Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IronBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    57

    New question here. Scalpel 900, Scalepl 2000 or Jekyll 2000

    Howdy folks.

    I'm a relative newcommer to mountain biking. I've been riding for the last 8 months with a Cannondale F300. I live in Brazil, where my main objetive is to participate in long duration XC races. My main objetive of the year will be to participate in Iron Biker, a 2 day event totalling 100km of trails with lots of steep 2km long hills and very fast descents. Other events include 70km and 100km rides.

    I've been quite happy with my F300, which in Brazil is considered a very good bike, however, as you can all imagine, its quite heavy and perhaps not suitable for the long duration races that I will be taking part in.

    After doing a little "research", I figured that perhaps the best bike for my necessity would be the Scalpel - due to the fact its a very light FS bike, since its a soft tail. HOWEVER, when checking prices and features of the Scalpel 900, 2000 and the Jekyll 2000, there is absolutely NO INFO what-so-ever on the WEIGHT of these bikes, which I found quite ridiculous, since you can practically buy a car for the price Cannondale asks for these bikes.

    Does anyone know what the stock weight is for these bikes? Also, how much heavier is the Jekyll compared to the Scalpel, and how well does it climb compared to it? What do you guys recomment for very long duration races, and as an overall trail bike for my needs?

    Sorry for the long post, thanks for the help!

  2. #2
    Are you talking to me?
    Reputation: damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,884

    I can help.

    Quote Originally Posted by IronBiker
    Howdy folks.

    I'm a relative newcommer to mountain biking. I've been riding for the last 8 months with a Cannondale F300. I live in Brazil, where my main objetive is to participate in long duration XC races. My main objetive of the year will be to participate in Iron Biker, a 2 day event totalling 100km of trails with lots of steep 2km long hills and very fast descents. Other events include 70km and 100km rides.

    I've been quite happy with my F300, which in Brazil is considered a very good bike, however, as you can all imagine, its quite heavy and perhaps not suitable for the long duration races that I will be taking part in.

    After doing a little "research", I figured that perhaps the best bike for my necessity would be the Scalpel - due to the fact its a very light FS bike, since its a soft tail. HOWEVER, when checking prices and features of the Scalpel 900, 2000 and the Jekyll 2000, there is absolutely NO INFO what-so-ever on the WEIGHT of these bikes, which I found quite ridiculous, since you can practically buy a car for the price Cannondale asks for these bikes.

    Does anyone know what the stock weight is for these bikes? Also, how much heavier is the Jekyll compared to the Scalpel, and how well does it climb compared to it? What do you guys recomment for very long duration races, and as an overall trail bike for my needs?

    Sorry for the long post, thanks for the help!
    First, when you get a new bike, keep the F300 as a commuter.
    For the type of event that you are looking at, the Scalpel is the way to go. The Jekyll is a great bike, but the Scalpel is the race bike.
    As far as weights go, the Jekyll 2000 will be in the 29-30lb range. The scalpel 900 will be around 27-28 lb and the Scalpel 2000 wii be aprox 2lb lighter. If the 2000 is in the budget, do it. You will never look back.
    gfy

  3. #3
    Gentleman Loser
    Reputation: Count Zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    418
    For a while, I had both a Jekyll 3000 SL (with a Fatty Ultra, not a Lefty) and a Scalpel 4000.

    Granted, the Scalpel was extremely light and fast, but I didn't think it much fun to ride. I'm into mountain biking for the fun, so I found myself riding the Jekyll much more often. As I had paid dearly for the Scalpel, it was a great disappointment.

    In my opinion, the Scalpel's angles were too steep and the chainstays too long. Thus, it was a great climber, but a poor descender. It was super-hard to wheelie, and the front wheel had an abnormal tendency to tuck.

    On the other hand, the Jekyll had a lovely, neutral disposition. With light tires, was raceable at about 24.5 to 25 lbs.

    I believe that a Jekyll with SPV shock would climb a bit better than a Scalpel, assuming both bikes at the same weight. And, I know that it would descend better.

    My all-time favorite bike is my Maverick, but the Jekyll runs a close second. In twelve years of mountain biking, I thinki my skills progressed more while on that bike than on any other.

    Good luck, and have fun with your new bike!

    Tommy

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    434
    I owned both last year. The Scalpel with a Lefty is an awesome trailbike-it isn't "point and shoot" like the Jekyll-you will have to pick your line, but any terrain can be ridden. The 2003 Scalpel's and beyond have a bit slacker head tube, and coupled with the Lefty DLR, the bike is quite trailworthy.It isn't the plushest in the rear, but acceptable. A Scalpel/headshok combo will be very steep and more of a race bike. Alot of people around here ride the Scalpel/Lefty combo as their trailbike, as the terrain isn't too gnarly-you just don't really need more travel than that locally. My 2003 Scalpel 1000 w/Lefty DLR ti and a few upgrades (XT cranks, cassette, carbon riser bars, Thomson post and Flite saddle, IRC Serac UST tires) came in at about 25.5 lbs.

    The Jekyll last year was pretty hard to set up for XC (for me) given the long 130mm fork and slack HT. I was riding the 2003 Jekyll 2000 model. It was a much better descender and could pedal through anything, but an average handling XC bike-harder to keep on line in slow, technical sections. I am short (5 foot 9) so the higher BB presented problems for me. It is much more efficient with the new Pro-pedal, and with the Coil Lefty Max, among the plushest bikes in it's class. I liked the handling of the older Jekyll (105mm version) better-it was more XC and not so much light freeride. The 2003 Jekyll 2000 weighed in at about 27.5 lbs with carbon riser bar-not bad considering you are getting 130mm of coil fork up front, 135mm in the rear. I like the Scalpel better for riding locally on smooth to fairly aggressive trails, but on super-aggressive XC terrain, and stuff that never lets up, the Jekyll would be the better bet.

  5. #5
    jcw
    jcw is offline
    Ride your bicycle(s)!
    Reputation: jcw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Count Zero
    For a while, I had both a Jekyll 3000 SL (with a Fatty Ultra, not a Lefty) and a Scalpel 4000.

    Granted, the Scalpel was extremely light and fast, but I didn't think it much fun to ride. I'm into mountain biking for the fun, so I found myself riding the Jekyll much more often. As I had paid dearly for the Scalpel, it was a great disappointment.

    In my opinion, the Scalpel's angles were too steep and the chainstays too long. Thus, it was a great climber, but a poor descender. It was super-hard to wheelie, and the front wheel had an abnormal tendency to tuck.

    On the other hand, the Jekyll had a lovely, neutral disposition. With light tires, was raceable at about 24.5 to 25 lbs.

    I believe that a Jekyll with SPV shock would climb a bit better than a Scalpel, assuming both bikes at the same weight. And, I know that it would descend better.

    My all-time favorite bike is my Maverick, but the Jekyll runs a close second. In twelve years of mountain biking, I thinki my skills progressed more while on that bike than on any other.

    Good luck, and have fun with your new bike!

    Tommy
    It's all about the fit, both of person to bike and bike to riding style. I owned a '02 Jekyll 1000, an '03 Scalpel 1000, and now an '04 Scalpel 2000. I think you can see where my preferences lie. My esperiences and preferences are the exact opposite as Tommy's. For me the Jekyll was a good bike, but the Scalpel is simply unbelievable. And I have to agree with Damion and Dawg, the Scalpel would definitely be my choice for long distance xc racing - heck that's what it was designed for! And btw, IMO the 2000 is definitely worth the extra cost over the 900.
    "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule by fictitious miracles."
    John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 1815

  6. #6
    Gentleman Loser
    Reputation: Count Zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    418
    Hmm, I agree that it is all about fit.

    Some further details:

    My Scalpel was a large-sized frame. I probably should have been on a medium.

    The new Scalpels have a head angle 1 degree more slack than those of first release.

    My Scalpel suffered from poor reliability: First, the rear shock blew an air seal. Next, my fork lost a seal, and leaked out its damper fluid. Soon after, the fork was recalled. Next, the old-style press fit stays separated. Given these problems, I became averse to riding the bike over long distance.

    I think all of these problems are fixed in current production.

    Regarding my Jekyll: As I said, it was a first-year 3000 SL. These bikes came with a Fatty Ultra, and 2x9 gearing.

    The 2x9, I think, is a terrific idea. In this case, the frame's main pivot was located just between the two rings, thus eliminating most biopacing effects. I think that triple-ring Jekylls suffer from excessive bob in the granny.

    The Fatty Ultra was a terrific little fork. That thing steers like crazy... no flex in the blades whatsoever. With 80mm in front, and ~100mm (correct me if wrong) in back, I felt that the bike had a nice, aggressive, XC balance.

    Just food for thought.

    Tommy

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Larsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    206

    Fit?

    Interested in a '04 Scapel 2000. I am 5'7.5" tall with a true 31" inseam, not pant length. I don't have the option to ride the small and the medium, what would be the better choice? My current bike has a 22.75" TT which is right between the medium and small Scapel.

  8. #8
    jcw
    jcw is offline
    Ride your bicycle(s)!
    Reputation: jcw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Larsey
    Interested in a '04 Scapel 2000. I am 5'7.5" tall with a true 31" inseam, not pant length. I don't have the option to ride the small and the medium, what would be the better choice? My current bike has a 22.75" TT which is right between the medium and small Scapel.
    Definitely Medium. I'm 5'11.5" with a 32.95" inseam and ride a large, while my 5'4" girlfrined rides a small. The medium should fit you perfectly.
    "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule by fictitious miracles."
    John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 1815

  9. #9
    Are you talking to me?
    Reputation: damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,884

    Medium for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Larsey
    Interested in a '04 Scapel 2000. I am 5'7.5" tall with a true 31" inseam, not pant length. I don't have the option to ride the small and the medium, what would be the better choice? My current bike has a 22.75" TT which is right between the medium and small Scapel.
    Jcw is right. I sell and fit those bikes for a living. The small is made for my 5"4" wife. The medium sounds right for you, without being able to see you on the bike.
    gfy

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Larsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    206

    Thanks for the help!

    Very interested in the 2000. I like the look of the Lefty fork. I had a Cdale enduro motorcycle a couple of summers ago, always enjoyed their out of the ordinary designs.

Similar Threads

  1. 04' Jekyll 2000 as an XC/trailbike
    By dawgcatching in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-01-2004, 06:17 AM
  2. giant nrs comp vs trek fuel 98 vs dale scalpel 2000 vs scott genius rc-20
    By Damitletsride! in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-14-2004, 08:06 AM
  3. 5 spot vs. new Cannondale jekyll 2000
    By jmono in forum Turner
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-09-2004, 08:44 PM
  4. Cannondale 2000 Jekyll 900 SX Opinions
    By Moo Shoo Pork in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-04-2004, 06:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •