1. The original poster was asking for opinions, and I gave mine. Go away.patch70 said:By way of counterpoint:
(1) You can't say that the Scott is better for the OP given that you do not know which bike will fit them better.
(2) 200 grams of non-rotating weight saved is probably about 0.3% of the total weight of bike & rider. Most normal riders could easily afford to lose more than 200 grams in body weight. If you need to do it in a hurry, take a couple of mouthfuls of food or drink less or take a laxative. Or fill your drink bottle a little less.
(3) If you are a pro and cannot lose 200 grams, then you will be UCI weight restricted to a 6.8 kg bike which will be easily achieved with the Scott or the Specialised or many other options.
(4) Why would you equate weightweenies with people that "actually know what they're talking about"? Someone who is willing to spend hundreds of dollars to save a few grams on a stem, for example, is telling us a lot more about their personality and the size of their nether regions than they are about their knowledge of bikes. You might also find that the pro riders are almost without exception not weight weenies and will very often choose bits of equipment that are stronger or more comfortable at the expense of a few grams.
jimmer23 said:1. The original poster was asking for opinions, and I gave mine. Go away moron.
Since both the bike and the rider have to go up those hills, both weights are important. If you can lose 500 grams in body weight, that is more beneficial than losing 200 grams of NON-ROTATING weight with a lighter frame. Also, 200 grams is not much. You can easily **** 200 grams. You can easily take 200 ml less fluid when riding and get the same difference.jimmer23 said:2. We weren't talking about body weight, I was talking about bike weight. The closer you can get to the UCI min (or well under if you're not racing), the better. What, do you reccomend I lose 15lbs of body weight and instead ride a 30lb bike - is that the same? Pure ignorance.
The second sentence is just your opinion. You don't accept my opinion, so why should other people accept yours? Bicycle magazines are not always objective in their rankings as advertising deals and other perks will often lead them to promote one particular brand. (How many bad reviews do you see in bike magazines?)jimmer23 said:3. It is far easier to reach that lower weight with a Scott than a Specialized. Further, the quality, stiffness, and general raceability of the Scott is lightyears beyond the Specialized in terms of a top-tier frame. See the recent Tour mag tests for some perspective.
jimmer23 said:4. Most pro's ARE weightweenies - FACT. How many do you thnk for example ride LightWeight wheels, or run AX-Lightness or Tune components?
Without test riding them, this is just guess work. What suits you may not necessarily be the right fit or design for the OP. They need to try them out and see what works for them. Bike fit and feel are far more important to the average punter than 200 grams reduction in frame weight.jimmer23 said:Back to the original poster: if you can get the Scott for the same price as a Trek or Specialized it's a no-brainer, go for it you won't be disappointed.
Very good points. It's also worth remembering that they get ~4 new road frames each year. I would like my frames to last me ~5 years at least so the lightest frame may not always be the best option in that respect.dhk said:Just my opinion here, but what pros ride has nothing much to do with what you and I should buy, despite the best attempts of the manufacturers (and Bicycling Mag) to convince us otherwise. Face it, it's great business for them to convince everyone that they need to buy the lightest (and most expensive) race equipment. After all, not much profit in building stuff just for pro racers.....there are a relative few of them in the world vs. millions of us recreational riders.
We can compute the value of saving 200 grams on a frame when climbing, or 200 grams of rotating weight in a wheelset when accelerating from 20-40 mph. If you're a pro, whose paycheck and future could depend on a second at the finish line, it may be significant. Guys who get their equipment free, and have professional mechanics to inspect and throw away wheels, tires and anything else after every race just don't have much in common with how I want to spend my money.
watford3 said:I liked your note: I have two questions and would greatly appreciate your advice: (a) I am deciding between Giant TCR comp 1 and (b) Scott CR1 Pro. Frame technology aside, the Giant comes with FSA carbon cranks and Mavic Equipe and Scott comes with lesser quality cranks but Mavic Elite wheels. If you had to pay $500 more for the Scott, is it worth it over the Giant? Also, I plan to buy FSA Compact cranks and put on either bike. I think they now sell a shimano ten speed version. should be ok?
Wait to see where your bike and his bike are in 3 or more years.deckard said:I have a 2005 Giant TCR 2, have about 2000 miles on it and it still runs flawless. I am getting ready to purchase another bike and it will be a Giant TCR. My buddy just dropped $4300.00 on a Specialized, twice what I paid, and for what. It may have better components, weighs a little less, but he still lags behind. just my 2 cents.
Given that you are averaging only about 50 miles per week, that is not unexpected. If both you and your friend are riding that sort of distance, definitely go for the cheaper bike.deckard said:Probably the same place my older 2000 TCR Giant road bike is, running flawlessly with all the same components it came with after a good 12,000+ miles.
Have to ask you why the Giant would only last 20-30K miles, while the Specialized double that? In fact, what is going wear out on the Giant that won't wear out just as fast on the Specialized?patch70 said:Given that you are averaging only about 50 miles per week, that is not unexpected. If both you and your friend are riding that sort of distance, definitely go for the cheaper bike.
However, if you start riding the bike more like 10,000 miles per year, you'll find that the Giant is only likely to last you 2 - 3 years whereas the Specialized will probably double that. So the initial cost being 50% less does not translate into a 50% money saving.
I'm only talking frame - everything else will probably be more or less equivalent.dhk said:Have to ask you why the Giant would only last 20-30K miles, while the Specialized double that? In fact, what is going wear out on the Giant that won't wear out just as fast on the Specialized?
If you're talking frame fatigue life, there's no way anyone can begin to predict that without knowing rider weight, power, road conditions and frequency of crashes. Everything else that wears out (eg,wheels, drivetrain, brake pads, seats, handlebar tape) can be replaced easily.