Scott Addict Disc 2020

[Marvinman]

They use a machine and dummy apparently. Hard to say 1-2-3 seems like the canyon and trek may be on top, but heavier than the higher spec Scott's. Suppose it depends if you rank aero, weight or stiffness as your top priority

[TobinHatesYou]

They use a machine and dummy apparently. Hard to say 1-2-3 seems like the canyon and trek may be on top, but heavier than the higher spec Scott's. Suppose it depends if you rank aero, weight or stiffness as your top priority

They use a half dummy (just legs and pelvis) for aero testing. The Trek Emonda and Giant TCR are among the least aero all-rounders tested. I think the Lapierre Xelius is down near the bottom too. The Emonda also has a BB stiffness in the 55N/mm range, not the stiffest, but also in the "sweet spot" where power losses are minimal, but comfort is maintained.

[Beancouter]

Below is the canyon - seems to suggest they tested with 62mm DT Swiss. On the comparison chart posted earlier in the thread, the grey bar compares the bikes when all have Zipp 404s fitted:

'You can't tell that the Aeroad came onto the market in 2014. In combination with the chic handlebar stem unit, its frame still looks up to date. In terms of aerodynamics, the bike is still one of the best in its field. Canyon relentlessly exploits the price advantage of direct sales with lleora. Equipped with Ultegra-Di2 group, carbon wheels from DT Swiss with 62 millimeters high. Interesting detail: The front turns from top tires and the wheel is a 23 millimeter narrow tire over rims for aerodynamic reasons, the rear is a more comfortable, easier rolling 25er. The short head tube and a correspondingly low positioned handlebar bring an aerodynamic posture. The slim seat post effectively iron out bumps. There are still very few racing bikes that manage the balancing act between aerodynamics and feather comfort in a similarly convincing manner.'

Can’t seem to find the comparison chart with grey shading ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marvinman]

From memory with the same 404s on

Canyon 207w
Trek 210w
Scott 218w

[pmprego]

From memory with the same 404s on

Canyon 207w
Trek 210w
Scott 218w

which canyon? ultimate or aeroad?

[TobinHatesYou]

From memory with the same 404s on

Canyon 207w
Trek 210w
Scott 218w

which canyon? ultimate or aeroad?

Numbers that low from Tour = aero bikes.

[pmprego]

From memory with the same 404s on

Canyon 207w
Trek 210w
Scott 218w

which canyon? ultimate or aeroad?

Numbers that low from Tour = aero bikes.

I 100% biased but I think that's a good result for the scott, especially given the higher head tube when compared to the other two. If they use the bike+a half dummy, a bike with a lower head tube (and the aeroad really goes to the extreme here), thus lower overall, will always be more aero as a consequence.

[TobinHatesYou]

I 100% biased but I think that's a good result for the scott, especially given the higher head tube when compared to the other two. If they use the bike+a half dummy, a bike with a lower head tube (and the aeroad really goes to the extreme here), thus lower overall, will always be more aero as a consequence.

It’s an acceptable result, but the SuperSix, Tarmac, Izalco Max and Teammachine are all faster.

[dannywin42]

I 100% biased but I think that's a good result for the scott, especially given the higher head tube when compared to the other two. If they use the bike+a half dummy, a bike with a lower head tube (and the aeroad really goes to the extreme here), thus lower overall, will always be more aero as a consequence.

It’s an acceptable result, but the SuperSix, Tarmac, Izalco Max and Teammachine are all faster.

.. in a static windtunnel with a half mannequin on them lol

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[pmprego]

I 100% biased but I think that's a good result for the scott, especially given the higher head tube when compared to the other two. If they use the bike+a half dummy, a bike with a lower head tube (and the aeroad really goes to the extreme here), thus lower overall, will always be more aero as a consequence.

It’s an acceptable result, but the SuperSix, Tarmac, Izalco Max and Teammachine are all faster.

How did Tour evaluated those? With comparable wheels of course.

Nevermind, you're cherry picking here. The test are never really comparable among the different bikes. Ride whatever makes you happy which will make you faster. That's the quote, right?

[tyro13]

What is the stock diam die the rotors? 140? 160?
140mm possible front and rear?

Next week my ultimate Framekit gonna ben deliverd in Belgium

[M4lukz]

What is the stock diam die the rotors? 140? 160?
140mm possible front and rear?

Next week my ultimate Framekit gonna ben deliverd in Belgium

both rotors 160mm, not sure if you can go 140

[pmprego]

What is the stock diam die the rotors? 140? 160?
140mm possible front and rear?

Next week my ultimate Framekit gonna ben deliverd in Belgium

both rotors 160mm, not sure if you can go 140

You can in the back.

[REDUTOPIA]

No

You can front only 160mm

Rear 140mm without the adpter or 160mm with the adpter.

[TobinHatesYou]

I 100% biased but I think that's a good result for the scott, especially given the higher head tube when compared to the other two. If they use the bike+a half dummy, a bike with a lower head tube (and the aeroad really goes to the extreme here), thus lower overall, will always be more aero as a consequence.

It’s an acceptable result, but the SuperSix, Tarmac, Izalco Max and Teammachine are all faster.

.. in a static windtunnel with a half mannequin on them lol

Correct, but we can also make some intelligent observations as to why. The Scott offset steerer design requires an oversized headset upper, translating to an oversized headtube. The Addict’s seatstays also aren’t dropped to the same extent as the other frames mentioned.