First Ride: Santa Cruz's New 2022 Blur is XC Race Ready
Santa Cruz likely isn't the first company that comes to mind when you think of high-level cross-country racing, but the Californian brand is aiming to change that with the new Blur and an injection of star-power to their World Cup XC roster. We caught a glimpse of the new cross-country bike at the first World Cup of the season in Albstadt under Maxime Marotte, Luca Braidot and Martina Berta, but now we finally have all the details.
The new Blur CC frame is 289 grams lighter than the previous version, making it the lightest full-suspension frame that Santa Cruz has ever made. A size large frame with a RockShox SidLuxe shock and all hardware including seat clamp weighs in at 1,933g. It uses a new Superlight single pivot suspension design with flex stays instead of their usual VPP suspension design.
The new Blur CC frame is 289 grams lighter than the previous version, making it the lightest full-suspension frame that Santa Cruz has ever made. A size large frame with a RockShox SidLuxe shock and all hardware including seat clamp weighs in at 1,933g. It uses a new Superlight single pivot suspension design with flex stays instead of their usual VPP suspension design.
Santa Cruz Blur Details
• Wheel size: 29"
• Travel: 100mm (XC) / 115mm (TR)
• C or CC Carbon frame
• Dual water bottle mount inside frame
• Superlight suspension design
• 68.3° (XC) / 67.1° (TR) head tube angle
• Variable seat tube angle
• Size specific chainstays
• MSRP: $4,599 - $11,599 USD
• Blur: santacruzbicycles.com
• Wilder (TR only): julianabicycles.com
• Wheel size: 29"
• Travel: 100mm (XC) / 115mm (TR)
• C or CC Carbon frame
• Dual water bottle mount inside frame
• Superlight suspension design
• 68.3° (XC) / 67.1° (TR) head tube angle
• Variable seat tube angle
• Size specific chainstays
• MSRP: $4,599 - $11,599 USD
• Blur: santacruzbicycles.com
• Wilder (TR only): julianabicycles.com
The carbon 29er has size-specific chainstays and variable seat tube angles, and comes in two configurations, an XC build with 100mm of travel front and rear and a "TR" build with a longer stroke shock that delivers 115mm of travel and a bigger 120mm fork. Juliana also joins in on the cross-country fun with the Wilder, which uses the same frame as the Blur, but only comes in the TR version.
The XC version is, as you may have guessed, designed for Olympic cross-country racing, while the TR version is designed for everything from cross-country marathons to multi-day stage events. In addition to having more travel, the TR builds have slightly beefier Maxxis Rekon tires instead of the Aspens that come on the XC build, a full height adjust dropper post, no lockout remote, and larger brake rotors. Don't be mistaken, however, this isn't a downcountry bike; Santa Cruz says "It's still a true XC bike for courses and riders with more trail in them." It's just a bit more relatable to riders than a full-fledged World Cup XC race bike.
There's ample hydration on the Santa Cruz Blur and Juliana Wilder with dual water-bottle mounts and another water bottle mount on the bottom of the downtube.
The TR builds have slightly beefier Maxxis Rekon tires instead of the Aspens that come on the XC build, a full height adjust dropper post, no lockout remote, and larger brake rotors.
Both the XC and TR builds have a threaded bottom bracket, molded chainstay and downtube protection, a chain guide, and SRAM's Universal Derailleur Hanger.
Whether you've got the 100mm XC version with a 68.3° head tube angle and a seat tube angle that varies between 75.7° and 76.5°, or the 115mm TR version with a 67.1° head tube angle and seat tube angles that vary from 74.8° to 75.1°, you'll have ample hydration with dual water-bottle mounts and another water bottle mount on the bottom of the downtube. Other details include a threaded bottom bracket, molded chainstay and downtube protection, a chain guide, and SRAM's Universal Derailleur Hanger. The frame, bearings and optional Reserve 28 XC wheels (that I reviewed last month) include a lifetime warranty.
