Super D

If you're drawing a conclusion backed by no data, then this is your opinion, which is fine. I'm not searching for opinions as the first priority, but they are definitely nice to have from methodical bike testers for sure, just as sports car opinions from the guys on Top Gear are enjoyable and bring real-world color and depth to the driving experience beyond basic test data. Even with no data, if you'd personally tested a new Foil and Addict frame against each other, that would be great to hear about.

Manufacturers in many different equipment categories share data-backed differences in their products, and this practice has been implemented for decades. Some manufacturers publish the data (Giant's comparative frame test data published in 2012 for example was well done), others do not share publicly. With regard to the physical properties between the Foil and Addict frames, I've not seen information that compares the two yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist at Scott, another manufacturer's engineering dept, or an independent company or media concern, nor does it mean there's a universal standard assessment that the multitude of different measures are significant or not. What you may find insignificant, someone else may find otherwise. Again, that's your opinion, and it's your right and welcomed of course. But I'm really asking first about whether the two frames have been tested against each other.

You said, "The forces applied to the pedal on a long climb are low and are not going to result in energy dissipation in the frame."

The forces applied to the pedals on a climb (long or short) are only low if the motor imparting force on the pedals is outputting power at a low level; the forces will be higher if the motor puts out higher power. It's a factor of work the motor is capable of over time, and the decision of the rider to apply that work. I've ridden among cyclists with motors that put out high power and others that put out lower power on hills, there is no absolute. The higher power output motors apply physical forces to the structure and transmission, and there is energy dissipation occurring from both. To maximize distance traveled in a race car of a given power output capability, inefficient drivetrain and structural parts are replaced with those which absorb less energy and transfer more power---to create more distance traveled for the given work. If the drivetrain in a car absorbs (wastes) 15% of power output by the motor, and another 5% is absorbed by structural parts external to the transmission, and improvements are engineered into the structural parts to net a 2.5% improvement in energy transfer to the drivetrain, the result is that the motor will transfer 2.125% more power to the ground through the drivetrain (2.5% energy dissipation saved by improved structure minus 15% power loss still resident in the drivetrain) over any given amount of time, whether the vehicle is running on flat terrain or an incline. On a bike, if the drivetrain has power imparted on it by the rider, and the supporting structure/frame is a wet noodle, there will be significant energy wasted before transmission to the ground. The ability of a bike frame to address needs for lower mass, vibration absorption and more efficient energy transfer (less waste) can result in greater distance traveled by cyclists for the same power output, whatever the level--or the same distance with less power required. Same riders, more efficient energy transfer.

If the structure of either the Foil or Addict frame wastes 1% less, 5% less, or transfers any measure of power more efficiently than the other while the motor is imparting power destined for the drivetrain, that frame (all other factors being equal) will be the more efficient climber, no matter the incline grade or length of climb. The more efficient structure, with less energy loss, all other elements being equal, will net the greater distance traveled---or less power required to travel the same distance.

I'll climb somewhere around 130,000 feet or more this year on my bike (not a ton of climbing, but it's all I have time for), and if I'm training diligently with my power meter, optimizing body weight, fueling well, and doing all of the other things that I enjoy doing to enhance my riding experience and enjoy cycling, and if my goal is to figure out if one of the newer bike frames climbs X% better than another (which could really add up over the miles), it's a pretty normal thought process. If I were looking for a newer car that had a particular performance attribute, I'd consult instrumented road tests and read testers' reviews, and of course go drive the cars myself. Right now, I'm at the beginning of my learning about the new Foil and Addict bike frames, and I'm simply trying to find out if there is any comparative test data I can get my hands on.

You said, "But feel free to speculate about which one will get you up a 40 min hill 1/2 sec faster "

Thanks for that. It really was an insightful and witty quip. The thing is, I'd really like to get up a 40 min hill 30 min faster, and I think either the new Foil or Addict can help me do that. I'm sure my 2011 Addict is like a Model A Ford compared to them thar space ships. Good on you, coming up with such a pithy comment. Usually one can only encounter such brilliance from a Torontonian. I love Vancouver. Folks there must be so proud to have a thought leader such as yourself walking among them.

Ride on, cycling brothers and sisters.