As Nino is now racing a 120mm travel bike, you’d think that Scott would have a lightweight version for sale soon. Has anybody heard anything?
Updated Spark????
packfill
501 - 520 of 638 Posts
I’m on my fifth Spark. I also used to stay in the middle setting most of the time until a helpful shop owner/mechanic gave me some simple advice on my 2018 SL. He said if I’m always using the middle setting I am missing out on the benefits of the full travel and should add air to make the full setting stiffer. Ever since then I set up my shock for 20% sag and run full travel probably 90% of the time. I use lockout pretty much only on pavement and use traction setting mostly for long climbs or gravel roads. The Twinloc is a great feature, try what I suggested and see if you use it more.
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
I am in Houston and we mostly have XC stuff to ride day to day. I do leave it open when things get rooty or rocky, we just don’t have much of it around here. When I got to Austin, it is in open mode a lot more. Just interested to hear how others use it. I saw some stat about Nino Schurter changing it 150+ times a race run (something like that) and it kind of blew my mind.
I am from Houston, retired and moved to NWA last year so I am very familiar with Houston trails. It was the owner of Planetary that got me using my full travel more two Sparks ago! Definitely different up here, today I did an 8 mile ride with over 900’ of climbing, the Twinloc got quite a workout.
don’t know if use it so much but for sure I use it a lot, I‘m building a habit like changing gears or pushing dropper lever.
Reminds me to MotoGP or F1 where no longer is mainly steering gas and brakes, but fiddling also with buttons to exploit the marginal gains.
If the bike has this capability, seems stupid for me not to use it in your advantage, and for people not wanting to make adjustments on the fly, better go for a Specialized Epic with brain! (my prevous bike BTW)
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
I just want to know where you get a lockout for a Pike!
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Where I'm at in Colorado, I've found the Twinloc to be very useful. If you want to go down here, you gotta go up.
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
The bars, wheels, and some of the fancy drivetrain bits I put on, but the pike comes stock on the 940, which is the literal only medium spark my local is going to see this year. 130mm front, 120 rear, as spec’d.
I've been looking at getting the Spark RC Team, but the only stock where I live is in size L (with M some months away).
I'm ~179cm and usually opt for smaller bikes, I ride 54cm road bikes and used to have M Specialized Epic HT.
The Scott sizing calculator puts me smack dab in the middle of M and L, anyone with experience of choosing between the two sizes? I'd really like to get my hands on one of these bikes but obviously the right sizing is extremely important
I'm ~179cm and usually opt for smaller bikes, I ride 54cm road bikes and used to have M Specialized Epic HT.
The Scott sizing calculator puts me smack dab in the middle of M and L, anyone with experience of choosing between the two sizes? I'd really like to get my hands on one of these bikes but obviously the right sizing is extremely important
Joined
·
305 Posts
I have tested Scott Spark 910 and would go for Medium. Same as you I am 179 cm, inseam 82 cm and I prefer smaller frames too, but Spark in Medium seemed to be perfect.
Joined
·
22 Posts
I have a Spark 910 (2022) that I am very happy with. But that handlebar and stem is a boat anchor. Replacing the handlebar is easy and done, but I was surprised that the stem is 180g.
The integrated cockpit makes replacing the stem difficult if you want to keep the clean view. Any suggestions?
It seems to me the only options are to ditch the headset & stem-cover or buy an Syncros Fraser.
The integrated cockpit makes replacing the stem difficult if you want to keep the clean view. Any suggestions?
It seems to me the only options are to ditch the headset & stem-cover or buy an Syncros Fraser.
I just broke down and paid $400 for the fraser ic sl dc or whatever. Looks pretty fancy in person.
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
I just put a normal stem on there. It’s mostly covered by those abominations that are the plastic shrouds and covers…
And then a revelate feed bag obscures the rest, for the most part.
And then a revelate feed bag obscures the rest, for the most part.
Joined
·
22 Posts
I did som "research", and I think the options are
1) Syncros Fraser IC
2) Using some of the Acros bits - like the top cover + spacer set, icr, od62, sym or the zs56-steuersatzdeckel - intergrierte kabelführung
With the Acros parts I think you can make a nice cable routing with a standard stem. But it will require reconnecting all the cables.
