Time VX Edge vs. Scott CR1
Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    19

    Time VX Edge vs. Scott CR1

    I think I have narrowed my new mike choices to the Time VX Edge or the Scott CR1. Can anyone tell me about these bikes.

    Any info on build quality
    BB stiffness
    ride quality
    Stability

    Thanks
    TM

  2. #2

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Thadimire
    I think I have narrowed my new mike choices to the Time VX Edge or the Scott CR1. Can anyone tell me about these bikes.

    Any info on build quality
    BB stiffness
    ride quality
    Stability

    Thanks
    TM
    I cant comment on the Time but i do own a 05 CR1 and its fantastic. But i would say that wouldnt i?

    Build quality you dont get better, and the fact that it is made in a unique way shows through in its finish. Attention to detail is 100% Look around the tubes and theres not a single imperfection.

    B/B stiffness is something ive never felt i could coment upon, i never felt any flex in my Specialized frame. OR SO I THOUGHT. The first ride i had the Scott it was noticably stiffer, ill be honest i cant tell if its the B/B or the rear triangle. When out of the saddle a giving it everything ive got it feels much more rigid and is straight as an arrow.

    The ride quality is a question that can be a very personal choice, as above i do feel that the whole thing is stiffer than a Specialized Aluminium frame and the carbon certainly does dampen out some of that road buzz. "But" and its a big "but" the road dampening is only at a certain frequencies. Some surfaces are noticably smoother and yet others theres no benefit carbon at all.

    Read any Review on the CR1 and you will see that the reviewer remarks upon how light this frame is, and likewise, the reveiwer will comment upon how stable it is at breakneck speeds considering this feather weight status. The only crititscm i would have however is that it has a huge front side profile in comparrison to most bikes. I have the Team issue which has Ksyrium SLs they alone have a rather large side profile with there bladed spokes. But add that to the incredibly huge width on the fork and in a side wind you can be in trouble. Dont get me wrong, this is fine if you are battling against consistantly breezy conditions but i live in an area in the U.K. where winds are very blustery, and sudden changes in side winds are common. Still it is winter right now and im sure things wont be so bad in the spring summer or autumn.

    In conclusion:
    Build quality - not equaled by anything ive seen
    BB stiffness - perfect
    Ride quality - (has alot to do with component choice) but otherwise much smoother than aluminium and a joy to be perched upon.
    Stability - very stable at speeds if not a little scary in bustery crosswinds.

    I LOVE IT. I LOVE IT. I LOVE IT.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: teoteoteo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,779

    Ridden both....

    Quote Originally Posted by Thadimire
    I think I have narrowed my new mike choices to the Time VX Edge or the Scott CR1. Can anyone tell me about these bikes.

    Any info on build quality
    BB stiffness
    ride quality
    Stability

    Thanks
    TM

    I have a pair of good rides on both. Scott is stiffer in BB but loses on ride quality to the Time. I don't know if I could give an edge either way in terms of stability but hands down I would buy the time. In terms of durability and quality I give the edge to the Time. I was passed on some 411 by a pro team wrench that a mentioned that the Scott's were a tad too delicate. Two days later my friend picked up a Frenchman (We were in France together my friend was driving while I was riding ahead) walking his CR1 which had a failure at headtube fork juncture while he was descending. His injuries were pretty minor but that crash coupled with the wrench's words made me a little leery.

  4. #4

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by teoteoteo
    I have a pair of good rides on both. Scott is stiffer in BB but loses on ride quality to the Time. I don't know if I could give an edge either way in terms of stability but hands down I would buy the time. In terms of durability and quality I give the edge to the Time. I was passed on some 411 by a pro team wrench that a mentioned that the Scott's were a tad too delicate. Two days later my friend picked up a Frenchman (We were in France together my friend was driving while I was riding ahead) walking his CR1 which had a failure at headtube fork juncture while he was descending. His injuries were pretty minor but that crash coupled with the wrench's words made me a little leery.
    Is there a substaintal difference in the stiffness between the Time and Scott. I am 195lbs and I wanted something that would sprint well. My other option was a BMC.

  5. #5

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    891
    How tall are you? % body fat? Messurements?

    I personally really like the Time bikes, I think they are the HOTTEST line of bikes on the market right now. Granted though they might not be the best fit for you.

    you also need to take into consideration that the setup of each bike is slightly different and that will play more of an impact on your choice of bike then 'does it sprint well?" because unless you're 5'8 195lbs and its all in your legs with some amazign lungs/heart to boot you're not going to 'out sprint' either of these frames.

    Have you had a fitting done yet? Do you know what setup you need to get? TT?DT? Reach? all that fun stuff.

  6. #6

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    43
    [QUOTE=teoteoteo]I have a pair of good rides on both. Scott is stiffer in BB but loses on ride quality to the Time. I don't know if I could give an edge either way in terms of stability but hands down I would buy the time. In terms of durability and quality I give the edge to the Time. I was passed on some 411 by a pro team wrench that a mentioned that the Scott's were a tad too delicate. Two days later my friend picked up a Frenchman (We were in France together my friend was driving while I was riding ahead) walking his CR1 which had a failure at headtube fork juncture while he was descending. His injuries were pretty minor but that crash coupled with the wrench's words made me a little leery.[/QUOT

    The Scott is far from delicate, try www.efbe.de they are the industries suppliers of fatigue testing equipment for frame manufacturer, the Scott CR1 frame, admitidley last years, scores in the highest stress situation. Part of my reason for purchasing one.

  7. #7

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    That test doesn't tell you anything about impact resistance. As mentioned the Scott indeed likes to brake off behind the head tube. The seat post clamping area on the Scott is paper thin and vulnerable to cracking, and the glued in aluminum BB thread shell risks breaking loose if you use the commonly recommended torque from BB manufacturers. If I recall correctly Scott recommends no more than 35N/m. Personally, I don't think that frame is suitable for 195lbs.

  8. #8

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    287

    CR1 - 195 lbs

    Heard from 2 guys about their CR1 testrides - one is 185lbs and thought the bike wias stiff, but its very light feel did not give him confidence. Thought it was twitchy. The other guy is less than 150 and loved it. The bike had hyperon wheels on the bike - and he said he bought it on the spot.

  9. #9

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    63
    It seems the CR1 is a great one season light race frame. I'm in the process of building a Time Edge and I don't get the same feeling about this frame. It is light, but seems quite sturdy, in the Time fashion. I know from riding the Time Elite, it was stiff, but allowed raod absorbing comfort as well. And the Edge is supposed to replace that frame in the Time line. I personally when considering the weight of the rider would go with the Edge.
    It's not normally like this...

  10. #10

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    19

    So what is the Edge really like

    Quote Originally Posted by amontillado
    It seems the CR1 is a great one season light race frame. I'm in the process of building a Time Edge and I don't get the same feeling about this frame. It is light, but seems quite sturdy, in the Time fashion. I know from riding the Time Elite, it was stiff, but allowed raod absorbing comfort as well. And the Edge is supposed to replace that frame in the Time line. I personally when considering the weight of the rider would go with the Edge.
    I will be buying a Time Edge (I think) can you tell me why you choose this frame? No one sells Time in the Richnmond area, so one can not test ride the bike. I have tested the Orbea Onix and the Fondriest Domino (04 model). The Fondriest is my runner up bike. Can you compare the time to other one of this bikes? I am very interested in ride quality,how stable it is at high speed, how well it climbs, and drive train efficiency. The folks at Belmont Wheel Works in Mass (I used to live in NH) said that the Edge is stiffer in the BB than the Onix, but does not have that dead ride of the Onix, any thoughts on this statement?

    Thanks
    PS I am 195 pounds

  11. #11

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    63

    The Edge

    I've not had a chance to ride mine yet, mostly built last night. However, if it rides at all like the VX Elite I had, then it will be a great road absorbing ride with the necessary stiffness to put all of your energy into moving the bike. Also, as a side note, when I weighed the Edge and the Elite frames yesterday morning (frame, fork, headset, and stem) I found the Edge to be slightly onver a pound lighter than the elite. The other thing, I talk with Belmont Wheelworks on a weekly basis as we sell product to them, I would trust their assessment of any bike. If you have any other questions let me know. And I'll post the ride differences between the Elite and the Edge once I get it assembled (and as much as winter/ rollers can tell me).
    It's not normally like this...

  12. #12

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    63

    pics coming soon

    My Edge is nearly complete, just fine tuning the shifting and stretching cables. I'll post some pics to show it off. I have to admit that with it's matte finish, it is a sweet looking bike.
    It's not normally like this...

  13. #13

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    19

    Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by amontillado
    My Edge is nearly complete, just fine tuning the shifting and stretching cables. I'll post some pics to show it off. I have to admit that with it's matte finish, it is a sweet looking bike.
    I have pretty much made up my mind to get the Edge

  14. #14

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3

    Scott is very durable

    Quote Originally Posted by amontillado
    It seems the CR1 is a great one season light race frame. I'm in the process of building a Time Edge and I don't get the same feeling about this frame. It is light, but seems quite sturdy, in the Time fashion. I know from riding the Time Elite, it was stiff, but allowed raod absorbing comfort as well. And the Edge is supposed to replace that frame in the Time line. I personally when considering the weight of the rider would go with the Edge.
    How did you come to the conclusion that the Scott is a great one season light race frame?
    I would not believe a word of anyone saying that the Scott is fragile. Go to www.efbe.de and check out the fatigue tests. Scott tests among the highest, infact better than more well known US brands known for their durablity.

