Scott Sports chose the mountains that make up the border of Switzerland and France as the location for the launch of their new Gambler and Voltage FR, a fitting choice since much of the testing during the bikes' development took place in this area. Chairlifts climb skyward out of nearly every valley, providing endless options for long days of lift assisted mountain biking with jaw dropping backdrops. Ben Walker, one of Scott's product developers and testers, even built a trail in Morgins, Switzerland, that features a mix of bermed turns and root choked straightaways designed specifically to run the bikes through the full gamut of suspension scenarios, everything from hard G-outs to rapid-fire square edged hits. The weather and the trail conditions swung wildly from one extreme to another during our time in the region, and we were able to ride the new bikes in everything from slippery, greasy mud (picture the track conditions during Danny Hart's famous 2011 run in nearby Champery) to tacky, grippy perfection.
The Gambler 700 retains the same distinctive suspension layout as the previous model, but has undergone a host of changes to ensure the bike can maintain its reputation as a downhill race machine capable of taming the steepest of tracks. The most notable change to the frame is the fact that the bike can now accommodate 27.5” wheels, but that doesn't mean that the 26” crowd has been forgotten – the smaller wheels will still fit, and the bike's adjustable BB height, head angle and chainstay length allow similar geometry to be achieved with both wheel sizes. Following the current bike geometry trend, the Gambler's front center has been increased, with the top tube length on the medium frame going from 550 to 595mm, which adds approximately 10mm to the bike's reach.
Head angle adjustments are accomplished by swapping the stock cups for the included Syncros angled headset cups, which allows riders to choose from a super-slack 61° head angle all the way up to a quicker handling 65° degree setting, or anything in between in one degree increments. There are also two bottom bracket height positions that are selected by flipping the aluminum chip found at the lower shock mount. The Gambler's chain stay length is adjustable as well, and can be set at either 424 or 440mm at the lower bottom bracket height setting.
| Details • 210mm Floating Link suspension • 6061 aluminum frame • 27.5” or 26" wheel compatible • 61° - 65° head angle • 422 - 440mm adjustable chain stay length • Adjustable BB height • Sizes S, M, L • Gambler 710 weight: 38.58lb
|
Suspension and Frame DesignThe Gambler is designed to work best with Fox's RC4 rear shock, and when Fox made the shift to a smaller shaft diameter it became necessary to slightly tweak the Floating Link suspension layout to match the damping characteristics of the new design. By adjusting the size of the links, Tim Stevens, the engineer behind the design of the Gambler 700, was able to reduce the amount of rotation that occurs at the mounting hardware from 36° to 12° at the top of the shock, and from 12° down to 4° at the lower mounting point. This should help increase the bike's small bump sensitivity and bushing lifespan by translating impacts more quickly to the shock with less stiction from the rotation of the shock hardware on the bushings. Other small refinements to the frame include new fork bumpers that also serve as cable guides, and the switch to routing the rear derailleur housing through the drive side seat stay, which helps give it a better angle when it reaches the rear derailleur. The bike's weight remains roughly the same, and the 710 model, kitted out with a mix of Saint and Zee components and Fox's Air 40 fork checks in at 38.58 pounds.
Ride ImpressionsRiders who have spent time on previous versions of the Gambler will be glad to know that its monster-trucking abilities are still firmly intact, along with its rock solid feel on steep and rutted tracks. The Gambler isn't a bike for the timid, though, and if you're planning on creeping down the trail while grabbing a fistful of brake this bike could prove to be a handful. While there are lighter, more playful bikes out there, at high speeds the Gambler turns into a bump eating, turbocharged rototiller that will churn through the nastiest terrain and keep asking for more. Even in chunky, awkward sections of trail the rear suspension remained very predictable, with a smooth, well-controlled stroke as the bike went through its 210mm of travel. For the DH rider looking for a full-blown race sled, the Gambler is certainly capable of taking on the most challenging tracks, while at the same time possessing enough adjustability so that it can be ridden on less rowdy bike park trails without feeling out of place, although it's still best suited to more advanced, aggressive riders who can push it hard enough to make it come alive.
