# Scott Spark Question



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

I'm really interested in a Scott Spark. I have an opportunity to race for a time next year that's going to be riding them. unfortunately, they need an answer by the end of this month......the bikes aren't out until January. Has anybody actually seen one? Would it be possible to replace the Scott/DT shock with something else (manitou S-type spv)? I replace the rock shox on my 06 top fuel with one of the manitou shocks and it's amazing. i'm not to high on the manual lockout/travel adjustment idea for the rear. thoughts? comments?


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

don't see why not as long as the stroke/length of the shocks are the same.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*i would be*

VERY surprised if it isn't a proprietary shock, the eyelet to eyelet length needs
to be the same also.


----------



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

on scotts other bikes, are their shocks normally oddball/non-standard lengths? this shock's made by DT. I guess i'm just thinking out loud. does anybody happen to know the eye to eye and stroke of this thing?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*whyy change??*



packfill said:


> I'm really interested in a Scott Spark. I have an opportunity to race for a time next year that's going to be riding them. unfortunately, they need an answer by the end of this month......the bikes aren't out until January. Has anybody actually seen one? Would it be possible to replace the Scott/DT shock with something else (manitou S-type spv)? I replace the rock shox on my 06 top fuel with one of the manitou shocks and it's amazing. i'm not to high on the manual lockout/travel adjustment idea for the rear. thoughts? comments?


why in hell would you want to change that shock?? it is designed specifically for the spark. at 240g there aren't many lighter options. and the shock features 3 positions to choose from:
fully locked, traction mode (70mm of travel) and full active (110mm of travel). i don't see where a "spv" shock would bring any advantage. there won't be any better FS out there! i got info from gyus who rode it and they said it is awesome.accelerates like their previous Scale HTs abut offers so much more speed when the going gets rough...


----------



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

The pivot placement of the spark would lead me to believe that it would ride quite a bit like a fuel. Fuels tend to bob a little without some sort of pedalling platform. the Manitou works wonders and it weighs in the 200g area. My fuel sprints like hard tail...no fussing with a handlebar lock-out. Plus riding a FS bike with the suspension completely locked out doesn't make any sense to me. With todays shock technology, we shouldn't have to worry about locking-out the rear. i'm super pschyed on the spark because of the weight, travel, geometry, not so much about having to calculate which travel mode would work best in a certain situation.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*now settle down cowboy,*



nino said:


> why in hell would you want to change that shock?? it is designed specifically for the spark. at 240g there aren't many lighter options. and the shock features 3 positions to choose from:
> fully locked, traction mode (70mm of travel) and full active (110mm of travel). i don't see where a "spv" shock would bring any advantage. there won't be any better FS out there! i got info from gyus who rode it and they said it is awesome.accelerates like their previous Scale HTs abut offers so much more speed when the going gets rough...


while i agree with you on not wanting to swap the shock out, it is a pretty bold
statement to make that "there won't be any better FS out there!" just because
it is 1 of the lightest frames doesnt make it the best performing for a suspension
bike. of course someone you got info from that rides for scott is going to say this
is the best fs bike! as much as this hurts to say, and believe me it hurts, if specy
could get some weight out of the epic that is probably the best fs chasis going
for xc racing, and i assure you scotts "copied" fs design will not perform better just be
lighter. again you live in a fantasy world all wrapped up in scott is god. they are doing
some great things with carbon all though fragile, kelli emmet has broken scale frames
and she is like 110 lbs, that suspension design is nothing revolutionary.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*if if if...*



peabody said:


> while i agree with you on not wanting to swap the shock out, it is a pretty bold
> statement to make that "there won't be any better FS out there!" just because
> it is 1 of the lightest frames doesnt make it the best performing for a suspension
> bike. of course someone you got info from that rides for scott is going to say this
> ...


if they could get "some" weight out...hmmm- wrong forum for those tanks


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

you make a good point about the fuel... I rode one for a week and felt the same way with its stock, non propedal rock shox rear shock. Is the only change that switch does is locked out -> 70mm -> 110mm travel? Seems a bit odd, and I agree, some sort of platform shock would be nicer. I dont see how a switch to change the travel alone would change the suspension (bobbing) characteristics. Maybe it stiffens the rear too in addition to lowering travel.

Peabody did i just read that correctly?? haha jk, I actually 100% agree. *If* the epic was lighter....


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

*Why the need for 70mm and 110mm?*

The need for a 70mm and 110mm shows that the rear suspension is not very efficient at dealing with changing power input from the rider. A proper rear end should be able to be left alone to do it's job without the rider fiddling with a lever all the time.

Ole.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*exactly.....*



Ole said:


> The need for a 70mm and 110mm shows that the rear suspension is not very efficient at dealing with changing power input from the rider. A proper rear end should be able to be left alone to do it's job without the rider fiddling with a lever all the time.
> 
> Ole.


levers on the handlebars are for poor designs, you shouldn't have to fiddle
with anything while riding


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

peabody said:


> levers on the handlebars are for poor designs, you shouldn't have to fiddle
> with anything while riding


heavy carbon is poor design


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*i agree they need 1lb out of that frame*



nino said:


> heavy carbon is poor design


but it is still the best xc race bike fs chasis. if a frame is 1lb lighter
but doesn't work good on a suspension bike it will make you slower,
a hard tail is a completely diff story, lighter is better as long as it is stiff
enough and doesn't break. as i said before kelli emmet has broken
scale frames and she is small, so it makes me a little leary of
the durability of that frame. i would never use handlebar mounted gizmos
to compensate for a poor design and right now the epic is the best
thing going.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

I agree. If Spec can knock even 1/2lb from that bike they would have a sure fire winner in carbon or aluminum.

I tired a buddies Epic for 4 rides and I was just amazed. As a PURE XC machine, the Epic is everything I could ask for in a XC FS frame.

just a little to heavy. Also I would rather not have to use a lock-out for the rear. Too much crap on the handelbars, who want to fiddle with it during a race too. I don't mind not having a lock-out of my FOX RTL as it works fine, but I love the SP in back if I ever go FS.

Thre weight on the spark is sweet, but I DON"T want to lock the rear out.


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

Ole said:


> The need for a 70mm and 110mm shows that the rear suspension is not very efficient at dealing with changing power input from the rider. A proper rear end should be able to be left alone to do it's job without the rider fiddling with a lever all the time.


I'm guessing that as most of you guys are in the US you haven't ridden a Genius - you should be getting Ransoms, but as this is the ww board I imagine most haven't ridden one of those either! I own a Genius, and given it has a proper 4 bar rear end it rides just as nicely as anything made by Specialized - arguably better since it has better pivots and is stiffer. There is no need whatsoever for the travel adjust on this compared to any other suspension bike, as it rides just fine in full travel mode, but it is very nice to have the option on the bars and you can tell the difference and get a performance benefit when climbing of using the shorter travel mode, when on a normal bike you are stuck with full travel mode.

Not personally that convinced by the Spark, but that's nothing to do with the shock, which is a performance enhancement rather than a crutch. Personally I wish they'd just developed the Genius more, as that could be a lot lighter given similar advances (though a lot of the extra weight there is in the shock which is over 400g IIRC), though of course that didn't happen due to Scott wanting to sell in the US and Specialized's vast legal budget eventually frightening them off disputing the dodgy patent.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

the irony of it all is that specialized patent crap is probably impacting us the consumers, if they allowed more competition maybe they'd be motivated to make a lighter bike.... (
while we're at it someone get fox to lighten up their terralogic forks!) even the lightest epics like sausers are around 20lbs

I guess theres a bit of a tradeof here... is losing that weight to go to a spark worth the loss in effeciency? I dunno, but I definitely agree with its nice to not have a manual lockout


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*DT shock...*



bhsavery said:


> the irony of it all is that specialized patent crap is probably impacting us the consumers, if they allowed more competition maybe they'd be motivated to make a lighter bike.... (
> while we're at it someone get fox to lighten up their terralogic forks!) even the lightest epics like sausers are around 20lbs
> 
> I guess theres a bit of a tradeof here... is losing that weight to go to a spark worth the loss in effeciency? I dunno, but I definitely agree with its nice to not have a manual lockout


just in case you guys don't know:
DT has its own "anti-bob" shock, the HVR, which gets best reviews over here. Scott could have chosen this anti-bob shock technology as well but they didn't want to! i don't think they intentionally "downgraded" their bike by going the hard way and doing a custom shock by themselves...

