Which is the better climber, Scott Addict vs Scott Foil?
06-22-14, 06:58 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
You are looking for data that doesn't exist (at least not in the form you'd like). My comment about the forces being low is just simple physics applicable to any rider right up the to the pro level. Even doped up guys putting out 7W/Kg are not exerting peak pedal forces higher than 138lbs on a long climb. These are still relatively low forces and aren't going to result in power dissipation in the frame. If there were losses anything close to what you are thinking (i.e. above 1%) they would be easily measurable. The reality is they are not close to that which is why no one has ever published any data showing even a watt or two of power dissipation due to distortions of a frame let alone something on the order of 1%.
Everything else that contributes to increased speed up a hill has been measured and the data published: drinking coffee (~5%), swishing a sugar solution in your mouth (a few % improvement) using aero wheels (measurable difference in drag) etc. Don't you think a manufacturer would be touting the performance improvements of their stiffer frame if they existed?
06-22-14, 06:59 PM
#27
Full Member
Thread Starter
I think you have been drinking the koolaid again. The human related vaitables far outweigh the true performance differences between the bikes while climbing.
Read all the charts you like. Same rider after a good nights sleep will smoke the data from the "better " of the two bikes. Fit and rider fitness far out weigh the clever things used to sell bikes. A good drivetrain that shifts clean, when and just so outweighs a seat tube shape or a 0.02% this or that. I have lost PM measured power while suffering from the need to break wind while in the middle of a pace line.
I like climbing. It is the riders setup as he/she starts in, planning of shifts and timing of when to go from spin to out of the saddle are huge over a % of brochure noted stiffness.
YMMV.
Read all the charts you like. Same rider after a good nights sleep will smoke the data from the "better " of the two bikes. Fit and rider fitness far out weigh the clever things used to sell bikes. A good drivetrain that shifts clean, when and just so outweighs a seat tube shape or a 0.02% this or that. I have lost PM measured power while suffering from the need to break wind while in the middle of a pace line.
I like climbing. It is the riders setup as he/she starts in, planning of shifts and timing of when to go from spin to out of the saddle are huge over a % of brochure noted stiffness.
YMMV.
Beyond that, I realize the advances in gear technology, whether they are in cycling, skiing, automobiles, tennis racquets, etc do bring benefits that can be realized and enjoyed. My current skis, for example, provide me with the ability to do things more easily than the ones I used 10 or 20 years ago (lighter, easier turning for given effort, more versatile, etc). I used to ski race, then coached racers, and was a technical rep for a manufacturer. I spoke with the ski designers, engineers and racers, and tested equipment myself. Differences were recognizable and sometimes significant. Same skier, different gear, enhanced experience or performance (depending on the gear). I also worked for a bike manufacturer in a previous life, and when I started riding newer tech bikes, I immediately realized performance enhancement compared to the previous ones. Same rider, same prep, same rest or lack thereof, no koolaid drank. Just more capable gear operated by the same guy. Had the same experience moving from wooden to aluminum to carbon composite tennis racquets; more output for the given input.
Do I love gear technology? You bet. Do I benefit from advances in gear technology? Yessir. It's still up to me to come to ride well-rested, fueled, etc, and I have to operate the machine, make good decisions, setups, etc. Just like you said.
In any case, I'm not going to argue here. Even though I've written "all other things being equal", you're free to interpret my line of thought as you prefer to. All I wanted to know is whether the Addict or Foil, with the same carbon makeup, is more efficient at putting power down. I'll research it a bit offline and see if I can find anything useful. If I do, I'll come back and share it here.
06-22-14, 07:02 PM
#28
Full Member
Thread Starter
06-22-14, 07:27 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
clouded the air a bit. I am not saying that there have not been great leaps in gear over the past 20 years. I too used to ski and started in the 70s on Wood skies with spring bindings. 1. You noted 130k of climbing for the year. For some that is not much. For example I am a 50 something fred have 170 k feet on the year so far and the second 1/2 is the bigger end!for me.
2. You noted two bikes that are in many respects quite different but with regards to climbing not all that far apart.
Some people might think you are splitting hairs. I suspect there is little real data as it would be too hard to compile. Rare earth elements are not all that rare they are simply too close to other elements to easly "sift " out.
