'12 Scott CX Comp...any good?
Lookedat a few shops today for cross bikes. Not alot to look at, 2 shops only had one cross bike each, and the 3rd shop had 5 or 6, none in my price range or size.
Thefirst shop had a '12 Scott CX Comp that they showed me. The owner said they don't have a bikg market for them, so he only bought the one, just to have one in the shop.
Looked like a nice bike, it felt pretty light and had Tiagra/105 components on it, carbon fork (alloy steerer), and a nice flattened top tube (good for handling if I ever were to race).
Price on the tag was 1,199. The mechanic was showing my thefeatures, and asked what my budget was. I told him a figure lower than that, since I was just getting into it. He said yeah, I hear you. The bike is a 56cm, so we were going over the sizing too. Standover seemed okay, but he told me I might be better on a 54, although fit is subjective. He then asked the shop owner, and he said the same thing, that technically I'm prob a 54, but a 56 could work as well, as he's supposed to be a 56 but feels more comfortable on a 58.
Anyway, as I was thanking the mechanic and telling him I'd do some more research and think it over, he called over to the owner and asked him what can he do with the price. The owner thinks a bit, then says 900.
Assuming the 56 fits okay, hows this bike look for 900? CX Comp - SCOTT Sports
Only thing I don't like about it is the bottom run cables, I really like top run cables,and think any bike that has offraod pretentions should have top runs. As far as the canti's, I've concluded that I probably won't get a quality bike with disks at my price point.
Incidentally, the other shop had me stand over the 56cm Lapierre and said the same thing about the fit. I could do the 56, but a 54 might be more ideal, depending on the bike.
Surprised you had to wait so long for any response.
I don't have much experience with bikes sporting tires skinner than 2.0, but I'd say that fit is the most important aspect of any bike. Parts can nearly always be upgraded later (with the exception of discs, which would be impractical I suppose). If you're comfortable on gnarly terrain with a size bigger than normal, then go for it. If not, then don't waste a grand.
The spec seems pretty good for what was $1200 bike last year. My '13 Rocky Solo CX came with Hayes discs, but not as-good wheels, and Tiagra instead of Ultegra rear drivetrain. Also a chromo fork instead of the carbon on the Scott. Bike specs are always a balancing act. I try to buy a bike with a good frame and then upgrade the spec over time.
The Scott seems more setup as an entry-level race bike or winter training bike than a commuter if that matters. I don't see any rack mounts.
Thanks for the info.
I ended up not getting the Scott, if you see my other thread you'll see I ended up getting a Ridley X-Ride.
I rode a road bike that was 56cm, and I didn't like the fit, so I never went back to look at the Scott.
In retrospect I probably shold have, as the price was more in line with what I wanted to spend, but all in all I'm very happy with the Ridley. I have about 50 miles on it so far and it's been great. I already set a PB on a short loop I like to do, then the next ride out I set a new one! lol Just about to go out on a 12mile group ride actually.
My Ridley doesn't have any rack or fender mounts either, but I don't mnid. I was actually glad it had bottle mounts! Some pics of it the X-Ride online didn't show them, and it wasn't something I noticed my first time in the shop. It's not going to be a commuter or winter bike, if I were to ride in that way I'd prob use my old MTB with disk brakes.
Last edited by StuntmanMike; 04-27-2013 at 09:17 AM.
By zephxiii in forum Scott Sports
Last Post: 10-01-2012, 06:56 PM
By scozim in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
Last Post: 08-09-2011, 05:48 PM
By 417brobinson in forum 29er Bikes
Last Post: 07-22-2011, 07:12 PM
By dodgeball2d in forum Scott Sports
Last Post: 05-04-2011, 08:37 PM
By JHoutchens in forum 29er Bikes
Last Post: 03-14-2011, 11:32 AM