Well, it is, after all, something very, very good that goes very, very fast.
And, it is tougher than most of its competition. For some reason, they don't avertise it.
When considering a new bike, I checked out a lot of friends bikes.
There were three results:
1) Specialized, fast, but usually a hairline crack somewhere
2) Slow (or Trek with their small=fast, large=slow and I ride a large)
3) Scott, big, fast, and strong
That made my decision pretty simple.
The Scott bikes have a certain old-school flair in both build and geometry. I'm not talking about the 90's headfirst geometry. No, I'm talking about a little less areo, "heads up" geometry. It doesn't seem to matter to the speed.
I've got two opinions on that:
1) Maybe a happier rider?
2) Charging over (with a slight jump) an obstacle or a whopping huge hill, is, for some reason, fun. Of course, you don't believe it, so you have to turn around and do it again just to be sure.
Scott didn't cheat on frame strength to make a fast bike.
Specialized does. A particularly good example is the Specialized Allez that is now painted silver (aluminum color) to match the cracks (Allez owners, check your head tubes, especially if you're using the over-long factory stem). This doesn't happen with the Scott Speedster (also equipped with double-strength forks), and the speeds and prices are roughly equal. Same story for the mountain bikes, if you compare similar priced bikes.
Maybe Scott's "threat" to the marketplace is:
1) High class speed, and
2) Comfort, without loss of speed, and
3) High durability, without loss of speed
All at once--as if you took a durable beater bike, the comfort of a Schwinn, and somehow added the speed of the Specialized products.
Is that it?
That's no threat to the marketplace. Consumers, in the United States, are way too blind to realize a combination of features. The United States is powered by a one single sought-after feature with as much added "bling" as possible. Eurpean customers are more demanding about combinations of features being on a single bike. No, Scott isn't taking over the U.S. anytime soon unless they increase the "bling" factor.
And, if you work for Scott, I don't mean stickers!!!
You guys are great and make great products, but please do not put anything on a bike that uses adhesive or decals--that is, except for the Scott name, and do please continue to make that as big as possible, just because it is fun for others to read as you pass.
Fancy paint is nice, as is spontaneous polished metal areas (forks? suspension? stays?). Stickers/decals are not nice. Yes, showy stuff is in direct conflict with the "utility" look of a mountain bike, but U.S. customers like the glitter (colored hubs, for instance) as well as useless areas of carbon fiber. Want to sell it here? Dress it up. If one manufacturer puts a totally useless carbon fiber knob somewhere, you've got to have one too. I hate to advise this, because I like my Scott just the way it is--simple, fearless, and fast. Also, not marketable in the U.S.
Hey, but if stickers are the only complaint. . . Well, that and not nearly enough "bling" in the mountain forks.
lol!
All of this has been "in my opinion"--because I tried it.
