.5. Boy did I make a great choice!



    We put a lot of faith in our parts and bike build. So in order to have that confidence to push ourselves we have to trust our products. So the parts specs where based of brands that I have spent a lot of time on. Although this build is not for everyone, it fits me to the tee.



    There is a lot of talk right now about 650B/27.5 bikes, both positive and negative. Think most of the negative talk is the lack of experience and knowledge behind the 650B/27.5 wheel size and not willing to try new things. I for one, welcome new and innovative product in the cycling industry. When I got the chance to work with a company behind the 650B movement like Norco I jumped on the opportunity. Norco has put a lot of thought and engineering into their 650B frame designs. The Sight Killer B has a low center of gravity feel with an aggressive geometry, yet doesn’t feel cramped in the cockpit. I have long torso and arms for someone 5’11”. The chain stay is shorter than most 26er All-Mt bikes. This helps with pulling manuals and whipping through berms. One thing I love about this bike. The140mm of ART Suspension is plush and soaks up anything you can throw at it on the trail. I was very surprised at how well this bike pedaled even after taking the stock Fox Float CTD shock off and replacing it with a Fox DHX Air. You do get a little pedal bob when standing, but you do with most 5”+ travel bikes. Will say when I was in the saddle pedaling, I didn’t feel any bob at all. With only a few true 650/27.5 forks to choose from in the 140mm to 160mm range, I choose to use the Fox 34 Float 27.5 dropped down to 150mm of travel. The fork has plenty of tire clearance to run up to any 2.5” DH tire (even a DH Mud), which will work great when I take this bike to go ride at the parks. I do wish the fork had its own High and Low compression controls to fine tune in the suspension. Mainly, because I am a suspension nerd and like the ability to fine tune. Over all, the 3 position tuning meets most any rider’s needs. I choose the Race Face SIXC carbon Bars and Cranks not only to reduce weight, but help take away most of the vibration form the 4 points a rider feels from the bike. Race Face has hit a home run with their SIXC carbon products and has been proven on the World Cup DH circuit. As for the rest of the drive train I am using Sram’s X9 Shifter and Type 2 Med size Derailleur with the new MRP G3 Mini chain guide. This combination, I have found to work and shift flawlessly. The Type 2 Derailleur also helps with chain slap and keeps the bike quiet when riding down the trail. It’s nice to only hear the sound of the tires beating the ground up. For the wheel set I choose Loaded USA’s new 650B X-Lite wheel set. The wheel set is light, yet strong and stiff. For a wheel set just over 1700 grams, I am impressed with its lateral stiffness. I laced the wheels up with some Continental 27.5x 2.4 X-Kings. I have fallen in love with the feel and reliability of the Continental brand 3 years ago and would have not put anything else on this bike. Although they don’t have their full line of MTB tires in the 27.5 size yet, I have found the X-King to be a capable tire for All-Mt riding. I am looking forward to getting my hands on some Trail Kings as soon as they are ready. Overall the entire bike build is solid and comes in at 28.8 lbs. I plan to run a Dropper Post for Enduro races which will add about 1lb more to the total weight of the bike.















    The overall feel of the bike is impressive in many ways. I found myself comfortable on the 650B/27.5 size wheels right off the bat. Something I didn’t feel when I got on a 29er. Cornering and acceleration speed was not a problem at all like on the 29er. It felt much like a 26er. Most 26er riders will feel right at home on the 650b/27.5. The big advantages I felt were, you don’t have to work as hard to keep your speed up and no hang up feeling when riding over roots and rocks (much like the 29er). The 650/27.5 wheel size has truly taken the advantages of both the 26er and 29er sizes to offer the best package for a great All-Mt bicycle.



    Go out and try a 650B bike for yourself,

    Cecil
    Last edited by FCLINDER; 04-03-2013 at 04:21 PM.
    Ride!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847
    Great review and pics. Thanks!
    Paragraphs would make it easier to read

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Beautiful bike, great review, thank you and congrats! I was not aware the X-Kings were available in the 650b size, good to see another good AM option. I like you smart build!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gunner.989's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    61
    Nice review. Sweet bike, I'm jealous! Congrats on your new build!




    "Ride"

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,614
    dropper post needed!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: olijay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    371
    Amazing build, did you do it yourself?
    Don't forget to cut your steerer tube

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vizsladog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,320
    Awesome pics and review. Amazing bike also

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by olijay View Post
    Amazing build, did you do it yourself?
    Don't forget to cut your steerer tube
    Thanks! Yes, I do all my builds. As for the Steerer, it is cut to the right size. I adjust my bar height a lot due to different courses I race through out the season.

    Cecil
    Ride!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Beautiful bike, great review, thank you and congrats! I was not aware the X-Kings were available in the 650b size, good to see another good AM option. I like you smart build!
    As far as I know the X-Kings 27.5 are not available to the public by retail yet. They will be soon and worth a try. The Trail Kings will be the ticket once they are available for all conditions.

    Cecil
    Ride!

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by FCLINDER View Post
    As far as I know the X-Kings 27.5 are not available to the public by retail yet. They will be soon and worth a try. The Trail Kings will be the ticket once they are available for all conditions.

    Cecil
    Thank you Cecil. Have you seen or tried the Vee Rubber Trail Taker 2.4? That is a sweet big fat tire, too. My wife's 26" 2.4 Trail Kings look like skinny tubulars compared to the Taker.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by FCLINDER View Post
    As far as I know the X-Kings 27.5 are not available to the public by retail yet. They will be soon and worth a try. The Trail Kings will be the ticket once they are available for all conditions.

    Cecil
    Nice bike.I wish the Norco bikes were available locally I'd snap one up.

    Have you tried an HD in pacestar. I would have thought xkings would be too sketchy in the front for enduro. Great speed for the rear though.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169
    Looks awesome!

    Would you be so kind to carefully measure the BB height. Norco lists it as 13.3" but MTBR measured it at 13.6". For where I live 13.3" is just to low with an active FSR suspension.
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by skidad View Post
    Looks awesome!

    Would you be so kind to carefully measure the BB height. Norco lists it as 13.3" but MTBR measured it at 13.6". For where I live 13.3" is just to low with an active FSR suspension.
    I measured in at 13.4" with a 150mm fork. I bet 13.6" is with a 160mm fork.

    Cecil
    Ride!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169
    Quote Originally Posted by FCLINDER View Post
    I measured in at 13.4" with a 150mm fork. I bet 13.6" is with a 160mm fork.

    Cecil
    Thanks very much. I'll bet you're correct since he had installed the 160 fork onto it. Love the bike but without demoing it in my terrain I won't risk ordering one or a frame set.
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  15. #15
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,614
    whoops - wrong thread
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  16. #16
    fc
    fc is online now
    stoked Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    27,073
    One of my best buds borrowed my Sight and I warned that it will ruin him.

    He said he is ruined now and will have trouble riding his current bikes.

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yJPT9DDJnf0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
    IPA will save America

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    324
    Francois, how is that shootout coming along?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trailbildr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Mr Linder, since you clearly know what the f you are doing on a bike, can you share why you went Sight over Range? Did you ride both?

    I've spent the last 3 years on a 140 Stump carbon fsr with 650 wheels on it and was looking Range for more park time as well as enduro and endurance races. I would be going from 2.4 tires to 2.0, back and forth during the season. I just sent a request over for a Range frame and I think that's the way to go for me (I park'd last year on an enduro with Totem, 26).

    Thanks for your insight. Great build, purty bike.

    mk
    TrailWerks Cyclery
    TrailWerks Suspension Service

    trailwerkssuspension.com
    trailwerkscyclery.com

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LukeSPOOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    241
    Wow, some bike !!! - looks like no expense spared.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by trailbildr View Post
    Mr Linder, since you clearly know what the f you are doing on a bike, can you share why you went Sight over Range? Did you ride both?

    I've spent the last 3 years on a 140 Stump carbon fsr with 650 wheels on it and was looking Range for more park time as well as enduro and endurance races. I would be going from 2.4 tires to 2.0, back and forth during the season. I just sent a request over for a Range frame and I think that's the way to go for me (I park'd last year on an enduro with Totem, 26).

