# Scott Spark - review coming soon



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

I just recieved the first Scott Spark.

4.5 inches of travel front and back and 21.5 lbs.

I will be racing it next weekend at Terlingua, Texas. The race is a 100K desert race, so I should have a really good idea of what the bike is like after the race.

Here is a picture of it outside my shop.

https://www.sagecycles.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/spark.jpg

Stay tuned.

and let me know if you want one.


----------



## ilostmypassword (Dec 9, 2006)

sagecycles said:


> and let me know if you want one.


..i'll take 10! 

Nice ride btw.... go give it a pounding at that race!


----------



## aussie_yeti (Apr 27, 2004)

now of course after that desert race there'll be sand everywhere so you'll have to completely strip it to clean it won't you - and while you're doing that you'll weigh the frame only won't you.

very nice, what frame size?

just went for the maiden voyage on my new ride last night - new bikes are fun.


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

It is reported to be a 3.8 lb frame with the rear shock. The frame in the picture is a medium. I will get it on the scale soon.


----------



## dcb (Sep 19, 2005)

I'm so glad to hear the complete bikes are getting in. Hopefully that means my frame will not be too far behind. I was really resigned to not getting it until April at this point because Scott's website has the delivery date for the complete bikes set for March. Did you get some early deliveries or do you think most dealers will be able to get those soon?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*frame only in here...*

no need to strip it...there's already others that weighed it;
by the way: that's including rear shock!

Scott set a new level i guess)


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Holy crap!*

Personally, I would NOT ride that if you gave it to me!

It's just seems too light for an FS frame. I don;t care WHAT proccess SCOTT uses. Maybe 5 yrs from now, but I think CF frames are going to far with weight. That just seems scary light and like a bike made to last for 1 season of racing then goodbye!

Kind of like the F1 and Indy cars.....


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

OK, I just got back from my first ride on the Scott Spark 10.

first and foremost I must give a little background on myself and my riding style. I am considered a hardcore rider by my friends. I fought the FS wave for many years, while happily riding and racing (expert) my Litespeed Tanasi. I never considered getting an FS bike while there was the bobbing issue and the weight penalty. when weights started getting better and stable platform technology started to appear, i took notice. i was a very late adopter of the FS concept. my first FS bike was a TI Racer X. It was OK, but I never liked the weight.I was used to a 20lb hardtail. I sold it for my current bike, the Litespeed Sewanee. I like the weight (22lb) of the Sewanee and with the RP3, it is a very efficient racer. Now back to the Spark.

My very first impression as I prepared to ride the Spark was, Wow! This bike feels very light for a 4in travel bike, or even a 3 inch travel bike. I have the Spark 10, so it is not the lightest setup, with the Fox fork and DT Swiss wheels, but it still feels incredibly light. I would prefer the Reba World Cup, Crossmax and XTR over XO, but who's complaining. I did put it on the scale with the original wheels and tires, and it weighed 22.8. The tires that it came with look heavy, 2.2 scott tires, so it could be lightened up here and they had tubes. So, the top of line Spark LTD version could probably be a 20 lb bike with a few mods, and still have a ridable/raceable machine.

