Transition Scout vs. S-Cruz 5010 analysis paralysis!

[kidwoo]

I mean, I'm only an inch taller than you and I was pretty comfortable on a large scout. It's not like the transitions are particularly huge bikes. The devincis are significantly bigger, as are the konas, the new pivots, some of the giants, etc.

Yeah all them bitches too damn long. Other than the pivots (go ride a medium mach6 and tell me it's longer than a medium patrol), I'd buy a small of all of them too.

Here's the problem with 2016 and mountainbiking in general: Short stems are a new thing to too many people. 10 years ago, everyone who's used to actually moving their bikes around in the woods were already sticking short stems on their trail bikes. Stems are a handling more than a fit thing. They always have been because the leverage from a stem relates to rake (shocker, that's around 40-50mm usually). No one was sizing up AND using a shorter stem, they were just using shorter stems. Now here comes all mountain, agressive trail, endurpo, whatever the industry wants to call the upper end of riding trail bikes hard going down and all the roadie minded woods cyclists (as opposed to mountainbikers) realized that hey, you can't just put a short stem on, that changes the dimension of where your hands go. The thing is, that doesn't really matter, not nearly as much as everyone thinks it does, especially when moving to wider handlebars which also pull you forward and account for some of that spacial difference. But oh no, reach is the thing, gotta maintain that at all costs because road bikes and this golden calf called 'proper fit', with little to no discussion of what it does to handling on descents.

There are now so many things pulling rider weight forward that it's really really hard to get over the back of most trail bikes in a recommended size. Given you need to less because they're more stable but there are some things that just aren't going to work on a trail bike at mach retarded (or mach steep) riding centered. Shorter chainstays help that happen. I'm down with bikes generally trending towards slightly longer front ends, but that needs to be reigned in a bit with all the other things going on too IMO. Yeah it feels better climbing for sure, but that's not why a lot of people like me ride bikes up and down mountains.

The most telling aspect of this is to compare the reach of transitions (and a lot of other companies) dh bikes to their trail bikes. The trail bikes dwarf the dh models. But which do you think is a better purpose built descender? I mean honestly, say you're riding something truly fast and rowdy, would you rather be on the dh bike, or the trail bike? Those short reaches don't negate their capability. In fact they actually help it because you have a wider range of where you can put your weight, and each end of the bike.

The difference in reach between a medium django and scout is 8mm. The difference in wheelbase is 5mm. That's well within handlebar roll, handlebar sweep, seat rail position and true axle to crown of fork length. I wouldn't call that 'significantly larger', I'd call that also a bike I'd get a small in. But both of those bikes in a medium are also way longer than what a medium would have been years ago. So yes, I used to buy a lot of mediums which not correspond to a lot of smalls in terms of wheelbase. So no I'm not magically hitting my knees on my bars because the bikes aren't any smaller than the mediums I rode for years. And in a lot of cases, they're still longer.


summary: scrublover should get the green one

[jm2e]

It's not plastic, but in that category of bike I would certainly entertain an Endorphin. Currently dirt cheap as they make way for what's replacing it, which will likely be a plastic 29er with similar specs.
https://shop.knollybikes.com/collect...rame-red-white

[toast2266]

*** Stuff ***

Well, I said newer Pivots. The Mach 6 is tiny. But the new Switchblade and Firebird are huge (445mm reach on the medium for the Firebird).

And I agree that some bikes are getting too long (like the Konas). But the Transitions actually seem like they hit the sweet spot pretty well. I'm generally of the opinion that any medium with a reach in the 425-435mm ballpark is about right (not to say that companies can't still find other ways to fuck up the geo). Getting way off the back of the bike is overrated - slacker head tubes, longer front ends, and better suspension have negated the need to do it very often, and they work better in all situations that don't involve dangling behind the rear axle.

[kidwoo]

Getting way off the back of the bike is overrated - slacker head tubes, longer front ends, and better suspension have negated the need to do it very often,

But it still haapppppeeennnsssss

My aformentioned yanking out of turns because traction/turnshape/stuff in your way is part of getting over the rear of the bike too......not just 2mph northshore ass draggin. Genuinely running into to things really really hard necessitates a rearward bias as well. There are just some things that a 30lb trail bike with a steep 66 degree headangle just isn't going to like, regardless of a reach measurement.

But yeah I've ridden a medium patrol several times. Too damn long. I actually ride slower in anything but a straight line because of it. Just can't move the dang thing around to get over, under or around things as fast so I end up running into stuff more. Maybe I just need bigger wheels. Nah.......

[toast2266]

But yeah I've ridden a medium patrol several times. Too damn long. I actually ride slower in anything but a straight line because of it. Just can't move the dang thing around to get over, under or around things as fast so I end up running into stuff more. Maybe I just need bigger wheels. Nah.......

Maybe it's just that I spent a bunch of time on 29ers. Pretty much any 27.5 bike I get on feels like a whippy little toy.

[scrublover]

At this point, looking at all the numbers...it'll gonna be a small of whichever.

Some of the medium frames are even longer than my Nomad. I just can't imagine being comfortable on a bike that long.

Durango Scout 5010 are it now.

Got a bit to decide, see if I can find a Scout or Dhango locally to check out.

[bagtagley]

To be fair, most of them ride like shit because of stupid leverage curves.

That's why I want to ride the Flux before I consider it as an option. That's also why I probably won't get a Flux. It was easier to find a Megatrail to test ride than any of the Turners.

Cost isn't a deterrent with Turner anymore, though. You can currently get an Eagle equipped Flux with Knight carbon wheels for less than an XT Scout with Arch/Neo wheels. Turner is cheaper than most of the plastic options in this category.

[shirk]

If you take up Woo on the recommendation for a Norco Sight they're having a big clear out sale.

All Canadian shops are running discounted pricing. My buddies shop http://www.pinkbike.com/news/2016-no...rout-sale.html

Pretty sure he'll ship to the US. You win bigly on the exchange rate.

[kidwoo]

If you take up Woo on the recommendation for a Norco Sight they're having a big clear out sale.

All Canadian shops are running discounted pricing. My buddies shop http://www.pinkbike.com/news/2016-no...rout-sale.html

Pretty sure he'll ship to the US. You win bigly on the exchange rate.

Everything made in china: get it now while it's hot. And by hot I mean not tariffed into non-availability. For murkinz that is.......

[shirk]

Side note questions for the Woo.

What did you replace the Range with? Or replacing?

Perfect world what would be your ideal LR curve and anti-squat? I had a look at the Range and didn't realize the AS was as high as it is.

Many of DW's bikes have a progressive - linear LR? What do you find messed up with them? Not enough early stroke progression? Or the lack of end stroke progression?

[kidwoo]

Or the lack of end stroke progression?

This. It just makes them mush along at a similar change in force that keeps the bike a little too planted. I'm lazy so when I pump a transition I want some payoff.

Some are more progressive than others (like the turners) but they pretty much all mush out and go linear to regressive at the end.

I got a megatrail to replace it. Then turner made the RFXs which I've been on a waitlist for since the 70s so I didn't pass that up. Mostly I've just been spending way too much money on trail bikes the last 3 years.

Perfect world: antisquats a tad over 100% in the next to lowest gear combo (but I really don't care that much), and then a good ratio of 3 to 2 in mostly a straight line. The norcos and the megatrail are really close to that latter one. The YT capras are even a little more progressive. Santa cruz trailbikes just look like a drunk wasp in a bad mood's strava account.

[D(C)]

they pretty much all mush out and go linear to regressive at the end.

Wouldn't volume spacers fix this?

[shirk]

Has DW ever states his logic for not adding in end stroke progression?

If you look at bikes like the Evil that go progressive - linear with maybe a touch of end stroke progression this could be changed to add ending progression my moving pivots mm's. It's not a packaging/space problem.

A guess thinking more about this it comes down to desired feel. He wants planted not poppy playful.

[kidwoo]

Wouldn't volume spacers fix this?

Sort of, yes.

But just sort of. Doing that has a nasty habit of making the end stroke ramp up harder vs. a continued, smooth even progression. It does make it better, but it's not the same as just doing it with the frame kinematics. The thing with doing in the frame too, is that you can also run coils.

Has DW ever states his logic for not adding in end stroke progression?