2. You noted two bikes that are in many respects quite different but with regards to climbing not all that far apart.
Some people might think you are splitting hairs. I suspect there is little real data as it would be too hard to compile. Rare earth elements are not all that rare they are simply too close to other elements to easly "sift " out.
06-22-14, 08:51 PM
#30
Full Member
Thread Starter
clouded the air a bit. I am not saying that there have not been great leaps in gear over the past 20 years. I too used to ski and started in the 70s on Wood skies with spring bindings. 1. You noted 130k of climbing for the year. For some that is not much. For example I am a 50 something fred have 170 k feet on the year so far and the second 1/2 is the bigger end!for me.
2. You noted two bikes that are in many respects quite different but with regards to climbing not all that far apart.
Some people might think you are splitting hairs. I suspect there is little real data as it would be too hard to compile. Rare earth elements are not all that rare they are simply too close to other elements to easly "sift " out.
2. You noted two bikes that are in many respects quite different but with regards to climbing not all that far apart.
Some people might think you are splitting hairs. I suspect there is little real data as it would be too hard to compile. Rare earth elements are not all that rare they are simply too close to other elements to easly "sift " out.
Yep, 130k vertical isn't a lot for some (I noted it's all I have time for). The intention was that if there is energy efficiency to be gained, over many miles and thousands of feet of vertical, it'd be interesting and perhaps a worthwhile pursuit (in addition to physical and technique development of course, but that's not the question here, just two similar frames).
Splitting hairs might be unavoidable in this instance. The Foil and Addict are both capable frames, with copious amounts of engineering behind them, same materials, and they're being produced at the same time. If the Foil and Addict are identical performers, save for aero advantages of the Foil above X mph, then there may be no need for the Addict. Some very experienced cyclists ride one versus the other. I'd like to find out why. What the differences are. It's interesting to me. Just as differences in the skis are interesting. If I'm shopping for skis, I learn about them, how they compare, and then try them and decide which suits my needs.
As you and others have said, there may be no information comparing the energy transfer efficiency of these two frames in comparison, no way to determine which would be a more proficient climbing tool. If there is no information, that's the way it is. I'm going to do a little offline research and see if I can find anything interesting or useful.
06-23-14, 02:18 AM
#31
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
People have some weird ideas on this thread...
You don't even need to measure frame stiffness, you can feel it, /especially/ when you are climbing out of the saddle. IMO climbing is one of the few occasions when frame stiffness /does/ matter, along with sprinting.
Frame deflection doesn't vary with power, it varies with torque, and that's much higher when you are climbing hard out of the saddle at 60rpm than when spinning in the saddle at 90rpm, applying the same muscular power at a higher torque and also your body weight to the pedals. Ok, so on a long climb and depending on your riding style you won't be spending the majority of your time out of the saddle, but for me at least it could be about 25% of the time, and that's when you really notice frame stiffness.
Of course this can be measured too and varies between frames, Tour magazine publish these figures on a regular basis.
Geometry of the Addict and Foil seem to be very similar, although the Addict seems to have a shallower head tube angle, which (depending on the fork rake) could in theory make the bike a little more stable but will also reduce responsiveness for descending, which may or may not be bad depending on how your brain is wired.
The Foil is supposed to be slightly stiffer to a degree that is noticeable. Personally I'd take that over a weight saving of 100g for climbing.
You don't even need to measure frame stiffness, you can feel it, /especially/ when you are climbing out of the saddle. IMO climbing is one of the few occasions when frame stiffness /does/ matter, along with sprinting.
Frame deflection doesn't vary with power, it varies with torque, and that's much higher when you are climbing hard out of the saddle at 60rpm than when spinning in the saddle at 90rpm, applying the same muscular power at a higher torque and also your body weight to the pedals. Ok, so on a long climb and depending on your riding style you won't be spending the majority of your time out of the saddle, but for me at least it could be about 25% of the time, and that's when you really notice frame stiffness.
Of course this can be measured too and varies between frames, Tour magazine publish these figures on a regular basis.
Geometry of the Addict and Foil seem to be very similar, although the Addict seems to have a shallower head tube angle, which (depending on the fork rake) could in theory make the bike a little more stable but will also reduce responsiveness for descending, which may or may not be bad depending on how your brain is wired.
