Really enjoyed this video and other vids of yours I've watched. I like the way you break things down. You seem like a positive person. Thanks for making vids. Waiting (months) for my Norco Optic C2 Shimano preorder. Videos like this are getting me through 😁. Would also be really interested to see your take on the Fox suspension, if you ever find an Optic equipped with such 👍
Thank you very much for this , I was thinking of getting a norco but wanted to find out more about it since I never heard of it before until I came across a small family owned bike shop on a short road trip,I took it for a short test ride and was amazed at it, I want to get something that’s not more than $4k because I’m poor but want to get something that can handle hard core tech, and downhill, I’m thinking of getting a norco sight now since specialized is way out of my price range
Thanks for the thorough review! One thing - Tyres. I think you could have gotten a better comparison using the aame pair on both bikes. Tyres makes a big difference in bikes feeling and abilities, so this one could be left out of the equation. Now all I have left is to decide 😂
Thanks for doing this video. Where I live it is impossible (especially with Covid) to take bikes out and test them on trail. I'm ordering a 2022 StumpJumper Comp (Carbon - S4) but my bike shop suggested I order 1 or 2 others as my current 2010 Stumpy Comp is all I have ridden so I'm not sure how I'm going to like all this new geometry. He's suggesting that I also order a Norco Sight (27.5) and/or a Kona Process 134 (again 27.5). The trails here in Northern Ontario Canada that I ride are quite technical. Not crazy long climbs but some definitely have a lot of technical challenge on them. I don't mind climbing but I specifically bought my 2010 Stumpy to get something that climbs better than my 2001 Big Hit which I had previously. My Stumpy is 28lbs and the Big Hit was 37lbs and I know with all these new geometries (and 29" wheels) bike weight is definitely creeping back up. I've got no interest in racing or getting through trails as fast as possible and am definitely more in it for the exercise and being outdoors but again, don't ever want to have to pedal a 37lbs bike up hill! :) I should also mention I think I would prefer the 27.5 wheel size because the trails I like are definitely more technical and we don't have a lot of long descents (or at least the technical climbs far out weigh the descents). I just feel the smaller wheel size would be a) stronger (I'm 6'1" about 210lbs) and b) better for the tight technical stuff that I like to ride. I almost wish I would have bought last years Stumpy with the 27.5 wheels. I feel like your friend that went with the Stumpy and I have the same priorities when it comes to what bike I want which obviously why I will definitely have my LBS bring in the Stumpy but what else should I have them bring in to compare it against? (They're a Norco and Kona dealer as well somewhat obviously) Definitely very open to other people's comments as well - I'm really struggling with this and at $6kCDN (plus tax - 13%) it has some pretty significant financial ramifications as well.
The new stumpy you ordered will be the most similar to your current stumpy, especially with the flip-chip in the high setting. The two bikes they are suggesting would be a big change from your current setup and geometry. And they are going to be heavier than that stumpy in a similar model. However, the Norco Sight is a fantastic bike, and I think a better rider position. It is unfortunate you cannot test, but a 29er is better at climbing the tech, and as someone who pushed their Optic to the very edge of its abilities, so much more fun than a 27.5 on the tech steep down and more capable. If you like the specialized rider position you should look at a Santa Crus or n Ibis, they share that very neutral rider position design. I hope all of this info helps. I would not shy away from that Stumpjumper based on what you are describing as your riding style! It is an excellent bike that climbs very well and is fun to play on.
@@LoamRoamer Thank you for such a detailed response - it does really help! I think I'll definitely get them to bring in a Sight and try that for comparison knowing that it will be a completely different feel. It does suck though that the best I'll be able to do is to ride them both around the parking lot. In terms of the Santa Cruz I'm assuming you're talking about a Hightower? We do have an SC dealer here so maybe I'll drop in and see if they can bring one in for me to ride around the parking lot and at least that gives me another option. Much appreciated!
I just picked up a 2021 Stumpy Comp Carbon S4. The optic was for sure on my list, but there are no where to be found for purchase or testing. I wanted something with good geo, but with more pop and pep and less smash than my longer travel bike for less aggressive trail days. Still sorting the suspension to my liking, but thus far I am super happy with it. Set a few PR's even with the heavy stock wheels and meh tires that came with it and not trying that hard. Cannot wait once my new, much lighter wheels come in and I can pair them with tires I trust more (DHF and Dissector).
Hi, when it gets really rocky/chunky. That isn't he time when you slow down or take a Sight. I do some brutal things on the optic, and ride some steeps and drops, but repeated hit rock gardens are not a sweet spot. With a cascade link and the online ttx2 air it is way better there, but not enough.
awesome video man, i ride auburn as well, altough not as much as i would like. Last time i went, i did clementine to culvert to confluence. Loved culvert, but the climb to get there was way too long for how short it was, and then confluence really wasn't all that fun, and not worth the climb either. What are your favorite routes to do?
Oh man, you are feeling my pain about Auburn. So much fire road climbing for such short runs. But there is a better route where there is singletrack climbing, and some crazy good descending that is technical. Look for me on Strava and message me when you do. I will tell you which rides to look at. You want to ride in Mammoth and on some side trails! Steeper, faster, technical, and worth the climbing. Cheers.
So sounds like Optic behaves more like Stumpy alloy. Same susp design so that would make sense. How much of downhillability can be tuned back into Stumpy with proper tires and maybe different shock tune?
The geo is also different, so while they share a similar suspension design, the stumpy is geared towards trail geo. The Optic has shorter chainstays and lends itself to a bike that can handle the steeper and chunkier better. The Stumpy is an awesome trail bike and I would change chocks and tires if I bought it. But it does not have the same overall design. And I upgraded the Optic to an Ohlins TTX Air and Cascade link it is a legit ripper now. So good on some really steep technical stuff.
Unless I read it wrong, it heard you wrong, I think you said the C1 is a 4k bike when it's actually the C3 that's 4k. The C1 is about 6.4k with an axs option for over 10k. Sweet bike though!
@@LoamRoamer I think I'm pretty set on the C3. On paper I reeeeally don't see much difference, especially considering I'm just getting back into the game after a decade of letting my quads shrink. I have a set of SLX 4pots to throw on if I feel it needs more brake. $6400cad vs $4800cad doesn't seem like the price jump is worth it. Do you think the full GX or XT vs shimano shitmix makes a significant difference?
I am a little confused when you suggest that Norco has significantly longer wheelbase. Norco Optic they are from s to xl 1157, 1196, 1235, 1275, for stumpjumper they are s1 to s6 1152, 1175, 1200, 1228, 1268, 1302. So for medium or s3, stumpjumper actually has a slightly longer wheelbase while large or s4, Norco has slightly longer. I think difference is negligible as expected for bikes with same geometry. So most of the difference is due to shock and how they are tuned?
@@radidoc4832 I agree with that. I love the extended stand over. I ultimately bought an optic from my testing. I reference wheel base because it is part of an overall design, and just over 1/4 inch per my measurements, not the webs, can have a real impact on stability at speed and the shorter chain stays on the optic means it is 1/2 in longer in the front than the stumpy. This means it will handle tech better to me. That is why I discussed it! Thank you for the great question.
@@LoamRoamer thanks for the comparisons. I am actually looking for something between regular Stumpy and Stumpy Evo. Would you say Norco Optic may fit the bill, or Hightower?
I'm a visual learner (and also an educator) and some people would really appreciate an Evaluation Table listing features/functionality and showing side-by-side similarities and standout differences along with simple performance values (PV). A simple rating system of 1 to 10 could be used (keeping the values fairly simple is usually best).
But to obtain a more realistic overall evaluation of each bike, and because some of the characteristics/features of each bike are much more important than others, we would need to also include an overall value factor (OVF) for each feature/functionality. This is helpful because some of these considerations could have an OVF value of 10 while others might only be a 5. Example: ride quality due to to frame & component geometry might be a 10 OVF, where grips might only be a 3 OVF. Multiplying the PV with the OVF for each characteristic/feature would provide tangible evidence - a group of numbers to summarize the overall evaluations and give food for thought when comparing one or more machines.
