Scott announce all-new Spark and Scale bikes

[marshace]

Nice, looks a bit like Giant Meastro.

Pity shock is upside down !!!

Think of all the dirt going into shock !!!

[karma]

The coolest feature is the Garmin mount....

[banna]

Ok but that upside down shock looks a leeeetle bit like a dude with an upside down wiener...  

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Nice, looks a bit like Giant Meastro.

Pity shock is upside down !!!

Think of all the dirt going into shock !!!

No, it really doesn't/ 

[Iwan Kemp]

No.

 

Shock setup has virtually fokol to do with pedal bob. That is down to the design of the bike's linkages. Yes, too little or too much pressure in the shock can affect the support you get, but it is not the determining factor of a bike's pedal bob or lack thereof.

 

 

Not true.

 

Like Myles said pivot placement plays a bigger role than linkages, but the shock plays a vital part in the overall performance and the links play their part as well. 

 

A good shock will only go so far to improve performance of bad suspension design and 100% vice versa. If the shock's tune doesn't offer enough support the suspension won't be able to cure that. No way. So when a bike's suspension is designed both of those along with links are considered and tuned to get to where the designers want the bike to perform.

 

For me all of the changes made to the design really are great, but the biggest plus for ALL of us is the curve that has flipped from regressive to progressive. Reason for the way it was is when duals started making in roads hardtails fans were still convinced that HT's were the way to go. A big sales pitch was the whole "pedals like a hardtail thing". That meant LOTS of air in the shock (some were recommending as much as 10-15% sag) and if you pumped the shock that hard AND had a progressive curve the bike would have killed you. Little to no consideration was given to how a 100mm XC bike will behave when hammered on trails or today's XCO and World Cup courses.

 

Today we know that is so 2000 and that you need want a bike to have small bump compliance. For that to happen you need a sane amount of sag, good mid-stroke support (1. to make the bike feel snappy, 2. so it won't dive through it's travel) and ramp up towards the end of its stroke to resist harsh bottom out.

 

Suspension design and shock tune plays a part in that. No doubt.

 

DW & Maestro are known to counter quite a bit of pedal forces, brake jack, etc and doesn't rely on the shock to save it. Some others less so.

 

Great reference site (that's used by actual designers) to have a look at whose bike is doing what and what the impact of pivot placement is Linkage Design. Link to the holy grail of suspension bikes: http://linkagedesign.blogspot.co.za/search/label/Ibis

 

Also, contrary to popular believe shock placement plays little to no part in the overall performance purely because of its placement. I would guess moving the shock to the BB area was done for these reasons

1. BB is already a high load area that needs quite a bit of material. Beefing it up to cope with the shock's forces and mounts will be a fairly easy task.
2. To mount a shock to the TT means a lot of material needs to be added in an area that wouldn't need it otherwise so you're gaining weight and lots of it.
3. Mounted as is means greater stand over without compromise in other areas
4. Lower COG (added bonus rather than intention of said design)

[Iwan Kemp]

Try the trance...

 

Serious? Without even looking I can tell you the Trance adds a kink in the TT over the Anthem. Other than that all of it rings true. So not even there one can say that.

[Johnny Lawless]

Can't believe people on here are comparing bikes based on LOOKS!!

What the hell people...It's not a game of "spot the differences"...it's about geometry, suspension design etc.

 

Besides....there are only so many ways a triangle with 2 wheels can look.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Pyka

[Hardi]

 

This bike was designed 3 year too early geometry wise

Now its becoming the XC norm

[Benjamin]

@ Captain/ Iwan, take an average stage race in SA ( W2W/ Sani / J2C) as your benchmark. Assuming you could pick any model you liked from this new range , would you pick the RC or the Spark ? Again assuming you racing?

 

 

[Iwan Kemp]

Spark for me, no doubt. Slacker geo will suit my riding and most of our trails better - racing and just out riding. Will also make longer days in the saddle easier on the body (although setup on both will help with that) and be oodles of fun when pushed hard.

 

Slacker geo won't cost you any speed and the slight weight increase will be countered with confidence on trail. I'd even have one of those to race XCO on. 

 

Also:

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Spark. 

 

RC is just too racey for your average stage race, and I'd only recommend that for the people at the VERY pointy end on an XCO circuit where grams are the ultimate goal. 

 

Agreed fully with Iwan. I'd even go so far as to say I'd pick the Plus

[Hermanus Cycles]

Compare the Scott to the 2017 Anthem and you'll see the resemblance is even closer.

[Hermanus Cycles]

[ahp005]

Can't believe people on here are comparing bikes based on LOOKS!!

What the hell people...It's not a game of "spot the differences"...it's about geometry, suspension design etc.

 

Besides....there are only so many ways a triangle with 2 wheels can look.

Totally agree 

[Danger Dassie]

image.jpeg

All you have there is a resemblance, that's it.

Looking at and comparing stock images is in no way a real world comparison.

A degree here and there on geometry makes a significant difference to a feel of a bike, as well as materials and build.

 

 

['Dale]