[Mo(n)arch]

Yeah, I have definitely to test ride it. Very excited about the bike.

Price for the frameset: 2,199€

A question: Why did you choose to build high end modell and the frameset with a DHX RC2? I assume to simplify the setup?

 

[toodles]

Yeah, I have definitely to test ride it. Very excited about the bike.

Price for the frameset: 2,199€

For real? 2200? That's Euro right? The Aussie distributor hasn't got a price yet but I got told $3700 AUD which is out of my range by a long way.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

I've got the price from a german online shop, where you can preorder the frameset.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

650B Gambler:

Will we see something like that in the future?

 

[UiUiUiUi]

definitely want to try that...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i love my 2010 gambler dh10... but that 3600eur new gambler sounds like a deal...
will see how much they charge for it in Peru....

 

[Sandwich]

650B Gambler:
Will we see something like that in the future?

are you sure? I see "first ride" on the tire sidewall, but was unaware that DT swiss made a 650b rim, let alone a remotely DH capable 650b rim. I did see a post on bikeradar about a gambler with 650b stan's though...hmmmm!

 

[Mo(n)arch]

According to vitalmtb and factoryjackson, yes, I am.
On vitalmtb you have also a few more shots and a lot of posts. Rumor has it, that only Pugin was riding 26".
Calouri and the junior of the team (don't know the name, sorry) were on27,5".

 

[iRider]

According to vitalmtb ans factoryjackson, yes, I am.
On vitalmtb you have also a few more shots and a lot of posts. Rumor has it, that only Pugin was riding 26".
Calouri and the junior of the team (don't know the name, sorry) were on27,5".

Which would explain why he had such a catastrophic flat/rip tire off rim thing going.....

Is it only me or do have Schwalbe riders more flats or tire related mechanicals than Maxxis riders?

 

[sethimus]

According to vitalmtb

in which article is there something about it?

 

[Mo(n)arch]

It's not exactly an article:
http://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/features/How-Did-You-Miss-It,4280/Scott-11-Team-at-World-Champs-Not-Hiding-Something,42167/sspomer,2

 

[Sandwich]

I see that now, pretty cool. Neat to see the haters come right out of the woodwork. I'm still ambivalent on big wheels in DH, but it hasn't ruined XC racing, so I can't imagine it'll destroy DH racing either. Neat experiment at least.

 

[buckoW]

Which would explain why he had such a catastrophic flat/rip tire off rim thing going.....

Is it only me or do have Schwalbe riders more flats or tire related mechanicals than Maxxis riders?

It was on the second wall ride corner with the heavy g-out. Needles also had a moment there in his run. I think it has more to do with tire pressure and g-out force. That corner/wallride has a hard g-out even at my speed so I imagine it is tricky to manage at the speeds those guys are riding.

 

[Udi]

For whatever it's worth, I always rode Maxxis and then rode Schwalbe for a full year and didn't flat anymore than usual (at same pressures). I think the casings are comparable, and still ride both brands depending on where I am.

 

[iRider]

It was on the second wall ride corner with the heavy g-out. Needles also had a moment there in his run.

And he is also on Schwalbe . The Mondraker team also had some bad luck with tires this year. I am not saying Schwalbe are bad (love their XC/trail bike tires) but it SEEMS that they either play around too much with proto tires or the tires are not as tough as others.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

play around too much with proto tires

No playing, no development.

 

[Udi]

Haha, maybe you can describe the ride a bit?

It worked very well.

I rode Ben's personal one, so it was a Large, 61* HA, and setup a little firmer than I'd like - but close enough that backing off some damping (very roughly guessed) brought it to a comfortable level. I also set the brake levers / shifters to my liking, and the brakes (formula) and suspension ('12 fox) were much the same as my bike (apart from the Gambler's rear shock being valved to suit), so I think it was a reasonably fair isolation of just the frame.

I ripped it down some trails that I knew well, combination of steep / rough / roots and some flatter sections/corners too. First thing I noticed was the bike handled excellent in the rough, took the harsh edge off most square hits, and was very confidence inspiring. The super slack head angle made steep sections effortless and (surprisingly to me) didn't really cause any issues with front end washouts on flatter corners. I usually ride 62-62.5* if it matters. It also accelerated well and didn't exhibit any noticeable pedal feedback

The bike had a lot of rear traction compared to what I'd consider normal, likely thanks to the chainstays (which were in the 'short' setting). It did feel a bit awkward to slide but you'd either get used to it or use the longer setting if needed. I also noticed some mild harshness under braking, but given its stellar square edged performance I think this is a non-issue, especially if you are on your game.

All in all, I felt safer on the Gambler for a given speed, or faster for the same level of safety/comfort - which in my book made it a winner.

Hopefully that is of some use to anyone considering one.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

Thanks UDI, really appreciate it. Can you comment the cornering characterisitics - tight vs. wide ones?