As I mounted the Spark and proceeded to the trailhead, the rear shock felt mushy. I went back to the car to check the air pressure (150lbs), I am a 180lb rider. I pumped it up to 170, and that felt better, although i am not used to having that much sag, but I guess I will get used to it. The sewanee has very little sag. I rode off. the bike felt very nimble, and very comfortable in the rough stuff. I think if there was some documentation on how to set up this rearshock for maximum efficiency, I could have had it set up even better. I noticed immediatly that i had a ton more control of my ride in the rough stuff. I rode at Government Canyon, which is a lot of rocky ledgy climbing. The climbs were much easier, as I didnt have to worry as much about picking a good line, because the 4 inchs allowed me to roll over stuff that would have slowed the momentum of a lesser suspended bike, and the lightness allowed me to power up and over ledges that I had trouble with on other bikes. Overall, the climbing difference between the Sewanee and Spark was noticable, but the Sewanee is a pretty good climber too. However, on the Sewanne the steep head angle and the shorter travel makes it more difficult to get up over larger ledges, and your momentum seems to get zapped when you hit the rock gardens on the Sewanne. The Spark didnt get slowed in the rock gardens. It was easier to keep pedaling through the rocks, and stay seated. The biggest and most noticable difference came when I got to the downhill. The Spark inspired amazing courage! This bike is stiff. It goes where you point it. The front triangle feels very stiff horizontally. When trying to twist the front triangle with the handelbars while riding, it feels very sturdy, not noodley like some light bikes. The rear triangle tracked perfectly, even on fast rocky downhill switchbacks. The rear tire tracked well even under hard braking and no pedal feedback on studder bumps, while braking. Drops and ledges that were white knuckle on the LS, were barely a concern on the Spark. I hit fast rocky downhill technical sections at amazing speed. forget about picking a line. just point it down the fall line and go.I have never felt this much confidence on a bike this light. Sure, on a 40lb downhill bike you get pretty confident, but this bike weighs half that.

I did 24 miles on a trail that normally 10 miles makes you feel beat up, and I felt pretty fresh after the ride. The comfort of 4 inchs was definately noticable.

The jury is still out on the rear shock. I just dont know how to set it up. I wish there was some information on thr DT Swiss site or Scott, on how to set it up. I am going to call my Scott rep on Monday.

Anyway, it is only one ride. I will get it twaeked a little better over the next few days, but this may be the bike to replace my Sewanee, and I am pretty picky. I will post up more as I get to a few more rides and a race in.

PS;

another few things I noticed. The rear tire has tons of clearance for mud, as there is no cross member between the 2 seatstays where mud usually get bunched up. Also, that little air chamber thingie attached to the bottom of the rear shock body, makes it difficult to get to the water bottle, even on a medium frame.


----------



## dcb (Sep 19, 2005)

Sagecycles - That sounds like a very encouraging review. You were riding a medium frame correct? Can you tell me how tall you are and what you think of the fit? Also you mentioned the rear shock setup and I was wondering if you played with the different (full squish, short travel, lockout) during your ride?


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

*Great Scott!*

Beam me up, Sparky! ErRrrr... Scotty! :cornut:


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

The Spark sounds really great and it's looking to be my next build consideration but I'm a little disappointed with the rear shock. I mean, specialized has their stable platform figured out why can't Scott? I just say this because some people are so pro-Scott and anti other brands. I'm also a little concerned about the Spark because apparently some of the carbon Ransoms are failing.

That said I'd buy it before any other FS I can think of - What other alternatives are there besides the SpecialEd frames? The comment on the mud clearance is great. 

Thanks, and keep us posted Sagecycles!


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

> What other alternatives are there besides the SpecialEd frames?


A BMC Fourstroke is pretty light too.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Slobberdoggy said:


> The Spark sounds really great and it's looking to be my next build consideration but I'm a little disappointed with the rear shock. I mean, specialized has their stable platform figured out why can't Scott? I just say this because some people are so pro-Scott and anti other brands. I'm also a little concerned about the Spark because apparently some of the carbon Ransoms are failing.
> 
> That said I'd buy it before any other FS I can think of - What other alternatives are there besides the SpecialEd frames? The comment on the mud clearance is great.
> 
> Thanks, and keep us posted Sagecycles!


It's a short-travel frame, but I put my Kona Hei Hei Supreme Sc frame on the scale today and came up with 4.65lbs for a 17inch- with no V brake posts, with the steel water bottle bolts (4,) and the stock seatpost clamp. I will post the weight after I have swaped out all the steel pivot bolts for Ti, which should get me down closer to four pounds or around 1900g, perhaps.


----------



## Hardtailforever (Feb 11, 2004)

Yah, I agree, the Spark is pretty sweet. Too bad it's stratospherically expensive if you aren't a lawyer, shop owner, or sponsored by Scott.

