Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shift Worker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    63

    Blur XC with 120 fork or Blur TR

    Howdy,

    Has anyone ridden both the blur XC and the blur TR (with a 120 fork)? I'm having a damn hard time finding demos, or even just finding them built up in a shop. If you've ridden both, could you give me a quick comparo? I don't need a magazine length comparison, just your thoughts on how they ride. I can get the XC frame for much cheaper than a Tr frame and if there's not that huge of a difference, I'd prefer to save some dough. I've heard the XC feels fairly slack up front with the longer fork. To avert the typical "it depends of your riding style and typical trails" response...

    This is a 1 bike quiver, I live in Tahoe, I've been riding my old(er) ventana el fuego (2.8 inches of travel) on the trails here fine (Xmas valley/big meadow, the bench, stagecoach loop, but not Toads). Getting older and being here in Tahoe now I need a slacker head angle and more squish for my aging bones. I won't be racing, but I do care to have a fun and efficient climb up the techy stuff. I won't be bringing this bike to any lift-access stuff or hucking anything larger than a petrified horse poop.

    Thanks,
    SW

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    568
    Sorry, I run the XCc with a 100 up front. I can tell you though with a 120, it is TRc slack. The headtube angle on the XCc is 68.3 with a 120 (69.5 with a 100). That's very close to the TRC with a 130 which is listed at 68.0. A TRc with a 120 would be about 68.5. Either way they are roughly similar in geo when running the 120 on the XCc. The biggest difference is the rear travel. The XCc is a "taut" bike that accelerates and climbs better without any pedal bob. The TRc is more plush and soaks up the rough stuff on the downhills better. Either bike will be more plush than what you are used to.

    I know it's impossible to find an XCc to demo. Seems easier to find the TRc demo.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: expatrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    609
    I used to own a XC with a 120 fork. I own a TRc right now (with a 150 fork). There is no question in my mind the TRc is worlds apart in terms of its all round ability. The XC is a XC bike. While it was pretty capable for a XC bike, it is not not in the same league as the TRc when things point down. Now, the TRc is not as efficient going uphill on a fire road, but it climbs better up and over tech, which I know you have a lot of in Tahoe. Going down, the XC will hold you back when things get sketchy, but the TRc is very confidence inspiring in all situations up to where something like a Nomad (my other bike), is needed.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    381
    I have ridden and owned both. The XC is supper capable and great fun with a 120 fork. It still has an XC quickness to it and yet has a little in the bank for when the trail gets steeper.

    The TR with a 120mm is a very good ride. I found that it was quicker and more stable, much faster in the rough and much faster in berms with higher confidence.

    I measured my BBs and the XC was 327mm and the Tr (to confuse you) with 130mm front travel is 330mm. The TR with 120mm front will be lower than a XC, by a fraction mind. This lowness, coupled with the longer wheel base gives it the extra stability.

    When approaching brake bump corners, the TR uses it's rear travel advantage and stability to give you that confident ride. With a 120mm front fork, it is a super fast steerer too. It is more fun to rip (for me) because of this.

    Also, tech climbing is very stable, so you can prop and stop and continue. The only downside is that you may need to prop and stop, because it is lower with a 120mm fork.

    For climbing, a TR with a 120mm wanders far less than a XC with 120mm. In fact, the TR with this fork doesn't wander at all, it's planted. The XC isn't bad or terrible, but you will get a little from time to time, nothing some seat rape can't solve.

    In a nut shell, the XC is quicker up by a little but the Tr is much quicker down. For me, I felt I could extend more and do more with the TR in this mode.

    Of course, now I have 130mm front and it is a bike in a different mode again, let's say, less XC orientated and more down capable.

    Both bikes are great with a 120mm front. Good luck.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    568
    Agree with expat. If you're after a plusher all-rounder 1 quiver, get the TRc. It's also more suited for Tahoe than the XC. The XC really excels on buff single track with lots of climbing (such as a lot of Bay Area trails).

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shift Worker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    63
    Thanks for the info! I should have asked this before spending hours scouring the net.

Similar Threads

  1. WWT: my large 2012 Blur Xcc for a L Blur TRc
    By daniel harvey in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-18-2013, 10:40 AM
  2. Endurance bike SC blur xc or Sc blur Trail
    By Whason in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2012, 12:21 PM
  3. 32 to 36 fork on Blur LT2
    By maxwolfie in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-30-2011, 08:38 AM
  4. Difficulty to Swap Blur XC Frame to Blur XC Carbon
    By alanmeyer in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-10-2011, 10:59 AM
  5. Fork for Blur?
    By CraigH in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-12-2004, 11:59 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
  •