Review: Scott Spark RC World Cup - 120mm Is The New XC
The new Scott Spark RC is the first model in the Swiss brand's line to use Bold Cycles' distinctive hidden-shock suspension design, a company that Scott acquired in 2019.
The hidden shock isn't the only thing that is bold about the new bike though; it's the first time we've seen a purebred cross-country race bike with 120mm of travel front and rear across all sizes, signalling an evolution in cross-country race bike design. Along with that additional 20mm of travel, the Spark RC World Cup now comes with 2.4″ wide tires and geometry numbers that would have passed for trail bikes' a couple of years ago.
The hidden shock isn't the only thing that is bold about the new bike though; it's the first time we've seen a purebred cross-country race bike with 120mm of travel front and rear across all sizes, signalling an evolution in cross-country race bike design. Along with that additional 20mm of travel, the Spark RC World Cup now comes with 2.4″ wide tires and geometry numbers that would have passed for trail bikes' a couple of years ago.
Contessa Spark RC World Cup Details
• Wheel size: 29"
• HMX carbon frame
• Travel: 120mm (r) / 120mm fork
• 67.2-degree head angle
• 437.5mm chainstays
• Weight: 23.7 lb / 10.75 kg (size M)
• Sizes: S-XL
• Price $8,999 USD
• scott-sports.com
• Wheel size: 29"
• HMX carbon frame
• Travel: 120mm (r) / 120mm fork
• 67.2-degree head angle
• 437.5mm chainstays
• Weight: 23.7 lb / 10.75 kg (size M)
• Sizes: S-XL
• Price $8,999 USD
• scott-sports.com
Scott offers six different price points on the racey Spark, starting at $4,199 USD for the Spark RC Comp and going up to $13,999 USD for the Spark SL EVO AXS. While the 900-series trail version is offered in aluminium, the race model is carbon through and through, although three different grades of carbon are used across the line.
The Scott Contessa Spark RC World Cup that I've been riding is the one model in the Spark RC line to come with women's specific touch points and an alternate colourway, but otherwise it is identical to the Spark RC World Cup and retails for the same price of $8,999 USD. At that price point, it sees an HMX carbon frame, and specifications include a SRAM X01 AXS drivetrain, a RockShox Nude 5 RL3 rear shock, a RockShox SID Select+ RL3 fork, and Shimano XTR 2-piston brakes.
 | The Scott Spark is part of a new generation of cross-country bikes that are actually fun to ride. |
Frame Details
The Scott Spark almost looks like a hardtail at first glance with its rear shock hidden away in the carbon frame and only accessible via a hatch in the bottom bracket area. That new design means that there's now clearance for two water bottles inside the front triangle, something that wasn’t possible on the previous generation Spark.
The shock isn't the only thing that's hidden, with the brake, dropper post, and suspension remote housing running through the integrated Syncros Fraser iC SL XC cockpit instead of through ports in the side of the frame. The result is a super clean and tidy cockpit as there are almost no visible cables on the bike anymore. The downside is that it does make it harder to swap out stem spacers, the stem, and the handlebar than on a more traditional setup.
Something that won't be as visible as the clean lines to the naked eye is that the Scott Spark comes in three different carbon compositions. The HMX SL frame that the $13,999 USD Scott Spark RC SL Evo AXS bike comes with weighs in at 1,870 grams, while the HMX frame on the bike that I've been riding is slightly heavier at 1,999 grams. The Pro, Comp and Team Issue bikes come with the HMF carbon frame that weighs 2,150 grams.
Scott says that the HMX filaments are both stiffer and smaller in diameter than those of HMF carbon so an HMX frame can be built of tubes with thinner wall thicknesses to achieve the same stiffness of a corresponding HMF frame. Scott says that the cost of HMX carbon is three times that of HMF and so they reserve it for their high end bikes where the lighter material will be most noticeable. Scott says a frame made of HMX carbon is 14% lighter than the frames made of HMF carbon.
As for the HMX-SL found on the top-tier Scott Spark, it will be 8.5% lighter on average to the HMX frame and 22.5% lighter than an HMF frame due to a combination of carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and the world's highest tensile strength carbon fibre - T1000G. You can nerd out on all the details here.
While we usually see brands touting their newest cross-country bikes as the lightest ever, the new Spark actually isn't lighter than the previous version, although it is just 70 grams heavier with the hidden shock. Only the claimed weight for the Specialized S-Works Epic and Epic EVO (1,659 grams and 1,869 grams) and the Orbea Oiz OMX (1,740 grams) are less than the new Spark, with the Cannondale Scalpel Hi-Mod weighing a couple of grams more at 1,910 grams and the Trek Supercaliber and Santa Cruz Blur coming in at 1,933 grams. Of course, these are the claimed weights from the manufacturers themselves, and not all brands weigh bikes exactly the same, so you have to take them with a grain of salt.
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
The Scott Spark almost looks like a hardtail at first glance with its rear shock hidden away in the carbon frame and only accessible via a hatch in the bottom bracket area. That new design means that there's now clearance for two water bottles inside the front triangle, something that wasn’t possible on the previous generation Spark.
The shock isn't the only thing that's hidden, with the brake, dropper post, and suspension remote housing running through the integrated Syncros Fraser iC SL XC cockpit instead of through ports in the side of the frame. The result is a super clean and tidy cockpit as there are almost no visible cables on the bike anymore. The downside is that it does make it harder to swap out stem spacers, the stem, and the handlebar than on a more traditional setup.
Something that won't be as visible as the clean lines to the naked eye is that the Scott Spark comes in three different carbon compositions. The HMX SL frame that the $13,999 USD Scott Spark RC SL Evo AXS bike comes with weighs in at 1,870 grams, while the HMX frame on the bike that I've been riding is slightly heavier at 1,999 grams. The Pro, Comp and Team Issue bikes come with the HMF carbon frame that weighs 2,150 grams.