The Foil is supposed to be slightly stiffer to a degree that is noticeable. Personally I'd take that over a weight saving of 100g for climbing.
06-23-14, 05:21 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hello....as the owner of a Scott Foil 20, then a Foil Team Issue, and now the Addict Team Issue...I have a perspective to share on this point.
First, loved all three bikes. First two Foils were victims of crazy drivers. (first crash, I walked away from, second, broke by tibia when I was t-boned. All is well now. So had it not been for the accidents, I would still be riding a Foil.
For HMF vs HMX....if you are thinking of going Scott....get a HMX for sure. The difference is immediate and significant. (I know the OP is only considering HMX.
Geometry of both bikes is the same; I loved the Foil Team Issue and would have got another, but I already have a Cervelo P5 Six for triathlon/flats, so I decided to try a new flavour. In addition, I have direct information from a highly credible bike builder here in Taiwan...the Foil is simply not aero. If that is your focus, Cervelo S5 for a road bike based on Tour's published data. Given that you want a frame for climbing, it's hard to see the case for the extra weight of the Foil over the Addict.
I've only had 2 rides on the Addict (both about 100km and 2200metres of elevation, so it's early days in my evaluation.
First impressions? The Addict feels more alive under my feet with each pedal stroke, especially on a few tough grades over 25%. I did not change anything but the frame when I switched to the addict...so wheels, bars, crank etc are the same. The only difference is the seat post...Addict does not come with a post, and I went with an aluminum Zipp post. Feels fine to me....I suppose I will switch to carbon once I get tired of the why aluminum seat post questions.
The ride is also more supple on the Addict. Whether that means I'm giving away speed due to flex is not something I can answer. I ride hard; both bikes feel great when transitioning from seated to climbing. One difference with the addict is the headset is the same size all the way...so I'm not sure if this is going to create more flex on hard descents. I don't descend fast, so this was not an issue in my frame choice for me personally...I would think about it more if I were a fast descender. The top of the Foil fork certainly *looks* beefier, but that doesn't mean it's stiffer.
Both bikes are amazing and give me a lot of confidence riding them in terms of handling etc. I love both. I mauled it over for quite a while before going with the Addict; the Foil Team Issue is such a nice frame to ride I was afraid of what I was giving up. Now that I'm riding the Addict, I know it is the right choice for what I want to use it for: long days climbing the mountains, hard, fast climbs that build my cardio for triathlon, and technical descents that I keep under 60km/h with a whole lot of braking. If I put on a fast set of wheels.....it certainly wouldn't be the Addict's fault if I didn't win.
And with a slight edge of extra comfort that goes to the Addict...Addict it is!
First, loved all three bikes. First two Foils were victims of crazy drivers. (first crash, I walked away from, second, broke by tibia when I was t-boned. All is well now. So had it not been for the accidents, I would still be riding a Foil.
For HMF vs HMX....if you are thinking of going Scott....get a HMX for sure. The difference is immediate and significant. (I know the OP is only considering HMX.
Geometry of both bikes is the same; I loved the Foil Team Issue and would have got another, but I already have a Cervelo P5 Six for triathlon/flats, so I decided to try a new flavour. In addition, I have direct information from a highly credible bike builder here in Taiwan...the Foil is simply not aero. If that is your focus, Cervelo S5 for a road bike based on Tour's published data. Given that you want a frame for climbing, it's hard to see the case for the extra weight of the Foil over the Addict.
I've only had 2 rides on the Addict (both about 100km and 2200metres of elevation, so it's early days in my evaluation.
First impressions? The Addict feels more alive under my feet with each pedal stroke, especially on a few tough grades over 25%. I did not change anything but the frame when I switched to the addict...so wheels, bars, crank etc are the same. The only difference is the seat post...Addict does not come with a post, and I went with an aluminum Zipp post. Feels fine to me....I suppose I will switch to carbon once I get tired of the why aluminum seat post questions.
The ride is also more supple on the Addict. Whether that means I'm giving away speed due to flex is not something I can answer. I ride hard; both bikes feel great when transitioning from seated to climbing. One difference with the addict is the headset is the same size all the way...so I'm not sure if this is going to create more flex on hard descents. I don't descend fast, so this was not an issue in my frame choice for me personally...I would think about it more if I were a fast descender. The top of the Foil fork certainly *looks* beefier, but that doesn't mean it's stiffer.