    I do not work for Scott, ride a Scott and do not sell them. I did work for a shop that now sells them and I helped doing the homework before the shop decided to include them in the stables. I can tell you that Scott is a company that is poised to become a great option to some of the bigger US makers. Look at the bikes and equipment on their euro site to see whats to come in the future.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: teoteoteo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Zirius
    How did you come to the conclusion that the Scott is a great one season light race frame?
    I would not believe a word of anyone saying that the Scott is fragile. Go to www.efbe.de and check out the fatigue tests. Scott tests among the highest, infact better than more well known US brands known for their durablity.

    I do not work for Scott, ride a Scott and do not sell them. I did work for a shop that now sells them and I helped doing the homework before the shop decided to include them in the stables. I can tell you that Scott is a company that is poised to become a great option to some of the bigger US makers. Look at the bikes and equipment on their euro site to see whats to come in the future.
    Fatigue is one thing but carbon just doesn't hold up to impact. It's something every carbon owner has to live with. End of story. As for great option I'm still a skeptic because the fact is they can't deliver the carbon bikes or frames in any respectable quantities.

  16. #16

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by teoteoteo
    Fatigue is one thing but carbon just doesn't hold up to impact. It's something every carbon owner has to live with. End of story. As for great option I'm still a skeptic because the fact is they can't deliver the carbon bikes or frames in any respectable quantities.
    Carbon just does not hold up to impact? Carbon does hold up to impact if engineered correctly. Are you still riding a steel fork?

    You are a skeptic because they can't deliver in any respectable quantities? How do you know that they aren't in so much demand that they are just that hard to get? Almost any new product comes out in small numbers at first till they can figure out how and where they can cut corners.

    The fatigue tests should prove that some serious engineering has been involved with the development of the bikes that scored so high and that should give you an idea of how they will hold up to impacts as well.

    In over 10 years working for shops that do a lot of high end carbon sales I have not seen an impact failure. I am aware there are failures, thatís not a question. I'd have to say its rare though. I bet that most failures were do to an impact or past impact with a fixed object.

    As for the BB shell's and thin seat tube issues. Yea, these were problems on carbon bikes 10 years ago. They really aren't things that should be worried about on carbon bikes now unless someone is over tightening as stated.

  17. #17

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    Your contention that a frame which scores high in that test must also be strong, unfortunately isn't correct. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you take a CR1 for a little mountain biking against an MTB that has scored lower in the same test. I'm pretty sure which of the two will survive longer.

    (It's not necessary to crash on the test to prove my point, although you probably will when the CR1 brakes in half )

  18. #18

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    63
    To answer a previous question about my view that the Scott is a one season race frame. I have seen the test run in germany for fatigue and I'm quite familiar with fatigue analysis (nuclear engineer in a past life). So when I look at a test that only provides fatigue data for pedal strokes and doesn't address the other stresses that a bike frame goes through I am then wondering where and what that data would show, ie the head tube stresses from out of saddle riding and regular on the hoods riding. Additionally, I noticed that Scott only has a 3 year warrenty for the frame and 2 for the fork. It may be that this frame is fine for the long haul, but there are valid questions that I haven't seen any anwers to. I've no problems to being proven wrong however, I'm always up to learn and analyze new stuff.

    And to address the strength of carbon that was also mentioned in a different post. I have just finished building my own Time Edge and after I cut the carbon steerer for the fork I thought it would be fun to crush it in my vise to see what would happen and how much force it took to break the carbon. This isn't the really high end fork from time with the carbon braces in the steer tube, this is just a tube of carbon and plastic. I needed a cheater wrench on the vise handle to eventually crush the tube so that the sides were touching. When I released it from the vise it sprang out to form a somewhat ovalized circle. I cannot with my hands force it back to get the sides to touch....(I'll post some pics this evening of the test piece as well as my new bike, just cause it looks so sweet) I'm absolutely amazed at how strong it is and that the failure wasn't catostophic (sp?). So the arguement about impact resistance is silly. The only material that can be repaired (sort of) from any significant impact is steel. Carbon is quite strong and the issues from 10 years ago have been addressed. Even, and know some will cringe, but the cheap carbon manufacturing from asia is pretty decent today (like the new fuji products). I also watch my boss ride a Time carbon frame and he's not a small finesse rider (<200 lbs and spins squares while wrestling the bike for control), if carbon can withstand the abuse he gives it is endorsment enough for our shop!
    It's not normally like this...

