# Look what I found... 2011 NORCO TEAM DH



## screwyouguysimgoinghome (May 20, 2009)

Check it...


----------



## Steve.E (Apr 10, 2009)

Looks flexy.


----------



## The Dude (Jan 19, 2004)

OOOgly


----------



## flyingwalrus (Apr 14, 2004)

haven't been a fan of these bike since the latest re-design...they look cheap and flexy and the graphics suck. Plus tall standover.

I'm sure they ride great, they just don't look like it.


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

norcos have been ugly since... 2001?


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

flyingwalrus said:


> haven't been the graphics suck. Plus tall standover.
> 
> .


colors are the same as my 06 XC specialized Stuntjumper...I thought it was my bike for a second


----------



## 317000 (Mar 2, 2007)

****.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

flyingwalrus said:


> haven't been a fan of these bike since the latest re-design.


Just the opposite. This is the first frame design of Norco's that I've liked. They are a good suspension design in a fairly light, efficiently designed package.


----------



## MontereyJack (Jun 30, 2010)

Everything that doesn't have Norco written on it looks good!!


----------



## Nick_M2R (Oct 18, 2008)

Ugly, may ride nice, but still ugly as sin
Havent been a fan of the look of norcos since the end of 08


----------



## SamL3227 (May 30, 2004)

no thankyou.

if i want fsr thats not specialized there are alot better choices.

why sooo much standover height? i mean isnt that what most companies have been trying to reduce?

much rather have a devinci or knolly than this turd.


----------



## StinkyFTW (Jun 29, 2008)

saturnine said:


> norcos have been ugly since... 2001?


You mean since _always_. And this one is carrying on that tradition nicely.


----------



## sdo1982 (Jun 14, 2010)

Not much change really, Love how my A-Line rides, but they are heavy and the stand over hight as others say, is silly really!
If they "swooped" the top tube down to the seat tube it would make a huge difference.
But with Boxxer teams, what looks like full Saint gear, it will be the best spec for the least $$$

Oh and you have to love how high they have the seat in that pic!


----------



## Fantaman (Nov 7, 2009)

Good job Norco


----------



## $ally Hu$tle (Apr 6, 2007)

haha, that bike is a real piece of work...


----------



## dankist4x4 (Jun 26, 2006)

Still looks like something from Walmart. No thanks.


----------



## bxxer rider (Jun 7, 2008)

no doubt about it, better looking then all demo's......


----------



## screwyouguysimgoinghome (May 20, 2009)

I have to agree, the colour scheme is pretty bad and it does make it look cheap

Anyone who has actually ridden one of these frames knows that they kick ass and are definetly far from flexy and cheap

High standover? Boo-hoo it's not a slopestyle bike


----------



## FROGMAN524 (Sep 23, 2008)

bxxer rider said:


> no doubt about it, better looking then all demo's......


No, you're wrong


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Just look at the new demo to see how this bike _should_ look


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

that looks like it has the same downtube and toptube as the 2010 glory


----------



## BIGHaroHucker (Sep 9, 2008)

Steve.E said:


> Looks flexy.


Your mom looks flexy.:thumbsup:


----------



## delnorte (Aug 10, 2006)

Those who are commenting on looks... get your priorities straight. I think any real riders and wanna-be vanity queens are easily spotted through comments like these. It also makes it easy to spot the 15 year-olds in the bunch. A bike is a bike. Better or worse bike designs are not defined by "looks" or "ugliness". 
That being said, a really good rider will rock the house on whatever bike is available. Vanity queens lack credibility. Real riders just ride and have a blast. I always pick up great proven bikes from the last year or two. I never spend a bunch of money on the newest, prettiest, un-proven design. I get a bike that has been proven and well-reviewed while many others go with new designs and new design issues. And I save money while watching 15 year olds talk about how cool their new princess bike is. 
Don't get me wrong, I know some 15 yr olds that can ride way better than me. I love those guys, too. but there are way too many keyboard jockey young bucks out there commenting on stupid stuff - like how the new Norco "looks like s**t". Those guys would gain credibility by saying something that actually has merit and validity instead of making juvenile observations that have nothing to do with performance & reliablity.
Flame away, kids... prove me right.


----------



## nautilus (Apr 26, 2008)

delnorte said:


> Those who are commenting on looks... get your priorities straight. I think any real riders and wanna-be vanity queens are easily spotted through comments like these. It also makes it easy to spot the 15 year-olds in the bunch. A bike is a bike. Better or worse bike designs are not defined by "looks" or "ugliness".
> That being said, a really good rider will rock the house on whatever bike is available. Vanity queens lack credibility. Real riders just ride and have a blast. I always pick up great proven bikes from the last year or two. I never spend a bunch of money on the newest, prettiest, un-proven design. I get a bike that has been proven and well-reviewed while many others go with new designs and new design issues. And I save money while watching 15 year olds talk about how cool their new princess bike is.
> Don't get me wrong, I know some 15 yr olds that can ride way better than me. I love those guys, too. but there are way too many keyboard jockey young bucks out there commenting on stupid stuff - like how the new Norco "looks like s**t". Those guys would gain credibility by saying something that actually has merit and validity instead of making juvenile observations that have nothing to do with performance & reliablity.
> Flame away, kids... prove me right.