Both bikes are amazing and give me a lot of confidence riding them in terms of handling etc. I love both. I mauled it over for quite a while before going with the Addict; the Foil Team Issue is such a nice frame to ride I was afraid of what I was giving up. Now that I'm riding the Addict, I know it is the right choice for what I want to use it for: long days climbing the mountains, hard, fast climbs that build my cardio for triathlon, and technical descents that I keep under 60km/h with a whole lot of braking. If I put on a fast set of wheels.....it certainly wouldn't be the Addict's fault if I didn't win.
And with a slight edge of extra comfort that goes to the Addict...Addict it is!
06-23-14, 05:26 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, indeed they would. See Velocite Magnus as a case in point of precisely this strategy. The Velocite Magnus is the stiffest frame you can buy currently. 140NM of torque on the BB. Yes, testing procedures vary, but in the Tour data, this was the stiffest on this test. Victor Major, who designed the Magnus, lives and breathes frame stiffness. My friends who ride Magnus all love them. For me...I am waiting to get this same stiffness in a lighter frame with a few more "finesse" aspects of the frame that bother me with the current frame. But if it's stiffness you want...you should consider this frame.
06-23-14, 05:41 AM
#34
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Interesting comments, especially that you noticed a big difference between the Foil HMF and HMX. I'm always reading that the ride of these bikes is the same and that the HMX layup simply reduces weight for the same ride feel, but I suspect not many people have actually ridden both. How would you describe the difference between the Foil HMF and HMX?
Regarding stiffness and liveliness/suppleness, I've always believed that there is no magic here. A less stiff bike will feel more supple and lively as long as it's not /too/ flexy. Maximum stiffness isn't always best, especially for lighter riders. There may be an ideal level of stiffness for a given rider depending on weight and riding style, and/or preferred feel. But I'd put money on the differences between the ride feel of the Foil and the Addict being as simple as that - the Foil is a bit stiffer, so the Addict will feel more lively for some riders and not stiff enough for others.
I have the Foil HMX incidentally.
Regarding stiffness and liveliness/suppleness, I've always believed that there is no magic here. A less stiff bike will feel more supple and lively as long as it's not /too/ flexy. Maximum stiffness isn't always best, especially for lighter riders. There may be an ideal level of stiffness for a given rider depending on weight and riding style, and/or preferred feel. But I'd put money on the differences between the ride feel of the Foil and the Addict being as simple as that - the Foil is a bit stiffer, so the Addict will feel more lively for some riders and not stiff enough for others.
I have the Foil HMX incidentally.
06-23-14, 05:42 AM
#35
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 33,006
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92
Mentioned: 325 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11975 Post(s)
Liked 6,655 Times
in
3,486 Posts
I'm great, Rad. Glad to hear you're doing well. Hope to see you more often.
__________________
See, this is why we can't have nice things. - - smarkinson
Where else but the internet can a bunch of cyclists go and be the tough guy? - - jdon
06-23-14, 07:49 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Interesting comments, especially that you noticed a big difference between the Foil HMF and HMX. I'm always reading that the ride of these bikes is the same and that the HMX layup simply reduces weight for the same ride feel, but I suspect not many people have actually ridden both. How would you describe the difference between the Foil HMF and HMX?
Regarding stiffness and liveliness/suppleness, I've always believed that there is no magic here. A less stiff bike will feel more supple and lively as long as it's not /too/ flexy. Maximum stiffness isn't always best, especially for lighter riders. There may be an ideal level of stiffness for a given rider depending on weight and riding style, and/or preferred feel. But I'd put money on the differences between the ride feel of the Foil and the Addict being as simple as that - the Foil is a bit stiffer, so the Addict will feel more lively for some riders and not stiff enough for others.
I have the Foil HMX incidentally.
Regarding stiffness and liveliness/suppleness, I've always believed that there is no magic here. A less stiff bike will feel more supple and lively as long as it's not /too/ flexy. Maximum stiffness isn't always best, especially for lighter riders. There may be an ideal level of stiffness for a given rider depending on weight and riding style, and/or preferred feel. But I'd put money on the differences between the ride feel of the Foil and the Addict being as simple as that - the Foil is a bit stiffer, so the Addict will feel more lively for some riders and not stiff enough for others.
