2022 Scott Spark

I compared the XT team on the Scott Website with my 2018 GX Eagle team and its 2.5lbs heavier. I could shave 1lb by changing to my wheels, but the then integration stops me going much further. Then its about £1000/$1300 more expensive RRP.

So I would spend $5000 on a new, heavier bike.

2 Likes

My 2021 fuel ex with a 34 fork and 2.4 tires weighs pretty much 27 even. That’s including a heavier AXS dropper as well. I can’t seem to find a comparable bike on Scott site to compare

Thanks! :grin: Good to know

Also, please no World Cup Spoilers out of the World Cup thread lol. That way I only have one thread to avoid until I can watch it later :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::rofl:

5 Likes

Concerningly, it looks like the lower model RC’s don’t come with a dropper too

1 Like

I think there must be more models coming to the website, I assume there will be carbon Trail models too, but it looks like only Alloy on there at the moment.

I am really more and more stoked with my bike to be honest. It’s basically an RC now but I have an Alloy rear triangle (I prefer), shorter wheelbase (should prefer). I am definitely envious of the hidden shock, one piece bar and stem, and whilst I’m still torn on having the cables enter the frame via an opening, I really like the clean cable lines compared.

.

ETA - the super sexy black and white with kashima fox fork and dropper doesn’t show up yet which makes me feel there has to be more models to come.

2 Likes

My last FUEL had the chainstay Aluminum and the seatstays and frame carbon. I HEARD the alum rides rougher and isn’t as strong as far as being used in the back end, curious why you prefer it aside from a cost savings

Purely robustness, my last bike got some really gnarly gouges from a trailer based shuttle that I don’t think carbon would have been safe with after.

I might be completely misguided in that regard, I’ve been told the main frame is just as strong/stronger than alloy from an impact perspective anyway.

I’d definitely prefer carbon front and rear purely for riding etc. I doubt there’s any justification performance wise for alloy. It’s the one thing making my bike “heavier” than bikes I compare it with.

You’re not totally wrong. However consider that a cracked or broken carbon piece can be repaired (local guy had his rear fixed by Ruckus) whereas aluminum you need to hope you can find a used part once the manufacturer stops stocking them, and those pieces can be tough to come by. Carbon is pretty robust, especially MTB carbon, ive got a few nice gouges in my road frame where the chain dropped and it’s all groovy

Personally I’ve viewed the hybrid use of carbon and aluminum this way as a pure cost savings which many companies are moving away from. Trek 9.7 used to be carbon front and alum rear, 9.8 gave you carbon seatstays, 9.9 added carbon chainstays, now their carbon bikes seem to be all carbon. I know a guy who had an alum frame he used to transport on the back of his truck over a tailgate pad where the down tube developed dents from transport. I’ve smashed big rocks into my carbon frame and no issues, even after a head on crash with an e bike

1 Like

Yeah, to be honest it’s one of those things I was happy to have when I was choosing between the previous Spark and Spark RC. Though if I was purchasing now I’d be in for the full carbon RC.

I’ve made my bed now. Fortunately I love my bike :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:.

Looking at the equivalent XT model to my bike, for the carbon rear triangle (and the other new features) I’d have to give up a fox transfer dropper, go to lower spec wheels, and have a less sick paint job. So I think your cost saving theory is pretty accurate.

1 Like

Thanks for the spoiler :roll_eyes:

3 Likes

The black and white is the Scott Spark 900, which is showing on the US site

https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/product/scott-spark-900-tuned-axs-bike

1 Like

Interesting. None of the carbon models were showing when I looked before. I assumed I was on the international (Swiss?) Website but may have just been on the New Zealand one.

It’s not unheard of for us to not get several models, and given the supply issues at the moment they may not have any of the Carbon Spark’s coming. Seems weird to not offer at least one higher model as it would still be popular.

Just checked again, NZ site has only the 960 and 970 showing.

In response to @Cleanneon98 that 900 tuned is lighter and similar to your EX. But I bet that particular model is stupid expensive :grimacing:.
Looks like the 910 is the same weight for a similar spec and more reasonable price.

I mean my EX has an MSRP over $9,000 USD so it’s not cheap either. I lucked out because it was a warranty replacement for a 2018 I got as an employee for 3k, so all I have in it is that and the AXS stuff I got for 1400 through LBS (drivetrain and dropper). No way I’d pay 9k for a bike, diminishing returns start to hit hard around the middle of the equipment range

1 Like

The bike had absolutely nothing to do with that race result though

3 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Please keep the World Cup chat to the World Cup thread

2 Likes

I must be in the minority. I don’t like the look of it at all. Rear end looks really long - and it does have long chain stayes - at least compared to my Supercaliber.

I am sure it will be a great bike and Scott is an innovator. But for me there just something that does not look right.

1 Like

I think it’s competing more with the Top Fuel than the Supercaliber, and the chainstay difference between those two is only 2mm. It’s actually the same 437mm as my FUEL EX, which is only 2mm off from the top fuel which is 435. The Supercaliber is a different type of bike anyway IMO, I’ve always seen it as more of a hardtail than full suspension rig, the rear shock (strut) is there but it’s not designed to handle the same terrain as a traditional FS bike. Chainstays are going to be shorter on a bike with 60mm vs 120mm because you don’t need to move the wheel back as far to account for compression of as much suspension

As far as the rear looking long, I agree it does, and think that’s because the seatstays hook up to the frame much lower than most other bikes, which makes the stay longer since the frame is further away lower down the seat tube.

2 Likes

I agree, the SuperCal and the new Spark are quite different bikes now. The Spark would be much, much more capable when it gets steeper/more technical for the same rider. It’s definitely a long bike, it’s ~30mm longer than my current Spark 910 with the same HTA, and about the same as the Norco Revolver (very similar geo with a DownCountry orientation).

I guess beauty is also in the eye of the beholder, the compact rear triangle is actually growing on me more and more. The clean lines are really appealing. The oddest part to look at for me is the thick headtube (straight, can shape) to allow for the cables. It just looks weird to me now and the taper on most other bikes seems to flow to the top and down tubes more nicely :man_shrugging:.

2 Likes

Anyone know about the angle set…? Is the RC in the steep setting and the 900 in the slack setting? (with the same frame, over 1.2 degrees different in spec, because of the 10 mm higher front).

Or are the frames different and sold in the middle setting (giving the RC 0.6 up and down instead of 1.2 slacker.

(for my flat curvy local trails, I think I might be better of with something a bit steeper…)