If we're going back to high school I'm gonna need more hair.

I have other problems, but that's not one of them.

Hey Slothy, my LBS insists the BMC top of the line race frame is STIFFER than the Addict.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it kid.

Your LBS must not be reading the same reviews.

I take reviews with a grain of salt, because for all the raving Slothy does about how stiff the bike is (and it's very stiff, he's right), all the reviews I've seen don't complain about that.

Of course one man's 'horribly stiff' is another man's 'great climber/sprinter' and one man's 'comfy ride' is another man's 'mushy bike'. There are few absolutes in this department. Which slothy would get if he wasn't so imbecilic.

Yeah, but when it serves your purpose, you have quoted reviews. Scotts are notriously harsh riding bikes. This is well known if you know anything about frames out there right now. Your Cervelo is a much better riding frame. At least you got it right 50% of time.

https://www.roadcyclinguk.com/bike-re...test/3332.html

Sock puppet rule #1. Don't answer questions directed at your alias.

Jebus! pcad with a beehive.

I would disagree with the degree of absolute condemnation of the ride in this review, but then I do tend to like stiff frames. As I pointed out, it's highly subjective. Also, my bike does not have the integrated seat mast, and I would imagine that helps dampen some of that road shock (separate CF Ritchey seat post on my bike). I read at least a dozen reviews elsewhere, they were all positive. The truth lies somewhere in between. My own review would be that it's a potentially great race bike if you can tolerate the stiffness. It's certainly only for guys who primarily race or like competitive group rides. As I've pointed out, the bike's handling, feel, stiff bb, climbing and sprinting are all fantastic, so for me that's a tradeoff that will probably work. That's my honest feeling after about 100 miles on the bike.

But it's not for everybody. I really do hate mushy bikes more, I've sold a couple of those after short stints on them. I think the Addict will be a keeper.

So slothy, we need to see pics of your bikes, or we'll have to conclude you're a total Internet Tough Guy. Don't hold out on us kid.

Comprehend sarcasm much? If you did, you'd see that I was actually poking fun at Slothlike, not supporting his position. Oh, and for the record, there wasn't a question in Pcad's post. Nice try, though.

Yes . . . not totally . . . but for the most part, yes.

Here's what Bicycling Mag had to say about the Addict a couple of years ago. Completely contradicts that UK review slothy posted:

It's tempting to get so caught up in the siren call of ever-lighter bikes that we forget everything else. Sub-1,000-gram frames! 900 grams! 850!?!! But how a bike rides is a different issue from how little it moves the needle on a scale--and a more important one. With its new Addict line of bikes, Scott has the right priorities. The Addict replaces the CR1 line as Scott's top offering, and though there are cosmetic similarities, the Addict is really a new bike. The about-900-gram CR1 is constructed of butted carbon tubes joined with what Scott calls "carbon welding." But with the new Addict, although the stays are made with CR1, the main triangle is formed in what Scott calls its Integrated Molding Process, which lets designers shave material--about 11 percent less at the junction of the top, head and down tubes, for instance. IMP also lets Scott shave material from the bottom bracket, and get supertrick by building the dropouts, cable stops and even the front derailleur hanger (!) from carbon. The result is a claimed 790g frame (54cm). But the real wonder is how the bike rides. Most of our testers thought the CR1 felt as if it squared off even tiny bumps, a ride quality only the most rabid racers tolerated. The Addict is stiffer and lighter, yet rides better. It absorbs or disperses ongoing road chatter handily enough to legitimately be used as an all-day or century bike in addition to its natural spot as a racer. Compared with a CR1, the head tube is slightly shorter and the top tube slightly longer, and the fork has been lightened and reshaped; yet the ride quality of the Addict is so fundamentally smooth that the carbon construction itself must be the key. All testers called the Addict "snappy." Punch the pedals and the bike leaps; press down on the inside drop and it lasers through a corner; jut your hip sideways and it scampers to a new line. Or, as one tester did, mash the front brake to show off by doing a nose wheelie and the snappy bike throws you over the bar. The rest of us--we were thrown by just how light, fast, stiff yet smooth the Addict is.

BUY IT IF: You're a weight freak and a ride-quality connoisseur

Bike Radar liked it too:

https://www.bikeradar.com/gear/catego...ddict-r1-10004

Road Bike Action liked it too:

https://www.rbaction.net/fly.aspx?lay...id=66&cid=2299

It goes on and on.

So tell us Slothy, besides that one negative review and your obvious anti-Scott bias, what do you bring to this discussion besides the axe you have been grinding on my head for the past 700+ posts?

I felt like pcad today, on my addict, crushing the souls of all the weekend-warrior freds.

Yeah, sarcasm doesn't jump off the page in bold or italics. Try emoticons. Also, take sensitivity training. You will cry a lot less...

Theres no crying on bf.

^^^^^^ bi+C4!ng and whining howevr cant be helped

Now I'm crying? Man, first you don't read enough, then you read too much. Sorry jdon, I like my humour high and dry, if that doesn't suit you, oh well.

Thank you! Come again!

Yeah, this coming from the guy who says reviews are bull$#$$. It is well known that Scott's are on harsh side of ride quality. I actually owned an aluminum Scott in the past which isn't a point of comparison, but even their aluminum was on harsh side compared to others I owned.

SLUGLIKE, I did NOT ask you for a picture of your birthday cake. I commanded you to post a picture of your bike, and a picture of yourself. I say your a geeeeky lookin type writer cowboy. It's that obvious. I can smell a geek a mile away....No more talk..lets see the pictures....

You're actually beginning to stagger me with your middle school level of idiocy.

Well DONE. Moronic contradictory comments like this are the fuel rods of the BF Nuclear Stupidity Reactor.

QUOTE=WHOOOSSHHH...;10433107]SLUGLIKE, I did NOT ask you for a picture of your birthday cake. I commanded you to post a picture of your bike, and a picture of yourself. I say your a geeeeky lookin type writer cowboy. It's that obvious. I can smell a geek a mile away....No more talk..lets see the pictures....[/QUOTE]

LOL,
I have several bikes, but this is a stock photo of my newest but I run Eastons. Too bad if you want a "real" photo, this is what you are getting.
[IMG][[/IMG]