Scott versus Trek

did you check the difference between the geometries . one bike may have a more upright positioning or a longer wheel base than the other . these things may play a part in your decision . only you know what is best or most comfortable for yourself .trek , giant have lots of money for R&D , that's for sure . I would most likely go for the scott , but I've seen the scott at my LBS - very nice bikes . If I had a choice though I would take a closer look at a 2010 FELT F 4 with Ultegra . Felt may be a bit more aggressive in it's positioning , but if it is it would not be by much . my son just purchased a 2010 felt f 4 brand new for 2200.00 plus tax . IF he did not find the felt , he would have purchased a scott .

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by maddogbubba [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

did you check the difference between the geometries .

Good advice. Generally, you can determine the "aggressiveness" of a geometry by comparing the length of the top tube to the height of the head tube. F'rinstance, I used to ride a 58 cm Felt F5 (58.2 cm top tube, 16 cm head tube), I now ride a M/L Giant TCR (57.0 cm top tube, 17 cm head tube), and were I to ride a CR1, it would be a 58 (57.5 cm top tube, 18.5 cm head tube). So the Felt is most aggressive, the CR1 the least, and the Giant somewhere in the middle.

Scott and Giant both make fine bikes, but I prefer the TCR because I love the fit and feel--not especially stiff, but springy and lively. Felt F-series frames are great, too, but a shorter, taller frame usually works better for long-legged builds (me) or those with flexibility issues (about 80% of the people I ride with).

Test ride each bike and check out the reviews on roadbikereview.comroadbikereview.comOpen ↗ . Then make your decision.