# Scott bikes: Any thoughts on quality?



## rebop (Mar 3, 2011)

Considering an upgrade from Trek 1000 after many years of good cycling. I was looking at Cannondale Synapse Carbon 6 Apex but at the bike shop I saw the Scott CR1 Team bike with a carbon frame and Shimano 105 group. Anyone have any experience with or knowledge of Scott bikes? Thanks for your help.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I'm biased, since I'm a Scott dealer.

I had a CR1 Pro and I loved it. I only sold it because it was winter and I needed money. It's a damn light bike, and pretty comfortable.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Scott*



rebop said:


> Considering an upgrade from Trek 1000 after many years of good cycling. I was looking at Cannondale Synapse Carbon 6 Apex but at the bike shop I saw the Scott CR1 Team bike with a carbon frame and Shimano 105 group. Anyone have any experience with or knowledge of Scott bikes? Thanks for your help.


I would refer you to the HTC Columbia team. They race Scott bikes in events like the Tour de France. Tony Martin just won Paris-Nice on a Scott bike. They seem to work OK.

At your price point, the bikes will be fairly similar so it is all about 1) getting a good fit, 2) working with a good shop, and 3) going with a bike that appeals to your sense of taste, whatever that is.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

I never thought I'd catch Kerry out on anything, but for 2011, HTC is on Specialized.

But they did win a lot on Scotts.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

Richard said:


> I never thought I'd catch Kerry out on anything, but for 2011, HTC is on Specialized.
> 
> But they did win a lot on Scotts.


That'll teach him to venture out of his element.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> I would refer you to the HTC Columbia team. They race Scott bikes in events like the Tour de France. Tony Martin just won Paris-Nice on a Scott bike. They seem to work OK.
> 
> At your price point, the bikes will be fairly similar so it is all about 1) getting a good fit, 2) working with a good shop, and 3) going with a bike that appeals to your sense of taste, whatever that is.


They do? I think you better check your facts there shooter. I put this in the same vein as someone who argues incessantly that there is no difference between an open tubular and a vulcanized tire.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Past tense*



Mr. Scary said:


> They do? I think you better check your facts there shooter. I put this in the same vein as someone who argues incessantly that there is no difference between an open tubular and a vulcanized tire.



They DID 

My main point to the OP was that Scott makes top of the line bikes but that is not his issue.

If you are implying that I have argued "that there is no difference between an open tubular and a vulcanized tire" then you are misrepresenting my view. My "argument" is that any tire maker can call anything they want an open tubular and there is no accepted definition for that. Just because somebody calls a tire an open tubular does not give it any special properties. You can use any tire construction and manufacturing technique you want and then call it an open tubular.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

rebop said:


> Considering an upgrade from Trek 1000 after many years of good cycling. I was looking at Cannondale Synapse Carbon 6 Apex but at the bike shop I saw the Scott CR1 Team bike with a carbon frame and Shimano 105 group. Anyone have any experience with or knowledge of Scott bikes? Thanks for your help.


I don't have any first-hand experience with carbon, but their aluminum Speedster has been a great bike for me thus far.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

I rode a CR 1 for a season. It was ok. Very light. Fair handling. Somewhat fragile feeling. I never felt like I could just forget the bike beneath me with that one..It was somewhat loud and hollow sounding and a bit wiggly going really fast downhill in the mountains. Had to mess with the headset. Had to be really careful adjusting everything or changing components.

A good 'ultra-light', I guess. They went a little 'too light' in my opinion, but if you are careful, it won't break.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

Once was at a demo day and many top end frames were cut in half to exhibit their make up. There were Serottas, Colnago Time a few others Look and a Scott Frame.. The Time and Colnago were finished inside like the outside-- perfect. The others were ok mostly well done. The stand out for me was the Scott --It was so poorly mitered and the gaps were filled with yellow goo that I was surprised they were showing it.. The worst by far and I would never own it. Maybe things have changed but the Colnago and Time were far away much better .


