# Tell me true...



## 4bykn (Jan 28, 2001)

Okay, the CR1 is on my short list, along with the Giant TCR composite, of potential purchases next fall after I save some money. I've seen nothing but good reviews for the Scott, but I saw one poster here (in the general forum) call the CR1 "fragile". Does he have a reason I wonder? Or is it just another case of anonymity talking out of his butt?


----------



## Crazy Attacker (Jan 31, 2005)

fragile????
could you be more specific?


----------



## petzi-baer (Sep 21, 2005)

There is two major complaints:

1.) short warranty
2.) RD hanger isn't replaceable 


petzibaer


----------



## Crazy Attacker (Jan 31, 2005)

short warranty is it 5 years? 
hanger isn't replacable: did you ever broke one on a previous bike? In which case you can broke your hanger?


----------



## petzi-baer (Sep 21, 2005)

Crazy Attacker said:


> short warranty is it 5 years?
> hanger isn't replacable: did you ever broke one on a previous bike? In which case you can broke your hanger?


No need to discuss this with me - I bought the bike ...


petzibaer


----------



## 4bykn (Jan 28, 2001)

*My bad....*



Crazy Attacker said:


> fragile????
> could you be more specific?


This is from a guy with 3 posts. http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=426751&postcount=38


----------



## kewlnitrox (Aug 27, 2005)

*CR1 Fragile?*

I have read some "horror story" posts about a couple of guys cracking their CR1 top tube/head tubes and getting the frame replaced on warranty. Can't remember where I found them and can't seem to find them again.

I figured if I looked hard enough I can find horror stories on any bike. Bottomline is that the CR1 is pretty hard to beat in terms of "bang for the buck" and I have not yet heard a 1st hand account of it being fragile.

Generally carbon bikes are not as "sturdy" as steel or alloy bikes, and I believe Scott has a shorter warranty on the CR1 compared to their alloy bikes. Then again, there is a ton of reasons to go for carbon over alloy, so...


----------



## petzi-baer (Sep 21, 2005)

I have been out of bike's for some time. Now that I am back into it, I found that Carbon rules the world (sort of). The last time around (about 15-20 years ago) steel was the only way to go and alu the newcomer for road bikes. All the arguments you hear now against carbon were used against alu back then (Breaks easy and if it breaks it just snaps with no warning etc etc).

Now Alu is proven technology and none of the arguments come up against it anymore, they got passed on to carbon

petzi-bear


----------



## petzi-baer (Sep 21, 2005)

petzi-baer said:


> I have been out of bike's for some time. Now that I am back into it, I found that Carbon rules the world (sort of). The last time around (about 15-20 years ago) steel was the only way to go and alu the newcomer for road bikes. All the arguments you hear now against carbon were used against alu back then (Breaks easy and if it breaks it just snaps with no warning etc etc).
> 
> Now Alu is proven technology and none of the arguments come up against it anymore, they got passed on to carbon
> 
> petzi-bear



Coming back from ride where I had a bad chain-suck, I think I am more concrened about durability of the frame. The limiter wasn't setup right by the shop I bought it. Not sure what to the frame though ...


petzibaer


----------



## Crazy Attacker (Jan 31, 2005)

Wasn't setup right by your LBS and now the frame is spoiled?
Go back to the LBS!!!
Regarding the frame I have no worry about the strenght.
Cheers


----------