Scott says that the HMX filaments are both stiffer and smaller in diameter than those of HMF carbon so an HMX frame can be built of tubes with thinner wall thicknesses to achieve the same stiffness of a corresponding HMF frame. Scott says that the cost of HMX carbon is three times that of HMF and so they reserve it for their high end bikes where the lighter material will be most noticeable. Scott says a frame made of HMX carbon is 14% lighter than the frames made of HMF carbon.
As for the HMX-SL found on the top-tier Scott Spark, it will be 8.5% lighter on average to the HMX frame and 22.5% lighter than an HMF frame due to a combination of carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and the world's highest tensile strength carbon fibre - T1000G. You can nerd out on all the details here.
While we usually see brands touting their newest cross-country bikes as the lightest ever, the new Spark actually isn't lighter than the previous version, although it is just 70 grams heavier with the hidden shock. Only the claimed weight for the Specialized S-Works Epic and Epic EVO (1,659 grams and 1,869 grams) and the Orbea Oiz OMX (1,740 grams) are less than the new Spark, with the Cannondale Scalpel Hi-Mod weighing a couple of grams more at 1,910 grams and the Trek Supercaliber and Santa Cruz Blur coming in at 1,933 grams. Of course, these are the claimed weights from the manufacturers themselves, and not all brands weigh bikes exactly the same, so you have to take them with a grain of salt.
The shock is hidden behind a plastic door on the bottom of the downtube. This allows the Spark room for two water bottles.
The port on the seat tube is used to access the upper shock bolt and adjust air pressure, rebound, and compression
Geometry
![photo]()
As bikes across all categories have been trending in recent years, the new Spark is longer, lower, and slacker than its predecessor, with the headtube angle now sitting at 67.2°, the reach at 441mm on a size medium, and chainstays across all sizes measuring 437.5mm. These numbers would have been appropriate on a trail bike back in 2016 when the Spark was last updated ahead of the Rio Olympics and, although times have changed, it is the most progressive of its current cross-country race peers.
For reference, the previous generation had a 432.5mm reach on the size medium, 425mm chainstays across all sizes, and a 68.5° head tube angle. While the seat tube angle used to be 73.5° across all sizes, it now changes with size, with a 75.9° on size small, 76.1° on size medium, 76.6° on size large, and 76.9° on size XL.
Like I mentioned earlier, the frame is the same on both the Spark RC and the Spark 900 that Mike Kazimer reviewed. Scott accomplishes this by using adjustable headset cups to tweak the head angle independently from the rest of the frame. By switching the cups around 180°, you can slacken or steepen the head angle by 0.6°. As you would expect, the Spark RC race bike comes with the headset cups in the steeper position to get that 67.2°, while the Spark 900 puts them in the slacker position to get a 65.8° head angle. The Spark 900 also gets a 10mm longer fork at 130 compared to the Spark RC's 120mm front and rear.
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
As bikes across all categories have been trending in recent years, the new Spark is longer, lower, and slacker than its predecessor, with the headtube angle now sitting at 67.2°, the reach at 441mm on a size medium, and chainstays across all sizes measuring 437.5mm. These numbers would have been appropriate on a trail bike back in 2016 when the Spark was last updated ahead of the Rio Olympics and, although times have changed, it is the most progressive of its current cross-country race peers.
For reference, the previous generation had a 432.5mm reach on the size medium, 425mm chainstays across all sizes, and a 68.5° head tube angle. While the seat tube angle used to be 73.5° across all sizes, it now changes with size, with a 75.9° on size small, 76.1° on size medium, 76.6° on size large, and 76.9° on size XL.
Like I mentioned earlier, the frame is the same on both the Spark RC and the Spark 900 that Mike Kazimer reviewed. Scott accomplishes this by using adjustable headset cups to tweak the head angle independently from the rest of the frame. By switching the cups around 180°, you can slacken or steepen the head angle by 0.6°. As you would expect, the Spark RC race bike comes with the headset cups in the steeper position to get that 67.2°, while the Spark 900 puts them in the slacker position to get a 65.8° head angle. The Spark 900 also gets a 10mm longer fork at 130 compared to the Spark RC's 120mm front and rear.
Suspension Design
While it feels like enduro bikes have been gaining a couple millimetres of travel every year, cross-country bikes have largely remained at 100mm of travel in recent history. For World Cup athletes, there was no question of whether you would choose to race a course on a longer travel bike, only whether you would choose your hardtail or your 100mm full-suspension bike. While the geometry on the Spark is progressive, the longer travel is equally progressive.
The extra travel will add a bit of weight to the bike overall, but the single pivot suspension layout with flex stays that controls that 120mm of rear travel minimizes hardware compared to a design with multiple pivots.
As mentioned above, the shock can be accessed using the plastic hatch at the bottom of the downtube, and there's also a port on the side of the frame that's used to access the upper shock bolt. Since the shock is oriented upside down inside the frame, you can't check sag by simply looking at the shock. Instead, you can see whether you're in the right sag range using the indicators on the frame and upper link.
To firm up the 120mm fork and shock, the Spark has the latest version of Scott'sTwinLoc system. Above your dropper post lever on your left thumb, you'll find two levers which allow you to toggle the shock between full travel, 80mm of travel, and fully locked out while simultaneously firming up the fork.
The lowest lever that sticks out a bit more is for the dropper post. That dropper is a 31.6 and on the size medium, Scott has spec'd a 100mm dropper. All models of the Spark RC come with TwinLoc, although the two entry price points do not come with a dropper post.
