Review: The New 2024 Scott Ransom 900 RC Has All The Integration
It's been five years since the last Ransom was released, and with Scott hell-bent on hiding the shocks in their XC and trail bikes lately, it's no surprise to see their enduro platform get the same treatment. Scott say they wanted to maintain the climbing performance of the old Ransom while improving the descending capability, keeping up with the progression of the enduro genre.
The shock has been hidden horizontally in the downtube (not vertically in the seat tube like the Spark and Genius), and this is combined with a new six-bar suspension system that drives the shock with a short link that rotates around the bottom bracket. The shock can be adjusted on the fly with Scott's "TracLoc" system, which increases progression and/or adds compression damping for climbing. This is different to the "TwinLoc" system on the old Ransom that also locked out the fork with the same lever - good riddance.
The shock has been hidden horizontally in the downtube (not vertically in the seat tube like the Spark and Genius), and this is combined with a new six-bar suspension system that drives the shock with a short link that rotates around the bottom bracket. The shock can be adjusted on the fly with Scott's "TracLoc" system, which increases progression and/or adds compression damping for climbing. This is different to the "TwinLoc" system on the old Ransom that also locked out the fork with the same lever - good riddance.
Scott Ransom 900 RC Details
• Full-carbon frame, 6-bar suspension, internal shock
• 29" wheels or mullet
• 170mm travel F&R
• 63.8 - 65° head angle
• 77 - 77.6° seat angle (size-specific)
• 428-508mm reach
• 440mm chainstay length (432mm in mullet setting)
• 2,800g claimed frame weight (RC model)
• Measured weight: 15.5kg / 34.2lb (XL)
• $9,999 / €9,999 / £8,599
• scott-sports.com
• Full-carbon frame, 6-bar suspension, internal shock
• 29" wheels or mullet
• 170mm travel F&R
• 63.8 - 65° head angle
• 77 - 77.6° seat angle (size-specific)
• 428-508mm reach
• 440mm chainstay length (432mm in mullet setting)
• 2,800g claimed frame weight (RC model)
• Measured weight: 15.5kg / 34.2lb (XL)
• $9,999 / €9,999 / £8,599
• scott-sports.com
I've been riding the Ransom in Spain (pictured) as well as on my home trails in the Tweed Valley. For me the old Ransom missed the mark, feeling compromised on the climbs and the descents. But the 2024 iteration nails the brief of combining long-travel descending capability with uncompromised climbing composure.
 | But even without changing anything, the Ransom is highly versatile as it is, feeling at home on technical climbs, gnarly descents and everything in between. |
Frame Details
The big (if unsurprising) story is the move to an internal shock. This keeps the shock and its eyelet bearings protected from debris, dust and mud. The plastic shock protector may look like a weak spot, but Scott say it can withstand harsher impacts than the old Ransom's carbon downtube, and if it does break it's a replaceable part. It doubles as a door to access the shock as well as a small storage compartment that can hold a tube or your skinny snack of choice. It clips into place with a button that has been reliable so far and houses a mini tool. While it isn't fully dust-proof, it reliably keeps Scottish slop off the shock. Scott say this allowed them to use small cartridge bearings inside the rear shock eyelet, which would be susceptible to damage if exposed to the elements.
After several wet rides and bike washes, the shock stanchion still has a coating of factory oil on it instead of the usual muddy slurry. I'd call that a substantial benefit. One potential downside is a lack of airflow to the shock that could lead to overheating on long downhill runs, and this might cause a lack of damping and higher spring rate/pressure, creating a bouncy ride. Scott suggested the difference compared to an external shock is only equivalent to a few psi at most and the effect on damping is minimal. I certainly haven't noticed unusual changes in suspension feel while descending, but I haven't been able to test it on very long Garbanzo-style runs.
![photo]()
![photo]()
![photo]()
The TracLoc shock is based on Fox's Float X but has an extra air chamber that is shut off when the cable-operated remote is set to the second position. This has the same effect of adding a massive volume spacer to the shock - it makes it far more progressive, adding support especially late in the travel. It doesn't make a measurable difference to sag, though. Scott say this reduces the travel to 130 mm, but technically there is no hard limit, just an earlier, steeper ramp-up of force through the stroke.
The third setting on the remote adds a threshold to the compression damping, making for a firm, but not locked, suspension feel. While the shock is unique to Scott, they have worked with Fox to ensure that any upgrades to the regular Float X shock will be compatible with theirs, and it can be serviced by any Fox service centre. It's also worth noting that you can run the Ransom with other shocks (coil or air) if you don't want the TracLoc feature, though one notable exception is the RockShox Vivid Air which doesn't quite fit inside the plastic door.
![photo]()
With the shock hidden, Scott designed a sag/travel indicator that sits between the BB and the lower link. This indicates the true travel or sag at the rear wheel as opposed to the shock stroke. This is important because, with most bikes, the leverage ratio between the axle and the shock changes dramatically through the travel, meaning 30% of the shock stroke usually corresponds to more than 30% of the rear wheel travel. Scott's design accounts for this so when it indicates 30% sag you're getting 30% true sag at the axle, which is slightly less than 30% of the shock stroke.
The rocker link is designed to be super stiff and pivots on two large bearings that connect it to the mainframe while housing the PF92 bottom bracket. There are no ISCG tabs for an aftermarket chain guide, but an integrated top guide does the job alongside crank-mounted skid plates. The frame is category-5 tested (for bike park abuse) and is rated for forks up to 180 mm but not dual-crowns.
![photo]()
![photo]()
Cables can only be routed through the headset, and bikes are built with them running through the headset spacers too. If you don't want to run the one-piece bar and stem you can buy a Syncros stem, which routes the cables into these spacers but clamps to a regular handlebar, or you can use an Acros headset top cap with regular round spacers and any stem.
There's a flip chip between the lower short link and the chainstay that keeps the bottom bracket height the same with a 27.5" wheel. It also shortens the chainstay from 440 mm to 432 mm, so it's kind of a two-in-one affair. The idea is that shorter riders or bike park jibbers opting for a mullet rear wheel will likely want a shorter back end too. The Ransom ships in 29" in all sizes as it's primarily designed as a race bike. An angle set offers 0.6 degrees of head angle adjustment (63.8 or 65 degrees) with a neutral headset (64.4 degrees) included in the box.
There's room for a full-sized water bottle in all sizes, but no extra bosses for tools stored outside the frame. There is loads of room behind the bottle if you want to get creative, though.
The old Ransom has always been known as one of the lightest enduro bikes, but the six-bar layout surely adds some bulk. Scott say that putting the shock in line with the downtube and concentrating the shock forces around the bottom bracket (where it needs to be strong anyway) helps save weight from the front triangle, but they admit the new bike is a little heavier than its predecessor. The claimed weight for the top-end 900 RC model (tested) in size Medium is 2,800 g, w/o shock but including including axle, seat clamp, frame protection, covers etc. That's nothing special for a carbon enduro frame these days. The other models in the range have an alloy rear triangle and a lower-modulus carbon mainframe, for a claimed weight of 3,450 g.
![photo]()
The big (if unsurprising) story is the move to an internal shock. This keeps the shock and its eyelet bearings protected from debris, dust and mud. The plastic shock protector may look like a weak spot, but Scott say it can withstand harsher impacts than the old Ransom's carbon downtube, and if it does break it's a replaceable part. It doubles as a door to access the shock as well as a small storage compartment that can hold a tube or your skinny snack of choice. It clips into place with a button that has been reliable so far and houses a mini tool. While it isn't fully dust-proof, it reliably keeps Scottish slop off the shock. Scott say this allowed them to use small cartridge bearings inside the rear shock eyelet, which would be susceptible to damage if exposed to the elements.
After several wet rides and bike washes, the shock stanchion still has a coating of factory oil on it instead of the usual muddy slurry. I'd call that a substantial benefit. One potential downside is a lack of airflow to the shock that could lead to overheating on long downhill runs, and this might cause a lack of damping and higher spring rate/pressure, creating a bouncy ride. Scott suggested the difference compared to an external shock is only equivalent to a few psi at most and the effect on damping is minimal. I certainly haven't noticed unusual changes in suspension feel while descending, but I haven't been able to test it on very long Garbanzo-style runs.
The TracLoc shock is based on Fox's Float X but has an extra air chamber that is shut off when the cable-operated remote is set to the second position. This has the same effect of adding a massive volume spacer to the shock - it makes it far more progressive, adding support especially late in the travel. It doesn't make a measurable difference to sag, though. Scott say this reduces the travel to 130 mm, but technically there is no hard limit, just an earlier, steeper ramp-up of force through the stroke.
The third setting on the remote adds a threshold to the compression damping, making for a firm, but not locked, suspension feel. While the shock is unique to Scott, they have worked with Fox to ensure that any upgrades to the regular Float X shock will be compatible with theirs, and it can be serviced by any Fox service centre. It's also worth noting that you can run the Ransom with other shocks (coil or air) if you don't want the TracLoc feature, though one notable exception is the RockShox Vivid Air which doesn't quite fit inside the plastic door.
With the shock hidden, Scott designed a sag/travel indicator that sits between the BB and the lower link. This indicates the true travel or sag at the rear wheel as opposed to the shock stroke. This is important because, with most bikes, the leverage ratio between the axle and the shock changes dramatically through the travel, meaning 30% of the shock stroke usually corresponds to more than 30% of the rear wheel travel. Scott's design accounts for this so when it indicates 30% sag you're getting 30% true sag at the axle, which is slightly less than 30% of the shock stroke.
The rocker link is designed to be super stiff and pivots on two large bearings that connect it to the mainframe while housing the PF92 bottom bracket. There are no ISCG tabs for an aftermarket chain guide, but an integrated top guide does the job alongside crank-mounted skid plates. The frame is category-5 tested (for bike park abuse) and is rated for forks up to 180 mm but not dual-crowns.
Cables can only be routed through the headset, and bikes are built with them running through the headset spacers too. If you don't want to run the one-piece bar and stem you can buy a Syncros stem, which routes the cables into these spacers but clamps to a regular handlebar, or you can use an Acros headset top cap with regular round spacers and any stem.
There's a flip chip between the lower short link and the chainstay that keeps the bottom bracket height the same with a 27.5" wheel. It also shortens the chainstay from 440 mm to 432 mm, so it's kind of a two-in-one affair. The idea is that shorter riders or bike park jibbers opting for a mullet rear wheel will likely want a shorter back end too. The Ransom ships in 29" in all sizes as it's primarily designed as a race bike. An angle set offers 0.6 degrees of head angle adjustment (63.8 or 65 degrees) with a neutral headset (64.4 degrees) included in the box.
There's room for a full-sized water bottle in all sizes, but no extra bosses for tools stored outside the frame. There is loads of room behind the bottle if you want to get creative, though.
The old Ransom has always been known as one of the lightest enduro bikes, but the six-bar layout surely adds some bulk. Scott say that putting the shock in line with the downtube and concentrating the shock forces around the bottom bracket (where it needs to be strong anyway) helps save weight from the front triangle, but they admit the new bike is a little heavier than its predecessor. The claimed weight for the top-end 900 RC model (tested) in size Medium is 2,800 g, w/o shock but including including axle, seat clamp, frame protection, covers etc. That's nothing special for a carbon enduro frame these days. The other models in the range have an alloy rear triangle and a lower-modulus carbon mainframe, for a claimed weight of 3,450 g.
Geometry & Sizing
It's interesting to note that the geometry hasn't changed a whole lot compared to the five-year-old Ransom. The BB is a few millimetres lower, the reach a few millimetres longer and the head angle can be run slightly slacker if the 0.6-degree angle set is set to the slacker position (as tested). Thankfully, the seat angle is significantly steeper - I measured 77.4 degrees at my pedalling height. While I mention below that I would like it even more upright, it's worth noting that this is already steeper than many rivals, such as the Trek Slash.
I also measured the head angle at 63.3 degrees in the slack setting and the BB at 347 mm - slightly lower and slacker than advertised.
It's interesting to note that the geometry hasn't changed a whole lot compared to the five-year-old Ransom. The BB is a few millimetres lower, the reach a few millimetres longer and the head angle can be run slightly slacker if the 0.6-degree angle set is set to the slacker position (as tested). Thankfully, the seat angle is significantly steeper - I measured 77.4 degrees at my pedalling height. While I mention below that I would like it even more upright, it's worth noting that this is already steeper than many rivals, such as the Trek Slash.
I also measured the head angle at 63.3 degrees in the slack setting and the BB at 347 mm - slightly lower and slacker than advertised.
Scott showed off this cutaway frame which reveals how the internal shock is compressed by the six-bar suspension.
Suspension Design
The move to a six-bar suspension is tied-into the decision to run the shock inside the downtube. It allows the shock to be driven by a short lower link that sits low in the frame and rotates far enough to push the 65mm-stroke shock with just a short link, helping to keep things compact. It can be thought of as a Horst-link layout (with a chainstay pivot just in front of the rear axle) but with an extra short link connecting the chainstay to the mainframe. This short link is in turn controlled by a pair of tie-bars that connect it to the upper rocker.
From left to right: leverage curve, anti-squat (the top line is in the 10-tooth sprocket and the bottom one is the 52-tooth), and anti-rise.