    Thanks for your insight. Great build, purty bike.

    mk
    Sure can, as I have had to explain this already on another site:

    My choice for the Sight over the Range had a lot to do with my riding style and the type of trails I ride 85% of the time. Mainly climbing 3500ft+ of elevation in a day to hit the raw fun trails in Pisgah National Forest. I only do park riding when I go to a race. I am also mainly focused on Enduro and Super D's this season. I have had plenty of 6" to 7" bikes in the past. Although they were all great bikes at that time, they all felt sluggish to me. That is why I was back and forth on the Sight over the Range. I didn't want a sluggish feeling bike again. After riding the Range I can say its not sluggish at all. When looking at a 650B or 29er over a 26" bike you have to take the wheel size in consideration when choosing your suspension travel size. Meaning a 650B 140mm travel bike will feel and perform like a 26" 150mm to 160mm travel bike or very close. So a 650B 160mm will fill more like a 170mm to 180mm bike. I knew I didn't need that much travel, so that is why I picked the Sight over the Range.

    Hope this helps,
    Cecil
    Ride!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    15
    Thanks for the review. Good to see a personal review with some thought put into it. I will be buying a sight frame. Hopefully the carbon. It's a absolute ripper.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,294
    Great looking bike and build. Do you even need a chainguide tho with a single ring setup and the new clutch rear der (especially if you were to go short cage)? PM me when you want to sell her!

    Have FUN!

    G MAN
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  23. #23
    CTB
    CTB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,189
    I just test rode this bike at our local demo day and I truly loved it. It was the 4th 650B I've ridden (Jamis 650 two years ago, Intense Carbine 275, Jamis Dakar 650B today, and the Norco), and I really liked it. My next bike is most definitely going to be 650B, and this bike is in the running. Oh, and this bike was running SRAM XX1 1x11 with the 10-42 cassette and 32T front. Very nice.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Drth Vadr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    781
    I've been waiting for companies to get the 650B thing dialed in and it looks like the killer B is in front. I'm still wondering how the hell is the Killer-B frame almost 1k more than the 26 version and farther more it's even more expensive than the Aurum DH frame. What gives? I would love to get the carbon Killer-B, but their talking 4k for tha base model and if the 2013 frame vs complete Killer-B3 is any indication of price the frame is going to be $3850.

    Also interested in the Marin Mount Vision that's going to come out this fall, but that really depends on what their pricing is going be for carbon.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    105
    Pisgah...ahhhh. I'm on Lake Norman and looooove to get up there! Stoked to see the Enduro up there this summer! Me and my Genius, booyah!

    BTW, do you think 1x11 is suited for Pisgah/Dupont/Brevard area? Thx!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    292
    Just picked up my Sight Killer B2, and am so-so on the ride. The Revelation feels a bit sloppy up front. Just curious how you find the geometry with the 150mm fork? Do you find BB height is still ok?

    Also having some troubles dialing in the rear suspension. Just curious what pressure you run the rear at? I am about body weight or so. Sag's about 25% give or take, but the Climb setting on the rear shock seems a bit soft..??..

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Glad you found one. The 150mm fork setup is great and feels spot on. Feels right at home for me. It didn't change the BB height that much. Maybe 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch tops. Bike is already low. As for the rear shock, I have a Fox DHX Air on it so if will be different than what you have. I run about 150psi in the main camber and 185psi in the bottom out camber. I am running 30% sag.

    Hope this helps out some and enjoy your bike!

    Cecil
    Ride!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    5
    Hi,

    I understand that your frame size is a medium and your height is 5' 11. I am currently looking at this bike but unfortunately would need to order given the current shortage of the bike in the market. As such, I am unable to give the bike a fitting or tryout. I am 183 cm or approx. 6' 05 and was wondering whether a "medium" frame would be ok for me. I read from your review that the bike's design to have the geometry fixate on the centre thus I am unsure whether the size can fit my body frame.

    Would like to hear out from you on this. Please advise. Thanks,

    Eric

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    I think you can get away with a 70mm stem. Do you have long legs? My inseam is 32" and I have to run the post almost all the way out for XC. I will say, I could ride a large, but feel at home on the Medium size. I think the large, I would have to work harder to throw around on the descents.

    Cecil
    Ride!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    5
    Hi Cecil,

    I do have long legs. For my current ride with a Giant anthem 29er, I am using a medium size also. Did a search on my giant geometry and I found out that the top tube length is 59.4 cm whereas the sight do have a similar length of 59.5 cm. I don't know whether is relevant but the 29er I am using now have a much higher standover height of 77.0 cm whereas the sight is only 73.5 cm. Maybe you can enlighten me on the matter as I don't get much advise from the seller here.

