Scott Addict Disc 2020

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
pmprego
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

People who bought the addict rc or had plans to do it.

What size are you ordering?? I'm 1.80cm and quite flexible but it seems to me that if I order the size 54 I will end up to have a lot of spacers on my bike (and let's be honest - a big tower of spacers are not pretty). If I buy size 56 I guess I will remove all the spacers.

Does this model need any spacer between the frame and the stem/handlebar?

by Weenie


M4lukz
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:41 am

by M4lukz

pmprego wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:53 am
People who bought the addict rc or had plans to do it.

What size are you ordering?? I'm 1.80cm and quite flexible but it seems to me that if I order the size 54 I will end up to have a lot of spacers on my bike (and let's be honest - a big tower of spacers are not pretty). If I buy size 56 I guess I will remove all the spacers.

Does this model need any spacer between the frame and the stem/handlebar?
My bikefit (also 1.80cm), points me towards a 54 with a 90mm stem (still not really convinced about this one), and some spacers... but again, a bikefit is personal...

pmprego
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

M4lukz wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:12 pm
pmprego wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:53 am
People who bought the addict rc or had plans to do it.

What size are you ordering?? I'm 1.80cm and quite flexible but it seems to me that if I order the size 54 I will end up to have a lot of spacers on my bike (and let's be honest - a big tower of spacers are not pretty). If I buy size 56 I guess I will remove all the spacers.

Does this model need any spacer between the frame and the stem/handlebar?
My bikefit (also 1.80cm), points me towards a 54 with a 90mm stem (still not really convinced about this one), and some spacers... but again, a bikefit is personal...
I clearly have to go back to my lbs and put my bike next to the 54 addict they have there.

For the canyon ultimate my size would be M which is the equivalent o the L in scott.

pmprego
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

AED wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:37 pm
Didn't ride it outside yet
Image
I hope to have that measure over the weekend but I'm too anxious. How much height are those now adding? Just to have a reference to visualize what would be half of that or so. That would be awesome!

MarkoP
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:48 pm

by MarkoP

pmprego wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:53 am
People who bought the addict rc or had plans to do it.

What size are you ordering?? I'm 1.80cm and quite flexible but it seems to me that if I order the size 54 I will end up to have a lot of spacers on my bike (and let's be honest - a big tower of spacers are not pretty). If I buy size 56 I guess I will remove all the spacers.

Does this model need any spacer between the frame and the stem/handlebar?
I'm 183 cm and ordered a 56 frame

Beancouter
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:04 pm

by Beancouter

If in doubt, this might help.


https://www.velogicfit.com/frame-comparison

You can play around with stem lengths and spacers and compare to a bike you know that fits.... only downside is 2020 RC not yet in their database.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FactoryMatt
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:35 am

by FactoryMatt

This one works great if you know what youre doing. Its very accurate.

http://www.bikegeo.net/

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 6071
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

http://www.bikegeocalc.com/ is good too. Set up one, bike, then "swap bikes" and set that up too. Hit "shadow bike" to compare geometries visually.

I like it because it lets you set headset cover stack/gaps, lower bearing gap, stem stack, saddle position, saddle dimensions, seatpost design, grip reach, etc.

pmprego
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:54 am
http://www.bikegeocalc.com/ is good too. Set up one, bike, then "swap bikes" and set that up too. Hit "shadow bike" to compare geometries visually.

I like it because it lets you set headset cover stack/gaps, lower bearing gap, stem stack, saddle position, saddle dimensions, seatpost design, grip reach, etc.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll play around with that. But so far I'm towards the L/56 as well. But with 1.83m the L is a must I believe.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 6071
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:18 am

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll play around with that. But so far I'm towards the L/56 as well. But with 1.83m the L is a must I believe.

I’m 178cm, have good back and hip flexibility and feel like I am right between 54cm and 56cm for most models. My problem is I have a long torso, normal arms, shortish legs. The short legs means reduced setback, increasing effective reach. This compounded with a long torso means my ideal grip reach is like 610mm at a 40deg back angle. If I get lower, my grip reach needs to be even longer.

For this reason I am likely to favor 56cm frames in the future. At 183cm, you are squarely in 56cm territory and possibly even in 58cm territory if you’re an ape like me.

It’s funny actually, the 52cm Addict RC has almost the same reach/stack values as a 54cm H1 Trek. 389mm reach on a 52cm, and 388mm on the 49cm...long and low!

pmprego
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:01 am
pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:18 am

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll play around with that. But so far I'm towards the L/56 as well. But with 1.83m the L is a must I believe.

I’m 178cm, have good back and hip flexibility and feel like I am right between 54cm and 56cm for most models. My problem is I have a long torso, normal arms, shortish legs. The short legs means reduced setback, increasing effective reach. This compounded with a long torso means my ideal grip reach is like 610mm at a 40deg back angle. If I get lower, my grip reach needs to be even longer.

For this reason I am likely to favor 56cm frames in the future. At 183cm, you are squarely in 56cm territory and possibly even in 58cm territory if you’re an ape like me.

It’s funny actually, the 52cm Addict RC has almost the same reach/stack values as a 54cm H1 Trek. 389mm reach on a 52cm, and 388mm on the 49cm...long and low!
Regarding the comparison with trek, if you compare the addict with canyon ultimate they almost match for different sizes. What I mean is that the addict L "matches" with the ultimate M.

