# Scott vs BMC



## kiwilad (Aug 26, 2009)

Hi need a little help. 
Are about to purchase next bike....have either Scott Addict or BMC SLC01 in mind. Leaning towards my second BMC, anyone have some advice???
Are 6.1 and 95kegs if this helps.
Cheers


----------



## dadoflam (Jan 19, 2008)

Wait until March and get the new BMC SLR01 Team Machine all the nice things about the SLC01 with a little more stiffness and a little less weight - basically the two things that the Scott has over the SLC01 - without the style of the BMC though


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

agreed...the current pro machine isn't very stiff. it's a nice ride, but it's heavier and softer than many ofthe frames, and at the old msrp was really spendy. the new frame should be better for someone of your size and weight. or, buy the addict. a guy i work with is 6'6" and is riding the addict w/ the intergrated seat mast and LOVES it...he's a bit lighter than you, but thinks the seat mast doesn't move around as much as a non-integrated seat post which is the whole idea behind the ISM.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

dadoflam said:


> Wait until March and get the new BMC SLR01 Team Machine all the nice things about the SLC01 with a little more stiffness and a little less weight - basically the two things that the Scott has over the SLC01 - without the style of the BMC though


I agree but at this level of bike it really doesn't matter. They will all ride, handle, etc. wonderfully and the weight difference is a total non issue. What matters is which bike speaks to you. Personally the Scott is babble to me. I understand BMC!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Mel Erickson said:


> I agree but at this level of bike it really doesn't matter. They will all ride, handle, etc. wonderfully and the weight difference is a total non issue. What matters is which bike speaks to you. Personally the Scott is babble to me. I understand BMC!


fine if you view riding as a mystical, transcendent experience. If you buy a bike on the basis of performance, the Scott wins easily.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> fine if you view riding as a mystical, transcendent experience. If you buy a bike on the basis of performance, the Scott wins easily.


Yeah, right. As soon as a bike wins a race without a rider I'll agree. And maybe, just maybe, comfort, fit, geometry and a whole host of other factors are all part of performance, not just stiffness in a certain part of the frame and a miniscule amount of weight. They're both great bikes and the new BMC will be a great bike, too. I'm just saying at this level it's the aesthetics that make the difference to me.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

I have always found BMC to be less common and more beautiful to look at. You have ridden one, so I guess your next bike will be a BMC.


----------



## Lookbiker (Sep 2, 2006)

I had a BMC SLC 01. Great frame, really comfortable and stiff enough to get the job done. Landis won (well, sort of) the Tour riding it so it was plenty stiff for me. If you look, you can get some good deals on the SLC (list price is steep).


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

You've got to ride a Scott for a bit. I have a Parlee Z4, a bike most reviewers drool over. I also have a Scott Addict R3. For me, no comparison. The Addict wins hands down. When I realized how good the Addict is (for me), I also realized that I will never care about what a bike looks like anymore - just how it rides.

I've also test ridden a Storck Absolutist, and was not impressed. Block'a wood.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Purely on aesthetics, I'd go with BMC. It might be nice to test ride each one before laying out that kind of money.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I agree with most of the people on here--if you are buying on performance the Addict is clearly better. If you want something that looks cool and is uncommon, the BMC. I'd get the Addict even though I really love the look of BMC.


----------



## dadoflam (Jan 19, 2008)

Taking my 'I lover BMC' hat off for a moment - I think the Scott would be a better choice if absolute efficiency through stiffness matters to you but this may be at the cost of long-ride comfort unless you are elite level. If you a an all-day century rider or hill climber the BMC has the degree of comfort that makes all the difference at the end of the day but certainly stiff enough to do the job. I think the video review at Competitive Cyclist of the SLC01 is a good summary of what that frame is all about.

For me at this stage the SLR01 is looking like being very competitively priced relative to other options in that part of the market place and have reviewed exceptionally well in Ride magazine (who completely dissassemble all bikes reviwed and include comments on build quality) Besides shedding about 250 grams over the SLC01 frameset it is also stiffer. The 2009 SLC01 normal retail was close to $6K AUD (although bargains coulde be negotiated) - the SLR01 will be $5500 AUD


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

Seen too many friends with a Scott that had to get warranty work on the frame. I think Scott is a stiff and light bike but stops there. Its not compliant at all. Due to QC issues frankly I'd stay away....they use a lot of resin. Safety first.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I have a Scott CR1 that worked great for 5 years, before it got relegated to the garage (I need to build it up and sell it). My wife has one that is also still going strong (and hasn't been replaced). No warranty issues, and would buy again.

Then again, if you're worried about warranty issues the BMC would be a bad choice due to the silly-short warranty for a high-end frame. The Scott warranty is pretty decent, but there are a few makers who offer lifetime warranties on carbon (ex: Trek, Cervelo, Cannondale).


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

A friend that owns an LBS and sells Scott (one of his biggest sellers) says the frames might fall apart in a year's time and are pretty much ****, but they sell. Other than that, they are decent race frames. I personally like the way BMCs look and my friend who has one loves it.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

MarvinK said:


> I(ex: Trek, Cervelo, Cannondale).


...and Giant but no longer Specialized.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

bwhite_4 said:


> A friend that owns an LBS and sells Scott (one of his biggest sellers) says the frames might fall apart in a year's time and are pretty much **** ...



Remind me not to shop there! What a lousy shop that continues to sell a brand they don't believe in. Our Scott bikes have held up really well--from carbon road bikes to kids bikes. No complaints. Scott makes the very nicest kids bikes, too... which is really cool.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

mimason said:


> ...and Giant but no longer Specialized.


Specialized dropped their lifetime warranty? Wow, too bad.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

California L33 said:


> Specialized dropped their lifetime warranty? Wow, too bad.



i looked on their website but cannot confirm this now. I got the original info from a bike dealer. The next time I see him I'll ask the source of this.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the 2010 slr01 might change the game - shows the limitations of the previous frames (heavy, not stiff) amazing what a high-level team can do to demand in a frame. Will be interesting to see if BMC rolls out a new TT bike as well.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

Too bad the SLR01 loses a lot of what BMC is best known for: looks

I think its ugly, and looks like a cheap knock off of a Felt AR.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

Please know that Scott Addicts have forks that, while lightweight, are EXTREMELY thin...and IMO not safe for any type of aggressive riding or racing...you can literally push on the sides of the fork and watch the CF flex...not laterally rigid at all.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

bahueh said:


> Please know that Scott Addicts have forks that, while lightweight, are EXTREMELY thin...and IMO not safe for any type of aggressive riding or racing...you can literally push on the sides of the fork and watch the CF flex...not laterally rigid at all.



Ya... luckily Columbia only has one decent rider who requires a special fork (Cavendish). Even big George managed with a standard fork... or maybe he didn't and the constant fear and stress of the Scott forks breaking was why he switched teams.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

MarvinK said:


> Too bad the SLR01 loses a lot of what BMC is best known for: looks
> 
> I think its ugly, and looks like a cheap knock off of a Felt AR.


you sure you're looking at the right model? The new slr01 doesn't look anything like the Felt AR (doesn't have wheel cutouts or other aero elements). It's an elegant looking frame.


http://www.bmc-racing.com/en/us/bikes/road/teammachine/slr01-red/images/


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> you sure you're looking at the right model? The new slr01 doesn't look anything like the Felt AR (doesn't have wheel cutouts or other aero elements). It's an elegant looking frame.


I realize the BMC doesn't have any aero features, I guess its the super-short seatstays that make me think of the AR2. The lack of aero features that most manufacturers are starting to add to their high-end frames must be why I think it looks like a cheap knockoff. I love the look of the SLC01, but the SLR doesn't appeal to me at all. Elegant is definitely not a word I would use to describe it.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*well, that's a productive response..*



MarvinK said:


> Ya... luckily Columbia only has one decent rider who requires a special fork (Cavendish). Even big George managed with a standard fork... or maybe he didn't and the constant fear and stress of the Scott forks breaking was why he switched teams.


