You hardly ever see used Spectral CF’s for sale? Are they that good that no one wants to sell them on or not many people in the UK bought them?

its all about the EX innit

probably because most people bought strives. im sure they are great but I prefer the spectral. (AL though)

i saw a lot of them at ard rock. Spoke to a few owners and every one said dont bother.

I was amazed after all the positive stuff i heard about them.

I saw a couple at Ard rock but mostly Strives. Maybe should look at a strive but heard they’ve had a few issues with the shapeshifter?

I tried a carbon Spectral a few weeks ago…wasn’t fussed – short TT for me (large).
Got a Whyte T130 instead…

How tall are you rascal?

I have a cf ex and recon it’s great and would not sell it. I also have a a cf strive which I rode at ard Rock.
The reason I was on that and not the spectral is the strive is better at rough rocky stuff and generally going flat out.
For anything else I would say the spectrals more fun to ride.

So if it were to be my second bike, you’d recommend the strive then eagel

i got a stive cf 9 , great bike just not that planted/twitchy at speed , I’ve slacked it out and added 10mm travel to forks , much better but in the alps id rather have something like a strive , so waiting to see 2018 models

I’ve got one – a 9.0 EX and it’s bloody great. Super capable, perfect size for me (6ft on a large), fast, fun etc etc. I got it to replace my Process 153 after demoing one in Spain. While the Process was a bit of a bruiser and enjoyed plowing through things, the Spectral is more nimble and wants to change direction more. Having said that, I wouldn’t call it twitchy, and it’s been fantastic on all sorts of off piste techy stuff here in the north Lakes. I guess it depends on your riding style as much as anything…

I’ve got an alu one (top spec 8.0ex from 2015 range) and when looking at the difference in weight I couldn’t see the benefit vs the hole in my wallet to go carbon. plus I can get the hammer on for bearing changes and not worry as much.lol

I see more strives about and they are usual the higher spec ones. and the spectral I see are usual the mid to lower spec models. (but they look so a like its easy to get the mixed up to)

So guessing people who wanted to justify spunking a couple of grand on a top end bike thought they might as well get some extra travel to cover the ‘just in case I need’ thought process.

As per the comments above mine has been amazing. 2 and half years of trail riding and a couple of enduros each year. I’ve added 10mm of travel to the pikes and then an offset bush to bring BB back down and slacken it out a tad more. So its now 160mm from and 140 at the rear. and for UK riding its spot on.

I’m hoping they update the geometry this year, then I might grab a Spectral myself.

its all about the EX innit

150mm fork instead of 140mm? That’s the only difference – by the time it’s sagged it’s 7mm of travel and a bb sitting a couple of mm higher.

i got the 7.0ex alu (150 pike) from last year, it feels a weighty bike and i much prefer the nerve. it peddles uphill like a dog

i think a half way house 130mm front, 120 rear is plenty for 90% of my riding.

always amazed at the big susses talked about.

I like my Spectral with the exception of a couple of minor niggles (top tube is a bit short for pedally bit – but feels right when hanging off the back), and could do with a bit more anti squat.

I can see why a lot of people bought Strives instead, as (imo) the whole trail bike market is borderline not fit for purpose (too heavy and inefficient), and if you’re going to have a heavy inefficient bike you may as well have the extra 20mm travel which in many cases seems to have no drawback over a 140mm bike.

140mm is more than enough for me, and if I was buying again i’d be looking for something shorter travel with a full lockout. To me a trail bike should be light and fast like an XC bike, but with a little more travel and a slightly slacker HA. 11kg, lockable 120mm, 67° HA would be perfect, but not sure anyone is actually making such a thing yet. Probably the new Scott Spark (not RC) is about as close as you can get.

as (imo) the whole trail bike market is borderline not fit for purpose (too heavy and inefficient), and if you’re going to have a heavy inefficient bike you may as well have the extra 20mm travel which in many cases seems to have no drawback over a 140mm bike.

diff’rent strokes. One bike to rule them all – for me a 140mm bike will do everything. It’s light and agile enough that I can ride it all day on a cross country epic or on flatter trails in the south of the UK. On the other hand theres still enough travel and the right geometry that it will be good fun on an uplifted holiday in Europe.

160mm Enduro bikes compromise on pedalling efficiency, 120mm bikes are a bit short on travel (and tend to be a bit steep) on big trails. Lockouts are the devils work – only useful on tarmac or if you’re racing.

Katie’s Spectral CF is nice and light and seems to climb really well (though like you say it looks as if it could do with a little more anti-squat). I wonder if a shock tune would improve things?

So, seen a strive frame in large on PB without shock but the shock on my current bike will fit. Very tempted….