Scott, fake weights

[ghostinthemachine]

This forum looks shamefully polluted by Scott guys...

I've had several, i only actually know how much one of them weighed, because the guy who bought it off me insisted. (bang on catalogue weight, and 200grams under UCI limit, once we'd got some pedals/cages etc on it)

Just to be clear: on Scott website there's any declaration about the 10% approximation. The 10% approximation has been invented and written to me by Scott customer service that answered to me when, the day after I bought the bike, I wrote them asking for a return and full refound.

As i said:-

You'd do well to read the rest of the scott page (either catalogue or website) as they have a disclaimer at the bottom, covering exactly this.

Probably why so few manufactureres bother.

For this reason there're bike companies specialized in kid sport bikes, like Islabike, that made their success putting the weight on the top of their values. Islabikes weights are accurate and my daughter old bike (20 wheels) weights 6,8 kg and costs 50% less than the Scott Scale RC24.

Should have bought another islabike then.

[Butcher]

Let's be clear about my feelings. I can barely spell Scott without spell check. I have never owned a Scott and probably never will.

I have an issue with people that build a case against anything, based on poor decisions they made. People like you seem to whine about everything. Take control of your life and make good sound decisions. Stop blaming others for your decisions. 99% of the problems you have, are created by you. I'm certain it does not start with Scott. Once you grasp the concept that you can control what happens around you, you will find life gets a lot easier.

You seem to be building this case against Scott saying the bike is 8.5kg but Scott says it's an approximate weight. I never read that they said it's an exact weight. How do you expect to go to court and win?

You sound like those angry parents on the side lines bitching to the ref/coach. My suggestion is sit down and watch your kid ride and have fun. I'm certain they could care less about the 10%. Spend the time coaching your kid about winning with what you have, instead of loosing with what you got.

Happy Fathers Day!

[xsport]

Butcher, you're out of place here and in general. For a weightweenier the weight is radical and if a company declare a weight that is the world lowest in its category, it adds a tremendous value to its bike. In general, if I produce an item for which the weight saving is important, I can't advertise a weight that is the world lowest just adding "approximative" without any precise difference percentage. Otherwise, to stay in the bicycle world, I could produce a stock 1000$ road disc bike with a "5,9kg approximative" spec so everybody would buy it.
On a stock bike the definition of "approximative" could be opinable but if you don't reach the advertised weight even taking away pedals, saddle and handlebar it's without doubt a fraud.
Some tens of grams are justifiable, not more. Also because, to avoid problems, Scott could weights some stock bikes and declare the weight of the heavier one...

[02GF74]

Where the url for the spec for this bike.

I searched for it and quote from Scott--bikes

APPROX WEIGHTS IN KG
11.10

That does not tie up with what you write y.

[xsport]

https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/prod ... =274929222
APPROX WEIGHTS IN KG8.50
APPROX WEIGHTS IN LBS18.74

[02GF74]

I can understand your frustration and annoyances but it does state approximate =
close to the actual, but not completely accurate or exact.

Few companies list wright's and whr mn they do, they are optimistic.

From memory I have found mondraker one of the few to list wright's and ten to be accurate.

[djel]

I understand and share the disappointment & frustration. It's always a massive pain to obtain a real-world weight for the model you are looking for. It's not always a possibility to get to a shop to have the bike weighted and you need to rely on the information you have. I recently bought a new Izalco Max, and Focus list the weight on the website with the note **Weight in size M, of standard specification and without pedals** It ended up to be quite in line with the demo I weighted at the shop.

[ghostinthemachine]

We reserve the right to make changes to the product information contained on this site at any time without notice, including but not limited to equipment, specifications, models, colors and materials.

So, yeah. Covered.

[Butcher]

I am abnormal because most people will not tell you you're wrong and you made a mistake. So, out of place, you're right.

You started this thread and several have stated their opinions. Most say in a tackful way, you are wrong. I carry a carbon fiber shaft sludge hammer, approx weight 20lbs/9.07kg.

[trailgumby]

Companies lie, all the time. Bicyle companies lie all the time. If you want to find out how much they lie with their marketing crap, look up Hambini on Youtube (but with headphones on and in a room where the kids can't see the screen). Their claims regarding aerodynamics are usually complete and utter hogwash.

Euro and Australian consumer law is on your side. If they state a weight, and you bought based on that number for the reaons you explained, then you are entitled to a refund under the Australian Consumer Guarantee if it is materially different. I would assume Euro laws are much the same as we tend to model off worlds best practice Down Under. Good luck.

[wheelsONfire]

For the OP, there are many many brands stating weights that is plain off the charts.
I'd be very cautious buying anything custom made not having a clear written statement about weight tolerances.
I have experience of first class BS. Custom made is almost impossible to return.
The Scott bike should be easy to return!

[blaugrana]

I do agree that Scott is intentionally misleading the customer in this case. Sure, there are many factors that can produce small variations between bikes of the same specs, but 10% is just way too much. And if there really is an enormous variation in weights for this particular model and we assume Scott are being honest, their given approximate weight should be somewhere around the mean value, so there would be bikes being sold at 750g (or maybe even more) below the announced weight. I suppose no one believes this is true, so the only explanation is that they are clearly lying.

[DanW]

If you have 900 dollars to spend on a child's bike why didn't you buy 3 and keep the lightest as per standard WW practice? That would have saved a lot of whinging

[anykarthik]

Agreed that this is frustrating. I own a Scott Genius (adult sized and more $$$) and it was heavier than claimed. I don't remember the details, but I remember being disappointed about that. It still is one of the lightest options in its class though.

And as others have said, this practice is common across the industry. Even with high end kids bikes. For example, I bought a Woom for my kid (similar to Isla) and saw the same problem.

But, in the end, I moved on since it doesn't seem like a brand-specific fault.

[gurk700]

The reason these companies get away with it is cause people defend them over people like themselves. Corporates always win which blows my mind.
But whatev. Sorry xsport. Looks like acceptable manufacturing tolerances is never gonna be a thing cause people simply don't care getting what they paid for.