2013 Scott Spark 940 vs 2016 Scott Spark 920

[JeffD]

So I'm pondering about whether it is time to get a new bike. I've got a 2013 Scott Spark 940, which I've had since new, & I see that Cycle Lab has the 2016 920s marked down (when I looked last weekend) as I'm assuming the 2017s are arriving soon.

 

Is it worth it I'm thinking to myself? What I mean is is the progression between those 2 bikes big enough?

 

Now I'm not the biker that is going to buy a new bike every year (which is obvious from the above) but what are the Hubbers general feeling the useful life is of a bike? Yes, a bike is useful until it is broken but like vehicles/equipment etc items lose value & are written off over a period. I'm sure with technology changing with bikes, newer bikes should be better.

 

This is not a discussion about what value I should try sell my current bike at. I'm just trying to work out whether moving from a 2013 940 to a 2016 920 is worth it.

 

I actually have not compared the specs yet, although I'm not the biggest bike techie around. I'm sure a lot of Hubbers can give answers very quickly.

 

I ride once if not twice a week, do the half marathon Trail Seekers (starting C batch tomorrow), 30km USN Cups (A batch), I've done the 2 day Berg & Bush but would love to go bigger for example Joburg2C.

 

In short, I love my mountain biking & would like to progress...Should I or shouldn't I look for an upgrade?

 

If not the Spark 920, what other options should I look at?

 

I am fully aware that the engine behind the bike, me, is the main factor behind progression so you don't need to tell me that.

 

Thanks!

 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

No, it's not worth it. I'd far rather wait for the 2017 version to come out which is markedly different and a vast improvement over the 2016 version.

[ZakAttak]

I agree with Myles... the 2016 and 2013 frames are built on the same concept as previous models whereas the 2017 model has a "better vertical mounted shock ????????" in all seriousness though, Scott has vastly changed their frame design....

 

Edit = grammar

Edited August 26, 2016 by ZakAttak

[BenReaper]

I kinda agree and disagree with the others here.

 

The only difference on the frames are that your frame will be full alu whereas the 920 will have a carbon front triangle and aluminum rear triangle.

 

You will have 3x10 gearing if I'm not mistaken whereas the 2016 920 has GX 1x11 on it. For the amount and type of riding it sounds like youre doing I would personally advise sticking to a 2x system.

 

Because of the frames being the same geometry wise and the gearing not being an upgrade I would not recommend spending your money on the 2016 920.

 

Although the 2017 model will be a better purchase in that it has a brand new design with improved geometry and will have a model with more suitable gearing for you the prices are going to sky rocket. The only price I am certain of is for the 940,the 2016 model retailed for around R35k whereas the 2017 model will be retailing for around R50k.

 

Your going to have to have deep pockets for these new bikes. I would rather recommend looking for some more good prices on other 2016 models, the 940 is full alu like yours and has XT 2 x11, the 910 is the carbon equivalent with the same gearing, those would be my recommendations for you, or just keep riding what you got until it eventually brakes or you can't find replacement parts.

 

 

Sent from my S40 using Tapatalk