Old 06-21-14, 06:35 AM
  #3  
Silvercivic27
Senior Member
 
Silvercivic27's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,435

Bikes: Colnago, Cervelo, Scott

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Super D
Has anyone tested the Scott Addict and Foil back-to-back on hills to compare and see which one is the better climber?

It would have to be the stiffer carbon HMX vs HMX (HMX used on the Team and 10 frames) ... or the less stiff HMF vs HMF (non-Team and 15, 20, 30, etc frames), to be a fair fight/comparo.

I've got a 2011 Addict R2 and I'm very curious about the Foil. Specifically the Foil variants with HMX carbon. I'm very much enjoying the Addict, but just curious as to 1) what the climbing difference would be going from HMF to HMX, and 2) what the climbing dfference would be going from the Addict to an equivalent carbon Foil, all other components being equal.
You will find no reliable data on this. All else being equal, the new foil and new addict, for that matter, are better frames both in aero and in stiffness. How much better and whether it's worth the money to you are different issues. I'm keeping my addict until something bad happens to it. Then I'm getting a new addict.
Silvercivic27 is offline