GPR Vs. Scotts

Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
15
Likes
0
#3
i have had the same question about this subject. i talked to some guys i race with and learned alot. the scotts is more expensive, has more nonservicable parts,and needs to be sent off once a year for calibration. the gpr has six moving parts cost about half the scotts, and you dont need to send in off every year. they said the guy at gpr was real nice and answered all their questions. to me it sounds like the gpr is the way to go. i'm going to put one on my bike soon. need money first. hope this helps.
 

JCW

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
333
Likes
0
#4
Regardless of moving parts and service, the one to buy is the one that works and keeps working. In checking, I've heard numerous complaints (many on this forum) about the WER going bad after a year or so and not being able to be fixed.

My experience with GPR was not so good. When I talked with them they were very arrogant and really didn't care if I bought one or not. I called Scotts and they were super nice and took about 20 minutes explaining all of my options regarding fat bars, front or rear mounting, and computer mounting, etc. I bought the Scotts and I love it.

I will say that I have heard only good things about the GPR also. I had two main concerns about the GPR. It can't be turned off and it only has 6 or 7 settings. My Scotts has over 20 settings and it can be turned off in super tight woods with lots of turns. Also, the GPR requires that you raise your handlebars about 1 1/2" and I did not want to do that.

After all of that confusion, I recommend the Scotts or GPR. I haven't heard anything bad about either and I think your mounting decision will probably decide which one since there is less than $100 difference depending on options selected (about $ 500/Scotts vs $ 400/GPR). You can't go wrong with either of these two.

Just my two cents worth-
JCW
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
238
Likes
0
#6
Howdy,

After reading this thread and other earlier ones in the archives, I'm wanting to find out if the Scotts triple clamp kit is that much stronger/better made/more adjustable than keeping the stock triple clamp and installing barclamps that accept a stabilizer. In either case, I want to use oversize bars.

I'm actually leaning towards the GPR because I like the one large knob instead of the two smaller knobs (the left Scotts knob bothers me because it looks like it could catch on something with that point), simpler internal design (less to wear out and easier repair), the lifetime warranty versus $35/shot and the GPR being $100+ dollars cheaper.

Somebody talk me into the Scotts. :-)

Thanks,
Greg
 

JCW

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
333
Likes
0
#7
All I can say is that the Scotts (in heavy mountain rocks) took me from 1st & 2nd gear to 4th & 5th gear with a totally fun and relaxing ride. I don't know if the triple clamp is cut different to make the bar clamp fit the frame mount or what. It doesn't really look any stronger to me. Regarding the design, as long as you don't go over the bars it shouldn't matter. If you do, that will probably be one of your smaller concerns.

I think you will be pleased with the GPR or the Scotts. The Scotts allows you to run big bars and keep the same height. The GPR will raise your bar height about 2", which would allow you to lower your bike if you needed to.

One final warning. If you get used to one you will never want to ride without one again. That's a problem because now I want one on my other bike. Does it ever end???
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
238
Likes
0
#8
Thanks for the info JCW. How long have you had your damper? The $35/servicing may not be a bad deal if it is only every couple of years. And, no, I don't think it ever ends. :-)

Best,
Greg
 

JCW

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
333
Likes
0
#9
I bought it last winter. Several of the guys I ride with have had a Scotts since they started selling them. One guy I ride with has transferred his to three bikes and it still works great. I am not aware of any problems with any of them. The GPR must be good from all I am hearing, but it does not offer the level of fine tuning or tweaking that the Scotts does. The WERs seem to have a problem of not being able to return them to like new performance, even if WER rebuilds the unit.

I think you will be fine with the Scotts or the GPR. I'm just sold on the Scotts based on what I have seen it do for me. It's a tough call!

JCW
 

BRush

Lifetime Sponsor
Joined
Jun 5, 2000
Messages
1,099
Likes
0
#10
Originally posted by JCW
.The WERs seem to have a problem of not being able to return them to like new performance, even if WER rebuilds the unit.
.

I think the WER is getting a bad rap here. I have never heard of that problem, and I've had my WER rebuilt twice in the three seasons I've ridden and raced with it. Each time the performance was indeed restored to like new. It's a fairly popular damper here in the Northeast and if there was a chronic problem like that, word would have gotten around. I have both a Scotts and a WER damper. The WER is good damper and has always performed well. In fact for tight technical terrain, I'd give it a slight nod over the Scotts because I notice it less. The Scotts I like a smidgen better at higher speed stuff. If you get the impression that I don't see a huge difference between them when it comes to the basic function: save my butt when I take an unexpected hit on the front wheel, you'd be right. The difference between the Scotts and the WER (and I suspect, the GPR) is much less than the difference between a damper and no damper.
 

JCW

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
333
Likes
0
#11
BRush,

Thanks for the info. It's good to hear positive comments about the WER. I have nothing against the WER, other than quiet a few negative comments from WER users and from one used 01 KTM 200 I was considering buying as a backup (that had a WER that did not work). I don't know why, but they have had problems down here where others seem to be fairly bullet proof.

Above all, I will definitely agree that any damper is better than no damper at all.
 

Braahp

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2001
Messages
641
Likes
0
#12
I've got over 1500 miles on my W.E.R now. Still like the day I bought it. No rebuilds...no probs.
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
902
Likes
0
#13
I have a WER as well. I suspect that once users start getting used to the fact that they can go faster, they find they need to crank in more dampning to handle the higher speed hits. This may be interpreted as wearing out or failing. I think one user here tried changing to a thicker oil to get a stiffer dampning effect. I am finding that I am cranking in more on mine too as I pick up the pace; but I feel that it still works fine and I am riding much, much quicker now than even 6 months ago.
It is a great unit and even if I did "wear it out", and it couldn't be rebuilt back to new, I would replace it with another WER. It would be worth the cost to replace it every other year or so, I find it that beneficial. That would come to about $150 a year and that ain't bad compared to, for example, how much I spend on fresh tires in the same time.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
238
Likes
0
#15
JCW, I'll post what I end up with. Right now I'm still leaning towards the GPR because it is quite a bit cheaper and I haven't really found any negative comments. I still have other parts that I want to buy like a pipe, RB carb, etc, and am on a budget. I really would think about the Scotts if they would offer an OS bar kit with just replacement barclamps. I'm going to give them a call and see if there's a technical reason why they only offer the OS bar kit with a triple clamp.

The WER is not an option because I am in the process of doing my suspension and decided that since I weigh about 230 that I would add the SRC fork brace. I think that the mounting bracket would interfere with the brace clearances.

Best,
Greg