Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am considering getting one of these but having a hard time picking one


I have previously owned both bikes in alloy

My main sort of riding now days is XC racing, 12hr and 24hr solo races, trail riding and limited "gravity" riding. When i say "gravity" i mean drops no bigger than 4-5 foor, DH tracks (though i roll most drops and take nanna lines) and other technical and fanging down tracks stuff. This would prob only be about 5-10% of my riding

Because of this "gravity" aspect the LTC appeals, but a huge limiting factor is no bottle cage mounts. Further more would be wanting to ride the bike with 120mm front travel the majority of the time (revelation 120mm-150mm fork).

Then there is the xc carbon which would be perfect for my racing, but what sort of abuse can this bike take? Or is this strickly a xc bike?
 

·
Don't be a sheep
Joined
·
3,442 Posts
A blur LT ridden on anything but a really steep climb with a fork set at 120mm would suck. If I were you I'd get the XC and run a 120mm fork to slacken the head angle a bit and make it a nice all around bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
But would the xc model handle a bit of thrashing from time to time?

I used to run my old blur lt2 (alloy) at 130mm and i reckon this was the best fork travel setting for the bike, it felt really good at 130mm. I also did a couple of races with the fork set to 100mm (it was a 36 Talas) and it was fine.

Why would a blur lt carbon suck with a 120mm travel fork?


Ps i hardly ever ran 160mm travel on the alloy blur lt2 unless i was riding "gravity" stuff, at 160mm it was sluggish at singletrack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
589 Posts
The XC is spec'd for 100 to 120. Two water bottle cage mounts was the clincher for me. I can ride four hours with two bottles. For strictly xc racing, get the 100. The 120 would be plusher, but a little slower on the climbs.

The XC can take alot of abuse, especially for a lighter rider. 4 to 5 foot drops and DH tracks is really pushing it though - an LT would be better suited for that type of riding. Sounds like you need one of each. I'd probably get the XC with a 120 for a do-it-all racing bike - that would be faster than a LT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I ride a blur XCc with a 120 mm fork and I is awesome. I have it built with strong components and it can handle every thing my blur 4x could and it is stiffer.
It is a genius bike. I reckon it would be perfect if I could adjust fork between 100 and 120mm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I remember reading that the Blur XC c is stronger than the old aluminum Nomad.
If you are not a very heavy rider you probably should be OK with the Blur XC c for a bit of trashing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
589 Posts
scfreak said:
I have a Blur XCc with a 100mm fox and love it. It's seen DV without issues. It's not as fast in the Knar as my FR bike but it gets it done.
The bike really feels like a 5" bike to me.
Totally agree. I have the 100mm too. It's the fastest FS bike I've ever ridden. Truly race worthy without being harsh or twitchy. Not as fast as a long travel rig in the really gnarly stuff, but everywhere else you'll leave most others in the dust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
I feel like the question of “abuse” has to take into account rider weight, however, based on everything else the OP said, a Blur XC recommendation seems like a no-brainer.

You can take a Blur XC and get two suspension sets for it. One for all mountain/trail and one for pure XC. Have both sets Push tuned for said purposes, and when you do events with a lot of DH/chop, run a 120mm fork up front and install a shock with a big hit kit. You’ll never need anything else.

Engineers aren’t dumb. They get paid big bucks to figure out things like what design works for most situations it’s expected to be in. If you’re doing XC, and have your bike set up properly, you’ll rarely if ever need more than 4” of travel. Even if you do the D-ville Classic (arguably the most technical XC course in California), you have to consider that it’s still a climbing war. The best descenders can’t make up the time to beat the best climbers on the course. That extra 1” of travel isn’t getting used on the 8 mile climb, and if you did everything else right you won’t need it on the 15 mile descent either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
You won't go wrong with a XC, it is one of the all time best 26" bikes on the market. It can be slack and low and very fast. Gravity and steep work is no problems and it can take abuse, heaps of it. A friend of mine is much braver than me, and he does some big drops on his.