if they would have liked the performance of other shocks on the market they could easily put such a shock in there, correct? so there's a reason they didn't want to.

by the way - we are not talking about 1 lbs difference. the Epic S-Works frameset is well over 700g heavier than the Spark. that's 1,5 lbs.

http://www.dtswiss.com/index.asp?fuseaction=rshocks.bikedetail&id=6


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

I haven't ridding the HVR but I've ridden the old fasioned SSD whatever in 7.88 x 2 and I have to say that I was far from impressed with the performance (the contstruction and build quality is nice, though). I took one apart also, and the insides tell the story. To make space for the lockout, they removed all the rebound shims so the rebound circuit is just a fixed orifice (Fox has done this too, on older Floats). LAME. the compression circuit is nothing to brag about either. Their floating air piston setup is pretty trick, though. At that weight, I'd much rather run a 5th air (~250g for 7.88 x 2) or RP3/RP23...

Poor performing suspension is a far greater performance detriment than a little additional wieght. I'd rather ride a hardtail than a poor FS bike.

BM


----------



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

chrism said:


> I'm guessing that as most of you guys are in the US you haven't ridden a Genius - you should be getting Ransoms, but as this is the ww board I imagine most haven't ridden one of those either! I own a Genius, and given it has a proper 4 bar rear end it rides just as nicely as anything made by Specialized - arguably better since it has better pivots and is stiffer. There is no need whatsoever for the travel adjust on this compared to any other suspension bike, as it rides just fine in full travel mode, but it is very nice to have the option on the bars and you can tell the difference and get a performance benefit when climbing of using the shorter travel mode, when on a normal bike you are stuck with full travel mode.


As i live in the US, i haven't had the opportunity to ride a Genius. My brother has though and he told me that the suspension moves quite a bit under pedal load. That's what worries me.


----------



## marco (Jan 15, 2004)

sorry guys i have a top fuel 100 with a dt hvr rear shock and i've never had a problem with it and find that this shock is even better than the cane creek cloud-9 shock.
fuel rules!!!!


----------



## DMFT (Dec 31, 2003)

bhsavery said:


> the irony of it all is that specialized patent crap is probably impacting us the consumers, if they allowed more competition maybe they'd be motivated to make a lighter bike.... (
> while we're at it someone get fox to lighten up their terralogic forks!) even the lightest epics like sausers are around 20lbs
> 
> - The Team bikes use Magura forks and weigh just about 19 pounds. Even if it was 20 or more, the suspension obviously does a very good job. Ask Liam and Christophe!
> ...


- I'd worry more about the weight concerning the Scott frame in regards to their questionable construction methods. Far too many of their bikes breaking, Strikes, Ransoms, CR1 road frames, and Scales. Yet they come out now with lighter Road & Mtn. bikes. :nono:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*setup...*



packfill said:


> As i live in the US, i haven't had the opportunity to ride a Genius. My brother has though and he told me that the suspension moves quite a bit under pedal load. That's what worries me.


well - thern he obvisouly didn't set it up correct! as easy as that. there's many bikes out there which will bob even with "spv"-shocks installed. you need to set them up for your weight otherwise they will bob as well.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*different models...*



bmadau said:


> I haven't ridding the HVR but I've ridden the old fasioned SSD whatever in 7.88 x 2 and I have to say that I was far from impressed with the performance (the contstruction and build quality is nice, though). I took one apart also, and the insides tell the story. To make space for the lockout, they removed all the rebound shims so the rebound circuit is just a fixed orifice (Fox has done this too, on older Floats). LAME. the compression circuit is nothing to brag about either. Their floating air piston setup is pretty trick, though. At that weight, I'd much rather run a 5th air (~250g for 7.88 x 2) or RP3/RP23...
> 
> Poor performing suspension is a far greater performance detriment than a little additional wieght. I'd rather ride a hardtail than a poor FS bike.
> 
> BM


there's several models as well as different model years. that's like saying "i rode a Fox a while ago and it sucked. Fox in general are bad design"

c'mon - you find DT shocks on many high-end bikes. once again, setup has to be done on all shocks to make them work the way they are supposed to work.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*5 year warranty...*



DMFT said:


> - I'd worry more about the weight concerning the Scott frame in regards to their questionable construction methods. Far too many of their bikes breaking, Strikes, Ransoms, CR1 road frames, and Scales. Yet they come out now with lighter Road & Mtn. bikes. :nono:


i haven't seen any broken Scotts. they sure can break if you have a heavy incident but they aren't any more fragile than other bikes out there!

