If I remember, Scott pioneered "modular monocoque" construction with the first-gen CR1. Considering the state of the art in 2010 (with cables on the outside), this is impressive.
Awesome Video. Good to see Scott do a great job. Having lived with a LRG Scott Addict Ltd bike of 2008 (6.2kg built) with integrated seat post like this Addict R1 gives me great pleasure to see Scott do so well with its design. After 10yrs I have hung up the frame to make way for a 2018 Scott Foil. Hopefully they are made with the great quality as their past.
This is excellent. I am thinking of buying an R2 frame on Ebay and this fills me with confidence. He makes it very clear how both the design and manufacturing process are simple and therefore repeatable. I was wondering what the integrated seat post was all about, and to learn that it lends stiffness and strength, and can still be cut down to size with no fraying edges is just what I needed to hear. Mystery solved. Thank you very much. No wonder all the R2 owners say it is/was their favourite bike in the way it rides and handles. So, I'm gonna get me one!
Kudos to Scott for that frame 👍 My R3 from 2009 has had the problem with the hanger for front mec, but that was fixed by using a brace on the Seat tube. After this video I should perhaps stop using the bike on my neo, thanks for that information
Hats off to TenTec Copmposites, I owned the RC version of the same frame for over 8 years and loved it. Really light frame in comparison ( with intergrated seat mast) to anyother frame at the time and even now, it was a true racing frame. I let it go only because of the dropout wear and the really harsh ride. The frame was reasonably stiff and responsive but the ride was very "alive". Not so great on rough tarmac and long rides (getting old). My daily ride now is a Cipollini RB800, you could say I'm a sucker for punishment but the RB is much stiffer where it neeeds to be but surprisingly more compliant, it could be down to the RB being heavier (?) I owened the size M Scott weighing in at 980g(frame and fork with headset and BB). The Cipollini is a XS and the weight is.... more than 980g, quite a few grams more. But hey, Its made in Italy and you can sit on the toptube.
Great news, I always liked the Scott MTB's never owned one but liked their simple graphics. Not a fan.of the molded seat post like Giant do on a frame also. Other than that it's impressive.
The way they have done the BB is just how I thought it should be done. The tube must be easier to make and the internal surface can be tested for roundness and if it is not round then only that part needs to be discarded. If the bearings are pressfit doesn't there need to be some kind of ridge inside the BB for the bearings to sit against? Like you have for the headset bearings.
This a BB86 which means the bearings are in cups that are pressed in and stop against the outer face of the BB. Other systems like BB90 or BB30 have the bearings pressed directly in the BB.
This uses the Shimano pressfit system, as I recall it was co-developed with Scott and they were the first to use it. From my experience this system works very well.
@@LuescherTeknik Do you think it would be too difficult to build stops (I don't know what else to call them) into the BB in carbon that would allow direct pressfit? The faces of the stops have to be parallel to each other, perfectly flat, the right distance apart and a sharp 90^ corner where they meet the inside of the BB shell. One way I thought would be to make a second tube where the outer diameter is about the same as the inner diameter of the BB shell tube. It would have to be bonded into the middle of the BB shell. A bit of a heavy solution but if it were cut precisely at either end then the faces would be flat and the right distance apart. I guess the difficulty would be bonding it in without making a mess on the inner surface of the BB. But at least vertical alignment would not have to be precise because it just serves as a stop for the bearings.
Don't headset bearing races normally use angled faces to interface with the angular contact bearings. This frame seems to just have a 90 deg corner which seems like it would leave an air gap?
Interesting to see quality isn’t related to age , how do you think frames 10yrs from now will be made, universally better or will there still be some that would have been bad around when this Scott was made?
The design needs to be able to be produced at the quality required. Many of the so called "optimum performance designs" are questionable and are based on looks more than any actual performance data.
@@LuescherTeknik Straight round tubes are not optimal for any tube on a bike frame. They do not correlate to the actual stresses placed on the tube. Simple is not best. I want to see some actual engineering coupled with competent design and manufacturing.
@@LuescherTeknik I am not referring to aero designs. I believe most of the aero gains from a frame are questionable too. I am referring to shaped tubes that can provide stiffness in the needed axis as well as compliance in another axis. Round tubes do not take advantage of the potential properties of carbon fiber frame design.
A round tube is very efficient in terms of combined bending and torsional loads, an advantage of composites is that you can alter the fibre angle to tune the properties.
A round tube is still not a shape that maximizes the potential of carbon fiber frame design. Changing fiber angles in a tube does not have nearly the same results as changing the tube size and shapes AND using specific fiber orientations in various areas of the shaped tube.
Would it be a good or bad idea to build a carbon-aluminium hybrid frame? Use straight carbon tubes then use alunimium on the parts that have junctions.
Why wouldn't manufacturers just use one longer piece of fabric reinforcement for the bidon area so they don't miss the right spot? You wont be getting any weight penalty. Are their budgets that tight??
Still feels like the focus is on the brand rather than the manufacturer. I feel like the praise here should go to the actual manufacturer who comes up with the processes, does the testing and ultimately the certification of the product. If I go to a baker requesting a 3 layer birthday cake with orange icing I still feel the actual expertise is the baker not me who creates the actual product and controls the quality. Most manufacturers just want the orders and a basic specification to work to. So with this frame who designed it to be manufactured that way, the manufacturer that actually controls all the processes or some external company who imports bikes? The bike industry is all about marginal gains and trends it is not a honest fair industry it's all about selling dreams and lifestyle as such marketing makes the brands seem far more important than they are. They claim the world but as soon as there is some small cost increase they switch factories on a heartbeat in order to protect their margin. It's extremely likely a later Scott is from a completely different factory made with completely different processes. I know Scott have used both Insera Sena and fuji-ta factories at different times and this earlier frame appears to be a different factory again, that's 3 different factories and there may be many more.
Brand involvement varies highly. Certain big companies design every aspect of their frame and then shop it to select factories for manufacturing only. They have their own testing facilities as well. Others practically pick out of a catalog and make little changes. Plenty are somewhere in the middle, where they have and industrial designer and use the manufacturer's engineering and testing.
I realise this is a “good” one, but it still looks dog ugly to me on the inside. There really is nothing like a cleanly welded metal bike - by definition, as long as the tubes are perfectly mitred and no weld residue creeps inside, they will be as nice inside as they are outside. Just makes me feel like I’m riding something of quality, without all those imperfections hidden inside where the manufacturer thinks no-one will ever look!
@@LuescherTeknik Don't get me wrong, I love your passion and what you're doing. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. I just think that cutting up actual models will reach people beyond the folks who're interested in the history of manufacturing processes. I can only speak for myself, but I assume that there are more folks like me, who are looking for clues about what manufacturers know how to deal with this tricky material. "Clues" because it's dangerous to derive general conclusions from individual bikes, but it's a data point nevertheless.
@@LuescherTeknik This shows that the usual narrative "older carbon bikes were made poorly because the manufacturers were still learning to work with carbon" is wrong. As for the bidon mounts, perhaps somebody grabbed the wrong drilling template for that frame size.
Scott, one of the best constructed Bike frame!!!
If I remember, Scott pioneered "modular monocoque" construction with the first-gen CR1. Considering the state of the art in 2010 (with cables on the outside), this is impressive.
Awesome Video. Good to see Scott do a great job. Having lived with a LRG Scott Addict Ltd bike of 2008 (6.2kg built) with integrated seat post like this Addict R1 gives me great pleasure to see Scott do so well with its design. After 10yrs I have hung up the frame to make way for a 2018 Scott Foil. Hopefully they are made with the great quality as their past.
One of the best,most uniform wall thickness and well constructed frames around. Good to see.Thanks.
Design and manufactured within their capabilities and quality control. Well done.
Great to see the quality of this frame from the inside as I ride a 2008 Addict R4 which is going to be similar in construction
Sometimes acronyms are inappropriate (Scott High-modulus Integrated Tubeset) while other times they are (Colnago Reinforced Advanced Process).