The leverage curve is fairly progressive though nothing unusual by today's standards, with most of the change in leverage occurring in the first part of the travel. The leverage ratio starts at 3.15 and ends at 2.36, giving an overall progression of 25%. According to Scott, antisquat is 104% in the 52t sprocket and 139% in the 10t. That's fairly high, especially in the harder gears, which should be good for sprinting. The anti-squat curve remains fairly constant throughout the travel, which means there should be a similar amount of pedalling support no matter where you're at in the stroke.
Anti-rise (the extent to which braking forces act to compress the suspension) goes from 58% at the start of the stroke to 71% at bottom out. That should make for predictable braking behaviour. Because the anti-rise value increases throughout the travel, sensitivity while braking may be slightly better than in some designs where the anti-rise drops off steeply through the stroke.
Although the combination of consistent anti-squat and anti-rise throughout the stroke is a rare trait, the kinematics don't stand out compared to some four-bar designs. To me, this suggests the main reason for the six-bar design is to allow the shock to be driven by the lower rocker close to the bottom bracket for packaging reasons.
| Specifications | ||
| Release Date | 2024 | |
| Price | $9999 | |
| Travel | 170 mm | |
| Rear Shock | Fox Float X Nude Factory, 205x65 mm, bearing hardware, 3 remote modes | |
| Fork | Fox 38 Factory, Grip2, 170 mm, 44 mm offset | |
| Headset | Syncros-Acros angle-adjust & cable routing (+/-0.6 degrees) | |
| Cassette | SRAM XO Transmission 10-52T | |
| Crankarms | SRAM XO Transmission, Bashguards, 32T, 170 mm | |
| Chainguide | Scott Custom top guide | |
| Bottom Bracket | SRAM DUB PF92 (41x92 mm) | |
| Pedals | N/A | |
| Rear Derailleur | SRAM XO Transmission | |
| Chain | SRAM CN XO Transmission | |
| Front Derailleur | N/A | |
| Shifter Pods | SRAM AXS Rocker | |
| Handlebar | Syncros Hixon iC Carbon one-piece, 780 mm, 25 mm rise | |
| Stem | Syncros Hixon iC Carbon one-piece (40 mm) | |
| Grips | Syncros, single lock-on, tubeless plugs | |
| Brakes | SRAM Code Ultimate Stealth, HS2 Rotors, 200 mm f&r | |
| Wheelset | Race Face Turbine R 30, 29" | |
| Hubs | Race Face Turbine R, Boost, XD | |
| Spokes | 28 | |
| Rim | 30 mm, alloy | |
| Tires | Maxxis Assegai 2.5”,MaxxGrip,EXO+ / Dissector 2.4", MaxxTerra, DD | |
| Seat | Syncros Tofino, Ti rails | |
| Seatpost | Syncros Duncan, 31.6 mm, 140mm (S), 180mm (M), 210mm (L&XL) | |
Test Bike Setup
I started with 30% sag on the sag indicator, which corresponded to 210 psi for my 85 kg. I found this sat a little too high - partly due to the high-ish bottom bracket and fairly progressive suspension kinematic, but mostly because 30% sag on most bikes is gauged by the shock stroke, which usually corresponds to more than 30% of the wheel travel due to the ever-changing leverage ratio between the axle and shock. On the Ransom, the sag indicator reads true to the rear wheel travel, so it's no surprise I'd want to run a little more sag than normal measured this way. I settled on 200 psi, which gave me something like 33% sag on the indicator (it's hard to be precise with this). I later measured 30% on the shock shaft.
I ended up with the compression fully open for maximum sensitivity, finding I still had plenty of support and honed in on 6/12 clicks of rebound from closed.
Seb Stott
Location: Tweed Valley, Scotland
Age: 31
Height: 6'3" / 191cm
Inseam: 37" / 93cm
Weight: 187 lbs / 85 kg, kitted
Location: Tweed Valley, Scotland
Age: 31
Height: 6'3" / 191cm
Inseam: 37" / 93cm
Weight: 187 lbs / 85 kg, kitted
Climbing
While Scott say they aimed to maintain the climbing composure of the old bike, I think the new Ransom is much better when pointed uphill. The seat angle is steep enough to feel comfortable when riding all day or on steep climbs, as the suspension stays on top of its travel nicely (even with generous sag). Thankfully, it doesn't rely on the TracLoc function to maintain climbing geometry or resist pedal bob - if you never used it the Ransom would still be a good climber. It's remarkably stable under power, which is even more impressive considering the 170 mm of travel on tap. At the same time, the suspension still manages to move up and over bumps under power to maintain a smooth ride. It's not as fluttery as an idler system, but it does a surprisingly good job of ironing things out considering the supportive pedalling feel.
The middle setting of the TracLoc lever doesn't make much difference to the ride height or efficiency (I can't measure any difference in static sag), but if you hit a bump or compression it feels a little firmer, with less travel use. Because the extra support is coming from the spring, not the damper, it can feel a little springier in some situations, especially if you like to run the rebound quite fast as I do. This middle setting is most useful for gente flowy descents, where you still want small-bump sensitivity but with more to push against when pumping through berms and rollers.
The third setting adds a firm threshold-damping effect, which is great for tarmac drags or very steep pitches. If the damping switch was in the usual place I'd rarely use it because the Ransom pedals so well; but since within thumb's reach, I use it regularly - if only for the psychological boost of knowing every watt is propelling you forward. The TracLoc and dropper levers are well-positioned and feel intuitive after a couple of rides, meaning there's no downside to having them.
My only gripe is that I had to slam the saddle forward on the seatpost to get it in the position I wanted, and it would be nice to have the option to go steeper still, especially for the punchiest climbs.
Still, the Ransom doesn't climb well for a 170 mm bike; it climbs well full stop. If an epic pedalling mission was on the cards, I'd happily take the Ransom (albeit with some faster tires).
Descending
I immediately found the Ransom easy to get on with. The geometry is stable enough without being an outlier that takes time to adjust to and keep on top of. That said, I did prefer it with sag on the more generous side of the recommended window to compensate (or compeiment) the high-ish BB height and kept the headset in the slacker setting throughout testing, and I never felt the need to go steeper. Despite not having the longest chainstays (440 mm), the bike felt balanced and I had no issues keeping the front wheel tracking even on the XL.
Suspension sensitivity is good - it compresses generously under the load needed to compress the seatpost. The combination of the high initial leverage ratio and Float X shock see to that. This translates to a settled and planted feel when riding light over loose stones or off-camber roots. With generous sag, it settles into its travel nicely and feels composed and surefooted on the steep stuff. The braking behaviour is well-judged too, with only a small amount of rear-suspension rise and no loss of sensitivity when hauling on the anchors. Even though the BB is on the high side when measured in the workshop, it never feels too high on the trail, even when riding the steepest and tightest Tweed Valley turns.
