What do you believe are the biggest benefits in overall design compared to the old bike?

It is all about the detail, I think the Gravity Tune concept is a big benefit. This means scaling the whole bike design (found from testing to be fastest) through the range of sizes rather than just scaling the front end and losing the balance of the bike. Also by refining the design, incorporating the Syntace axle system and using the forged BB at the heart of the frame, that Owen and PJ have managed to get a stiffer bike as well as a lighter frame.

I don’t know exactly to be honest, but I know our Aurum race bikes are lighter this year than the Team DH was last year, and that wasn’t a heavy bike.

I am told I look like Prince William, but I don’t think many people would disagree that there are some important differences…

There have been a few prototypes throughout last season to get to this point, but now both me and Ben have stock framesets because all the proposed changes from previous prototypes were incorporated into production. The weights and numbers of our race bikes are therefore pretty much stock. Component wise we are even pretty similar with the full SRAM set–up. There are just a few spec differences like we run Gamut chain guides, Thomson stem and seat post, Sun Ringle wheels, Kore bars and Schwalbe tyres. The rest is just personal set–up, like valving of the suspension, spring weights, etc.

To be honest Owen or PJ would be better placed to give you the details of other Norco bike designs, they have designed all the bikes in the range and I can only talk in this much detail about the DH bike because it is the bike we have been involved most closely with them on through feedback from racing and training these past two years. Although coming from the winter training season at the moment, the Sight (130mm travel XC/enduro bike) is actually the bike I have spent most time on recently and with having so many similarities to the handling of the DH bike it has been a lot of fun to ride.

2012 PRODUCTION NORCO ARUM

Even though the suspension design on this bike is different to the previous models it remains an FSR design. The biggest change is shape and form, and it’s hardly surprising that it’s here that comparisons are made with Trek’s hugely successful Session. OK, so no floating shock or concentric rear pivot, but bloody hell it’s close otherwise. The axle path is rearward bringing with it the claims of improved speed through tough terrain, and whilst this may be true we were equally keen to see its speed of pick up, agility and steering plus the association between suspension design and shock.

In a previous feature on these pages main designer Owen Pemberton talked of the bike’s increased amount of chain growth or anti squat forces. “If these are balanced nicely there is no effect on bump absorption, but the bike has a much better pedalling efficiency.” I’m already beginning to think Santa Cruz V10 comparisons here way before Pemberton went onto discuss active suspension under braking.

The main one–piece link offers improved lateral stiffness, something very important to the design as Owen describes, “It was a massive priority for us to make the back end of the bike as laterally stiff as possible, even though some of the pivots look quite small and lightweight they are all designed to work together. We are also using the Syntace rear axle. This frame is a lot lighter than the current design.”

With the Aurum being sold as a lightweight, aggressive race bike we were keen to get the new offering rolling. Here’s the numbers on our actual bike for starters

Nice touches on the Norco include the integrated seat clamp and fork bump stops. The headtube on the Aurum is low and short –110mm – offering the chance of a pretty low set up. Given the amount of spacers between the fork crown maybe a shade too low as a base setting. The biggest story here though is that each bike is geometry specific. This means that each size is made scaled up or down (from a medium I’m guessing) whereby the front and rear centre ratios change specifically. For example on the three size bikes we have wheelbase from 45.3/46.3/47.5” chainstay at 16.5/16.7/16.9” and front centre of 28.81/29.6/30.6” respectively. A laudable effort from the BC boys.

Taking in the detail of the Aurum 1 it’s difficult to find fault with any componentry such is the proven worth of each, and combined they make a great package. In fact there is not one weakness and we’d be happy to launch this bike down any track anywhere in the world. I guess the bigger question comes as to the choice between this bike over the higher spec’d LE or lower priced Aurum 2. Compared to the LE it lacks the carbon’ness, air BoXXer and Cane Creek shock. But more than anything I think it’s the lighter faster Easton wheels that will make the biggest difference over the subtleties of the CCDB and carbon bar, but hey, it’s a guess.

And compared to the Aurum 2? Look I’ve not been a big fan of the BoXXer Race but got a great feeling last time out on bog standard Kona Operator. Other than that not a whole bunch as they say. Certainly not now that X Fusion have upped their game. Although we would obviously prefer the Vector HLR shocker over the model fitted.

At £5199 you are paying over £1500 for a 3lb saving in the LE, whilst the Aurum 1 puts in just over a pound on the Aurum 2. The key message here is well chosen components built around a solid upgradeable frame. Certainly one to chose even on spec alone.