|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
PanFan wrote:
Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? It doesn't look that stupid according to this test: http://www.efbe.de/erenn.htm I wouldn't call it a "quantum leap" though... other frames are pretty close in weight and strength, and more are on the way. The more important issue (regarding smartness) is what you would hope to gain with such a frame, and if the considerable cost is worth it to you. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
In article ,
PanFan wrote: Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? I can't speak to structural issues, but there are some compromises: the derailleur hanger is not replaceable, and at least some of the frame fittings are riveted on, with rather small rivets. The fork has an annoying flange and tight spacing on it that makes it impossible to use some internal-cam skewers unless the handle points down or forward, but that seems a stylistic compromise, not an engineering one. --jh -- Mr. Belliveau said, "the difference was the wise, John Hood, cgull intelligent look on the face of the cow." He was +usenet@ *so* right. --Ofer Inbar glup.org |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
I recently built up a CR1 in 56cm size. Mine weighed in at 910 grms with
cable guide, spec at 895 gms. Is it too light? I don't think I will break it because I don't put in the distance or stress that a stronger more serious rider might do. I do feel that the frame is more delicate than my other bike a 1996 Trek 5500. The tubes are much thinner especially the seat tube where the clamp goes. It you torque to much I feel that it could break. Also in a crash I would think that the tubes can fracture whereas other bikes may survive. That said, it rides great, lighter and stiffer than my 5500. With this frame it is easy to get a UCI illegal bike weight with clincher tires that is can be a daily rider and durable, cel "PanFan" wrote in message ... Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
PanFan wrote:
Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? I heard at the LBS that they had a CR1 with a sticker on it that read: "read manual B4 you ride". At the LBS they pulled the sticker off very carefully and all the paint came off. And so they made it lighter yet! Greets, Derk |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
PanFan wrote:
Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? I have not seen the best of luck with them. Of 7 or so people I know with them, 3 or 4 have had the BB shells come loose and require replacement frames. Another cracked a seatstay when the bike fell over and hit a curb, and another crashed the frame in a race. This last one was pilot error, but it came with a 4 figure pricetag. I wouldn't call the frame "stupid light" but it is a very lightweight race frame. Since the pros who they build them for get a new bike every year or sooner, why would you expect them to be durable? If they are built to be durable, they are actually not building them light enough. I don't think I'd shell out the money for one. Baird |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
PanFan wrote:
Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? Litespeed has a 770 gm Ti frame coming out Sept 1. Talk about a race to zero! Let people have their light bikes - I still have about 30 lbs to go my own frame/body before I need a lighter bike. :^) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
Baird Webel wrote in
news:eR9Me.14473$Rp5.7905@trnddc03: one was pilot error, but it came with a 4 figure pricetag. I wouldn't call the frame "stupid light" but it is a very lightweight race frame. Since the pros who they build them for get a new bike every year or sooner, why would you expect them to be durable? If they are built to be durable, they are actually not building them light enough. You make a good point about expectations about durability -- but look at the lineup of CR-1 bikes. The top of the line Limited is a racing bike, no doubt. But on the same CR-1 frame Scott also sells the Pro Ultegra, with your choice of double or triple chainrings mated to Ksyrium wheels. This combo is clearly marketed to appeal to middle-aged Freds with disposable incomes, not racing teams. And so if Scott markets to recreational masters riders, I would expect enough frame durability to handle the stresses of recreational riding and the extra 10, 15, 20 pounds of Master Fattie paunch that goes with it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
lewdvig wrote: PanFan wrote: Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable frame design ("smart light"), or is it a racing frame with a limited lifespan ("stupid light")? Litespeed has a 770 gm Ti frame coming out Sept 1. Talk about a race to zero! Let people have their light bikes - I still have about 30 lbs to go my own frame/body before I need a lighter bike. :^) Had a gent that bought a Ghasalo(sp?) on ebay. Was surprised that it arrived with a front der clamped on. Upon removal of the front der----seat tube crushed, with the fd clamp... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , PanFan wrote: Baird Webel wrote in news:eR9Me.14473$Rp5.7905@trnddc03: one was pilot error, but it came with a 4 figure pricetag. I wouldn't call the frame "stupid light" but it is a very lightweight race frame. Since the pros who they build them for get a new bike every year or sooner, why would you expect them to be durable? If they are built to be durable, they are actually not building them light enough. You make a good point about expectations about durability -- but look at the lineup of CR-1 bikes. The top of the line Limited is a racing bike, no doubt. But on the same CR-1 frame Scott also sells the Pro Ultegra, with your choice of double or triple chainrings mated to Ksyrium wheels. This combo is clearly marketed to appeal to middle-aged Freds with disposable incomes, not racing teams. And so if Scott markets to recreational masters riders, I would expect enough frame durability to handle the stresses of recreational riding and the extra 10, 15, 20 pounds of Master Fattie paunch that goes with it. _ Why? The frame only has a one year limited warranty. How does putting less expensive components on the bike make the frame more durable? You might expect those things, but I don't see how they can be compatible with one of the lightest frames available. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQwN9amTWTAjn5N/lAQGE5gP+L8EE7oDBxeyDtdDd/BnUX+H0JLDOM/F2 pvpI90ycxoCTcBuO2o2wpr8IQLbcsk0si/cb1ZHx75LKg9csnTbQ5SDeiCFW3iOM 8sOq+ZkHnyySMvdh+IQ2c3ZrgXGt/nXzVhpbQLrMrMSmTeH7w2bJbmd9KAnK4PSb Ej4xqSwFa9M= =yqJd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leave Ed Alone, It's Not Him,he's not Johnny NoCom | Not Johnny NoCom | Recumbent Biking | 133 | January 5th 05 04:44 AM |
how many Usenet posters | MattB | Mountain Biking | 19 | June 6th 04 03:38 PM |
LED headlights? | David L. Johnson | Techniques | 129 | January 21st 04 03:30 PM |
cheapskates's helmet light | john cop | Techniques | 12 | September 29th 03 03:52 PM |
Daylight Bright Bicycle Tail Light | Laurence Dodd | Australia | 0 | September 17th 03 04:36 AM |