Scott CR1 pro vs. Trek 5200
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43
  1. #1

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11

    Scott CR1 pro vs. Trek 5200

    First time poster here. looking to move up from an older Trek 5200 to somthing a little newer. The '06 Felt F2 is also a consideration but not a frontrunner due to the fact that the felt dealer is 35 miles away.Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by 1gunner; 10-01-2005 at 06:36 PM.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: merckx56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    616
    As different as night and day...
    You really cannot even compare the two they are so different!
    Pretty much here just to piss you off...

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11
    How so? Quality of construction? Ride quality? Power transfer?

  4. #4

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    286
    To me the obvious choice is the Scott CR-1. It is the best bike I've ever ridden. I've been on a Trek 5200 but it was a few years back and it really didn't impress me.

    The Scott is phenomenal. It is stiff, lively and comfortable. It has quick cornering and just flies when you jump out of the saddle.

    Try one. You won't be disappointed.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: merckx56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    616
    Scott is a superlite, super stiff monocoque construction while the OCLV is still using the old school tech from the first generation that Trek ever produced. Granted, the Treks have gotten better and are lighter now, but they still are kind of dead riding and won't be nearly as stiff as the Scott. Not hating on Trek for all of you Trek dorks, just stating facts. And yes, I've ridden both extensively, so don't ask the question or make the stupid comment...

    If my Ridley breaks again, I'm getting a Scott....
    Pretty much here just to piss you off...

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    98
    I test rode the Trek 5200 in the parking lot of the LBS and was immediately ready to take it back. I own a Scott CR1 Pro which shows which bike I preferred. The Felt F2C was a close second. Another bike in this same price range to consider is the Specialized Tarmac Expert. It is a great looking bike and rides GREAT.

  7. #7
    Cycling Boob
    Reputation: omniviper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    844
    i test rode the cr1 and it was really lively. unfortunately ive never tried trek's 5200... maybe the stickers and decals on the cr1 does the trick?

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    715
    I've got a 5200, and I love it, but it is an old design, and hopefully well beaten by most newer top end bikes.

    So quit yer trolling... ;)

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: merckx56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    616
    Yeah, stickers make the ride...

    What is shocking to me is the diehard Trek dorks haven't chimed in with, "It's the best bike ever...Lance rides one...!"
    Pretty much here just to piss you off...

  10. #10
    glutton for punishment
    Reputation: peterpen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by merckx56
    Scott is a superlite, super stiff monocoque construction ...
    ummm, don't think the Scott is monocoque. Tubes, wrapped and glued at the joints.

    The Scott is certainly nice-looking and light - personally I'd wan't a replaceable derailleur hanger on a bike that expensive...

  11. #11

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by peterpen
    ummm, don't think the Scott is monocoque. Tubes, wrapped and glued at the joints.

    The Scott is certainly nice-looking and light - personally I'd wan't a replaceable derailleur hanger on a bike that expensive...
    You are correct. The Scott is a lugged frame with the tubes "welded" into place. I really don't understand the whole carbon welding process but then again, there are lots of things I just don't understand. ;) Ask my wife.

  12. #12

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by merckx56
    Yeah, stickers make the ride...

    What is shocking to me is the diehard Trek dorks haven't chimed in with, "It's the best bike ever...Lance rides one...!"
    Speaking of Trek dorks... I saw one the other day that takes the cake. He was of course riding the required Trek 5200 and he was completely clad in Discovery kit from head to toe. He had the helmet, jersey, shorts, gloves and he even had his Discovery socks on I almost thought he was the man until I noticed the tummy poking out from under the Discovery jersey.

    It started my ride out with a good chuckle.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: merckx56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    616
    Sorry, I was thinking of the Team Issue frameset...my bad!!

    As for the trolling comment,

    It isn't trolling if it's true...
    Pretty much here just to piss you off...

