roshea

No - see post above yours. He hit a parked car.

nycphotography

Do you (or he) have a reference to said "minimal impact test requirements to be legally sold in the US"?

ninjaman

It seems like Polar computers might be the culprit...

Strong Bad

Check this site:
https://bustedcarbon.blogspot.com/
Plenty of brands represented.

.:Jimbo:.

So far, not a single Scott Addict picture in this thread. Just sayin'....

patentcad

What's up with the Scott bashing?

coldass

The answer is simple...
A pandemic of failed carbon frames and parts would yield threads here left-right and center. The link someone posted here showed some obscure carbon parts and mostly failed alloy cranks.

Scott makes great bikes and have helped pioneer a new generation, perhaps. I can say for sure they were one of the first that made Carbon from the east mainstream and helped set a course the rest are on. Go Scott go and thanks!

MONGO!

According to this site the Addict (cx frame in this case) performed very well in stress test and got their "Top Performance" rating.

https://www.efbe.de/testergebnisse/ra...p?typ=3&sort=4

celerystalksme

well, it was curious...

naturally, he thought bikes manufactured by his employer were the most well designed bikes in the business. he went on to say pretty much everyone makes fine bikes. and many bikes such as cervelo deserve the the praise and recoginition they get from cycling enthusiasts. but i took the bait..."only pretty much everyone? who doesn't make a good bike?" to which he told me scott's are absolute utter garbage. and went on tell me about all the scott failures in stress tests...the only bike to fail on them every single test.

celerystalksme

that's what he said...he said not only did scotts fail to live up to his employers test standards, but further more did not even meet ASTM WK464 or ASTM F2711 - 08 standards of frame testing, required by Consumer Product Safety Commission for bikes to be sold in the US. he went on to say he had no idea how the high end scotts were being sold in the US.

monporn

i hope you DO know that Cav's frame is not your normal off the peg frame. it is heavier than a normal one because it is just Cav.
you can ask him if you like...his back up is a regular one though, i think..

that said, however, i doubt there would be many CF frames that would survive high speed crashes or prangs with cars.
if you can keep your arse upright and not bump into ****, you will never damage your frame..i do not see how it matters that Scott just passes these stress test thingies of your mate's. during normal application they seem fine.

BHBiker

My barometer of a company's trust in their product is in issuing a Lifetime Limited Warranty (original owner only and crash not covered). If a company is willing to give you L.L.W., then they are hedging their bets that their products are worth the long haul. A L.L.W. is a big ask for the company who needs to replace it after a thorough investigation by a rep. There is a reason why not all bike companies give LLWs.

Of course if you crash it then its entirely a different thing. Thats not covered.

Now, about your source, are you sure its a not a case of sourgraping? If Scott's quality is sub par....we would have known about this earlier on...nothing escapes BF. My honest guess....this is just another false claim...its common here in BF. In thi case the false claim is the source of this information. Your friend that blurted this info out.

roadwarrior

The Addict is a professional racing frame. To a pro team with Scott sponsorship, these are disposable. Break, crash, whatever, there's a semi load of frames awaiting use that replace what's lost. The analogy I use with customers is, this is like putting a NASCAR engine in your car. It's pretty cool with all the horsepower, but be prepared to rebuild it every 600 miles or so.

An acquaintence of mine, a national road champ and former Olympian, had one. He raced it in the Masters National Road Championships at 11 pounds. Told me, "this is a one crash bike."

I guess if you are purchasing this bike retail and have the disposable income to replace a pro frame, go for it.

The people to whom I've sold bikes similar to this, they have the disposable income to replace the frame if it breaks from a non-warranty incident.

Pros don't care if it breaks. They just want it light and reasonably comfortable.

wideAMG

like i said i have nothing against scott.
i have pics of exploding pinarellos too.

scott makes some of the lightest frames on the market
question is when do you sacrifice durability for lightness?

patentcad

This isn't even anecdotal. This is anecdotal and presumptuous. Just because the bike is light doesn't mean it won't survive a crash. What's that former Olympian basing his supposition on? A gut feeling? I mean, unless he crashes the bike, how will he ever learn if the bike is a 'one crash bike'?

As always, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the chicken little talk and the shills. But I'm a Cervelo Shill, so I can't vouch for Scott.

But we digress. That new prototype Cannondale they're racing in Europe looks awful nice RW.

joejack951

Not sure if you are serious, but if you read in context I was referring to your strength and mileage as compared to a pro, which you admittedly are not. You are welcome to challenge any of them if you so desire

Bobby Lex

IMO Scott's warranty sucks.

https://scottusa.com/download/09bike/...ral_gb_web.pdf

In a nutshell: 5 years on the frame*
2 years on the fork*

*only if you follow the annual maintenance plan, conducted by
an authorized Scott dealer

BTW, what kind of "maintenance" would a frame require, anyway**********???

Bob

roadwarrior

Yeah it does. How do you think they remove weight? By making the tube walls as thin as they can. In a pro frame, that does not matter. If you buy one, it does matter.

It's not a supposition...it's because he's in the business and has ridden and abused to death, everything. He rides them to see how much abuse they can take until the break. Then they get tossed and he gets another. He rode the Scott because he could get the weight down to a ridiculous level.

Yeah, the new Super Six is nice.

Sinn

Yeah. It looks like it is either the case that the Addict frame is vindicated or that it is so expensive that few people ride it and thus few people have a chance to blow it up or that it is so expensive that people guard it from crashes with their lives. I don't know. But it is reassuring that there have been no picks of Addicts with just cracked downtubes from rocks hitting them, for example. It makes me a bit more comfortable buying one over a Felt F1, which seems to be a bike frame that is light, not as light as the Addict, but a bit more beefy.

Sinn

Totally tongue-in-cheek.

But, challenge accepted.

Sinn

From what I've heard, Scott does not offer that. Only a 3 year warranty. Have you heard different?

Sinn

OMG! shill

patentcad

I still have to wonder how many customers are really ever going to break their Scott racing bikes, but point taken.

When do you think that Super Six will be in the stores? Next summer as a 2010 model?

In the meantime I am seriously digging the S2. My LBS doesn't sell me crappy bikes. If they're pushing it, it's a great bike. FWIW, they sell Scott, but they were really advocating the S2, then the Super Six, and the Scott Addict wasn't something they particularly tried to convince me to buy. Those Scotts are the lightest bikes on the planet, so I suppose it's a trade-off. So maybe the 1% chance you'll break it is worth it : ).

Sinn

On Cavedish's Addict:

https://www.velonews.com/article/88105

It is not stock; the carbon frame has been modified. But many in Columbia Highroad chose to ride the stock frameset.

mocella

From last year's TX Tough Crit in Dallas: