I finally tried something other than a Cannondale.

Nice ride.Those of you who own CR1s know what I mean. For those who are wondering about the CR1, well, here goes.

A little background first. I'm not even 2 years into road bikes and I'm on my 5th frame/bike. eBay is a beautiful thing. Started riding @ 192lbs, currently weigh 155lbs. 150-200 miles a week has paid off. I don't race but I ride as hard as the good Lord let's me.

My CAAD 8 was 16.2 lbs and IMHO it rode very well. Cdale does a great job with aluminum.

I bought the CR1 SL as a complete bike but built it up with most of the gear from my Cdale. I run Syntace racelite carbon bars, 4 axis stem, K Force compact cranks, Ksyrium ES, Toupe saddle, and just in case the SL wasn't as light as claimed, I put zero gravity brakes on it. I haven't weighed it yet but it's lighter the the Cdale.

Today I rode it for the first time. It felt great right out of the driveway. The first difference I felt was, the bike wants to go forward. As I spun it up it wanted to stay upright and accelerate. It doesn't sway like my Cdale. The CR1 is noticable stiffer in regards to acceleration. Today's ride was on fairly smooth roads so I didn't get much chance to compare ride quality. There was enough to say that the CR1 doesn't have the sharp jolt when you hit cracks, potholes, etc. In the climbs, I did notice the difference in power to the ground. The CR1 puts more power down. I can't wait to take it up Mt. Baldy. As for handling, it felt great in aggressive turns. There are a couple spots on this ride to really have fun throwing the bike into the turns.

After 2:24 in the saddle and 51 miles I felt fine. No new aches or pains so the geometry and set up is very close the the old bike.

Tomorrow is a 44 mile group ride. It's flat with 2 sprints for bragging rights. I'll see how it goes but if today's ride is any indication the sprints shound be fun.:thumbsup:

Thanks for the info. I've been looking at that bike (full DA) and I'm wondering how that compares to the new Addict. I need to do some rides on these and others, but the Scott looks like a nice setup.

One thing that puzzles me is why Scott built a bike that was so light. It's under UCI minimum weight. Is a racer going to buy one and add weight???? Are there that many non-racing cyclist who want bikes that are so light? I'm not into bike marketing but I don't see the $12,000 Addict selling in any great numbers. Really, how many $5-6,000 bikes sell vs $1,500-2,000? Most of the people I ride with are on sub $2,000 bikes. I was to until this deal came along. I'd never consider myself a buyer of a $5,000 bike. It's great that Scott developed these awesome light bikes I just don't know if there's a large market.

My local LBS didn't have any 07 of anything yet. I need to do some rides, but I'm currently looking at the Scott CR1, Cdale System Six and Caad9 and Cervelo R3 and Soloist.

They are in a similar price range (except maybe the SSix) and fairly lightweight. I've heard the Caads, for Aluminum bikes, ride quite well. Is that your experience? I guess I won't know until I ride them.

Being the team bike builder/mechanic and having friends @ Scott & Cannondale I've been able to ride CAAD 7 & 8, old six13, new six13, System 6, CR1, CR1 sl, Specialized Tarmac, Cervelo R3.0.

The CAAD bikes are great rides. The 8 is more compliant that the 7. The old six13 is a noodle. No offense to folks who own them but I didn't like the 1000 miles I put on that bike. The new six13 team is very good. Stiff yet compliant. System 6 is very good as well. Stiff when accelerating, good steering even across crappy pavement and a compliant ride across the bumps.

The CR1, Tarmac and R3 are very similar rides. I think the CR1 is the lightest and the R3 is the stiffest. Of these 3 I have the most miles on the CR1. It's my favorite to date. Very light, very quick, and great handling.

What have you head about durablity of the CR1 frame. I noticed one person who crashed and broke the chainstay, but that's probably typical of most CF frames. It seems to a better overall value than the others, but I will buy the one that feels the best for my riding style. I do a lot of climbing (a lot of hills in the Seattle area) and the attributes you ascribe to the Scott sound good, assuming the bike fits me. Thanks for the great info.

I have not heard about the frame durability, good or bad. My guess is if you crash it's history.

I made the same move last year!
I had (have) a CAAD7 and the difference with my CR1 is undescriptible...
more :
confort
stifness
power to the rear wheel
acceleration
etc....

One thing, stop thinking broking your frame, ask yourself, how many time did you felt since you are riding? and how many time the crash was strong enough to broke the frame???

I've never fallen/crashed on a road bike (saved that for the mountains), so it wasn't critical, but was asking because superlight frames have a tendendcy to be more brittle than maybe a beefier, heavier frame. I'm intrigued by the Cervelo's as well.

One thing that puzzles me is why Scott built a bike that was so light. It's under UCI minimum weight. Is a racer going to buy one and add weight???? Are there that many non-racing cyclist who want bikes that are so light? I'm not into bike marketing but I don't see the $12,000 Addict selling in any great numbers. Really, how many $5-6,000 bikes sell vs $1,500-2,000? Most of the people I ride with are on sub $2,000 bikes. I was to until this deal came along. I'd never consider myself a buyer of a $5,000 bike. It's great that Scott developed these awesome light bikes I just don't know if there's a large market.


Dude, LOTSA guys ride Madones, S Works Tarmacs, custom Ti, Giant, Cervelos, etc.. And the $5k and above price range too.

