Review: 2024 Norco Optic - High Pivot, Short Travel

Frame Details

Carbon, aluminum, mixed-wheel, or full 29, the options are plentiful with the new Optic. This frame's adaptability will certainly yield some interesting builds as the bike proliferates, and can take many forms depending on which spec and style of build you go with. Regardless of those choices, there are some constants with Norco's new trail bike, such as tube-in-tube cable routing (on carbon models), aftermarket "Missing Link Kits" to change rear wheel size, and of course the idler that allows for the high pivot suspension layout. That pulley wheel is compatible with all of the proprietary chain widths out there these days, and includes a slick upper guide to keep things from jumping the rails.

All of the bikes have room for a water bottle, and include a toptube accessory mount for pumps/tubes/bananas, etc. Frame kits come spec with a Vivid shock, Norco-branded lower chainguide/bashguard, and all the little bells and whistles that keep the bike quiet and well protected.

For those who want to experiment with wheel size that differs from stock, the Missing Link Kit can be purchased aftermarket. This includes the lower shock mounts and rocker link, with a full swap taking about 20 minutes to complete. The kit costs $178.50 in Canada and $134.25 in the US. One very impressive element of the Missing Link is the preservation of the kinematics and nearly all the geo figures, meaning just about everything except the wheel size remains consistent.

Geometry & Sizing

It's the same old story every time I cover one of their bikes, but Norco's Ride Aligned approach to bike sizing really works, and makes for some very well-balanced bikes regardless of the rider's size. The Optic is no exception, though it does deviate from their typical approach a little bit. That deviation is primarily in the rear center of the bike, due to the growing figure as the suspension moves through travel. More on that later, let's first touch on the more static numbers. There are 5 sizes in the range, with numeric sizing replacing the standard t-shirt descriptor.

The Optic is firmly in the averages when it comes to trail bike geometry, sporting all the right figures for a bike with varied intentions. The head angle is 65° across the board, seat angles vary by size but land within half a degree of 77°, and reach numbers range from 422.5mm to 522.5mm with a 25mm jump between each size. A 32mm bottom bracket drop keeps things hooking in the turns, and when coupled with the high stack numbers make for a nice upright fit and neutral body position.

As I mentioned earlier, the rear center lengths are a bit short on paper, but do grow through travel. The chainstay length goes up by 4mm per size, ranging between 421 and 437mm in the 29" configuration. I mention the wheel size because rear center is the one geometry figure that does change with the Missing Link swap, giving the 27.5" rear bikes 6mm shorter rear center lengths.

A note on the sizing recommendations that Ride Aligned spits out: it's still important to take your personal preferences and terrain into consideration. At 6'3", the calculator recommended that I ride a size 5 bike, with a 522mm reach, but I'm certain that the size 4 I tested was the right bike for me. If I were one inch shorter, it would have given me the option, but for those on the cusp of sizes, keep that bias in mind.

Suspension Design

Clearly things are a little different than the prior Optic on this front, but generally the nature of the bike is in keeping with the heritage of the name. The Optic is still 125mm of rear travel, still sports a 4-bar layout, and is still meant to be a well-rounded bike with a focus on technical riding in harder terrain. The high pivot layout implements the i-track patent, which essentially spells out where the idler can be located on the chainstay. This location is key to the anti-squat, pedal kickback, and chain growth characteristics of the bike, and was fussed over quite a bit through testing.

In keeping with their semi-secretive trend, Norco didn't provide graphs to describe their kinematics, but instead went into great detail on the description of each attribute that plays a role in the suspension feel.

On Leverage:

On Anti-Squat:

On Anti-Rise:

On Axle Path:

Thanks to the full link swap to opt between wheel sizes, the kinematics are mostly unchanged, and the stock shock tune will work equally well with either option.

For those that want to know the exact data on where the rear wheel ends up at sag and at the max rearward travel, those figures are as follows.
29/29 – 6-7mm rearward at ride height (depending on setup), 10mm max
29/27.5 – 8-9mm rearward at ride height (depending on setup), 15mm max

It's worth noting that the C1 spec changed slightly between my receipt of a test bike and the release date, so that build now comes with a We Are One Union wheelset instead of the Crankbrothers Synthesis carbon wheels I had on for test.


Testing Info

I've taken the Optic all around the Northwest over the past few months, which means it has seen some foul winter conditions, a good deal of excellent dirt, and plenty of hard trails to test the bike's limits. For home trails, this Trailforks loop feels like a pretty ideal use case. Plenty of climbing, technical descents with some faster traversing sections, and some jank to keep you honest.

Climbing

The Optic might not look like the lightest bike out there, but luckily the on-trail sensation says otherwise. Pedaling the 125mm high pivot was less of a chore than you might fear, though it's still quite far from being confused for an XC bike. The suspension biases a bit towards compliance and grip, especially when seated, but does firm up nicely under hard pedaling. Generally there is a forgiving feel to the rear wheel action while motoring up trails, getting out of the way rather than bumping you out of your seat on every little obstacle.

That bump-smoothing performance comes with some cost though, both in the form of drag and noise. I was diligent about lubing the chain before every ride on the Optic, but found that over the course of any long pedal the chain started sawing away on the idler pulley, producing quite a bit of noise. I resorted to a method I'd used when riding a V1 Forbidden Druid for a winter, and simply carried a little eye dropper of chain oil with me on rides, topping things up if the noise ever got particularly heinous.

That noise might mostly just be a psychological detriment, but Seb's findings seem to indicate that there's some real drag at play with the extra chain wrap. This really didn't bother me for the majority of testing, but after having a few ride buddies comment on the noise it feels worth mentioning for those who mind.