Each Blur configuration comes in two colour options, Dark Matter or Salmon, with a separate mauve colourway for the Juliana Wilder, and prices range from $4,599 USD to $9,449 for the Blur TR and Wilder TR and $5,199 USD to $11,299 USD for the Blur XC.
The new Santa Cruz Blur uses a Superlight single pivot suspension design with flex stays instead of their usual VPP suspension design.
Santa Cruz's Superlight Single Pivot Suspension Design
Santa Cruz says it was easier for them to achieve desirable XC suspension curves with their Superlight single pivot suspension design with flex stays than with their VPP suspension design, and that it got its name "because it’s the superlightest suspension we’ve ever made." Indeed, having less parts involved in the suspension design was a big contributor to shaving off 289 grams from the previous generation Blur. In addition, the design makes the lockout easier to reach on the rear shock when riding.
A flex stay design requires tuning the right amount of spring force into the carbon to achieve the balance of flex, damping and durability, and Santa Cruz says that having their own composites lab in California and composites specialists allowed them to experiment with layups. They say they used their carbon knowledge to tune the rear end precisely where it's needed for a consistent and desirable leverage curve.
 | Rather than using high anti-squat to resist bobbing from a progressive, high leverage shock, we looked to the leverage curve to provide support and control. This results in a lower and more consistent leverage curve which enabled us to reduce anti-squat, and therefore chain influence on the suspension. Which allows more traction and sensitivity in both climbing and descending scenarios, and produces a much more efficient forward drive because less pedaling input, from anti-squat, is utilized to overcome the rider's body weight influence on the suspension. |
Both the Blur XC and TR are available in Dark Matter or Salmon.
The Wilder is available in the TR model in mauve.
Geometry
The Blur XC and Blur TR use the same frame, but the longer fork on the TR makes its geometry is a touch less steep than the Blur XC. The Blur TR has a 67.1° head tube angle compared to the Blur XC's 68.3°. Compared to the last generation of Blur, that 68.3° head tube angle on the new Blur is 0.7° slacker, and the 67.1° head tube angle on the Blur TR is 1.4° slacker than on the previous Blur TR. There are also longer reach numbers across the board and shorter 60mm stems.
Another change is that the chainstay length now varies with frame size. On the size Small Blur XC, you'll get 430mm chainstays and that goes up to 438mm on the size XL.
There are also variable seat tube angles for better fit across all sizes. On the Blur XC, the seat tube angle varies between 76.5° on a size Small and 75.7° on a size XL. On the 115mm TR version, the seat tube angles vary from 75.1° on the size Small to 74.8° on the size XL.
On a size medium TR, you'll get a 438mm reach, a 67.1 degree head tube angle, a 75° seat tube angle, a 1157mm wheelbase and 433mm chainstays. On that same medium size frame in the XC race build, you'll have a longer 450mm reach, a steeper 68.3° head tube angle and 76.3° seat tube angle, a shorter 1147mm wheelbase, but the same 433mm chainstays.
Ride Impressions
I've had a couple rides on the size medium Blur TR that I have in for testing with a 115mm Fox Float Factory DPS shock and a 120mm Fox 34 Step Cast Factory fork and I've had no trouble getting up to speed on it.
On its first ride, I took it to the XC loop that we used for the XC Field Test last June, and I cleaned the entire rooty, twisty, steep technical climb on the first try. I felt right at home with the position on the bike and the steering is extremely precise, making it easy to wind through the tight sections that I've been struggling a bit more with on my trail bike since we sent home all the XC Field Test bikes. Compared to the Juliana Joplin (Santa Cruz Tallboy) that I've also ridden on this test lap, it felt like the suspension was more efficient and supported you better as you pedalled, but there was no lack of traction for the tricky sections. In fact, its spritely suspension and lightweight frame make you want to search out the next Impossible Climb and uphill challenges.
