Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Scott v. Isaac v. Felt
Quote | Reply
What are peoples' opinions of their top end road bikes? i.e. Isaac Impulse, Felt FC1, Scott Cr1

Eric
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Isaac is certainly the most rare. I have a Joule and have not seen another in person ever. Now its twin sister, the Kaliber, I see all the time.

FWIW, I'd take a carbon Soloist in that price range. Isaac's have HUGE (as in WIDE) headtubes.

Dave in VA
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [DC Pattie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
See, isn't there something to be said about a bike that no one else has?? Not sacrificing quality for that, thouh.



Eric
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Scott seat angle does not accomadate a slack position well, however it is the lightest of the bunch.

-SD

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Overall, I'm pretty happy with my Isaac Joule. The quality of the frame is top notch.

Dave in VA
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dang, of all the people on this forum and only two people have been on a felt, scott or Isaac? Come now, no one has taken their hands off of their cervelos to atleast look at another bike? Or would your bike consider that cheating? If so, you guys are whipped! HA

Eric
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm supposed to be getting a 2005 Fuji Team C7 next week and will give you my impressions when I get a few miles on her. The Fuji Team C7 is supposedly made in the same factory as the Scott CR1 and from what I've seen, the C7 frame has the same specs (i.e., size, weight, geometry, carbon weave, etc.).
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I finally put a few miles on my 2005 Fuji Team (aka Scott CR1). My opinion is that it's...well it's a really nice bike, slightly better performance-wise (maybe) than my previous road bike, a Cannondale CAAD5. It seems really light on top, and my first ride felt a little squirrely, but I quickly got used to it. It seems plenty stiff where it needs to be when you apply power -- it really accelerates. My Cannondale was a good climbing bike, this bike seems better, maybe because it's almost a pound lighter. The Fuji also seems quieter. Comfort-wise, it might be more comfortable than the C'Dale or I could be imagining it. Anyway, there isn't an obvious difference to me in comfort between the two bikes. Then again, I also ride a TitanFlex, so neither the C'Dale nor Fuji come close to that bike.

Is the carbon Fuji worth more than twice the cost of an aluminum C'Dale? Ahhh....no, not if you're expecting a huge jump in performance or comfort IMHO. Still, it is a nice bike and the wide carbon weave showing through the clear coat is interesting, and the fact that it is very light doesn't hurt.
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]The Scott seat angle does not accomodate a slack position well, however it is the lightest of the bunch.

-SD[/reply]

Comparitive seat tube angles - 58cm bikes (per manufacturer web sites):

Specialized Tarmac SL: 73
Trek Madone ssLx: 73
Giant TCR Advanced: 73
Cannondale Six13: 73
Felt F1C: 73.5 (?)
Scott CR1: 73.3

I don't see how the "steep" talk about the CR1 keeps popping up - doesn't hold water.

Fuji v. Scott - different quality of carbon fiber (at least that's what I've been told - I take these things with a grain of salt).

Edit: I'll learn to type someday.

Jim Manton / ERO Sports
Last edited by: JM3: Nov 23, 05 18:21
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Isaac joule is a cool beast but I couldn't get it to fit quite right. Low and behold, I walked across the shop floor with tape measure and starting configuring the Trek Carbon Equinox/Team TT. (Yes I know my user name is Kuotabikes, sponsor for road racing team) 2 seasons later I haven't inched the position from that afternoon. Have seat to sit at just about 76 degree angle.

Fit is amazing, ride is incredibly comfortable, I can actually climb on in it (5:10 spit at IMWisc in 2004) and descending is a beauty. The descending is critical as I watched P3's struggle on the twisty, turny up and down course of Wisconsin the past 2 years (could be the riders though).

I have HED aerobars on the front end and ride a corima front and corima disc. Love the set up.
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Been lurking for a while but figured I can offer something here....

Got a Felt F1C as my race bike in May. I also looked at the Scott (and Trek as well) but went with the Felt and have been extremely happy with it. My last bike was a Trek 5500 and while I was very happy with it the Felt is noticeably better.

Its extremely light and has incredible stiffness through the bottom bracket (its fantastic to climb on!) but the best thing about it is that the overall ride quality is exceptional (have previously had back trouble and am comfortably doing 100 mile rides on it). Wasn't sure how it would handle but having done a few mountains, it handles the decents like its on rails - which I hadn't expected to be honest.

I did make a couple of changes to it - stem and bar combo (from FSA to Oval - personal preference), the seat and the tyres (Diamante Pros came on it but 2 punctures on 3 rides was enough) - but apart from that its stock standard. I figure that any of these bikes would be good but from my experience I'd definitely recommend the Felt.

Hope this helps
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I ride an Isaac Kelvin (with DA 10 & Velomax circuits).

It's really stiff and beefy in the BB and a nice smooth ride. I love it. The Impulse is a lot more expensive and a little bit lighter - I couldn't justify the diff. I expect to keep it for at least another season or 2 (which says a lot, given I change bikes fairly often)

One thing to consider is that Isaac runs a 1 1/4" lower bearing. I don't know if this makes any discernible difference but will limit fork upgrade options should you want to do so.

On a side note: My prior ride was a Cervelo Soloist. The fit was identical (as were the wheels/tires) so it afforded me the rare opportunity to truly compare bike to bike. That being said, I compliment the ride quality of the Soloist. It rode more like the carbon bike than any of my previous alu bikes (Easton tubed, Cannondale, Trek 2300).

Hope this helps. PM me with EM address if you wand some pics.

GB
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [JM3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Scott uses a 31.6 mm post which does not offer the same range of seatposts and offsets that a 27.2 mm post has.

The Scott also has a proprietary axle to crown dimension.

-SD

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a Scott CR1 and its a great bike. Has a slightly longer headtube then some of the other bikes. This allowed me to get a shorter toptube, which I like, without too much drop. Ride is smooth and accelerates good and corners well. No complaints. Try the link. My first attempt at posting a picture.

http://i33.photobucket.com/.../golong/DSCN0095.jpg
Quote Reply
Re: Scott v. Isaac v. Felt [RocketDogEJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just a picture. Needed to figure this picture posting stuff.


Quote Reply