2007 Scott Addict - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47
  1. #26
    Lemur-ing
    Reputation: uzziefly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,987
    I really would like a Tarmac honestly. Now all I've gotta do is test em out just to ensure everything fits perfect. However, I would just be getting a frameset probably as I would like to build the bike up myself as far as possible. I would be getting some componentry together but would be using my extra bar/stem in the meantime and all that. I might get Lightweight wheels as well.

    Just a correction, my Madone is an SSL 5.9 not the SL.

    Tarmac SL? On specialized's website, all I see is the S Works Tarmac/Sworks Roubaix.

    Which is a better ride? I know both are great and the Roubaix is more comfortable in a way. But, what I would like to know is how the bikes feel etc.

    Based on what I'm looking for: light and stiff and responsive, I assume the S Works Tarmac suits me better?

    Thanks.

    P.S. Pity there's no custom paint. I would ABSOLUTELY love a white Specialized bike without doubt. Can't I request for it and pay for the paintjob?

  2. #27

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by uzziefly
    I really would like a Tarmac honestly. Now all I've gotta do is test em out just to ensure everything fits perfect. However, I would just be getting a frameset probably as I would like to build the bike up myself as far as possible. I would be getting some componentry together but would be using my extra bar/stem in the meantime and all that. I might get Lightweight wheels as well.

    Just a correction, my Madone is an SSL 5.9 not the SL.

    Tarmac SL? On specialized's website, all I see is the S Works Tarmac/Sworks Roubaix.
    When you select bikes and road, you must go to S-Works; that is where you will find the Tarmac SL. Oh, you will also find the Roubaix SL under this heading.
    Which is a better ride? I know both are great and the Roubaix is more comfortable in a way. But, what I would like to know is how the bikes feel etc.
    The Roubaix will have the more compliant ride, but the SL is a more straight forward race bike. Guys like Boonen will ride the Roubaix at places like Paris-Roubaix next year, but you will likely see them ride the Tarmac SL at places like the Tour.
    Based on what I'm looking for: light and stiff and responsive, I assume the S Works Tarmac suits me better?
    It sounds like you would want the Tarmac.
    Thanks.

    P.S. Pity there's no custom paint. I would ABSOLUTELY love a white Specialized bike without doubt. Can't I request for it and pay for the paintjob?
    Sorry way to order custom paint.

  3. #28
    Lemur-ing
    Reputation: uzziefly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,987
    Can't get custom? Darn... Why can't more companies have something like a Project One thing like Trek?

    I could always paint it myself though I guess...

    Thanks for the info.

    WrigleyRoadie, where did you get the picture of the first Addict? Absolutely love the look of it! Sorta Pearlescent colored... SWEEEET.... I don't see it at Scott's website...

  4. #29

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by uzziefly
    Can't get custom? Darn... Why can't more companies have something like a Project One thing like Trek?
    Why, first it is a lot easier (and cheaper) to produce tube & lug bikes. Second, they are made in Trek's factory and they control production - hey John, the next set of tubes and lugs hit with some white paint. Third, refer to 1 & 2.
    I could always paint it myself though I guess...
    If you want a beautiful race oriented bike try the Kuota Kredo - http://www.kuota.it/english.html. Go to Products then Road then Kredo. And, yes, if anyone is curious, we sell Kuota, but they are great bikes and very different from the masses. Oh, their KOM is the newest and lightest (910gr in L), and we can get those custom painted for you -- $450 extra. A frame would run about $3000 (no custom paint), and a full bike with SRAM Force and Zero Gravity brakes about $5500 (less $300 with Force brakes), but I thought you might like the light ones.
    Thanks for the info.

    WrigleyRoadie, where did you get the picture of the first Addict? Absolutely love the look of it! Sorta Pearlescent colored... SWEEEET.... I don't see it at Scott's website...
    015176

  5. #30
    Lemur-ing
    Reputation: uzziefly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,987
    I'm totally clueless on Kuota but I'll check em out. Vs. a Specialized, how does it ride? Stiffness/responsiveness/weight and comfort..

    $5.5k's not too bad considering some other brands cost a lot more.. Thanks. I'll check these out in the next few weeks, along with maybe the Cervelo and all and go on test rides etc. I'm hoping to get a new frame before 07 and have it built hopefully latest by January.

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by critchie
    BTW, the weight of the CR1 including frame, fork and crank is 233 grams (just over .5lbs) heavier than the SL. The Addict isn't getting there either, though it could be very close. Lastly, a full DA (except crank) SL with ES wheels can be bought for $5000 - way less than the cheapset Addict.
    I think you mean 233 grams heavier. My nieghbours is exactly half a pound heavier with identical componentry minus the seatpost and saddle and his tarmac is a 54 and my scott a 56. This being said we both use the DA crank.

  7. #32

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Piles
    I think you mean 233 grams heavier. My nieghbours is exactly half a pound heavier with identical componentry minus the seatpost and saddle and his tarmac is a 54 and my scott a 56. This being said we both use the DA crank.
    No, the weights being compared are the frame, fork, crankset & BB. The weight for a S-works Tarmac SL and CR1 are 1915 & 2148 grams, respectively. The crank used for the CR1 was a FSA K-force, and the SL is the Specialized S-works carbon crank. The FSA is about the same weight as a DA crank, but is stiffer.

  8. #33

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by pogoman
    I will be selling my 06 Scott CR1 Team Issue Size small complete with full dura ace 06. If you guys know anyone that is interested please let me know. thanks guys.


    How many do you want selling your CR1?

  9. #34

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by critchie
    No, the weights being compared are the frame, fork, crankset & BB. The weight for a S-works Tarmac SL and CR1 are 1915 & 2148 grams, respectively. The crank used for the CR1 was a FSA K-force, and the SL is the Specialized S-works carbon crank. The FSA is about the same weight as a DA crank, but is stiffer.
    I think we should get the facts straight here from someone who isn't a Specialized dealer.

    First of all the weights you give are claimed weights so they are rubbish. Secondly forget about the crankset weight - it is completely irrelevant when you can pick and choose what crankset you want and there are many other cranksets around the same weight or lighter than the S-works. THM, Stronglight, Time, Zipp to name a few. The K-Force crank is not particularly light by any means.

    Now for the frame/headset/fork combo:

    Tarmac SL - 1540g
    CR1 - 1407g

    Figures are from a TOUR test, with equivalent frame sizes.

    "If you want light, stiff, responsive & something that rides very nicely, your only choice is the S-works Tarmac. If you skip the great ride quality, try the Cervelo R3. "

    Wow you are really shameless in promoting Specialized aren't you. So basically you are saying that the only good all round bike available on the market is Specialized. Righto.

  10. #35

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by haz a tcr
    I think we should get the facts straight here from someone who isn't a Specialized dealer.
    Really, at least it was clear that I was a Spec dealer!
    First of all the weights you give are claimed weights so they are rubbish. Secondly forget about the crankset weight - it is completely irrelevant when you can pick and choose what crankset you want and there are many other cranksets around the same weight or lighter than the S-works. THM, Stronglight, Time, Zipp to name a few. The K-Force crank is not particularly light by any means.
    No, the weights were not claimed, they were actual. There are very few cranks lighter than the Spec pieces and maybe nothing stiffer. It does mean something if you have to add weight to get stiff cranks.
    Now for the frame/headset/fork combo:

    Tarmac SL - 1540g
    CR1 - 1407g
    I'll take your word, though my scale tells a different story for the Spec weight.
    Figures are from a TOUR test, with equivalent frame sizes.

    "If you want light, stiff, responsive & something that rides very nicely, your only choice is the S-works Tarmac. If you skip the great ride quality, try the Cervelo R3. "

    Wow you are really shameless in promoting Specialized aren't you. So basically you are saying that the only good all round bike available on the market is Specialized. Righto.
    No, I'm not saying they are the only good all round bike on the market. However, when in factor in weight, performance, ride quality, price, etc, they are very hard to look past. And, the ride quality of the Scott stuff does suck. Oh, as Tom B. put it (without Spec folks in attendance): "... they are simply better".
    Sorry you had an aneurism 3 months after the fact.

    Cheers

  11. #36

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by critchie
    No, I'm not saying they are the only good all round bike on the market. However, when in factor in weight, performance, ride quality, price, etc, they are very hard to look past. And, the ride quality of the Scott stuff does suck. Oh, as Tom B. put it (without Spec folks in attendance): "... they are simply better".
    Sorry you had an aneurism 3 months after the fact.

    Cheers
    And did Boonen say that about the Specialized S-Works crankset which the whole Quickstep team stopped using due to the chain dropping off whenever they put any power down? Of course he is going to say "they simply are better" when he is sponsored by them

    Maybe I was taking you a little too literally when you said "your only choice is the S-works Tarmac" but I hope I am the only person taking you literally otherwise there will be some disappointed new Tarmac SL owners who believed that they truly were buying 'the lightest frame, fork and crankset' on the market.

    I am not trying to say that it is a bad bike but it isn't the greatest in the world, despite what you would like to have people believe. One of the hardest things for a consumer to do is to distinguish sales banter from hard facts and you aren't helping.

