For you Scott Plasma owners that have changed your ride-what did you end up getting? And what’s “better” about the bike you’re currently on?
I have an '06 Plasma; my main complaint is it isn’t great for climbing. The tris I do, as well as the roads I ride, involve a lot of climbing, so I’m thinking of upgrading.
Thanks
T
what exactly goes wrong when you climb with it?
There is flex; it doesn’t “shoot forward” when you stand on the pedals. It is ~30 seconds slower on a benchmark climb around here, compared to my Cervelo R3 and S3.
There is flex; it doesn’t “shoot forward” when you stand on the pedals. It is ~30 seconds slower on a benchmark climb around here, compared to my Cervelo R3 and S3.
power meter controlled test?
how much heavier is it?
generally, with decent frames, flex doesn’t result in a loss of power, even though it may feel like it.
but weight will certainly slow you down a bit. what are the climbs specs? could component choices bring the weight down? is your climbing position on the bike affecting your power output?
Lots of frames are faster aerodynamically than your plasma and probably lighter too.
Lots of frames are faster aerodynamically than your plasma and probably lighter too.
There are heaps of faster options than the first generation Plasma. However, I remember thinking that it was very light, so I’m not sure if there’s much scope to get a lighter frame - could be wrong though.
I have an '06 Plasma and would probably go with a new Plasma. The tall and narrow frames fit me well. There are also great deals to be found on Cannondale Slices.
In my opinion the original Plasmas are stiff and light, so not sure about the climbing issues except to throw out that the steep seatpost angle or wheelset could be causes.
The new plasma (and Scott bikes in general) is ridiculously stiff. I’m referencing the Plasma 2 frame, which 3Go Tri magazine has a good article on this month, as well as the Plasma 3 frame (Plasma Premium). I’m really shocked to hear that you don’t find the Plasma 1 frame stiff.
The Scott is about 1 pound heavier than the Cervelo road bikes I ride. I sometimes use the same wheelset for both bikes so I don’t think that’s the issue.
When I stand and crank nothing happens. It responds better to high cadence spinning.
Regarding style, I use the same style for both road and tri; I move forward on the seat and spin. The difference, when i get out of the saddle to use body weight, it “works” on the road bike but nothing happens on the Plasma.
BTW, this is the first generation plasma. As an aside, I think the bike still looks amazing and it’s very comfortable andextremely fast on the flats.
When I stand and crank nothing happens. It responds better to high cadence spinning.
HUH? This is a bicycle we’re talking about here, right? I think you’re making up excuses to get a new one, so do it already.
The Scott is about 1 pound heavier than the Cervelo road bikes I ride.
That’s not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. TT/tri frames will almost always be heavier.
BTW, this is the first generation plasma. As an aside, I think the bike still looks amazing and it’s very comfortable andextremely fast on the flats.
I never rode the first Plasma or Plasma 2, but the Plasma Premium really is fantastic. As fast as your bike feels, a decent frame will buy you a lot of free time.
Back to the original question-what have Scott Plasma owners upgraded to?
Comparison test of climb times on the benchmark “Old La Honda” here in the SF Bay Area.
7/11/10, PR for climbing on the Scott Plasma: 19:14
8/1/10, on Cervelo R3: 18:49 (PR was a year earlier, 18:38)
I was obviously in roughly equivalent fitness. Same wheelset, Plasma weighs ~1 pound more. I can’t believe that makes that much difference.
I still say the lack of rigidity = slower climbs
You could always put the specs into the calculator on Analytic cyclist and get a better idea of how much time 1# costs you on the climb and then guess (since you didn’t have power numbers) how much of the remainder was the “bike’s fault.” I’m willing to bet that you won’t be able to quantify the difference, but I once had a tri bike that I just “felt” was slow and that it didn’t seem to “accellerate” when I’d stomp on the peddles, similar to what you are describing. I knew it was just a qualitative feeling of it being slower and I knew it was all in my mind, but I got rid of it and found something I like the ride characteristic of better because the mind is so important in competition. If you feel like it’s slow, you will be slow on it, if you have the money go test ride some different bikes until you find something you love. I doubt it will really be much faster, but if it makes you feel like you are going faster then who cares :).
-Brandon
In terms of upgrading, just take measurements of your current position and consult the stack and reach tables to see what would fit you. If you’re in a “short and tall” position then you’re probably looking at the Blue Triad, Cannondale Slice or Plasma 2, although only the former seems to have passed (partially) the Slowtwitch hive-mind aero-eyeball test. However, as plenty of others have pointed out, you can make a lot of middle of the road bikes fit a short and tall position. Slap a 70mm stem and a high-profile aerobar on a Cervelo P2C, for example, and you then have a pretty short and tall bike.
However, at the risk of giving more credence to the hateful jackmott and his tedious obsession with facts and data as opposed to superstition and “experience” (boring!), unless your tests are done with a power meter they really do mean very little. Are you telling me your less than 60 seconds improvement can’t have been due to environmental conditions or, more likely, psychological conditions? You’ve already admitted that you don’t like climbing on your Plasma, so it stands to reason you’re going to climb slower, probably a lot slower, on that than on your R3. Just try doing a performance test when you’re not in the mood, or your pet is ill or whatever, and see yourself fail badly. Just as importantly, how frequently do you climb on your Plasma vs your R3? Your TT saddle is probably significantly further forward and higher on the Plasma which means that, unless you’re out of the saddle, you’re probably climbing in a different position and you’re either not as used to it or you don’t like it as much. Neither of these will change by changing your frame. You could try shifting your saddle back a little bit I suppose (see Tom A and Rappstar’s comments about moving the saddle back on a TT bike when switching to shorter cranks).
FWIW, my n = 1 experience (yeah I’m going there) is that I prefer climbing on my road bike to climbing on my TT bike, but I still climb strongly on the TT. The biggest difference is probably in the variety of seated positions available to me on the road bike. I can slide back on the saddle on both bikes, which is what a lot of people like to do when climbing, but this doesn’t account for how much more I move about on the bike when on the roadie. I suspect this means that, after a long ride, when I get to a long climb I’ve shared the work out better between various muscle groups, or have just not fatigued myself so much by staying in one spot on the bike for so long (think road ride vs trainer ride), so the climb feels better and, thus, I perform better. I suspect, though, that if I did a power-controlled test there would be little difference, and certainly not enough to account for anything like the aero difference.