Also, I think your weights might be off a little (on the light side), unless you're weighing it without pedals. I'm pretty confident in my measurements and my new large Scale 10 out of the box with the exact same components (weighed on an Alpine and checked on the one built into my home topeak stand) came in at 22.6 with pedals. I have a hard time believing that you only take a 3oz weight penalty for the FS, even in a size down. Maybe it came with different tires or something? The rest of the components should be the same.

EDIT: From the picture, it appears that it has different rims (DT-swiss? instead of Mavic XM819), different tires (OXYD regular instead of UST) and a high-clamp front mech (instead of E-type). Also, I realized I weighed mine with bottle cages, so maybe your weights are about right...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*rear shock...*




Slobberdoggy said:


> ...I'm a little disappointed with the rear shock. I mean, specialized has their stable platform figured out why can't Scott?


they sure can. you could simply swap out the Scott shock and put a DT Swiss HVR in there which is much lighter as well and has this "spv" thing inside. there is even a carbon version which weighs about 150g only so there could be another 100g shaved off of the weight.

BUT Scott believes in manual lockouts still. as seen on Specialized Epic's these anti-bob features get tamed and tamed year after year because the people would complain about lack of sensibility. 1st everyone would rave about the Epic saying this was the best...now they made the shock adjustable and it ends up you have some bob again if you want a sensible rear end...

the Spark offers you all you want with a flick of the remote lever on the handlebar.


----------



## adn (Dec 20, 2005)

Great weight, too bad they've converted to faux bar...

*taking cover*


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

Couldn't agree more, adn, and all the reviews I've seen seem to confirm my perspective (mentioning things like bob, which my Genius very definitely doesn't suffer from - even the review on here, which looks much like what I'd expect a Genius review to look like apart from that issue).

And all because of Specialized's lawyers and dodgy patents.

< got a couple of tin hats here - want to borrow one >


----------



## adn (Dec 20, 2005)

Fourbar (<- horst link, not faux) is superb for big, bilky huckabilty monsters where you don't care about bobing, just pure plushness. I've tried several horst link bikes and they all bob like hell. Sure, it is one of the plushest suspension designs there is, but still...

And: Faux bar is nothing more than link activated single pivot, folks, and it allways will be.


{Hell yeah, i'll take ten, Chrism, thanks mate}

Adn/
wishing for a 1.7kg VPP frame


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

Bike TV has a test of the Spark FWIW here:

http://www.bike-tv.at/cms/index.php?id=2,279,0,0,1,0

To bad they don't make Larissa ride it


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

Hey, Slobber! S'up? Thanks for the link! :thumbsup:


----------



## hobie1 (Sep 29, 2006)

*Spark front page on April MB Action*

Just saw from Scotts webpage that the Spark was featured on the April of MB Action. Have not had a chance to read the entire reviews there.

Anyone had a chance to get a copy of the issue?

http://www.scottusa.com/news/article.php?UID=426

Thanks!

Francis


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Nice stuff. I'll take it in faux bar or four bar, both of which I like. BUT being clad in winter/hibernation fat, I'm a bit leery of the crazy light weight. I'll get over it in time


----------



## glovemtb (Mar 12, 2006)

*There's A Review In MBAction This Month*



sagecycles said:


> Stay tuned.
> and let me know if you want one.


There is a review in MbAction this month. The major complaint was the shock. I get the impression that they did not like how light it was because it made some of the other bikes they gush over look bad in comparison. 
The back of the rear shock links don't look very stiff or durable. 
I wonder how much for just the frame and with another shock ? I would like to try maybe an Rockshox MC3 R with remote.


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

dcb said:


> Sagecycles - That sounds like a very encouraging review. You were riding a medium frame correct? Can you tell me how tall you are and what you think of the fit? Also you mentioned the rear shock setup and I was wondering if you played with the different (full squish, short travel, lockout) during your ride?


