# test



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Testing quality...First timer.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Bigger...


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

&[email protected]%!


----------



## Coppi51 (May 30, 2002)

Sweet ride...


----------



## bigsplace (Dec 16, 2006)

*Hey what size is that?*

All right guys... I need help! I am 6ft. 32 inseam, currently ride a 58cm Trek. with a 130mm stem and can not for the life of me figure out which size Scott CR1 bike to get... a L 56cm or an XL 58cm. Please advise....Ive looked at the numbers but that tall head tube throws me... and my actual seat height is 76.5cm center of BB to top of saddle. Every Pro picture I see with these guys on Scotts that have a whole lot of post showing.... What's up with that?


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

bigsplace said:


> All right guys... I need help! I am 6ft. 32 inseam, currently ride a 58cm Trek. with a 130mm stem and can not for the life of me figure out which size Scott CR1 bike to get... a L 56cm or an XL 58cm. Please advise....Ive looked at the numbers but that tall head tube throws me... and my actual seat height is 76.5cm center of BB to top of saddle. Every Pro picture I see with these guys on Scotts that have a whole lot of post showing.... What's up with that?



That's a 56. I am 5'10". Here are some nums from competitivecyclist.com fit calculator: Inseam: 29.5". Thigh: 24.5". Low leg: 22". Trunk: 26.75". Arm: 26".

The saddle setback was 5.5cm with the saddle level and within the stops but, about 1 cm back. Not sure how to convey that in cycling lingo. As best I could measure, the top tube (virtual) measures just under 56cm c-c. BB to saddle height measures up the seat tube to top of saddle was 74cm. 83/97 100mm stem set in 83 position. That all = a 5.5cm drop with the 2cm spacer under the stem.

I'm far from an expert on fitting matters but, fwiw, the 56 seems fine for me. Some days I wonder if the 54 would have been better while the 58 was far too big.

A couple threads down are: Scott geometry observation and Your height and which Scott size. Some good info there and some of those guys certainly know a hell of a lot more than I regarding sizing. Specifically, the head tube size of the CR1 and the virtual TT size are both addressed


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

bigsplace said:


> All right guys... I need help! I am 6ft. 32 inseam, currently ride a 58cm Trek. with a 130mm stem and can not for the life of me figure out which size Scott CR1 bike to get... a L 56cm or an XL 58cm. Please advise....Ive looked at the numbers but that tall head tube throws me... and my actual seat height is 76.5cm center of BB to top of saddle. Every Pro picture I see with these guys on Scotts that have a whole lot of post showing.... What's up with that?


The critical measurements for a CR1 are virtual top tube and head tube. A Trek race bike is going to have a head tube about 2 cm shorter than an equivalent Scott and a virtual top tube that's about 0.5 cm longer, but a seat tube angle that is 1 degree slacker . All this means that you can ride a smaller Scott. I'm 6' and I ride a 54 cm CR1 which fits me perfectly. I had a 56 cm CR1, but it was too big. My actual saddle height, center of BB to top of saddle is 77 cm (very close to your saddle height). I ride with 8cm of bar drop with a 130 mm minus 6 degree stem. At your saddle height, if you want much more than 4 cm of bar drop, you'll have to cut the steerer on a 56 cm CR1. I can guarantee you that a 58 would be too big, and I would almost certainly bet that the 54 would fit you better than a 56.

Best to ride one and then make up your mind.


----------



## bigsplace (Dec 16, 2006)

*Rock ON!!!!*

Thanks for all the info....I think the Large is the size for me... I do not like a lot of drop and I like a longer top tube... The XL is a big big bike... I wish I knew what the pro racers were on and how tall they were...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigsplace said:


> Every Pro picture I see with these guys on Scotts that have a whole lot of post showing.... What's up with that?


- I don't think your question was answered. The Trek is a non-sloping TT style frame, and the Scott is quite sloped or "Compact" frame design.

I also saw someone rec. a 54cm frame for a 6 footer. :shocked: If that size fits you, someone at Scott needs to re-size their bikes.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - I don't think your question was answered. The Trek is a non-sloping TT style frame, and the Scott is quite sloped or "Compact" frame design.
> 
> I also saw someone rec. a 54cm frame for a 6 footer. :shocked: If that size fits you, someone at Scott needs to re-size their bikes.


With compact frame design and threadless forks, the dimensions by which a bike should be measured have changed drastically from what they were 20 years ago when seatpost length and standover height were the critical measurements.