The word freeride may have been superseded by the 'E' word over the past two seasons, but Scott still believes there's a demand for a long travel, versatile bike that can be built up in multiple configurations, whether it's with a 180mm single crown fork to make a playful bike park / big mountain bike, or with a 200mm dual crown fork to create a DH race bike. Enter the Voltage FR. The Voltage sports 190mm of rear travel that can be dropped to 170mm by flipping the rear shock mount, and can be run with either 26” or 27.5” wheels. Like the Gambler, the bike's head angle can be changed by switching out the headset cups, giving it a range of options from 62°- 66°. With 26” wheels the chain stay length can be set at either 410 or 425mm, and with 27.5” wheels it is fixed at 425mm. Previously, only two sizes of the Voltage were available, but the FR will now come in small, medium, and large sizes.
The size of the Voltage's bearing and axle hardware has been increased to help the bike withstand lap after lap of bike park shredding, and a brace has been added between the rear seat stays to increase rear end stiffness. The Voltage 710 we rode in Chatel, France, and Morgins, Switzerland is well spec'd with 27.5” wheels, a 180mm version of Fox's new 36, Shimano XT brakes, a pair of Schwalbe's Magic Mary tires, and weighs in at 35.72 pounds.
| Details • 170 or 190mm travel • 6061 aluminum frame • 27.5” or 26" wheel compatible • 62° - 66° head angle • Interchangeable dropouts • Sizes S, M, L • Voltage FR 710 weight: 35.72lb
|
The Voltage can be run with either 170 or 190mm of rear travel. A brace has been added between the seat stays to add stiffness, and there are two rear wheel positions for 26" wheels, and one for 27.5", along with interchangeable dropouts for either a 12x135 thru axle or a 135mm quick release. Ride ImpressionsCompared to the Gambler, the Voltage is more user friendly, and it only took a couple of lift served laps to feel right at home on it. On everything from trails filled with tight berms to long, steep rocky chutes, the bike dishes out a good time, and it actually felt faster in some of the twistier sections of trail than on the Gambler, simply because it took less effort to whip it around the corners. The amount of travel was more than adequate, especially when the performance of the Fox 36 is factored in. The 36 possesses what would be on most riders' list of requests for their dream fork: incredible small bump and beginning stroke sensitivity, plenty of mid-stroke support, and a smooth ramp up at the end of the travel. It does a stellar job of filtering out the trail chatter that can cause sore hands and arm pump by the end of a day in the bike park, and even under heavy braking on super steep sections of trail it settled right into the sweet spot of its travel. The rising popularity of all-mountain and enduro bikes does raise the question - who is the Voltage FR for? It's for the rider that wants a bike that can take a season's worth of abuse in the bike park, and possibly be called into duty as a downhill race machine as well. For riders searching for a relatively simple and stout gravity sled with excellent handling, the Voltage is worth a look.
www.scott-sports.com
Looks freaking great though!
A taller/high volume tire (like a Der Kaiser as ONE of many examples) gives you at or bigger than a 27.5 wheel. I outfitted my Jekyll and sat it next to a Bronson, my tires were the same height, but without the "handles like a UPS truck" geometry that the Bronson has....which apparently is "nimble" for a 27.5.
26" may have been an arbitrary wheel choice in the beginning, but it has over 40 years of geometry tuning to dial in bikes for specific purposes...specific tracks even. You barely have, if even a 1/4 of that time refining on the other wheel sizes. Right now it's all sling shit on a wall and see what sticks for geometry. I don't care what trigonometric calculations you do to account for the larger wheel, it simply doesn't work (yet....arguably) Lots of things work great on paper but FAIL in reality...bigger wheels on bikes being one of them. 27.5 bikes handle like shit. 29" bikes handle like shit.