Scott offers a 5 year warranty on bikes, races included.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

A couple of thoughts here:

Suspension performance isn't necessarily poor if Scott supplies bike with a lockout and travel adjustment. It's in part a question of consumer demand (they WANT a lockout - I really don't see why, when you buy FS to get traction in the first place, a lockout negates this). Secondly, travel reduction generally causes the spring rate to become more progressive. This gives you a bike that feels somewhat more rigid, but still has some suspension when climbing.

Bobbing often has to do with rider mass shifts. Some people's bodies simply bob, and unless you're going to tinker with platform valving or other compression damping adjustments, there's little you can do about this. A friend of mine would go on and ad nauseum about how his Horst-link bike was far superior to my Rocky Mountain, but in reality his bike bobbed much more, so much that you could visually see the difference. Maybe if HE sat still on the bike...

Solutions such as Brain dampers or stable platform technology all work well at removing both rider weight as well as some pedal induced bob, but this always comes at a cost: reduced bump sensitivity. I have never seen a bike where this wasn't the case to at least some extent. The advantagre of (for example) a bike like Specialized's Epic lies in the fact that in its use it's a simple machine: adjust the shock once and ride. No levers, no junk on your handlebar.... nothing. Since I'm the type to forget unlocking things, I'll take that over remote lockouts any day.

As to the Specialized vs. Scott debate: calm down, Nino. I've never seen you as pissed off as since Eurobike. Just because a company's employees may suck doesn't mean their products do. The Epic may be 0,7 kg heavier and not the stiffest frame around, but its a proven design that Specialized has continued to work on for several years. If it was junk and didn't sell, the big red S would have dropped it soon enough. Before we compare the two, lets see how the Spark does in the real world....

This all said: I have seen nothing about broken Scott frames on this side of the pond, and believe you me there's a lot of Scales and Geniuses being ridden around here.

[/rant]


----------



## AzzaC (Dec 23, 2004)

nino said:


> i haven't seen any broken Scotts. they sure can break if you have a heavy incident but they aren't any more fragile than other bikes out there!
> 
> Scott offers a 5 year warranty on bikes, races included.


Hmmm. I personally know the guy who owned the blue scott.... he had the bike for no more than 1 year... and DID NOT get a warranty on this!

*hope the pics work....


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Specis are good...*



eric said:


> Suspension performance isn't necessarily poor if Scott supplies bike with a lockout and travel adjustment. It's in part a question of consumer demand (they WANT a lockout - I really don't see why, when you buy FS to get traction in the first place, a lockout negates this). Secondly, travel reduction generally causes the spring rate to become more progressive. This gives you a bike that feels somewhat more rigid, but still has some suspension when climbing.
> 
> Bobbing often has to do with rider mass shifts. Some people's bodies simply bob, and unless you're going to tinker with platform valving or other compression damping adjustments, there's little you can do about this. A friend of mine would go on and ad nauseum about how his Horst-link bike was far superior to my Rocky Mountain, but in reality his bike bobbed much more, so much that you could visually see the difference. Maybe if HE sat still on the bike...
> 
> ...


i completely agree about what you've said above.

but i have never said Specialized bikes, especially the Epic, was bad ! i just said it's to heavy. just read what i've written here in another thread:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=2255536&postcount=9

@AzzaC:
well - riding against a tree or having an incident of some sort sure will get such results. not just on Scott bikes....! by the way, we are talking about carbon frames, not the tin can scandium frames of years past. i owned a blue one myself and used it for 3 years. no problems ever and it still gets used now. they offer a 5 year warranty on the 07 bikes which are much lighter than the competition. races included.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

No ****! A bike that looks like the above has obviously been crashed into a rather rigid object like a tree or a wall, or went through a pothole that is a little too deep.