We all know these types of evaluations involve opinions and we also realize opinions can be highly subjective (such as aesthetic value) however, the addition of tangible evidence (with numbers and a summary) to your very nice reviews would be a much appreciated bonus, very satisfying especially to visual learners.
Evaluation Tables do not need to be complex or time consuming (but they can be) and of course, using a spreadsheet makes the process quick & easy, grouping similar features/functionalities, providing comparison data/charts, & so forth. Once you make one, you can tweak it and use it over and over again with other bikes, components, & so forth.
I created a very simple and very incomplete example to illustrate just one way an Evaluation Table could be used (I hope the link to that image is below). This is my last semester teaching so, I am searching for new ways to spend time doing (the really nerdy) things I enjoy - ha.
Keep going - the bicycle community needs more reviewers like you and thanks very much for your reviews! drive.google.com/file/d/1TEHx0H12PLqA9CP4jYEk1Mh3LPtuC-OO/view?usp=sharing
Stock Stumpy is 65.5, with the option to low chip it and go 65.5, and not something I thought made the stumpy better, which is of course only my opinion. The stumpy slcak also means a lower bb, and this is already a low bb.
We need a Norco Sight vs StumpJumper EVO face-off next!
It's on the truck, just need to edit it up!
Really enjoyed this video and other vids of yours I've watched. I like the way you break things down. You seem like a positive person. Thanks for making vids.
Waiting (months) for my Norco Optic C2 Shimano preorder. Videos like this are getting me through 😁.
Would also be really interested to see your take on the Fox suspension, if you ever find an Optic equipped with such 👍
Thank you!
Great comparison, just what I was looking for!
Thank you very much for this , I was thinking of getting a norco but wanted to find out more about it since I never heard of it before until I came across a small family owned bike shop on a short road trip,I took it for a short test ride and was amazed at it, I want to get something that’s not more than $4k because I’m poor but want to get something that can handle hard core tech, and downhill, I’m thinking of getting a norco sight now since specialized is way out of my price range
Thanks for the thorough review!
One thing - Tyres. I think you could have gotten a better comparison using the aame pair on both bikes.
Tyres makes a big difference in bikes feeling and abilities, so this one could be left out of the equation.
Now all I have left is to decide 😂
Thanks for doing this video. Where I live it is impossible (especially with Covid) to take bikes out and test them on trail. I'm ordering a 2022 StumpJumper Comp (Carbon - S4) but my bike shop suggested I order 1 or 2 others as my current 2010 Stumpy Comp is all I have ridden so I'm not sure how I'm going to like all this new geometry. He's suggesting that I also order a Norco Sight (27.5) and/or a Kona Process 134 (again 27.5). The trails here in Northern Ontario Canada that I ride are quite technical. Not crazy long climbs but some definitely have a lot of technical challenge on them. I don't mind climbing but I specifically bought my 2010 Stumpy to get something that climbs better than my 2001 Big Hit which I had previously. My Stumpy is 28lbs and the Big Hit was 37lbs and I know with all these new geometries (and 29" wheels) bike weight is definitely creeping back up. I've got no interest in racing or getting through trails as fast as possible and am definitely more in it for the exercise and being outdoors but again, don't ever want to have to pedal a 37lbs bike up hill! :)
I should also mention I think I would prefer the 27.5 wheel size because the trails I like are definitely more technical and we don't have a lot of long descents (or at least the technical climbs far out weigh the descents). I just feel the smaller wheel size would be a) stronger (I'm 6'1" about 210lbs) and b) better for the tight technical stuff that I like to ride. I almost wish I would have bought last years Stumpy with the 27.5 wheels.
