Scott Addict users

nurul · #1 01-10.-2009

Make yourselves known and tell us about ur builds. Does anyone know if Scott released an adaptor for the R4 in the end to fit a campag crankset??

Peter@vecchios · #2 01-10.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nurul

Make yourselves known and tell us about ur builds. Does anyone know if Scott released an adaptor for the R4 in the end to fit a campag crankset??

I can tell you about the two I broke while servicing the bottom bracket. Broke the BB shell loose from the frame way before reaching the manufacturer's torque for the BB cup.

nurul · #3 01-10.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter@vecchios

I can tell you about the two I broke while servicing the bottom bracket. Broke the BB shell loose from the frame way before reaching the manufacturer's torque for the BB cup.

I bought a Scott R4 frame in January 2008. It was my first fully carbon build so I was quite excited about it all. I managed to persuade my LBS to sell me the frame from the R4 complete build as it was the only way of getting the R4 with the cool extended seat post. In fact before buy it Scott had no idea of the weight of thr R4 frame. They told me to consult a cycling magazine!!

I went ahead with the purchase. I was running a campag group with FSA c/set but to my horror the mechanics told me when mounting a campag crankset that it was not possible. I contacted Scott and they quickly told me that there was no adaptor available and there would not be one available in the future. I asked them how a client was meant to know that a frame might not be compatible with a campy crankset and they said I should ahve consulted the mechanic-s manual.......

I am still waiting for a valid answer from them......The only other answer the had was that on the website all their bikes in 2008 were mounted with Shimano so for them that meant that this was a clear enough indicator that all Scotts were only Shimano copatible in the bottom bracket area. BULL****.
This is why i run an ultegra comapct 50-34 on my addict R4. Still waiting for customer service from Scott...
As for the bike, it rides wonderfully. It's my 7th road bike experience since 1988 going from crappy steel to 531 and then to 531c throughout over to a caad3 and then to a coppi kp1 and then to the six13 and finally on to the R4. i chose the r4 over an r1 (at the same price) cos I wanted a white frame. The frame rocks. It's comfy, rigid and jumps on the climbs and alwas feels light. It plants firmly on the descents and even though it is a fe hundred grams lighter than my six13 there is something magical in the ride. In fact I was a much better rider in 2006 with the six13 finishing 11th in a 140km sportive. The six13 is just a bike which is as hard as nails but slightly nervous on the descents which I corrected by shortening the stem.
On both bikes I run campag and deda zero100 bar stem, time pedals and toupe saddles. What I don't like about the Scott is the fact that when scott present the frame weights they don't include the weight of the Ritchey stubb post which weighs 125g. The Scott R4 56cm frame is not 780g nor is it anywhere near the "lightest production frame in the world" claimed weight. I remember weighing it and the frame alone (no fork) is well over 1000g. The fork was under 400g. However, the r1-3 are considerable lighter. A friend of mine who has the r1 in the classic yellow/black with rolf vigors, speedplay pedals, full DA group etc has weighed it in at 6,995kg. Mine (all in) is 7,55kg. Ok so the HEDs are 200g more and his DA group is maybe 200g less but there is still a few hundred grams in there. Where is it?? Well I think the r1 has lighter carbon or a less dense weaver or something. But I rode hios bike the other day and it felt skittish on the descent and just neither here nor there on the flats. Peter, anyway u can locate an adaptor for the R4?? What exactl happened when u were servicing the R4? Was it the one with the IMP seat tube??

Peter@vecchios · #4 01-10.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nurul

I bought a Scott R4 frame in January 2008. It was my first fully carbon build so I was quite excited about it all. I managed to persuade my LBS to sell me the frame from the R4 complete build as it was the only way of getting the R4 with the cool extended seat post. In fact before buy it Scott had no idea of the weight of thr R4 frame. They told me to consult a cycling magazine!!

I went ahead with the purchase. I was running a campag group with FSA c/set but to my horror the mechanics told me when mounting a campag crankset that it was not possible. I contacted Scott and they quickly told me that there was no adaptor available and there would not be one available in the future. I asked them how a client was meant to know that a frame might not be compatible with a campy crankset and they said I should ahve consulted the mechanic-s manual.......

I am still waiting for a valid answer from them......The only other answer the had was that on the website all their bikes in 2008 were mounted with Shimano so for them that meant that this was a clear enough indicator that all Scotts were only Shimano copatible in the bottom bracket area. BULL****.
This is why i run an ultegra comapct 50-34 on my addict R4. Still waiting for customer service from Scott...
As for the bike, it rides wonderfully. It's my 7th road bike experience since 1988 going from crappy steel to 531 and then to 531c throughout over to a caad3 and then to a coppi kp1 and then to the six13 and finally on to the R4. i chose the r4 over an r1 (at the same price) cos I wanted a white frame. The frame rocks. It's comfy, rigid and jumps on the climbs and alwas feels light. It plants firmly on the descents and even though it is a fe hundred grams lighter than my six13 there is something magical in the ride. In fact I was a much better rider in 2006 with the six13 finishing 11th in a 140km sportive. The six13 is just a bike which is as hard as nails but slightly nervous on the descents which I corrected by shortening the stem.
On both bikes I run campag and deda zero100 bar stem, time pedals and toupe saddles. What I don't like about the Scott is the fact that when scott present the frame weights they don't include the weight of the Ritchey stubb post which weighs 125g. The Scott R4 56cm frame is not 780g nor is it anywhere near the "lightest production frame in the world" claimed weight. I remember weighing it and the frame alone (no fork) is well over 1000g. The fork was under 400g. However, the r1-3 are considerable lighter. A friend of mine who has the r1 in the classic yellow/black with rolf vigors, speedplay pedals, full DA group etc has weighed it in at 6,995kg. Mine (all in) is 7,55kg. Ok so the HEDs are 200g more and his DA group is maybe 200g less but there is still a few hundred grams in there. Where is it?? Well I think the r1 has lighter carbon or a less dense weaver or something. But I rode hios bike the other day and it felt skittish on the descent and just neither here nor there on the flats. Peter, anyway u can locate an adaptor for the R4?? What exactl happened when u were servicing the R4? Was it the one with the IMP seat tube??

Not a Scott dealer so cannot get that part if it exists. 2008 frames, conventional threaded BB not the propriatary stuff. We are service primarily so see all sorts of frames/bikes.

parawolf · #5 01-11.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nurul

What I don't like about the Scott is the fact that when scott present the frame weights they don't include the weight of the Ritchey stubb post which weighs 125g. The Scott R4 56cm frame is not 780g nor is it anywhere near the "lightest production frame in the world" claimed weight. I remember weighing it and the frame alone (no fork) is well over 1000g. The fork was under 400g. However, the r1-3 are considerable lighter.

Interesting... I've got a Scott CR1 Team Issue (2004 model). It's an XL - 58cm; and frame only it came with a sheet that had all the specifications about the frame on it. Including the weight. 906grams. I put it on my scales at home (cheapy kitchen set) says 908grams (which claim +/- 5grams at that weight).

Very happy with it. Scott discontinued the Team Issue and SL when they released the Addict as the weights were so similar. Fork is a little heavy, but it suits the style of the bike so nicely. Would like to replace it one day... but not yet.

nurul · #6 01-14.-2009

Just been in charge of a friend's 2007 Scott Addict R1 in the classic black-yellow guise.
It has rolf vigor wheels (1450g), toupe saddle, full 7800 DA group with a 12-27 on a 53-39, attack force tyres, speedplay pedals, and chunky itm unika bar stem combo. This bikes weighs in (including cages) at a nice 6,8kg. I took off his old fsa colnago aniversary cset and record squar taper BB. Saved a nice 200g. the great thing is that this guy can climb. He did the 2007 Etape in 8hrs. And he deserves the bike. What a machine!! The only radically light component he has are the Speedplay pedals but I would have gone for the time titanium.

nurul · #7 01-16.-2009

Just seen an Addict R2 in red black with bora wheels and 7800 group. 6,5kgs all in. Apparentl the white R4 has a mix of CR1 fibre and addict fibres.

Peter@vecchios · #8 01-16.-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nurul

Just seen an Addict R2 in red black with bora wheels and 7800 group. 6,5kgs all in. Apparentl the white R4 has a mix of CR1 fibre and addict fibres.

Bora wheels and 7800....I hear it crying from here.

swampy1970 · #9 01-17.-2009

I thought there was something quite humorous about "Addict users"

Time to watch "Trainspotting" me thinks...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode