Home > Other Fun Stuff > Advocacy & Industry News > News

Meet Dangerholm’s SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 – An 11lb Piece of Art

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm side
43 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

What happens when you set out to build a wildly light road bike that can still handle real-world riding? That’s the question Dangerholm asked with his latest creation. The SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 is comically light, but it’s not some fragile, scale-chasing garage ornament; it’s a proper race-ready machine. So, if you thought featherweight road bikes were only about 23mm tubular tires, exposed shift cables, and chopped off drop bars – you’re wrong. Dangerholm has a response, and it weighs 4,991.4 grams.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm full
(All Photos/Dangerholm)

Meet The SCOTT Addict RC SUB5

The new SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 built by Dangerholm is exactly what it sounds like. It’s a deep dive into cycling’s oldest obsession, creating the lightest bicycle possible. The custom build starts around SCOTT’s already-svelte Addict RC. He pushed below the 5kg mark without resorting to the usual party tricks. No drilling holes, no “without pedals” or “without cages” or non-ridable prototype crap, it’s a real bike that you’d use for fun.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm snake art

The Checklist

This one was built with a clear checklist: 2×12 electronic shifting, at least 28mm tires, modern wide rims, powerful brakes, a one-piece aero cockpit, real bar tape, and a final weight that still includes pedals, bottle cages, and a computer mount. Challenge accepted.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm fully

Lightweight Bikes Are Always Cool

We’ve spent the last several years watching aero bikes eat the room. “Lightweight” became something brands mostly whispered about between CFD slides and tire-clearance claims. Dangerholm’s take flips that script a bit. The point here isn’t nostalgia for superlight bikes of old. It’s proving that a modern disc-brake road bike can still sneak under 5kg (with wild tweaks – yes) while keeping the things that actually make a bike function.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm logos

Starting Scott Stock

Dangerholm used a stock-size L/56cm SCOTT Addict RC HMX-SL frame. This frameset reportedly weighs 630.9g with hardware, paired with a 282.4g fork. That’s a damn solid number on its own for a stock bike. However, the real hook is that the Addict RC wasn’t chosen just because it’s light. It was chosen because it behaves like a proper performance road bike.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm bars

Grinding For Grams

From there, the gram hunt gets predictably unhinged, in the best possible Dangerholm way. The stock thru-axles were swapped for RideNow titanium units at 24.7g. The cockpit (usually a Syntace one-piece bar) moved to a Darimo Nexum Drag bar/stem combo, and the seatpost became a matching Darimo D-shape piece.

The bar is wrapped in actual Ciclovation KOM bar tape. Even the bar-end plugs got the memo, with Extralite HyperPlug HD ends, which are apparently the “heavy” version despite each weighing just 1g.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm saddle

39.2g Saddle

Then there’s the saddle: a Gelu K3 that comes in at a ridiculous 39.2g. Yes, that is a real number, and it has rider-weight limitations. Dangerhorn notes that the reinforced version adds only 10g. If you need a higher rider weight limit, save that for your beater bike; this is all about weight savings.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm rear d

What keeps the whole thing from becoming just another boutique scale-flex is the brake setup. Dangerholm’s premise was simple: a bike this light still has to be fun on descents, not just smug on climbs. To that end, the build leans on SRAM RED E1 levers and a heavily tuned braking package. The extras include titanium clamps and hardware, as well as Carbon-Ti rotors. The Carbon-Ti rotors are light, but they manage heat pretty well, too. In other words, this wasn’t a rotor chosen solely because it looks fast leaning against a café wall (because it does).

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm side

Brakes That Actually Work

The brake story gets even more interesting. Dangerholm went with 612 Parts 2-piston calipers to keep the build tidy and aero-minded. It’s a very Dangerholm solution: slightly obscure, beautifully engineered, and somehow still logical once you do some research.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm crankset

All The Gears

Drivetrain duty goes to a 2x SRAM RED setup. The crankset is a GrigioCarbonio Road T1000, 170mm, weighing in at a scant 256.3g. The GrigioCarbonio crankset is paired to Carbon-Ti X-CarboRing X-AXS chainrings in a very usable 37/50t combo. The remainder of the drivetrain is standard (though also high-end).

