My bike shop guy (BSG) sees lots of bikes. When I killed my CR1, Scott had a dealer cut out the bottom bracket as part of the crash replacement warrantee (or I would have sent it to Calfee for repair). I took it over to my BSG, and we did destructive testing. We stood on the frame until it broke. It didn't take much. The carbon build looked like paper mache.

When I brought in the Addict frame to be built up, a couple of the BSG's rode it. They both said that it was much more confidence inspiring than my old CR1 (which they'd also ridden), but not the same level of build quality as my Parlee or the C-Dales that they sell. I haven't ridden the C-Dale, but I absolutely trust the opinion of these guys. They see LOTS of bikes in their shop, and have the opportunity to do destructive testing on the frames of most manufacturers. A perk of their job.

And by build quality, I'm not talking about cosmetics. I'm talking about the quality of the carbon, the joining techniques, and those things that are usually hidden by a coat of paint. The cosmetic appearance of Scott bikes is good, as are the C-Dales. The cosmetic appearance, and the build quality of Parlee, OTOH, is superb.

All of these are terrific bikes that are reasonably priced. I think that the Addict R3 is one of the biggest performance values in cycling. If you buy a top of the line Parlee, or a Calfee or a Storck, you're talking about some serious money.

I guessing that the quality of carbon and the layup of a Calfee frame makes them pretty much bullet proof. And they do weigh more than a lot of top end bikes. With the lightest Scott, Parlee, Storck and C-Dale (among others), you're probably on the hairy end of structural integrity.

With the relatively low cost of the Scott Addicts, it only seem logical that sacrifices have been made. You know the saying, "Strong, light, cheap - pick two." The Scott is inexpensive and it's light. That's the two.