 

[Udi]

It seemed to handle all corners as well as my own bike (it's a Sunday.. old now but I think generally renowned for its cornering) and worked very well.

I think any small differences would have been down to wheelbase length - on every bike I've ridden a shorter wheelbase has been easier to get around a tight corner, while longer is more stable on faster / rougher stuff - but unfortunately the WB number is usually dictated by the size you ride.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

You're right with that.
Nonetheless a shorter chainstay should help with cornering, right?
The thing is, bikes like the Session88 which I ride (Large) has relatively long chinstays (440mm)
It's noticable slower in the tights than a Demo (medium). They have the same wheelbase.

What I really dig on the Gambler are the short chainstays combined with the low BB height.
Like I said before, the numbers of this bike look like a terrible amount of fun.

Edit: I found some pics of the custom frames the Trek boys will ride in Utah. They seem to test a shorter rear end on their rigs.

 

[Udi]

Yeah definitely, and especially if you're a tall guy needing larger sizes, the shorter rearend should keep it manageable in tighter corners. Like I said I rode a large, and even though it was over an inch (maybe 1.5) longer than my bike, it felt like it cornered comparably.

If you're comparing to the Demo, I think you'll find it works better in the rough and accelerates better. Cornering characteristics are similar with the longer frontend and shorter rear, as are the little nuances with sliding that I mentioned (I used to ride a Demo 8 and noticed some similarity there).

I'm sure you'll love it. I have no affiliation with Scott but it's the first time in a long time I've ridden a bike that did a lot of things better than mine without doing anything worse.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

Thanks Udi.
Great review.

 

[RickyZone]

I signed up just for the purpose of participating in this thread. Thanks for all the great information and the above review.

I'm currently riding a 2010 Gambler 20, which has been a great performer for my needs. However, with this new Gambler on the market, I think it may be time to upgrade! The Gambler 20 seems like the most performance/$. Although, the Gambler 30 would probably be enough for my needs. I'm leaning towards the 20 though. However, I'm a bit uncertain regarding which size I should be ordering. The previous Gambler was only available in Short/Long models, and I've always had the short ones. This new one is apparently available in S/M/L. I'm 182cm and 78kg, what would be ideal, medium or large? BuckoW, do you perhaps know when I could expect delivery here in europe if I were to order now?

Btw, does anyone of you have any real-life pictures of the Gambler 20?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Lelandjt]

How do you like the fit of your current Gambler? Think about that while looking at the geometry sheets for the old and new ones. Without looking any harder, I'd say if you're on the short now you won't be on the new large.

 

[buckoW]

I signed up just for the purpose of participating in this thread. Thanks for all the great information and the above review.

I'm currently riding a 2010 Gambler 20, which has been a great performer for my needs. However, with this new Gambler on the market, I think it may be time to upgrade! The Gambler 20 seems like the most performance/$. Although, the Gambler 30 would probably be enough for my needs. I'm leaning towards the 20 though. However, I'm a bit uncertain regarding which size I should be ordering. The previous Gambler was only available in Short/Long models, and I've always had the short ones. This new one is apparently available in S/M/L. I'm 182cm and 78kg, what would be ideal, medium or large? BuckoW, do you perhaps know when I could expect delivery here in europe if I were to order now?

Btw, does anyone of you have any real-life pictures of the Gambler 20?

Thanks in advance!

I don't know much about delivery dates but I did hear sometime around the end of October/beginning of November.

My friends that rode short Gamblers before were on small new Gamblers when they tested them. A couple shop owners tried the M to see if that would be better and all of them stayed on the same size bike they had before (S). At 182cm I would think you should be on a Medium but that is kinda personal preference. I used to ride a Long old Gambler and now I ride a Large new Gambler. It all depends on what you like and want to do. I have had plenty of people go for a Large at your size as well. Preferences were all over the place with respect to sizing and spring rates during the dealer and journalist testing sessions.

 

[Mo(n)arch]

Preferences were all over the place with respect to sizing and spring rates during the dealer and journalist testing sessions.

Are there already recommended shock settings out there? Like SAG settings etc.?

 

[buckoW]

Are there already recommended shock settings out there? Like SAG settings etc.?

Recommended sag is 30%. That being said Brendan likes around 20%. On the OEM tuned RC2 shock a good starting point is 150psi and 8 clicks from closed on the LSC dial. For reference, Brendan, Claudio and I are all on 350lb springs. Brendan is lighter than Claudio and I but goes much faster.

We are going to Molini, Diano Marina and San Remo in a few weeks. You could check mine out there if you'd like.

 

[willi]

Hello! Ist my first post here.

I Preorder the Gambler Frameset in M.

The Bike have an 300 Spring and with Calculator Tf Tuned is it OK vor Me (90kg).

