Which is the better climber, Scott Addict vs Scott Foil?
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Which is the better climber, Scott Addict vs Scott Foil?
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.
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.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 2,844
Bikes: '13 Spech Roubaix SL4 Expert
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Addict. The foil is meant to be an Aero bike which sacrifices weight for aerodynamics. Although they say that Aero trumps weight up to 3%+ gradients I think that is relative to the speed held during the climb. We mere mortals are not fast enough to justify aero on a 4% climb because not many of us can hold 18mph+ on a 4%.
__________________
Cat 6 going on PRO....
Cat 6 going on PRO....
#3
Senior Member
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
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.
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.
#4
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#6
Senior Member
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Portland, ME
Posts: 1,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
With the same engine, the Addict would be the slightly better climber. This is not due to aerodynamics or stiffness, but weight and geometry. The Addict is a less "snappy" machine with a longer wheelbase and will be easier to handle climbing up the hill slower.
#8
Full Member
Thread Starter
On a simplistic level, Jimmy Connors could've blown us off the court playing with a frying pan in his prime, so I see what you're saying. But, this isn't a simplistic issue. The scenario would be something like this: Same rider riding a new Addict or Foil with comparable carbon filament structure (HMX Or HMF), same size frame and same everything on the bike, and properly fitted by a pro...I'm wondering which will transmit power more efficiently on given climbs.
I'd like to see a head-to-head comparison if one exists.
Testing torsional and longitudinal stiffness of frame areas is doable (giant publishes their own tests), and that along with weight factors should theoretically translate into power transfer. Beyond lab work, I'd really like to see some experienced bike testers pit them against each other.
Back to your original comment, I can only say that when I switched to the Addict from my older bike, I noticed (and measured) immediate improvements climbing hills on my normal training routes without any other changes.
I'd like to see a head-to-head comparison if one exists.
Testing torsional and longitudinal stiffness of frame areas is doable (giant publishes their own tests), and that along with weight factors should theoretically translate into power transfer. Beyond lab work, I'd really like to see some experienced bike testers pit them against each other.
Back to your original comment, I can only say that when I switched to the Addict from my older bike, I noticed (and measured) immediate improvements climbing hills on my normal training routes without any other changes.
#9
Former Hoarder
#10
Full Member
Thread Starter
Just the same process I go through when choosing other gear, tools, etc. I try to determine which has the characteristics and benefits I'm seeking. I've changed running shoes and realized significant positive benefits. Same can happen with a bike choice.
If a pilot wants to upgrade from an F4 to an F16 so he can capitalize on certain performance benefits, he's still the same pilot, just using a different tool for the job. (I use this analogy because my Dad worked on developing the F16 and I watched the performance comparison films pre-debut, and it was eye-opening).
#11
Former Hoarder
If a pilot wants to upgrade from an F4 to an F16 so he can capitalize on certain performance benefits, he's still the same pilot, just using a different tool for the job. (I use this analogy because my Dad worked on developing the F16 and I watched the performance comparison films pre-debut, and it was eye-opening).
Just having fun with you...god knows I've had more than my share of bikes.
55/Rad
#12
Full Member
Thread Starter
S-a-w-e-e-e-t!
#13
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 32,896
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92
Mentioned: 325 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11889 Post(s)
Liked 6,482 Times
in
3,411 Posts
__________________
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
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,079
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The Scott Foil didn't test very well in the Felt's comparison test. Only 6-16w ahead of the Felt F series (standard road bike) at 30mph depending on yaw angle.
#15
Senior Member
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
Hmm. . . Imagine that! Felt's test showing it's better than everything else! Also, what does that have to do with helping a person climb? If anything, an aero bike will be heavier, which on a significant climb will actually make it more difficult to climb the hill.
#16
Former Hoarder
#17
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
Not saying better climbing doesn't require proper training, hours, miles, fuel, etc...I realize you can't buy gear to magically do the work for you. The curiosity comes from planning to update my frame next year, and I'd like to know which frame transmits power on a climb more efficiently of the two mentioned (all other factors other than frame model being equal).
#18
Full Member
Thread Starter
I'm not speculating, I'm searching for information.
#19
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
The difference in frame physical properties and energy transmission is definitely measurable, just as aero, weight and any other physical attribute is. The data is with Scott's engineers, and whoever endeavors to conduct a comprehensive analysis and comparison. Whether or not I find data remains to be seen. Whether the differences are significant or negligible remains to be seen as well.
I'm not speculating, I'm searching for information.
I'm not speculating, I'm searching for information.
Provided the two bikes are the same weight and fit with the same tires, your climbing speed is going to be the same. The forces applied to the pedal on a long climb are low and are not going to result in energy dissipation in the frame.
There are significant differences between the two frames you are looking at but climbing efficiency isn't one of them.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,079
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
#22
Senior Member
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
Actually, the data pretty clearly shows the Cervelo S5 is better at low yaw angles. You can read their white paper here. Their testing methodology loooks pretty sound to me. The Foil's tube profiles don't look very aero so its performance isn't surprising.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,079
Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
People generally buy aero road frames for their aero qualities. I think it's relevant to point out the Foil isn't terribly aero. At least compared to the competition.
#24
Full Member
Thread Starter
sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. If the differences were significant enough to measure, manufactures and others would have shared that difference long ago.
Provided the two bikes are the same weight and fit with the same tires, your climbing speed is going to be the same. The forces applied to the pedal on a long climb are low and are not going to result in energy dissipation in the frame.
There are significant differences between the two frames you are looking at but climbing efficiency isn't one of them.
Provided the two bikes are the same weight and fit with the same tires, your climbing speed is going to be the same. The forces applied to the pedal on a long climb are low and are not going to result in energy dissipation in the frame.
There are significant differences between the two frames you are looking at but climbing efficiency isn't one of them.
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.
Last edited by Super D; 06-22-14 at 04:14 PM.
#25
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
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.
Last edited by Vicegrip; 06-22-14 at 06:11 PM.