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: merckx56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by Max-Q
    Speaking of Trek dorks... I saw one the other day that takes the cake. He was of course riding the required Trek 5200 and he was completely clad in Discovery kit from head to toe. He had the helmet, jersey, shorts, gloves and he even had his Discovery socks on I almost thought he was the man until I noticed the tummy poking out from under the Discovery jersey.

    It started my ride out with a good chuckle.
    Welcome to the lives of most of the folks around here who go to the "pro shop" in the neighborhood...
    There's one guy who comes out on Friday nights for the beer ride on a full on team TT bike with the full kit...Let's just say I'm not laughing with him...
    Pretty much here just to piss you off...

  15. #15

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by merckx56
    Welcome to the lives of most of the folks around here who go to the "pro shop" in the neighborhood...
    There's one guy who comes out on Friday nights for the beer ride on a full on team TT bike with the full kit...Let's just say I'm not laughing with him...
    There is another guy around here that always makes me laugh. Every Monday night group ride he shows up wearing his US Postal jersey. And I mean EVERY single ride he wears that same jersey. Then at the the state RR championship I actually spotted him and once again he was wearing that USPS jersey during the race.

    I'm guessing he only has one jersey. Or maybe he has a closet full of them. I'm beginning to wonder if he has hundreds of USPS jerseys. I'd like to ask him sometime but he always seems like a non-approachable pr!ck.

  16. #16

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    The Scott CR-1 frames are made by tube to tube joining. The tubes are accurately mitered for perfect fit, then glued to keep them in place, and finally wrapped for reinforcement. There are no lugs involved as the joints form an almost single coherent part together with the tubes. The end result is basically a monocoque frame, but put together in stages.

    This process currently has the best potential to produce a strong yet very light frame. Compared to truly monocoque it also allows a manufacturer to offer custom geometry and better optimize every tube for its specific function.

  17. #17

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,859

    All frames are monocoque

    Quote Originally Posted by divve
    The Scott CR-1 frames are made by tube to tube joining. The tubes are accurately mitered for perfect fit, then glued to keep them in place, and finally wrapped for reinforcement. There are no lugs involved as the joints form an almost single coherent part together with the tubes. The end result is basically a monocoque frame, but put together in stages.
    Um... by this definition, most filet brazed steel frames are also "basically a monocoque", because they use precisely coped (not mitered - look it up) tubes are brazed together, and then extra filler is built up to reinforce the joint..

    Oh yeah, I forgot, all bicycle frames are monocoque. Monocoque literally means "single body" - a structure in which the outer "skin" supports all or most of the load. Since the outer walls of the frame tubes are the load supporting members, all frames are monocoque.

  18. #18
    Resident Dutchbag
    Reputation: rogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,864
    .....
    Last edited by rogger; 08-10-2011 at 10:36 AM.
    Originally posted by thatsmybush:
    I can only speak for my self, but if Fergie wanted to rub her lovely lady lumps on me, I could play the role of "human stripper pole."

  19. #19

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    I know what it means in the strict sense of the word. We're talking about carbon bike frames. In my explanation I simply used the terminology that's commonly understood amongst cyclists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark McM
    Um... by this definition, most filet brazed steel frames are also "basically a monocoque", because they use precisely coped (not mitered - look it up) tubes are brazed together, and then extra filler is built up to reinforce the joint..

    Oh yeah, I forgot, all bicycle frames are monocoque. Monocoque literally means "single body" - a structure in which the outer "skin" supports all or most of the load. Since the outer walls of the frame tubes are the load supporting members, all frames are monocoque.

  20. #20

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,859

    Scott CR-1 monocoque ... NOT

    Quote Originally Posted by divve
    I know what it means in the strict sense of the word. We're talking about carbon bike frames. In my explanation I simply used the terminology that's commonly understood amongst cyclists.
    Cyclists understand that a frame that is made by glueing together a set of individual tubes is a "monocoque"?

  21. #21
    glutton for punishment
    Reputation: peterpen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark McM
    Cyclists understand that a frame that is made by glueing together a set of individual tubes is a "monocoque"?
    I'm not buying that, nor Scott's other marketing non sequitur of "carbon welding."
    but then I also don't buy that using lugs on carbon frames is inherently inferior. Works pretty well for Look and Time, two of the best frames you can buy. Colnago's aren't supposed to be too shabby, either.

    However, we've drifted pretty far from the OP. The Scott is apparently a terrific bike. It has a large head tube, and steep SA's in the smaller sizes, so keep that in mind.

    And I know several people who race new Treks and they don't find them "dead" - I think that was a problem with early iterations but not the newer models. Snobs like myself may not find them terribly cool, but I regularly get beat in races by a guy riding a 5200 SL (or maybe it's a Madone?) - doesn't seem to hold him back.

  22. #22

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    As stated in my original post the tube to tube joining method creates an almost single coherent unit between the tubes. That's what separates this technique from simply gluing or using a lug. FEA also shows that the forces aren't interrupted like in a lugged construction.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  23. #23

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    All the frames you mention don't even come close in the stiffness to weight ratio. It's not about making a "better" riding bike. It's about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity. The possibility to make fully custom frames on a very small scale with this method shouldn't be disregarded either.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterpen
    I'm not buying that, nor Scott's other marketing non sequitur of "carbon welding."
    but then I also don't buy that using lugs on carbon frames is inherently inferior. Works pretty well for Look and Time, two of the best frames you can buy. Colnago's aren't supposed to be too shabby, either.

    However, we've drifted pretty far from the OP. The Scott is apparently a terrific bike. It has a large head tube, and steep SA's in the smaller sizes, so keep that in mind.

    And I know several people who race new Treks and they don't find them "dead" - I think that was a problem with early iterations but not the newer models. Snobs like myself may not find them terribly cool, but I regularly get beat in races by a guy riding a 5200 SL (or maybe it's a Madone?) - doesn't seem to hold him back.

  24. #24
    glutton for punishment
    Reputation: peterpen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by divve
    All the frames you mention don't even come close in the stiffness to weight ratio. It's not about making a "better" riding bike. It's about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity. The possibility to make fully custom frames on a very small scale with this method shouldn't be disregarded either.
    Numbers, please. If you're going to reduce a frame down to only the weight v. stiffness ratio, then let's see some real numbers - and no, stuff produced by Scott USA's marketing department doesn't count. Maybe Velo Magazine has some relevant tests? I found one they did on cranks.

    Custom is a interesting point (and isn't this method what Parlee uses?) but I'm not aware that tube and lug construction doesn't offer the same possibilities. Plus I'm of the minority opinion that custom isn't really necessary, except for the freakishly proportioned or those wedded to specific components (ie, 'I have to have a 140mm stem - otherwise I can't carve turns the way I like,' etc etc.)
    However, it's interesting to note that some of the Saunier Duval riders use posts with extreme set-back to overcome the steep SA - which would seem to indicate that their Scott frames are not custom.

  25. #25
    TZL
    TZL is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    146
    I found the Felt F2c (i'm assuming your taking about the 05 lower modulus frame) not the most inspiring frame ever, but i rode the f1c frameset (higher modulus frame) and that was an AWESOME frameset

    If i switched away from Giants, it would be to a Felt F1c frame.........also try the Giant TCRs and TCR Advanced while you at it
    Giant TCR Composite, Campy Record 10 Carbon w/ DA10 7800 cranks, Zero Gravity 05-Ti Brakes, Lew Sydneys, FSA K-Wing, FSA-OS-115 Stem, Speedplay. 6300grams/13.88lbs

    Giant TCR Team Aluminum, Easton EC90SL Fork, Shimano DA9, Mavic Ksyrium SL

    Giant MCR Aero, Easton Aero Fork, Easton Carbon controls, Spinergy X-Aero Extralights (yes, dangerous, i know!)

    Also Giant MCM Team and Giant NRS Team Composite

    85,000 gram rider.........

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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.