  12. #37

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by haz a tcr
    And did Boonen say that about the Specialized S-Works crankset which the whole Quickstep team stopped using due to the chain dropping off whenever they put any power down? Of course he is going to say "they simply are better" when he is sponsored by them
    Chains dropping when they put any power down -- that's sheer BS, and you know it. I believe the Campy folks had something to say about it. In addition, it was an interview by a Belguim paper and he was not even asked about the bikes. I guess maybe he's just that good a marketer?
    Maybe I was taking you a little too literally when you said "your only choice is the S-works Tarmac" but I hope I am the only person taking you literally otherwise there will be some disappointed new Tarmac SL owners who believed that they truly were buying 'the lightest frame, fork and crankset' on the market.
    I don't recall saying it was THE lightest on the market, and i doubt they would be disappointed they only have one of the very best bikes on the market but it's a few grams heavier than something else.
    I am not trying to say that it is a bad bike but it isn't the greatest in the world, despite what you would like to have people believe. One of the hardest things for a consumer to do is to distinguish sales banter from hard facts and you aren't helping.
    I gave hard facts based on actual weights for actual bikes.
    Can you go hog wild and make this lighter than that, sure, but no matter what you do to the Scott, it will not ride as nicely as the Spec -- my ^&*_*_ opinion, along with some real test data.

  13. #38

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    423
    If you choose Scott Addict.I should beat your best price. PM only if you are ready to purchase. Chris

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    15
    "Will the Addict ride nicely - I am referring to compliance here, and not really. In the next post you asked stiff like aluminum, yes as is not vertically compliant. And, AL bikes, C-dale included are not very stiff in either the BB or torsionally -- and there are #s to back that up, it is not just my opinion. In fact, the stiffest bike C-dale makes is the Synapse."

    I would suggest consulting the independent data from the recent VeloNews or Tour testing. VeloNews says: "As you might have guessed, the Cannondale CAAD 9 was very stiff" In fact, it was the stiffest frame torsionally and third stiffest laterally."

    The independent data would also suggest the Cervelo R3 and the CR1 to exhibit more measured stiffness than the Tarmac.

    Having pointed this out, I am not sure how meaningful to choose a bike based upon some narrow lab measurements on a single frame sample.


    "If you want light, stiff, responsive & something that rides very nicely, your only choice is the S-works Tarmac."

    There is no ONLY choice, and it is absurd to suggest a CR1 rides poorly or an R3 lacks ride quality. Test ride the bikes youself and form an opinion. These are personal preferences and many of the differences are subtle.

    Proper fit makes more of difference than any stiffness test or some anonymous and potentially biased rant. The geometry of these bikes are not identical, and it is hard to talk about ride quality if you find yourself struggling with between standard frame sizes.


    "Oh, as Tom B. put it (without Spec folks in attendance): ... they are simply better".

    Tom B. is paid to ride Specialized. Cannondale came close to being the sponsor this year and he would have said the same about the System 6.

  15. #40
    Do not touch the trim.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by critchie
    No, I'm not saying they are the only good all round bike on the market. However, when in factor in weight, performance, ride quality, price, etc, they are very hard to look past. And, the ride quality of the Scott stuff does suck. Oh, as Tom B. put it (without Spec folks in attendance): "... they are simply better".
    Sorry you had an aneurism 3 months after the fact.

    Cheers
    Yep, your pretty much an idiot.

  16. #41

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by cdimattio
    "Will the Addict ride nicely - I am referring to compliance here, and not really. In the next post you asked stiff like aluminum, yes as is not vertically compliant. And, AL bikes, C-dale included are not very stiff in either the BB or torsionally -- and there are #s to back that up, it is not just my opinion. In fact, the stiffest bike C-dale makes is the Synapse."

    I would suggest consulting the independent data from the recent VeloNews or Tour testing. VeloNews says: "As you might have guessed, the Cannondale CAAD 9 was very stiff" In fact, it was the stiffest frame torsionally and third stiffest laterally."

    The independent data would also suggest the Cervelo R3 and the CR1 to exhibit more measured stiffness than the Tarmac.

    Having pointed this out, I am not sure how meaningful to choose a bike based upon some narrow lab measurements on a single frame sample.
    I would suggest that you look at data other than Velo News -- they widely criticized for the test methods they used. Try the german lab EFBE, as they do this testing all the time, for many companies in the industry.
    "If you want light, stiff, responsive & something that rides very nicely, your only choice is the S-works Tarmac."

    There is no ONLY choice, and it is absurd to suggest a CR1 rides poorly or an R3 lacks ride quality. Test ride the bikes youself and form an opinion. These are personal preferences and many of the differences are subtle.

    Proper fit makes more of difference than any stiffness test or some anonymous and potentially biased rant. The geometry of these bikes are not identical, and it is hard to talk about ride quality if you find yourself struggling with between standard frame sizes.
    It certainly is not absurd to say that the vertical compliance of the Scott is poor -- compared to other full carbon bikes. It rides just fine if you compare it to big tubed aluminum bikes, but that isn't saying much.