| Specifications | ||
| Price | $8999 | |
| Travel | 120mm / 120mm | |
| Rear Shock | RockShox NUDE 5 RL3 | |
| Fork | RockShox SID Select+ RL3 Air | |
| Headset | Syncros - Acros Angle adjust & Cable Routing HS System +-0.6° head angle adjustment | |
| Cassette | SRAM X01 XG1295 / 10-52 T | |
| Crankarms | SRAM X01 DUB Eagle Carbon / 30T | |
| Bottom Bracket | SRAM DUB PF 92 MTB Wide / shell 41x92mm | |
| Rear Derailleur | SRAM X01 Eagle AXS / 12 Speed | |
| Chain | SRAM CN X01 Eagle | |
| Shifter Pods | SRAM GX Eagle AXS | |
| Handlebar | Syncros Fraser iC SL XC Carbon -12° rise / back sweep 8° / 740mm | |
| Grips | Syncros Women Pro lock-on grips | |
| Brakes | Shimano XTR M9100 Disc | |
| Wheelset | Syncros Silverton | |
| Hubs | DT Swiss Ratchet Hubs | |
| Tires | Maxxis Rekon Race / 29x2.4" | |
| Seatpost | FOX Transfer SL Performance Elite Dropper Post | |
Test Bike Setup
Set up on the Spark RC is easier than other bikes in some ways and trickier in others. The Spark's integrated one-piece handlebar and stem mean that setting up your bars is pretty quick since there's no way to adjust the bar roll or stack height. Luckily for me, the 740mm bar with a stem length equivalent to 60mm felt comfortable, because swapping out that handlebar is not on my bucket list.
Setting up the rear shock is a bit trickier than usual since the shock itself is hidden inside the frame and you have to undo the hatch on the underside of the down tube to access the valve. This isn't a big deal, but it is definitely a more pleasant experience with a clean bike than when you try to make an on-trail adjustment in muddy conditions. Luckily, that's not something you'll likely need to do beyond the first couple of rides.
I ran 88 psi in the RockShox SID Select+ RL3 Air fork and settled on 25% sag in the RockShox Nude 5 RL3 rear shock at 160 psi.
Set up on the Spark RC is easier than other bikes in some ways and trickier in others. The Spark's integrated one-piece handlebar and stem mean that setting up your bars is pretty quick since there's no way to adjust the bar roll or stack height. Luckily for me, the 740mm bar with a stem length equivalent to 60mm felt comfortable, because swapping out that handlebar is not on my bucket list.
Setting up the rear shock is a bit trickier than usual since the shock itself is hidden inside the frame and you have to undo the hatch on the underside of the down tube to access the valve. This isn't a big deal, but it is definitely a more pleasant experience with a clean bike than when you try to make an on-trail adjustment in muddy conditions. Luckily, that's not something you'll likely need to do beyond the first couple of rides.
I ran 88 psi in the RockShox SID Select+ RL3 Air fork and settled on 25% sag in the RockShox Nude 5 RL3 rear shock at 160 psi.
Sarah Moore
Location: Squamish, BC, Canada
Age: 31
Height: 5'7" / 170cm
Inseam: 31" / 84cm
Weight: 160 lbs / 72.6 kg
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @smooresmoore
Location: Squamish, BC, Canada
Age: 31
Height: 5'7" / 170cm
Inseam: 31" / 84cm
Weight: 160 lbs / 72.6 kg
Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Instagram: @smooresmoore
In addition to taking the Spark on all my favourite cross-country trails in Squamish, I took the bike on a couple of Whistler rides, including a great day on Lord of the Squirrels. While I wasn't able to enter any races during the test period, I did go after some of my own PRs. Conditions were dry throughout the summer before we went into an atmospheric river in the fall.
Climbing
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: cross-country races can be lost on the descents, but they're won on the climbs. That's why I was more than a bit curious to try the 120mm Spark RC and see if it could hold its own on the climbs.
The riding position on the Spark RC is comfortable and I didn't feel like I needed to sign up for any extra yoga classes since it's not one of the stretched out long and low cross-country race bikes of years past. That being said, it still feels like you're in an aggressive position that makes you want to toe a start line or head out to set a PR on a climb.
I was lucky that the stock 740mm bars felt comfortable since swapping out the Syncros one-piece headset would be a bit of a drag (and I'm not sure how many people are looking for very custom, very expensive handlebars on the Pinkbike Buy and Sell!).
As soon as you push down on the pedals, you can tell that you're riding a race bike. The bike reacts quickly to any power you give it, and accelerates easily with minimal movement from the rear shock, even in the fully open position. On roads and smooth gravel, pushing the TwinLoc lever all the way forward gives you a fully locked out and very firm shock, while on slightly rougher climbing sections and traverses, I found the mid-lock position that reduces the travel to 80mm was a good compromise between comfort and all-out speed. While it took a while, I could eventually toggle between the different TwinLoc positions without looking down and without moving my entire hand off the grip.
The fully open position had ample composure that allowed me to make it up many of my least-favourite tricky, rooty steep sections and loose marble-y climbs. The bike shone on really technical climbs, with a balance of maneuverability and grip that allowed me to pick careful lines and power through them. On tight singletrack sections, it was easy to wind around trees and I found the bike balanced and stable in these situations.
While this version of the Spark RC isn't as light as some of the contenders we had in the XC Field Test in 2020, it's lighter than all but one of the downcountry bikes we had in the last Field Test, and it is worth noting that there is room to shave weight off the already-respectable 23.7 pounds (10.75 kg) since this isn't the top of the line build.
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: cross-country races can be lost on the descents, but they're won on the climbs. That's why I was more than a bit curious to try the 120mm Spark RC and see if it could hold its own on the climbs.
The riding position on the Spark RC is comfortable and I didn't feel like I needed to sign up for any extra yoga classes since it's not one of the stretched out long and low cross-country race bikes of years past. That being said, it still feels like you're in an aggressive position that makes you want to toe a start line or head out to set a PR on a climb.
I was lucky that the stock 740mm bars felt comfortable since swapping out the Syncros one-piece headset would be a bit of a drag (and I'm not sure how many people are looking for very custom, very expensive handlebars on the Pinkbike Buy and Sell!).
As soon as you push down on the pedals, you can tell that you're riding a race bike. The bike reacts quickly to any power you give it, and accelerates easily with minimal movement from the rear shock, even in the fully open position. On roads and smooth gravel, pushing the TwinLoc lever all the way forward gives you a fully locked out and very firm shock, while on slightly rougher climbing sections and traverses, I found the mid-lock position that reduces the travel to 80mm was a good compromise between comfort and all-out speed. While it took a while, I could eventually toggle between the different TwinLoc positions without looking down and without moving my entire hand off the grip.
