Scott CR1 Pro



cPritch67

New Member
Apr 12, 2004
285
0
0
patch70
My bad with the Colnago statement. They may or may not have been tested at their facility. I am curious to find a list of what other makes they tested. I will try and get in touch with them.
 

jsull14

New Member
Nov 26, 2005
244
2
0
I test rode a CR1 today and all I can say is WOW!!! Light as a feather. Feels stable and has a comfortable geometry.

If I had $5K laying around I'd be the proud owner.
 

jimmer23

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
57
0
0
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.
1. The original poster was asking for opinions, and I gave mine. Go away.
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.
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. For reference the Scott tested only behind the Canyon F10, Cervelo R3, and Storck Scenario. I think Tour is a better judge than your heresay.
4. Most pro's ARE weightweenies - FACT. How many do you thnk for example ride LightWeight wheels, or run AX-Lightness or Tune components? Just for starters let's count the pros that use LightWeight brand wheels (courtesy of CarbonSports and WW). Is it a coincidence that these pros all use what is considered the lightest tubular wheelset on the market rather than their sponsor wheels?
1. Jan Ullrich
2. Lance Armstrong
3. Laurent Jalabert
4. Tyler Hamilton
5. Stefano Garzelli
6. Kurt-Asle Arvesen
7. Marco Pantani
8. Mario Cipollini
9. Natascha Badmann
10. Oscar Camenzind
11. Frank Vandenbroucke
12. Jörg Ludewig
13. Bjarne Riis
14. Gilberto Simoni
15. Andreas Klöden
16. Georg Totschnig
17. Joseba Beloki
18. Peter Van Petegem
19. David Millar
20. Daniële Nardello
21. Matthias Kessler
22. Erik Zabel
23. Steffen Wesemann
24. Johan Museeuw
25. Benjamin Levecot
26. Alexander Vinokourov
27. Christophe Moreau
28. Isidro Nozal
29. Oscar Sevilla
30. Giovanni Lombardi
31. Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano
32. Zoulfia Zabirova
33. Frank Hoj
34. Paolo Bettini
35. Patrick Sinkewitz
36. Aitor Garmendia
37. Fernando Escartin
38. Alex Zülle
39. Johan Coenen
40. Julian Winn
41. Robert Bartko
42. Alejandro Valverde
43. Luke Roberts
44. Malte Urban
45. Niki Aebersold
46. Kim Kirchen
47. Bergit Hollmann
48. Franz Stocher
49. Romans Vainsteins
50. Thomas Frishnecht
51. Enrico Franzoi
52. Radomir Simunek
53. Simon Zahner

You HAVE to be a WW if you are a pro, your statement is laughable. Any edge they can get they will take, it's a fact of life. The closer they can get to toeing that line the better, it's a simple matter of physics. Further, the people on the WW site are far better educated than the average "Joe" here (no offense meant to anyone with something intelligent to say). I'm here about every other month now because I got sick retarded questions like "Will cycling make me grow taller?" or "Why don't I see more cyclists wearing MP3 players?". The gene pool here is shallow indeed...

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.
 

Insight Driver

New Member
Jun 26, 2003
494
2
0
69
jimmer23 said:
1. The original poster was asking for opinions, and I gave mine. Go away moron.

I agree with the facts in your post. I agree with your point of view, as well. I do think, though, that a kinder, gentler tone could have been used to get your point across.

Are pros using the lightest stuff they can? Yes.

Is there an advantage to light weight? Yes.

Is the Scott CR1 Pro a great bike? Yes.

enough said.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
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.
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:
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.
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?)

Also, given that both are light frames, the difference overall is minimal. 200 grams less from the frame is still only about 0.3% weight reduction for the entire package that has to go up those hills.

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?

In case you hadn't noticed, wheels ROTATE. Changes in weight in rotating parts of the bike are more relevant (as is where the weight is placed on those rotating parts).

Ride a 7kg bike with lighter wheels and heavier frame and a 7kg bike with lighter frame and heavier wheels and see if they feel the same weight...

Thus your list is not relevant to the argument that the Scott is better. What is perhaps more relevant to your point is the much longer list of pros that don't ride 6.8kg bikes.

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.
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.

Finally, you really need to deal with your anger management issues. Getting so worked up because somebody doesn't agree with you says a lot about you as a person.
 

rocko

New Member
Feb 18, 2004
70
0
0
48
Thanks for the opinions people. I test rode a Specialized and it was great, going to test ride the Scott and a Trek Madone on Saturday morning. Will decide from there. Must say I would be swayed by the light weight but only if it felt comfortable to ride.
 

dhk

New Member
Sep 1, 2003
2,259
0
0
75
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.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
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.
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.
 

watford3

New Member
Jul 11, 2004
6
0
0
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?
 

Road Toad

New Member
Aug 31, 2005
37
0
0
Watford, the CR1 pro comes with an Ultegra crank (not low quality) and IMO is worth the extra money.

I have done one stage race, a few crits and road races, and about 3,000 training miles on mine since I got it in October and am in love with it. It is incredibly responsive and I feel as though I am getting excellent power transfer to the wheels. Not to mention it is light and comfortable. Just my 2 cents.
 

kleng

New Member
Jan 17, 2006
482
0
0
Hi

In Australia, the Giant TCR Advanced, has been selling like hot cakes, combination of Giant best carbon frame and full ultegra groupset.

http://www.giant-bicycle.com/au/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?model=10030

This seems better spec than the british bikes.

Regards
Ken



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?
 

deckard

New Member
Feb 22, 2006
74
0
0
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.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
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.
Wait to see where your bike and his bike are in 3 or more years.
 

deckard

New Member
Feb 22, 2006
74
0
0
patch70 said:
Wait to see where your bike and his bike are in 3 or more years.
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.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
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.
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.
 

dhk

New Member
Sep 1, 2003
2,259
0
0
75
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.
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.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
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.
I'm only talking frame - everything else will probably be more or less equivalent.
Giant frames are made (in Taiwan) to be cheap, not to last a long time. It's why their bikes are often referred to as "disposable".