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...
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.
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.
like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings? Save 10g?
Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.
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...
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.
Scott is great at selling first mtbs. Those features that a seasoned mtber considers unnecessary are a selling point to a new customer. And some people enjoy their bike so they buy another one. Especially true for average consumers who get the majority of their maintenance done at the lbs that sold them the bike.
anothet brand that does a great job at getting initial and repeat customers is giant. But they just offer pure value as opposed to abnormal features.
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found...
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.
like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings? Save 10g?
Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.
Tell me more about these bushings... Tried to send a DM but you have them turned off.
Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's...
Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's been crickets since then.
Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's...
Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's been crickets since then.
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found...
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.
like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings? Save 10g?
Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.
Just so they know and to encourage them if they're reading this, when they come out with the Kryptotal front in Enduro casing Supersoft, I'm buying a pallet. Maybe two if they also do the Trail casing in Supersoft.
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found...
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.
like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings? Save 10g?
Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.
Just so they know and to encourage them if they're reading this, when they come out with the Kryptotal front in Enduro casing Supersoft, I'm buying a...
Just so they know and to encourage them if they're reading this, when they come out with the Kryptotal front in Enduro casing Supersoft, I'm buying a pallet. Maybe two if they also do the Trail casing in Supersoft.
I'm REALLY hoping for a Kryptotal-Fr Supersoft 2.4" in the trail casing. C'mon Conti, give us an ETA!
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...
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.
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding, funneling or tunneling.
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...
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.
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding, funneling or tunneling.
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...
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.
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding, funneling or tunneling.
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.
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.
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding, funneling or tunneling.
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames...
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.
As a Torque owner I hear ya. FYI, FSA has a headset that works:
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding, funneling or tunneling.
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames...
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.
Yes, ive used both the Ritchey & FSA one - currently using the FSA in a merida 160 with External stick on guides
On my last spectral i ended up using the newer Plastic Compression ring with good results - still not a huge fan of the design, its a Shame theres stupid sh1t like that to ruin a good bike.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames...
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.
Yes, ive used both the Ritchey & FSA one - currently using the FSA in a merida 160 with External stick on guides
On my last...
Yes, ive used both the Ritchey & FSA one - currently using the FSA in a merida 160 with External stick on guides
On my last spectral i ended up using the newer Plastic Compression ring with good results - still not a huge fan of the design, its a Shame theres stupid sh1t like that to ruin a good bike.
Oh one hand, props to Canyon for abandoning headset routing. Agreed the OE plastic bits are a mystery but once upgraded to FSA I don't see an issue. Outside of it being a non standard size, it seems to me a larger top bearing can only be a "better" thing? A convo for another thread....
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't...
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on the other site with an image of the suspension design of the bike if you are wanting to go looking.
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on...
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on the other site with an image of the suspension design of the bike if you are wanting to go looking.
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't...
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on...
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on the other site with an image of the suspension design of the bike if you are wanting to go looking.
But a tech rumor would be a factory fork with black stanchions
I am super stoked about this one, mine should be arriving just before they release it.
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on...
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on the other site with an image of the suspension design of the bike if you are wanting to go looking.
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't...
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on...
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on the other site with an image of the suspension design of the bike if you are wanting to go looking.
When fox initially dropped the 38 to factory riders it was all non-kash for testing until race season. Something new on the way?
I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but Jordi is on the latest Downtime podcast and said they have "a bunch of cool projects" this year, so maybe?
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't...
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...
It could just be the photo quality (or lack of it) but it also looks like the fork has the older style square lower leg arch as opposed to the current rounded arch Fox has going on.
Or just run...external routing
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play. Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.
like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings? Save 10g?
Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.
No argument there. I prefer fully external, but can deal with internal routing. F headset routing.
has this been posted yet?
So when are we getting more news on the Norco Sight?
Scott is great at selling first mtbs. Those features that a seasoned mtber considers unnecessary are a selling point to a new customer. And some people enjoy their bike so they buy another one. Especially true for average consumers who get the majority of their maintenance done at the lbs that sold them the bike.
anothet brand that does a great job at getting initial and repeat customers is giant. But they just offer pure value as opposed to abnormal features.
Tell me more about these bushings... Tried to send a DM but you have them turned off.
website says they are dropping in Feb, including the Optic
Up from the depths! Anyone heard anything?
I got nothing. No tires, no news.
If you get a response Id love to read it here or DM.
Just so they know and to encourage them if they're reading this, when they come out with the Kryptotal front in Enduro casing Supersoft, I'm buying a pallet. Maybe two if they also do the Trail casing in Supersoft.
can’t remember details but one of these options should work… measure what you have and I think we cut or filed something down
I'm REALLY hoping for a Kryptotal-Fr Supersoft 2.4" in the trail casing. C'mon Conti, give us an ETA!
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding, funneling or tunneling.
Canyon did it for quite some time, too
New Rocky Mountain Enduro?
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.
As a Torque owner I hear ya. FYI, FSA has a headset that works:
https://www.fsaproshop.com/products/no-55r-1-5-558
Yes, ive used both the Ritchey & FSA one - currently using the FSA in a merida 160 with External stick on guides
On my last spectral i ended up using the newer Plastic Compression ring with good results - still not a huge fan of the design, its a Shame theres stupid sh1t like that to ruin a good bike.
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.
In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...
Oh one hand, props to Canyon for abandoning headset routing. Agreed the OE plastic bits are a mystery but once upgraded to FSA I don't see an issue. Outside of it being a non standard size, it seems to me a larger top bearing can only be a "better" thing? A convo for another thread....
Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on the other site with an image of the suspension design of the bike if you are wanting to go looking.
But a tech rumor would be a factory fork with black stanchions
I am super stoked about this one, mine should be arriving just before they release it.
When’s that embargo date?? Dying to learn about this one
Suspension layout looks quite similar to Santa Cruz?
When fox initially dropped the 38 to factory riders it was all non-kash for testing until race season. Something new on the way?
I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but Jordi is on the latest Downtime podcast and said they have "a bunch of cool projects" this year, so maybe?
It could just be the photo quality (or lack of it) but it also looks like the fork has the older style square lower leg arch as opposed to the current rounded arch Fox has going on.