A friend of mine was a pro racer for a couple of years, and managed to literally wrap his Scott scandium frame around a tree. Few frames can take such impacts, and as the damage is the result of an accident, warranty doesn't come into play.

Warranty covers flaws in design, material and workmanship, not accidents or abuse. This said: the only failures I know of on Scott frames are the old 7005 swingarms on Strikes: seen a couple of them break due to fatigue. THAT is structural failure due to a flawed weld or heat treatment. THAT falls under warranty!


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

Sorry, no misinterpretation intended. To each his own, I guess. It looks like it really is time for Bike to do a thorough review of the Spark and give people numbers! :-D


----------



## DMFT (Dec 31, 2003)

eric said:


> No ****! A bike that looks like the above has obviously been crashed into a rather rigid object like a tree or a wall, or went through a pothole that is a little too deep.
> 
> A friend of mine was a pro racer for a couple of years, and managed to literally wrap his Scott scandium frame around a tree. Few frames can take such impacts, and as the damage is the result of an accident, warranty doesn't come into play.
> 
> Warranty covers flaws in design, material and workmanship, not accidents or abuse. This said: the only failures I know of on Scott frames are the old 7005 swingarms on Strikes: seen a couple of them break due to fatigue. THAT is structural failure due to a flawed weld or heat treatment. THAT falls under warranty!


- A friend of mine's lever blade grazed the top-tube of his Strike and sliced it wide open, Craig Calfee was able to patch it though. 
- Ben Spies of the Suzuki Team that rides in the AMA Superbike series broke 2 CR1's at the BB. 1 of them was in the 1st MILE of the 1st ride.
- And lastly I watched a Scott Team rider at Sea Otter this year SHEAR the head tube off of his Ransom by flat-landing a smallish drop on the S.O. Downhill course.

Those bikes at those weights kinda scare me. :skep:


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

DMFT said:


> - A friend of mine's lever blade grazed the top-tube of his Strike and sliced it wide open, Craig Calfee was able to patch it though.
> - Ben Spies of the Suzuki Team that rides in the AMA Superbike series broke 2 CR1's at the BB. 1 of them was in the 1st MILE of the 1st ride.
> - And lastly I watched a Scott Team rider at Sea Otter this year SHEAR the head tube off of his Ransom by flat-landing a smallish drop on the S.O. Downhill course.
> 
> Those bikes at those weights kinda scare me. :skep:


ummm why was he using a ransom on a downhill course???

but yeah I mean its obvious you're giving up some durability at that weight.


----------



## DMFT (Dec 31, 2003)

The Sea Otter "Downhill" is known to be NOT really a "Downhill", very easy course, very pedally, short-travel Trailbikes are the bikes of choice for that course.

If you scope through the Sea Otter picture gallery I'm sure you'll find a pic of the jump/drop and probably of the bike too. I'm almost positive there's a pic of the broken Ransom LTD in the DH Forum. 

That guy was VERY lucky he only got the daylights knocked out of him...

- There is a reason the Specialized Carbon frames weigh what they weigh.....SAFETY.

Specialized uses the same test as Cervelo to test Headtube-Sheer-Impact strength. 
"Tour" magazine has even adopted one of Specialized's test methods for stiffness/strength.
They are known to destroy more frames a year than some companies produce, they even buy and break their competitors offerings.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

(double post, I'm a moron)


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

Those are interesting examples.... I should have nuanced my comments by saying I haven't seen any issues HERE (on this side of the pond).

Back to the point of Scotts being on the too light side of 'light'.. I think the above cases are still ones where structural failure result is the result of crash damage. Personally I'd rather have a 5 lb. frame that survives a crash than a 2 lb. frame that cracks if my levers hit the TT (all my bikes have lever damage, BTW ;-) ).

This is somewhat beside the point, though. The bike is designed to be ridden, not crashed. Scott's engineers design with riding parameters, and as it is, they are probably pretty close to the edge there to begin with. Crash it and it's dead. I've held Scott Scale tubesets in my hands, and boy are they thin. But the bike apparently rides like a dream, and I have yet to see one broken through fatigue.

As for Specialized: if what you say is true, they are doing a good job. I'd like to see more companies design with impact resistance and fatigue life in mind rather than with weight. As I say: I couldn't care much about frame weight. At the end of the line, however, Scott markets many of their framesets as pushing the weight envelope, and consumers should take this in regard.