The fully open position had ample composure that allowed me to make it up many of my least-favourite tricky, rooty steep sections and loose marble-y climbs. The bike shone on really technical climbs, with a balance of maneuverability and grip that allowed me to pick careful lines and power through them. On tight singletrack sections, it was easy to wind around trees and I found the bike balanced and stable in these situations.
While this version of the Spark RC isn't as light as some of the contenders we had in the XC Field Test in 2020, it's lighter than all but one of the downcountry bikes we had in the last Field Test, and it is worth noting that there is room to shave weight off the already-respectable 23.7 pounds (10.75 kg) since this isn't the top of the line build.
Descending
It's not quite as simple as "races can only be won on the climbs". Most cross-country courses also include substantial descents that riders do between four and seven times throughout the race. Pair that with bumpy traverses, and your upper body gets fatigued as a race progresses. Plus, if you're getting dropped on every descent, the extra energy required to catch back up on the next section after a descent takes a toll.
That's why 120mm might just be the future of cross-country racing. Perhaps at first it will just be for riders that struggle to hold their own on descents, but as strong descenders move to more capable bikes, the whole field will have to join in or be left behind. Although since some riders still don't use dropper posts, it could take a while!
The Spark RC brings a confidence to descents that I've never felt before on a purebred cross-country bike. It thrives on flying along smoother sections of trail and accelerating out of descents and into the next climb as you'd expect, but its composure opens up a wider number of trails than you'd think possible on a purebred cross-country bike.
It's also just a lot more fun than any cross-country bike I've ever ridden, which absolutely counts for something. That being said, it shouldn't be confused with bikes like the Santa Cruz Tallboy, Ibis Ripley or Rocky Mountain Element on the descents despite now having a similar amount of travel.
While you can still ride really steep things, you just can't ride them at top speed and you'll want to choose your lines more carefully than you would on a longer travel bike or a bike with slacker geometry. Your whole body still gets more tired on the descents than it would with a longer travel bike and you won't be speeding through the roughest sections of trail, but I kept surprising myself with what I could ride down on the Spark RC, especially when I tried a set of beefier tires on it. I was blown away by how it transformed the bike entirely into a not-quite-downcountry-but-so-close-it's-a-bit-confusing bike.
Scott Spark RC
Santa Cruz Blur TR
How Does It Compare?
Let's compare the Scott Spark RC to the Santa Cruz Blur TR, which was released at the same time as the Spark and has similar travel and geometry. Interestingly, both Santa Cruz and Scott released a purebred cross-country version of their new bike and a more aggressive version that uses the same frame; the Blur is just a more conservative iteration.
The race version of the Spark with 120mm of travel front and rear actually has more travel than the 115mm/120mm Blur TR and the geometry numbers are more similar to it than the 100mm Blur XC so it seems like the more fair comparison, although so far we've seen Santa Cruz's World Cup XC racers choose the shorter-travel bike for XC racing, while their endurance racers like Keegan Swenson ride on the TR.
On the Blur, the differences in the two models are accomplished by using a longer stroke shock and a longer fork, while on the Spark, the differences in geometry are made using adjustable headset cups to tweak the head angle independently from the rest of the frame along with a longer fork.
I rode the medium-sized Blur TR last summer with its 438mm reach, 67.1 degree head tube angle, 75° seat tube angle, 1157mm wheelbase, and 433mm chainstays. The Spark RC in a size medium has an almost identical reach, head tube angle, and wheelbase at 441mm, 67.2°, and 1,159mm respectively, a one degree steeper seat tube angle at 76.1°, and longer 437.5mm chainstays.
Although the numbers may be very similar, there are differences out on the trail. On the climbs, both have an incredible amount of traction and allow you to grind up the least forgiving of technical climbs. However, they both benefit from a lock out on long paved or gravel climbs, something that the Spark RC with TwinLoc gets points for. It seems like a bit of an oversight that the Blur TR doesn't get a remote lockout. While both are supremely capable on tight switchbacks, here I preferred the Spark RC as well, with its slightly more upright riding position.
On the descents, the Spark RC felt more composed than the Blur TR and less twitchy. Mike Levy may enjoy that feeling of always being on the edge of control, but when you're already absolutely exhausted in a cross-country race, I think it's preferable to have a bike that works with you instead of against you. You need to pay attention descending on both bikes, but I felt less likely to go head over heels on the Spark RC.
Where the Blur TR gets points is for its more traditional handlebar setup and fewer cables to contend with. The Spark RC won't be the cheapest bike to maintain since not everyone can get that shock out to service and it's harder to reroute cables or swap out components.
The Fox Transfer SL dropper post is 25% lighter than the standard Transfer, but it does take a bit to get used to since it doesn't have infinite travel adjust
The Maxxis Rekon Race tires are fast, light, efficient and slightly terrifying.
Technical Report
Overall, the spec on the Spark RC World Cup is highly appropriate for a cross-country race bike. The World Cup model isn't top of the line, but the compromises are well thought out to try and keep the weight as low as possible, while keeping the price point at a substantial $5,000 USD less than the top of the line $13,999 USD Spark RC SL Evo AXS.
Fox Transfer SL Dropper post: The Fox Transfer SL dropper post is 25% lighter than the standard Transfer, something that weight weenies won't scoff at. At 100mm, the length is appropriate for this size medium race bike, and gets the saddle out of way even on steep descents. It does take some time to get used to the Transfer SL though since it doesn't have infinite travel adjust that most dropper posts do these days. There's no "middle" position for pedalling across flat, rooty sections, something I didn't know how frequently I did until I couldn't do it with this post. It's a fine balance between light weight and usability, but I would choose a heavier post with infinite adjust if given the option.
Maxxis Rekon Race Tires: These tires are fast and light and an appropriate tire choice for this bike, but I found I had a lot more fun on the Spark RC when I changed the front tire to something more aggressive. As soon as the ground is wet or you have loose dirt over hardpack, it's easy to lose the front end with the Rekons and wind up on the ground. That being said, it's great to see cross-country bikes getting specced with, and being compatible with, wider tires.