I feel like your friend that went with the Stumpy and I have the same priorities when it comes to what bike I want which obviously why I will definitely have my LBS bring in the Stumpy but what else should I have them bring in to compare it against? (They're a Norco and Kona dealer as well somewhat obviously)
Definitely very open to other people's comments as well - I'm really struggling with this and at $6kCDN (plus tax - 13%) it has some pretty significant financial ramifications as well.
The new stumpy you ordered will be the most similar to your current stumpy, especially with the flip-chip in the high setting. The two bikes they are suggesting would be a big change from your current setup and geometry. And they are going to be heavier than that stumpy in a similar model. However, the Norco Sight is a fantastic bike, and I think a better rider position. It is unfortunate you cannot test, but a 29er is better at climbing the tech, and as someone who pushed their Optic to the very edge of its abilities, so much more fun than a 27.5 on the tech steep down and more capable. If you like the specialized rider position you should look at a Santa Crus or n Ibis, they share that very neutral rider position design. I hope all of this info helps. I would not shy away from that Stumpjumper based on what you are describing as your riding style! It is an excellent bike that climbs very well and is fun to play on.
@@LoamRoamer Thank you for such a detailed response - it does really help!
I think I'll definitely get them to bring in a Sight and try that for comparison knowing that it will be a completely different feel. It does suck though that the best I'll be able to do is to ride them both around the parking lot.
In terms of the Santa Cruz I'm assuming you're talking about a Hightower? We do have an SC dealer here so maybe I'll drop in and see if they can bring one in for me to ride around the parking lot and at least that gives me another option.
Much appreciated!
How tall are you and what size were you on? I'm 5'10" and the large feels kinda humongous, while the medium definitely feels a little small...
I am 5'8 and the medium was good, but the large worked. On an Optic I would go large 5'10, the stumpy s4. But that is my rider preference also.
I just picked up a 2021 Stumpy Comp Carbon S4. The optic was for sure on my list, but there are no where to be found for purchase or testing. I wanted something with good geo, but with more pop and pep and less smash than my longer travel bike for less aggressive trail days. Still sorting the suspension to my liking, but thus far I am super happy with it. Set a few PR's even with the heavy stock wheels and meh tires that came with it and not trying that hard. Cannot wait once my new, much lighter wheels come in and I can pair them with tires I trust more (DHF and Dissector).
That is a great choice, I am not a Maxxis tire person, but hear that is a great combo. Nice bike!
Loved the video!
I’ve just got a question about much gnarly the terrain is too much on the norco optic?
Keep up the good work!
Hi, when it gets really rocky/chunky. That isn't he time when you slow down or take a Sight. I do some brutal things on the optic, and ride some steeps and drops, but repeated hit rock gardens are not a sweet spot. With a cascade link and the online ttx2 air it is way better there, but not enough.
@@LoamRoamer ok thanks so much!
awesome video man, i ride auburn as well, altough not as much as i would like. Last time i went, i did clementine to culvert to confluence. Loved culvert, but the climb to get there was way too long for how short it was, and then confluence really wasn't all that fun, and not worth the climb either. What are your favorite routes to do?
Oh man, you are feeling my pain about Auburn. So much fire road climbing for such short runs. But there is a better route where there is singletrack climbing, and some crazy good descending that is technical. Look for me on Strava and message me when you do. I will tell you which rides to look at. You want to ride in Mammoth and on some side trails! Steeper, faster, technical, and worth the climbing. Cheers.
So sounds like Optic behaves more like Stumpy alloy. Same susp design so that would make sense. How much of downhillability can be tuned back into Stumpy with proper tires and maybe different shock tune?
The geo is also different, so while they share a similar suspension design, the stumpy is geared towards trail geo. The Optic has shorter chainstays and lends itself to a bike that can handle the steeper and chunkier better. The Stumpy is an awesome trail bike and I would change chocks and tires if I bought it. But it does not have the same overall design. And I upgraded the Optic to an Ohlins TTX Air and Cascade link it is a legit ripper now. So good on some really steep technical stuff.
is there a place near bay area to demo norco bikes?
Not sure right now.
Let’s get this channel to 1000 subs!