The 170 mm travel suspension gives a little extra confidence when taking on big landings when compared to more typical 160 mm enduro bikes, and while I used all the travel it never bottomed out harshly. The new Float X shock has a bigger bottom-out bumper than some and that's no bad thing in my book; even when you hit the bump stop hard there's no harsh "clunk" to worry about. This in turn means you don't need to run the air spring as progressive or be as fussy with volume spacers, making setup easier and the rebound feel more controlled.
Letting the bike run through fast rocky sections is where it shines. The suspension and geometry create a balanced and forgiving feel, without being overly soft or unwieldy. The suspension tracks the ground nicely while remaining composed and predictable, and the ride is impressively quiet in the rough, with no obvious cable or drivetrain rattle. Some high-pivot bikes may take the sting out of square-edged hits a little better and offer a more cloud-like ride, but none of them climb this well. Despite the travel on offer, it never bogs down or becomes lethargic when you want to ride dynamically; there's a good balance of sensitivity and support, and it's relatively easy to manual, hop and hustle through tight sections.
There is the option of the mullet setting with the shorter chainstay and/or a steeper head angle if you do want to quicken the handling, but for me, the stock (slackest) setup is a good balance for enduro riding. With a 180 mm fork and a coil shock, you could make it more gravity-focused; or for mellower missions you could steepen the head tube and firm up the shock. But even without changing anything, the Ransom is highly versatile as it is, feeling at home on technical climbs, gnarly descents and everything in between.
Scott Ransom
Canyon Strive
How does it compare?
When it comes to enduro bikes that climb especially well, the Canyon Strive springs to mind. Both bikes use a bar-mounted remote to control the rear suspension for climbing. Canyon's approach is more comprehensive, adjusting the static geometry while also firming up the suspension dramatically. Scott's TracLoc is far subtler, making very little difference to the ride height unless the compression damping is applied or you're deep in the travel (such as during a heavy compression). Also, Canyon's Shapeshifter will work with any shock whereas the TracLoc function requires Scott's Nude shock. Fortunately, the Ransom doesn't rely on the remote to climb well - it has plenty of anti-squat and a steeper seat tube - whereas the Strive is lacklustre without the Shapeshifter. They're both top-of-their-class climbers, but if pushed I'd say I prefer the Scott just because you don't need to use the climbing setting and it's better in a mid-stage sprint.
On the descents, the real-world geometry is nearly identical, when comparing the large Strive to the XL Ransom. The Scott's BB is about 15 mm higher but I ended up running more sag which offsets most of that difference. (The Ransom's BB is slightly lower than other 170 mm bikes like the Trek Slash and Specialized Enduro). The suspension is more forgiving than the Canyon though, just thanks to the extra sag and travel. Since we're splitting hairs, the Scott is also slightly lighter, has some internal storage and is category-5 rated instead of category-4, which offers peace of mind if you're hooning it in the bike park. So which would I buy? The Canyon of course - a comparable build is thousands cheaper and you can get a perfectly good spec for £4,799.
Which Model is the Best Value?
I think the Ransom is more competitive at the high end than the low end of the market. The 900 RC model (tested) leaves little to be desired (I don't consider carbon wheels to be desirable in this context), but the price doesn't look too bad compared to some of its rivals these days - a top-spec Trek Slash costs $11,500. Going down one notch saves you $2,000. For that, you get very similar suspension, drivetrain and brake performance, just with a ~ 500g/1lb weight penalty thanks to the alloy swingarm and lower-modulus carbon mainframe. That sounds like a worthwhile downgrade to me. If you're a fan of female-specific paint, the Contessa version is based on this build too.
But for six grand, the 920's SRAM SX/NX drivetrain and DB8 brakes are hard to overlook. We'd expect to see better parts for that kind of money. Similarly, at €5,199 the 930 model (Europe and the UK only) is only slightly more affordable but makes do with a RockShox Domain fork, Formula hubs and a claimed weight of 16.7 kg. Even though the Deore drivetrain is perfectly adequate, you can get a better build for your money elsewhere.
It's worth pointing out, though, that all models get essentially the same shock and frame features (including the adjustable headset), which is nice to see.
![photo]()
![photo]()
![photo]()
![photo]()
![photo]()
I think the Ransom is more competitive at the high end than the low end of the market. The 900 RC model (tested) leaves little to be desired (I don't consider carbon wheels to be desirable in this context), but the price doesn't look too bad compared to some of its rivals these days - a top-spec Trek Slash costs $11,500. Going down one notch saves you $2,000. For that, you get very similar suspension, drivetrain and brake performance, just with a ~ 500g/1lb weight penalty thanks to the alloy swingarm and lower-modulus carbon mainframe. That sounds like a worthwhile downgrade to me. If you're a fan of female-specific paint, the Contessa version is based on this build too.
But for six grand, the 920's SRAM SX/NX drivetrain and DB8 brakes are hard to overlook. We'd expect to see better parts for that kind of money. Similarly, at €5,199 the 930 model (Europe and the UK only) is only slightly more affordable but makes do with a RockShox Domain fork, Formula hubs and a claimed weight of 16.7 kg. Even though the Deore drivetrain is perfectly adequate, you can get a better build for your money elsewhere.
It's worth pointing out, though, that all models get essentially the same shock and frame features (including the adjustable headset), which is nice to see.
