Santa Cruz Pricepoint Carbon Weights Compared, Plus Closer Look at New 2015 Colors

Peep Peep….Peep Peep
Hang on let me see who this is.
Santa Cruz Guys, it’s for you. It’s the 80’s. They want their colors back.

NO pics of the Bronson in Green? :'(

The reason they have those colours, IIRC, is to go with the old Skateboard deck colours that SC used to use.

The differences between carbon and alu go beyond just weight.

I like the colors too. I used to order Santa Cruz Roskopp decks direct from NHS as a teen in the 80s. I miss those pre- internet days making phone and paper mail orders. My current fav mtb is a blur XC. Gotta admit I dig Santa Cruz, and Roskopp has done an amazing job with that company.

7 out of 10 affected Chinese approve of their pollution induced mutations and believe that the benefits will far outweigh the negatives for their future superhero progeny.

And yes, Santa Cruz raised the price of their existing carbon frames and did nothing to improve them.

@CycleKrieg – When did aluminum frame manufacturing become cleaner than carbon? Don’t forget that to make an aluminum frame you have to rape the earth to get the minerals, transport them to a foundry, Make the aluminum, shape the aluminum into tubes, then shape it into frame tubes, then weld it.

I don’t necessarily agree with the idea of cheaper carbon frames but I don’t think you can call it dirtier than a carbon frame. And don’t talk about the ability to recycle aluminum, unless you strip it down to only aluminum (i.e. no steel bearings or bolts) then most recycle places just throw them into the mixed scrap anyways.

@pfs – Actually, recycling is a big part of the equation. Even if the bike frame itself isn’t recycled by user post-use, its most likely made from some percentage of recycled aluminum. Currently approx. 55% of the aluminum you purchase (by weight) is post-consumer recycled. That percentage has been rising historically. And if your the aluminum frame is replaced by the bike manufacturer (many of whom have lifetime warranties on aluminum), though a retailer, it will be recycled. Currently carbon fiber can not be recycled cheaply. Also, when you attempt to recycle it, it looses strength. So even if the initial aluminum mining is high impact, in the long run its lower in impact.

I wish I could find the carbon-vs-aluminum manufacturing/life-cycle paper Specialized did earlier this year. The difference in energy and water usage alone where jaw dropping.

On top that, the resin for carbon fiber is part of mix that is dangerous stuff. Part of the reason carbon from China is a thing is because China does not have/does not enforce environmental standards. So unlike the US/EUR, you can just dump that resin right down the drain when you are done.

I’m not anti-carbon everything. I’m just anti-carbon for the sake of carbon. For a small minority of bike riders, they need carbon. It really does make a difference in their performance. But if you are not in that minority, carbon is an expensive, polluting, short life-cycle product that is just about having the sexiest looking frame to show off to riding buddies/peloton.

What Santa Cruz is doing here is asking you to pay more for little or no advantages (and arguably, some real disadvantages) over an existing product. What BikeRumor did in this article is not call them out on it, which they should have, especially they open this article in discussing Santa Cruz’s history of “upscale” pricing. Instead, they spent the time talking about what colors these bikes come in.

@Nolander- One grain of sand doesn’t make the beach but an inconceivable number of grains do. Not looking to be a naysayer, but there are environmental costs in all lines of manufacturing, from raw material on up, across all materials and industries. Think your carbon/steel/Ti/Al/plastic frame and components don’t have a price? No industry is net zero on this one, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Best we can do is purchase as responsibly as we can.

I would respectfully disagree on the salience of @CycleKrieg’s comments. 1) There are no life cycle issues with modern carbon, and even early carbon models rarely failed mid tube. Tube joints, particularly bonding aluminum to carbon, were the source of most early failures. 2) Specialized hasn’t exactly earned a place as the trusted spokesman for the bike industry. 3) Whether you recycle or not, aluminum, and ESPECIALLY anodized aluminum, is nasty business. 4) Santa Cruz makes heavier than average aluminum frames, a point that was not covered in this article. Therefore, the weight savings is closer to a pound or even more for the entry level carbon. 5.) To achieve the torsional stiffness of a well made carbon frame an aluminum frame needs to either a) have thicker (ie heavier) walls or be a prohibitively expensive alloy. I would argue that far more riders can feel that difference than @CycleKrieg contends.

A mid-size upper end mountain bike company like Santa Cruz can no longer be everything to everyone. I have said before that the day is coming that SC will drop all of their aluminum bikes or relegate them to the lowest price point models. That is already happening and as mentioned above they will only keep making the beer cans if they sell. I am going to bet that with their “lower tier” carbon numbers the aluminum sales will soon dry up.

