Why would they get rid of it? It's probably he next best thing just after spool valves, which are patented by Multimatic...
Not sure, but most of the comments I've seen on here have been overly negative about it. The tuner's all seem to dislike it and prefer the options of standard valving and shim stacks...
Not had any personal issues with it, but thought Fox's post was interesting non the less.
Not sure, but most of the comments I've seen on here have been overly negative about it. The tuner's all seem to dislike it and prefer...
Not sure, but most of the comments I've seen on here have been overly negative about it. The tuner's all seem to dislike it and prefer the options of standard valving and shim stacks...
Not had any personal issues with it, but thought Fox's post was interesting non the less.
My guess is the hate has to do with people needing to learn a new system rather than Fox producing a poor product.
New password-protected video uploaded to PB. Maybe the new Scott Genius*
*Correction: Ransom
New password-protected video uploaded to PB. Maybe the new Scott Genius*
*Correction: Ransom
The look of the 2018-2023 Ransom Generation has always been the favorite for me. It's simple, and in review and test riding just works. If that's the new frame design I'd be quite sad because that is real ugly looking.
Not sure, but most of the comments I've seen on here have been overly negative about it. The tuner's all seem to dislike it and prefer...
Not sure, but most of the comments I've seen on here have been overly negative about it. The tuner's all seem to dislike it and prefer the options of standard valving and shim stacks...
Not had any personal issues with it, but thought Fox's post was interesting non the less.
I would guess it's harder to tune, has less flexibility in that regard and maybe requires a different approach to achieve the desired results? Tuning a spool valve damper is a pain in the ass if you want to change the behaviour of the damper in a significant way as you need a new cup. Which likely means a wire erosion manufacturing process. Which is likely jolly expensive. But everybody running them in the fields they are used in rave about them.
Looks are subjective - to some the next Ransom will be ugly, to some it will be beautiful. Saw the prototype’s pics - to me it looks… light, race-ready and stealthy! Time will tell if a shock inside the frame will work great for more gravity-oriented disciplines. I consider putting away the drivetrain from mud and everything (gearbox!!!) more important, but am not fond of the gearbox’s drag everyone’s talking about! Now that Pinion put out their motor with integrated gearbox, they’ve got my attention!
Looks are subjective - to some the next Ransom will be ugly, to some it will be beautiful. Saw the prototype’s pics - to me it...
Looks are subjective - to some the next Ransom will be ugly, to some it will be beautiful. Saw the prototype’s pics - to me it looks… light, race-ready and stealthy! Time will tell if a shock inside the frame will work great for more gravity-oriented disciplines. I consider putting away the drivetrain from mud and everything (gearbox!!!) more important, but am not fond of the gearbox’s drag everyone’s talking about! Now that Pinion put out their motor with integrated gearbox, they’ve got my attention!
It better be stealthy - so I won't have to see it in person.
Or any less annoying for mechanics. The new ransom features 6 bar suspension (loads of bearings), a hidden shock (self-explanatory), and headset routing (also self-explanatory). It might also have internal routing for on the fly suspension adjustments, but the move towards wireless stuff might make this unnecessary. Its a shame really as they're bikes seem to ride amazingly, and Ben Walker is an amazing engineer, and all of his self-built gamblers are very very cool
The distance between the main rocker pivot and the rocker-seatstay pivot looks pretty short, similar to other HP/idler Horst-ish layout bikes (Shore, Hope HB 916, etc.). ...
The distance between the main rocker pivot and the rocker-seatstay pivot looks pretty short, similar to other HP/idler Horst-ish layout bikes (Shore, Hope HB 916, etc.). So, looking like a HP/idler Optic on its way. (Can't remember if that was "confirmed" somewhere along the way)
It was. Someone threw these up a few pages ago. I am quite excited about this.
It was. Someone threw these up a few pages ago. I am quite excited about this.
What’s up with that lower shock mount? Reversible for different length shocks?? Probably wouldn’t make sense if the Sight is also high pivot. Different shock kinematics?
What’s up with that lower shock mount? Reversible for different length shocks?? Probably wouldn’t make sense if the Sight is also high pivot. Different shock kinematics...
What’s up with that lower shock mount? Reversible for different length shocks?? Probably wouldn’t make sense if the Sight is also high pivot. Different shock kinematics?
Both the Sight and Optic are supposed to be mullet capable. I think they are calling it MX configuration. I’m guessing a different lower mount to make that happen because the dropouts don’t look like they do anything.
The look of the 2018-2023 Ransom Generation has always been the favorite for me. It's simple, and in review and test riding just works. If that's...
The look of the 2018-2023 Ransom Generation has always been the favorite for me. It's simple, and in review and test riding just works. If that's the new frame design I'd be quite sad because that is real ugly looking.
I've ridden most bikes that are easily available and it was one of the worst ive ever ridden.
The look of the 2018-2023 Ransom Generation has always been the favorite for me. It's simple, and in review and test riding just works. If that's...
The look of the 2018-2023 Ransom Generation has always been the favorite for me. It's simple, and in review and test riding just works. If that's the new frame design I'd be quite sad because that is real ugly looking.
I've ridden most bikes that are easily available and it was one of the worst ive ever ridden.
Couldn't disagree more. Rented an aluminum ransom which was sublime on steep tech and jumped well, yet was extremely efficient when pedaling. Great frame, if owning I'd have dumped the scott lockout crap.
The distance between the main rocker pivot and the rocker-seatstay pivot looks pretty short, similar to other HP/idler Horst-ish layout bikes (Shore, Hope HB 916, etc.). ...