I'm looking for a new frame in '07, as the last time I replaced my bearings there was a little wear on the frame as well. If the price is decent I'll consider a Spark as well, as I'll only race on it for a year or two. Either that or another RM Element, which should last me well until 2012. :-D


----------



## packfill (Aug 22, 2005)

*Word from DT*

DT Swiss was nice enough to email me back with shock specs. 6.5" x 1.5" or as they put it 165x37. I think that's about the most popular size now for XC bikes. So, it should be easy to replace with just about anything....hrv or spv. they also let me know that "that bike's a rocket"


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

eric said:


> (they WANT a lockout - I really don't see why, when you buy FS to get traction in the first place, a lockout negates this).


Personally because I do a lot of tarmac and fireroad miles in the races I do, and in those cases (given smooth fireroad) locked out is more efficient. The great thing about having a Genius with an RC39 fork is that I don't have to move my hands to go from fully rigid to full sus, so can switch on and off as I enter and leave the tarmac, or even when I get to a rougher bit of fireroad, then switch back when the fireroad is smooth again. The travel control mode is also nice as it does seem to climb better like this on not too rough ground, though on more severe stuff I'll switch to all travel, which is the only option you have with a conventional shock.

I did put a crack in the top tube of my Strike, but that was when the bar-end bolt hit it in a big crash, which would have put a major dent in an alu frame. Still carried on riding it for over a year, as I didn't see any crack growth, and planned to patch it properly eventually, but then got some money so retired it and treated myself to a Genius.


----------



## AzzaC (Dec 23, 2004)

eric said:


> No ****! A bike that looks like the above has obviously been crashed into a rather rigid object like a tree or a wall, or went through a pothole that is a little too deep.
> 
> A friend of mine was a pro racer for a couple of years, and managed to literally wrap his Scott scandium frame around a tree. Few frames can take such impacts, and as the damage is the result of an accident, warranty doesn't come into play.
> 
> Warranty covers flaws in design, material and workmanship, not accidents or abuse. This said: the only failures I know of on Scott frames are the old 7005 swingarms on Strikes: seen a couple of them break due to fatigue. THAT is structural failure due to a flawed weld or heat treatment. THAT falls under warranty!


Guy with the blue scale slightly landed nose first off a small jump - perhaps 1.5 ft max. No tree involved. And the first pic, the guy has a pair of SID's - not the strongest fork out there...

For the frames to literally fold and crumple like that in that many places, as opposed to cracking or just failing at one point, to me is a sign of poor design and construction.

Kudo's to Specialized and other companies that strive for good weight/strength ratios. I have read a test somewhere, where Specialized FACT Carbon used with the Epic is actually stronger, and more dent resistant that their alloy frames.


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

packfill said:


> DT Swiss was nice enough to email me back with shock specs. 6.5" x 1.5" or as they put it 165x37. I think that's about the most popular size now for XC bikes. So, it should be easy to replace with just about anything....hrv or spv. they also let me know that "that bike's a rocket"


Am I the only one who finds it strange they spec the bike with such a heavy shock? 200 gram shocks aren't hard to find, and DT Swiss themselves have a 150gr shock.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

AzzaC said:


> Guy with the blue scale slightly landed nose first off a small jump - perhaps 1.5 ft max. No tree involved. And the first pic, the guy has a pair of SID's - not the strongest fork out there...
> 
> For the frames to literally fold and crumple like that in that many places, as opposed to cracking or just failing at one point, to me is a sign of poor design and construction.
> 
> Kudo's to Specialized and other companies that strive for good weight/strength ratios. I have read a test somewhere, where Specialized FACT Carbon used with the Epic is actually stronger, and more dent resistant that their alloy frames.


might it be possible that these frames got a blow prior to the "incident"? same with the Ransom story you mentioned abopve. if a guy rides a DH course maybe he did it before as well...you can destroy any frame if you want.

anyway - the Specialized Carbons got tested by german bike magazine head to head against their alloy counterparts and found weaker in stiffness. not really a good sign for a frame that costs a fortune and is only a fraction lighter. if i remember right it was about 50g only that the carbon was lighter. well - at least your wallet is much lighter when you get the carbon


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

Okay, granted, these frames are thinner than Coke cans, but even then: it requires quite a bit of force to actually buckle a frame. Unless you saw that 1.5 drop-to-faceplant.... I'd take it with a grain of salt. 

