Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, I was wondering what would be a better rig for all mountain riding, Blur LT or Nomad? I’m 150lbs. without gear
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
I am basing this on completely no experience on either bike......... but I will say Nomad!! :)

I am just about to build one for All Mountain so I am biased.
 

·
b a n n e d
Joined
·
6,213 Posts
Define "All Mountain" . . . . I ride a Blur LT and would consider where and what I ride "All Mountiain."
 

·
Don't be a sheep
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
lassiar said:
Hi, I was wondering what would be a better rig for all mountain riding, Blur LT or Nomad? I’m 150lbs. without gear
The only real difference between the frames (besides the 3/4" more travel) is you'll generally have to run a longer travel (heavier) fork on the Nomad for it to ride correctly. I'm light, and ride smooth so I saw no need for a the extra weight and travel. Locally there is a sponsored Santa Cruz guy who only brings his Nomad out for proper DH work, rides the LT on everything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I have both and have ended up riding the LTc more, and that's on some pretty technical NW trails. I can tell you that there are more similarities than differences in the two. I currently have a Talas 160 on the Blur. It comes in at 29# with a beefier wheelset, flat pedals and a Reverb dropper post. I've also got a -1 deg Angleset on it. I typically leave the fork at 130 mm for climbing and most singletrack as I find the front end a bit high for my liking while going up with it fully extended. What's cool is that I can easily drop 3-4 lbs by putting a Revelation 150 mm fork on it with clipless pedals and a lighter wheelset and it makes for a pretty good xc bike, too. Most folks are probably going to tell you to get the Nomad, which is an awesome bike as well, but I thought I'd put a plug in for the LTc. In the end, it comes down to what kind of trails you ride. If you've got the skills you could rip on either of them. Good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,383 Posts
AM is so ambiguous. Some think of it as more than xc less than dh/fr. My definition is everything on the mountain up and down so the more capable your AM rig is the more you are able to ride everything. If your definition is the latter go nomad, former, blt. The nomad will let you run up to a 2.7 tire and a 180 fork, you won't have those options with the blt. If you think you'll never use those options, and really want a shorter travel bike, might as well save weight and run a super light 150 fork on a blt. Frame weight difference is very little so you'll only save weight going with the blt on your build.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
AM - as in all day epics, up and down, on technical trails in places like Downieville/Lake Tahoe. No shuttle BS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
777 Posts
lassiar said:
AM - as in all day epics, up and down, on technical trails in places like Downieville/Lake Tahoe. No shuttle BS
I would look into the S/C BlurLT2 carbon with a 150mm fork... The shops are selling the 2010's for less than the 2011's right now... :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
That's the other thing. I'm starting to rethink how I want to plan my stable. I've got a carbon Blur XC now, and I suppose I could throw a 120mm fork at it and make it more like a trailbike, but then there's this nagging feeling I have that I should ride a Tallboy for XC (6'0"). So when I take a look at options, I'm probably not willing to do much wagon wheeling on super technical terrain (though maybe it'd be easier than the Blur XC has been). So I'm back to the original debate on what the second MTB will be.

Mainly I want to avoid double coverage. If by having a Blur XC/Tallboy with 120mm fork, would I be overlapping capabilities with an LT? That's also a value/bang for buck question. I shouldn't have to flip a coin to choose which bike to take and when. It should always be obvious if I know where I'm riding.

I should add that my current ride is set up traditional XC. 2" drop from saddle to bars, inverted penis envy stem, 25º knee bend at max spindle distance, yada yada. I can ride it down the chop, but not at extremely high speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
I was debating the LT vs Nomad 2 years ago, decided on the Nomad based on talking to the shop guys. My goal was to learn to do jumps/drops/DH riding, and in 2 years i went from rolling everything to jumping (almost) everything on A line and dirt merchant, along with being comfortable on all the black diamond DH trails at whistler. I also wanted a bike i could pedal around on for XC, which is why i didn't go all out and get a true FR bike. In the end I'm happy with my decision.

