Scott CR1: Smart Light or Stupid Light

PanFan said:

Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was
curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable
frame design ("smart light"😉, or is it a racing frame with a limited
lifespan ("stupid light"😉?

It doesn't look that stupid according to this test:
http://www.efbe.de/erenn.htm

I wouldn't call it a "quantum leap" though... other frames are pretty
close in weight and strength, and more are on the way. The more
important issue (regarding smartness) is what you would hope to gain
with such a frame, and if the considerable cost is worth it to you.

In article <[email hidden]>,

PanFan said:

Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was
curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable
frame design ("smart light"😉, or is it a racing frame with a limited
lifespan ("stupid light"😉?

I can't speak to structural issues, but there are some compromises:
the derailleur hanger is not replaceable, and at least some of the
frame fittings are riveted on, with rather small rivets. The fork has
an annoying flange and tight spacing on it that makes it impossible to
use some internal-cam skewers unless the handle points down or
forward, but that seems a stylistic compromise, not an engineering
one.

--jh

--
Mr. Belliveau said, "the difference was the wise, John Hood, cgull
intelligent look on the face of the cow." He was +usenet@
*so* right. --Ofer Inbar glup.org

I recently built up a CR1 in 56cm size. Mine weighed in at 910 grms with
cable guide, spec at 895 gms. Is it too light? I don't think I will break it
because I don't put in the distance or stress that a stronger more serious
rider might do. I do feel that the frame is more delicate than my other bike
a 1996 Trek 5500. The tubes are much thinner especially the seat tube where
the clamp goes. It you torque to much I feel that it could break. Also in a
crash I would think that the tubes can fracture whereas other bikes may
survive.

That said, it rides great, lighter and stiffer than my 5500. With this frame
it is easy to get a UCI illegal bike weight with clincher tires that is can
be a daily rider and durable,

cel

"PanFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was
curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable
frame design ("smart light"😉, or is it a racing frame with a limited
lifespan ("stupid light"😉?

PanFan said:

Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was
curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable
frame design ("smart light"😉, or is it a racing frame with a limited
lifespan ("stupid light"😉?

I heard at the LBS that they had a CR1 with a sticker on it that read:
"read manual B4 you ride". At the LBS they pulled the sticker off very
carefully and all the paint came off. And so they made it lighter yet!

Greets, Derk

PanFan said:

Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was
curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable
frame design ("smart light"😉, or is it a racing frame with a limited
lifespan ("stupid light"😉?

I have not seen the best of luck with them. Of 7 or so people I know
with them, 3 or 4 have had the BB shells come loose and require
replacement frames. Another cracked a seatstay when the bike fell over
and hit a curb, and another crashed the frame in a race. This last one
was pilot error, but it came with a 4 figure pricetag. I wouldn't call
the frame "stupid light" but it is a very lightweight race frame. Since
the pros who they build them for get a new bike every year or sooner,
why would you expect them to be durable? If they are built to be
durable, they are actually not building them light enough.

I don't think I'd shell out the money for one.

Baird

PanFan said:

Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was
curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable
frame design ("smart light"😉, or is it a racing frame with a limited
lifespan ("stupid light"😉?

Litespeed has a 770 gm Ti frame coming out Sept 1.

Talk about a race to zero!

Let people have their light bikes - I still have about 30 lbs to go my
own frame/body before I need a lighter bike. :^)

Baird Webel <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:eR9Me.14473$Rp5.7905@trnddc03:

Quoted message said:

one was pilot error, but it came with a 4 figure pricetag. I wouldn't
call the frame "stupid light" but it is a very lightweight race frame.
Since the pros who they build them for get a new bike every year or
sooner, why would you expect them to be durable? If they are built to
be durable, they are actually not building them light enough.

You make a good point about expectations about durability -- but look at
the lineup of CR-1 bikes. The top of the line Limited is a racing bike, no
doubt. But on the same CR-1 frame Scott also sells the Pro Ultegra, with
your choice of double or triple chainrings mated to Ksyrium wheels. This
combo is clearly marketed to appeal to middle-aged Freds with disposable
incomes, not racing teams. And so if Scott markets to recreational masters
riders, I would expect enough frame durability to handle the stresses of
recreational riding and the extra 10, 15, 20 pounds of Master Fattie paunch
that goes with it.

lewdvig said:

PanFan said:

Scott's CR1 carbon frames pretty much stand alone as the lightest
production frames available at around 850 grams (under 1.9 pounds). I was
curious what the opinions are -- is this frame a quantum leap in durable
frame design ("smart light"😉, or is it a racing frame with a limited
lifespan ("stupid light"😉?

Litespeed has a 770 gm Ti frame coming out Sept 1.

Talk about a race to zero!

Let people have their light bikes - I still have about 30 lbs to go my
own frame/body before I need a lighter bike. :^)

Had a gent that bought a Ghasalo(sp?) on ebay. Was surprised that it
arrived with a front der clamped on. Upon removal of the front
der----seat tube crushed, with the fd clamp...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

PanFan said:

Baird Webel <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:eR9Me.14473$Rp5.7905@trnddc03:

Quoted message said:

one was pilot error, but it came with a 4 figure pricetag. I wouldn't
call the frame "stupid light" but it is a very lightweight race frame.
Since the pros who they build them for get a new bike every year or
sooner, why would you expect them to be durable? If they are built to
be durable, they are actually not building them light enough.

You make a good point about expectations about durability -- but look at
the lineup of CR-1 bikes. The top of the line Limited is a racing bike, no
doubt. But on the same CR-1 frame Scott also sells the Pro Ultegra, with
your choice of double or triple chainrings mated to Ksyrium wheels. This
combo is clearly marketed to appeal to middle-aged Freds with disposable
incomes, not racing teams. And so if Scott markets to recreational masters
riders, I would expect enough frame durability to handle the stresses of
recreational riding and the extra 10, 15, 20 pounds of Master Fattie paunch
that goes with it.

_ Why? The frame only has a one year limited warranty. How does
putting less expensive components on the bike make the frame more
durable? You might expect those things, but I don't see how they
can be compatible with one of the lightest frames available.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQwN9amTWTAjn5N/lAQGE5gP+L8EE7oDBxeyDtdDd/BnUX+H0JLDOM/F2
pvpI90ycxoCTcBuO2o2wpr8IQLbcsk0si/cb1ZHx75LKg9csnTbQ5SDeiCFW3iOM
8sOq+ZkHnyySMvdh+IQ2c3ZrgXGt/nXzVhpbQLrMrMSmTeH7w2bJbmd9KAnK4PSb
Ej4xqSwFa9M=
=yqJd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Booker C. Bense
<[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ksyrium wheels. This combo is clearly marketed to appeal to
middle-aged Freds with disposable incomes, not racing teams. And so
if Scott markets to recreational masters riders, I would expect enough
frame durability to handle the stresses of recreational riding and the
extra 10, 15, 20 pounds of Master Fattie paunch that goes with it.

_ Why? The frame only has a one year limited warranty. How does
putting less expensive components on the bike make the frame more
durable? You might expect those things, but I don't see how they
can be compatible with one of the lightest frames available.

_ Booker C. Bense

I think you missed my point there, Booker. I asked if people thought the
CR1 was 'strong and light' or 'light, but not durable.' Some posters shared
anecdotes that suggested the CR1 was light but not durable. Then I said
that if Scott markets a pure racing bike, it's OK if the frame is fragile,
racing customers expect that trade-off in a frame. However, if the CR1 is
indeed a fragile frame, I believe Scott should not hang cheaper components
on it and market it as a club ride and century bike. Freds like me expect
durability.