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
Syncros Celista 1.5 If there's one thing I'm picky about, as most riders who spend a lot of time pedalling are, it's a good saddle. I always have low expectations for how comfortable a saddle is going to be when I get a test bike in and I fully expect to have to swap the saddle early on in the test period. The Syncros Celista 1.5 was surprisingly comfortable, though, and I kept it on for the duration of the test period. While the differences may be slightly between the RC and the RC Contessa, I would choose the Contessa with the comfortable Syncros Women Pro lock-on grips and Syncros Celista 1.5 saddle if I were in the market for a cross-country race bike. The colourway doesn't hurt either.
TwinLoc: Mike Levy would argue that a short travel bike shouldn't need a lockout, but personally I think it's on the cross-country race course where the slightest of margins on the climb make the most difference. I know Mike Kazimer has his gripes with the TwinLoc system on the trail version of the Scott Spark, but on the race-oriented version of this bike, I think it makes sense. It might seem overly complicated, but I know a lot of people who do twist the dials on their fork and rear shock at the start of every climb every lap of a cross-country race to gain a marginal advantage on the climb. It's much easier to flick the lever on your handlebar than reach down to unlock your fork when you're halfway down a hill and realize that the reason you're descending is more terrible than usual is because your oxygen-starved brain forgot to unlock your suspension before dropping in.
Getting used to this set up does take some time, and I'd be lying if I said I never mixed up the levers and had my saddle drop unexpectedly when I thought I was locking out my suspension. TwinLoc won't be ideal for those that have multiple bikes in their quiver since swapping back and forth between a bike with TwinLoc and a bike without isn't easy. If you're a dedicated cross-country racer though, you'll get used to the placement of the lockout, mid-lock, and the dropper post, and be able to focus on racing.
![Photo by Tom Richards Scott Spark Contessa]()
Overall, the spec on the Spark RC World Cup is highly appropriate for a cross-country race bike. The World Cup model isn't top of the line, but the compromises are well thought out to try and keep the weight as low as possible, while keeping the price point at a substantial $5,000 USD less than the top of the line $13,999 USD Spark RC SL Evo AXS.
Fox Transfer SL Dropper post: The Fox Transfer SL dropper post is 25% lighter than the standard Transfer, something that weight weenies won't scoff at. At 100mm, the length is appropriate for this size medium race bike, and gets the saddle out of way even on steep descents. It does take some time to get used to the Transfer SL though since it doesn't have infinite travel adjust that most dropper posts do these days. There's no "middle" position for pedalling across flat, rooty sections, something I didn't know how frequently I did until I couldn't do it with this post. It's a fine balance between light weight and usability, but I would choose a heavier post with infinite adjust if given the option.
Maxxis Rekon Race Tires: These tires are fast and light and an appropriate tire choice for this bike, but I found I had a lot more fun on the Spark RC when I changed the front tire to something more aggressive. As soon as the ground is wet or you have loose dirt over hardpack, it's easy to lose the front end with the Rekons and wind up on the ground. That being said, it's great to see cross-country bikes getting specced with, and being compatible with, wider tires.
The Syncros Celista 1.5 saddle was surprisingly comfortable.
The TwinLoc makes a ton of sense on a cross-country race bike, but does take quite a bit of time to get used to.
Syncros Celista 1.5 If there's one thing I'm picky about, as most riders who spend a lot of time pedalling are, it's a good saddle. I always have low expectations for how comfortable a saddle is going to be when I get a test bike in and I fully expect to have to swap the saddle early on in the test period. The Syncros Celista 1.5 was surprisingly comfortable, though, and I kept it on for the duration of the test period. While the differences may be slightly between the RC and the RC Contessa, I would choose the Contessa with the comfortable Syncros Women Pro lock-on grips and Syncros Celista 1.5 saddle if I were in the market for a cross-country race bike. The colourway doesn't hurt either.
TwinLoc: Mike Levy would argue that a short travel bike shouldn't need a lockout, but personally I think it's on the cross-country race course where the slightest of margins on the climb make the most difference. I know Mike Kazimer has his gripes with the TwinLoc system on the trail version of the Scott Spark, but on the race-oriented version of this bike, I think it makes sense. It might seem overly complicated, but I know a lot of people who do twist the dials on their fork and rear shock at the start of every climb every lap of a cross-country race to gain a marginal advantage on the climb. It's much easier to flick the lever on your handlebar than reach down to unlock your fork when you're halfway down a hill and realize that the reason you're descending is more terrible than usual is because your oxygen-starved brain forgot to unlock your suspension before dropping in.
Getting used to this set up does take some time, and I'd be lying if I said I never mixed up the levers and had my saddle drop unexpectedly when I thought I was locking out my suspension. TwinLoc won't be ideal for those that have multiple bikes in their quiver since swapping back and forth between a bike with TwinLoc and a bike without isn't easy. If you're a dedicated cross-country racer though, you'll get used to the placement of the lockout, mid-lock, and the dropper post, and be able to focus on racing.
Pros
+ Excellent technical climber
+ One of the best descending purebred cross-country bikes around
+ Room for two water bottles
Cons
- Not the easiest bike to work on for home mechanics
- TwinLoc system won't be for everyone
Pinkbike's Take
| The Scott Spark RC is bold in more ways than one, with longer travel and more progressive geometry than any other dedicated World Cup race bikes out there. As cross-country race courses evolve, the bikes have slowly been catching up, but it feels like the Spark RC has taken a couple of steps all at once. It is an excellent technical climber while remaining efficient thanks to the TwinLoc system. On the descents, it is the most composed cross-country race bike I've ever ridden, nudging up closer to the downcountry category than any cross-country bike has before. While the integrated handlebar and hidden shock mean that it will be harder to work on, if your only job is going fast, there's no downside to the Spark RC. |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
I really thought that would stick
It's called the Hedonic Treadmill and if you're reading this you're probably running on it.