I have the Foil HMX incidentally.
Neeb...I agree 100% with you on the weight/stiffness issue. For me, at 72kg and high cadence climber, the Addict is just right.
As for the HMF....my Foil 20 would bend enough on the climbs to get brake rub. Never once happened on the Foil Team Issue...same wheels....same rider...same road...same effort. It was more than fine for zipping along the rollers and flats....but if you really got on it (i produce about 300 watts a peak...Phinney I am not) it would bend.
06-23-14, 07:58 AM
#37
Full Member
Thread Starter
Did you happen to weigh the built Foil Team and then the Addict Team?
Also, very glad to hear you're back riding. Having been hit by a car and a truck years ago while riding, I felt very lucky to be able to get back on a bike, as are you. We're very difficult to see for drivers, much more so than motorcycles.
06-23-14, 08:03 AM
#38
Full Member
Thread Starter
Neeb...I agree 100% with you on the weight/stiffness issue. For me, at 72kg and high cadence climber, the Addict is just right.
As for the HMF....my Foil 20 would bend enough on the climbs to get brake rub. Never once happened on the Foil Team Issue...same wheels....same rider...same road...same effort. It was more than fine for zipping along the rollers and flats....but if you really got on it (i produce about 300 watts a peak...Phinney I am not) it would bend.
As for the HMF....my Foil 20 would bend enough on the climbs to get brake rub. Never once happened on the Foil Team Issue...same wheels....same rider...same road...same effort. It was more than fine for zipping along the rollers and flats....but if you really got on it (i produce about 300 watts a peak...Phinney I am not) it would bend.
Did you encounter brake rub in the front or rear? I'm 6' 1" and 82kg and have encountered brake rub with some bikes on the sprints and quick, steep out-of-saddle climbs.
06-23-14, 08:12 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It was mainly the rear...on two sets of wheels...Fulcrum Racing Zeros and Zipp 404 (admittedly not the stiffest of wheels and not designed to climb...had to swap them off my TT bike when my Fulcrums had an issue.) Have not put the 404s on the addict (and can't see a situation when I would) but I'm using very plebian Fulcrum Racing 3s on the addict right now and all is well. On the front, I would get some rub if I was really tired and using too much leverage on the bars....I'm 180cm and ride a 56 frame.
I think the chain stays on the Foil are stiffer than the addict by a small amount (And as you say, whether that is significant depends on the rider), but the top tube seems stiffer on the addict...which gives it a very planted feel.
I think the chain stays on the Foil are stiffer than the addict by a small amount (And as you say, whether that is significant depends on the rider), but the top tube seems stiffer on the addict...which gives it a very planted feel.
06-23-14, 08:27 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I can't remember the weight for the Foil Team....but I think the frame is advertise at 840g for a 54.
The Addict, size 56, was an actual 780 grams for the frame weighed at my shop, and 1080g for the frame and fork. Need size 54 or under to get under 1 kg. The weights were with all the standard mounting brackets, no seat post.
The Addict, size 56, was an actual 780 grams for the frame weighed at my shop, and 1080g for the frame and fork. Need size 54 or under to get under 1 kg. The weights were with all the standard mounting brackets, no seat post.
08-16-18, 08:26 AM
#41
Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Tampa, Land O Lakes
Posts: 40
Bikes: 2016 Escape 1, Scott CR1 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hello....as the owner of a Scott Foil 20, then a Foil Team Issue, and now the Addict Team Issue...I have a perspective to share on this point.
First, loved all three bikes. First two Foils were victims of crazy drivers. (first crash, I walked away from, second, broke by tibia when I was t-boned. All is well now. So had it not been for the accidents, I would still be riding a Foil.
For HMF vs HMX....if you are thinking of going Scott....get a HMX for sure. The difference is immediate and significant. (I know the OP is only considering HMX.