FWIW, I ride a Trek Madone SSL 5.9 Project One Lance 7 time paint scheme and that cost me close to $8 grand. Don't regret it one bit. Loved it ever since I first rode it and I just can't get enough of riding my bike.

Look at terry_b, he has like 19 bikes dude... Lotsa pple want light bikes actually. Way under UCI's limit too.. they don't race em.. They are weight weenies(these guys). They do what they can to get a bike as light a possible. Welcome to the sport of cycling. it's just how it is.. Keep your eyes open and you'll meet these guys around and in RBR forums. Guys have their bikes weighing in at 12lbs even and lighter still. It's true. Once, at my LBS, Ipicked up this guy's bike and I was like WHOA, I almost could throw the bike upwards lifting it. Whe he said light, I didn't think THAT light. It's WAAAYYY under UCI's limit but he doesn't race it so yeah.

What the Addict is doing is that it provides a lot more room to shift the center of gravity of the bike to a desired postion for say climbs or flats. You could use heavier bars and stems, or heavier seatposts etc. Also, you could add a Powertap to it and still have it light. Lots of room for customization here. I'd sure be glad to have an Addict and buld it up (to weight and into a full bike) to suit the races I'm in. I can use alu bars, stem, post, cages can be heavier too,and all that. There are many factors which you can play around with when the bike is light. As for a heavy bike, well, nothing much to play with to stay near the UCI limit.

My local LBS didn't have any 07 of anything yet. I need to do some rides, but I'm currently looking at the Scott CR1, Cdale System Six and Caad9 and Cervelo R3 and Soloist.

They are in a similar price range (except maybe the SSix) and fairly lightweight. I've heard the Caads, for Aluminum bikes, ride quite well. Is that your experience? I guess I won't know until I ride them.

I'm looking for a new frame too and am keen on many brands for the moment from Specialized's S Works Tarmac to BMC's Pro Machine to a Cervelo Soloist Carbon.

Caads are good alu bikes for sure. But, since you're looking at Cervelo, i you want a fast bike, get the Soloist carbon but if fast and comfy is what you want, then get the R3 as it's a Paris-Roubaix bike but still is VERY stiff and still darn light and responsive and all.

That said, the soloist carbon has an aero characteristic that is somewhat unique and all. As for me, I'd rather get the soloist carbon simply because I have a Madone SSL which is very similar to the R3 in respect and so, an aero frame would make more sense for me as a new frame that I'm gonna build up.

I wouldn't mind the Addict at all as that way, I can use heavier parts and all and thus, save on componentry.

I've never fallen/crashed on a road bike (saved that for the mountains), so it wasn't critical, but was asking because superlight frames have a tendendcy to be more brittle than maybe a beefier, heavier frame. I'm intrigued by the Cervelo's as well.


Nope the frames are still as strong. Strength would NEVER be compromised in making a frame lighter - it's a frame maker's motto man.

FWIW, carbon fibre bikes are VERY VERY strong and can withstand impact a lot better then we think. If it's going to break, then a beefier frame would STILL break whether it's carbon or aluminium or Titanium even. Yes, I've seen photos of a BROKEN titanium bike. And titanium is what? Heavier, beefier right? :)

There are a lot of good choices for cyclists these days. It's hard to narrow it down to what I've listed before. I wouldn't expect a 10-12lb bike to have the durability as a 15-16 lb bike, all things being equal. Didn't Trek build Lance a bike only for the moutains? There are reasons why he wasn't riding it on the flat stages (mostly because he didn't need to).

Cyclists get all the benefits from this excellent materials and technology.

A 10lbs bike gets that light because of lighter componentry man. If I wanted my Madone SSL to weigg around 13lbs, I could easily get the XXX Lite wheels using OCLV 55, get zero gravity brakes, change my crankset, use a lighter stem etc.. And POOF - 13lbs.

Does it mean it is less durable then a 15lbs Madone? Heck no.. It's the SAME, just not race legal Madone.

Trek built the Madone SSL 5.9 for Lance for the whole Tour. It's their lightest bike (save for the new SSL using OCLV 55 and the new High Modulus carbon hybrid which is supposed to be under 900 grams for a standard geometry bike) and Lance used it during the entire Tour except for the TTT/TTX in time trials. Team Discovery rode the SSL for flat stages as well.

He rode the SSLx last season as the Boron infused made the bike stiffer, but at a sacrifice for weight. Which is why no one in Disco uses it this year and all that. It's either the SL 5.9 for some riders, the SSL 5.9 for some or the new SSL 6.9 for Popo/Hincapie and Savoldelli and such.

Surely you don't think the Cervelo R3 can't be used in a flat stage? Fabian uses it for the whole race.

And, if a 16lbs bike is more durable, then why don't all pros ask frame makers to make heavier frames instead of lighter/stiffer ones? The frame is one thing. Componentry is another. If you build a Cervelo R3 below 13lbs, does it mean it's not durable? Same frame, different components. OF COURSE it's as durable man!

I never said any bike couldn't be used for any race. I don't really even care. My point is this - frames/components can only be made so light before they break prematurely, otherwise we'd all be riding frames made of spider webs. I remember when manufacturers were making crazy lightweight components for mtn. bikes. Things started breaking and people were getting injured. Technology and the application of it has come along way to the point where you can say that past point X, this thing will fail at this many cycles or get damaged if not used for X purpose. You get past a certain point in lightness and it's not so stiff anymore.

Pros get paid to use the latest and greatest. I'm sure Hincapie wasn't all that impressed with his equipment failure during this year's Rubaix. So it goes.