First bike since being a kid - Scott Addict 50 (2026) or 40 (2026)
I’m a runner first (~80-100k a week during a block, 60k outside of one) but keen to get into cycling so that I can go on rides with my partner and my friends, squeeze in a bunch of aerobic work, and maybe (very much a maybe) think about tri over the next year or two.
Through my work’s cycle to work scheme, I can pick up a Scott Addict 50 for £1462, or a Scott Addict 40 for £1875, from my local bike shop which I’ve been recommended.
Only difference I’m aware of is Di2 in the 40, and slightly more preferable colours (to my taste at least).
any strong views on whether the 40 is worth the extra money? I’ve only been on a couple bike rides in my adult life so my bike handling and confidence needs a lot of work, but I’ve always enjoyed it and from a purely fitness perspective, I’ve also been enjoyed doing quite a lot of work on a stationary bike whilst injured, so I’m pretty confident I won’t regret what feels like a quite expensive ‘first bike’, but really not sure how to feel about Di2.
i quite like the idea of a fully mechanical bike that I can just roll out on without thinking, and also like the idea of learning about bike maintenance and being able to fix any problems I have on the side of the road. That said, I’m also a sucker for fun electronic stuff.
there’s an outside chance I go bike packing if I enjoy cycling enough next year, as I have a mini sabattical for around 6 weeks coming up. Not sure whether mechanical or Di2 would be better for that.