Yes, I was riding a medium frame. I am 6 ft tall, and although the medium frame was pretty comfortable, I would probably select a large for myself. A 6 footer could probably ride either a medium or a large. I raced the medium for 5:41 hours and fely just fine. There were a few times where I longed for a slightly longer top tube, but overall I ffelt fine on the medium. So, if you ride very technical terrain and are a super weight weenie, you might opt for the medium frame even a 6 ft. Over 6 ft would probably want the large, or if you ride more open trail and are not concened about the extra 40 grams of a large frame. Me, I will probably get a large because I like to be a little more streched out.

Yes, I played with the AT, TC, HT thingie on the handlebars and after learning how to set up the rear shock, I like it.

I will be posting a full review of my terlingua race soon. It was a 100K desert race with 7000 ft of climbing with 5 hours and 41 minutes of saddle time.


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

Hi, Folks!

I haven't come across any literature re: i2i size of its rear shock... Anyone in the know... Would really appreciate if you could divulge its size...

TIA! :thumbsup:


----------



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

I emailed DT Swiss a while back with the same question: 

the eye to eye lengh of the shock is 165mm and the stroke is 37mm.

So you can use a standard 165mm HVR200 shock.

By the way: the bike is a rocket!


That's 6.5"x1.5" for those who are metric impaired.


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

Thanks, Pack! :thumbsup: 

Well, if i'd really gonna buy a Spark I'd swap the Scott Nude TC (claim wt: 240g) 
for a SSD carbon (165mm X 37.5mm: 146g). You could save ~94ish grams... It's just me though with such notion.


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

OK, here is my follow up review of the Scott Spark 10.

I raced Sparky last weekend at Terlingua. The Terlingua, Mas o Meno race is a 100K desert race in the Big Bend area of Texas in the Davis Mountains. It consists of a 50K loop that you do twice for the full marathon. Most of the loop is rolling desert terrain up down through dry creek beds and over arroyos and such, with the exception of one big hill at the 3/4 point in the loop. Over 7000 feet of climbing for the entire race.

here is a link to my motionbased: http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/2105439

Anyway, back to Sparky. I finally figured out how to set up the DT Swiss shock. It was written right on the inside of the seatstay. There is a scale with rider weight and shock PSI. If I would have looked closer I would have seen it earlier, but it is hard to see while you are riding. It shows that you match the PSI to the rider weight, for example, if you weigh 180, like me, you set the PSI at 180. I actually found that setting it at 10 lbs below rider weight worked better, but that may be just me. I still cant figure out what that RED DIAL is on the DT shock. It looks like it is the rebound adjuster, but I cant get my fingers in the re to adjust it. you would have to have pretty small fingers to get in there and turn it. I couldnt do it, and neither could anybody else that I showed it too. I noticed in the Mountain Bike magazine that just just came out, there is a diagram of the new DT Swiss shock, showing all the various parts, but there was no mention of the misterious RED DIAL. Anyway, it would have been nice to be able to adjust the rebound on the shock, but it worked pretty darned good anyway.

Anyway, I started the race with Sparky set up just right. Right form the start I had it set up in the TC (middle setting), and I was picking off racers with relative ease. Now, in all fairness I could do this on the Litespeed Sewanne too, but the there was a difference with Sparky. I will explain; this race starts off on a fast jeep road for about 3 or 4 miles. The road is a slight downward slope for a long way through the desert, so speeds get really high from the start, 20 to 30 mph. The jeep road has many ruts and places where you have to merge in order to make it through. Sparky handled this section with ease. I found immediatly that I could shoot the gap to a rough section where others were slowing down, I was speeding up. There were 2 main differences between racing this section on the Sewanne and Sparky. Sewanne would buck me around in the rough sections, and if I went into the turns too fast, I would feel the frame twist and strain to hold the line. Sparky felt confident and stiff in the fast turns and the rough sections were barely noticable at speed. If I over shot a turn and started drifting towards the edge, I could easily apply a very small amount of rear brake, and pull the bike back on line. The Sewanne would require more braking under these conditions, thus bleeding off more speed to get it back on course. The bottom line is, this frame is stiff and allows you to go into fast turns with more confidence and less braking. I passed many racers before I got ito the single track, so I had good position going into the twisties. The bike handled beautifully in the single track. I continued to pass racers by taking lines that I wouldnt have tried on the Sewanee. About an hour into the race, you come to the big hill, Tres Cuevas, a 45 minute climb up some very rough terrian. Sparky felt good all the way up. I didnt dab or walk. The Sewanee does good on this section too. I dont really think I made it up any faster on Sparky, as the Sewanee is a great climber, so in this section they were equal.

Once you reach the top of Tres Cuevas it is all super fast double track all the way back to the start finish. Here is where I really made up time. Many racers were still suffering from the climb, as I closed from behind. I clicked Sparky into full 4.5 inch mode for the desent. I made up at least 10 minutes in this last 5 mile section. I was closing so fast on other racers that they could hear me coming and would scatter to allow me through. They could tell that I was not slowing down for the rough sections nor the turns. As stated before, Sparky held the line better than any other light bike that I have raced. It gave me confidence to go harder into turns, and to stay off the brakes in the rough. When I finished my first lap, I stopped for 3 minutes in the pits to refuel and went right back out for the second lap. My first lap was a 2:39, and my second lap was a 2:49 including the 3 minutes in the pits, so only a 7 minute difference from when I was fresh on the first lap to when I was not so fresh on the second lap. That says that the fatique level was much lower on Sparky.

My time for the whole race was 5 hours and 41 minutes. Last year my time was 6 hours and 19 minutes. You can check my results 2006 here:

http://www.tmbra.org/results/marathon_06/terlingua/omm50.html

and my 2007 results here:

http://www.tmbra.org/results/marathon_07/terlingua/omm50.html

my name is Rick Morris, I race 50+ expert. Although my fitness level may account for some of the difference, I have been racing for many years and I dont think I have made that big of a jump in fitness over the last 12 months.

Bottom line is, I have parked my Sewanne, never thought I would say that.

Side note: I noticed Mountain Bike Action has Sparky on the front cover this month and the article inside has the bike at 24.6 lbs. I dont know where they got that from. Mine is 22.5 just the way it sits, with the Fox RL and heavy looking Scott tires and DT swiss wheels and Truvativ cranks. Mountain Bike Magazine has it at 22 lbs also. Properly setup this bike could easily be 21 or even 20 lbs, with a nice Reba WC, XTR and Crossmax SLRs.

I just sold another Spark LTD last week to a fellow, and it will go out the door (when it comes in) as a 21 lb bike, I am confident of that.


----------



## dcb (Sep 19, 2005)

Sagecycles- Thanks for the answers to my previous questions. It is odd that MBA has the weigh listed at two pounds over your weight especially since their bike had XTR cranks on it which are listed at a lighter weight than the truvatives. Maybe their pedals are heavier? That wouldn't account for all of it though. 

They did mention that the rebound adjuster was really hard to turn though.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 1, 2004)

*looks like the course ran about 15-20 minutes*

faster than the year before...were the conditions similiar; ie air temp, ground conditions drier and harder? run different tires then before? different wheelset? just curious as many course change from year to year...thanks for the great write up!!!


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

Yes, I have to consider that course conditions were a little different this year than last. Last year the course seemed just a little drier than this year. There was a long sand pit, that last year seemed a little longer and deeper than this year. That may account for a couple of minutes over the 2 times i went through it. The tires that I ran were the same that I ran the year before. They were Bontrager Jones AC TR on the front and a Bontrager Revolt TR on the back with 32/34 psi respectively. The wind was higher last year than this year, and that may account for a few minutes also, but it was still pretty windy this year too. The wheelset was the same. The air temp was colder last year than this year. All of these things may add to a some differences in course times, because it does seem that everyone was a little faster this year than last, but not as different as my times. The actual course was exactly the same course as the previous year.


----------



## doccoraje (Jan 12, 2004)

Just one q, is the derraileur hanger integrated to the frame?


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

Good review.