The distance between the main rocker pivot and the rocker-seatstay pivot looks pretty short, similar to other HP/idler Horst-ish layout bikes (Shore, Hope HB 916, etc.). So, looking like a HP/idler Optic on its way. (Can't remember if that was "confirmed" somewhere along the way)
What’s up with that lower shock mount? Reversible for different length shocks?? Probably wouldn’t make sense if the Sight is also high pivot. Different shock kinematics...
What’s up with that lower shock mount? Reversible for different length shocks?? Probably wouldn’t make sense if the Sight is also high pivot. Different shock kinematics?
I’m going to guess it’s probably a progressive/linear “flip chip”.
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.
Easily the most e-bike looking, non-e-bike yet. That alone would have me passing on it. Hidden shock, headset cable routing, push towards electronic drivetrains, and (I'm assuming) ridiculous mrsp would make this the hardest possible no if I were looking for a new bike.
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game
So we've established that it's not a bike for users of this forum. What proportion of riders do all of these perceived inflexibilities realistically affect, though?
It's a shame they've gone this way. I still love my previous gen Genius, Twinloc included.
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.
Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.
In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.
For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.
Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.
In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.
For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.
The one way I could see to run cables similar to headset routing without the drawbacks of going through the headset bearings would be to use oversized headset cups similar to those used for reach adjustment.
Put the ports just behind the headset bearings but not through the headset. Routing wouldn't be any worse than "standard" internal routing, but the ports on the sides of the head / down tube could be eliminated.
Not sure, but most of the comments I've seen on here have been overly negative about it. The tuner's all seem to dislike it and prefer the options of standard valving and shim stacks...
Not had any personal issues with it, but thought Fox's post was interesting non the less.
Genius is already with the new integral shock.
That's probably the new Ransom.
My guess is the hate has to do with people needing to learn a new system rather than Fox producing a poor product.
Probably. Has no holes for cable routing. Scott loves that headset garbage.
I'm not a fan of the whole internal shock thing, but putting that out of mind, this is a pretty good looking frame.
The look of the 2018-2023 Ransom Generation has always been the favorite for me. It's simple, and in review and test riding just works. If that's the new frame design I'd be quite sad because that is real ugly looking.
I would guess it's harder to tune, has less flexibility in that regard and maybe requires a different approach to achieve the desired results? Tuning a spool valve damper is a pain in the ass if you want to change the behaviour of the damper in a significant way as you need a new cup. Which likely means a wire erosion manufacturing process. Which is likely jolly expensive. But everybody running them in the fields they are used in rave about them.
Except the Gambler. Still one of the best looking dh bikes out there.
Looks are subjective - to some the next Ransom will be ugly, to some it will be beautiful. Saw the prototype’s pics - to me it looks… light, race-ready and stealthy! Time will tell if a shock inside the frame will work great for more gravity-oriented disciplines. I consider putting away the drivetrain from mud and everything (gearbox!!!) more important, but am not fond of the gearbox’s drag everyone’s talking about! Now that Pinion put out their motor with integrated gearbox, they’ve got my attention!
It better be stealthy - so I won't have to see it in person.
Its also safe to say this is just a Bold Unplugged but with aesthetics to a Scott since Scott owns Bold. https://www.boldcycles.com/us/en/product/bold-unplugged-ultimate-bike
Or any less annoying for mechanics. The new ransom features 6 bar suspension (loads of bearings), a hidden shock (self-explanatory), and headset routing (also self-explanatory). It might also have internal routing for on the fly suspension adjustments, but the move towards wireless stuff might make this unnecessary. Its a shame really as they're bikes seem to ride amazingly, and Ben Walker is an amazing engineer, and all of his self-built gamblers are very very cool
What’s up with that lower shock mount? Reversible for different length shocks?? Probably wouldn’t make sense if the Sight is also high pivot. Different shock kinematics?
Yep… Looks exactly like this one:
https://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/features/pit-bits-loudenvielle-enduro-w…
Gambler next? 😉
Both the Sight and Optic are supposed to be mullet capable. I think they are calling it MX configuration. I’m guessing a different lower mount to make that happen because the dropouts don’t look like they do anything.
I've ridden most bikes that are easily available and it was one of the worst ive ever ridden.
Yeah good point usually tech/innovation for mtb is borrowed from auto and moto racing. Cool to see it go the other way.
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.
Couldn't disagree more. Rented an aluminum ransom which was sublime on steep tech and jumped well, yet was extremely efficient when pedaling. Great frame, if owning I'd have dumped the scott lockout crap.
I’m going to guess it’s probably a progressive/linear “flip chip”.
Grease nip for linkage?
Pin to mount the shock cover to.
Easily the most e-bike looking, non-e-bike yet. That alone would have me passing on it. Hidden shock, headset cable routing, push towards electronic drivetrains, and (I'm assuming) ridiculous mrsp would make this the hardest possible no if I were looking for a new bike.
My best guess is a proto of an even smaller waterbottle 🤔
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game
Bold = Scott
Evil website has a pretty significant sale right now. Their bikes will be 4 years old this year.
So we've established that it's not a bike for users of this forum. What proportion of riders do all of these perceived inflexibilities realistically affect, though?
It's a shame they've gone this way. I still love my previous gen Genius, Twinloc included.
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.
Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.
In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.
For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.
The one way I could see to run cables similar to headset routing without the drawbacks of going through the headset bearings would be to use oversized headset cups similar to those used for reach adjustment.
Put the ports just behind the headset bearings but not through the headset. Routing wouldn't be any worse than "standard" internal routing, but the ports on the sides of the head / down tube could be eliminated.