Ransom 900 RC €9,999 $9,999 £8,599
Frame: HMX carbon mainframe & swingarm
Fork: Fox 38 Factory
Drivetrain: SRAM XO Transmission
Brakes: SRAM Code Ultimate, HS2 200 mm / 200 mm
Fork: Fox 38 Factory
Drivetrain: SRAM XO Transmission
Brakes: SRAM Code Ultimate, HS2 200 mm / 200 mm
Wheels: Race Face Turbine R 30 (alloy)
Cockpit: Syncros Hixon iC Carbon 1-piece
Claimed weight: 15.2 kg / 33.5 lb
Cockpit: Syncros Hixon iC Carbon 1-piece
Claimed weight: 15.2 kg / 33.5 lb
Ransom 910 (910 Contessa pictured) €7,999 $7,999 £6,899
Frame: HMF carbon mainframe, alloy swingarm
Fork: Fox 38 Performance Elite, GRIP2
Drivetrain: SRAM GX Transmission
Brakes: SRAM Code RSC, HS2 200 mm / 200 mm
Fork: Fox 38 Performance Elite, GRIP2
Drivetrain: SRAM GX Transmission
Brakes: SRAM Code RSC, HS2 200 mm / 200 mm
Wheels: Syncros Revelstoke 2.0 30mm (alloy)
Cockpit: Syncros Hixon iC Carbon 1-piece
Claimed weight: 15.7 kg / 34.6 lb
Cockpit: Syncros Hixon iC Carbon 1-piece
Claimed weight: 15.7 kg / 34.6 lb
Ransom 920 €5,999 $5,999 £5,199
Frame: HMF carbon mainframe, alloy swingarm
Fork: RockShox Zeb Select+
Drivetrain: SRAM SX/NX Mechanical
Brakes: SRAM DB8, Centerline 200 mm / 200 mm
Fork: RockShox Zeb Select+
Drivetrain: SRAM SX/NX Mechanical
Brakes: SRAM DB8, Centerline 200 mm / 200 mm
Wheels: Syncros Revelstoke 2.5 30mm (alloy)
Cockpit: Syncros alloy 31.8 mm bar&stem
Claimed weight: 16.4 kg / 36.2 lb
Cockpit: Syncros alloy 31.8 mm bar&stem
Claimed weight: 16.4 kg / 36.2 lb
Ransom 930 €5,199 $N/A £4,499
Frame: HMF carbon mainframe, alloy swingarm
Fork: RockShox Domain R
Drivetrain: Shimano Deore 12s
Brakes: Shimano MT520 203 mm / 203 mm
Fork: RockShox Domain R
Drivetrain: Shimano Deore 12s
Brakes: Shimano MT520 203 mm / 203 mm
Wheels: Formula CL / Syncros X-30S
Cockpit: Syncros alloy 31.8 mm bar&stem
Claimed weight: 16.7 kg / 36.8 lb
Cockpit: Syncros alloy 31.8 mm bar&stem
Claimed weight: 16.7 kg / 36.8 lb
Technical Report
Syncros Hixon iC Carbon bar/stem: I was happy with the shape of the one-piece bar and never wished I could adjust the bar roll angle. It arguably simplifies setup given this is something I usually spend time adjusting when setting up a bike. The only downside (aside from the embedded cost) is that it's harder to adjust bar height. I wanted to try the cockpit 5 or 10 mm higher than the 30 mm of headset spacers would allow, but to do this you need a new stem and/or headset top cap that's compatible with the cable routing before you can fit a higher rise handlebar. Scott/Syncros don't currently make a one-piece cockpit with more than 25 mm of rise.
Syncros Duncan seatpost I'm delighted to see 210 mm of drop on the XL size, but I had an issue with the seatpost. The mechanism seemed to become sticky due to either dirt ingress or cold temperatures (which hovered around freezing when testing in Scotland). This meant the lever would effectively stay depressed and the post wouldn't lock in place, dropping down when pedalling and rising while descending. Also, when I took the post out to investigate, the outer cable was slightly too short, making it tricky to reconnect the seatpost, and the inner wire would easily fall out of the mechanism after re-attaching. I wrapped a zip-tie around the cable port to hold it in place.
SRAM Code Ultimate brakes / HS2 rotors This is my first longer-term go with the Code Ultimates and thicker HS2 rotors. The performance is superb, and not just on long, brake-burning descents; the chunkier rotors seem to offer more bite and a crisper lever feel from the off. I think it helps that sintered pads come stock, so the rotors aren't "contaminated" with organic pad residue before swapping to sintered ones; this may allow the pads to "key in" with the rotors creating more friction. Consistency and power were both excellent throughout testing, to the point where I think I prefer them to the Hope Tech 4 V4s I also have on test.
Race Face Turbine R 30 wheels: These seem fine, but they make a slight ringing noise when things get wild, I think because the spokes don't touch where they cross over. It's not a big problem, but it's one of the most noticeable noises the Ransom makes.
Maxxis Dissector DoubleDown / Assegai EXO+ tires: I think this tire combination is well-chosen. Protection and traction where you need it without being overkill on mellower terrain.
SRAM Transmission: I prefer the older rocker-style "shifter" seen here over the newer twin-button remote. It gives more differentiation between the upshift and downshift buttons, making it easier to remember which is which when your full brain bandwidth is focussing on the trail ahead. I still occasionally double-click it by accident when upshifting on bumpy terrain though.
![photo]()
Syncros Hixon iC Carbon bar/stem: I was happy with the shape of the one-piece bar and never wished I could adjust the bar roll angle. It arguably simplifies setup given this is something I usually spend time adjusting when setting up a bike. The only downside (aside from the embedded cost) is that it's harder to adjust bar height. I wanted to try the cockpit 5 or 10 mm higher than the 30 mm of headset spacers would allow, but to do this you need a new stem and/or headset top cap that's compatible with the cable routing before you can fit a higher rise handlebar. Scott/Syncros don't currently make a one-piece cockpit with more than 25 mm of rise.
Syncros Duncan seatpost I'm delighted to see 210 mm of drop on the XL size, but I had an issue with the seatpost. The mechanism seemed to become sticky due to either dirt ingress or cold temperatures (which hovered around freezing when testing in Scotland). This meant the lever would effectively stay depressed and the post wouldn't lock in place, dropping down when pedalling and rising while descending. Also, when I took the post out to investigate, the outer cable was slightly too short, making it tricky to reconnect the seatpost, and the inner wire would easily fall out of the mechanism after re-attaching. I wrapped a zip-tie around the cable port to hold it in place.
SRAM Code Ultimate brakes / HS2 rotors This is my first longer-term go with the Code Ultimates and thicker HS2 rotors. The performance is superb, and not just on long, brake-burning descents; the chunkier rotors seem to offer more bite and a crisper lever feel from the off. I think it helps that sintered pads come stock, so the rotors aren't "contaminated" with organic pad residue before swapping to sintered ones; this may allow the pads to "key in" with the rotors creating more friction. Consistency and power were both excellent throughout testing, to the point where I think I prefer them to the Hope Tech 4 V4s I also have on test.
Race Face Turbine R 30 wheels: These seem fine, but they make a slight ringing noise when things get wild, I think because the spokes don't touch where they cross over. It's not a big problem, but it's one of the most noticeable noises the Ransom makes.
Maxxis Dissector DoubleDown / Assegai EXO+ tires: I think this tire combination is well-chosen. Protection and traction where you need it without being overkill on mellower terrain.
SRAM Transmission: I prefer the older rocker-style "shifter" seen here over the newer twin-button remote. It gives more differentiation between the upshift and downshift buttons, making it easier to remember which is which when your full brain bandwidth is focussing on the trail ahead. I still occasionally double-click it by accident when upshifting on bumpy terrain though.
Pros
+ Long-travel yet well-controlled suspension boosts downhill capability
+ Stable but balanced geometry with useful adjustability
+ Pedal-efficient suspension, which benefits from but doesn't rely on the TracLoc shock, makes for one of the best climbing enduro bikes
+ Shock is protected from mud and debris
Cons
- I needed the saddle fully forward to reach my preferred position
- Six-bar suspension and headset cable routing could be tricky to work on
- Not exactly great value on paper
Pinkbike's Take
| Is the Ransom 900 RC worth ten thousand dollars? Of course not - it's a bike. But it does manage to pull off the elusive trick of giving you loads of travel for descending without paying for it on the climbs. It climbs way better than you'd expect for the travel, yet takes full advantage of every millimetre on the descents. It's stable and forgiving without becoming lethargic. It's a bike that can flatter you in a wide range of situations, from trail rides to bike park laps to enduro racing. Even the cheaper builds are not the best value, but the Ransom is among the most capable and versatile enduro bikes you can buy right now. |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
I don’t care that it looks like an e-bike. I care that the headset cable routing is the dumbest idea brands have tried to shove down our throats in a while.
