Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 63
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369

    Is a Santa Cruz Solo too much bike for XC?

    Hi,
    I am in the market for a 650b full sus bike for XC.
    I am wondering if the Santa Cruz Solo is too much bike for someone who wants it for XC and maybe the occasional race.
    My riding is a mix of fireroad climbs and descents, some singletrack but nothing extreme.
    I see the solo is light and has 120mm of travel. How well would it work with a light build for XC?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: t0pcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    527
    Hard to say with out knowing more about you but it is a very nice bike I just got mine today
    An adventure is misery and discomfort, relived in the safety of reminiscence. Marco Polo

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    220
    Why not? Has similar specs (travel/HA/weight) as the Yeti ASR5-C. I am planing on building out a SoloC as a light weight XC bike later this year.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369
    That was my plan as well- XX1 build of my own with light wheels, light tires, light bar/stem and rigid seatpost.
    Can the Fork be shortened to 120mm?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AMjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    186
    The answer to this question will sound a lot like the story of three bears. For some 100mm of travel is plenty for cross country while for others 120 is just right. I had a 100mm travel xc bike and it was not enough bike for me, went up to a 140mm from there and that was just right for the most part. Now I am on a Bronson with 150mm and it feels just right. If I was to get an xc bike it would be a 29er with at least 120mm, Ripley, Trance 29er and SB-85 come to mind. Yet that orange on the Solo is sweeet!

    Test ride it on a trail if you can before you buy.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veteran_youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    765
    Looks like it's off the site now, but you can find yourself a Blur XC, run a 1x set up to avoid a F der (cable rub on tire under compression) and throw some 650s on it.

    Just built a stock Solo XX1 and it was a bit heavier than I thought it would be (27 even no pedals, with reverb and heavy tires set up tubeless, mind you). Wouldn't be crazy to get it down to 25, but that is where my stock 3x10 SPX Blur XC sat out the box anyway (tubes and 26" wheels, though tubeless 650 was about the same).

    Save some cash and get an 'out-dated' bike (i.e. they will probably be making one with 650 wheels soon enough, that will be almost exactly the same) that is built for the job rather than trying to force the Solo into that category.

    Search this forum for many Blur XC conversion threads.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    It really is a personal choice, but for mainly fireroads with a little single track and racing, I'd say look at 29ers in 100mm. I'm on a Tallboy with 100mm rear and 120mm up front is it more than enough for XC riding. Everyone loves a ton of travel, I bet a lot of them aren't even using it.

    Here I am at Bryce Mountain's BrewThru on the Tallboy

    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    551
    The Giant Anthem Advanced looks like the ticket for what you are looking for. Wish I could sell my Ventana El Bastardo 100mm travel bike so I could pick up the Giant. Just can't justify buying the Giant without selling my Ventana because they would be too similar. Just very interested in trying out a carbon FS bike.

  9. #9
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by veteran_youth View Post
    Looks like it's off the site now, but you can find yourself a Blur XC, run a 1x set up to avoid a F der (cable rub on tire under compression) and throw some 650s on it.

    Just built a stock Solo XX1 and it was a bit heavier than I thought it would be (27 even no pedals, with reverb and heavy tires set up tubeless, mind you). Wouldn't be crazy to get it down to 25, but that is where my stock 3x10 SPX Blur XC sat out the box anyway (tubes and 26" wheels, though tubeless 650 was about the same).

    Save some cash and get an 'out-dated' bike (i.e. they will probably be making one with 650 wheels soon enough, that will be almost exactly the same) that is built for the job rather than trying to force the Solo into that category.

    Search this forum for many Blur XC conversion threads.
    This is what I'm riding in Pro XC. 22.7 lbs WITH pedals and bottle cage, 650b 1x10 setup, and real tires (2.25 RaRa/ 2.25 RoRo). Fantastic bike...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: madsedan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,484
    I'd race a Solo C at 120mm if its under 25#, jus sayin'.
    I'm excited about the anthem 27.5 with 100mm, I would love to take one for a test spin.
    Hardrock 29er, Niner EMD9, Cannondale F29, Camber Expert, 650b Nickel all gone.
    2014 Giant Anthem 27.5 here.

  11. #11
    JCL
    JCL is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    876
    What a bizarre question. It's a trail bike designed for general trail riding. How would it be too much?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by JCL View Post
    What a bizarre question. It's a trail bike designed for general trail riding. How would it be too much?
    Because you don't need and most likely won't come close to using 120mm riding fireroads and what most people consider XC trails. So why have the disadvantages. The WB on the Solo is an inch longer than my Tallboy, nothing is a free ride everything has trade off. Hell by your reasoning, why not get the Bronson?

    Since they are both VPP, it's fair to say that a longer travel bike won't pedal as efficiently either.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  13. #13
    JCL
    JCL is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Because you don't need and most likely won't come close to using 120mm riding fireroads and what most people consider XC trails. So why have the disadvantages. The WB on the Solo is an inch longer than my Tallboy, nothing is a free ride everything has trade off. Hell by your reasoning, why not get the Bronson?

    Since they are both VPP, it's fair to say that a longer travel bike won't pedal as efficiently either.
    Yes I would probably go with the Bronson as the weights are similar and I wouldn't be limited to fireroads. As you say, they're both VPP and have very similar anti-squat so there would be little difference apart from weight.

    I don't get your wheelbase point.

  14. #14
    undercover brother
    Reputation: tangaroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    877
    I just did an XC race on my Yeti SB66 weighing in at over 32 lbs and posted the 3rd best lap time. I think the Solo will do fine unless you're looking for an absolute racing rig.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,640
    As people said, it's really personal preference. For fire roads and a bit of singletrack I think a 29er hardtail would be ideal, unless the fire roads are really rough.

    I had a 650b-converted TRc, which is essentially the SOLO, and also a TBc. The TRc was a really fun trail bike, but the TBc has always been my choice for racing (my terrain is rocky, rooty, and technical singletrack). If you want a FS bike, I think a short-travel 29er would be ideal. I feel like the TB is faster than the TR overall and climbs better. The TR was better downhill, more "tossable", and absolutely railed high-speed twisty stuff. The TB also makes a great trail bike -- I ride it in all sorts of terrain.

    That said, I wouldn't hesitate to race on a SOLO if that's all I had, especially if it were built up fairly light. I used to race a Stumpjumper FSR 29er, which had more travel and was heavier (about 30 lbs), and I don't think it slowed me down much. It's really more about the rider than the bike.

    Another consideration is geometry preference. Do you like quick handling or something more stable feeling? If you like a quick-handling bike, then a 650b-converted Blur XC would be great. For high speed stability and bombing downhill, the SOLO would be better.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by JCL View Post
    Yes I would probably go with the Bronson as the weights are similar and I wouldn't be limited to fireroads. As you say, they're both VPP and have very similar anti-squat so there would be little difference apart from weight.

    I don't get your wheelbase point.
    You don't get it period.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  17. #17
    JCL
    JCL is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    You don't get it period.
    Yep I do XC races on a 29lb, 130mm, 29" with 2.3" tires and while it isn't perfect, it's adequate. I don't know why anyone wouldn't think a 120mm trail bike isn't suitable for general mountain biking and occasional XC racing? I have a hard time thinking of a better bike. Maybe a 110mm 29"?

    Still confused by your wheelbase point...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by bootsie_cat View Post
    Can the Fork be shortened to 120mm?
    Why would you want a shorter fork, just going to steepen the HA and give you less travel and make it more sketchy on steep technical stuff.

    My plans are to go with a Fox Float 140. Looking at Fox's site there is no weight difference between the 120 and 140. The extra travel is not really going to effect the XC pedaling of the bike and going to help on the downhills.

  19. #19
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by bootsie_cat View Post
    Hi,
    I am in the market for a 650b full sus bike for XC.
    I am wondering if the Santa Cruz Solo is too much bike for someone who wants it for XC and maybe the occasional race.
    My riding is a mix of fireroad climbs and descents, some singletrack but nothing extreme.
    I see the solo is light and has 120mm of travel. How well would it work with a light build for XC?
    The Solo isn't an XC race bike. Geometry is most similar to the TRc, one of the best trail bikes around (26").

    That said, for mostly XC-ish riding it would be fine. Certainly raceable (any bike is, really), especially if built up light enough.

    It would be much cheaper and easier to build up a 4" travel bike (like the Blur XCc), and it would still be a great XC/light trail bike. My Blur XCc has NOT been babied on lame fireroads and easy singletrack, and I haven't come close to finding its limits yet.

    If most folks are honest about it, a bike like the Solo could handle everything up to light freeride and then some. Most folks have too much bike (travel, weight) for their application, and aren't really honest with themselves about how "aggro" their riding really is.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    The Solo isn't an XC race bike. Geometry is most similar to the TRc, one of the best trail bikes around (26").

    That said, for mostly XC-ish riding it would be fine. Certainly raceable (any bike is, really), especially if built up light enough.

    It would be much cheaper and easier to build up a 4" travel bike (like the Blur XCc), and it would still be a great XC/light trail bike. My Blur XCc has NOT been babied on lame fireroads and easy singletrack, and I haven't come close to finding its limits yet.

    If most folks are honest about it, a bike like the Solo could handle everything up to light freeride and then some. Most folks have too much bike (travel, weight) for their application, and aren't really honest with themselves about how "aggro" their riding really is.
    This is the point I was trying to make and hopefully showing with a video. My TBc is 100mm and more than enough XC.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by JCL View Post
    Yep I do XC races on a 29lb, 130mm, 29" with 2.3" tires and while it isn't perfect, it's adequate. I don't know why anyone wouldn't think a 120mm trail bike isn't suitable for general mountain biking and occasional XC racing? I have a hard time thinking of a better bike. Maybe a 110mm 29"?

    Still confused by your wheelbase point...
    You consider fireroads general mountain biking?

    You're answering for you, not the OPs question. OP said mostly fireroads, WTF would you recommend a 120mm bike with trail geometry.

    Sorry there are better bikes for the OPs purpose, can it be done- yes but is it the best use of the bike- no.

    Wheelbase plays a role in maneuverability like other geo numbers, since the OP doesn't sound like they spend a ton of time in the air, 'flickability' is most likely low on the list, which is the point of a 650B bike. The solo is going to have the same wheelbase, almost the same chainstay, yet geo designed more for trail/all mountain, why not get something better suited to what you're looking to do like the TB?
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    why not get something better suited to what you're looking to do like the TB?
    If the Solo can be built out to the same weight as TB and preform just as well on fire roads and XC/single track. Why not go with a Solo? Give him more versatility later on if he decides to starts riding rougher more technical trails.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    351
    I think some of us are thrown by the question about being "too much bike". When you then read the description, the better question might have been "Is it the best bike for me?"

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandyeggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    425
    I think a Solo would be a fine choice (the other choices folks mentioned are also fine choices).

    Is a Solo "too much" for your type of riding? Possibly. But if you want an all around fun bike that will be just fine in the occasional XC race, I don't think you'd go wrong with the Solo**. This is exactly how I use my Solo and I love it. I fall smack dab in the category of having more bike than I need (or will ever need), but I don't care because the Solo is a total blast to ride on the XC-type trails I ride.

    If the Solo tickles your fancy, I personally wouldn't rule it out because of the travel or because it may be a bit beefier than what you really "need". My advice is try out a a few bikes and get the bike that gives you the most smiles - amount of travel be damned.

    ** I'm admittedly biased.
    2015 Trek Stache 7
    2015 Salsa El Mariachi
    2015 Niner RLT

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bigfruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    861
    get the solo. 120mm is not too much for XC racing. you can build it up light.

    don't get stuck with a 100mm fork.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,874
    Quote Originally Posted by bootsie_cat View Post
    Hi,
    I am in the market for a 650b full sus bike for XC.
    I am wondering if the Santa Cruz Solo is too much bike for someone who wants it for XC and maybe the occasional race.
    My riding is a mix of fireroad climbs and descents, some singletrack but nothing extreme.
    I see the solo is light and has 120mm of travel. How well would it work with a light build for XC?
    To my mind it sounds like all you need is an XC hardtail, but I really don't know what your trails are like. You say nothing extreme, but the means different things to different people.
    Joe
    '12 Santa Cruz Highball 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", '06 Rocky Mtn Switch 26" XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  27. #27
    Zaf
    Zaf is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    476
    I run my Fuel EX for cross country, but the terrain is quite technical, and you can really make use of those slightly slacker angles and longer travel. I would go so far as to say that it's made for it out here. I also run a Superfly, and that is fantastic, but for any race where I suspect I'll be in the saddle for more than an hour or two (and depending on the course) I usually need to pull out the full susser.

    Depends though, I just raced a 6hours enduro out in Gippsland recently and most of the trails were quite smooth except for one decent rocky section, and the 29er was beautiful. Get a bike appropriate for your terrain and riding, certainly don't make a bike choice based of what the status quo is for travel on a XC bike.

  28. #28
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    This is what I'm riding in Pro XC. 22.7 lbs WITH pedals and bottle cage, 650b 1x10 setup, and real tires (2.25 RaRa/ 2.25 RoRo). Fantastic bike...
    OT: which size front ring, btw?
    Can't wait for the snow to melt and the dirt to dry

  29. #29
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by DLd View Post
    OT: which size front ring, btw?
    36t. 11-36 cassette.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by bootsie_cat View Post
    Hi,
    I am in the market for a 650b full sus bike for XC.
    I am wondering if the Santa Cruz Solo is too much bike for someone who wants it for XC and maybe the occasional race.
    My riding is a mix of fireroad climbs and descents, some singletrack but nothing extreme.
    I see the solo is light and has 120mm of travel. How well would it work with a light build for XC?
    You can build the Solo light and it will work very well for XC. It will certainly have an advantage on the downs over a pure XC bike. It climbs really well too. I have a Solo and a 23lb Blur XCc (with a 100mm fork up front). When the trail gets chunky, the Solo is a heck of a lot more fun than the XCc. Having said that, the XCc is a race bike and will smoke any trail bike on an XC course (assuming the same engine of course).

    The beauty of the Solo is that it handles everything from XC to AM without skipping a beat. Yes, I'd race the XCc, but its gathering dust now as the Solo is just so much fun to ride. If you're looking for a do-it-all bike, the Solo should definitely be on your short list.

  31. #31
    JCL
    JCL is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    You consider fireroads general mountain biking?

    You're answering for you, not the OPs question. OP said mostly fireroads, WTF would you recommend a 120mm bike with trail geometry.

    Sorry there are better bikes for the OPs purpose, can it be done- yes but is it the best use of the bike- no.

    Wheelbase plays a role in maneuverability like other geo numbers, since the OP doesn't sound like they spend a ton of time in the air, 'flickability' is most likely low on the list, which is the point of a 650B bike. The solo is going to have the same wheelbase, almost the same chainstay, yet geo designed more for trail/all mountain, why not get something better suited to what you're looking to do like the TB?
    I've never heard of an XC race that solely takes place on fireroads? Well maybe that glorified road race Leadville? Anyway I still think it would be a fantastic bike. I personally wouldn't want a 650b bike with less than 120mm or a 29" with 110mm as preloading/using the suspension to your advantage (cornering grip, doubling up small things) with less than 90mm or so (post sag) isn't very rewarding IMO.

    I'm still not sure I get your wheelbase argument. I'm sure the Solo would be the more stable, confidence inspiring bike for hauling down loose fireroads. Terrain where a 29" has the least advantage over smaller wheels. However, I'm sure you're right, a Tallboy would be also be a great bike for the OP. I haven't really studied the numbers but I would have thought a Solo is the 650b equivalent of a Tallboy isn't it?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    Most folks have too much bike (travel, weight) for their application, and aren't really honest with themselves about how "aggro" their riding really is.
    You nailed it. So glad someone had the balls to say it. So many jokers on this forum talk about having so much travel and most of them don't use it or ride as hard as my 7 year old. So glad someone finally said it. Great statement.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    551
    I say stay away from Santa Cruz entirely because they are way overpriced. But hey that just me. I'd rather buy an Ibis Ripley or Giant Anthem Advanced 1 for my money.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by procos View Post
    I say stay away from Santa Cruz entirely because they are way overpriced. But hey that just me. I'd rather buy an Ibis Ripley or Giant Anthem Advanced 1 for my money.
    Right because $2650 for a 1/2 carbon frame is such a deal compared to $2699 for a full carbon frame.

    By the way compare apples to apples, Trance Advanced 1 27.5 is $5350 with a performance level fork, the Solo is $5999 with a Factory fork.

    So pedal that Giant great value crap somewhere else, it's old and frankly not true.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Right because $2650 for a 1/2 carbon frame is such a deal compared to $2699 for a full carbon frame.

    By the way compare apples to apples, Trance Advanced 1 27.5 is $5350 with a performance level fork, the Solo is $5999 with a Factory fork.

    So pedal that Giant great value crap somewhere else, it's old and frankly not true.
    I'm not pedaling anything. I don't own a Giant. I own 2 Ventana's, El Padrino and El Bastardo, which are both Aluminum frame bike's. However if I was going to buy a new bike I'd purchase a Carbon frame FS 650B and it would be either an Ibis or Giant. It definitely wouldn't be an overpriced Santa Cruz. But if you are happy with your Santa Cruz that is great. Just don't acuse me of pedaling anything. Someone asked opinions and I gave mine. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    This is the point I was trying to make and hopefully showing with a video. My TBc is 100mm and more than enough XC.
    While I enjoyed your video, that is the most groomed single track I've every seen. It could be ridden on any bike.... I'm not trying to insult you, it looked like a really fun line and I would enjoy riding it.

  37. #37
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiendbear View Post
    When the trail gets chunky, the Solo is a heck of a lot more fun than the XCc. Having said that, the XCc is a race bike and will smoke any trail bike on an XC course (assuming the same engine of course).
    Glad some had the balls to finally say it.

    Yeah, lots of folks get more travel than they ever use, and I think in some cases there's a quality of plush that they perceive to enjoy despite having never gone deep into the travel. Seems a lot to me like that spotless clean Hummer H3s with 32" tires that make their way around L.A. [Did he just call half of MTBR a bunch of poseurs? What percentage of that 50% just got their thong panties in a wad?]

    Joking aside, I'm split on the answer to the OP's question: Twotone is right in that a nice 29er hardtail will be plenty of bike for fire roads and single track (its what and where I ride too); Good geometry for the purpose. On the other hand, the Solo looks like not the worst option for someone considering a FS rig for general riding; It's more slack than said 29er xc hardtail, but reportedly still climbs reasonably well. Most importantly, the OP stated that he's in the market for a 650b FS bike. As such, the Solo looks like one of the better choices in said category (especially considering the 6" travel push that first showed up with FS B-bikes). I'd also look at Giant, Scott and upcoming 120mm offerings from KHS.
    Great prices - some sweet vintage stuff: http://classifieds.mtbr.com/showprod...product=101010

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by procos View Post
    I'm not pedaling anything. I don't own a Giant. I own 2 Ventana's, El Padrino and El Bastardo, which are both Aluminum frame bike's. However if I was going to buy a new bike I'd purchase a Carbon frame FS 650B and it would be either an Ibis or Giant. It definitely wouldn't be an overpriced Santa Cruz. But if you are happy with your Santa Cruz that is great. Just don't acuse me of pedaling anything. Someone asked opinions and I gave mine. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
    The point is you come in drop a one liner about overpriced Santa Cruz, yet Giants cost the same, so Giant's must be over priced too.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    The point is you come in drop a one liner about overpriced Santa Cruz, yet Giants cost the same, so Giant's must be over priced too.
    Are you kidding me? The prices aren't even close. If you buy a complete Anthem Advanced 1 with all XT it is $4750. The Solo with an SLX buid is $5999. So you pay more for the Santa Cruz and get inferior components. Not sure how you did your math. Maybe the frames cost the same but if you are buying completed bikes it isn't even close.

  40. #40
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    This is the point I was trying to make and hopefully showing with a video. My TBc is 100mm and more than enough XC.

    BTW, I found that video to be thoroughly entertaining. Back to the arguing!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by procos View Post
    Are you kidding me? The prices aren't even close. If you buy a complete Anthem Advanced 1 with all XT it is $4750. The Solo with an SLX buid is $5999. So you pay more for the Santa Cruz and get inferior components. Not sure how you did your math. Maybe the frames cost the same but if you are buying completed bikes it isn't even close.
    LOL compare apples to apples, not 100mm travel bike to 120mm bike. So again how hard is it to follow comparing the SAME bikes it's
    Trance Advanced 1 27.5 is $5350 with a performance level fork, the Solo is $5999 with a Factory fork.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bigfruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    I'm on a Tallboy with 100mm rear and 120mm up front is it more than enough for XC riding. Everyone loves a ton of travel, I bet a lot of them aren't even using it.

    Here I am at Bryce Mountain's BrewThru on the Tallboy
    haha. if your trails are that well groomed you don't need any travel at all. get a 32" rigid.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,019

    Solo geometry

    Can a Solo owner verify for us the actual BB height? This is best done w/ a framing square measured from a level surface to center of crank spindle in the in- sagged or statice position. Please also provide the ground to centerline wheel axle ( to eliminate variances in tire height). We will assume stock 650 b Fox fork.

    Thanks!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,639
    Remember the Solo has 130 mm of travel up front, 125 mm in the rear. The 130 mm for can be changed to either 140 mm or 120 mm by means of the internal spacer in the fork. If I got this bike, it would be because I want a bike that can handle XC as well as trail/AM duties. For that I think it is the perfect bike.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: motard5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    251
    I'm sure it would be fine, but probably not optimal from what you described as your regular riding. As always get what you like and find most comfortable to ride - fit (geometry) is most important. Though it seems many riders are not quite honest with the 90% of their riding. Its easy to get caught up in the new enduro marketing these days, and get something that isn't right for the other 10% of your rides.

    It took a couple of friends a couple of bikes to realize finally realize 100mm or hardtail in 29er form actually increased the fun on their typical fireroad/buff singletrack rides. I've seen it before...150 to 120 finally down to 100mm!

  46. #46
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,415
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Because you don't need and most likely won't come close to using 120mm riding fireroads and what most people consider XC trails. So why have the disadvantages. The WB on the Solo is an inch longer than my Tallboy, nothing is a free ride everything has trade off. Hell by your reasoning, why not get the Bronson?

    Since they are both VPP, it's fair to say that a longer travel bike won't pedal as efficiently either.
    Around here we don't consider fireroads "XC" We consider any trail that you climb and descend "XC". Some are buff, some are rocky but they're all just places to ride. Nobody says "I'm going for an XC ride, or a trail ride or an all mountain ride. We just go for a ride.

    To me a better way of putting the question would have been, "we don't have a lot of technical, rocky single track with big climbs or descents where I mostly ride, would a Solo be overkill?

    If that's the case I'd say yes.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Around here we don't consider fireroads "XC" We consider any trail that you climb and descend "XC". Some are buff, some are rocky but they're all just places to ride. Nobody says "I'm going for an XC ride, or a trail ride or an all mountain ride. We just go for a ride.

    To me a better way of putting the question would have been, "we don't have a lot of technical, rocky single track with big climbs or descents where I mostly ride, would a Solo be overkill?

    If that's the case I'd say yes.
    I'm not the op, so it wasn't up to me to pose the question. That said the op did say "My riding is a mix of fireroad climbs and descents, some singletrack but nothing extreme."

    That would imply most of the riding is fireroads, but everyone ignored that, I'm surprised people didn't tell the OP to get an Bronson.
    If someone asks about riding mainly fireroads, a short travel 29er is much better for that than a 125mm 650B bike.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfruits View Post
    haha. if your trails are that well groomed you don't need any travel at all. get a 32" rigid.
    That was a mountain bike park, not my local trails. My point was if I can get some air and do the 2ft-3ft drops at a bike park on 100mm travel at 210lbs, I really doubt you need 125mm for fireroads and some single track.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  49. #49
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,777
    The Solo is not made for spandex... It would be an insult to Santa Cruz

    EVIL Following
    Yeti
    SB-66A

    Surly Wednesday

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14

    Is a Santa Cruz Solo too much bike for XC?

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    LOL compare apples to apples, not 100mm travel bike to 120mm bike. So again how hard is it to follow comparing the SAME bikes it's
    Trance Advanced 1 27.5 is $5350 with a performance level fork, the Solo is $5999 with a Factory fork.
    The Trance Advanced 1 is a 140mm bike with full XT and a dropper post. The Solo R build is 125mm with SLX and no dropper post.

    In Australia the Trance is even cheaper at $4800 AUD. So the Giant is most definitely a better valued bike.

    The equivalent Solo SPX build costs about $7000 here in Australia. You do get a factory fork and a rockshox reverb, which is better than the Trance spec. But the rest of the spec is pretty much equivalent.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 81
    Last Post: 04-12-2014, 08:22 PM
  2. Santa Cruz Solo aluminum project
    By mrbeef523 in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-27-2014, 12:22 PM
  3. Enter to Win a Santa Cruz Solo and help the future of mountain biking in VT
    By VTmojo in forum Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-15-2013, 08:01 AM
  4. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-13-2013, 12:05 AM
  5. New Santa Cruz SOLO trail bike
    By venture in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-26-2013, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

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