All the best bikes look the best. Function = form.

It's the same thing with cars, women, whatever.


----------



## ryando (Jul 11, 2006)

Norco's DH Bikes have always provided excellent value and are proven to be very good for what they are designed for (no matter what they look like). 

With regards to the standover, true it is higher than Norco's of the past....but compare it to the standover of such bikes as the Giant Glory and Trek Session and it is still less.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

I'm sorry to say that for my $4000+ I expect a product that is both beautiful and rides well. It's a bicycle. Sorry Norco. No sale.


----------



## Ithnu (Feb 16, 2007)

BIGHaroHucker said:


> Your mom looks flexy.:thumbsup:


Flexy MILF? Pictures!


----------



## mpmffitz (Jul 18, 2008)

A bike is what you make out of it. If you can't trust your bike through narrow hucks and deep landings, than find a bike you can trust. Riding true to your abilities will take you higher and faster. To get a bike like this and not trust it will only get a rider hurt.


----------



## Moosey (May 18, 2010)

I actually like it...


----------



## themarsvolta55 (Dec 23, 2004)

the downtube...



why


----------



## leggatt (Oct 8, 2005)

If that had Specialized written on it than fanboys would be in love.


----------



## Nut! (Nov 2, 2007)

I hate to say it (and I'm sure the bike rides great), but here goes.

UGLY!
Goddamn, it looks like the illegitimate child of a retarded Demo and a trampy Wally World special.


----------



## nolson450 (Mar 6, 2007)

I'd buy two: one to S#$t on, one to cover it up.... Seriously, who would spend their money on a Norco?????


----------



## Calles (May 25, 2010)

asin said:


> I'm sorry to say that for my $4000+ I expect a product that is both beautiful and rides well. It's a bicycle. Sorry Norco. No sale.


Why would you be sorry to say that? Compare 2 bikes of basically similar performance, and wouldn't 95% of us take the bike that looked better? Don't we always pick out cars that are in a color we like if we have an option? If this was the only bike on the market with its level of performance, I could understand. It isnt... sooo id say looks have a lot to do with it.


----------



## masterofnone (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't think it's that fugly, it's semi subdued and businesslike. I can name a couple bikes that are uglier fo sho. If you stripped the frame down to bare aluminum and put decals of a more exotic bike brand on I'm sure the opinions would change. With properly tuned fork and shock, similar geometry and travel, 90% of us could not tell much of a difference from one bike to another, myself included. I think too many people are blinded by hype and brand lust. These are the same type of suckers who sink tons of money into their beat to **** hondas and call them "fast". Belching smoke and annoying, yes. Fast? Ahem....sorry, no.


----------



## 02sedona (May 23, 2006)

Wow, I had to make sure this wasnt pinkbike. I double checked the url on the top of the page to be sure. It is a very dialed dh rig that the crowd here is bashing for looks. I see uglier bikes on the market from lots of other companies. It has a long wheelbase, slack headtube angle, rides like a real dh bike should and most are worried about looks. I bet if sam hill rode one, most of you here would be all about it. Funny how things are. I rode one, it rocks. My 2 cents


----------



## Iceman2058 (Mar 1, 2007)

sdo1982 said:


> ...Oh and you have to love how high they have the seat in that pic!


It's a DH bike, not a DJ/huck bike. Seat just below handlebar height...pretty average position among racers...


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

This one looks cool even though it's a chicks bike


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Ok. This one looks very good:


----------



## Techfreak (Feb 17, 2005)

Having seen a few right up close, they are far better looking in person than in photos, if looks is how you judge things.

They do perform well and they do offer a good deal of value for the $.


----------



## Quarashi (Aug 23, 2006)

screwyouguysimgoinghome said:


> Check it...


Looks like a session!


----------



## Korune (Apr 28, 2011)

screwyouguysimgoinghome said:


> I have to agree, the colour scheme is pretty bad and it does make it look cheap
> 
> Anyone who has actually ridden one of these frames knows that they kick ass and are definetly far from flexy and cheap
> 
> High standover? Boo-hoo it's not a slopestyle bike


Yeh I have an 08 Team DH and its bullet proof... Frames are really tough with mostly good components...

I've never noticed the standover being that high, although that said I started riding DH on a mongoose black diamond, which have extremely high standovers, so that may be why it doesn't bother me...

2011 model doesn't look as good as the 2010 version, the spec isn't that great and the 2010 has a better color scheme too..... I'd personally take the 2010 over the 2011...


----------

