DirtGuru2

Indeed. When both of my bikes are Scott (framesets) with best of everything builds, which I'm absolutely thrilled with... Yet, based on the direction Scott has decided to take, and their "innovations", I don't ever see another Scott bike in my future. From a design and marketing standpoint, losing such a loyal customer is pretty hard to do.

They look correct and comfortable to me. Though usually labeled as a personal preference, the idea that bars must be rolled forward/up, towards your shoulders, or even somewhere halfway between level and 45°, is a fallacy that comes from somewhere that's the opposite of ergonomic. It's just become an automatic yes that most riders blindly follow. I'll prove it. Try this experiment: Close your eyes, then pretend you're holding on to a pair of (air) handlebars, in what you think is a normal "attack position". Don't try to make any compensation for hand or wrist position. Just a relaxed, natural grip. Now open your eyes and look at the holes that your closed hands have formed, where the grips would normally be. What direction do those holes point? No matter how "attack" your position is, they likely STILL point down and back. Just like Connor's bars, but more so. Not up. If anyone ever wonders why the outside of the palm of your hands get so beaten up during a long, rough day on the trail, this is at least part of it. Having the bars rolled (un-naturally) up will put a lot more pressure and beating into the outsides of your palms.

Why is it assumed there are only 2 ways to skin this cat? Few things look more dorky than a 25-40mm stack of spacers... especially under a zero rise stem. And few things invite more flex and creak into the main control point of the bike. All of that leverage, bending and twisting force has to go somewhere, and is definitely doing something to that puny 1-1/8" aluminum tube/standoff sticking above the upper headset bearing. High rise bars are only slightly less dorky. And somewhat less flexy, depending upon how they are (over)built. And if you're trying to save weight, then all of that extra steerer tube length, extra spacers, and extra carbon bar layup adds up to something as significant as anywhere else you're trying to save weight. Every bit adds up. But back to my point... What's the actual goal here? It's final hand position, and it's proper (for you) relationship to the bike's geometry, and how the bike fits you. I've found the best solution and sweet spot is actually the most direct path to get your hands where they need to be, and to not have any one of the THREE variables trying to make up all of the distance that's required to get your hands where they need to be. For my very average 5'-10" self, depending on the bike, that's 15mm-25mm of bar rise, 17° stem rise, and only 10mm of spacer - which is just enough to give some height adjustment either way. The result is super clean and purposeful looking, spreading a portion of the total needed rise between spacer, stem rise, and bar rise. It's also the lightest possible approach. I even have a few friends who are 6'-4", and have always struggled with handlebar choice, and bike fit and setup in general. So I convinced them to let me create the ideal setup for them. Both are riding XL bikes with similar ~505mm reach. What I came up with was 38° rise S-Works DH Carbon bars, a 25° rise stem (with longer reach than the 40mm-50mm we've been convinced we must use), and a 10mm spacer. The results were a revelation for both of them, and the first time the felt like their bike setup wasn't a big compromise. So, why have we as a biking community allowed ourselves to be sold on 0° or 6° stem rise, and having to make up all of the rise distance that we need elsewhere?

Kaz dropped a big clue, and few of you picked up on it. The Scott Ransom (still) makes a killer starting point for a super capable-yet lightweight bike. That's not fragile. If Brendog isn't breaking them, chances are you won't be. The current frame is the same as Kaz's 2019. It's mullet ready with the flip chip. But when Scott decides to update the Ransom and go "integrated" like they've done on the Genius and Spark, the lightweight days will be over. I've built up a best of everything dream machine starting with a 2020 Euro model Ransom LTD HMX frameset, and every single nut, bolt, lever, saddle was a carefully chosen balance of performance, weight and durability. The final weight tally? 27.6 lbs, which is ridiculous for a bike that slays it so well. I've stopped riding every other bike in the quiver, because this much capacity for rowdy, at that little weight, makes it a super manageable trail bike too. You can whine about the slightly slack seat tube angle and taller than the latest trend seat tube, yet there was plenty of adjustment in the saddle rails for me, plus I'm running a 180mm dropper with room for 200.

@ponyboy24: I'm actually fully attuned to the effects of this. For the extra 10-15mm of actual effective stem reach that we're talking about, I'm suggesting that taller riders should be including this variable within their experiments to create the best possible front to rear weight bias, rather than giving it all to longer chainstays. Also, at which point, and measured within which plane is this "in front of the axle" happening? Have you considered that your handlebar sweep (creating your actual hand position) erases all of this? Even on one of my bikes with a 60mm x 17° stem (equals zero spacers), my bar sweep brings my hands back slightly behind the wheel axle (figuring for the forward axle offset), and approximately equal to the steering axis. You could have an absurd theoretical 150mm stem, and as long as the equally absurd handlebar sweep brings your hands back to their ideal position... Bottom line, for taller riders, stem rise and reach should be one of the variables in play, rather than short or shorter stems being a religion that cannot be questioned