Wow! I am finding this discussion fascinating although I freely admit I’m out of my depth. I have tried to cover the points raised in correspondence so far and I’m starting to think that the linkages may be at least part of the problem. Thanks for the pointers Stan. One of them seemed a little stiff so I’ve tried to bed them in as much as possible without really knowing what ‘bedding in’ means. Spindles have been degreased and movement when pushed against front brake seems normal. What I could really do with is something like an exploded diagram with some indication of what would be a satisfactory set up. The point Brian raised about spring rating is a very interesting one. I have just refurbished the telescopic forks on my 1948 Ariel NG. First year of teles with no drain plugs and steel stanchions. I was struck by how much less robust the springs are compared to the Scott but of course there are two of them. But it was noticeable before I did the strip down to find a bit of treacle in each leg just how poor the suspension was. Stan is absolutely right: the fork oil seems to do much of the work and the bike is now transformed. I am starting to wonder if the improvement in the Ariel has coloured my perception of the Scott. However, I still believe that I have not got the set up on the Scott forks right and welcome all the help I get on this.
So,how about this for a theory. There is a problem with the linkages ( or spring rating) on the Scott but I had learned to live with it until refurbishing the forks on the Ariel forced the problem to the forefront of my mind by making for an unfavourable comparison. This combined with ever worsening road surfaces has demanded attention which I should have given it before. Plausible theory or psychobabble? I have really valued the thoughts of members so far and would welcome any further comments. The bike will be out on the road today or tomorrow and I’ll report back.