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Is it possible to use shorter q factor cranks on this bike? The clearance from the crank arm to the frame suggests it could be reduced by at least 10mm on each side.
Does SRAM have a narrower q factor XX1 crankset?
They have different chain lines available but does that change the q factor? XX1 Eagle DUB SL Crankset - FC-XX-1-C2 - SRAM
I'm getting annoyed and sometimes with knee pain from pedaling so wide. It's just stupid design.
Does SRAM have a narrower q factor XX1 crankset?
They have different chain lines available but does that change the q factor? XX1 Eagle DUB SL Crankset - FC-XX-1-C2 - SRAM
I'm getting annoyed and sometimes with knee pain from pedaling so wide. It's just stupid design.
Yes. With the Race Face Next R cranks, for example, you can change to the cinch RF136 with the 136.5 mm axle width. I forget how many spacers on the drive side (maybe 2-4 mm ?) and the preload ring on the non-drive side.
I assume this means normal boost spacing axle widths for other cranksets will work as well, but haven’t tested those myself.
If you want to run a big chainring with this setup, you can get one with zero offset. For example, Garbaruk and reverse it to have 0 offset.
Joined
·
63 Posts
Hi guys,
New Scott Spark RC user here, with another question regarding cranksets, q-factor and spacers using Shimano crankset. Yes, I already saw post #195 on this discussion, but the lastest posts were about this too so I'm joining the discussion...
For context, I was using a regular M7100 crankset with a powermeter spider on my former MTB and when buying the new Spark RC I saw on the spec sheet it uses 55mm chainline. The obvious move for me, as I want to keep using the PM spider, was to go for the M7120 version of the crankset, which comes with the stated 55mm chainline.
For reference, I'm using a PF BB86 Token Ninja TF24, thread-in type specific for Shimano 24mm spindles and compatible with the BB92 on the Spark RC frame.
Upon installing the M7120 crank on the bike, the chainline seems good (apart from the chainring teeth going a bit too close to the chainstay protector for my liking, it clears but with no real world use yet), so all good on the drive side. The problem for me is on the non-drive side, as the M7120 spindle is longer (6mm) than the M7100, I had to use 5mm of spacers to be able to install left crank arm and pre-load it/have no gap (I guess it should've been 6mm of spacers but 5mm did it). After installing it like that, the crankset doesn't seem to be centered/aligned with the center of the bike. Looking at the gap between crankarm and chainstay on both sides (by look only and assuming both chainstays have the same shape/are centered, as it also looks like), it seems the non-driveside crankarm has a lot more gap than the driveside arm (I still have to measure this to know exactly by how much)!
Has still have the M7100 regular crank with the 52mm chainline (and shorter spindle), I installed it too just to see what happens, and as expected the chainring contacts the chaintay protector and doesn't spin (obviously).
Thinking about this, I guess I could try to center the M7120 crankset taking a spacer from the non-driveside and put it on the driveside between the crank and the BB bearing, but that would mess the chainline, going from 55mm to 57mm, if a 2mm spacer was used for this!
So, any thoughts, comments, help on this?
Thanks!
New Scott Spark RC user here, with another question regarding cranksets, q-factor and spacers using Shimano crankset. Yes, I already saw post #195 on this discussion, but the lastest posts were about this too so I'm joining the discussion...
For context, I was using a regular M7100 crankset with a powermeter spider on my former MTB and when buying the new Spark RC I saw on the spec sheet it uses 55mm chainline. The obvious move for me, as I want to keep using the PM spider, was to go for the M7120 version of the crankset, which comes with the stated 55mm chainline.
For reference, I'm using a PF BB86 Token Ninja TF24, thread-in type specific for Shimano 24mm spindles and compatible with the BB92 on the Spark RC frame.
Upon installing the M7120 crank on the bike, the chainline seems good (apart from the chainring teeth going a bit too close to the chainstay protector for my liking, it clears but with no real world use yet), so all good on the drive side. The problem for me is on the non-drive side, as the M7120 spindle is longer (6mm) than the M7100, I had to use 5mm of spacers to be able to install left crank arm and pre-load it/have no gap (I guess it should've been 6mm of spacers but 5mm did it). After installing it like that, the crankset doesn't seem to be centered/aligned with the center of the bike. Looking at the gap between crankarm and chainstay on both sides (by look only and assuming both chainstays have the same shape/are centered, as it also looks like), it seems the non-driveside crankarm has a lot more gap than the driveside arm (I still have to measure this to know exactly by how much)!
Has still have the M7100 regular crank with the 52mm chainline (and shorter spindle), I installed it too just to see what happens, and as expected the chainring contacts the chaintay protector and doesn't spin (obviously).
Thinking about this, I guess I could try to center the M7120 crankset taking a spacer from the non-driveside and put it on the driveside between the crank and the BB bearing, but that would mess the chainline, going from 55mm to 57mm, if a 2mm spacer was used for this!
So, any thoughts, comments, help on this?
Thanks!
Measure first. BB width (I forgot it). Spindle width: How much of that does your chain ring take? Can you fit that many spacers on the other side? Then split the remaining difference.
Measure. Borrow calipers if you need them.
But so long as it shifts fine, worst case you run one cleat a bit further in/out.
Or buy a new spindle if it really bothers you. (I’m OCD)
Not to be pedantic, but measure everything first.
Measure. Borrow calipers if you need them.
But so long as it shifts fine, worst case you run one cleat a bit further in/out.
Or buy a new spindle if it really bothers you. (I’m OCD)
Not to be pedantic, but measure everything first.
Joined
·
63 Posts
I've been thinking about this and eventually figured out what I did wrong. I made two mistakes, the usual one, not reading the manual, and using the supplied spacers with the BB, which are 2.5mm*3 + 0.5mm*1 in size/thickness...
For the first mistake, not looking for the install manual and check the process, well, I've installed/removed Shimano cranks on bikes dozens of times, so I thought it was just another one, but it's a first for me on a Boost frame with 55 chainline, and obviously, it's a different process!
On the second mistake, well, if the crank spindle on the Shimano boost models with 55mm chainline has +6mm (all M*120 models), to center it would required 3mm+3mm spacers, one on each side of the BB. I didn't even look at the spacers supplied with the cranset when installing it... 🤦♂️
For reference, to complement post #195 and help others going for Shimano cranks on the 2022 Spark/Spark RC models, I'll do another post with the required information how to correctly install them.
Joined
·
63 Posts
So, following the problem I encountered when installing a Shimano crank on the 2022 Spark RC, and to complement post #195, here are my findings...
This applies to all Shimano Boost cranks with 55mm chainline (XT, SLX and Deore series M*120 models), except XTR M9125-1 (for that model, look for the instructions on the Shimano service portal), to install on the 2022 Spark/Spark RC frame.
After installing the press-fit BB92 on the frame, you have to use the suplied spacers with the crank, 3+3mm, one on each side of the BB, placed on the spindle, between the BB and the crankarms, as the Shimano service manual details:
![Image]()
The obvious conclusion for this, as always, read the manual first!
This applies to all Shimano Boost cranks with 55mm chainline (XT, SLX and Deore series M*120 models), except XTR M9125-1 (for that model, look for the instructions on the Shimano service portal), to install on the 2022 Spark/Spark RC frame.
After installing the press-fit BB92 on the frame, you have to use the suplied spacers with the crank, 3+3mm, one on each side of the BB, placed on the spindle, between the BB and the crankarms, as the Shimano service manual details:
The obvious conclusion for this, as always, read the manual first!
So, just got a good offer for my 2018 Genius Tuned and decided to sell. Now, to see if I can source a Spark. My Spark 900 AXS is still on order since July -21, but it doesn’t look like my market will receive any allocations for that particular model. Might go 910.
Does anyone know if the SRAM GX AXS derailleur works well with the Shimano XT casette found on the 910?
Does anyone know if the SRAM GX AXS derailleur works well with the Shimano XT casette found on the 910?
501 - 520 of 638 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