Based on what you have said i think the LT would be more suited for you, but in the end its your choice to make.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,383 Posts
blt is a very capable bike so dont' think you are compromising ability if you don't choose the nomad. I would ask myself what fork do I want? If it's 160 or more go nomad, 150 or less go blt. Of course factor head angle too. BLT with 150 will feel very different than a nomad with a 160 or bigger. I run a 170 on my nomad, 66.5 HA, (67 with a 160). A blt with a 150 would be around 69 I think? Big difference especially when you are used to riding a blur xc. 69 will still climb like an xc bike, anything south of 67 your front end is prone to floating on steep climbs and will probably annoy you at first, but your DH game will improve greatly once you get the feel for slower steering. Of course there's always travel adjust, but I prefer to get the feel for my geo on the ups and downs rather than change it ip during every ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
slimat99 said:
blt is a very capable bike so dont' think you are compromising ability if you don't choose the nomad. I would ask myself what fork do I want? If it's 160 or more go nomad, 150 or less go blt. Of course factor head angle too. BLT with 150 will feel very different than a nomad with a 160 or bigger. I run a 170 on my nomad, 66.5 HA, (67 with a 160). A blt with a 150 would be around 69 I think? Big difference especially when you are used to riding a blur xc. 69 will still climb like an xc bike, anything south of 67 your front end is prone to floating on steep climbs and will probably annoy you at first, but your DH game will improve greatly once you get the feel for slower steering. Of course there's always travel adjust, but I prefer to get the feel for my geo on the ups and downs rather than change it ip during every ride.
The HA of a BLT is 69 with a 140mm fork so it would be 68ish with a 150.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
lassiar said:
Hi, I was wondering what would be a better rig for all mountain riding, Blur LT or Nomad? I’m 150lbs. without gear

I had a BLT for four months and loved it till I rode my buddy's Nomad. The Nomad is so much stiffer in the front and rear. I really wanted a do it all bike. While the BLT is really a capable trail bike it suffers a bit at the bike park and any time you go to hit the lifts. The BLT is snappier to respond and easier to manual. The Nomad is calmer on descents and much more stable. The long chain stays help it climb really well but all around the Nomad can is better at a wide variety of things. The Nomad is heavier but not much. My BLT weighed in at 27-28, my Nomad is 30-31 with a KS dropper post and Nevegal Tubeless. I do feel the weight a little climbing but descending technical stuff the Nomad is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,383 Posts
Thanks for the HA correction Wilson. If the blt has a 69 HA with a 140 it should be about 68.3 with a 150. 17mm=1 degree. I notice a big difference in handling south of 67 or north of 68 so for me that's a big factor to consider. Headset lower cup plays a role in HA too so factor that in as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
slimat99 said:
Thanks for the HA correction Wilson. If the blt has a 69 HA with a 140 it should be about 68.3 with a 150. 17mm=1 degree. I notice a big difference in handling south of 67 or north of 68 so for me that's a big factor to consider. Headset lower cup plays a role in HA too so factor that in as well.
That's a helpful little figure for figuring HA. I think the BLT is best a 150mm fork. I know some guys run them with 160mm forks but why not just go for a Nomad at that point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
The Blur LT2 is more of a XC to All Mountain bike and Nomad is more like an All Mountain to Freeride bike.

It depends on your style of riding. If your riding style and terrain is more light technical and keep the tires on the trail riding get a Blur LT2. If your style of riding is technical chop with hucking some jumps then get a Nomad. Blur LT2 will be around 5 lbs lighter in the build and much more pedal friendly but the Nomad will just bomb down. 2 different animals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
Yes, It is too much overlap. I have a Superlight and BLT and find them to be too close. From what you've mentioned, it sounds to me like you want a bike for Tahoe/D-ville and an xc, race oriented bike for other times? If so, keep your BXC for race days and riding the confluence in Auburn but pick up a Nomad for Tahoe/D-ville. If you have to pick one, get an LT with two different wheel sets and maybe an extra fork and a drop seatpost too.
 

·
Don't be a sheep
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
aliikane said:
The Blur LT2 is more of a XC to All Mountain bike and Nomad is more like an All Mountain to Freeride bike.

It depends on your style of riding. If your riding style and terrain is more light technical and keep the tires on the trail riding get a Blur LT2. If your style of riding is technical chop with hucking some jumps then get a Nomad. Blur LT2 will be around 5 lbs lighter in the build and much more pedal friendly but the Nomad will just bomb down. 2 different animals.
You need to tell this guy he can't do that on his Blur.
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top