Thanks for the info
I do quite a few miles here in Cheshire as well as some good hills as I live on the edge of the peak district so the Cat & Fiddle road is good training, I need to choose a bike in the next couple of weeks, do you think the extra £600 for the Scott CR1 Contessa is worth the extra spec ? I don't know enough about the technical stuff to compare properly, I need all the help I can get with hills and miles !!
The components on both bikes are great. The only real difference being the Ultegra will be slightly harder wearing, lighter and it has internal cable routing; so no brake cables blossoming from the shifters. Although to us mortals it's only an aesthetic rather than a quarter of a second speed boost.
Gearing wise there is a slight difference. The Scott has both a lower bottom gear and a higher top gear but this could mean that it's harder to find the sweet spot when at crusing pace. The advantage is that you've got a one tooth advantage when on a hard climb and a one tooth speed advantage on a descent.
Overall it's a bit of a tit for tat between the two bikes both of which are very good. Personally I'd advise you call the shop, get them both in and take them for a buzz to see how they feel. Would I pay the £600 more for the Scott, nah I don't like the colour scheme!
I'd get the Ruby and blow the extra £600 on a cracking pair of wheels if it was burning a hole in my pocket. Wheels are where most bikes are compromised and where the manufactures cut costs. Also with the tit for tat in mind and considering you maybe riding long distances the Ruby is likely to be the most comforatable due to the zerts and carbon seat post, the Scott has an aluminium seatpost.
Sorry if this is information overload for you.
Abs