Originally Posted by
kissTheApex
QuestioningMan,
Oh noes! My cover is exposed! Now they all know.
Seriously though, thanks everyone for the responses. There has been some very good arguments both ways. Now I started taking Scott a bit more seriously than I was before. But at same time I understand there are no big issues with Moto either (which was one of the main things I was hoping to find out). I've been offered 2 very good alternatives in both categories: Lynsky (which is slightly more expensive), and Litespeed M1 carbon (which I would prefer to Scott based on thes advertised spec. I wish I could see one close by, though. There don't seem to be dealers in Seattle
).
To respond to some other points:
Originally Posted by
Trucker Dan
Apples or Oranges.
If you are going to race get the scott.
If you don't care about bling bike names, and know how to completely tear down a bike and reassemble it get the moto.
I'm not a competitive rider (here's a common scene: I'm riding 19-20mph on the trail and feeling good about it. Then comes a group of riders draped in Italian flags and riding effortlessly at what I guess to be 25mph. They zip past me, and I'm left wondering whether it's the bikes, the drafting or the "Cusina Fresca" they appear to be feasting on.). That said I do strive to improve my performance (esp. climbing capacity, and to a lesser degree my percentile in crowded events)
I have no issues doing some mechanical work, as long as it doesn't involve putting apart the whole thing (for which I lack some crucial tools)