Sight VLT TQ C1 Gen 4

The Sight VLT TQ is offered in three builds—C3, C2, and C1—with reported pricing from $6,999 to $10,599 USD. Review coverage consistently pointed to the C2 at $8,999 as the standout in the range, largely because it combines the carbon frame, TQ HPR60 motor, and 580 Wh battery with a Fox Performance Elite 36 fork using the Grip X2 damper, a spec level reviewers considered unusually strong for the price. Vital MTB’s tested C2 weighed 44 lb in size S4, which puts it squarely in the competitive lightweight e-MTB bracket without resorting to a tiny battery.

The C3 was frequently identified as the value option because it keeps the same chassis and drive system while dropping to more affordable parts, including DVO suspension and TRP Slate EVO brakes. At the top end, the C1 adds premium equipment, but reviewers questioned some of Norco’s cost allocation across the range. In particular, multiple testers criticized the use of relatively modest rear brake rotor sizing and noted that the TransX dropper appears throughout the lineup, from the entry model to the flagship. Even so, the overall assessment was that Norco put the money into the frame, suspension design, and motor-battery package first, which makes the lineup competitive on trail performance rather than showroom flash.

Reviewers were broadly aligned in describing the Sight VLT TQ as one of the more convincing "light" e-MTBs currently available because it preserves a genuine mountain-bike feel. Vital MTB called it an intuitive, long-range package that sits at the intersection of playfulness, stability, range, and weight, while Jeff Kendall-Weed repeatedly emphasized its "authentically mountain-bikey feel" and its willingness to manual, jump, and change direction like a non-assisted trail bike. AOL/BikeMag made a similar point, framing it as a bike that "happens to have a motor" rather than one that dominates the ride. Across reviews, the combination of roughly 42-44 lb complete weight, the quiet TQ HPR60 motor, and the high-pivot rear suspension was seen as the key reason it avoids the heavy, over-assisted character of many full-power e-bikes.

The suspension and handling drew especially strong praise. Off-road.cc, Ciclonline, and Vital MTB all highlighted how the VPSHP layout and rearward axle path let the 150 mm rear end feel deeper than the number suggests, particularly on square-edged hits and rough "chunder." Reviewers also liked the bike’s dual nature: agile and flickable at lower speeds, then calmer and more planted when pushed hard into compressions and rough descents. That said, there were clear caveats. Several testers noted that the TQ HPR60 lacks the immediate punch of a Bosch-style full-power system on slow, technical climbs, and Ciclonline warned that the high-modulus carbon frame can feel quite stiff unless the suspension is carefully tuned. Component choices also drew criticism, especially the modest rear brake setup and, on some builds, Shimano Di2 drivetrain behavior that reviewers found noisy or less precise than competing systems.