    How did proper fit come into this equation? I am not talking about whether the bike fits (one should assume the bike fits), and of course there are handling nuiances based on very minor geometry differences, but which one beats you up more? Hands down the Scott!! If you want to talk about different geometries, you might want to first consult the geometry tables -- you will see there are only very small differences between the two.
    "Oh, as Tom B. put it (without Spec folks in attendance): ... they are simply better".

    Tom B. is paid to ride Specialized. Cannondale came close to being the sponsor this year and he would have said the same about the System 6.
    Tom is paid to ride a bike; he will ride whatever they put him on. He may have said the same thing about the 6, but maybe not.

  17. #42
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by critchie
    I would suggest that you look at data other than Velo News -- they widely criticized for the test methods they used. Try the german lab EFBE, as they do this testing all the time, for many companies in the industry.
    - Even if it were "widely criticized," The Velo News data coorelates with all other independent testing data.

    - Based upon the EFBE website, the Scott CR1 has performed very well.

    - The Testing performed by Tour Magazine has been done with EFBE equipment and methods. The February 2006 data suggest that the Tarmac SL has nearly identical characteristics as a CR1 (aside from being heavier)

    - Should we be purchasing Cannondale based upon this test data: http://www.daa.co.il/news/System6_co...ve_testing.pdf

    And the real point is that aside from extremes, there is no way to translate some single frame test numbers to ride quality. You need to ride the bike for that evaluation. "Ride quality" to one person is "dead and lifeless" to another.

  18. #43

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by cdimattio
    - Even if it were "widely criticized," The Velo News data coorelates with all other independent testing data.
    It correlates somewhat poorly to other test data methods and that was part of the problem. Some of the figures they gave were also misleading, at best, wrong more likely.
    - Based upon the EFBE website, the Scott CR1 has performed very well.

    - The Testing performed by Tour Magazine has been done with EFBE equipment and methods. The February 2006 data suggest that the Tarmac SL has nearly identical characteristics as a CR1 (aside from being heavier)

    Yes, the test data for the CR1 and Tarmac are quite close and I never disputed that point. It was the "crappy" ride (mine and others' subjective opinion) that I questioned. It is test data that points to the harshness (or lack of vertical compliance) that I spoke of.
    - Should we be purchasing Cannondale based upon this test data: http://www.daa.co.il/news/System6_co...ve_testing.pdf

    And the real point is that aside from extremes, there is no way to translate some single frame test numbers to ride quality. You need to ride the bike for that evaluation. "Ride quality" to one person is "dead and lifeless" to another.
    I have spent time aboard the Scott and it rides like fat-tubed aluminum. And, I am keenly aware of what fat-tubed al rides like -- I spent 9 years on Kleins and Cannondales.

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by critchie
    I have spent time aboard the Scott and it rides like fat-tubed aluminum. And, I am keenly aware of what fat-tubed al rides like -- I spent 9 years on Kleins and Cannondales.
    You previously said "Aluminum is not Stiff", so I am not sure how to calibrate your 9 years of experience.

    In the end, the Tarmac is not the "Only Choice." Your opinion is a single data point.

    A bike rides differently when you weigh 125 pounds or 225 pounds. Fit matters more than the differences between a Tarmac and whatever competitive offering is not worthy. Since you so quickly dismiss bike fit, you might want to learn more about it and the impact on ride quality. Competitive offerings may may be similar, but they do not have identical geometry and I believe there are only 5 sizes offered in the Tarmac. Some individuals may find a better fit on another brand of bike.

    I have ridden both the Tarmac SL and the CR1 extensively and the differences are subtle (and neither rode like fat tubed aluminum.)

    There is a very intelligent and less ignorant discourse about testing data and ride quality at the weight weenies forum.

  20. #45

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by sevencycle
    If you choose Scott Addict.I should beat your best price. PM only if you are ready to purchase. Chris
    Not available to me at this time. All are spoken for.

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by uzziefly

    WrigleyRoadie, where did you get the picture of the first Addict? Absolutely love the look of it! Sorta Pearlescent colored... SWEEEET.... I don't see it at Scott's website...
    Uzzie
    That "sorta peralescent" color is just the reflection of surrounding lights and colors reflecting off of the gloss/clearcoat of the head-tube. It comes in raw carbon and red or raw carbon and yellow.

    Also, keep in mind that the custom white paint you desire is going to result in a heavier bike.
    I assume you have seen Simoni's white Addict that he is riding in this year's Giro.

  22. #47

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by cpritch06
    Uzzie
    That "sorta peralescent" color is just the reflection of surrounding lights and colors reflecting off of the gloss/clearcoat of the head-tube. It comes in raw carbon and red or raw carbon and yellow.

    Also, keep in mind that the custom white paint you desire is going to result in a heavier bike.
    I assume you have seen Simoni's white Addict that he is riding in this year's Giro.
    About 100g for paint
    lighter is better

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.