Geometry of both bikes is the same; I loved the Foil Team Issue and would have got another, but I already have a Cervelo P5 Six for triathlon/flats, so I decided to try a new flavour. In addition, I have direct information from a highly credible bike builder here in Taiwan...the Foil is simply not aero. If that is your focus, Cervelo S5 for a road bike based on Tour's published data. Given that you want a frame for climbing, it's hard to see the case for the extra weight of the Foil over the Addict.
I've only had 2 rides on the Addict (both about 100km and 2200metres of elevation, so it's early days in my evaluation.
First impressions? The Addict feels more alive under my feet with each pedal stroke, especially on a few tough grades over 25%. I did not change anything but the frame when I switched to the addict...so wheels, bars, crank etc are the same. The only difference is the seat post...Addict does not come with a post, and I went with an aluminum Zipp post. Feels fine to me....I suppose I will switch to carbon once I get tired of the why aluminum seat post questions.
The ride is also more supple on the Addict. Whether that means I'm giving away speed due to flex is not something I can answer. I ride hard; both bikes feel great when transitioning from seated to climbing. One difference with the addict is the headset is the same size all the way...so I'm not sure if this is going to create more flex on hard descents. I don't descend fast, so this was not an issue in my frame choice for me personally...I would think about it more if I were a fast descender. The top of the Foil fork certainly *looks* beefier, but that doesn't mean it's stiffer.
Both bikes are amazing and give me a lot of confidence riding them in terms of handling etc. I love both. I mauled it over for quite a while before going with the Addict; the Foil Team Issue is such a nice frame to ride I was afraid of what I was giving up. Now that I'm riding the Addict, I know it is the right choice for what I want to use it for: long days climbing the mountains, hard, fast climbs that build my cardio for triathlon, and technical descents that I keep under 60km/h with a whole lot of braking. If I put on a fast set of wheels.....it certainly wouldn't be the Addict's fault if I didn't win.
And with a slight edge of extra comfort that goes to the Addict...Addict it is!
First, loved all three bikes. First two Foils were victims of crazy drivers. (first crash, I walked away from, second, broke by tibia when I was t-boned. All is well now. So had it not been for the accidents, I would still be riding a Foil.
For HMF vs HMX....if you are thinking of going Scott....get a HMX for sure. The difference is immediate and significant. (I know the OP is only considering HMX.
Geometry of both bikes is the same; I loved the Foil Team Issue and would have got another, but I already have a Cervelo P5 Six for triathlon/flats, so I decided to try a new flavour. In addition, I have direct information from a highly credible bike builder here in Taiwan...the Foil is simply not aero. If that is your focus, Cervelo S5 for a road bike based on Tour's published data. Given that you want a frame for climbing, it's hard to see the case for the extra weight of the Foil over the Addict.
I've only had 2 rides on the Addict (both about 100km and 2200metres of elevation, so it's early days in my evaluation.
First impressions? The Addict feels more alive under my feet with each pedal stroke, especially on a few tough grades over 25%. I did not change anything but the frame when I switched to the addict...so wheels, bars, crank etc are the same. The only difference is the seat post...Addict does not come with a post, and I went with an aluminum Zipp post. Feels fine to me....I suppose I will switch to carbon once I get tired of the why aluminum seat post questions.
The ride is also more supple on the Addict. Whether that means I'm giving away speed due to flex is not something I can answer. I ride hard; both bikes feel great when transitioning from seated to climbing. One difference with the addict is the headset is the same size all the way...so I'm not sure if this is going to create more flex on hard descents. I don't descend fast, so this was not an issue in my frame choice for me personally...I would think about it more if I were a fast descender. The top of the Foil fork certainly *looks* beefier, but that doesn't mean it's stiffer.
Both bikes are amazing and give me a lot of confidence riding them in terms of handling etc. I love both. I mauled it over for quite a while before going with the Addict; the Foil Team Issue is such a nice frame to ride I was afraid of what I was giving up. Now that I'm riding the Addict, I know it is the right choice for what I want to use it for: long days climbing the mountains, hard, fast climbs that build my cardio for triathlon, and technical descents that I keep under 60km/h with a whole lot of braking. If I put on a fast set of wheels.....it certainly wouldn't be the Addict's fault if I didn't win.
And with a slight edge of extra comfort that goes to the Addict...Addict it is!