Hey Scott. Add me to the list of customers who will absolutely never consider any of your products with through headset cable routing.
Do you really service hoses and cables so often, honestly? And even when you do - with full internal routing cables being better protected from the external factors, you'd normally just replace the cable within and not the whole hose. For majority of riders this means that hoses won't be replaced in a couple of years within normal use.
Bike with headset routing is nothing important to me, but it does not bother me either. It looks neat and clean and it protects the cable all the way down from one end to another, so, again, can someone just explain it to me? (apart from that we are at the comment section
Sure, valid question. But the short summary is "yes, It appears I do the things you hardly ever do, more frequently than you do, and this makes all of those tasks harder/longer/more annoying. And if you have to pay someone else to do it, it will cost more because of that additional time".
Here is the more words version:
1) I live in the PNW, which is exceptionally wet. The through headset cable routing allows a direct path for the water to get onto the top of the bearings and their seals. This is bad for bearing life. I've had my current frame for exactly two years, and I've replaced the headset on it once already. I don't desire to add bleeding the rear brake/re-indexing shifting and readjusting my dropper post to the list of things I need to do to complete that job.
2) Makes other easy jobs, harder. Like if I want more/less stem spacers (or a new bar/stem in this case). Usually that is a simple 5min job. With this, I have to bleed the rear brake, and re-index the shifting. Not monumental work, but work that doesn't need to be done with normal cable routing.
3) I replace cable and housing for the rear derailleur at the same time, or replace the housing every other time. The inner housing can start to rust (especially at the derailleur end), which means a simple new inner cable swap doesn't always poor shifting. And I do this seasonally. In the 2 years I have had this bike, I think I've had 3 shift cable housings on it.
4) Cables/hoses much prefer to be bent as little as possible for longevity/performance. Through headset cable routing puts a lot of tight bends on cables, and routes them next to the steerer tube, which can cause problems (some road bike carbon fiber steerer tubes have been cut by them rubbing). It is a not ideal situation.
Thats mostly it. For road race/time trials bikes chasing tiny marginal aero gains, I acknowledge that the additional pain of maintenance/setup is probably worth it.
For mountain biking where the bikes are abused in worse conditions (way more dirt/mud, larger impacts, etc), and where aero is much less important, it seems like the negatives are greatly outweighed by the positives (which, is mostly "it looks better to some people").
But don't take my word for it.
bikerumor.com/what-bike-mechanics-really-think-about-internal-cable-routing-headsets
So the feature that makes it so you have to replace your cables/housing a lot more often to keep it running like a $5000+ bike should run has the unfortunate side effect of making the replacement job a much bigger pain than it needs to be.
True, there are different implementations of the idea, some better, some worse (in terms of work required to do other work).
Thanks for calling it out. I might be an irritated consumer, but I also try to be an not-biased irritated consumer, and at least complain about the correct stuff.
(also, I said "try"
@ocnlogan: comprehensive answer - thanks for that! It's interesting to see different perspectives that arise from different use cases and environments all over the world.
However, just for the sake of a constructive debate:
1) So you replaced bearing once in two years which is normally a period where you'd also at least bleed your brakes and dropper. And that only happened on one of your bikes (we don't know whether Scott's bearing protection design might be better - and eventually will get better). Apart from that you can clean the upper bearing like I answered above.
2) Just out of curiosity - do you really change the height of your stem so often?
3) Routing mechanical cables through the headset does not make it (almost) any more complicated than routing them through normal internal routing (through a downtube) - so almost no difference here.
4) I can relate to that, but eventually designs will get better (maybe they already are) compared to first versions that were cutting the steerers. Actually I've never heard of it later on. Apart from that , I think that nobody detects that the cable in the headset is slightly more bent than it would be if routed outside (I mean, why would anybody care - or at least why would 99% of the bikers care for this?).
I'd just like to point out that majority of the the riders aren't disassembling their headset monthly, they are not changing their brakes every half a year, they do not change their stack height every three month. These riders will actually see benefit in cables being hidden (also protected to some extent) and the same goes for the shock. And that's just if we leave aesthetics aside
And yes - of course, I understand why mechanics hate it and I'd never wanted to have bikes with headset routing in my rental fleet. But that's another use case.
All do all these on a regular basis on my bikes and all of them become much more of a hassle. Why would I buy a bike with this when it does nothing to make it ride better, just more difficult to work on.
It’s not just people bitching because it’s something new. It serves no practical purpose. Aesthetics only.
Sure, I'm open for non screaming discussions
1) Its more the fact that doing one task requires another 2-3 tasks. I bleed my brakes whenever they need them. But I don't bleed them when I need to change my stem.
As a side note, have you tried what you described? While you can access the upper bearing without disconnecting the brake hose, its a giant pain, because now you're trying to service a bearing, with limited access (whatever slack is there, like in the image), while holding the bar/stem and trying to pry the seal off the bearing. Thats how I serviced my Konas headset (loose ball bearings in a cage), which was a pain. And that was easier than what you're describing, as at least the cables weren't running through the center, and I could get them all the way out of the way.
2) When I first get a bike, yes actually. I think I went through 2-3 handlebars, and ~5 combinations of stem spacers on my bike before I have settled on this last config, which has been on there for close to a year. Thats 5-15 more times bleeding brakes than would normally be needed.
DH racers regularly change their stem height track to track (although, again, edge case).
3) Assuming internal cable routing without tube-in-tube, I probably agree (although the tighter turns of headset cable routing might be harder, can't comment until I've had to try it). For external cable routing, or tube-in-tube conventional internal routing, both of those will be much easier than fishing a housing.
4) This is going to be a hard one to discuss I think, as its very much a "feel" thing. People may/may not be sensitive to it. But, I can say I have felt kinks in dropper post housings before (blind, I identified the problem via lever feel, investigated, found the bike shipped with a sharp kink/bend in the housing, routed new housing, fixed it). So I "think" I would appreciate smoother routing of cables (more bends/sharper bends means more friction, which negatively impacts shifting).
You're right, most riders aren't disassembling headsets every month, or changing out their brakes/stem spacers all that often. I disagree that through headset cables are more protected (they are less... imagine what happens when you spin the handlebars 360 degrees like in a crash). In my mind the only actual benefit of through headset cable routing is aesthetics. And it feels like the "price" we pay for that (all the other things we've discussed) is just too high for that.