But now i DL the Gambler Bike manual:

S: 250 which corresponds to a rider weight of 50-60kgs
M: 300 which corresponds to a rider weight of 60-70kgs
L. 350 which corresponds to a rider weight of 70-80kgs

We recommend following coil springs:

50-60 kgs 250x3.50
60-70 kgs 300x3.50
70-80 kgs 350x3.50
80-90 kgs 400x3.50

is this the different between Normal Singe Pivot and the Gambler linkage levers.

Second question from Manual:

"The eye-to-eye distance between the shock bolts should be in basic set up 232mm
(40% SAG/35mm SAG)."

I think that is very much for this Low Bike?

 

[buckoW]

The bike has a high and low BB height setting. 0mm BB drop or +10mm BB drop. It does not have to be low if you don't want it to be. I am 88 kilos and run a 350lb on a Fox or 400lb on a CCDB. The bike needs harder springs than what most spring calculators will tell you.

This is a good guide.

50-60 kgs 250x3.50
60-70 kgs 300x3.50
70-80 kgs 350x3.50
80-90 kgs 400x3.50

For reference,

Brendan runs a 350 and Floriane runs a 250 or 275lb spring. PM me if you need any setup help once you get your bike.

 

[willi]

Thanks for Help!

I prefer Low BB height. So i think with a 350 i get the 30% Sag.

These and previous Setup Tipps are very helpfull.

Now i hope my First Ride ends with a Big Smile in my Face

 

[Mo(n)arch]

So the CCDB will suit this ride?
Me thinks that's great.
Ben, do you know if you have testbikes in Sout Tyrol during the Mountainbike testival?

 

[enrico2214]

Which size would you guys recommend for me? I'm not sure if S or M....

I am 1.68 (5'7")

Thank you

 

[Mo(n)arch]

Tough question.
I think it's personal preference. I'd say the M because of the longer wheelbase.

 

[buckoW]

So the CCDB will suit this ride?
Me thinks that's great.
Ben, do you know if you have testbikes in Sout Tyrol during the Mountainbike testival?

Yes, the CCDB fits and works well in the bike. I am not sure what is available for testing in Italy.

Here is another review of the bike. http://www.nsmb.com/5616-2013-scott-gambler-10

@enrico2214 I would get an M if I were you.

 

[willi]

What is the BB standard for the Frameset? PF104 or BSA83?

At HP from Scott has the Scott 10 Frame SM-BB71-41A, but a look at Online Shop shell is 89,5 / 92 .

For 104 fit SM-BB71-41C.

What BB standard is on the Frameset?

Thanks

 

[buckoW]

PF107 or Euro.

I have used normal 73mm pressfit BBs from SRAM and Shimano in a pinch without any problems.

What cranks are you running?

 

[willi]

PF107 ? Now im realy confused:

I´ve DL the Manual from HP. It reads here that the BB Standard is BB PF104 or BSA83?

"On Gambler you will find 2 different BB options, depending on the model you bought:

1. BB PF 104 with a housing
width of 104mm and an
inner diameter of 41mm
for PressFit bearings

2. Standard threaded BSA
with 83mm housing
width for threaded
assembly bearing sets"

The Point is that the Frameset diliver in Jan. Between Fall and Winter the Bike(Online)shops have sometimes Low Price sales.

I really dont know at this Time what Crankset i will buy(Descendant, LG1 or Zee). At the moment is my Fav. the Shim. Zee, but i got the problem from my previous Post

 

[buckoW]

PF107 ? Now im realy confused:

I´ve DL the Manual from HP. It reads here that the BB Standard is BB PF104 or BSA83?


The Point is that the Frameset diliver in Jan. Between Fall and Winter the Bike(Online)shops have sometimes Low Price sales.

I really dont know at this Time what Crankset i will buy(Descendant, LG1 or Zee). At the moment is my Fav. the Shim. Zee, but i got the problem from my previous Post

Sorry Willi,

It is a PF 104 or Euro 83 depending on which frame you have. Cranks are the same. I think the frame only is a Euro 83 but I need to check. If you do have the PF104 then then I have had good luck with both SRAM and Shimano BBs and cranks. I prefer the weight of the SRAM XO DH carbon and the pinch bolt setup of the Saints. The wavy washer on the XO DH seems sketchy but is working fine.

 

[willi]

Thanks for help!

That mean, if the Frameset is an PF104 the only BB to fit, is SM-BB71-41C for Shim. Saint/Zee.
Because the other BBs( like Pressfit GPX or Pressfit X-type) has housing width 89,5/92 mm.

I hope the Frameset got 83mm BSA.

 

[Lelandjt]

The width of the BB only matters if you want to use the sleeve that fits between the cups. Most people leave that out so the same threaded BB cups can be used in an XC width 68/73 or DH width 83. The same press fit cups can be used in XC 92 or DH 104. What matters is that the cranks have either the XC or DH length spindle to match the frame.