Nice new SC eye candy. Also, an interesting way to “recycle” the molds for their carbon frames: dual usage. Though I hate the price hike; the price was already pushing it (full disclosure: I am the deliriously happy owner of a blue Tallboy C…)

Some thoughts:

1) I disagree w/ Saris’ contention that SC “almost single handedly normalized the ten thousand dollar mountain bike.” I think that ‘honor’ has to go to Specialized and their S-works Epic 29er from 2011 as the first production MTB to hit the five-digit stratosphere previously reserved for road uber-bikes. At that time, SC was “only” offering four build options, topping out around $6K. I’m pretty sure that their current nine (!) build options did not come until 1-2 years later; adding the ENVE stuff is a pretty effective way to reach the $10K mark quickly.

2) I owned a 2011 Epic carbon 29 (the Comp, not the S-works!), and while a great bike, it came with that idiotic press-fit non-sense (but, get this: with an adapter to run a GXP threaded BB!) I sold the frame in 2012 and built up one of the first thru-axled SC Tallboy C’s (threaded BB, bless you, SC!) and have never, ever been happier on a mountain bike. The VPP offers ridiculous traction uphill and literally feels as if it’s molding to the contours of the trail continuously. And to disagree with the comments above, you absolutely CAN tell the ride quality difference between AL and carbon. It’s not subtle and it’s not even close.

3) The various color choices SC offers is just icing on the cake. Practically guarantees that a) you’ll love your bike color; and that b) someone will loathe it. Win-win, IMHO. ; )

I like santa cruz bikes and what they are doing in the industry. I like they are small and have not become specialized (yet) I hope they never do of course. I think their bikes are a bit too pricey for me, however i really do love the company and would like a few of their bikes. Get those aluminum bikes down in price guys and you will have an army of people queuing up to buy them. ( me included)

– Colors that are different are cool IMO.

– Carbon does make a pretty big difference on non-suspension bikes in ride quality. Even more on a road bike without a suspended fork. its also stronger and lasts longer.

– Carbon is a problem for the ecology indeed.

– Santa Cruz did in fact rise the price of its good carbon frames with their trick. Kinda sucks.

– “Chinese” carbon frames are cheaper than branded alu frames AND better quality. It’s sad. You can get an IP-036 for about 600 to 660 USD. That’s a good quality T700+T800 FS frame mind you – people win races on it, too.

I think Santa Cruz should have differentiated the middle and top level carbon frames more. Now they look exactly the same except for one small sticker. I’m just wondering if this kind of dilutes the image and resale value of their high end carbon? They seem to have tackled this by offering only mid level buils with the mid level carbon frames, and by only selling frame only options with high level carbon. But in the end the frames look exactly the same.

The other thing I’m thinking is that now they have a huge amount of different frame combinations. Alu, Carbon C, Carbon CC, and most in sizes S-XL. They are probably waiting how buyers like the cheaper carbon option and if it sells better than alu, then alu is going out. I just hope that they keep atleast some budget minded alu options available (Highball, Chameleon, and Heckler at least).

And now that they are starting to make carbon parts, how about carbon rims? I know they have long standing relationship with Enve, but Enve wheels are just too expensive to justify even for many wealthy customers. Mid level carbon option would be cool. Or maybe they could just ditch Enve and make high end carbon rims, too? I mean Enve really have got the initial kick and all the PR they could hope for from Syndicate Team so they could continue on their own from now on?

What is “bad” about carbon fiber frame manufacturing (the process and all…). I’ve done some simple googling around, and I’m not finding why it’s such an eco-unfriendly process. Why all the green-finger waiving? Can someone point me to a link or enlighten me? I get that aluminum can be pretty bad (mining, processing, etc…), but what’s the rub with carbon?

The whole “cycling is expensive” argument is pretty null in the grand scheme of things.

A $10,000 bike with arguably cutting edge equipment, R&D, materials, etc. is really not that insane.

What’s insane? $10,000 watches. They. Basically. Only. Tell. The. Time.

I know there are some cool things they can do, but really, $10K for a “designer” watch is like a worn out Tiagra Triple front shifter to some people.

Minimize your own waste, have fun, and TRY not to be a douche.

If you don’t like a product, don’t buy it. Simple.

@Aron, could not think of a worse analogy than comparing bikes to watches. Sorry but you wiffed on that one.

Why argue about this and that. Who really cares if you spend $100 or $10000? We are getting what we want and like. The reason they make the bikes is because there are buyers. So What? The car, house, close industries are all the same. If you have a problem with Santa Cruz making $10000 bikes, you better be driving a Yugo, live in a trailer, and buy your close at Walmart.