If you look at bikes like the Evil that go progressive - linear with maybe a touch of end stroke progression this could be changed to add ending progression my moving pivots mm's. It's not a packaging/space problem.

A guess thinking more about this it comes down to desired feel. He wants planted not poppy playful.

Here's the thing. Go ride a current or last gen V10. Go ride a megatrail, or a capra. (all of which have pretty progressive, uneventful curves). It's not one or the other. When you have a higher leverage ratio at the top of the stroke, you get good suppleness. A suppleness that goes gradually and without weirdness into a bike you can beat the living shit out of, riding the crappiest lines ever. They do fine (and arguably better because they help lift the bike and keep it out of holes) than flatter curved bikes. . But they also work smoothly pumping transitions or preloading. It's not an either/or proposition. All of those bikes work great with either air shocks or coils too.

Damping is a velocity control. When you have a smooth curve without inflection points, it's way easier to tune dampers across that range since in most cases, you only get one setting for a given adjustment. What ends up happening with these fall off leverage ratios is that you have to damp this fucked up curve that's not consistent, so your damping gets wonky too. When you load up the end travel, you want the damper to have to do more work. It gets the bike back level and ready for the next hit. If you flatten out the end of the curve, the compression damping kind of mushes into it, and the rebound damping keeps it there for longer. So they feel great on singular, massive impacts but they're not there for high speed chatter......or plowing if you will. They actually work worse.

[ticketchecker]

Scrub, u got a devinci dealer nearby? My buddy is the rep, let me know if u can't find what u need

And for the record I apparently don't know shit about bikes after reading about leverage curves here. I'm trying to get edumacated tho

[shirk]

Go ride a current or last gen V10.

This one puzzles me. SC goes for a nice constant progression on the V10 yet does that funky regressive to progressive on all their trail bikes. Some of the newer ones have less regression but it's still there in all of them. Why? Sales floor squish???

"Ohhh this feels soo good when I push on the seat on the sales floor it's gotta feel good on the trail."

[Dromond]

This one puzzles me. SC goes for a nice constant progression on the V10 yet does that funky regressive to progressive on all their trail bikes. Some of the newer ones have less regression but it's still there in all of them. Why? Sales floor squish???

"Ohhh this feels soo good when I push on the seat on the sales floor it's gotta feel good on the trail."

My uneducated take after owning one: It pedals well on smooth terrain, and feels supple on moderate terrain, using most of the travel. When impacts become severe, it feels harsh as you hit the end of travel more abruptly. But, if you do a lot of pedaling on smooth terrain and either don't ride very rough terrain or take hard impacts often, you don't suffer the consequences as much. If you want an efficient, comfortable ride it works; but just doesn't scale up to harder riding well.

[XXX-er]

Yeah all them bitches too damn long. Other than the pivots (go ride a medium mach6 and tell me it's longer than a medium patrol), I'd buy a small of all of them too.

but both of those bikes in a medium are also way longer than what a medium would have been years ago. So yes, I used to buy a lot of mediums which not correspond to a lot of smalls in terms of wheelbase. So no I'm not magically hitting my knees on my bars because the bikes aren't any smaller than the mediums I rode for years. And in a lot of cases, they're still longer.


summary: scrublover should get the green one

some interesting posts, so you ride more or mostly smalls compared to back in the day, how short are you ?

[Lindahl]

My uneducated take after owning one: It pedals well on smooth terrain, and feels supple on moderate terrain, using most of the travel. When impacts become severe, it feels harsh as you hit the end of travel more abruptly. But, if you do a lot of pedaling on smooth terrain and either don't ride very rough terrain or take hard impacts often, you don't suffer the consequences as much. If you want an efficient, comfortable ride it works; but just doesn't scale up to harder riding well.

I'd disagree. At least for the Nomad 2 with PUSH link (similar to Nomad 1 and 3). Yes, pedals well on smooth, but also is one of the most composed bikes in the rough and can handle big hits well. The progression helps with the latter. The regression helps with the former. Starting from sag onwards, its all progressive. Its also progressive when unweighting (for example, pedaling), which only looks like regression when youre starting at zero, not at sag.

[kidwoo]

some interesting posts, so you ride more or mostly smalls compared to back in the day, how short are you ?