What scfreak said is true. When I was buying I tested a XCc and a ASR5C side by side on the same tracks. One particular favourite track I did many times and it is fast and rough alternating with tight and twist sections. For me, riding the XC was faster through the rough - VPP advantage maybe, but I could feel in comparison, for what it's worth, the ASR5C getting held up on the bumps. The ASR5c was a great bike, but I bought the XC as it was better everywhere. The 4" of travel is generous.

An XCc is fast on the ups, fast on the flats and a heap of fun on the downs. I go better on the XC in the rough and steep downs than I did with my Blur Lt.

Your stated "main sort of riding" seems to be tailor made for the XCc. The extra gravity work won't worry an XC, and in fact: it and you will relish the opportunities.

By the way, both are fantastic bikes. Happy choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
VERT1 said:
My main sort of riding now days is XC racing, 12hr and 24hr solo races
Just reading this part, I'd get a XC no question asked. The extra weight associated with a BLTc build can be easily felt over 24 hours. I'd get the lighter frame with 4" of travel, and build it accordingly.

I have a 09 Top Fuel 9.9SSL, and a 2010 BLTa. I bring both bikes to my 24 hour races, but I only really only ride the Top Fuel, and use the BLTa as a loaner bike for parts in case I need something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I have the same dilemma as Vert1....I am 5'9'' (176cm) and 170 pounds (77kg)...after riding hardtails for more than a decade I decided to go for FS all-to-do bike...I have Chameleon in Large and love it so I will go with SC again...I mostly ride CC but also love a bit of AM and I just love the way Blur Ltc looks and all the stuff I read about it (it definitely has stronger frame than XC and should be more durable)....plus, I do not mind a bit of extra weight compared to XC...
Vert1 mentioned new RS Revelation fork (with Dual position Air option) ---allows immediate transfer from 150mm to 120mm of travel .....does anyone use this fork on a Blur LTc and could share something??? it seems to me that that option would give Blur Ltc a capability to be very efficient on longer climbs and once you're up transfer to full 150mm of travel and let go...in terms of geometry it brings Blur Ltc closer to Blur TR since it increases the headtube angle
another thing that bothers me is the frame size ---- If I would get a Blur Ltc it would definitely be in Large but I am not so sure for XC where I think Medium would be better for me...any advice/comment would be appreciated

and Vert1...what did you decide at the end?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I ended up with a BLTc in the end, I run it with a Fox Talas 32 150/120mm fork.

The frame feels really good with the fork set at 150mm travel, better than what my alloy felt with a 160mm fork. The frame also feels amazing at 120mm, at this setting the bike is low and feels like a single track weapon + it climbs well, though I plan to get the rp23 shock tuned so that i can stiffen up the rear with pro pedal. I did a 24hr race on it in May but found the rear shock too plush over time, hopefully the rp23 tune will give me greater flexibility.

Overall i am very happy with the bike, it weighs under 25lb with a modest build, climbs up everything, awesomely fast for downhill and singletrack and super fun to ride. Though i still a bit guttered there is no bottle mount.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
I'm interested in the same question as the OP. Interesting he went with the BLTc. I want to rip trails and have fun but also hopefully get into more races this season, so was leaning toward XCc. How's the XCc ride with a 120mm fork?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Just like to mention I did a 100km XC race on my BLTc and although I was only running a single ring up front I had no issues climbing the 6 massive hills in the race. I was in fact quite surprised at how well I did as I treated the race as more of a long ride rather than a race.

I did come out of it thinking I would like to try the bike at 140mm travel instead of 150mm, I also did feel at times dropping the front to 120mm was too low.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
How long a stem do you run? Still getting used to mine. Have a 70mm on there at the moment and thinking that maybe a longer one might do the trick but I am not keen on going much longer than a 90 - 100. If I am getting that long I think I have made an error on frame size that I cannot fix...

That said from coming from an XC bike background it might be all in getting used to a more upright position and learning how to position my self on/ over the bike through the rough stuff.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top