On the downhills, it's an extremely capable XC bike. Don't be mistaken, however, this isn't a downcountry or a trail bike and the Tallboy/Joplin is a very different bike. On the Tallboy/Joplin, I was hooting and hollering down every descent, and I kept wanting to take the 120mm bike into more technical terrain just to see what was possible with such short travel. The Blur TR, despite having longer travel than the Blur XC, still feels more like a traditional XC bike and like it's made for the race course. While it takes the edge off and greatly reduces the chances of you flying over the handlebars when you're not thinking straight from exhaustion in a long race, it's not exactly a playful, let's-see-how-hard-we-can-push-it-downhill short travel bike. It might be dressed in business casual, but its goal is to get the work done.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Also the "size specific chain stays" are a total joke. 8mm total difference between S and XL will not have any noticeable effect on the ride.
I agree that the chain stay length variation is not sufficient, but disagree that it would not be a noticeable Difference.
I think the variation between sizes should be much larger, with chain stay length increasing almost as much as reach
*hold on I'm getting something from our expert panel. mmhmm, mmhmm, mmhmm. ok*
Folks I've been told bearings are $30ish per set. I retract my earlier statement.
Sure, “Being overrun by Silicon Valley and SF types” is one of the reasons that COL is high. But the more significant reason is that very few new homes have been approved by locals so only richer people could afford to live there.
I recently read a student’s experience looking for home to stay in UCSC:
darrellowens.substack.com/p/santa-cruz-is-a-housing-nightmare
I’m not from SC area and only been there a couple of times. The entire town was basically 1 story and rustic. Honestly hope they can get their s*** together and approve more homes instead of just blaming Silicon Valley while their property value grew 500%.
If the locals keep doing nothing, SC the company will evantually have to relocate or having their employees commute from far away everyday or raise the price.
(I know nobody wants to read these local policy fights on Pinkbike but it does affect the bikes we buy one way or the other)
If you look at road bikes, if they use a variable seat angle, the seat angle gets slacker on bigger sizes, so it seems to be biomechanically correct.
....seriously though, I want that Salmon one
Yea, for the Scalpel, the flex chain stay acts like a horst link pivot but there's so little movement/flex, it's kinda splitting hairs.
And I'll disagree with 4-link/VP bikes riding better than single pivots, but it is personal preference. I prefer how my new Stumpjumper rides compared to my Tallboy. And there are some newer bigger travel single-pivots like NukeProof that are getting good reviews.
I see a pivot on the chainstay and not the seatstay, unless I am on drugs.
I broke 2 rear triangles on my 2008 ASR-C Carbon without impact and the bike was plagued by a really flexy rear end. I will admit, it was fun and beautiful
Hardtail party did review the headset that might work -
9point8 SLACK-R: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRYIzYa7mxg
HP did need to sand the frame a little bit ... so I would need to gather some courage to try it, especially since I am the original owner with lifetime guarantee.
I put Offset bushings in it and it really made the bike a trail weapon. I also had the plus version with the 130mm fork on it though. But I would definitely look into the Offset bushings. Its a super cheap and easy to remedy experiment.
I just realized this is taken from their website, but I find it funny since all the pictures, and all the spec sheets say Rekon RACE tires. Which are on my blur right now, and can assure you are not beefy.
If this is advertised as an “Olympic XC race bike”, why arent we seeing bike weights??
It’s funny how companies like Yeti and SC that make heavier bikes never advertise these and brands like Scott freely post them. Weight DOES matter when you’re a 125 lb XC racer...geo does also, but I’m not going to buy a bike that’s 5# heavier with that same geos!
STA is strange, but not enough info. Need virtual, actual, and maybe "offset" to really know anything. Gotta remember that head tube length plays a factor in the industry standard way to measure virtual.
In other words, they're saying that high anti-squat bikes that "stand up and go" under power are less tractive and less "efficient" , which is the correct thing to say!
I will agree that the bikes I had with published anti-squat over 120% felt really snappy, but they were horribly inefficient for me on extended climbs of over 1000' vert. It was moving the suspension, just as squat does...but in the other direction.
On short climbs where I was standing and hammering, those super high anti-squat bikes were quick, as the anti-squat seemed to counter me bouncing my weight onto the pedals.
What SC is saying here is that the suspension bob "disappearing the energy" doesn't matter as much as the gains from more traction and not spending pedal energy on tensioning the chain just to reversing the squat.
So, yes, the damper eats a little bit of the kinetic energy of the bob caused by the pedal strokes, but perhaps not enough to offset the benefits of a reasonably active suspension: more traction and less energy spent on anti-squatting.
Why do you need to spend/waste energy on countering that? The suspension will rebound, since as you said it's "bouncing weight".
1- Damping converting the motion into heat instead of forward energy.
2- Biomechanical efficiency of the chain growth/suspension movement changing where in the pedal stroke you see the resistance.
So >100% AS counters that quick down ward force on the pedal, or my "jump". By minimizing the movement it addresses each of the above losses.
They seemed quick, but not sure they were, it's almost impossible to measure "quick" with how I normally evaluate efficiency (Power Meter over longer durations).
I agree that what they meant to say may be that the benefit of an active suspension outweighs the losses due to squat. But that isn't really what was said. There was that weird comment "...and produces a much more efficient forward drive because less pedaling input, from anti-squat, is utilized to overcome the rider's body weight influence on the suspension."
That makes little sense, and probably wasn't their intent. If it's pedal force 100% balanced with squat, the forces are balanced, the bike would pedal like a hardtail would while still available to react to bumps. (the trouble is it's not a static system, CG is always moving).
To be clear, I like their design approach as I've always disliked my bikes with really high (>120%) anti-squat for reasons they've listed (accept for that weird statement). I see little to no benefit to really high anti-squat aside from the quick "feel", and maybe some sprinting benefit I don't know how to quatify.
I found when riding a bike with over 100% AS that I had way more instances of getting stalled out at the top of a pedal stroke because the rear wheel happened to run into something and pulled on the chain, vs my current bike with like 65% AS is way less likely to interrupt a pedal stroke with increased chain tension from a bump. So I can just keep pedaling smoothly no matter what the trails throws at me. It's actually kind of similar to an oval chainring where it's consistently easier to get "over the top" of the pedal stroke.
(Note, I actually don't like ovals. I find they trick my brain into spinning lower cadences because of the lower effective tooth count of the small side of the oval, which then wears out my legs faster because the higher effective tooth count in the power side of the oval is too much for that low cadence. And If I just pick a higher cadence to fit the power side, then it feels like I'm over-speeding through the small side and throws off the smoothness.)
100% agree with your take on the impact of bumps/chain grown.
This is anecdotal based on my experience with high anti-squat bikes.
Caveat here that many co-rotating link bikes (i.e. DW link) transition quickly to low anti-squat as they move through the travel, minimizing the effect of chain grown for medium to bigger impacts.
IIRC, in an interview with DW from like 8 years ago, he mentioned that dw-link also gets a decent chunk of it's anti-squat not from the chain but from the rear wheel and triangle being accelerated towards the front triangle. It's part of the DW magic, IMO, that you get good anti-squat without the most of the associated chain forces of other designs' anti-squat.
Crap, even the carbon Marin Mountain Vision was at least five years ago....
Levy says the opposite is true, that he wants the laser precise bike when he's "breathing through my eyelids" (or something), I guess because it takes less effort to aim it when you're exhausted?
2012 Blur XC was 4.1 lbs / 1860g With shock.
(Also I should sell mine if anyone wants the light is full suspension bike they actually ever produced
If you think its a good idea to take your hands of the handlebars to reach down to lock out your shock and fork ~40 times during a race, I have a feeling you really haven't raced much XCO, XCC, XCM …
Guess weight saving
The lower link design performs great but they are unwilling or unable to get the weight to a more competitive place. (Real world the Tallboy is easily a pound and a half heavier than a Ripley for example).
XCO racing has feed stations.