Review: Norco Fluid FS Carbon - A Comfortable Companion
Norco released the latest version of the alloy Fluid as the bike for "every rider, every trail," and hit the nail on the head when it came to the spec, geometry, overall performance, and ultimately, cost. Priced between $2,000 and $4,000 USD, it really hit a sweet spot for many riders.
That made the introduction of the Fluid Carbon a bit puzzling, given the big jump in cost relative to the performance gains, but assumptions aren't why we're here. The carbon front triangle does save 600 grams compared to the alloy, while also providing some improved characteristics on trail.
With a 130/140mm travel layout, 29" wheels front and rear, and a carbon front triangle mounted to an aluminum rear, the Fluid FS Carbon still aims to be the bike for every rider and every trail, just with a lighter overall package and fancier accoutrement.
That made the introduction of the Fluid Carbon a bit puzzling, given the big jump in cost relative to the performance gains, but assumptions aren't why we're here. The carbon front triangle does save 600 grams compared to the alloy, while also providing some improved characteristics on trail.
With a 130/140mm travel layout, 29" wheels front and rear, and a carbon front triangle mounted to an aluminum rear, the Fluid FS Carbon still aims to be the bike for every rider and every trail, just with a lighter overall package and fancier accoutrement.
Fluid Carbon Details
• 29" wheels
• 130mm frame travel, 140mm fork
• 65° head angle
• 430-535mm reach (510mm size XL)
• Size-dependent chainstay length (440mm size XL)
• 77° seat tube angle, size dependent
• 4 sizes available, XL tested
• Weight: 32.9 lb / 14.9 kg (XL)
• Price: $5,999 USD
• norco.com
• 29" wheels
• 130mm frame travel, 140mm fork
• 65° head angle
• 430-535mm reach (510mm size XL)
• Size-dependent chainstay length (440mm size XL)
• 77° seat tube angle, size dependent
• 4 sizes available, XL tested
• Weight: 32.9 lb / 14.9 kg (XL)
• Price: $5,999 USD
• norco.com
 | Easy going, right out of the gate. The Fluid's geometry puts you in a confident, neutral body position, and the suspension is there to keep things in shape as you start to push the speed and rally through rougher terrain. |
Frame Details
It's the Fluid, but in carbon! Well, not entirely. The Fluid's Carbon and Alloy variants are identical, save for the front triangle, which in this case is made of those luxurious black fibers we've grown so used to. Otherwise, the rear ends are both aluminum, with the same linkage parts, hardware, geometry, and kinematic.
With the carbon front triangle come some little creature comforts to suit the fancier frame. The internal cable routing has well-designed gizmos to clamp them at the lower exit, as well as multiple plug options for the top entry to suit whatever cable orientation you're using, be it moto brakes, wireless everything, or some other elusive third option you've cooked up. There's a small but elegant detail on the chainstay, with two exit ports at the rear end to suit either SRAM or Shimano drivetrains, as they both function best with a certain cable orientation. I'd personally prefer external routing, but well-thought-out executions like this make internal bikes much easier to live with.
Like the alloy bike, there is a UDH hanger out back, excellent dropper insertion, and a simple yet effective 4-bar suspension layout.
![photo]()
![photo]()
![photo]()
![photo]()
It's the Fluid, but in carbon! Well, not entirely. The Fluid's Carbon and Alloy variants are identical, save for the front triangle, which in this case is made of those luxurious black fibers we've grown so used to. Otherwise, the rear ends are both aluminum, with the same linkage parts, hardware, geometry, and kinematic.
With the carbon front triangle come some little creature comforts to suit the fancier frame. The internal cable routing has well-designed gizmos to clamp them at the lower exit, as well as multiple plug options for the top entry to suit whatever cable orientation you're using, be it moto brakes, wireless everything, or some other elusive third option you've cooked up. There's a small but elegant detail on the chainstay, with two exit ports at the rear end to suit either SRAM or Shimano drivetrains, as they both function best with a certain cable orientation. I'd personally prefer external routing, but well-thought-out executions like this make internal bikes much easier to live with.
Like the alloy bike, there is a UDH hanger out back, excellent dropper insertion, and a simple yet effective 4-bar suspension layout.
Geometry & Sizing
Norco has an excellent grasp on geometry and sizing, and the Fluid is a fine example of that understanding. Via their Ride Aligned sizing concept, the bikes scale proportionally with each size jump, to assure you're not simply stretching out the reach and hoping everything else falls into place. In the case of the Fluid, the geo is optimized for all-around trail riding, with a definite bias towards steeper terrain, thanks in large part to a high front end.
The four sizes available all share a 65° head angle, 30mm bottom bracket drop, and all fall between 76° and 77° in the seat angle, with the larger sizes erring on the steeper side. Reach numbers grow by 30mm per size, starting at 420mm and ending at 510mm; head tubes grow by 10mm, and stack by 9mm. Chainstays are also size-specific, getting 5mm longer with each jump, with 425mm shorties on the Small and a well-balanced 440mm on the Extra Large.
You can generally rely on the Ride Aligned system to dial in your setup, find fit information, and even choose a bike size. At 6'3", the sizing calculator firmly places me on an XL, with a 510mm reach and 644mm stack. I abided to the robot's assertions, and though the bike fit well, I would have been just as happy on the size Large. I feel like this comes up in just about every review, but I'm generally a fan of erring on the small size when I'm caught between two options, as my local terrain benefits that sort of fit and handling.
Be that as it may, the XL was comfortable, roomy, and well balanced feeling, with handling that still felt plenty intuitive. More on that later in the ride impressions.
![photo]()
Norco has an excellent grasp on geometry and sizing, and the Fluid is a fine example of that understanding. Via their Ride Aligned sizing concept, the bikes scale proportionally with each size jump, to assure you're not simply stretching out the reach and hoping everything else falls into place. In the case of the Fluid, the geo is optimized for all-around trail riding, with a definite bias towards steeper terrain, thanks in large part to a high front end.
The four sizes available all share a 65° head angle, 30mm bottom bracket drop, and all fall between 76° and 77° in the seat angle, with the larger sizes erring on the steeper side. Reach numbers grow by 30mm per size, starting at 420mm and ending at 510mm; head tubes grow by 10mm, and stack by 9mm. Chainstays are also size-specific, getting 5mm longer with each jump, with 425mm shorties on the Small and a well-balanced 440mm on the Extra Large.
You can generally rely on the Ride Aligned system to dial in your setup, find fit information, and even choose a bike size. At 6'3", the sizing calculator firmly places me on an XL, with a 510mm reach and 644mm stack. I abided to the robot's assertions, and though the bike fit well, I would have been just as happy on the size Large. I feel like this comes up in just about every review, but I'm generally a fan of erring on the small size when I'm caught between two options, as my local terrain benefits that sort of fit and handling.
Be that as it may, the XL was comfortable, roomy, and well balanced feeling, with handling that still felt plenty intuitive. More on that later in the ride impressions.
Suspension Design
The Fluid relies on a 210x55mm shock to deliver 130mm of rear wheel travel, driven by a fairly typical 4-bar layout. Norco is striving for anything but typical when it comes to the suspension performance, however, with a serious effort putting in to balancing the factors to deliver a well-rounded ride characteristic.
Norco is tight-lipped when it comes to any sort of graphical suspension information, but their engineers were willing to divulge their parameters and design goals for some of the kinematics.
On Leverage:
| One of our goals for the Fluid was to rely less on air spring progression for support by adding progression to the leverage curve to get a better balance of support from air spring and compression damping. In order to do this while keeping shock pressures in check for heavier riders and hit 130mm of rear travel, we needed to bump up shock stroke. The Fluid runs a 210x50 where as the Optic runs a 190x45 shock. This let us bump overall progression significantly on the Fluid compared to the Optic. The leverage curve progression is also very consistent through travel and doesn’t become regressive in end stroke like you sometimes see. We’ve found a curve with consistent progression through travel helps with shock tuning and provides a consistent feel as you push into the bike. |
On Anti-Squat:
| We look at anti-squat, leverage curve and damper tune as all contributing to the pedaling characteristics of the bike. Getting more support from the leverage curve and damping circuit helps to support the rider under acceleration and lets us reduce anti-squat while still having a bike that pedals well. It can be a bit of a different feel to bikes with high anti-squat that may have a bit more get up and go under power on smooth trails but we’ve found our approach to give a good balance between an efficient feel on smooth trails while providing traction for technical climbing. |
Like the alloy Fluid before it, the Fluid Carbon's shock has been tuned to match the characteristics of this specific kinematic. By no means is this unusual, but it's worth keeping in mind if you're going to be "upgrading" and swapping shocks right out of the gate.
| Specifications | ||
| Price | $5999 | |
| Travel | 140mm | |
| Rear Shock | RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate, 210x50mm | |
| Fork | RockShox Pike Ultimate, 140mm | |
| Headset | FSA Sealed Bearing | |
| Cassette | SRAM 1275 T-Type, 10-52T | |
| Crankarms | SRAM GX DUB T-Type, 30T | |
| Bottom Bracket | SRAM DUB BSA Threaded | |
| Rear Derailleur | SRAM GX Eagle AXS T-Type | |
| Chain | SRAM GX Eagle T-Type | |
| Shifter Pods | SRAM Pod Controller with MMX | |
| Handlebar | One Up Carbon, 800mm, 20mm Rise | |
| Stem | 6061 Alloy, 40mm Length, 35mm Clamp | |
| Grips | WTB Wavelength | |
| Brakes | SRAM G2 RSC, Organic Pads | |
| Wheelset | Crank Brothers Synthesis Enduro Alloy | |
| Tires | Vittoria Mazza 2.4 / Martello 2.35" | |
| Seat | Fizik Alpaca Terra | |
| Seatpost | SDG Tellis VS | |
Test Bike Setup
Thanks to the Ride Aligned system, most of my settings were very easy to find right out of the gate. Norco's setup recommendations are still the best I've encountered in the market, and offer granularity that other calculators don't even consider. Sure, bar width, tire pressure, and stem length might be second nature to experienced riders, but to some these are all daunting steps to take in getting used to setting up a mountain bike's many variables.
I have a good amount of experience with all the components featured on the C1 build, and generally found myself pretty aligned (ha) with the settings Norco recommended. The calculator recommended 84psi in the fork, I ran 90. It suggested 214psi in the shock, and I ended up between 210 and 215. If anything, it's a great starting place to get rolling and comfortable on a new ride.
Dario DiGiulio
Location: Bellingham, WA, USA
Height: 6'3" / 191cm
Inseam: 34" / 86cm
Weight: 180 lbs / 81.6 kg
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @danger_dario
Location: Bellingham, WA, USA
Height: 6'3" / 191cm
Inseam: 34" / 86cm
Weight: 180 lbs / 81.6 kg
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @danger_dario
Climbing
In fear of making this a theme of the review, I'm going to characterize the Fluid's climbing character as neutral. I suppose saying that is kind of a cop-out, but it just strikes a nice balance between grip and support that makes for a pleasant time over varying terrain. It doesn't necessarily urge you to hammer on the pedals at any sign of free speed, but instead offers a comfortable and capable platform to pick through tech sections and motor up fire roads alike. I found the body position comfortable, even on the 510mm reach bike, which is pretty much the limit of my comfort range.
Thanks to the ample rear center, long reach, and high stack, you're really in the middle of the bike, which makes body English a bit less necessary in moderately technical sections, but can sometimes be a handful if you're really trying to muscle the bike around. I didn't run into any major frustrations with this, but simply noticed that there was more bike to move when it was tight and picky.
I'm not going to make any claims about noticing the weight savings of the carbon frame, because 600 grams - though a significant chunk - isn't enough to separate an XC whippet from a big beefy enduro rig. Imagine a water bottle that you've taken a few sips out of, then imagine an empty one; that's the difference. That said, if you're pining for the lightest Fluid in all the land, then the carbon frame is obviously a good start.
Fun fact: the lightest fluid is actually hydrogen, but you'll have to cool it down to -253°C to get that gas to change state.
Descending
Easy going, right out of the gate. The Fluid's geometry puts you in a confident, neutral body position, and the suspension is there to keep things in shape as you start to push the speed and rally through rougher terrain. Those fundamentals are key to a good bike, and in this case they're identical to the preexisting aluminum-framed Fluid. As to whether the carbon frame offers a significant upgrade to that platform, I have a harder time saying so definitively. I enjoyed my time on both forms of Fluid, so don't let this come across as disparagement, it's just simply a matter of choosing between your preferred frame material.