    On the other hand, I am also afraid that a large size frame will impede on my downhill or decent. However, with the sight being classified as a trail bike by norco, I am sure most riders would want to keep it that way. Else they would have taken the range model.

    Thanks,

    Eric

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    You can get away with running a longer seat post. Like I said my inseam is 32" and run a normal post almost all the way out. Would say I have about 3/4" left before hiting the limit on the post. I have a long torso like someone about 6'2". I run a 50mm stem. I to like to setup my bikes more for Gravity. So you maybe able to get away with the Med at 6'1".

    Cecil
    Ride!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    5
    Hi Cecil,

    Many thanks for your kind advice. At least I know that should the standover height is not sufficient I can still improve it via a longer seat post. I am sure a 410 mm seat post would be suffice. Again, your kind advice is much appreciated.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by erickh View Post
    Hi Cecil,

    Many thanks for your kind advice. At least I know that should the standover height is not sufficient I can still improve it via a longer seat post. I am sure a 410 mm seat post would be suffice. Again, your kind advice is much appreciated.
    Anytime! I am always glad to help a fellow rider out.

    Cecil
    Ride!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    292
    I just (well, a couple days ago) mounted a 34 Talas 160/130 to my Sight, and I think it's a bit much for the bike.

    The bike rides with a noticeably higher center of gravity at 160mm, and while it now descends in a similar feel to how my Truax did, there was a reason I ditched the Truax for the Sight. I will give it a few more rides, but I think that 150mm (with the usual axle-to-crown that goes with a 150mm fork) is probably where I am going to like it as well.

    I was fairly concerned that the BB would drop too low in the 130mm travel position, and while I have yet to have any pedal strikes, it does feel lower, I think largely due to the fact that the fork, when set at 130mm, actually sits quite low in it's travel (maybe a product of my set-up, or something, who knows).

    Anyways, I'll give it a few more rides. Overall, the bike rides really well in both travel positions, but I find that I can still climb fairly well with it at 160mm and find that on anything but the most heinous climb, just keep it at 160mm. So, for the sake of maintaining good suspension performance, I may opt back out for a dedicated 150mm travel fork, because lets face it, TALAS's aren't that great of a performing fork, but the convenience factor is worth something for sure...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    292
    Oh, and not to mention the near extra pound in weight that the TALAS adds over say a 150mm Revelation...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    155
    How are you liking the Loaded Wheels? Are they still holding true/stiff?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by atekt View Post
    How are you liking the Loaded Wheels? Are they still holding true/stiff?
    They are holding up great. I haven't had to touch them.

    Cecil
    Ride!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4

    Upgrade to a sight Killer B2

    Hi guys,
    As you were talking about forks I thought I would pose the question.
    I am considering upgrading the revelation forks to some Rockshox Pike 150mm.

    The question is would my money be better spent on new lighter wheels instead of the stock Sunringles.

    I don't race but really enjoy the downhill parts of my rides. BTW I have had the Sight B2 for about 4 months and absolutely love it.
    Cheers. GT

  39. #39
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,688
    I've got a question for you Sight owners:

    Are you bottoming out at all? Do you ever wish you had 20-30mm suspension travel of the Range?

    Looking real hard at the Sight Carbon, but worried I'll want that extra suspension travel.
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  40. #40
    CAMBr Trail Crew
    Reputation: DDDonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    529
    Great review! And, yes, your bike looks AWESOME!!!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    292
    Hey,

    I upgraded my Sight to a TALAS 160/120, and I found that at 160mm, the BB was too high, the bike too slack, and handling was a bit iffy. I opted back into a Fox Float 150mm fork, and the bike really shines. I didn't think that 10mm would make that big of a difference, but it really did. I firmly believe the Sight should come with a 150mm fork, because the bike rides amazingly well with the 150mm fork.


    Pheller, as for your questions. No, I generally don't bottom out. I set the shock up for 25% sag, and it seems to ride really well, whether in the climb, trail or descend mode. The only reason I'd prefer a bit more travel is in really bad chunder where the small bump performance would be a bit better, but then with that comes inevitable weight gain in the bike, beefier frame (because longer travel = a need for heavier weight stuff it seems??? Maybe scott has it right with their Genius LT, too bad their suspension design feels like ass when descending AND climbing if not locked out).