Unless I read it wrong, it heard you wrong, I think you said the C1 is a 4k bike when it's actually the C3 that's 4k. The C1 is about 6.4k with an axs option for over 10k. Sweet bike though!
I corrected with script over, but yes, I said it backwards.
@@LoamRoamer I think I'm pretty set on the C3. On paper I reeeeally don't see much difference, especially considering I'm just getting back into the game after a decade of letting my quads shrink. I have a set of SLX 4pots to throw on if I feel it needs more brake. $6400cad vs $4800cad doesn't seem like the price jump is worth it. Do you think the full GX or XT vs shimano shitmix makes a significant difference?
I am a little confused when you suggest that Norco has significantly longer wheelbase. Norco Optic they are from s to xl 1157, 1196, 1235, 1275, for stumpjumper they are s1 to s6 1152, 1175, 1200, 1228, 1268, 1302. So for medium or s3, stumpjumper actually has a slightly longer wheelbase while large or s4, Norco has slightly longer. I think difference is negligible as expected for bikes with same geometry. So most of the difference is due to shock and how they are tuned?
I do like Norco for the low standover, for my short legs. Don't understand why stumpjumper has their frame with high standover. 😐
@@radidoc4832 I agree with that. I love the extended stand over. I ultimately bought an optic from my testing. I reference wheel base because it is part of an overall design, and just over 1/4 inch per my measurements, not the webs, can have a real impact on stability at speed and the shorter chain stays on the optic means it is 1/2 in longer in the front than the stumpy. This means it will handle tech better to me. That is why I discussed it! Thank you for the great question.
@jason comstock Let me see what I can do. I will contact the Norco rep locally and ask if they can help out there.
Hi Jason, the demo van will be in AZ in a month. email brad@livetoplaysports.com and get scheduled for your Optic demo.
@@LoamRoamer thanks for the comparisons. I am actually looking for something between regular Stumpy and Stumpy Evo. Would you say Norco Optic may fit the bill, or Hightower?
I really like your work.
I'm a visual learner (and also an educator) and some people would really appreciate an Evaluation Table listing features/functionality and showing side-by-side similarities and standout differences along with simple performance values (PV). A simple rating system of 1 to 10 could be used (keeping the values fairly simple is usually best).
But to obtain a more realistic overall evaluation of each bike, and because some of the characteristics/features of each bike are much more important than others, we would need to also include an overall value factor (OVF) for each feature/functionality. This is helpful because some of these considerations could have an OVF value of 10 while others might only be a 5. Example: ride quality due to to frame & component geometry might be a 10 OVF, where grips might only be a 3 OVF.
Multiplying the PV with the OVF for each characteristic/feature would provide tangible evidence - a group of numbers to summarize the overall evaluations and give food for thought when comparing one or more machines.
We all know these types of evaluations involve opinions and we also realize opinions can be highly subjective (such as aesthetic value) however, the addition of tangible evidence (with numbers and a summary) to your very nice reviews would be a much appreciated bonus, very satisfying especially to visual learners.
Evaluation Tables do not need to be complex or time consuming (but they can be) and of course, using a spreadsheet makes the process quick & easy, grouping similar features/functionalities, providing comparison data/charts, & so forth. Once you make one, you can tweak it and use it over and over again with other bikes, components, & so forth.
I created a very simple and very incomplete example to illustrate just one way an Evaluation Table could be used (I hope the link to that image is below).
This is my last semester teaching so, I am searching for new ways to spend time doing (the really nerdy) things I enjoy - ha.
Keep going - the bicycle community needs more reviewers like you and thanks very much for your reviews!
drive.google.com/file/d/1TEHx0H12PLqA9CP4jYEk1Mh3LPtuC-OO/view?usp=sharing
Arent both 65 degrees hta? With the option of 65,5 on the stumpjumper?
Stock Stumpy is 65.5, with the option to low chip it and go 65.5, and not something I thought made the stumpy better, which is of course only my opinion. The stumpy slcak also means a lower bb, and this is already a low bb.
Yeah they are both 65 with stumpy in low.