This is excellent. I am thinking of buying an R2 frame on Ebay and this fills me with confidence. He makes it very clear how both the design and manufacturing process are simple and therefore repeatable. I was wondering what the integrated seat post was all about, and to learn that it lends stiffness and strength, and can still be cut down to size with no fraying edges is just what I needed to hear. Mystery solved. Thank you very much. No wonder all the R2 owners say it is/was their favourite bike in the way it rides and handles. So, I'm gonna get me one!
Kudos to Scott for that frame 👍 My R3 from 2009 has had the problem with the hanger for front mec, but that was fixed by using a brace on the Seat tube. After this video I should perhaps stop using the bike on my neo, thanks for that information
Good to see proper design, extra carbon being used to provide strength rather than all out effort to be as light and flimsy as possible.
Impressive .... especially for a 10 yr old. Thanks, Raoul
Another great vid. Keep 'em coming.
Well, great Scott... back to the future! 😎
Muchas gracias por compartir tu trabajo y enseñarnos sobre los procesos constructivos. Saludos desde Argentina!!!
I had this exact bike, super racy and light, loved it, but compliance and stiffness weren’t the best. It was manufactured by Topeak.
Hats off to TenTec Copmposites, I owned the RC version of the same frame for over 8 years and loved it. Really light frame in comparison ( with intergrated seat mast) to anyother frame at the time and even now, it was a true racing frame. I let it go only because of the dropout wear and the really harsh ride. The frame was reasonably stiff and responsive but the ride was very "alive". Not so great on rough tarmac and long rides (getting old). My daily ride now is a Cipollini RB800, you could say I'm a sucker for punishment but the RB is much stiffer where it neeeds to be but surprisingly more compliant, it could be down to the RB being heavier (?) I owened the size M Scott weighing in at 980g(frame and fork with headset and BB). The Cipollini is a XS and the weight is.... more than 980g, quite a few grams more. But hey, Its made in Italy and you can sit on the toptube.
1.5x works very well
I need 175
@raoul can we get some fork cut ups? how does the stem fix to the fork?
Thank you!👍👍
PIJBAS (Phew I've just bought a Scott.)
Great news, I always liked the Scott MTB's never owned one but liked their simple graphics. Not a fan.of the molded seat post like Giant do on a frame also. Other than that it's impressive.
The way they have done the BB is just how I thought it should be done. The tube must be easier to make and the internal surface can be tested for roundness and if it is not round then only that part needs to be discarded.
If the bearings are pressfit doesn't there need to be some kind of ridge inside the BB for the bearings to sit against? Like you have for the headset bearings.
This a BB86 which means the bearings are in cups that are pressed in and stop against the outer face of the BB. Other systems like BB90 or BB30 have the bearings pressed directly in the BB.
@@leflate Not quite as good as it could be then
This uses the Shimano pressfit system, as I recall it was co-developed with Scott and they were the first to use it. From my experience this system works very well.
@@LuescherTeknik Do you think it would be too difficult to build stops (I don't know what else to call them) into the BB in carbon that would allow direct pressfit? The faces of the stops have to be parallel to each other, perfectly flat, the right distance apart and a sharp 90^ corner where they meet the inside of the BB shell.
One way I thought would be to make a second tube where the outer diameter is about the same as the inner diameter of the BB shell tube. It would have to be bonded into the middle of the BB shell. A bit of a heavy solution but if it were cut precisely at either end then the faces would be flat and the right distance apart. I guess the difficulty would be bonding it in without making a mess on the inner surface of the BB. But at least vertical alignment would not have to be precise because it just serves as a stop for the bearings.
Don't headset bearing races normally use angled faces to interface with the angular contact bearings. This frame seems to just have a 90 deg corner which seems like it would leave an air gap?
Would this be a full external cable set up bike? I was wondering how you could use that BB construction with cables and hoses
Interesting to see quality isn’t related to age , how do you think frames 10yrs from now will be made, universally better or will there still be some that would have been bad around when this Scott was made?
By whom is this frame made? Giant?
Topeak
I think you mean Top Key.
That was a 2008 model so, even more impressive.