Generally, I thought of the Optic's climbing characteristics as I would a bike more in the 140mm range - capable, composed, but not goading you on to attack the climbs. Luckily, that longer-travel comparison carries over to the descending qualities as well.

Descending

Over the past few months I've been trying to weigh whether I thought the extra complication and faff of the high pivot was worth whatever descending benefits provided to the Optic, and I think I've come to a semi-confident conclusion. For the right person, someone who wants a little bike that can push beyond its purview when truly ridden hard, the tradeoffs might just be worthwhile.

The benefits here are not profound, making all other 120-130 bikes feel puny in comparison. It's more of a subtle leg up on the competition, with a smoother, more composed ride through rougher patches of trail while still remaining poppy and fun in chill terrain. Going back to back with other bikes in a similar travel range, the biggest difference is in the feedback felt through the feet, with less chain influence on the pedals through successive hits. Getting the bike to sing requires a bit of a heavy hand, rewarding a committed ride style and heavier presence through the feet than other bikes. This is a hard sensation to sum up well, but suffice to say it prefers it when you ride hard.

The Optic jumps intuitively, both on bigger lips and off of smaller side hits, with none of the weird unpredictability that some high pivot bikes can generate. I think this is largely due to the relatively neutral rearward axle path, as opposed to bikes that just keep getting longer the more you push into them. There's enough growth to counter the very short chainstays, but not so much that things get weird. I might have made the starting rear center a little longer myself, but the bike does retain a lively and cutty feel as a result of the shorter back end.


The chassis of the Optic feels stout without being harsh, which lends more confidence towards the already pugnacious nature of the bike. The only real downside to the carbon frame was some persistent noise that I never really eliminated. It mostly seemed isolated to the internal cable routing, almost as if the tubes were too big for the hoses snaking through them. This led to some chattery noise on high frequency hits, but wasn't loud enough to annoy most. I'd probably just add a rubber plug on either end of the hose if it were my bike, to try to keep things tight at the upper entrance.

Over the test period, I've spent an equal amount of time with the bike in its full 29" and mixed wheel modes, to see if a singular preference won out. I'd have a hard time choosing one all-out favorite, though it's telling that I haven't been tempted to put the bigger rear wheel in anytime recently. If cornering speed, balanced handling, and pedaling efficiency are your goals, then I'd go with the 29er. If you want to lean into the funky idiosyncratic nature of this bike, square off corners, and manual pump through picky little sections of trail, then the 27.5" rear might just be the ticket. Luckily, the nature of the bike doesn't drastically change between the two, it just comes down to whether you like the mixed wheel feel or not.

How does it compare?

A bike as unique as the Optic is hard to draw comparisons to, but there are some similarly idiosyncratic bikes out there doing their own thing and keeping things fun. I really like the 5010, and find the geometry to be close to perfect for general trail riding, with intuitive handling and confidence in steeper terrain. The Optic edges out the 5010 when it comes to pedaling characteristics, partially due to a steeper actual seat tube angle, but also thanks to the even-keeled feeling it has over rougher climbs.

The 5010's front-rear balance feels optimal, and doesn't require much to get things hooking up just right. The Optic gets there, but requires a bit more aggressive riding in comparison. On the descents, I think both bikes punch above their weight class in the bump absorption realm, giving a confident and planted feel through successive hits.

There are some creature comforts that come along with the Santa Cruz frame that the Norco lacks, primarily in the Glovebox storage and the superior bearing durability. The former is simple, and a nice feature to see on a trail bike, while the latter is simply based on my experience aboard both bikes. The Optic has developed some notchy bearings over a winter's worth of riding, while the 5010 held up without issue over a similar period.

Which Model is the Best Value?

My main pick comes out of the US lineup, because the Canadian lineup is vast and the Loonie exchange rate is fickle, but I'll give a pick out of both for posterity.

To me, there's a clear standout in the lineup, and its name is C2 MX. This might not be the most well-rounded bike in the lineup, but the build is undeniably cool. Mixed-wheel, Vivid shock, Lyrik fork, big brakes, and a solid drivetrain all come together to make a bike that is sure to maximize the punky attitude of the Optic. The price is high, but considering the cost of a frameset the build provides decent value in the components.

On the Canadian front, it's hard to argue with the practicality and value of the A2 build. While I haven't ridden the aluminum frame, the geometry and kinematics are identical, plus the extra heft might lend itself to an even more planted descending feel. The components are sensible, and the price is solid. If it were me, I'd go with the TRP Slates over the Levels, as you have the option.

Technical Report

SRAM Transmission X0 AXS Drivetrain: I've been wholly impressed with the shifting quality I've had on well set up Transmission drivetrains, but this bike seems to be pushing the system to its limits. Transmission seems to struggle a bit with high pivot bikes, and the Optic is no exception. Whether it's chain growth, chain wrap, or some combination of all factors, the shifts are less than perfect sometimes and at one point led to a broken chain. I've triple checked the T-type setup procedure on the bike, so ultimately I think it's just best to shift a bit more carefully than you might otherwise with the Transmission system.

SRAM Level Silver Brakes: I have a hard time understanding why the nicest bike in the lineup came with the least powerful brakes, but here we are. The Optic is capable enough to warrant Codes (if we're talking SRAM brakes), and I could even see some folks going fully off the deep end and putting Mavens on it. The bike isn't terribly light in general, so the weight savings brought on by an XC brake are negligible considering their lack of power.

Fox 34 / Float X: The shock tune on this bike feels excellent, using travel effectively and smoothly without any hiccups. There is no distinct bottom-out feel, and the top end is fairly supple for such a short travel bike. That feel is well matched by the Grip2 34, which is my favorite short-travel fork on the market.

---

Pinkbike's Take

---

---

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Reviews Trail Bikes Norco Norco Optic