Need more like this but do keep us informed.

AFAIK it has a replaceable der for sure - sage? 

Cool thanks


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

Slobberdoggy said:


> Good review.
> 
> Need more like this but do keep us informed.
> 
> ...


yes, it does have a replaceable DR hanger. looks like it is a black alloy hanger.


----------



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

In response to the MBAction weight listing, I've seen a Spark 10, size medium, w/ the shimano 540(or whatever their number is) pedals weighed. it was 24 lbs even. The pedals still had the plastic platforms attached.

I think the fact that it wasn't a Specialized made MBA add 1/2 lb.


----------



## used2Bhard (Dec 22, 2005)

*24 even*

I saw 24 even also whent he bike was floating around my LBS. I thought they added weight and problems to anything not a Santa Cruz?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 1, 2004)

*how was the carbon ride?*

compared to your litespeed sewanee? did it take the stutter bumps well? any pedal feedback on square edged hits on the climbs? anything you did not like about it?
thanks


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

Yes, Sparky took the studder bumps much better than the Sewanee. It swallowed them up, even in TC mode (middle setting on rear shock), much better and allowed me to carry more speed through those sections. No pedal feedback on hard cornered braking nor climbing in TC mode. Anything I didnt like? Yes, I am not crazy about the cable guides, cable stops would have been nicer. And that misterious RED DIAL on the rear shock that no one seems to know anything about. Other than that, it is one impressive XC weapon.


----------



## glovemtb (Mar 12, 2006)

Not really interested in a debate @ Ti vs Carbon frames, cause everyone is different. But, really surprised that a 45 min climb was about equal between the 2 bikes when the spark has 3 traction modes and is lighter? Did you run it in one traction mode all the way up ?
Also, really surprised that a carbon bike did not out climb a ti. Although I have owned many carbon and ti bikes the carbon bikes always climbed better for my riding style. Ti's : Custom built Zinn Ti, 2 Litespeeds, 1 Merlin. Carbon : all Treks OCLV hardtails and dual and road bikes. Never had a Ti that climbed as well as carbon mainly I think because I love bikes that accelerate well under load. (For my riding style and type of power output which tends to be out of the saddle and pushing gear allot with less finessing and sitting around). While of course many other factors are involved in riding a good frame on various courses it really all comes down to relative frame stiffness for my particular riding style. (Though I love the comfort of a good ti frame on long less hilly courses.)
Of course, depends on tire pressure, travel, bike angles, type of tires, rider fatigue, etc. etc. etc. 
I guess you need to send me one so I can evaluate it for myself ! 
1740 grams for a 4.34 inch travel frame Geez !!!!!
Oh yea, great stats with the motionbased readouts. Is that from motionbase lite with the Garman GPS, or do you have to pay the subscription for standard ? 
Thanks for review and stats. That is very cool !


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

glovemtb said:


> Also, really suprised that a carbon bike did not out climb a ti.


Why ?


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

glovemtb said:


> Really suprised that a 45 min climb was about equal between the 2 bikes when the spark has 3 traction modes and is much lighter. Did you run it in one traction mode all the way up ?
> Also, really suprised that a carbon bike did not out climb a ti.
> Of course, depends on tire pressure, travel, bike angles, type of tires, rider fatigue, etc. etc. etc.
> Thanks for the review though; I will be looking to try one.


Both bikes are actually very close in weight. My Sewanee is a 22 lb bike too. Yes, the best setting for the climb was TC mode, and I left it in this mode for the entire climb. The Sewanne is also an excellent climber. It has a steep head angle, it is light and the limited rear wheel travel makes it climb very well, especially with the Fox RP3 ProPedal. Carbon doesnt make it a better climber than TI. The Spark excelled most in the rough technical terrain, and the fast downhill sections. That is where most of the difference was seen.


----------



## sagecycles (Nov 16, 2006)

glovemtb said:


> I guess you need to send me one so I can evaluate it for myself !
> 1740 grams for a 4.34 inch travel frame Geez !!!!!
> Oh yea, great stats with the motionbased readouts. Is that from motionbase lite with the Garman GPS, or do you have to pay the subscription for standard ?
> Thanks for review and stats.


yup, i will send you one, but I will need some additional information ;-)

Yes, on the motionbased, I used a Garmin Forerunner 305, and the free motionbased service. that is all.


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

nino said:


> they sure can. you could simply swap out the Scott shock and put a DT Swiss HVR in there which is much lighter as well and has this "spv" thing inside. there is even a carbon version which weighs about 150g only so there could be another 100g shaved off of the weight.
> 
> BUT Scott believes in manual lockouts still. as seen on Specialized Epic's these anti-bob features get tamed and tamed year after year because the people would complain about lack of sensibility. 1st everyone would rave about the Epic saying this was the best...now they made the shock adjustable and it ends up you have some bob again if you want a sensible rear end...
> 
> the Spark offers you all you want with a flick of the remote lever on the handlebar.


I noticed none of the after market shocks (ssd carbon or HVR) appear to have the additional air chamber the stock shock has. Will these after market shocks work appropriately on the Spark?


----------



## ryan123 (Jun 15, 2004)

Just got one of the only ones in Australia... will be bringing her home tomorrow, cannot wait to ride it! Changed a couple of things from standard, ie wheels, cranks, fork


----------



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

Rode a Spark 10 for the first time over the weekend. It was set-up with a RS Reba World Cup, Progressive 5th element shock and Bontrager race x-lite wheels. other than that, it was stock, well except for the tires....bontrager tubless ready. it weighed 23.4lbs with the shimano 540 pedals and was FAST!


----------



## ryan123 (Jun 15, 2004)

Just did a 24hr in a team with it.. Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!! So fast, responsive, light.

Awesome bike, changed a few bits. Put on Crossmax SLRs, hope skewers, XTR 970 cassette, chain and crankset and Reba WC forks and esigrips. Brought it down to around 9.8kg or 21.5lb with light tires

Oh yes, and we won!!


----------



## glovemtb (Mar 12, 2006)

Hi, anyone know a frame msrp for the Scott Spark in the US ? I have found them in UK as frame only. Probably no where near an Ibis carbon Dw/link 5.5 " travel 5.8 lbs frame only cost is (1898.00) here in US. I would imagine the frame price would be similar to Titus Mojo Carbon at 4" 5 lb frame ?? at 2485.00. I got to try one at least with a dysfunctional rear shock. Oh well, it's just past beta right ? Wow, a great climbing stiff bike when locked out front and rear. I had one "issue" with the bike. After riding carbon mtn bikes hard tails and suspension bikes for a few years, you need to keep your chain line, chain rings and chain in good shape and never force a chain once you have even a little chain suck. Carbon chain stays are quickly and easily cannibalized by even one bad grind. The Sparky chainstay looks ripe for the picking, as do all of the new entries into the market (Ibis the lil plate they have bonded on may help some, Titus R/X carbon). Trek bonded an alum plate to the carbon and that worked well on their early hard tails. The Fuel had aluminum bonded bottom bracket shell bonded to the carbon stay until 2007 when they went back to all aluminum rear triangle. 
Anyone had a problem with grinding up the chainstay on the Ransom ?
Thanks


----------



## cutter spalding (Feb 10, 2007)

Some Guy said:


> A BMC Fourstroke is pretty light too.


I have a 4stroke and i'm gonna guess its somewhere around 24.5 lbs


----------



## AJC (Apr 5, 2007)

*Red Knob!!!*

Hi I have just got my spark 20 and have to agree with you Sage it is an awesome bike. Only been on a few rides so far and am very impressed. I am sure it will only get better as it beds in too!

The red knob is a rebound adjuster. It should be set up so that if you 'ride down a curb seated the shock should only bounce 1-2 times' If it bounces more you should increase the rebound and if it bounces less you should reduce it. The knob is supposed to 'click' but it certainly doesn't do that on mine and in fact it is a pretty tough job to get it turning at all! However if you get a finger from each hand on each side of the knob it it turns with a bit of effort and really does have a big impact on the shock dynamics. From no rebound to treacle slow.