Often people are 'just riding along' when things happen..... I've only once seen damage like the above, and as severe as above: during a race a girl totalled her Stevens by slipping in a staircase, and smacking the front wheel into a tree. By the time she and her bike were taken off the course, the front tire was just about touching the bottom bracket. :-S

I one saw a fatigue test of a 2004 SID fork, and while they is was a flexy p.o.s., it was one of the few forks that didn't fail. Fox, Magura, Marzocchi.... the whole lot cracked at the stanchion.

All in all, to me it comes down to knowing what you're buying. To date I've seen no 'spontaneous' failure of any superlight frame, least of all a Scott, that has to do with design or material quality. Impact resistance can only be less than for, say, a 1600 g frame, but that's only logical when the tubing is thinner. No amount of Scandium magic or sales pitch can change that.


----------



## consolidated (Jan 29, 2004)

packfill said:


> As i live in the US, i haven't had the opportunity to ride a Genius. My brother has though and he told me that the suspension moves quite a bit under pedal load. That's what worries me.


I experience very little bob with my mediocre spin. It's a fantastic ride, neutral, plush and I can't detect any suspension related deficiencies, such as bob, brake jack or sloppy pivots. I've been pounding this bike for over a year, weight 200# and have no qualms about riding the crap out of it. 
I must be one of the only people that love the lock-out, I routinely ride miles on the road to a trailhead, including some long steep climbs. It's fun to lock out both ends, tuck-in and spin it out like a rigid.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

nino said:


> anyway - the Specialized Carbons got tested by german bike magazine head to head against their alloy counterparts and found weaker in stiffness. not really a good sign for a frame that costs a fortune and is only a fraction lighter.


Don't confuse stiffness with durability. The 2 may be mutually exclusive in some cases. In other cases, these 2 properties may go hand in hand. In this case, you're injecting talk about stiffness into a discussion that's about durability.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

Agreed. It kinda depends on what kind of race....

Last Salzkammergut I used both the ECC on my fork, and the lockout on the rear. Most shorter races, espacially in rough terrain, however, I see so little asphalt that lockout out is pointless. Again... it's a question of rider preference and personal need.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

either way (assuming it works perfectly) wouldnt you rather have an auto lockout such as on the epic or Fox 100X fork? When set up and working perfectly thats the optimal solution if you ask me


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*auto lockout...*



bhsavery said:


> either way (assuming it works perfectly) wouldnt you rather have an auto lockout such as on the epic or Fox 100X fork? When set up and working perfectly thats the optimal solution if you ask me


well - when the Epic was presented a couple of years ago everyone would rave and say "this is it!"...a year later they tamed down the shock and allowed some more plushness to be dialed in because the public did ask for more sensible action...more traction....same story next year...even less of "lockoutz" and people would have a hard time to find a setting where the bike stays locked while at the same time be compliant and sensible over the small stuff....

guys, Scott designed the bike on purpose with a remote lever because there's lots of guys who want it this way. i am also NOT liking terralogic forks. first they have big durability issues with that valves not working properly and second you can have a RLC (or RLT?) which can be set up similar but it doesn't resist working on the first hit. anyway - i think there's those who like to have the command on what goes on and others who don't want to fuss with levers.


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

bhsavery said:


> either way (assuming it works perfectly) wouldnt you rather have an auto lockout such as on the epic or Fox 100X fork? When set up and working perfectly thats the optimal solution if you ask me


For me the optimal solution is what I have - remote lockout front and rear, so minimal extra effort to lockout compared to a Terralogic on an Epic, but full plush over the small stuff. I can understand why for some people the auto lockout is optimal, but certainly not for me. Then again I rode full-sus with no lockout either end quite successfully for 3 years.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

Assuming it works perfectly, yes. The problem is IMHO it doesn't work perfrectly - you always loose a bit of sensitivity, however hard you try to tune your shock. I had an SPV-based rig for a couple of months (until the frame cracked: thumbs up for ultralight tubing), and I justed hate how it felt on rough fire-roads. The suspension just stay lockout out, and that with the bare minimum of pressure in the SPV chamber. TerraLogic results in the same thing: if you want to reduce bob you have to compromise on low-speed, small bump sensitivity. There's a tradeoff there, simple as that.

