SpotBikes

A few of us are real close. I (Ryan) am around 215 with a pack. The leverage rate is right in the middle of the recommended range of Rockshox and Fox products, and the tune we spec on the shock is right in the middle as well. While it is a shorter stroke than what is typical for us, it's very much in the range. Regarding pressure, for a 220lb rider, we recommend starting at about 253psi in the shock, which is more than 100psi below max. You should have nothing to worry about in that regard. Thanks for the questions, and thanks for riding Spot!

Haha, the aheadset was amazing. It's a truly innovative design that remains today. It's amazing that you value supporting your LBS, and you can still do so in tangible ways as a Spot owner. We offer customers up to a $100 build credit that they can use to pay for their LBS to build the bike. And, if you have your bike serviced there, you'll be supporting them that way over time. We absolutely rely on shops to keep our bikes going and we strive to help shops service our products.

@FloImSchnee: Glad you mention descending. It’s true that once you stand up, the STA no longer matters, but there's more. We’ve done a lot of work on this. We’ve designed and sold bikes with size-specific RCs, and here’s why we now think the whole idea is a myth: First, let’s make sure we’re all talking about the same goal, which is for riders of all sizes to have as similar of an experience as possible, right? The industry mostly agrees (at the moment) that a way of achieving this is by having similar weight bias between front and rear wheels across all sizes. Some designers think they’re doing this when they plug longer chainstays in the geo chart whenever the front center increases. But they’re overcompensating. Here’s why: We have to consider that riders of different heights have different CGs relative to the BB. A taller rider’s CG is generally more forward and higher. And, most of us need to grab the bars to descend. When we do, our shoulders and torso follow along, bringing our mass forward. Our testing (and plenty of math) shows that when the handlebars are more forward as we go up in frame size, it naturally accomplishes the goal of balanced weight distribution. This moves your center of mass forward, and if we’re doing an attack descending posture right, we’re putting even more weight forward. Doing scaled stays is like tossing a perfectly cooked steak back on the grill in hopes to make it better. Well, now it’s ruined. We know that longer stays alone change the attitude of the bike significantly, bringing us further away from the goal of having all size bikes ride equally.

The way we equalize ride feel across sizes is by adjusting the center of mass, which is part of why you see steeper seat angles on larger sizes. Attempting to create equal weight bias by doing size-specific chainstays might work statically, but does not work in a dynamic riding environment. It's a trend based on math that doesn't math. If the goal is to create a bike that rides the same across all frame sizes, lengthening the chainstays is not the answer, because it works out like this: Let's say you increase the chainstays by 10mm for a larger size to even out weight bias between FC and RC. You can accomplish that same weight bias correction by moving your belly button forward by about 2mm. That's a super small change. But most riders would agree that lengthening the chainstays by 10mm makes a noticeable difference in the riding characteristics of a bike. So, to get the same affect, we can either move you forward a tiny bit, or we can move the rear wheel out a lot. One thing is not noticeable and the other totally changes how the bike rides. If our goal is to create a bike that rides the same for all sizes, the answer is clear. Long chainstays have their use cases, and some riders prefer the planted feel and slower handling they provide. But we wanted snappy, intuitive maneuverability, and that awesome rear wheel steering feeling that you just don't get with long stays. If that's the sort of ride someone is looking for from a bike like this, the Diggity does it across all sizes. There are a ton of ways to skin a cat when it comes to this stuff, and this is how we're thinking about it at the moment.

Yep, the bottle goes inside the front triangle. The mounts are on the topside of the downtube in front of the forward shock mount. There's a second set of mounts on the bottom of the downtube as well, which can come in handy for adventure/bikepacking missions.

There are few things going on here: First, it's clean because the cable ports are modular. The bikes ship with a selection of port covers to accommodate different setups. So, whether you're running just a brake line through the frame, or any configuration of brake, and/or dropper and/or shifter, you can add or remove entry points as needed. Second, the system provides clamping force preventing cables from rattling at the entry or exit point, or feeding inside the frame and rattling there. These features aren't totally unique to us, but most other modular cable management setups require small threaded inserts to be molded into frame, which can strip, cross-thread, or become un-bonded in the frame. We like to minimize threaded inserts in general, and the way we do it in this instance is to connect the port covers directly to each other with a long 3mm bolt inside the tube. The drive-side port cover contains the threads, and is easily replaceable in case of thread damage. These small things can sometimes make a big difference. Imagine replacing a whole frame because the cable port threads came out. Even if it's a warranty, that's a lot of time, labor, and waste for such a small part. A big piece of our philosophy is to design simplicity and reliability into the products. This is also why we do a separate rear brake mount. One less threaded insert, more consistent alignment, and better force transfer. Or, take the pivot bearings, all of which press into the links instead of the frame. Not only is it easier to replace bearings when you can remove the link and do the work on a bench, but bearing bores in a solid chunk of aluminum are more consistent and more robust than bearing inserts in frames. Plus, pressing bearings into links poses less risk of a botched install.

@everythingsucks: Haha! Well, Guess what, @stravaismyracecourse, we rode Green Mountain the other day and it totally wasn't bone dry. Shows what you know.

Hi @stravaismyracecourse, we quickly acted to address tire clearance on the M140, which was not a design flaw in the bike, but a case of us overprotecting the area in a new way. We knew clearance came in tighter than what we had designed for and were keeping an eye on it to see if any actual, real world issues appeared. In thousands of miles of testing in all conditions with the original protection (including in extremely muddy conditions in the PNW) we've had no reports that the tire clearance caused any sort of deal breaking issues. When the issue was brought up in the Pinkbike reviews, we quickly took action and made a change to the part. With the change, the bike now has 9mm of clearance with a Maxxis Aggressor 29x2.5. For more info, here is our initial response from the Mayhem review: Hi everyone, we wanted to hop on to address the tire clearance issue. First though, we want to give huge thanks to Pinkbike for including the Mayhem 140 and mention how stoked we are that the editors dug it! We appreciate the feedback and have already taken steps to address it directly. The great news is that the reduced clearance is related to a soft part that’s easy to tweak, not a design flaw in the carbon structure. In addition, we’re confident that many riders will not experience a clearance issue with the tire we spec or many of their favorite rubber options. But, with an easy change, we can open things up and provide more room for a wider range of tires, which we’re all about. Here’s the deal: Basically, we overprotected. The original design of the rubber protection wraps all the way around the chainstay yoke, and additionally, extends down onto the vertical surface inside the wheel well. While this was meant to increase scratch protection, the manufactured part and its adhesive layer came in significantly thicker than what the design called for, resulting in a tolerance tighter than anticipated. What we know: • With the current rubber protection and stock tire (Maxxis Dissector 2.4WT EXO+) we measure 6.5mm of clearance. The Aggressor 2.5WT shows the same clearance. • With the protection modification we’re implementing, clearance increases to 9mm, providing significantly more room to accommodate a wider range of tires. • The new Schwalbe Albert that was used as the control tire is 2.4” wide but is taller than other 2.4” tires on the market, and highlighted the reduced clearance. What we’re doing: • We’ve updated the chainstay protector to maximize clearance. The rubber still extends across the chainstay bridge but doesn’t duck into the wheel well. This is more in line with the protection seen on other bikes. • This new part will be included on all future bikes and sent to existing customers who would like the additional clearance, and we’ll be stocking the updated protector as a replacement part. When we’re doing it: • Now. We’re implementing this change starting immediately. Existing owners can reach out for the new protector. We are genuinely proud about the performance of the M140 and are so stoked to see it validated by the PB test crew. We think you’ll love it too, and as always, offer our 30-day return policy. Please reach out to us if you have more questions.