Scott Gambler 700 - 2015
- Thread starter Mo(n)arch
- Start date
ping udi
Vink, Brendog, and Neko are riding it.
Also Swiss quality.
And you can run the hipster wheels.
Nuff said.
Also Swiss quality.
And you can run the hipster wheels.
Nuff said.
I sent you a PM with the email of a friend who owned both frames for a season each if you'd like a second opinion.
Back to back, the Gambler is better in the rough, and noticeably better over a range of different sized bumps while the DHR (and other bikes with the d/p curve) tends to feel very nice over smaller bumps but become harsher on medium-to-large sized square edged hits. I found you can fix that with some very specific shock tuning, but the Gambler feels still feels better even with a stock Van RC shock.
The Gambler also works well with most shocks because it has a fairly typical smoothly progressive curve, while the DHR uses a dual progressive curve with very sharp knees and as a result is very hard to correctly tune shocks for (contrary to something like the Nukeproof Pulse which uses a similar d/p curve but mellower). Initially I was a fan of the idea, because in principle you can exploit the bump absorption traits of high initial leverage without wallowing in the midstroke (like the V10, TR450, etc do), but practically I think a better implementation of DW's idea is something like what Nukeproof did - as it'll work with more stock shocks, and not have such harshly separated characteristics in different parts of the stroke.
You can read about my thoughts in more detail here if you haven't already:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/threads/13-turner-dhr-sizing-reviews.269815/#post-3996850
I felt the DHR sat a little too low (in the BB) and having no adjustment in that region made it hard to tailor to tastes or tracks. Both frames use a straight 1.5 headtube which I like, as it gives many options for geometrical customisation. Both frames are very stiff in the backend which I rate highly.
The DHR is more stable in suspension movement thanks to its very flat midstroke in the leverage curve, however the Gambler is decent enough and since the bump absorption is better, you can safely add a bit of compression damping to aid support without making it too harsh. The DHR also accelerates slightly better / pedals more efficiently because it has a better antisquat curve. The Gambler extends slightly under acceleration (i.e. AS% a little too high) so it overshoots the ideal level. This is getting really analytical though and is not very noticeable in practice.
The DHR will also theoretically work better under braking, but as with the stability thing, I felt that because the Gambler has such a noticeable edge over it in bump absorption to begin with, under brakes it probably brought it down to the same level rather than actually being worse.
I've only owned 26" versions of the frames so 27.5" may bring some negatives that didn't previously exist, but I think you'll get forced into that eventually whether you like it or not (as will I
) so it probably doesn't matter. I hope you have some rough / rutted / rocky tracks though, because the Gambler + hipster wheels should slay that.
Back to back, the Gambler is better in the rough, and noticeably better over a range of different sized bumps while the DHR (and other bikes with the d/p curve) tends to feel very nice over smaller bumps but become harsher on medium-to-large sized square edged hits. I found you can fix that with some very specific shock tuning, but the Gambler feels still feels better even with a stock Van RC shock.
The Gambler also works well with most shocks because it has a fairly typical smoothly progressive curve, while the DHR uses a dual progressive curve with very sharp knees and as a result is very hard to correctly tune shocks for (contrary to something like the Nukeproof Pulse which uses a similar d/p curve but mellower). Initially I was a fan of the idea, because in principle you can exploit the bump absorption traits of high initial leverage without wallowing in the midstroke (like the V10, TR450, etc do), but practically I think a better implementation of DW's idea is something like what Nukeproof did - as it'll work with more stock shocks, and not have such harshly separated characteristics in different parts of the stroke.
You can read about my thoughts in more detail here if you haven't already:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/threads/13-turner-dhr-sizing-reviews.269815/#post-3996850
I felt the DHR sat a little too low (in the BB) and having no adjustment in that region made it hard to tailor to tastes or tracks. Both frames use a straight 1.5 headtube which I like, as it gives many options for geometrical customisation. Both frames are very stiff in the backend which I rate highly.
The DHR is more stable in suspension movement thanks to its very flat midstroke in the leverage curve, however the Gambler is decent enough and since the bump absorption is better, you can safely add a bit of compression damping to aid support without making it too harsh. The DHR also accelerates slightly better / pedals more efficiently because it has a better antisquat curve. The Gambler extends slightly under acceleration (i.e. AS% a little too high) so it overshoots the ideal level. This is getting really analytical though and is not very noticeable in practice.
The DHR will also theoretically work better under braking, but as with the stability thing, I felt that because the Gambler has such a noticeable edge over it in bump absorption to begin with, under brakes it probably brought it down to the same level rather than actually being worse.
I've only owned 26" versions of the frames so 27.5" may bring some negatives that didn't previously exist, but I think you'll get forced into that eventually whether you like it or not (as will I
) so it probably doesn't matter. I hope you have some rough / rutted / rocky tracks though, because the Gambler + hipster wheels should slay that.
Last edited:
frig... i thought it was only that was slamming my bash gaurd w the DHR lol 