I'm sure everyone here appreciates the "expertise" and witty insight you provide...
I personally don't give a sh*t what the pros do or why they do it...its my life on my gear, not theirs.

the OP asked for opinions of a Scott Addict..that is what I had to provide. did I say the bike sucked? hardly.
Its a consideration....that is all. try reading comprehension instead of trying to impress us all with your knowledge of what gear pro riders choose to ride on....


----------



## kiwilad (Aug 26, 2009)

*Cheers*

Thanks to all for your wisdom.
Went to LBS and was quoted $5900NZD for 2010 SLC01 with ultegra...
As I am in love with the black white colourscheme of 2009 and not fussed on the 2010 SLC01 or Addict colours I will wait to see what 2011 holds.

Many thanks again!


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> Specialized dropped their lifetime warranty? Wow, too bad.


They haven't:



> Where might I find information on your warranty policy?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.specialized.com/ca/en/bc/sbcfaq.jsp


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

They did drop it to 5 years, and now its back to lifetime.


----------



## AWILSON (Sep 20, 2008)

I just picked up a Addict last week and have only ridden it outdoors once due to the weather, but my first impressions are very good. It is very stiff and I really like the handling. I ride with a club that is sponsored by Scott and almost everyone has a Addict or CR1 and nobody has had any warranty issues. I did see someone break a chainstay in a crash, but he was 200+lbs and did 2 rolls while still clipped in.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

AWILSON said:


> I did see someone break a chainstay in a crash, but he was 200+lbs and did 2 rolls while still clipped in.


No Excuse! It should last 3 rolls, minimum


----------



## cwdzoot (Oct 16, 2005)

MarvinK said:


> Too bad the SLR01 loses a lot of what BMC is best known for: looks
> 
> I think its ugly, and looks like a cheap knock off of a Felt AR.


No way does a Felt look anything like the SLR01. 

I have a lot of close up pics in my review, check them out.


----------



## Indurain (Mar 6, 2004)

The lugs on the BMC looks very industrial.


----------



## mnro57 (Apr 21, 2010)

Hi Guys,
I'm a newby herre. I am lucky to have both bikes hanging from my ceiling in my study Room. They are a 2006 Scoot CR1 Pro and a 2009 BMC SLX01 Racemaster. They are both very different bikes all together. The Scott is far much a smoother ride on any surface, whereas the BMC is abit rough on the not so smooth stuff. Being much stiffer than the Scott means that I can ride the hill little better due to stiffness even though its a kilo heavier. My Scott weighs 6.9kg and I have had no issues with it even though I weigh over 200lbs. Its as smooth as the day I bought it. The BMC is a very quick bike indeed even without the Scott Zipp wheels I have. If you are only riding on the smooth stuff then the BMC comes into its own. I have been told that the new SLR Team Machine is 12% stiffer than the Racemaster. I did ride the Pro machine but found it too sloppy. Its either the SLR or the Racemaster if you are pointing towards the BMC. If comfort is the key for you then the CR1 is the one hands down. Take Care


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

they asked about the slc01 not the slx01, I have de scl01 and it is not sloppy at all, i think you need to lose some weight.


----------



## mnro57 (Apr 21, 2010)

thanks Malanb
very true, i totaly lost track of mind, i could have spoken more about the slc than the slx but figured the slx is far more superier to it, especially when pushing big power through the cranks, you can really feel the flex in the frame, whereas in the slx I do not feel a thing. The slc may be lighter but I beleive the slx is a much faster bike. My weight has nothing to do with it.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

The SLX01 is aluminum glued to carbon fiber. Not a great combination for long-term durability.


----------



## lobular (Jan 10, 2008)

I currently ride a 2009 Scott Addict R2. My previous bike was a Cervelo R3-SL. Why did I change?, the Addict is a better bike in my opinion. I've also ridden it for 10hrs and in no way shape or form is it uncomfortable. It is stiff, light and handles unbelievable. Do yourself a favour and test ride one. I've ridden the BMC, it did nothing for me.


----------