Regarding fit, according to my fitter I'm kind of the opposite. Slightly longer arms relative to torso. So, even though I have good flexibility (I arrived to the bike fit with a 37 deg back angle and I never had back pain) going for a size 54 in the addict means having some 30mm of spacers something that I was trying to avoid. I guess I'll be going for a shorter stem (100mm instead of the 110m that Scott recommends) and a higher stack without so many spacers on it.

I guess I'm going for a better lock in exchange for a slightly heavier frame.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 6071
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:09 am

Regarding the comparison with trek, if you compare the addict with canyon ultimate they almost match for different sizes. What I mean is that the addict L "matches" with the ultimate M.

Regarding fit, according to my fitter I'm kind of the opposite. Slightly longer arms relative to torso. So, even though I have good flexibility (I arrived to the bike fit with a 37 deg back angle and I never had back pain) going for a size 54 in the addict means having some 30mm of spacers something that I was trying to avoid. I guess I'll be going for a shorter stem (100mm instead of the 110m that Scott recommends) and a higher stack without so many spacers on it.

I guess I'm going for a better lock in exchange for a slightly heavier frame.

Yep.

Arm length actually tends to have less dramatic of an effect on sizing than torso vs inseam. Most people have wingspans within a couple cm of their total height regardless of “ape index.” People with short torsos and long legs are more difficult to fit. They end up having to size down to decrease frame reach, but also require more spacers than is reasonable.

pmprego
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:28 am
pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:09 am

Regarding the comparison with trek, if you compare the addict with canyon ultimate they almost match for different sizes. What I mean is that the addict L "matches" with the ultimate M.

Regarding fit, according to my fitter I'm kind of the opposite. Slightly longer arms relative to torso. So, even though I have good flexibility (I arrived to the bike fit with a 37 deg back angle and I never had back pain) going for a size 54 in the addict means having some 30mm of spacers something that I was trying to avoid. I guess I'll be going for a shorter stem (100mm instead of the 110m that Scott recommends) and a higher stack without so many spacers on it.

I guess I'm going for a better lock in exchange for a slightly heavier frame.

Yep.

Arm length actually tends to have less dramatic of an effect on sizing than torso vs inseam. Most people have wingspans within a couple cm of their total height regardless of “ape index.” People with short torsos and long legs are more difficult to fit. They end up having to size down to decrease frame reach, but also require more spacers than is reasonable.
Over the weekend I'll be going to the store to measure the amount of spacers that come standard with the bike and how many would I need. If I were indifferent between 54 and 56 I would of course go for the 54. Lighter, more agile bike.

M4lukz
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:41 am

by M4lukz

pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:19 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:28 am
pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:09 am

Regarding the comparison with trek, if you compare the addict with canyon ultimate they almost match for different sizes. What I mean is that the addict L "matches" with the ultimate M.

Regarding fit, according to my fitter I'm kind of the opposite. Slightly longer arms relative to torso. So, even though I have good flexibility (I arrived to the bike fit with a 37 deg back angle and I never had back pain) going for a size 54 in the addict means having some 30mm of spacers something that I was trying to avoid. I guess I'll be going for a shorter stem (100mm instead of the 110m that Scott recommends) and a higher stack without so many spacers on it.

I guess I'm going for a better lock in exchange for a slightly heavier frame.

Yep.

Arm length actually tends to have less dramatic of an effect on sizing than torso vs inseam. Most people have wingspans within a couple cm of their total height regardless of “ape index.” People with short torsos and long legs are more difficult to fit. They end up having to size down to decrease frame reach, but also require more spacers than is reasonable.
Over the weekend I'll be going to the store to measure the amount of spacers that come standard with the bike and how many would I need. If I were indifferent between 54 and 56 I would of course go for the 54. Lighter, more agile bike.
Please do tell me how many cm of spacers there are by default /the spacer sizes

pmprego
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

M4lukz wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:57 pm
pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:19 pm
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:28 am
pmprego wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:09 am

Regarding the comparison with trek, if you compare the addict with canyon ultimate they almost match for different sizes. What I mean is that the addict L "matches" with the ultimate M.

Regarding fit, according to my fitter I'm kind of the opposite. Slightly longer arms relative to torso. So, even though I have good flexibility (I arrived to the bike fit with a 37 deg back angle and I never had back pain) going for a size 54 in the addict means having some 30mm of spacers something that I was trying to avoid. I guess I'll be going for a shorter stem (100mm instead of the 110m that Scott recommends) and a higher stack without so many spacers on it.

I guess I'm going for a better lock in exchange for a slightly heavier frame.

Yep.

Arm length actually tends to have less dramatic of an effect on sizing than torso vs inseam. Most people have wingspans within a couple cm of their total height regardless of “ape index.” People with short torsos and long legs are more difficult to fit. They end up having to size down to decrease frame reach, but also require more spacers than is reasonable.
Over the weekend I'll be going to the store to measure the amount of spacers that come standard with the bike and how many would I need. If I were indifferent between 54 and 56 I would of course go for the 54. Lighter, more agile bike.
Please do tell me how many cm of spacers there are by default /the spacer sizes
I'll post it here

by Weenie


Post Reply