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: teoteoteo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Zirius
    Carbon just does not hold up to impact? Carbon does hold up to impact if engineered correctly. Are you still riding a steel fork?

    You are a skeptic because they can't deliver in any respectable quantities? How do you know that they aren't in so much demand that they are just that hard to get? Almost any new product comes out in small numbers at first till they can figure out how and where they can cut corners.

    The fatigue tests should prove that some serious engineering has been involved with the development of the bikes that scored so high and that should give you an idea of how they will hold up to impacts as well.

    In over 10 years working for shops that do a lot of high end carbon sales I have not seen an impact failure. I am aware there are failures, thatís not a question. I'd have to say its rare though. I bet that most failures were do to an impact or past impact with a fixed object.

    As for the BB shell's and thin seat tube issues. Yea, these were problems on carbon bikes 10 years ago. They really aren't things that should be worried about on carbon bikes now unless someone is over tightening as stated.
    Since the bike isn't new (been selling them in Europe remember?) the cutting corners thing doesn't really stand-up. Scott USA changes their answers on the bike availability and such. Demand isn't high, supply is low.

    Why take this so personally--you seem a tad defensive. I never said I hate all carbon or steel is real. 10 years in a shop is great but keep in mind you never know what
    experience level the people reading, or posting on the other end have.

    The CR1 failure I saw while working in France was very bad. I too have seen plenty of sheared carbon framess but this one took the cake as the rider only hit a rough patch while descending. Not a parked car, or a wall. He wasn't overweight, or inexperienced, just skinned up and walking his mess of a bike. In my many number of years working with carbon bikes, shops, and the pro race scene I've never seen a failure that bad. Fluke? Maybe. But at the same time I'd also heard of some failure issues on the models being sold in the EU.

    Not smoking gun evidence by any means but people should know that when they drop big coin for a flyweight rig that is pushing the engineering envelope they may give up some durability and longevity too. Have you ever had the pleasure of trying to smash a carbon tube verse say a Ti tube? I have and it made an impression. At the same time I've owned mutiple carbon bikes and I'm sure I'll own more.......people should just know what their getting into.
    Last edited by teoteoteo; 01-27-2005 at 06:33 AM.

  20. #20

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,601
    Just ask team Gerolsteiner if you want to know about more front ends braking off. They were riding Scotts last season as well. As teo mentioned it's not about carbon specifically. It's more a case of a manufacturer pushing things to the limit.

  21. #21

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    19

    So how do you like the Edge?

    I just purchased a Time Edge. I have not had a chance to build it up yet. I was wondering what is your opinion of the ride? How would you compare it to last year's Time bikes? Do you have pics of your new ride?

    As soon as I get mine built I will post pics.

  22. #22

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Thadimire
    I just purchased a Time Edge. I have not had a chance to build it up yet. I was wondering what is your opinion of the ride? How would you compare it to last year's Time bikes? Do you have pics of your new ride?

    As soon as I get mine built I will post pics.

    I like it much better than last year's Elite (of which I owned). The bike itself is over a pound lighter (frame set). On a trainer, it seems to be just as stiff. We'll see once I can get some real road miles in. I will be playing on my rollers soon and that might tell me what the differences are. I'll post pics tonight of the build.
    It's not normally like this...

  23. #23

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    43

    Here we go again.

    The CR1 failure I saw while working in France was very bad. I too have seen plenty of sheared carbon framess but this one took the cake as the rider only hit a rough patch while descending. Not a parked car, or a wall. He wasn't overweight, or inexperienced, just skinned up and walking his mess of a bike.
    Yeh but you never saw the rider hit a wall the day before. Or the accident he had the week previous. No bike breaks because it just hits "a rough patch" other than perhaps prototypes. This is a frame and fork combo that has been sold for a couple of years now if there was a problem it would no longer be manufactured.

    Clearly Scott cant be producing many because they are concerned about the liability insurance. Right ?

Similar Threads

  1. Colnago C50 v. Scott CR1
    By elviento in forum Scott
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-29-2009, 09:04 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-11-2005, 08:15 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-02-2004, 03:29 PM
  4. MY test ride on a Scott CR1 team issue
    By crossracer in forum Scott
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-12-2004, 10:47 AM
  5. Keep the OCR or go for the Time VX special pro
    By Synapse in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-25-2004, 10:24 PM

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.