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm NDS

Bits include a SRAM RED 10-30t cassette, standard RED chain, a standard RED front derailleur, and a tuned RED rear derailleur with Extralite UltraPulleys and titanium hardware. It’s a mix of proven drivetrain pieces and boutique tuning, which feels like the sweet spot for a build like this. A superlight model that still shifts well when you’re cross-eyed halfway up a climb is simply better.

The pedals are Wahoo Speedplay Nano, tuned down to 150.6g; they’re also one of the few spots where rider-weight limits come into play. Dangerholm notes that swapping to Time XPRO 12 SL pedals would add 25g but raise the recommended weight limit. Dual-sided Speedplay power meter pedals would add 95.9g, and that is simply too much here.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm wheels

Wait Till You See The Wheels

The wheels are where things get especially spicy. The custom set weighs just 866.7g. The climbing wheels were built by R2BIKE using NonPlus Components Primaro Fusion hubs and Light Bicycle Airia 32 Disc rims with carbon spokes. The rims are 32mm deep, 31.5mm wide at the widest point, and 23.5mm internal, all while still carrying a 100kg rider weight limit. Tubulars are usually lighter than clinchers and are one of the mainstays of the hill-climbing scene. A 866g wheelset is just bonkers.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm art

Tire choice may be the most “wait, what?” part of the whole package. Dangerholm used pre-production Schwalbe Aerothan road tires, labeled 28mm in one place and 29mm in another, but reportedly measured just over 29mm on these rims. They’re paired with Tubolito S-Tubo-Road TPU tubes (apparently – not every lightweight answer is tubeless or tubular). In fact, for a build chasing grams this aggressively, tube-type starts looking less like a step backward and more like a very calculated move.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm weight

The Details Matter

Rounding things out are CarbonWorks bottle cages at 19.4g for the pair, including bolts, plus an Alpitude computer mount at 16.5g. Those pieces matter because Dangerholm’s stated goal was that the final weight had to be honest. The final tally is 4,991.4g, or nearly 11.00 pounds, with the bike equipped the way you’d actually ride it.

What about the limitations? Yes – this isn’t a bike for everyone. The frameset carries a 120kg system weight limit, the wheels are rated for a 100kg rider, the bar and seatpost for 90kg, the saddle for 80kg, and the pedals for 82kg. So no, this isn’t a universal solution for every rider. But that was never the point. The point was to show just how far a modern disc road bike can be pushed without completely losing the plot.

SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 by Dangerholm

Long Live Dream Builds

And really, that’s what makes the SCOTT Addict RC SUB5 cool. It’s not just light. Plenty of bikes are light if you’re willing to do dumb things. This one is compelling because it still sounds like a bike you’d actually want to ride. It’s modern, 2x, with decently wide tires, and built with enough braking and handling ambition. In a market that loves to tell us every road problem can be solved with more aero shaping, Dangerholm’s latest build is a fun reminder that sometimes the oldest obsession in cycling is still a good one.

And yes, 11 pounds is still hilariously, gloriously stupid in the best possible way.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Craig
Craig
27 days ago

Well written article.

XC-Racer
XC-Racer
27 days ago
Reply to  Craig

I thought it sounded like AI slop.
How many times do we need to be reminded through the article that the purpose of the build was to end up with a reliable / rideable bike?

Zach Overholt
Admin
27 days ago
Reply to  XC-Racer

I can assure you it was 100% human written. Jordan has said himself that it could have been written better, but we have a very small team here that works extremely hard to keep up and provide content (need we remind you, for free), which often has us all stretched very thin (he was working on 4 stories at once while writing this). Sometimes, stories could be improved, but that doesn’t mean they’re AI slop, which is honestly pretty insulting to our writers.

XC-Racer
XC-Racer
26 days ago
Reply to  Zach Overholt

Hi Zach / Jordan,

I owe you both an apology for my previous comment.

Zach – I saw your reply first thing this morning, and I’ve spent a lot of time today thinking about this today, and I’d like to try to explain myself (hopefully without it sounding like I’m trying to defend myself).

BikeRumor is a site that I have a huge amount of respect and appreciation for. I have been reading your site for probably 15 years now, and have always appreciated your content, and respect the fact that you’ve never gotten caught up in the click-bait / gimmicky type headlines and coverage. It’s always been straight shooting, solid, technical reporting. I visit your site daily to skim the headlines of new content to see if there’s something that interests me, and I can honestly say that I don’t do that with any other cycling related website. You guys are my primary source of cycling related news, and I don’t think that will ever change.

I think my comment yesterday came from a place of fear. Reading the above article, it did seem to me like the outline was AI generated, especially with all the references back to the goal of it being a reliable / rideable bike.
I was worried that BikeRumor was getting caught up in the AI enshitification that is quickly destroying the internet. I didn’t mean to imply that the entire article was AI slop – just that portions of it sounded like it was AI generated. But because I consider almost anything AI generated to be AI slop, that was the phrase I chose to use. I didn’t intend it to be insulting, but in retrospect, it was obviously the wrong choice of words, and was always going to come across as insulting. I sincerely apologize for that.

I respect what you guys are doing. I can’t imagine how difficult it is to be a content creator these days. And I fear that good, original content is going to continue to be vacuumed up and regurgitated by the tech giants, without proper credit being given.

You pointed out that BikeRumor is a free site. I’m not opposed to paying for quality content, and I do subscribe to ad-free tiers on other sites (for different interests) that I follow regularly. Without that being an option, what can we, as readers, do to best support you and your team? I genuinely want to see you guys succeed and continue to provide the quality content that you’ve been consistently providing over the years.

Jordan – Sorry for making that comment. It wasn’t appropriate.
Zach – Thanks for calling me out and standing up for your writers.

I think you guys can probably see my email address linked to my username – if you want to discuss further, feel free to reach out.
And if you guys have Patreon or something like that so I can buy you guys a coffee or a beer or something like that as a way of apology, let me know.

Thanks for years of solid cycling news, and hopefully we’ll still have years to come.

XC-Racer

Zach Overholt
Admin
25 days ago
Reply to  XC-Racer

Thanks for being a long time reader, and I appreciate the thought you put into this and the response. I also totally understand where you’re coming from. We have resisted the “AI enshitification” for these very reasons. I have no problem with readers pointing out what could make our stories better, it’s just that once you start insinuating that it’s AI, well, it’s hard to gain trust but easy to lose it. No need for any further apologies, we’ll keep writing if you’ll keep reading!

bob
bob
25 days ago
Reply to  Zach Overholt

it looks 100% human and fun to read actually. i enjoyed it. light bikes like this are kinda useless but everyone wants to know whats on it and if it really works, me included.

with that said, no need to defend anyone. or to get too worked up, its the internet, where people say random shit for the sake of it. just keep doing fun articles and we’ll click.

Chris F
Chris F
24 days ago
Reply to  XC-Racer

Hope you apologize to the author. Was it informative? Interesting? Cool? Yes on all accounts. Maybe try to be nicer.

Chris F
Chris F
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris F

I didn’t see your response below before I typed this. Kudos to you for your thoughtful response. You are a good guy.

Ed LLorca
Ed LLorca
23 days ago
Reply to  XC-Racer

We all must learn to see telltale signs of AI in this day and age. This article had none of them.

Last edited 23 days ago by Ed LLorca
Der_kruscher
Der_kruscher
27 days ago

Same comment as the last Dangerholm build: anyone with a huge pile of cash can convert it into an 11lb bike. I don’t see any evidence that he did anything that qualifies as “art;” he assembled an expensive bike.

Dockboy
Dockboy
26 days ago
Reply to  Der_kruscher

So what does it take for something to qualify as art? Yeah, it’s all bolted together, but Lego can be used for art, and there’s not much difference there. I think this bike is a creative exploration of the space of human-meets-machine, with maybe a message of “push yourself, but not beyond the point of failure.” It isn’t for everyone, I’d snap this thing, but it’s a potential answer to “what if.”

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  Der_kruscher

Sure I see this type of comment sometimes, and of course anyone with a big enough budget could do it but still I almost never see bikes looking like mine? For example the high-gloss polished raw carbon finish on this bike that took some 4-5 days to achieve (if it was aluminium it would all be like a mirror) is almost free to do, all you need is sandpaper and a cheap polishing machine, yet I’ve never seen it on any other bike.

At the end of the day, I build bikes for myself to ride and with ideas or concepts that I want to do. A lot of people like them and find them interesting, which is super cool and something I’m thankful for, but I’m under no illusion that everyone likes them. And that is perfectly fine, it would be a boring world if we all liked the same things.

But what strikes me as a bit funny, is that I really can’t “win” when it comes to the internet. If I build a bike like this it’s just me assembling a bike. If I cut a frame in two or do things that’s essentially never has been done before, it’s stupid and unnecessary. If I take on a new trend and build a one-off bike that literally cannot be purchased, I’m part of some conspiracy trying to force people to buy new bikes.

So while I do enjoy meaningful and constructive conversations, also with people who doesn’t like my bikes, I still need to build them for myself and how I personally want to. Out on the trails or roads this is what matters, along with the creative aspect of it all.

The latter is something, if anything, that I hope that my bikes can inspire. Not the need to go all in with crazy budgets or void warranties, but simply that people build bikes for themselves and do what they want.

B.2.th.Z
B.2.th.Z
27 days ago

Is Dangerholms beard real? That’s the only question I have. It looks stuck on.

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  B.2.th.Z

Haha you should’ve seen me back when I had an equally “stuck on” mohawk to go with the beard.

Alexandre
Alexandre
27 days ago

I’m always curious what he does with his bikes once they’re built and he’s written up the story. Does he auction them? Are these commissioned? Does he hang onto them?

Dockboy
Dockboy
26 days ago
Reply to  Alexandre

I think I’ve seen a Dangerholm build get auctioned for charity, and I know he’s repurposed old frames and parts for newer builds.

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  Alexandre

I still build them for myself to ride and enjoy, so that’s definitely a nice bonus now that I build quite a few of them.

The most special ones, as in with modified frames or handlebars, will stay with me forever. I know they’re good to go for myself, but if I sell them I can’t know if some 110kg rider gets on one ten years from now and something breaks. So it’s simply a safety aspect when it comes to those.

Other more “normal” bikes I could in theory keep a couple of years and then see them finding new homes, but this is something I haven’t done yet and need to start looking into.

c c
c c
27 days ago

Aerothan tires. How heavy and when could we buy them?

Kyle
Kyle
26 days ago

Maybe this just isn’t for me but what’s the novelty here? Isn’t this just a guy picking out commercially available components with an unlimited budget?

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  Kyle

Sure this bike isn’t very custom as such, like you say almost everything here (except the carbon finish) is commercially available. And I’m not claiming that it’s something completely new, but I would like to believe that this is one of the better attempts at building a truly performance oriented modern race bike below the 5kg limit.

There are plenty of lighter bikes out there, and a lot of this stuff comes down to personal preferences of course. Still, a lot of people clearly find this build interesting so to me it makes sense showing it.

TropicalNachos
TropicalNachos
18 days ago
Reply to  Kyle

That is 1000% what this is.

Doc Sarvis
Doc Sarvis
25 days ago

Just imagine what it would weigh without all the graphics.

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  Doc Sarvis

Sorry to disappoint, the decals are very lightweight as well haha. I don’t have the exact number, but probably less than 10g.

The idea with the sticker bomb look, aside from making it a bit different from my other raw carbon builds, is actually to trick the eye and make the bike appear heavier than it is. Sort of like a “sleeper” weightweenie build, you won’t guess it’s a 5kg bike when you see it roll up.

E x
E x
25 days ago

What’s the weight of the tires?

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  E x

169,3+173,2g so very impressive for what measures a hair above 29mm. I’m super interested in seeing some rolling resistance tests for these though.
Considering that when tubeless came around, tires were still quite lightweight and tubes heavy meaning that tubeless setups always came out fastest.
But here with a superlight tube only tire and equally light TPU tubes, perhaps it might surprise us in its performance and not just weight wise.

Graham R.
Graham R.
25 days ago

How much does Dangerholm weigh? Can he ride this bike based on the saddle’s 80kg rider weight limit?

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  Graham R.