    If you're looking at a Sight carbon but want more travel, get a Range carbon. I probably would have opted for a Range carbon had it been available when i bought my sight in the spring, but what can you do?

    The Range carbon I bet will be an AMAZING bike.
    -Mike

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    87
    The Sight and Range are at the top of my list right now for a first full suspension bike. LBS has the 7.1 alloy version for both listed at the same price which is making it hard to decide. I was thinking that 140mm is more suited to the riding I plan to do and I would hate to get the Range and have it wallow on the climbs. The Range does appear to be specced just slightly better with some minor upgrades and for the same price, it's tough to pass up. Reading some of the comments here has me wondering if the fork could be reduced to a 150mm with a spacer, I'm not that familiar with fork technology. That seems like it might be a nice compromise. I should probably verify with the LBS that the listed prices are correct as well as it seemed odd to have them the same.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    389
    Looks like on the carbon range (7.2) you're getting a better fork (Fox 34) and more all around travel (160 vs 140 mm) at the expense of crappier hubs / brakes / no dropper vs the sight 7.2.

    A true apples to apples would have the range being a few hundred $ more I'd imagine - if owing to nothing other than the larger tubes on the fork (34 vs 32) and dropper.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by TigerHijinks View Post
    The Sight and Range are at the top of my list right now for a first full suspension bike. LBS has the 7.1 alloy version for both listed at the same price which is making it hard to decide. I was thinking that 140mm is more suited to the riding I plan to do and I would hate to get the Range and have it wallow on the climbs. The Range does appear to be specced just slightly better with some minor upgrades and for the same price, it's tough to pass up. Reading some of the comments here has me wondering if the fork could be reduced to a 150mm with a spacer, I'm not that familiar with fork technology. That seems like it might be a nice compromise. I should probably verify with the LBS that the listed prices are correct as well as it seemed odd to have them the same.
    Demo. (and if you really need more than 140mm of travel, you'd know it.)

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    292
    Any of the Fox forks at 160mm 'should' be reducable to 150mm. For the most part, at the longer travels, they don't use travel specific push-rods like the Rock Shox forks did over the last couple years. I would love to ride a Range with a 150mm fork, but at the end of the day, I think the geometry would then be so similar to my Sight with 150mm fork (which I absolutely love, and think the Sight NEEDS).

    At the end of the day, it comes down to the trails you are riding. If most of what you are riding has longer, more technical climbs, go with the Sight. The 140mm Sight is a much more efficient climber than the 160mm Range, noticeably so. But, most of that I think has to do with angles and geometry more than it does the extra 2cm of travel. These are differences that I would be curious if are negated on the Range by going to a 150mm fork. If so, then the Range would be a killer bike as it is still a fairly efficient suspension.

    I love my Sight with a 150mm fork. So much so that I have turned down some pretty awesome opportunities to upgrade (ie: SB66 carbon with XX1 for about what I could sell my Sight for with a wheel upgrade).

    Either way, I think the Sight is a better choice if most of your riding includes technical climbing (ie: technical single track... I'm sorry but steep forest service roads of ATV tracks is not technical climbing). If your riding includes technical climbing with technical descending, then put a 150mm fork on your Sight and I guarantee you'll be riding with at least a half chub in your shorts all the time.

    If most of your riding is forest service road or ATV track climbing with technical descending, then go with the Range, but just be prepared to suffer considerably more o the technical climbs (which the Range is more than capable of handling, don't get me wrong).

    Ps: I regularly take my Sight down to North Vancouver, and ride some incredibly technical stuff on it, and it holds its own no worries (especially compared to my Truax, which I had before the Sight). The only weak link in the bike is the Fox 34 CTD Adjust... what a total POS! No mid- or end-stroke support... at least not that I have been able to properly set up).

    2013 Norco Sight 650B Killer B build and review-20131116_104001.jpg

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    35
    Great looking builds!

    Just picked up my Sight and got my first ride in. Man, this bike rips! I haven't ridden that many bikes in the past but this bike just feels telepathic to me. I'd post a pic but I am not having luck uploading it.

    Got a nice deal on 2013 closeout at my LBS by pure luck. Only thing I changed so far is the wheelset to a dt swiss/arch ex combo with stock nobby nics setup tubeless. The Schwalbe NN 2.35's seem narrow to me.

