DIRT/NORCO

When Dan Stanbridge (one half of the Dirt Norco WC race team) first declared interest in taking the Dirt downhill team off Intense and onto Norco he was met with uncontrollable laughter here in the office. I’d ridden some bikes over the mid 00’s and let’s just say I wasn’t falling over myself to get them in the magazine – more a case of ‘lets get this rep pissed up, buy him a pack of cigars and gently send him east with tales of chocked bike test schedules’. You think I’m kidding? That said, to be fair I rode an entry level ‘09 bike and by then was pretty impressed by what you got for the price. I caught up with Stanny recently to go through some of the changes since their first year on the bikes:

Stanny: Yeah you’re right, riding wise the team DH had sound geometry and handled well as a result, so it was a good starting point for the Aurum. Myself and Ben (Reid, the other member of the team) are very different sizes and have quite different riding styles as well, so when we both started with Norco on the Team DH bike, personally I was interested to see how our feedback on the bike design would compare. What I found really interesting was just how similar the things we wanted from a bike actually were. A good example of this was with the original Team DH, Ben found the rear chainstays on the small a bit too long for him and was able to get a shorter rear end to test. A couple of prototypes later and the rear–to–centre size that Ben settled on as his ideal and the size that I settled on were numerically quite different (as you would expect form a 5ft8 rider vs. a 6ft1 rider). But proportionally if you look at the size of the rear to centre that Ben preferred compared the rear to centre size I preferred as a percentage of the overall wheel base then the proportions we were both after were pretty much identical. This formed the base of the Gravity Tune concept which Norco have developed with the Aurum, and the idea has now been expanded to include tailoring the suspension performance to individual frame sizes as well as geometry proportions.

I guess I can only speak from my experience, but I think it is fair to say that my perception of the brand a couple of years ago was different to what I now know to be true. A few years ago I think Norco were more famous in the UK for the Canadian Free–Ride style bikes than the race machines. However as we began to test the bikes and got to know the people before we signed to race with the company, it became obvious that much of my perception had been based on the marketing and exposure relating to Norco (that had or had not reached the UK), rather than on the technical capabilities of the bikes.

With any change of bike comes anxiety as to how good it will be against the clock and of course image is important as well, but I would not describe the move to Norco as brave. After the first few rides on the 2010 team DH, and having got to meet some of the team who would be behind building this new range of bikes, it was clear that they were heading in a direction which would be very good for us as racers.

The team bikes of 2010 were nicely presented though, and not far off in terms of angles and weight?

Yes, Ben will be pleased to hear you complimenting his painstaking vinyl graphics from the early days and yes the 2010 team DH did form the base for a lot of the technical feedback leading to the Aurum, as I was talking about earlier with the origin of the Gravity Tune concept. Racing the bike every week, but looking ahead to development of the new range Norco were already working on, we were very keen in our early feedback to keep the positive handling characteristics from the Team DH, particularly the balance in corners. That said there were also areas of the suspension design and attention to detail that I know Norco had in mind to progress, which along with some of the feedback we were giving performance wise I understand led to ideas for the first Aurum prototypes.

My understanding is that this came from a combination things, but a new design team started at Norco about the same time as we started racing for them, with PJ Hunton and Owen Pemberton bringing new design ideas and frame styling to this year’s range of bikes which played a big part. The principles of the ‘ART’ suspension system were tested out initially on some of the shorter travel bikes in the range before incorporating and tailoring them to the DH bike, but now I think I am right in saying that after proving successful the ART suspension system is featured on nearly all Norco’s full suspension bikes.

Yes in short. But really you could talk all day about the pros and cons of the different aspects of suspension design. In a nutshell the more rearward axle path is better on small bumps (tracks better and holds better speed) and the ‘ART’ (Advanced Ride Technology) suspension system gives a really good balance between pedalling efficiency and bump absorption on the larger hits as well as keeping the suspension active under braking. I believe it is all about striking a good balance between the different requirements you want from your suspension design, and after racing the Aurum for a year now I think one of the bike’s strong points is exactly this. The reason I value a good balance of requirements is to have a versatile bike rather than just the best on the flat sprints of Canberra, or the fastest in a straight line over the rocks at Fort Bill, so I think this is an important characteristic of the Aurum.