Hmmm, I just realized I have more carbon fiber in my car stereo than I have on most of my bikes =P (due to the vibration characteristics of carbon...as it doesn’t “absorb” vibrations like they claimed in the 90’s with braided carbon/Kevlar RTM-processed resin-rich LP handlebars and such, back in the day. However, that “vibration damping” narrative has persisted for 25-30 years, but it’s nonsense with 95% of super-harsh standard / intermediate / high modulus unidirectional carbon fibers in heat-cured prepreg epoxy resins used in bicycles these days. In fact, it’s why many new ultra-stiff all-carbon road bikes initially went to much bigger tires (due to the harshness and vibration transmission of the ultra-stiff carbon fiber everything...although some ultra-lightweight laminated modern unidirectional composite parts have stiffness / strength, flexural, and laminate properties conducive to vibration damping). However, vibration damping composites can still be engineered, if carefully designed as such in terms of geometry, layup, thickness, materials, and multi-functionality, from the outset. These days, I’m into optimization of carbon fiber & other composite materials’ phononic quantum properties — engineering vibration and shockwave transmission through passive and active phononic properties of the carbon fibers, composite system, and the structure into which the carbon fibers/composite are integrated.
Hopefully we’ll be able to integrate that sort of active quantum vibration optimization into mountain bike carbon fiber composite structures in 5 or 10 years, along with resin quantum property meta-material active/reactive optimization 5+ years after...(ie, stiff when putting the power down, supple when leaned over in a corner for lateral suspension effect like Grand Prix superbike rear swingarms, and vibration damping when integrated sensors sense high-frequency vibrations. Maybe 15-20 years for that on bikes, actually =)
Totally, was thinking this today. As a metalhead, totally relate.
"It's not a downcountry bike, its an aggressive xc race/upduro gravel bike"
" It's not atmospheric black metal, it's neo-pagan technical progressive folk black-gaze"
I really hope you were joking about Dave Matthews
It will be different for everyone probably but for someone looking for a new bike and likely spending a lot of money, it pays to not ignore the minutiae and indeed also look into stuff that's 100x less simple.
"I had a lot more fun on the Spark RC when I changed the front tire to something more aggressive."
"Levy would argue that a short travel bike shouldn't need a lockout"
Pinkbike reviews of XC bikes are always written from the perspective of "I'm not really into XC and would rather be riding a trail bike, but my editor gave me this, so here goes!".
I remember a couple years ago, the XC field test circuit was so gnarly that they determined the optimal configuration for the Epic was with the Brain completely off. This doesn't match my experience riding and racing XC on a wide variety of terrain, where nearly every circuit has long, grueling sections where plush, bobby suspension is a huge liability. I've never had a long XC day where I wonder at the end "what is a lockout even for!?"
I assume I'm not the only reader that primarily rides XC, given the greater accessibility of the discipline and the current surge in popularity of the XC World Cups. It's interesting the the preeminent mountain bike site treats the discipline as a tertiary peculiarity, rather than employing at least one writer that is primarily interested in XC. I would bet that there's a large readership with an underserved appetite for XC content.
- I'm not saying I wouldn't race on the fast-rolling Maxxis Rekon Race tires in the right conditions, just that they aren't always the most fun tires
- Mike Levy is pretty outspoken about lockouts... https://www.pinkbike.com/news/opinion-lockout-levers-make-for-worse-bikes.html but I'm a fan.
- I still much prefer the feel of "regular" suspension controlled with a lockout compared to the Specialized Brain.
- I might ride more than just XC bikes these days, but I raced XC for 10+ years, even did the Windham + MSA World Cups as a U23, so I'd say I'm more than interested in the discipline. Our XC coverage has grown a ton in recent years and World Cup racing has never been more exciting (or the bikes better!), but always welcome to feedback on how we can improve.
My point was that articles read as though they're written from the perspective of someone who would rather not be riding XC, but perhaps it's better to say they're written for an audience of trail riders who aren't that interested in XC. And, to be fair, there's always a group in the comments that seems to echo this (EDIT: Just saw "can you run a coil" below, LOL) But I assume there are also many of us for whom a purebred XC bike is appealing without the angle of "how you could make this into a bike that's actually fun" or other XC apologism.
"There's no "middle" position for pedalling across flat, rooty sections, something I didn't know how frequently I did until I couldn't do it with this post. It's a fine balance between light weight and usability, but I would choose a heavier post with infinite adjust if given the option."
"These tires are fast and light and an appropriate tire choice for this bike, but I found I had a lot more fun on the Spark RC when I changed the front tire to something more aggressive."
"Mike Levy would argue that a short travel bike shouldn't need a lockout, but personally I think it's on the cross-country race course where the slightest of margins on the climb make the most difference. I know Mike Kazimer has his gripes with the TwinLoc system on the trail version of the Scott Spark, but on the race-oriented version of this bike, I think it makes sense."
This review was excellent and, in fact, written to address exactly your complaint. The last point explicitly pushes back upon the exact stereotype about which you complain. Levy (well documented) and Kaz (previous review of non-RC version) both are not fans of the remote, but Sarah says: no, sorry Mike and Mike, twinloc is a good thing for the purpose of XC racing. She is addressing both the primary readership of Pinkbike who like to complain about remotes and the primary interest group of the review who like to imagine themselves in a sprint finish for a mid-pack result at the same time. That is just one facet that makes this an excellent review.
I am a short travel nerd, and certainly eat up any XC content on Pinkbike, and that was a top-notch review @sarahmoore.
This was also my first ever comment. I hope I am never, ever, inspired to make another one. No way is it good for your health.
I think the fact that those quotes are indeed, in larger context, apologism for the fact that they're reviewing an XC bike, are a perfect way to illustrate my exact point. Appreciate the support!
Since that is my opinion and this is Pinkbike, I definitely had to be a dick about it. At least the first time.
Also, now definitively a bad thing to comment.
HUMP
@sarahmoore is a good writer, and I should acknowledge the human at the other end of all this, because at the end of the day it IS a good review and it's the XC content I'm asking for, and she should feel good about that.
Anyway, I'll leave it at: More XC! Time to go ride.