    I would like to take the bike to Beech Mtn and Snow Shoe next season so I am also looking at upgrading to a beefier fork, perhaps the pike 150mm, and putting some dh tires on the heavier sun ringle's.

    How are ya'll running your dropper post cables?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    292
    On my 2013, I ran it down the downtube, then up the seat-tube through the bolt on guides. It kept it out of the way nicely. There are a couple key cable rub areas on the 2013 frames. My advice is to zip tie the derailleur housing to the chainstay so that it doesn't move. I figured this out the hard way, because in the middle of a ride, the housing broke and frayed the shift cable, causing it too to break, in the middle of a bigger XC ride. This happened because the housing will move as the suspension cycles, but it is held tight by the guides on the toptube, so it moves freely in the rear half of the bike, causing alot of rub on both the housing, and the frame. Take out the rear shock, and cycle the linkage, and you'll see what i mean.

    THe 2014s have much better routing, IMO, but still some issues. The more I frig around with housing routing, I am tempted by an internally routed frame...

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    292
    Also, let me know how you like the Arch EX wheel set. I am looking at some new wheels for mine (still on the tank'ish infernos), and those are near the top (along with the Spank Oozy, and Fulcrum Red Zone XLR).

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    163
    I don't want to hijack this thread but I'm curious — Any of you ride the Troy or Solo and how would you compare to the Sight?

    I'm looking for a new FS ride. My riding is mostly, I guess, somewhere b/t XC and Trail. I have a Salsa El Mar which I ride everything on now, so I'm looking for something a little more capable, little more fun, and something that would feel a little better suited for some of the more "trail-ish" rides I do.

    Sight, Troy and Solo are at the top of my list right now. I've posted over on the Troy thread too and as expected most everyone said the Troy is rad. I expect the same here, but I'm looking for some head to head comparisons if possible. Thanks.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FCLINDER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    545
    Just a heads up. I have really enjoyed my 2013 Sight 650B and will say its a great bike for anyone looking to build up a All Mt Rig. I would recommended it to anyone. (Spam) With that said, it is up for sale to make room for my 2014 bikes if anyone is interested. Just PM me. Will sell complete or part out.

    Cecil
    Ride!

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    132
    I'd contact Fox BigMike. I did that a couple weeks ago and they went above and beyond. Replaced my CTD with the 2014 for free along with new seals and some Gold Oil in the lowers. Mine came with an Evolution so I upgraded to a FIT at the same time. Looking forward to getting it back and trying it out. They also custom shimmed the rear shock even though it's not on the bike anymore(swapped to a Monarch Plus). I wasn't expecting that type of service and was blown away. Supposedly the curve rate on the 2014 stuff is MUCH better. I felt like I was fighting my Range every time. Nothing like steer wrasslin down a steep trail.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigmike9699 View Post
    Ps: I regularly take my Sight down to North Vancouver, and ride some incredibly technical stuff on it, and it holds its own no worries (especially compared to my Truax, which I had before the Sight). The only weak link in the bike is the Fox 34 CTD Adjust... what a total POS! No mid- or end-stroke support... at least not that I have been able to properly set up).

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10
    Has anyone tried a sight killer b with a 160mm rs pike?
    I'd like to know how it affected handling, steering and bb height...
    Thanks!

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    15
    In case anyone i interested (because I could find this information anywhere on the net) the exact weight of the Norco Sight Carbon 7.2 frame with RT shock is 2.8kg. Just took delivery of mine yesterday stripped it down to build with some cooler parts. Able to weigh it while it was naked.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    45
    I also stripped down my Aluminium Sight a couple of days ago . Its a 2013 Aluminium Sight Killer B1 Aluminium Medium . Frame weight bare , including shock and the standard headset shells (no bearings) was 3.4 kg . In old money that is 7.5 pounds , which is heavier than i was expecting and quite a bit heavier than a lot of guestimate figures that i've seen thrown around on forums.

