* Suntour NCX coil fork - this should weigh around 2kg, which is quite heavy. No adjustment for your body weight (look for air fork for this). 60mm travel is designed for bumps only, not MTB. Compare similar bike with rigid fork. * Shifters: these appear to be Microshift, which looks cheap at this price point * RD: SLX, which is identical to Deore at this price point (XT is better) * Chainset: FSA 48/32. This is a fairly basic and heavy two-piece chainset with solid crank arms. Alloy spindle, threaded BB. * FD: appears to be Microshift. I do not think this will shift as well as Shimano, particularly given the unusual chainrings * Tyres: Trigger Sport Reflect, quite good * Hubs: a mishmash, loose bearings and q/r at the back, sealed bearings and 12mm at the front. Looks like a parts bin effort, but I suppose it doesn't matter that much. * Brakes: TRP Flow Set Control. Another off-brand component to go with the Microshift. More parts bin shenanigans with post-mount on the fork and flat-mount on the frame. * Seatpost: 27.2mm which is slightly limiting but not really a big deal * Frame: mudguard/rack mounts is good news, it's a fairly unremarkable alloy frame that doesn't look excessively heavy. Internal cabling which is an annoyance if you maintain it, but looks neater maybe.
Scott:
* Same fairly low quality fork * Shifters - Deore M6000. Better than the Microshift, XT would be better still. * RD: XT - this is the 'trekking' model which means it's clutch-less, so intended for mild off-road, not going down rock gardens. Quite a bit more durable than SLX. * Chainset: again a 'trekking' model. A bit lighter than the FSA, despite being a triple, and should shift better I think. BB is probably better as well. * FD: Deore exactly designed for this chainring gap, so should shift better than the Microshift. * Tyres: Kenda Booster - look to be an OEM model. Might be cheap and slow, but you can replace them. A bit wider than the Specialized, which is better off-road, but again tyres are fairly disposable * Hubs: centerlock loose bearing hubs front and rear. The rear ones are a well-sealed Shimano Alivio model. Front is Formula. Both are q/r. * Brakes: Shimano MT400. Decent enough, could be better, certainly preferable to TRP. * Seatpost: 31.8mm - more choices * Frame: about the same, appears to have mudguard/rack mounts.
So the Scott is fairly obviously better. And as Jamesd says, more spokes as well.
I think i'm going to buy the Scott. I will try it tomorrow
You seem to say that this is not good bike?
At this price I was expecting to have good quality ...
No I would not say that. I just do not like this style of bike that much, and if I was going to buy this style I would buy a much cheaper one. A cheaper one would be lower quality, but it could be half the price.
Generally my choices if I was spending this kind of money:
* similar to this just with rigid carbon fork * something like this but with rigid carbon fork and drop bars * something like this but designed specifically as a mountain bike, and with a better quality air fork with more travel and wider tyres.
But I would be looking at other brands which are cheaper than these.
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....
I don't know what alternate bikes there are in Belgium, but I gave it as an example of other bikes, for a lot less, that do the same thing with pretty much the same quality.
I have to agree with the post that suggests these look like parts bin bikes. For an odd collection of parts, they all look like bemusedly expensive bikes.
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....
