# Scott Sportster



## Stylishxone767 (Aug 22, 2008)

Im looking for a bike for commuting and long distance cross country travel. I need something that can handle hard packed dirt roads and city curbs. I was looking at the Scott Sportster as a possibility. Does anyone have an opinion on that bike or any other suggestions? I need something light enough, yet tough enough for travel thats gonna be in the $500-$800 range.


----------



## Stylishxone767 (Aug 22, 2008)

.....


----------



## Gary the No-Trash Cougar (Oct 14, 2008)

Scott has several models in their Sportster line, and none of them appear to have eyelets for fenders and racks. They also have suspension forks which seem unnecessary, especially with 700c wheels (unless you are planning to take it up some fire roads or something). You might consider Marin's Muirwoods 29er or even Novara's Safari.


----------



## Solrider (Aug 6, 2009)

Gary the No-Trash Cougar said:


> Scott has several models in their Sportster line, and none of them appear to have eyelets for fenders and racks. They also have suspension forks which seem unnecessary, especially with 700c wheels (unless you are planning to take it up some fire roads or something). You might consider Marin's Muirwoods 29er or even Novara's Safari.


I just purchased a new Sportster P6 for $420 and they do have the eyelets...I probably will not be adding fenders or racks to mine, but its nice to have the option. From what I could tell browsing the Scott website and consulting with my LBS, the frame on this bike is exactly the same as the Scott Sub which is about $200 more...probably because its specifically advertised as the commuter bike.There are also a couple of different little components between the two, but I'm from the school of 'upgrade when it breaks' and couldn't justify the price difference at this time. The Sub is also advertised 3 pounds lighter than the Sportster but I test rode both and couldn't really tell a difference...if nothing else the Sub actually felt heavier. The Sportster is a real zippy little bike!

The P6 also has a solid front fork so no added weight there. I wanted a bike that was reasonably priced, light, easy to maintain, and didn't stick out like an expensive sore thumb when I parked it. Check it out I think you will be happy with it. :thumbsup:


----------



## beatmarkie (Aug 12, 2009)

I'm also looking into the sportster. I'm deciding between the Sportster P3 and the Sub 20. REI is having a sale on both bikes. My LBS is willing to price match them. I'm a newb, so please help me understand why the front suspension on the P3 is unnecessary when you also plan to take them on light trails. Thx in advance.


----------



## Solrider (Aug 6, 2009)

beatmarkie said:


> I'm also looking into the sportster. I'm deciding between the Sportster P3 and the Sub 20. REI is having a sale on both bikes. My LBS is willing to price match them. I'm a newb, so please help me understand why the front suspension on the P3 is unnecessary when you also plan to take them on light trails. Thx in advance.


While I can't speak for Gary, I think what he is getting at is if you are planning on using this bike as a commuter mainly on the street there is no need for a front suspension fork. Thats why I went with the P6. At most I'll be doing a little canal riding around here with some gravel but nothing beyond that so for me personally I just didn't want to push the extra weight of a front fork I didn't really need.


----------



## Pittzer (Apr 30, 2009)

I have a Trek 7.6FX I use for commuting and fitness, and I love it. It is a little out of your range brand new, but you can find them on Craigslist regularly if you are near a decent size city. I bought my wife a 7.5FX with LX components for around $450. It had about 50 miles on it. That would be an option for you and you will likely get a better component setup, possibly better wheel set and some carbon.

Take a look around. You might get lucky.


----------



## Gary the No-Trash Cougar (Oct 14, 2008)

weezerbot said:


> While I can't speak for Gary, I think what he is getting at is if you are planning on using this bike as a commuter mainly on the street there is no need for a front suspension fork. Thats why I went with the P6. At most I'll be doing a little canal riding around here with some gravel but nothing beyond that so for me personally I just didn't want to push the extra weight of a front fork I didn't really need.


Correct! And thanks for the reality check on the Sportster (marketing photos weren't very big). As a commuter-nerd, I get anal about things like eyelets (or lack thereof).


----------



## Stylishxone767 (Aug 22, 2008)

Thanks for the help


----------



## shimano4 (May 11, 2008)

Front suspension is good for commuting. Sometimes, u want just to go on pavement, or run on roads full of debris. Front suspension will ease the pressure far better than rigid fork. Yr commuting will feel more comfortable.


----------



## P-Tricky (Mar 7, 2013)

I know I'm late to the party, but I figured that if I came across this thread someone else might. 
I bought a 2006 Scott Sportster P3 new and have been riding it ever since. I have done a lot on that bike, ranging from 45 mile road rides to moderate Western Washington singletrack and even riding in six inches of snow. These days it serves as a heavy duty commuter with a rigid Salsa 29er fork (the Suntour unit broke after a few years and wasn't worth saving), front disc brake and rear rack.

Bottom line: These bikes are great for a wide variety of uses, especially commuting.


----------