We did thorough testing of that alloy Fluid in the last trail bike focused Field Test, and it performed favorably in a group of bikes that were uniformly more expensive and exotic. The carbon Fluid is still the same bike, though that relative cost factor is lost a bit. Some might find the frame feel of the carbon front end to really elevate their experience, but for me the two were similar enough that I wouldn't be too biased one way or the other. Don't consider this a rebuke on carbon in general, Norco just did a great job of making their alloy frame stiff enough and deliver a comfortable ride feel.
I wouldn't call the Fluid an wildly exciting bike, it's more in the capable and controlled camp. You can certainly pop, jib, and play around on trail just as much as other similar trail bikes, but its character biases more towards handling rough sections of terrain than returning all the energy you put into the pedals.
Overall, there's something almost blasé about how effective the Fluid is - it just gets along with anything, without any real shortcomings in any specific direction. At the risk of sounding like Levy, sometimes you want a bike that excites you a bit, but in this case the bike is happier to keep you on the line and in control. Climbing and descending both feel well-controlled and capable, giving the bike a predictable feel regardless of what you throw at it.
Norco Fluid Carbon
Transition Smuggler
How does it compare?
These two bikes are very similar on paper, with geometry, travel, wheel size, and intended terrain all hitting the same notes. There are small differences in bottom bracket drop, stack, and seat tube angle, but ultimately it comes down to ride feel, value, and on-trail feel.
The Smuggler feels like an energetic and zippy bike, up and down the hill, whereas the Fluid is a bit more composed and muted in rough terrain. That might just come down to the Fox vs. RockShox feel difference on the two builds I tested. If weight is your ultimate goal, then the Smuggler's all-carbon frame is going to be a better option for getting the grams as low as you can.
I'd have a hard time choosing an all-out preference between the two, and ultimately the decision would probably come down to value, where the Norco handily wins. Equivalent builds are thousands of dollars cheaper, and any outstanding component you'd want to upgrade could be done well within those savings.
Which Model is the Best Value?
This might be cheating, but I have to give the value award to the highest end Fluid A1 build. Yes, it's not a Fluid Carbon, per se, but the bike is essentially the same beast, and the value is much higher.
For just under four thousand American dollars, you get a very capable mountain bike, suited to beginner or seasoned rider alike. In comparison to the highest end Carbon build, I still prefer some of the components on the Alloy model - 34 over Pike, TRP Trail EVO over SRAM G2. The difference between the two is less than a pound, and again, the frame's performance is pretty much identical.
If I were constrained to the carbon options, I'd probably opt for the well-priced $2,099 frame kit (shock included), and build it up myself with all the parts my heart desired.
![photo]()
This might be cheating, but I have to give the value award to the highest end Fluid A1 build. Yes, it's not a Fluid Carbon, per se, but the bike is essentially the same beast, and the value is much higher.
For just under four thousand American dollars, you get a very capable mountain bike, suited to beginner or seasoned rider alike. In comparison to the highest end Carbon build, I still prefer some of the components on the Alloy model - 34 over Pike, TRP Trail EVO over SRAM G2. The difference between the two is less than a pound, and again, the frame's performance is pretty much identical.
If I were constrained to the carbon options, I'd probably opt for the well-priced $2,099 frame kit (shock included), and build it up myself with all the parts my heart desired.
Technical Report
SRAM Transmission GX AXS Drivetrain: Still great, and particularly unfussy on this bike. The shifts were always good, the bike remained quiet, and the drivetrain does feel like a performance upgrade over other offerings. Whether it's worth the overall build's price hike, I'm a little more skeptical, but having that consistent and functional base does make the rest of the bike feel all the more dialed.
SRAM G2 RSC Brakes: I do not like them, Sam-I-Am. The G2s are fine, slowing you down with enough bite and some power on tap if you really reef on the levers, but they just don't offer the kind of performance modern trail bikes deserve. This build also came with SRAM's organic pads, which are quiet and have good initial bite, but fall short on long descents and are quite scary in the wet. I'd consider these the first upgrade item on the bike.
Vittoria Mazza / Martello Trail Tires: With a casing feel similar to Maxxis' EXO, and moderately sticky rubber, these tires are fine in mellower terrain, but pretty under-gunned as you start to push the bike in hard terrain and conditions. They lack the support to hold up at low pressures, and the rubber compound isn't as sticky as the competition, especially in the wet. They are light, so you'll have a nice quick-feeling set for faster trail days if such a thing appeals. The Fluid can push hard enough to warrant some serious rubber though, so I'd recommend picking some up.