Today, it might be reasonable to say that bikes should be sized by virtual top tube length or possibly a combination of virtual top tube and head tube. Scott, Giant, and other makers of compact frames have recognized this problem and now size their bikes S, M, L, XL, etc. Unfortunately, old habits die hard and people still want to refer to a frame size in cm. A Medium Scott CR1 happens to have a 54 cm seat tube which is confusing for those who are used to conventional sizing, but a medium Scott is a good fit for many six-footers, me included. (Scott's sizing chart recommends either a Medium or a Large.)

Six footers who should choose a Large are those who don't want much bar drop. Six footers who want any more than 4 cm of bar drop should probably go with a Medium. Seatposts have plenty of adjustment, and stems come in all sorts of lengths, so the real deciding factor for a six footer is bar drop.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*You don't have to tell me. ; )*

- I sell traditional and compact bikes daily from Trek, Look, Colnago, Lemond, and Specialized. Sizing is all over the map with them all. It just seems to *me* that Scott happens to be at the extreme end of the sizing realm.

They sure have a nice looking Road lineup, can't argue that.


----------



## ganginwood (Dec 4, 2006)

*hey bigsplace*

for what it's worth. i just bought a cr1 and a system six. (my wife and i are the same size)
the system six is much roomier at 56cm than the scott. everytime i look at the 2 side by side i wonder if the 56 cr1 was big enough. i think i should have bought an xl on the scott. even when i ride it, although not terribly cramped, it does seem a bit claustrophobic, comparably speaking. 
i'm 5'11'' and a 32 inseam


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

ganginwood said:


> for what it's worth. i just bought a cr1 and a system six. (my wife and i are the same size)
> the system six is much roomier at 56cm than the scott. everytime i look at the 2 side by side i wonder if the 56 cr1 was big enough. i think i should have bought an xl on the scott. even when i ride it, although not terribly cramped, it does seem a bit claustrophobic, comparably speaking.
> i'm 5'11'' and a 32 inseam



For 56 cm frames, the Scott CR1 and SystemSix seat tubes are the same length, virtual top tube is the same length, and the Scott has a 1.5 cm longer head tube. Head tube angles are the same, and the Scott seat tube angle is 73.5 vs 73 for the Cannondale, which in effect makes the Scott's cockpit about a half centimeter longer. Appearancewise the difference is in the sloping top tube, which is cosmetic only. In terms of fit, the significant difference is the Scott's longer head tube which equates to a more upright riding position than on the Cannondale (given the same stem and spacers). All-in-all, the Scott cockpit is larger in every significant dimension than the SystemSix.

With a 32 inch inseam, your saddle height should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 71cm (BB center to saddle top measured along seat tube), which would leave only 10 cm of seatpost showing on a 54cm CR1. You should fit comfortably on a 54 cm Scott CR1 and could probably be riding a size smaller Cannondale as well. If it's not too late, I'd first get an independent expert to confirm fit on both your bikes, and then go back to the dealer and see if you can swap for a more appropriate size.


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

*CR1 sizing - I ride a 58cm CAAD4*

I am going to replace my 7 yr old Cannondale and after riding a CR1 (owner didn't know size, no sticker on frame), I want one. My C-dale has a 57.5 effective top tube and a 73/73.5 head and seat tube angles. The closest Scott size would be an XL (58) which has the same top tube length and 73/73.3 head and seat tube angles. I have a 84 cm inseam, 6 feet tall. Does this sound right?


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Cevan said:


> I am going to replace my 7 yr old Cannondale and after riding a CR1 (owner didn't know size, no sticker on frame), I want one. My C-dale has a 57.5 effective top tube and a 73/73.5 head and seat tube angles. The closest Scott size would be an XL (58) which has the same top tube length and 73/73.3 head and seat tube angles. I have a 84 cm inseam, 6 feet tall. Does this sound right?


I'm just a fraction under 6 feet tall and have an 87.5 cm inseam. I ride a 54cm (M) Scott CR1 and it's a very good fit with 8cm of bar drop and a 120mm stem. From the dimensions you provide, I'm guessing your old Cannondale is a 58 cm. Given your inseam and height, it appears to me that you've been riding a bike that's too big for you for the past seven years. A better fit in the Cannondale might be a 56 cm...which happens to match up with the 54 cm Scott in many dimensions. Of course, all this is conjecture, and the best way to go about sizing a new Scott is to ride one.

Pay close attention to the bar drop when you do test ride. I'm guessing that if you want much more than a few cm of bar drop, given your inseam, even the 56cm Scott might be too large for you.


----------



## Piles (Jun 25, 2004)

Cevan said:


> I am going to replace my 7 yr old Cannondale and after riding a CR1 (owner didn't know size, no sticker on frame), I want one. My C-dale has a 57.5 effective top tube and a 73/73.5 head and seat tube angles. The closest Scott size would be an XL (58) which has the same top tube length and 73/73.3 head and seat tube angles. I have a 84 cm inseam, 6 feet tall. Does this sound right?


That inseam sound a little short for 6ft. Are you sure thats a cycling inseam? ie On a flat surface with no shoes, hold the spine of a book tight into your pelvis (after moving equipment aside) and put your shoulder blades and the side of the book against a wall. Now tip toe over the book and walk away from the wall leaving the book pushed against the wall and measure the distance to the floor.
I know im all legs but Im 6ft and my inseam is 89.5, i ride a 56 CR1.


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

I just measured myself again: inseam 33.5 inches, height 5 11 1/2. My arms from the armpit to the tip of my fingers in 30 1/2 inches.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

What's the saddle height, reach and drop on the bike that you're comfortable riding now?


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

StillRiding said:


> What's the saddle height, reach and drop on the bike that you're comfortable riding now?


The saddle height is 30.5 inches from the center of the BB to the top of the saddle, in a line parrallel to the seat tube. 

Reach, from the center of the bar to the tip of the saddle is 22 inches

Drop is 3 inches.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Cevan said:


> The saddle height is 30.5 inches from the center of the BB to the top of the saddle, in a line parrallel to the seat tube.
> 
> Reach, from the center of the bar to the tip of the saddle is 22 inches
> 
> Drop is 3 inches.


I think you will do very well on a M (54cm) Scott CR1. Your dimensions are very close to mine.


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

StillRiding said:


> I think you will do very well on a M (54cm) Scott CR1. Your dimensions are very close to mine.


I feel comfortable on the C-dale. In comparing the effective top tube lengths, the Scott XL is actually the closest (57.5 for both), although the seat tube angle is a bit less, making the Scott's reach more than the C-dale. The L has a top tube of 56 and the Med is only 54.5. 

I realize the Med has a steeper seat tube, meaning I'd have more setback for my seat (and a roomier cockpit). Maybe the C-dale is comfortable b/c my arms are longer. I had a fitting done at a good bike shop before getting the C-dale. My road bike before that was too small and I'd hate to repeat that mistake. 

There is only one Scott dealer around my area and they have no CR1s in stock currently. The Speedster looks to have the same geometry. I'd just hate trying one out knowing I wasn't going to but it.

I'm thinking of finding a leftover 2006 frame (or a slightly used one) and getting a Dura Ace build kit for around $3000-3200 total.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Don't make the same mistake I did and sink $3000+ into a CR1 without being damned sure that you get the size right. I strongly suggest you ride a CR1 in sizes M, L, and XL. Based on everything you've written here I'm 100% certain that an XL is too large for you, and 95% certain that the L would be too large.

Fact: I ride a 56cm Cannondale, and I'm almost exactly the same size as you in height and arm length although I have a longer inseam. I ride at about the same reach and drop. When I bought a CR1, I got the L, thinking that the fit would be close to the same as my Cannondale. When I set everything up, I was disappointed to discover that I couldn't get the bar drop I wanted, even with a reversed stem and cutting the steerer tube. Fortunately I was able to swap for an M, and the M fit turned out to be perfect. Learn from my mistake.


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

I definately plan to test ride the two sizes (not even considering the XL). The Speedster has the same dimensions, according to the Scott website, so I think I'm safe test riding either one.


----------



## Cevan (Jul 19, 2004)

Actually, a steeper seat tube angle makes the cockpit smaller.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Cevan said:


> Actually, a steeper seat tube angle makes the cockpit smaller.


Since you position your saddle relative to the BB, the saddle on a frame with a steeper seat tube angle will be further aft relative to the seat tube. Because the saddle is further aft the actual cockpit measurement will be larger than the virtual top tube measurement would indicate. The opposite is true for a shallow seat tube angle. Thus a steeper angle will give a larger cockpit relative to virtual top tube, and a shallower angle will result in a smaller cockpit relative to virtual top tube.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Nice bike!!!


----------