26 = real mtb
29 = xc (there's no doubt about it, if you xc race, you're stupid not to have a 29er simply for, if nothing else, the climbing and roll-ability)
27.5 = bigger wheel bandwagon
:-D
I'm afraid you are the one that is coming across like you haven't ridden or measured the difference between 22in/559mm and 23in/584mm aka 26in vs 27.5in wheels.
For the same width tire and model the difference is 1in or 25mm. Sure that is less than the 2.5in/63mm difference between a 22in(26er) and 24.5in/622mm (29er).
My Jekyll had Der Kaisers, Nevegals, and Hans Dampfs all mounted to i9 wheels. The Bronson next to it had Enves with Nevegals...the tire at most was 10 mm taller. When I mounted DKs to my wheels, my tire height was the same as the Bronson with Nevegals, which are fairly tall tires.
I'm not saying all tires are the same height...I guess somehow the internet retards missed that. My point is that you can still get all the "benefits" of a 27.5 wheel without switching to a 27.5 bike with tire choice. And if that's the case, what's the point in riding a bike that has slower, less nimble geometry than the 26" offerings? Oh, that's right...fanboys.
559mm IS the rim diameter of a "26in" rim aka 22in and 584mm is the rim diameter of "27.5in" aka 23in so YEAH there IS a 1 in difference. The difference is ~15mm when you compare a 26x2.5 with a 27.5x2.3! A schwalbe Muddy mary 26x2.5 measures 690mm and a magic mary 27.5x2.35 measures 706mm!
I agree that you can get a 26in tire that measures 27.5in or bigger but it has to be a very tall tire eg. Duro leopard 26x3.0 => 703mm
4X is dead
Sick of that cr*p
Thank you SCOTT!!!!
The voltage could well be my next bike
Will we ever see a review on the new Orange alpine 160 26er on pb is another question
But that is a whole nother story of Bad @§§
I've bought older version of Voltage FR frame just because of straight seat tube - and I built excellent (super?)enduro bike. Or just freeride bike.
According to the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" principle.
thanks
they use the sequence of links for tuning leverage ratios
Bit disappointed with this one tho. Mostly because you are way off with the linkage design description for the Gambler. The very complicated linkage has nothing to do with "reducing the amount of linkage movement before the shock is activated". In fact the numerous additional bearings actually increase this free play a fraction, although not enough to worry about. The whole point in reducing the rotation of the linkage compared to the shock is because the shock bushings offer far more initial stiction than the ball bearings used at other points in the linkage. This reduced rotation drops the drag on the whole system, and reduces wear on the shock bushings, adding up to a plusher more durable rear sus system. Surprised you made such a basic error on this. You also make no mention of the major drawbacks in trying to make a frame design work with both 27.5" and 26". Usually one size suffers hard in terms of sus/geo performance. Some insight into how the two wheel sizes fare up would be nice. Also you seem to have drunk the 27.5 is better EVERYWHERE koolaid. Shame on you. Go ride some real DH tracks!
Jk, I'm sure you ride far more DH than I do....Sadly
My real issue was this "reducing the amount of linkage movement before the shock is activated"
Oh wait you have re-edited it now and corrected that bit. Woohoo! I had some input in a PB review! I assume my thank you is in the post?
The "numerous additional bearings" are to be found in the linkage. A bike with no linkage such as an Orange has far fewer bearings between the rear tyre and the shock, meaning less slack to take up before the spring starts compressing. Tbh it's a non-issue really as the added play is an infinitesimally small amount.
There are major drawbacks to designing a suspension system to work with two different wheel sizes. Essentially the spring curves, pivot placements etc. can not be tuned specifically for either size, instead having to be tuned for a sort of average inbetween size.
I'm just very skeptical about this new chassis, but if it really is suited for day-in, day-out use in bikeparks, I'm going to use my Fox EP asap. The idea of losing 600g+ off the front end while gaining much impoorved damping all the while retaining rigidity is a win-win-win.
I would love to see deflection tests between the new and previous 36's.
remember guys, we all pay retail.
Why Scott narrows the options to choose from other shocks?
Do you have a professional writer coming up with your material ?