For me a bar-mounted lockout would probably be better for the 1% of the time I actually use it, but then I'd want something that a) lowers the front end and b) makes the rear significantly more progressive, all with one lever. Kinda like a Spark w/ Marzocchi ECC up front. ;-)


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DMFT said:


> - A friend of mine's lever blade grazed the top-tube of his Strike and sliced it wide open, Craig Calfee was able to patch it though.


Come on DMFT, that wasnt really a "graze" by any stretch of the imagination. That was a hard crash with his loads of force from the shifter to the top tube. Ask John. 

Yes, its common knowledge that some of the CR-1s had some BB issues, but they were all taken care of.

Scotts do really well on the TOUR/EFBE tests as well. Im pretty sure Scott used them long before Specialized did.


----------



## Hardtailforever (Feb 11, 2004)

*So now that I've ridden a Spark...*

Having actually ridden the Spark, I can tell you all now that it's a really sweet ride. In the full travel mode you really feel the 4.5in travel- it's really bottomless. I usually opened it up to full on anything more than a mild downgrade, and it was still pretty snappy- sorta like a Fuel (no propedal) with more travel, but not more pedal bob. In "traction mode", the thing felt really solid and accellerated really well. As a hardtail guy, I tend to stand and mash a lot on the hills, and I greatly appreciated that they provided a full lockout as well. The bike always felt pleasantly laterally stiff, and had a stable, roomy feel to it. The suspension design isn't as efficient as the epic, but it did its job well, and like I said, I'm a hardtail guy and I enjoyed the ride of the bike.

As for why they use the "heavy" shock, it's actually the super light DTSwiss "nude" shock with a SCOTT proprietary oil res on it to provide the damper and lockout functions of the remote switch. And while I prefer the "fire and forget" of a hardtail with an SPV fork, I could see getting used to the switch and really liking the Spark for really rough races.

However, the lack of cosmetic carbon on the frame (they left it off to save weight) makes me nervous, as any dammage you do beyond the clearcoat is to the structural unidirectional carbon itself. Scary.

That all said, for literally thousands less (even at cost), I'll stick with my 19lb hardtail, as I can still out-descend most guys on their duallies. I'll be spending my hard-earned on ceramic hubs and bb bearings to gain that much more efficiency on the climbs. Hardtail forever!


----------



## Bender (Jan 12, 2004)

After reading this thread I wonder how many grains of salt I can take  

I really dont see why people are so incredibly brand loyal for no apparent reason. I rode a 4.6 pound AMP B3 with a Risse Genesis for 8 years and I loved it. Does that mean its a good bike for everyone? No way, the guy I bought it from was 200 pounds and it flexed all over for him. Ride a Scott or ride a Specialized; does it really matter? If we could all stop being such fanboys we might actually learn something.


----------



## RHR38 (Oct 12, 2005)

Rotwild likes to play too 

(Rotwild R.R2 FS, model 2007, frame around 1880 g with damper and headset)

:thumbsup:


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

RHR38 said:


> Rotwild likes to play too
> 
> (Rotwild R.R2 FS, model 2007, frame around 1880 g with damper and headset)
> 
> :thumbsup:


weird pivot placement....


----------



## RHR38 (Oct 12, 2005)

Yeah, it shure looks ugly but Rotwild have used it already for a while in aluminium frames. Rotwild's value is pretty good in euro mtb racing scene.

For me there's no cleaner and pure beauty looking bicycle than hardtail, knowing fully can be faster sometimes. But looks are always 6-0 for hardtail.


----------



## dcb (Sep 19, 2005)

It looks kind of like the Oiz:

http://www.orbea-usa.com/fly.aspx?mId=m268&layout=viewproduct&taxId=236


----------



## RHR38 (Oct 12, 2005)

Chainstays in Oiz and Scalpel are designed for flexing. Not in Rotwild's case










Quite heavy looking engineering..wait?..Is that a carbon city stand :skep:


----------