Seems like the Addict would suit me more than the Foil. I do some climbing here in Tampa, Fl. We climb around 2000 ft up in San Antonio. Love the CR but it will be time to upgrade soon
08-17-18, 07:44 AM
#42
Senior Member
It depends how fast you can climb, and how long and how steep the climb is.
The slower you are (lower watts/kg) and steeper the climb is --> light weight climbing bike
The faster you are (higher watts/kg) and the less steep is climb is --> aero bike.
The slower you are (lower watts/kg) and steeper the climb is --> light weight climbing bike
The faster you are (higher watts/kg) and the less steep is climb is --> aero bike.
08-17-18, 10:03 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 808
Bikes: Scott CR1 Pro, Eimei
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The aero over weight advantage on climbs is aero marketing bs. Unless there is a strong headwind on your climb you’re not gonna enjoy the aero more than the weight savings. Also the aero bike position might not be favorable on long climbs
08-17-18, 12:59 PM
#45
Senior Member
Not exactly true for some of the very good recreational riders most of us might ride periodically in person with (>3 watts/kg). With ~3 watts/kg, one will be able to climb the entire GMR (~5% x 8 mi) at an avg speed of ~12-13 mph. With 5-6 watts/kg, the avg would be ~15-17 mph. Aero could be significant at that speed.
08-17-18, 01:25 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 808
Bikes: Scott CR1 Pro, Eimei
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
True, for the vast majority of us.
Not exactly true for some of the very good recreational riders most of us might ride periodically in person with (>3 watts/kg). With ~3 watts/kg, one will be able to climb the entire GMR (~5% x 8 mi) at an avg speed of ~12-13 mph. With 5-6 watts/kg, the avg would be ~15-17 mph. Aero could be significant at that speed.
Not exactly true for some of the very good recreational riders most of us might ride periodically in person with (>3 watts/kg). With ~3 watts/kg, one will be able to climb the entire GMR (~5% x 8 mi) at an avg speed of ~12-13 mph. With 5-6 watts/kg, the avg would be ~15-17 mph. Aero could be significant at that speed.
08-17-18, 02:31 PM
#47
Senior Member
As a previous owner of Look 675, Cannondale Evo HM, Felt F2, Argon Gallium Pro
Currently ride a Scott Addict SL & Focus Izalco Max. I would choose the Addict over any of the bikes I've owned by a mile.
Reason: Comfort, Stiffness, Weight, Responsive
While some of the previous bike I've owned might be a bit more comfortable, more stiff and weight less. They just don't have all 4 above combined in 1 package which the Addict offered.
Currently ride a Scott Addict SL & Focus Izalco Max. I would choose the Addict over any of the bikes I've owned by a mile.
Reason: Comfort, Stiffness, Weight, Responsive
While some of the previous bike I've owned might be a bit more comfortable, more stiff and weight less. They just don't have all 4 above combined in 1 package which the Addict offered.
08-17-18, 02:49 PM
#48
Senior Member
I don't know about the TdF up hills.
But just look at the KOM effort of the GMR segment by the retired pro, Phil Gaimon, he's averaging 17.1 mph with ~6 watts/kg. He could definitely benefit from a more aero bike at that speed.
https://www.strava.com/segments/830079
Even at the famous Baldy Ski Lift segment (4.3 mi x 10%), Phil Gaimon was averaging 12 mph.
But in TdF most of the time pros were in a peloton, I'm unsure if the aero bike is as important as riding solo.
But just look at the KOM effort of the GMR segment by the retired pro, Phil Gaimon, he's averaging 17.1 mph with ~6 watts/kg. He could definitely benefit from a more aero bike at that speed.
https://www.strava.com/segments/830079
Even at the famous Baldy Ski Lift segment (4.3 mi x 10%), Phil Gaimon was averaging 12 mph.
But in TdF most of the time pros were in a peloton, I'm unsure if the aero bike is as important as riding solo.
08-17-18, 03:27 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 808
Bikes: Scott CR1 Pro, Eimei
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
For the OP, the stiffer carbon is going to give you better power delivery especially out of saddle. For your question I would guess go with the foil if you like the aesthetics of the aero features.
if you’re not so much into aesthetics but more into function, get the climbing bike with aero wheels.
if you’re not so much into aesthetics but more into function, get the climbing bike with aero wheels.