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

ciclisto said:


> Once was at a demo day and many top end frames were cut in half to exhibit their make up. There were Serottas, Colnago Time a few others Look and a Scott Frame.. The Time and Colnago were finished inside like the outside-- perfect. The others were ok mostly well done. The stand out for me was the Scott --It was so poorly mitered and the gaps were filled with yellow goo that I was surprised they were showing it.. The worst by far and I would never own it. Maybe things have changed but the Colnago and Time were far away much better .


 That is what prompted me to sell that CR 1, seeing a section....Also, our team got deals on Colnago CX-1's so I was very happy to see the back of that Scott without problems.

My local shop had a cut-a-way Scott frame...and it was as ciclisto says....sloppy 'fit' on the 'junctions' where the tubes were supposed to meet..stuck together inside with what looked like hot glue...dabs of snotty looking stuff that didn't even attempt to fill the gaps in the poorly mitered tube 'junctions' (I put quotes around those words because I join things in my job as a carpenter, and those are not really joints on the CR-1 that I saw) This was a few years ago, so maybe they've got some better craftsmen by now..

After seeing that, I never again trusted the integrity of that frame. Every time I hit a big bump at speed or grabbed the brakes at 45mph coming down a mountain, or rammed it through an intersection during a Crit......I would remember what kinda "joints" were holding me off the pavement... Scary, but I survived a whole season and about 10k tough miles on the frame, so they do work, at least for me.


----------



## farva (Jun 24, 2005)

I rode a CR1 for 3 years. I thought it was a great bike. The finish & details seem just fine to me. The only thing I found suspect was the use of pop rivets on the FD braze on, but they never caused any trouble. The older versions had no replaceable RD hanger which was not good. Newer ones apparently do. Also the older versions had more aggressive race geometry until the Addict came along in 2007. From then on the CR1 has a more relaxed "performance fit". I've had plenty of high speed incursions with large potholes on my cr1. Wrecked 1 wheel in the process but the frame always remained solid. Keep in mind that this is a sub 1000g frame so you are going to have to expect it to be slightly more susceptible to crash damage or garage "mishaps" than something with thicker walled tubes. I've never seen the inside of similarly priced/weight frames from other manufactures but I'd suspect their internal "cleanness" is probably not much different. Even though it might not look pretty, if it is properly bonded the raw material will yield before the joint fails. That's how you'd want an assembled product to fail in destructive testing. Bottom line it doesn't really matter how perfect the internal joints are if the surrounding material fails first at an acceptable load


----------



## miurasv (Jun 4, 2010)

ciclisto said:


> Once was at a demo day and many top end frames were cut in half to exhibit their make up. There were Serottas, Colnago Time a few others Look and a Scott Frame.. The Time and Colnago were finished inside like the outside-- perfect. The others were ok mostly well done. The stand out for me was the Scott --It was so poorly mitered and the gaps were filled with yellow goo that I was surprised they were showing it.. The worst by far and I would never own it. Maybe things have changed but the Colnago and Time were far away much better .


When was this? Was the frame a CR1 or an Addict? I'm concerned about whether my 2008 R4 is safe to ride after reading this.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

miurasv said:


> When was this? Was the frame a CR1 or an Addict? I'm concerned about my whether my 2008 R4 is safe to ride after reading this.


Really? The thought didn't occur to you that might be why a made in Italy Colnago or a TIME frame is double the cost of the Scott?


----------



## miurasv (Jun 4, 2010)

Mr. Scary said:


> Really? The thought didn't occur to you that might be why a made in Italy Colnago or a TIME frame is double the cost of the Scott?


I just thought they charged double because they can and have a nice paint job.  Seriously, Colnago are my favorite bikes. The Scott frames may be half the price but still expensive and sloppy workmanship, bad design or manufacture that could compromise safety, *IF that is the case here*, still unacceptable at any price level. However, the way they look internally is of no importance if they are still structurally sound, strong and safe. So what's the situation here?

https://s255.photobucket.com/albums/hh129/miurasv/Colnago EPS 2010/


----------



## Ibashii (Oct 23, 2002)

Scott frames are much more common over here (Europe), and ASFAIK there have not been any controversies surrounding frame durability. Where I live Time and Look are by the far the most common road bikes around, but Scott is right there in the race for third; if they were poorly made and dangerous this would not be the case.

FWIW, however, I think the US price points are a bit of a gouge job.


----------

