# Fuji or Scott



## rbadger28 (Aug 8, 2010)

I am knew to the road bike world. Have a few years MTB experience. I will try to cut to the chase. After extensive research and many rides I am between a Scott CR-1 bike and a Fuji carbon bike. I will not even list the exact models because i am open to a couple of levels on both sides (in terms of components), but both will have pretty good stuff (105 or higher) and are around 2k - 2500 price point.

The reason for this post is I really like the Scott, but have come across some really good deals at a different bike shop on Fuji. In terms of wheels and components I am finding the comparable fuji for several hundred less (almost 500), and the shop is throwing in some other incentives like cash back to be used in the store.

If the bikes truly were apples and apples, the fuji would be a no brainer due to the savings I am talking about. BUT, the guys i am working with on the Scott stuff are telling me these bikes are not even in the same ball park...that the Scott is a far superior carbon frame and that especially with me being a bigger guy, looking for stiffness, it isn't even close.

Anybody out there that can give me their thoughts on this, it is appreciated as I am trying to pull the trigger this weekend.

Thanks!


----------



## raymond7204 (Sep 22, 2008)

You're probably talking about a Fuji bike from Performance. I went with Fuji for the same exact reasons you're thinking.

First, get the one that fits/feels better. I have a Fuji SL1 which at the time was the top of the line frame. Rode great (until it cracked) but to be perfectly honest, I'd probably be as fast with lesser quality carbon and components provided it had a good fit. For bikes in the same general class, it's all about the rider.

Second, consider customer service with Fuji. Take a look at my other post about my bad experience with a cracked Fuji carbon frame. Performance Bike customer service is good but Fuji's IMO was not.

Ray


----------



## Mount Dora Cycles (Aug 11, 2009)

I sell both, The CR1 has an almost uprigght riding postion so for comfort, it would win. A Fuji SST would do you well if you race or like performance at your size. Very stiff. The CR1 is NOT very stiff. The Addict would be the stiff frame they rave about.

How many times did the Scott salesman bring up Cavendish?


----------



## rbadger28 (Aug 8, 2010)

Thanks for the info on the upright ride. I dont know if i agree about the stiffness comment though. I understand the Scott (both cr1 and addict) to be a much better carbon, both with stiffness and responsiveness.


----------



## jkuo (Mar 30, 2008)

Fuji has various grades of carbon as well. So make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Of course the guys trying to sell you the Scott are telling you that the Scott is better. Bet if they were trying to sell you a Fuji, they'd tell you the exact opposite. 

Both Fuji and Scott make up to pro-level equipment (both sponsored teams in the TdF), so it's not as if one is going to be remarkably different than the other when comparing similar models. 



rbadger28 said:


> Thanks for the info on the upright ride. I dont know if i agree about the stiffness comment though. I understand the Scott (both cr1 and addict) to be a much better carbon, both with stiffness and responsiveness.


----------



## rbadger28 (Aug 8, 2010)

I think that what i have learned through this process is that at similar price points Scott has a better frame. I think fuji has more options at entry level prices. I also believe you are right that at the pro level they both offer amazing frames that are probably just a matter of personal preference to the pros at that point. But at a 2k or 2.5k price point I think i have learned that Scott is superior. I think you need to get on the c-10 carbon at fuji to even be comparable to the frames that the cl-1 and addict have.


----------



## Mount Dora Cycles (Aug 11, 2009)

rbadger28 said:


> But at a 2k or 2.5k price point I think i have learned that Scott is superior.


Please tell me where you got this information. I'm sure you are being told a bunch of hype. Or you in fact, work for Scott and are on the Fuji section promoting them. The CR1 frame is no more superior to a Fuji SST frame or SL-1 frame. Why in the past 2 years has Scott got this reputation as "THE frame to have"? I have rode both, sell both, recommended both to different people for their different geometries and ride characteristics. To say one frame is superior to the other is ludicrous and typical internet propaganda.


----------



## jkuo (Mar 30, 2008)

The CR-1 in your price point uses a lower grade of carbon than the top of the line Addicts. I forget the details, but it's a lower grade carbon than the HMX or whatever that they use on their top stuff. For $2-2.5K, you can get a C-7 carbon Fuji which is at the moment their top of the line (I don't think they make C-10 anymore). C-7 is the same they use on the top of the line SST which is comparable to an Addict (they even have similar price points).

If you really want the Scott because you like it better, just get it. But don't try to justify it with false info given to you by bike shop employees trying to sell Scott. 



rbadger28 said:


> I think that what i have learned through this process is that at similar price points Scott has a better frame. I think fuji has more options at entry level prices. I also believe you are right that at the pro level they both offer amazing frames that are probably just a matter of personal preference to the pros at that point. But at a 2k or 2.5k price point I think i have learned that Scott is superior. I think you need to get on the c-10 carbon at fuji to even be comparable to the frames that the cl-1 and addict have.


----------



## HIMEHEEM (Sep 25, 2009)

Buy a bike for the fit and spec. There isn't enough difference in frames to make a case. 

Buy what you like, sounds like you are sold on the Scott. You will be happy with either(provided they fit).


----------