![photo]()
SRAM Transmission GX AXS Drivetrain: Still great, and particularly unfussy on this bike. The shifts were always good, the bike remained quiet, and the drivetrain does feel like a performance upgrade over other offerings. Whether it's worth the overall build's price hike, I'm a little more skeptical, but having that consistent and functional base does make the rest of the bike feel all the more dialed.
SRAM G2 RSC Brakes: I do not like them, Sam-I-Am. The G2s are fine, slowing you down with enough bite and some power on tap if you really reef on the levers, but they just don't offer the kind of performance modern trail bikes deserve. This build also came with SRAM's organic pads, which are quiet and have good initial bite, but fall short on long descents and are quite scary in the wet. I'd consider these the first upgrade item on the bike.
Vittoria Mazza / Martello Trail Tires: With a casing feel similar to Maxxis' EXO, and moderately sticky rubber, these tires are fine in mellower terrain, but pretty under-gunned as you start to push the bike in hard terrain and conditions. They lack the support to hold up at low pressures, and the rubber compound isn't as sticky as the competition, especially in the wet. They are light, so you'll have a nice quick-feeling set for faster trail days if such a thing appeals. The Fluid can push hard enough to warrant some serious rubber though, so I'd recommend picking some up.
Pros
+ Composed, comfortable ride quality
+ Well-rounded suspension performance
+ Excellent geometry and size-scaling
Cons
- Alloy bike rides just as well, presents better value
- Grippy, comfortable climbing gives it more of a long-travel feel
Pinkbike's Take
| The Fluid Carbon is a great trail bike, but so is the Fluid Alloy. If it were my choice I'd probably go with the latter, but luckily the choice is yours. Both offer well-controlled suspension performance, excellent geometry, and generally good components. There are many great trail bikes these days, but Norco really hit the nail on the head when it comes to ride feel and geometry for those who want to push their short-travel bike hard. |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
'Cable stay at home vacation'?
Whatever it is bloody well done Norco, it's what we want.
This is like the e-bike and acoustic argument. The new shit gets the dumb name, the old standard gets to keep the original name.
In reality it's often the parts spec that makes the biggest difference. Rims, tires, crankset and cassette can literally make two almost identical bikes 4lbs different. However for me (weight weenie) there's some frames that are just out of contention if you go uber light on the build spec and still get 30lbs on your 130/140 bike for example.
In my garage I have an all-out build (i.e. EEWings, Berd wheels, TS brakes, 11 speed drivetrain, Ti pedal spindles, Enve stem, etc.) L Carbon Smuggler sitting at 28#s ready to ride with decidedly 'trail' tires. If I remove my dual inserts, tools & pedals it's just under 26#s (as the manufacturers weight them). I'd have to ditch my tools and inserts to be 27#s with pedals, and I can't do that.
Have to say that light bikes with fast tires in this category are an entirely different experience than an AM/ Enduro bike. Sometimes the speed is so much greater on less extreme sections that I'm catching air on what is basically rolling flats and that's a pretty rad way to spice up more mellow sections of trail.
but to each his own, I guess.
(you're blowing it)
(you're an a*shole)
It’s funny how almost everyone obsesses over the same bike weights, but 130lb and 220lb riders can end up on nearly identical ~34lb bikes. The heavier rider is going to consume wheels, drivetrain, suspension, bearings, tires, and brakes at a much faster rate.
Weight savings are best found on wheels, so long as the wheels/tires are robust enough for the intended use. Wheels are rotational and unsprung mass, which hugely affect the liveliness of a bike. A 35lb bike with 5lb wheelset will ride very differently than a 35lb bike with a 7.5lb wheelset.
www.pinkbike.com/news/the-pinkbike-podcast-episode-92-why-bike-weight-doesnt-matter-as-much-as-you-might-think.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/opinion-why-weight-doesnt-matter.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/why-you-shouldnt-worry-about-weight-much.html
it just has fox 36 , light wheels no inserts , light coil , e13 46t light cassette , magura brakes
do your Maths , this should work
As for spec, it’s a little surprising Dario didn’t call out the unusual and most welcome choices of a OneUp carbon bar, and the alloy Synthesis wheels. Both in my experience the kinds of products I don’t expect to see OEM but instead natural upgrades. Bravo Norco!
2499€ for the A2 is good value in my opinion. I bought it for almost the same price a year ago..
but you are right, the official prices for the Fluid in Europe were a bit ridiculous..
G2s are utterly appalling.
I ran the RSCs with 180mm Centreline rotors on a 115/120mm XC/downcountry bike and the spongey-ness and complete lack of power - especially after a "sustained" braking effort of more than a few seconds - beggared belief.
I have the RSC on my Trail bike since 2017.
Most reliable brakes I ever had, unlike the failed Shimano brakes.
A proper bleeding gets rid of all the sponge and they can be quite powerful with good pads and rotors.
The Code brakes are definitely more powerful, but for a trail bike my Guides are enough.
But damn, the downhill performance is excellent. Steep gnar at the bike park, flowy local singletrack, it's all good on the Fluid. Dario might call it "capable and controlled", which it definitely is, but you can absolutely find some hold-onto-your-pants-ohshitohshit moments since it's not some 180mm megadozer. I love it
My XT cable drivetrain leaves me nothing to complain about. And I'm pretty sure I'd be equally content if it was SLX or Deore. However, I'd be lost without really good brakes.
The new 6100 Deore brakes are crap through. I tried everything to make than less spongy and have at least the same power as my guides. Including changing the fluid to non mineral oil, because at freezing temperatures the had the infamous wandering brake point.
In the end I gave up and switched the levers to Shimano Saint which made a huge difference.
I'm not sure I like the path Pinkbike is headed down with this one...
I guess my question is... is this really that much of an evolution from the optic? I didn't realize how close the Carbon bikes looked like each other and the slightly larger diameter shock.
I'm looking for a new bike to replace my ancient Yeti SB66 and don't have a ton of money to spend.
Where was most of the testing done? inquiring want to know
Squamish? Bellingham?
Curious on your thoughts about riding some of the spicier black trails? Good to go? or maybe look at the Sight?
I don't feel like the average rider buying a 130mm bike, is planning on Bellingham, Squamish & North Shore to be their primary ride spots.
Can this boutqiue Carbon Fluid out perform a much older Stumpjumper Carbon or S-works
So that takes this bike from an everyperson bike to a dental student bike.
What's with the carbon love? Have none of you seen a carbon frame break?
I'd rather have a well made aluminum frame any day.
The bike is an absolute monster on the trails.
Love the short travel full suckers.
A con? WTF is wrong with this place?
If you want it soooo much more poppy and short-travel feeling, add a bunch of spring. You'll also lose a bunch of grip and comfort, but then you can put that in the cons column!
Why did you need to add a con for that very specific group of riders? Does the cons column have a quota? Already mentioned well-rounded suspension in the pros column, then reversed that with "too plush for some". Excellent consistency.
Like bike testers don’t understand the connection between thousands of dollars being spent on a bike and it not looking good. The carbon version of this bike is one that I would buy over the alloy all day, based on looks and weight reduction alone.
The review is good, but like a lot of reviews, the rider is too good for the target market of this bike: semi-pro and pro riders don’t care too much about a pound or two weight difference. The rest of us see that as adding more miles on our once week rides, before we get tired out.
Good writing though for sure, thanks for the reviews!
The alloy version looks nearly identical to the carbon because the welds on the alloy are nearly invisiable, yet it costs under $4k to get top spec components. Those components are going to make more difference than frame material for a less experienced rider, especially one that grows their experience on this bike and demands more from their parts spec the more they ride.
If you want really want to talk value for a less experienced rider purchasing a Fluid as their first "official" mountain bike, the A2 is the model I'd steer them towards.
Perhaps I should clarify a bit: I said I would buy this bike.
I do think it’s a great bike, and when I say not very good riders: I mean non- pro/ non-semi pro.
This is a great bike for riders like me, although I have been riding 25+ years, average weekend warrior types.
When you get to 7% body fat then start taking about weight on the bike.
In my pinky finger. The rest of me is 90% fat and 3% beer.
Sure there are situations where weight is a factor, but it's ironically more at the pro end of the field than where you are at. Extra weight in the right place can actually improve your ride in terms of brakes, suspension and tires that don't flat constantly.