I’m currently 82kg actually haha, but should be down around 75kg come summer after losing some gym weight. However, it only adds 10g to the saddle to go for the version with a 100kg rider weight limit.
So a 90kg overall rider weight limit would only add 35g (saddle + Time pedals) and bringing the overall limit up to 100kg would put the bike at around 5080g.

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago

While maybe it sometimes seems like I’m sort of Bruce Wayne figure with billionaire money at my back, I’m unfortunately not, meaning that I still have prioritize my bikes while my body remains very much stock haha. The weight does include the beard though!

Thank you for the feature and the great read, it truly stood out being so well written and fun!

tertius_decimus
tertius_decimus
23 days ago
Reply to  Dangerholm

But what weight of your body will be if you lose your jorts? That is the question.

RidingSilly
RidingSilly
25 days ago

I love to see these weightweenie builds and that it give this reader some confidence that there is potential in adding some creativity to builds! I still remember the days of stupid light Scott Addict Ultimate’s with endless possibilities over what traditional seatposts, stems, and bars to choose from but alas, the industry has decided down the path of OEM!

Perhaps a bit too much graphics for my liking to to each their own!

TR5642
TR5642
25 days ago

Despite my bias toward thinking that even 100kg is a silly weight limit (never mind 80kg), I can appreciate the real tradeoffs here and targeting a ‘real bike’ for a certain class of rider.

Now do one for a clydesdale . Min 120kg rider capable at minimum rideable weight. It will be it’s own challenge.

TR5642
TR5642
25 days ago
Reply to  TR5642

Also great to see civilized comments here.

Jose
Jose
24 days ago

The question is, would a pro race on it? If not it’s just marketing for Scott bikes and parts geek masterbation. It serves no other purpose. The cheerleading here is a bit over the top and makes for a one dimensional story. How about the prices? And, I dare say! How does it ride?

Last edited 24 days ago by Jose
Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  Jose

Pros would not race on it mainly because of their sponsor obligations, they could never run a mix of components such as is being used on this build. I’m not saying a World Tour pro would perhaps want this exact spec, but there’s no denying that many top riders sure are looking for marginal gains. That’s why we’re seeing some extra lightweight paint jobs, or unbranded Darimo seat posts as being used here.

One interesting example is SCOTT triathlete Magnus Ditlev who actually stays away from having a full drivetrain sponsor, simply because he wants to be able to run whatever is fastest for him in testing.

The main purpose of the build, aside from presenting it to the world, is simply for me to ride and enjoy it. At the end of the day, that’s the backstory to all my builds. I have some concept idea or want to try something out, so then I put a project in motion and build a bike. Sure various partnerships makes the sheer amount of them possible these days, but it’s essentially what I’ve always been doing and I make sure to still have very free hands.

Everything except for the custom polished frame finish and the Aerothan tires (the tires on this bike are actually used, taken from a demo/test bike, since I couldn’t get hold of any new ones) are available on the market, but I haven’t calculated a total.

As for the riding, I hope to find out soon! It was finished just a couple of weeks ago and has been on a few shows since, but with spring just around the corner I hope to go find some nice mountain roads soon with it.

Ed LLorca
Ed LLorca
23 days ago
Reply to  Jose

I’d bet pros would ride it. remember the world tour weight limit is a UCI thing not a rider thing. 4 lbs is a lot and to a 140lb rider more so (percentagewise)

TropicalNachos
TropicalNachos
18 days ago
Reply to  Jose

Pro’s would definitely ride it(sponsorship aside) but not enjoy it. For pretty much the same reason we stopped racing on Double butted lugged steel frames, they are not stiff and at race speeds, hitting a pothole would certainly damage the wheels/rims, which is not safe for both the racer and the field.

Bre Rue
Bre Rue
24 days ago

I’m so glad that he is doing these builds! They are entertaining and inspiring. Sure there are things he could do that are lighter, but I like his practical approach that just about anyone could emulate and build a reasonably safe, lightweight, fun bike provided you were willing to make the investment.

Dangerholm
Dangerholm
24 days ago
Reply to  Bre Rue

Thank you for the kind words!

Joe McIntyre
Joe McIntyre
7 days ago

Can you tell us what the UFO logo signifies?

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.