So bike design should be done based on what is easy vs. what is optimal performance? I think not....
The design needs to be able to be produced at the quality required. Many of the so called "optimum performance designs" are questionable and are based on looks more than any actual performance data.
@@LuescherTeknik Straight round tubes are not optimal for any tube on a bike frame. They do not correlate to the actual stresses placed on the tube. Simple is not best. I want to see some actual engineering coupled with competent design and manufacturing.
@@LuescherTeknik I am not referring to aero designs. I believe most of the aero gains from a frame are questionable too. I am referring to shaped tubes that can provide stiffness in the needed axis as well as compliance in another axis. Round tubes do not take advantage of the potential properties of carbon fiber frame design.
A round tube is very efficient in terms of combined bending and torsional loads, an advantage of composites is that you can alter the fibre angle to tune the properties.
A round tube is still not a shape that maximizes the potential of carbon fiber frame design. Changing fiber angles in a tube does not have nearly the same results as changing the tube size and shapes AND using specific fiber orientations in various areas of the shaped tube.
Would it be a good or bad idea to build a carbon-aluminium hybrid frame? Use straight carbon tubes then use alunimium on the parts that have junctions.
The first carbon bike were built this way, then they started falling apart due to bonding problems.
Why wouldn't manufacturers just use one longer piece of fabric reinforcement for the bidon area so they don't miss the right spot? You wont be getting any weight penalty. Are their budgets that tight??
Some do as shown in previous cut ups.
Looks like a Denk design
Still feels like the focus is on the brand rather than the manufacturer. I feel like the praise here should go to the actual manufacturer who comes up with the processes, does the testing and ultimately the certification of the product. If I go to a baker requesting a 3 layer birthday cake with orange icing I still feel the actual expertise is the baker not me who creates the actual product and controls the quality. Most manufacturers just want the orders and a basic specification to work to. So with this frame who designed it to be manufactured that way, the manufacturer that actually controls all the processes or some external company who imports bikes?
The bike industry is all about marginal gains and trends it is not a honest fair industry it's all about selling dreams and lifestyle as such marketing makes the brands seem far more important than they are. They claim the world but as soon as there is some small cost increase they switch factories on a heartbeat in order to protect their margin. It's extremely likely a later Scott is from a completely different factory made with completely different processes. I know Scott have used both Insera Sena and fuji-ta factories at different times and this earlier frame appears to be a different factory again, that's 3 different factories and there may be many more.
Brand involvement varies highly. Certain big companies design every aspect of their frame and then shop it to select factories for manufacturing only. They have their own testing facilities as well. Others practically pick out of a catalog and make little changes. Plenty are somewhere in the middle, where they have and industrial designer and use the manufacturer's engineering and testing.
Who is a mofo who gives Negative?
I realise this is a “good” one, but it still looks dog ugly to me on the inside. There really is nothing like a cleanly welded metal bike - by definition, as long as the tubes are perfectly mitred and no weld residue creeps inside, they will be as nice inside as they are outside. Just makes me feel like I’m riding something of quality, without all those imperfections hidden inside where the manufacturer thinks no-one will ever look!
... except when moisture starts deteriorating a steel frame, almost immediately.
Gregory Thomas All steel, or cheap steel? (Btw, my preference is Ti and aluminium)
Who cares about 10 year old bikes?
It's an adult's bike.
When they are better made than newer bikes I find that interesting.
@@LuescherTeknik Don't get me wrong, I love your passion and what you're doing. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. I just think that cutting up actual models will reach people beyond the folks who're interested in the history of manufacturing processes. I can only speak for myself, but I assume that there are more folks like me, who are looking for clues about what manufacturers know how to deal with this tricky material. "Clues" because it's dangerous to derive general conclusions from individual bikes, but it's a data point nevertheless.
@@LuescherTeknik This shows that the usual narrative "older carbon bikes were made poorly because the manufacturers were still learning to work with carbon" is wrong. As for the bidon mounts, perhaps somebody grabbed the wrong drilling template for that frame size.
I care. I still enjoy my 2009 Madone.