5'8", probably minus whatever 3 collapsed discs comes out to.

In 2002 both my dh bike and my trail bike were larges, they're both mediums now. It's just that more and more companies keep stretching their bikes out so that's starting to more frequently put me looking at smalls. Just depends on who makes the bike and what their ideas of size to rider size is.

[jm2e]

Didn't one of you Blisterites write a piece explaining leverage curves?

Personally, I don't understand them, how to know what any given bikes leverage curve is, or how to relate shock choices to said curve. All I know is that my bikes feel pretty good, and I don't fuck around with the shocks too much except for adding air when they bottom too much.

And coils piss me off because they're heavy, the spring rub squeaking is annoying and you can't figure out how much travel you're using until your fillings are rattling, and once that happens you have to spend $30-200 to do the equivalent of adding 10psi in an air shock. So when someone tells me how awesome it is to be able to run a coil, it just irritates me.

/blog

[kidwoo]

Didn't one of you Blisterites write a piece explaining leverage curves?

Personally, I don't understand them, how to know what any given bikes leverage curve is, or how to relate shock choices to said curve. All I know is that my bikes feel pretty good, and I don't fuck around with the shocks too much except for adding air when they bottom too much.

And coils piss me off because they're heavy, the spring rub squeaking is annoying and you can't figure out how much travel you're using until your fillings are rattling, and once that happens you have to spend $30-200 to do the equivalent of adding 10psi in an air shock. So when someone tells me how awesome it is to be able to run a coil, it just irritates me.

/blog

You need a downhill bike. And windrock.

No air shock made touches the top stroke sensitivity of a coil. Or the much more consistent stroke that's much easier to tune dampers for.


Must have been toast doing the explaino on blister. At least I hope it was.

[farmguy]

I'm 5-8 with a 32 inseam and I have a med Scout and I love the bike. I have been a cross country hard tail rider for ever and this is my first "big" bike. I moved up from a carbon Jamis HT which I still ride...not very often...but after getting my Scout it is now my race bike, what little I lack in climbing is made up in DH fun. I have a light set of wheels I swap out for race day. The Scout is just comfortable as hell riding, climbing or descending, I never lock out the back unless it is a real long grind to the top. Ive been out on 5-7 hrs trail rides and it is hard to beat for my all around whatever I want to do bike. I usually have my next bike picked out almost as soon as I buy a bike, now, I really do not know what I would get to improve on my Scout.....carbonscout/patrol?

btw...wife has a Patrol and loves it too.

[toast2266]

Didn't one of you Blisterites write a piece explaining leverage curves?

I don't think we've done anything other than a few generalized discussions here and there. Maybe Marshal did something a while back?

But it's tough to get good info on leverage curves. Most companies don't publish their curves. The guy at http://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/ has most common bikes, but I take all of that data with a grain of salt; he's just establishing curves based on pictures of the bikes. I'd bet they're in the right ballpark, but I've talked to some frame designers that have indicated that linkage design's curves are a bit off from the actual frame design.

And like Woo alluded to, there's a whole messy interplay between the frame kinematics and the shock tune which makes the whole thing really complicated. There's also going to be different leverage curves that work better for different scenarios. So while Woo has a pretty clear set of preferences (that I tend to agree with, except for his whole short chainstay infatuation), just because bikes with those sort of kinematics work well for me and him doesn't mean they'll work great for someone else. For example, Woo talked about relatively straight, fairly progressive curves; they're supple off the top, they don't get completely crushed on hard hits, and they're easier to tune around because they don't have weird inflections. But mellower riders might not benefit as much from a super progressive linkage because they're less likely to get deep into the travel, so the ramp up at the end is kinda lost on them. They might benefit more from a flatter curve, and maybe something that emphasizes pedaling efficiency.

[jm2e]

You need a downhill bike. And windrock.

Heh heh. Wife and I both have Podiums. And we have Snowshoe.
No idea if the "linear to progressive" leverage curve is working for or against us when we tune shocks.
I do know that the CCDBACoils squeak like motherfuckers. And I have zero idea how much travel I use since I don't get a cute little O-ring like I do on an air shock. I do know that the bike feels like magic! So there's that. And Windrock is on the table now that Neko's shuttle is running!