Hope this helps and I will update you on the ride as soon as I feel I can give a reliable view and not just an excited oh my god my new bike is amazing biased view...

Laters

Andy


----------



## glovemtb (Mar 12, 2006)

*I Take Part of It Back*



glovemtb said:


> The back of the rear shock links don't look very stiff or durable.


Well I got to try the local demo out. But, the shock was broken pretty much locked out so know one has taken it to any single track anywhere.
We won't know about the durablity for awhile (esp since some of the problems with Scotts other carbon bikes that have been reported such as the Ransom on mtbr) but; I was sure wrong about the stiffness of the linkages and the rear triangle, main pivot etc. I took the bike out locked out front and rear and pounded it big ring up a pavement hill several times. Then took it in and did a tarantula type flex test on it. (If anybody remembers the old tarantula frame flex tester from Bicycle magazine back in the 90s). Wow the linkages are stiff and strong. I can't wait for them to get the shock fixed so I can try the suspension.


----------



## mtbkaddict (Aug 25, 2008)

*Light is good.*



DIRT BOY said:


> Personally, I would NOT ride that if you gave it to me!
> 
> It's just seems too light for an FS frame. I don;t care WHAT proccess SCOTT uses. Maybe 5 yrs from now, but I think CF frames are going to far with weight. That just seems scary light and like a bike made to last for 1 season of racing then goodbye!
> 
> Kind of like the F1 and Indy cars.....


Reply:

For the last two years, I've ridden a Scott Scale rigid single speed with a Pace carbon fork. With Stan's ZTR Olympics, DT Swiss Revolution Spokes & Maxxlite 310's, it weighs 16.2lbs.
In that time, I've never had to true either wheel, and the component failures have consisted only of one broken spoke nipple, a defective bottom bracket spindle which twisted in half, and a broken rail on the Selle Italia SLR saddle.

I admit that I am not heavy (148-150lbs), but I am an aggressive rider, although I do try to ride smoothly. Still, I'm pretty sure that Scott never intended the bike to be set up rigid, or to be trail-ridden on 310g tires, or to see up to 2-1/2 foot drops, on matter how smooth the landings. Yet the frame has held up with no problems other than a slightly bent derailleur hanger, which I straightened out.

As light as it is, it can be squirrelly as hell, which means that for the first 6 months, it seemed I spent as much time crashing as I did in the saddle. I finally learned how to ride it, and to trust its durability, and I have developed alot of respect for Scott's engineering and fabrication expertise.

I have learned that properly designed lightweight components such as the Scale frame, the Stan's ZTR Olympic rims, and the DT Swiss Revolution spokes can take much more abuse than I would ever have imagined.

As long as you understand that well-designed lightweight components do have their limits, and you ride within them, I believe they are perfectly acceptable.

That said, there are many trails where I would never ride the Scott, and if I could only have one mountain bike, it would certainly not be built up like this one. But for certain trails, it is absolutely sublime. Its responsiveness is almost telepathic. Its weight makes rider inputs so effortless, instantaneous, and precise that the bike is almost like an appendage.

Because of its weight, the carbon fiber's rigidity, and total lack of suspension, it is affected by EVERYTHING, which means everything matters. Because the slightest misstep will send you flying over the bars, even the most mundane trail is interesting, so no ride is ever boring.

On the other hand, because it is so precise, if you are on your game, you can bunny-hop foot-high logs effortlessly, and smoothly, (if you manage to land rear-wheel first), and if not, it will be glaringly obvious. I find myself doing things on that bike that I never would have imagined when I bought it. (With exception for the fork and tires, I bought it pretty much as it is now configured).

In short, If you are a relatively smooth and technical rider, I strongly recommend building an insanely light bike, as it will make you a much smoother, more competent rider on any other bike, on any trail. And, don't be afraid of well-engineered carbon components.


----------

