2012 scott FOIL

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

I want vertically compliant, aero, and light :).
Attachments
Foil_parameters.png

andrello
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:45 pm

by andrello

What's with the geometry in the small sizes? A 70.5 degree HTA is not a racing bike, and neither is 71 degrees in my opinion. Even if they use a different fork with more offset it will be a chopper, but it looks like they use the same fork across the range from the wheelbase numbers.
Image

Their engineers understand aerodynamics but not trail? Sorry if I seem hostile, but I'm really disappointed that they moved away from the original CR1 geometry. To me this makes their aero claims suspect, especially since they differ from other manufactures doing the same tests as mentioned above.

by Weenie


ricerocket
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:38 am

by ricerocket

Scott has always tried to engineer the toe overlap out of their frames. Here is the original (2004-2007?) CR1 geometry chart, it's pretty similar actually.

Image

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Colnago C40 :

ImageImage

andrello
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:45 pm

by andrello

ricerocket wrote:Scott has always tried to engineer the toe overlap out of their frames. Here is the original (2004-2007?) CR1 geometry chart, it's pretty similar actually.

I stand corrected. However, I think I notice the difference that 1 degree makes in the 52cm. It amounts to about 5mm more trail. ~6cm of trail feels way too sluggish to me, and I'm not bothered by toe overlap as I can't avoid it anyway.



djconnel wrote:Colnago C40 (what a piece of crap :)):

What's so great about it other than the endorsements?

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

It's obviously been raced very successfully. Long trail requires a bit more active countersteer. It's a different feeling that takes some adaptation, but isn't incompatible at all with racing.

User avatar
Westbank
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:39 pm

by Westbank

jmilliron wrote:


Yeah, two types of road bikes, endurance (tall head tube, "vertical compliance") and aero. That's the way Cervelo has gone and it does make sense.

My LBS is trying to get some frameset prices today.


Please let us know once you get more news from your LBS. I'm really curious to know if they will sale the frameset this year and how much ...

theloper
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: florida

by theloper

Im hearing select dealers may have bikes as early as May. That seems a little hard to beleive. Also.....as far as a frame module goes.....I am wondering if there is any difference in the frames (R2, Team Edition, R1, Premium) besides paint? :noidea: Is there any weight difference between the 4 frames? :noidea: Is there different lay ups?? :noidea: :noidea:

User avatar
jmilliron
Posts: 2014
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

by jmilliron

R2 is their heavier, lower grade carbon. HMF vs HMX. Apparently similar to what they do with the Addict and their other carbon frame lines.
2013 Wilier Cento1 SR || 2009 Ridley Crossbow || 2011 Yeti AS-R 5 Carbon

theloper
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: florida

by theloper

So the R1, Team and Premium are all the same frame, just different paint?

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8587
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

If that's the case... R1 FO1L + Carbolift = win. :twisted:
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
jmilliron
Posts: 2014
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

by jmilliron

theloper wrote:So the R1, Team and Premium are all the same frame, just different paint?


Looks to be that way. At least, that's how it is with the Addict. For frame sets, the HMX is one price and the HMF is another, slightly lower, price.
2013 Wilier Cento1 SR || 2009 Ridley Crossbow || 2011 Yeti AS-R 5 Carbon

User avatar
mythical
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:49 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

by mythical

Just had a look at the geometry table and I'm displeased.

Again, the Scott geometry charts say nothing about fork axle-to-crown height nor rake. If it's anything like my Addict in size 'M', that 140mm head tube in reality translates to a 150mm on most frames and is simply too high for me, and probably other flexible riders who also need lower bars. The the fact is that more stack height = less aero... Unless using a -17º stem and try to get one of those pretty and light ones (not those that have Deda, 3T or Ritchey on them), which seems like a conspiracy between ProTour bike and stem manufacturers. Never mind that I still won't get my bike as low as I want due to the fact that otherwise I need a size too small and my toes will hit the front tire and virtually no stems available in 160mm.

I'd rather ride a bike that fits properly (which isn't my Addict) coz I'll know it'll save more time than a supposed fast bike (marketing, eh?) that doesn't. A bike with a, say, 5mm lower BB drop and an otherwise identical fit (5mm lower HT too) is still faster. I know coz my ideal posture, which I cannot achieve easily on a Scott, counts for more than the 0.7km/h speed difference that the F01L claims!

Gimme any bike that fits and I'll be faster than I'll ever be on any Scott bike, whether with or without claimed 0.7km/h savings due to improved aerodynamics... :smartass:

Just my rant about Scott. Had I known what I knew through riding one before purchase, I would've never bought one.
“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

RideWert.com
Wert Cycling on Facebook

andrello
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:45 pm

by andrello

djconnel wrote:It's obviously been raced very successfully. Long trail requires a bit more active countersteer. It's a different feeling that takes some adaptation, but isn't incompatible at all with racing.

Sorry if I'm going off-topic. I think you can find many examples of "crap" being raced successfully. If long trail is so great then why not have it in all sizes rather than just in the small sizes? My point was that if you're varying the hta by 3 degrees across the range how can you use the same fork unless you don't understand trail? Did I tell you how much I hate long trail? :D

by Weenie


User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8587
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

Look - let's be clear about this part: it's the rider that makes the bike, not the other way around.

Many people 'claim' that the Addict isn't (or wasn't) stiff, it is a noodle, and so on... hasn't stopped Cavendish from sprinting on it, clearly. Nor has it hindered the HTC train that leads Chav to the line. It didn't stop Ricco from showing off his climbing chops... (drugs or not, that kid could climb like a mofo - besides the drugs are more for recovery than technique).

Geometries: they may work for you, they might not. Thankfully there are plenty of manufacturers out there, and plenty of offerings. Find what fits YOU best. That should always, always, always be the priority in what you choose. The bike, when fitted, is supposed to be as close to an extension of your body as possible. Your riding a bike is pure kinesiology, the bike is part of you in motion and an extension of your actions and intentions while riding. If you choose based off of other criteria then complain about the fit, honestly you've got other issues you may need to work through.

In terms of 'slackness' being a factor: it really isn't, ultimately. Again, it's the rider that makes the bike. Clear examples: those (admittedly heavy, but not Pinarello heavy) generic Chinese frames have been re-branded plenty of times and raced, often taking the rider to the podium. Raced for the US National Championships too. They have slack angles on their geometries. Clearly the relatively slack angles of the headtubes and seattubes did not make much, if any, of a significant difference.

The rider makes the bike perform, not the other way around.
If you haven't figured out this clear fact by now, you haven't been paying attention.
Last edited by prendrefeu on Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post