Your experience racing world cups far outclasses my experience being the "local fast guy" at the pointy end of Cat1 fields... but I still actively train and race for short and mid-distance events while working as a full-time writer for an outdoor brand.
I have a bmc agonist that is 115/120mm and I don't have a dropper, but I use the crap out of the 3 position dual lock out on it. If you are going to want to go uphill fast it's a must.
This isn't the "trail" version of the bike, like many xc bikes have a trail version, but the race bike.
It's the dedicated race bike, so it should be evaluated primarily from the perspective of someone who is intending to take it racing. The review doesn't come across as a serious assessment of its race capabilities, but rather like a review of a daily driver.
It’s fair to criticize this reviewing style for race bikes, but it’s not fair to say that this is about distaste for XC.
My current XC bike (Intense Sniper) doesn't have, nor need a lockout. I race it in the open position, even on smooth conditions. Also an infinite dropper which was handy when I was doing more tech climbing this past weekend at the True Grit Epic (I podiumed).
In the past I ran a Hans Dampf on my Cannondale F-Si to get on the podium of a local XC race in the Pro cat. Slow on the climb (dead last on the opening climb), but I made it all back when I was holding my lines in the loose stuff.
Friend of mine has a 120mm Spark he bought for racing in the Swiss Epic (though the plan was just to finish, not compete) and he finds that it is more fun for him to ride locally on his XC trails than his 100mm Spark the year before or his Genius which rarely get ridden anymore (just park days now). He also races in the Pro cat, mostly for fun.
So in a lot of ways, the PB reviews line up with what I have experience with XC racing. I don't do much XC riding though, my 170mm coil bike has double the mileage of my last three XC bikes combined.
I don't enjoy riding XC myself, but I love racing. I may be "The slowest pro you will ever meet" (my catch phrase), but I am still pushing an XC bike pretty hard when I ride. Harder than 99% of the others (which is why I race in the elite/open/pro category).
Nobody buys a pure XC race bike unless they are racing XC so the review should be geared that way.
More importantly, just like enduro racers, 99% of XC racers are going to spend a huge amount of time trail riding on their race bike. They almost certainly care whether that time will be enjoyable when purchasing a bike.
I'm just saying an Enduro bike review should be from a race and enjoyment point of view. People riding them use them for "enjoyment" outside of racing or for that exclusively.
But XC race bikes are not bought for enjoyment. They are bought to be raced and even when not racing they are not really being taken out for comfort and fun. It's always a grind for xc guys on a race bike and they are pretty much always in that mode. Comfort is absolutely not a concern aside from the bike fitting. I'll take a rock hard bare carbon seat over a comfy seat anyway just it save 1g there.
I'm just a regular guy who races xc locally and having a comfortable xc bike means nothing to me. Everything about my xc bike is about weight and speed. Everything about my Enduro bike is about strength and me not getting rattled to oblivion. So when I read a review about a pure xc race bike, these little factors about it would be more fun with bigger tires or how it performs in a casual setting don't really mean much to me. I want to know how it performs with a -17* stem.
Obviously there are some hardcore riders like yourself that only care about the race speed, and I think it’s notable how few words were spent talking about how fast the bike is. That should be a bigger part of the review. But you’re in that 1%. Most buyers like myself need to know if it’ll be fun when we’re logging the training miles as well. And there are definitely a lot of people on mellow trails buying this sort of bike with no intention of racing.
Btw, do you really think the bigger bikes are for the top riders? I figured Rude would do well, if not better on a 140. The long travel sleds are required by punters like me who need bailed out from poor choices and lacking strength.
"Bike go BRRRRRR" should have been the whole article. S/
Then again, less dirt on seals and stanchions is always a good thing, but you probably won't notice a difference lifespan all that much.
i have to work on this bike. i would rather take up rollerblading than own one.
good luck finding 3mm OD cable housing.
sid select + isnt the lowest the straight up sid is. also i have a sid select and it's pretty good like it absorbs bumpies what else do you want, especially out of xc sus where you aren't missing out on like 8 different extra adjustments just because your one level down.
its an xc bike, xc is all about marginal gains, if you don't want to spend tons of money on them then don't, no one is forcing you to buy a 14000 dollar bike.
sure scott and specialized do this but if you cloned yourself twice, and then (cross country) raced yourself on a spark, a epic, and a spur, all with rockshox ultimate sus, and you would probably mop the floor with yourself. Maybe not, but I bet my clones would be kicking my butt (if I was on the spur with no lockouts or brains).
the s works thing is kind of stupid though cause it can make you feel like your bike isn't worth upgrading
also you aren't just paying for the fork your paying for those sick rotors that totally won't get all delaminationy on you (totally not speaking from experience), xx1, tyrewiz, so like fancy stuff and also in general (not necessarily between those two models) bikes is expensive because they are light
also fyi theres a little thing called buying only a frame and then get the parts you want. it's not as if a epic or spark have anything in them to make a frame twice as much as a spur frame.
Technically this is the mid level SID (Select Plus), so you get the charger 2 damper instead of the charger without-a-number-damper.
The Ultimate does have the Race Day damper. As others have mentioned, a damper swap is quite easy.
When I upgraded the damper on my former bike I just left the fork as crown adjust and used the TwinLoc on the rear shock only.
I love the fact that xc is getting way more technical, and this bike looks like a blast to ride.
But it makes me wonder - since local xc courses arent usually as technical as world cup courses, is this bike going to be the faster bike compared to previous generations of the spark that were more nimble?
The shorter the race the more likely I’ll be accelerating out of the saddle hard and climbing the same, a 100mm travel bike is better here. And the DH doesn’t ever decide these races.
https://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/2016/07/scott-spark-900-rc-2017.html
https://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/2021/07/scott-spark-rc-2022.html
Also wish this version was tested with the headset cups swapped. I'll bet it'd be an even better descender without any big drawbacks.
I was going to swap to a longer post (100 to a 125 or 150) with my new build since I have plenty of room, but I am amazed how well the 100mm gets out of the way for even aggressive XC racing on this frame so I only will if this dropper dies.
I'm curious if this will take the XC race terrain in a new direction as bikes become more capable. My XC rig (2018 Oiz) 100/100mm travel bike tackles (unfortunately) single black diamond climbs and descents on local trails where local professionals continue to blow my mind on what is possible up and down on an XC rig. Kudos to put together a rig with a dropper, 2.4" tires and 120ml under 23-ish lbs.
NOW HUCK TO FLAT!!! hehe...
It’s both fun to ride and very fast from point a to point b
And realistically a pound lighter than that Scott with nothing goofy light on it. Ok Berd spokes are goofy…
xtr 9100, 9.8 R dropper, 240/Berd/Newman wheels. Other nicely light, but not dumb stuff.
Also, are you looking at the 2022 model? It’s much heavier, since it uses the Fuel EX front triangle.
Actually the last model all had 435mm chainstays
That says it all. Fantastic bike.
Spark + Blur = Spur
indeed
pun intended?
Is this even a complete sentence?
www.srsuntour.us/products/dual-remote-lockout-handlebar-lever
This bike is fast on the downs and ups. (granted it's the right type of trail)
I want. It's beautiful.
reach = 441mm
head tube angle = 67.2°
wheelbase = 1,159mm
As written it contains the phrase "and wheelbase at 441mm", which taken literally indicates wheelbase = 441mm. Not the end of the world, but makes it hard to parse at first glance.
I've written a whole bunch of comments way more potentially inflammatory that haven't received the amount of downvotes compared this one quite tame one about grammar. Whatever happened to constructive criticism? Shit, it's not even really a criticism at all, just a suggestion for a damn grammar disambiguation. It even started with applause for the author's initial response!
Oxford comma FTW!
make corrections and improvements to (a text).
"these studies show him collating manuscripts and emending texts"
Either amend or emend fits, but emend is specific to written text.
Besides, I didn't do it while she was working, that's the proofreaders' and editors' job (which it could be argued they didn't do), so your analogy falls down right off the bat.
It wasn't intended to be rude or condescending. Not sure how you got that from what I wrote initially. I didn't say "hey stupid, don't you know how to use commas? this sentence makes no f*cking sense, you should know better. now fix it ASAP." Because that would be rude and condescending. Oh wait, you gave a nice example of being rude and condescending by implying the only job I can hold down is working fast food. Poor form.
I can "offer" whatever I want in the comments, that what they're for. Just like you can. You think the comments box at a fast food restaurant is only filled with adulations and hyperbolic praise?
Might be an issue on a rental bike, won't be an issue on your own bike.
I find it also very interesting for us readers how two reviewers with slightly different foci can judge nearly the same bike or parts differently.
Even on the size M shown here, the bottle is simply wedged in there with no use in real life (try taking that bottle out in the middle of a race lol).
I feel XC people have a bad understanding of the low and slack because is often goes with heavy and long travel bikes but I reckon a low/long/slack short travel or hardtail bike would be competitive in XC. When I'm gassed after a long climb, the last thing I want is a twisty nimble bike I have to cautiously steer. I just want to let it go and relax. A longer bike is also beneficial in the climb because it offers a better traction since the rider's weight is more centered.
I'm not in the market for a Spark but I'll be buggered if I'm paying AU$5500 for a Rhythm fork and Formula hubs.
I TAKE IT ALL BACK!
what is this review? your analysis for why its a better descender than the Blur is that it "felt less twitchy"? That's it?
any bike can be XC with that rats nest with levers on your handlebar.
how does the bob compare to an epic Evo? Epic? Supercaliber?
you contradict yourself here:
"As soon as you push down on the pedals, you can tell that you're riding a race bike."
but then you say "I found the mid-lock position that reduces the travel to 80mm was a good compromise between comfort and all-out speed."
so the bike bobs. JUST SAY IT. how can 120mm be the new XC if it bobs badly enough for you to rely ton the CRUTCH that is a PROPRIETARY shock (that you wont be able to get parts for in north america btw).
this is a blogvertisement and you should feel bad.
Probably hella slow.
He ran 120R and 110F in 2021, but is running 120 f&r for 2022.
Dang, you sure got me there, with my lack of research and all.
The PNW does not have XC races going on late fall through late spring.
Stop making excuses for the self described largest mtb publication in the world being lazy on their XC tests. They used the same methods as any other class of bike. Its a slap in the face of people who take racing serious. If you want to claim to serve a niche actually serve it. Don't try and force us to think fun matters, or make lazy excuses. Race the bike. Try as hard as you can on it. Do some laps. Take some times. Fly to a race, make some content.
If I can travel the country on 800 a month and afford 8k bikes, living in a school bus, im sure the pinkbike staff can be given whats necessary to not use bro science. Someone who buys 400 dollar pants to ride slow in the rain and drink beer after surely is not the person to do xc testing.
Because she used to race back in the day? She hasn't touched zone 5 for 1.5 hours in 10 years.
Go to a race, enter the race, ride the bike hard over some laps. She said this bike was designed to do laps on a short course with multiple rough descents and technical climbs. Is that what she did? This bike was made to ride all day. How did it feel 3hrs into a 7 hr ride across the Arizona trail? Did that longer lower slacker lead to pedal strikes and dabs on uphill technical switchback? Did I t climb extended climbs better in the fully open middle or lock? How was the water bottle access. How did it handle climbing out of the saddle aggressively? Etc.
They can afford all the equipment any xc team has for measuring things. This is outside online. They fly people to Antarctica for photos hoots. Get real. EFFORT
You're making an excuse for an unneeded piece of kit, in my humble opinion.
I guess that's the difference between XC and downcountry now?
The SPARK is for freds, who worship Nino and are so fat they need a lockout to ride in the middle position.
Xc courses are the same they have always been. Except the UCI. The spark is a fast light trail bike. The blur is a race bike. Nino needs a -30 stem, if the spark was a race bike he wouldn't need so much drop.
Oh, you’re *that* a*shole.
Carry on…
How did that go?
120/120, and you were hella stoked 9 months ago.
I only call you out personally because you’re a real dick with no friends.