    Thinking about upgrading the rear shock . Candidates so far seem to be either Cane Creek DB Air CS or Rock Shox Monarch + . I'm running 150 mm Pikes on the front and definitely feel like the rear suspension performance is not as good as the front. Anyone had experience with either of these rear shocks on a sight killer B ?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    15
    Not the lightest bike available is it? Jack Frost how is it with a 150 pike compared to the stock revelation? Very interested in your thoughts. Considering that upgrade too. Monarch RT also needs upgrading

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    162
    Are there any big differences between the 2013 and 2014 models, or any differences at all? Specifically the frame. Im looking into buying a Killer B frame, and im kinda curious if there are any significant changes between last years and this years frame.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    15
    If you're concerned about changes you might want to wait for the 2015 models. They should be announced soon I imagine. I don't think there were any changes in the alu. model between '13 & '14. There are subtle differences between the alu. and carbon models. Apart from the carbon swoopy-ness the down tube is straighter and does not allow for a shock with external air can. Less space for bottle.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    45
    The 150mm Pike is really nice on the Sight . Big difference to the Revelation . Better in every way really (apart from slightly heavier of course) : small bump sensitivity , big hit ability , tracking , stiffness etc. also all the lockout settings work a lot better . Very rarely do you need to use the climb setting , trail setting kills a lot of bob when out of the saddle pedalling while still enabling the fork to work pretty well unlike with the Revelation , there isn't a great deal of bob in open setting either.

    Problem is now the front end is so good , makes me want to improve rear suspension performance. Have the stock fox factory BV CTD shock atm which is ok but thinking about a Cane Creek DB air CS.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    15
    I was afraid you were going to say that. That sounds great. Looks like you will be shelling out more cash for the DBair. I think I will need to keep the revelation because I would be the same. Upgrade to pike but then need to put something like a DB inline so it would match front and back performance. So keep the stock item. I'm sure it will be great anyway. Still haven't ridden it yet. Waiting on wheel build. Can't wait

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    5
    Guys, I had with me the carbon version of the Sight with a stock 140mm rockshox revelation. Given to the carbon material on the frame, I am wondering whether I can swap the current fork with a longer travel fork, say 150 or 160mm. My concern is whether the frame can take a longer travel fork without voiding the warranty on the bike. On the other hand, it the swap is possible, do I need to match the rear shock with the same travel as the front?

    Hopefully you guys can help me out on this. Thanks in advance.

    Eric

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    45
    Quite a few people have specced new Carbon Sights from dealers with Pikes. I haven't seen an official answer but i can't see a 10mm increase in fork length invalidating a warranty. Pretty sure 2015 model pikes will be available in most lengths . Certainly a 140mm 650b model if not available now is being released very soon. I don't think you can alter the rear travel length on the sight but for me a shock change would be more about extra performance to match the front end rather than the travel .

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Can-Am's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    42
    The bare frame weights dont seem that far off to me , 2.8 vs 3.4 . Would that really be all that noticeable ? Im thinking of replacing my Rocky Team Element with the Carbon Sight 7.2 . Im mostly an XC guy , but its time to update .
    Bikes , Boats , Boards .

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    15
    You're right. It's not that far off but the figures going around the inter-web was closer to 5lbs than 6. I thought I would just settle it and let people know what the actual frame weight is. So the frame itself is 2.5kg and the shock RS. RT. 300grams. That said, the extra grams won't be felt on the trail. Rockshox have allowed upgradble RT to debonair. I wonder if they will release a revelation with a charger damper? Then allow you to buy the damper as aftermarket upgrade for your 2014 fork. That'd be cool.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    45
    One and a half pounds is a nice weight reduction but not massive. If i was buying this year then i would have bought the Carbon but the cost to upgrade is massive so i won't be doing it. I could buy a Sight 7.1 carbon for exactly the same money as i paid for the Killer B1 when i bought it last year from the UK which is a much better deal.The Carbon Sights are looking pretty good value in the UK atm , but looks like next years spec will be pretty much spot on if the bike come with Pikes and maybe the frames will be changed slightly to accommodate more rear shock choice.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-23-2013, 12:31 PM
  2. RumbleFish Pro or Norco Sight Killer B 2
    By gunner.989 in forum Trek
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-22-2013, 10:11 AM
  3. Long term review: 2012 Norco Sight 1
    By Biggles604 in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-24-2012, 12:55 PM
  4. Norco Sight 650b
    By LeeL in forum 27.5
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 10:38 PM
  5. 2012 Norco Sight Review.
    By Biggles604 in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 08:52 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •