Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    114

    Frame weight - Sight 1 Carbon vs Range 1 Carbon

    I am struggling to decide whether to go with the Sight Carbon vs the Range Carbon (Large size).

    Sensible me says the Sight, with the type of trails I typically ride - technical ups and downs, 20 - 30 mile rides. But the fun side of me wants the Range with a bit more travel and the Pike forks and RC3 shock being very attractive.

    Does anyone have frame weights for the respective frames in a Large size?...that might help me decide.

    I am coming off a Santa Cruz Blur LTc, so any comparisons or opinions on differences would be appreciated.

    Chris

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socalMX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,137
    Weight is not the only factor. Are your trails all mountain type with some gnar DH sections or mostly XC type trails?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    114
    I have a wide range of trails that I ride. For XC stuff I am using a Rocky Mountain Element 29er. So the idea of the Norco would be to use it on the more DH tech sections, but need to be able to pedal up to get to the tech DH trails.

    Here in Sydney we have a lot of sandstone ledges, steep sections and loose rubble....not very forgiving on the bike or body. I currently use my Blur LTc for that purpose and have done for the past 3 years, but the carbon Norcos have really caught my eye!

    Quote Originally Posted by socalMX View Post
    Weight is not the only factor. Are your trails all mountain type with some gnar DH sections or mostly XC type trails?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socalMX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,137
    What you described screams Range! A step up in capability from the Blur. The bike pedals really well, for that type of riding you WANT the reward of the DH...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    114
    I tend to agree with you, but a check on the frame weight would seal the deal for me...

    Does anyone know if the med or large Carbon Range frame with RC3 shock would be sub 6lb?



    Quote Originally Posted by socalMX View Post
    What you described screams Range! A step up in capability from the Blur. The bike pedals really well, for that type of riding you WANT the reward of the DH...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socalMX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,137
    I have posted this vid several times & it shows the Range coming in at about 27.5lbs and the Sight 26.5lbs complete. BUT the Range has Flows, Sight has Arch, Range has Pike Sight has Rev, Range has DBAir, Sight has CTD. Range has a burlier build that can take a beating so there is your pound. Seems the frames are close.

    Anything sub 29 is great for an AM machine. In my opinion one would give up too much DH capability just for a pound or so.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JHwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    124

    Frame weight - Sight 1 Carbon vs Range 1 Carbon

    I've just set up an alloy Range and the large sized frame weighed in at 3,330g, and 310g of that was the regular Float shock (so it's 3,010g for the frame w/o shock).
    Norco claims the carbon version is 20% lighter which should make the bare carbon frame a tad over 2,400g. From there it really depends on the shock that you choose. Anywhere from 2,700g with a standard Float up to almost 3kg with a DB Air.
    Pretty sure the Blur LTc frame is 2,700g including a Float shock, so it'll be similar to the new Range carbon. Only thing is you'll need to factor in extra grams for the slightly bigger wheels, a longer travel fork and maybe a piggyback shock.
    From what I understand the Sight Carbon frame is only 100-200g lighter than than the Range, but again there's going to be added weight with a 34mm fork versus 32 and a heftier rear shock.
    In the end the Range carbon may wind up being 300-700g heavier than a Blur LTc or Sight carbon but the Range still climbs and pedals really well. With 160mm of travel and dialled geometry it's great fun on the Oxford Falls/Red Hill sandstone ledges!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    114
    Thanks for all the info!

    I'm swaying back towards the Sight carbon based on scrutinizing the geometry vs the Range frame geometry. The 67.5 deg head angle on the Sight is already slacker than what I'm used to. Going to 66.5 deg on the Range might be pushing my luck with ability to pedal uphill effectively.

    I do prefer the Pike and Monarch RC3 on the Range though....very tough decision. Ideally it would be great to test ride both bikes, but I understand Range Carbon bikes will only be brought into Australia if ordered and deposit paid for in advance.



    Quote Originally Posted by JHwick View Post
    I've just set up an alloy Range and the large sized frame weighed in at 3,330g, and 310g of that was the regular Float shock (so it's 3,010g for the frame w/o shock).
    Norco claims the carbon version is 20% lighter which should make the bare carbon frame a tad over 2,400g. From there it really depends on the shock that you choose. Anywhere from 2,700g with a standard Float up to almost 3kg with a DB Air.
    Pretty sure the Blur LTc frame is 2,700g including a Float shock, so it'll be similar to the new Range carbon. Only thing is you'll need to factor in extra grams for the slightly bigger wheels, a longer travel fork and maybe a piggyback shock.
    From what I understand the Sight Carbon frame is only 100-200g lighter than than the Range, but again there's going to be added weight with a 34mm fork versus 32 and a heftier rear shock.
    In the end the Range carbon may wind up being 300-700g heavier than a Blur LTc or Sight carbon but the Range still climbs and pedals really well. With 160mm of travel and dialled geometry it's great fun on the Oxford Falls/Red Hill sandstone ledges!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JHwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    124

    Frame weight - Sight 1 Carbon vs Range 1 Carbon

    The 66.5 HA sounds slack but the steepish seat angle does help to keep the front end weighted on the climbs, and when you've got weight up front it's less likely to wander.
    I find my Range goes really well on the tech uphills.
    Last edited by JHwick; 12-28-2013 at 04:49 AM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    114
    I also noticed from the geometry specs that the large size Range has a 625mm top tube length...the Sight has a 615mm top tube.

    I did get to sit on a large Sight 7.2 carbon at a bike shop and the reach felt good at 615mm with a shortish stem.

    How do you find the large Range compared to bikes you've recently had? The Range frame will be a good 30mm longer than my equivalent sized Blur LTc. I'm 6'0" height.

    Thanks
    Chris.

    Quote Originally Posted by JHwick View Post
    The 66.5 HA sounds slack but the steepish seat angle does help to keep the front end weighted on the climbs, and when you've got weight up front it's less likely to wander.
    I find my Range goes really well on the tech uphills.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JHwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    124

    Frame weight - Sight 1 Carbon vs Range 1 Carbon

    The Range is a good 15-30mm longer than the others that I've ridden of late, so instead of running a 70 or 80mm stem, I'm now able to use a 50mm stem to get the same reach. I like a longish cockpit and the Range suits me in that way. Love the handling and feel of the bike when descending with a stubby 50mm stem.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    114
    So I went back to the bike shop and sat on a medium Range alloy - definitely felt too small for me, my knees were almost hitting the handlebars.

    I've put a deposit on a large Range carbon 7.1 - now the long wait until end of March for it to arrive!

    I noticed you have put some new Race Face SL single ring cranks on your Range - they definitely look awesome and might be an upgrade for me from the alloy SRAM X01 cranks that come stock on the carbon Range 7.1.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socalMX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,137
    You were told the END of March???

    I just put Next SLs on my Rune as well, 1/4lb lighter than XX1...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JHwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    124

    Frame weight - Sight 1 Carbon vs Range 1 Carbon

    Quote Originally Posted by field_c View Post
    So I went back to the bike shop and sat on a medium Range alloy - definitely felt too small for me, my knees were almost hitting the handlebars.
    I noticed you have put some new Race Face SL single ring cranks on your Range - they definitely look awesome and might be an upgrade for me from the alloy SRAM X01 cranks that come stock on the carbon Range 7.1.
    Personally I prefer to be on a slightly bigger frame with a shorter stem (176cm on a large with a 50mm stem). I'd only suggest going the other way if you want it to be extra nimble in the turns, at the expense of most other aspects.
    Half a dozen rides in and the cranks seem good so far. They saved 145g over the XX1 cranks that I had previously.
    Last edited by JHwick; 01-02-2014 at 06:42 PM.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sdemars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    220
    OP - on the head tube angle (HTA)
    I went from a short travel XC race 29er (Scott Spark 900 = 70.1 HTA) to an Ibis Mojo HD. Normally it has a 67 deg HTA but the 170 fork made it closer to 66.5. It felt slightly awkward on the ascent on the first two rides and just fine after that. It's been ridden up plenty of very steep and technical stuff here in Colorado, as well as plenty of Utah sandstone. In short - you'll get used to the HTA pretty darn quick. You'll appreciate the HTA immediately on the descents!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    136
    My dealer book says

    Sight carbon LE frame kit 2270 grams with no shock
    Range carbon LE frame kit 2400 grams with no shock


    i dont see how the Range Carbon will be sub 6lbs with a piggyback shock

    Matt
    Billy Goat Bikes
    8285752460

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JHwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketmatt17 View Post
    My dealer book says

    Sight carbon LE frame kit 2270 grams with no shock
    Range carbon LE frame kit 2400 grams with no shock


    i dont see how the Range Carbon will be sub 6lbs with a piggyback shock

    Matt
    Billy Goat Bikes
    8285752460
    Those dealer figures tie in pretty closely with my guestimate (which was based on the 20% saving over the alloy Range).
    The only way it'll get close to 6lbs (2,742g) complete is with a regular non-piggyback Float shock.
    Fitting a Monarch Plus would make it approx 2,820g while a DB Air would take it close to 3kg. These weights make it roughly the same as the Pivot Mach 6 and about 200g heavier than something like the Santa Cruz Bronson.

Similar Threads

  1. Norco Sight (26") - frame weight?
    By bigfruits in forum Norco
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-20-2013, 06:58 PM
  2. Carbon frame weight?
    By WarBoom in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-03-2012, 03:36 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-18-2011, 09:39 AM
  4. 2011 Jekyll Carbon Frame Weight vs. Alloy Frame Weight
    By freerideordie in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 09:31 PM
  5. Remedy Carbon frame weight
    By curbhuck in forum Trek
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-03-2011, 10:01 AM

Posting Permissions

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