To be clear, I'm not as worried about the shock, which is why all my comments are about the routing. I can see a hidden shock having some benefits that seem to justify its existence, and as long as accessing adjustments and removing it for service isn't a pain, I've got no real problem with it.
Agreed.
I replaced my stock headset with the Hellbender. Good stuff so far.
The bearings are stainless, but the better part is the better sealing of the headset dust cap/crown race.
1. No lines run through the stem, there is no reason to disconnect the brake line if you are swapping stems. Same as normal routing.
2. The headset spacers are split rings and can be removed and rearranged without disconnecting any cables or brake lines.
In fact, you're on a road trip you have been planning and looking forward to for months, maybe even a year. Maybe its a place you've always dreamed of riding over sea's, maybe you spent lots of money to go there, maybe you've poured all of your vacation time for the year into this trip, or you're racing and have spent a ton of non-refundable money on race fee's? You're now on a bike that requires more time to fix, and you may not have the tools, clean space or time to fix a usually simple issue that your more likely to run into on a trip where you're riding all the time such as:
Headset bearing replacement(or the entire cup if they still using plastic Acros headset cups)
Damaged brake line
Damaged dropper line/housing
Damaged Shift housing
Game over. If its in riding season, most shops where ever you are are booked up tight for a couple weeks, and while they'll leave some time for emergencies for riders like a hose or housing replacement, but any of those above issues with headset routing means basically doing them all and taking 1-3 hours to do it correctly, not rushing, which is not fitting into their emergency repair timeline. You're done. Plans out the window and if your with friends, are they waiting for you to get you bike fixed if your planning on driving to another location?
Any riding plans you had are now subject to the bike you chose being unserviceable within a reasonable amount of time because a lack of using independent systems so the bike looked cool. Routing a brake hose, dropper, or gear cable through an external bike usually takes minutes. On a Trek, Santa Cruz, Yeti, etc., all of those can be replaced in 30 minutes, no need to take apart the headset, removing the fork or even the front wheel, even possibly removing the shock to get your hands up into the frame to guide things through. One system can be delt with without affecting another. With headset routing, for one issue you have affected 3 other system for no reason, which means more time and not everyone's going to be able to accommodate you. How much is your time worth?
Then you add proprietary parts, what if in handing one of the repairs above, a plastic spacer is damaged? There is no Scott dealer near by and you are again, stuck.
Most of the headset routed bikes also have a knock off Trek "Knock-block" style of thing to stop the headset from over rotating. These breaks ALL THE TIME and are far less robust than the trek ones were. I've had to fix far to many brake lines in the last few years because the headset stopper was damaged in a crash and the headset over rotated, cutting the line inside the frame. It happened to one guy that stopped in on trip to Canada from Europe was game over on day one because banjo hoses were sold out last year for a while in Canada and renting a bike for two weeks was extremely expensive. Time to fix it didn't even come into play with this one, it was the cause of a poor design damaging itself and an inopportune time.
Just not worth it.
Maintenance complexity and a need to have all the cables at precise lengths. Yes I do ride a lot and do a lot of cable replacing.
Cables may be protected from the external influences, but I have seen too many cables destroyed by rubbing each other. Looked worse than an externally routed cable on my fathers bike after 10 years of use.
I have also seen a steerer almost half cut with a shifter cable on an old Commencal with a routing through headtube from the front (way before this monstrosity came). That's a thing I don't want to risk.
Big NO NO for me. But, everyone should buy what they like
I'm enjoying the non-screaming debate. I own a Spark with the same headset setup, along with other normal bikes, so I have some opinions.
As I think someone else pointed out, no need to bleed or do anything special to try new stem / bar / spacer combos. However, you will miss out on the "integrated look" while you try stuff out and you'd need to buy either the scott stem you want (extra $) or the acros headset cover (appears to require a bleed) for long term use.
I have found most of the "problems" people assume a non-issue.
-No issue with cable wear or bends (I don't try to "stealth" route though with a bunch of zip-ties to the handle bar, I don't care about the looks).
-Actual cable routing is *easier* than most internally-routed bikes because of the giant holes in the frames.
-No issues with headset bearings 2.5 years in. They are actually well sealed and a glob of grease is easy to add without disconnecting any lines.The top one is actually better protected than the normal headsets I maintain! The bottom one is also well protected but probably gets more water directed its way. That's a 5 minute job to replace though. Slip-fit and no cables routed through it.
- Spinning the bars 180 doesn't do anything. There is no knock block feature. If you spun 360, you might pop off a piece of plastic. Worst case that plastic piece breaks.
The spark for me has been the lowest maintenance bike in the family despite being the highest mileage. The internal shock is the only one I can't really tell the difference when I do a service, so that benefit seems real.
Actual dislikes I have:
- I wish they'd shipped with the acros cover/regular stem so I could just use any old bar/stem more easily instead of spending $70 on a stem
- While I haven't had any issues, I feel like they should put one of the solid lube bearing in the top headset just to mitigate the concerns everyone has. I might spring for this if I ever do need to replace it. It's not like it's a big spend compared to the whole bike.
- The dropped cable housing is very thin and flexy. Nice for install, but weak. And the duncan (JD/brand-x) droppers suck, so I always want to push extra hard on the dropper. I and a few others have actually split the housing. It's been fine now that I know not to treat it like a gorilla, but still annoying
FWIW, username is tongue-in-cheek and I'd actually prefer external routing, but people really like to freak out a lot about maybe having to do an extra 30 minutes of work every couple years when the Scott (the one have at least is easier to work on most of the time).
1) Internal shock
2) High leverage shock ratio
3) Headset cable routing
4) A bunch of unnecessary levers on the handlebar
5) Integrated bar and stem
6) Stupid price difference between full carbon & carbon & aluminum mix... (just make it full carbon...)
7) "Female specific paint"
8] Unnecessary electric drivetrain
9) Looks like an ebike
Scott may know something about elon musk's brainchips or mutants--I think they're already working with extra thumbs...they're in cahoots with Big Lever for sure
On the other hand, kudos to them for finding their niche.
10) $6,000 gets you SX/NX drivetrain.
Is this a f*cking joke?
Given most people seem to ride shocks until they start making horrible noises, then send them to a service centre to get "serviced" (i.e. mended), it may actually save you time.
Not to mention they've changed their twinloc system over the years and not all shocks and such work with their system, so it was annoying when half the time Fox or Scott would be out of stock on their proprietary parts for hilariously long amounts of time (albeit this was 2020-2023).
They're called Shockwear for dirtbikes, and they cost like $13-20.
Also, $6500 for an NX build with DB8 brakes and basic suspension? Scott, WHAT ARE YOU DOING??
Scott: *Removes Twinloc for Grip2, cleans up the front end and makes it compatible with a wide range of shocks*
Pb comment section today: This bike is crap!
Maybe you brought this upon yourselves haha. Jokes aside, to no big surprise to anyone - I love it.
"but to do this you need a new stem and/or headset top cap that's compatible with the cable routing"
As the owner of a 2023 Scott, and a 2023 Bold Linkin, both of which use the exact same headset setup - everything you need to run a 'regular' stem is available and did, in my case, come with the bike.
Take a look at Brendan Fairclough or Scotty Laughlands bikes - both been running Scotts with their own personal choice of stem/bar.
Total non issue.
(For what its worth, I have the Syncros bar/stem on one of the bikes and really like it).
You can go full integrated... semi integrated with the syncros stems that have the funny cap at the back, or 'regular' stem of your liking.
As per many commenters here - I've always been sceptical. But I bought the first bike a year ago after persuasion from my LBS that it was not something to worry about. Heck, it even had a press fit BB. Been so pleased with it, and the fantastic build quality of the Scott Carbon frames (paint job, finishing, the best 'box of spare little bits' I've ever had from any manufacturer) I have since bought a second (the Bold), using the same level of integration, and its the same story again.
Everyones welcome to opinion, thats how the world works, but from an owner, I can categorically say that many of the 'issues' are simply not issues at all.
The low COG, the tracloc, the climbing/descending balance, the ability to slam a massive long seatpost and get mega drop even if your a shortarse, all of which are shared with this new Ransom, are really good. Wont be for everyone though.
Nice review !
The look isn't for everyone - I think that's a valid basis to reject fully integrated designs. And if I lived in a wetter climate I might share concerns about headset longevity. But it's too easy for people do dismiss these bikes as gimmicks, when the performance is there in spades. I love diversity in bike design - yesterday I demoed a Switchblade, which is the polar opposite of this, and I loved how it rode and its straightforward concept. My road bike is an Aethos. There's value in both complexity and simplicity, and I don't like to see creative execution discouraged like this. At least Scott sticks to their philosophy.
Is it harder than a s/s rigid steel pub bike? Of course. Is it an issue? Nope.
Have a friend measure your wingspan and use that as the height measurement for most fitment charts. If the standover fits, you're money.
What I do hate is SX on a 6k boke. That's wild. I'd prefer Deore.
These don't feel like bikes for riders, but for boutique consumers.
Marketing at all costs is a terrible thing.
I’m riding the Genius for more the a year and this has been the most silent and easy to work on bike I’ve ever had. The cups can be rotated, spacers can be changed,… in 30 secondes and you don’t need to bleed the brakes. The headset design works really good. I have not changed a bearing after 1 year of racing. They are still in good condition. And yes, there was mud and abuse.
If you want to work on the cables, it’s even easier because you can put your arm inside the frame to guide the cables.
Headset cables - check
Press fit bb - check
Proprietary tune/shock - check
One piece bar/stem - check
Lack of Iscg05 tabs - who would want those?!, check
Would it be fun to ride if I didn’t have to own it? Absolutely. Does it look cool? Eye of the beholder, but I would say ya.
Would I ever buy it? Hard no.
But hey, if your trust fund means you don’t work on your own bike and don’t mind paying 2-3 times more for bike service, party on…..I guess.
At the end of the day, it takes less than an hour to pull an EJ motor from the chassis and it's often the easier way to do a clutch/flywheel, head gaskets, or access the steering system.
This pricing is completely out of touch for a fussy bike with some features that enduro riders won't want.
Sir: the cover fell off while riding and there was no way i was walking over that boulder.
In order to do this, we’ve designed a fairly complex linkage that sits right in the line of fire instead, plus we’ve routed our cables through the (sigh) upper headset bearing.
That should all make for durable & hassle free ownership…”
Sram released flight attendant few years back, why bother with cable tourism?
Are they also going to replace your shock?
PinkBike keyboard warriors will always hate at price and internally cable routing, or anything new and progressive, but I am mechanic and have no issues with this. There’s either a bunch of incompetent or lazy bike mechanics out there if you really think this is that harder the any other bike to work on…I find this to be very straightforward if you know what your doing.
Price is very fair for what you’re getting. Stop complaining. It’s not like taxes where you’re going to have to cough up money to pay.
For those that haven’t worked on internal shocks. This set up is by far way easier to access than any Santa Cruz bike. The shock is easy to access and the sag indicator is really intuitive to set up for customers.
Fun Fact: Ambient air temp changes cause the shock pressure to change quite a bit. It won't be fun at all to check the shock pressure for a ride.
Scott "hey baby, Scott says a lot of things"
However, at first glance I also see such price tags on Santa, Yeti and Rocky Mountain, and the other brands.. The only thing that's a bit annoying is that no AXS dropper is fitted, but that's probably because it wouldn't have worked with the Trac-Loc on the handlebars? that's my guess.
Is there any experience regarding the durability of the bearings and paint?
(Love my Linkin!)
It's pretty simple and comes from e-bikes and e-bike rider that aren't educated on bikes, mechanics and repairs. They still do crash or put the e-bike in the back of the car and by doing so they pull on cables (wires) which damages the cables and makes them have interruptions with all sorts of issues. "I cant turn on my bike at the switch anymore but by the battery it works!" To sort this manufacturers did the internal thing so the cables to the front light, remote and display don't get damaged as easily. As a roady I love the aestetic of the cable free roadbikes. For example deda dcr-s or the ritchey x-night sl. On bikes like this it just looks bulky and ugly. I don't like it and don't want it on my personal bike but I can still understand why they do it.
SCOTT: let’s put two mechanical cables through the headset.
Yeah!!
Holy crap, they saved us from being off by a whopping 0.6mm*, if we rigidly stick to setting sag to exactly the percentage they said with no dialing at all!
Take my money!
*(The change in rate around sag is so small as to not matter. Especially here where the average leverage rate is really damn close to the rate at sag. 30% wheel sag is 170 * 30% = 51mm. 30% shock sag at the ~2.75:1 rate around sag is 62.5 * 30% * 2.75 = 51.6mm wheel travel. 51 - 51.6 = -0.6 wheel travel difference.)
If your stanchion is regularly covered in mud, perhaps you want to check the wiper seal. And if it's coated in mud after several washes, something is terribly wrong with your process.
- $10k build is closer to 34 pounds, in an XL
- the review specifically mentioned it's a fantastic climber
- this comment section is definitely not cheering it on...
The fact that my Ripmo AF weighs 35 pounds-with a DD rear tire and CushCores does make me question the value proposition of the Ransom though.......
What fork and wheels are on your AF?
Further proof that Bold Cycles is, in fact, Scotts 'experimental' brand. Most of the development work here comes from the Linkin and the Unplugged.
As a Bold owner (very happy one) I can't wait to see all the comments about things which actually turn out to be complete non-issues (cable routing, servicing, maintenance, tracloc is pointless etc etc...)
This looks excellent.