EVO rider from North Carolina (pics working now)

Who are you (no off-topic talk please)

Moderators: MrCurrieinahurry, maxim809, Moderator Team

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Nice build... what really caught my eye was the clearance you have under the fork. I guess I'm obsessing over that these days as I search for a decent "rain frame" with nice road geometry that I can fit fenders on. Your brake pads are clearly close to the max reach of the brake calipers which also gives the most clearance. I don't know why all manufacturers don't take advantage of the calipers' reach a bit more. Seems the standard placement for a brake bolt is such that when the pads are adjusted for a 700c rim they will fit pretty much right in the middle of the slot of the brake arm. It's clear from your picture of the front that the only limiting factor in the front tire clearance is the fork crown, not the brake itself, which is great. Especially since a lot of folks these days want to run a bit bigger tire, or in my case, a full fender as well for winter. Does the rear have similarly good clearance? I know you only have 22mm tires on there, but looks like you could fit substantially bigger if you wanted to.

Also, the bike is not "too big" in my eyes. You said that the saddle height wasn't adjusted yet, and that you're shooting for 9cm of saddle to handlebar drop. That's as aggressive as I would ever want to get as well. I can't stand a bike that is too small. It seems an entire generation has been brainwashed into thinking smaller the better. That's not to say that too big is good, but I could ride a slightly too big bike all day long and be totally comfortable whereas a too small bike would drive me nuts as soon as I got on it. So I'm with ya on your fit philosophy.

[quote="WheresWaldo"]
Image
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
WheresWaldo
in the industry
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 am
Location: North Carolina

by WheresWaldo

When the weather clears tomorrow, I will take a few more images, and be sure to include one looking at the rear brake. Just remember too that I am running tubulars and they tend to not be as tall as a wide clincher on a narrow rim. I will also try to remember to take an actual measurement to verify the clearance between tire and frame.

When these tires are worn, I have a few sets of Michelin Service Course tubulars in a 25mm that I will be putting on. The Michelins, in my experience with their clinchers, have a much nicer feel than the Continentals. I am hoping for the same with the tubulars. I am also contemplating building a new set of wheels using a U shaped rim, likely 23mm but maybe 25mm wide.
Last edited by Frankie - B on Sun Nov 30, 2014 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: deleted the quote.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
WheresWaldo
in the industry
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 am
Location: North Carolina

by WheresWaldo

A few more images, this time with climbing wheels:
Image
Plenty of room for rear fenders.

Image
Here the saddle is in the correct position, couldn't go any smaller.

Image
This is approximately 500g lighter than my 60mm carbon tubulars.

Also responding to Calnago's comments.
Calnago wrote:... what really caught my eye was the clearance you have under the fork. I guess I'm obsessing over that these days as I search for a decent "rain frame" with nice road geometry that I can fit fenders on. Your brake pads are clearly close to the max reach of the brake calipers which also gives the most clearance. I don't know why all manufacturers don't take advantage of the calipers' reach a bit more. Seems the standard placement for a brake bolt is such that when the pads are adjusted for a 700c rim they will fit pretty much right in the middle of the slot of the brake arm. It's clear from your picture of the front that the only limiting factor in the front tire clearance is the fork crown, not the brake itself, which is great. Especially since a lot of folks these days want to run a bit bigger tire, or in my case, a full fender as well for winter. Does the rear have similarly good clearance? I know you only have 22mm tires on there, but looks like you could fit substantially bigger if you wanted to.

The gap measures 9mm for both the front and back from the tire to the frame/fork. I am not sure just how thick some of the racer fenders are, but I don't recall that they were thick and should likely fit inside the frame.

superdx
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:27 pm

by superdx

Nice bike, I have the same one! Costs a ton of money to get that weight down doesn't it!

User avatar
WheresWaldo
in the industry
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 am
Location: North Carolina

by WheresWaldo

superdx wrote:Nice bike, I have the same one! Costs a ton of money to get that weight down doesn't it!

Especially since it is not a Hi-Mod frame. To be honest, I felt this was the best color scheme Cannondale had on the EVO for 2013, besides the Team (which isn't a Di2 compatible frame). I also put a Power2Max PM which increased the crank weight. Ultegra Di2 doesn't help either, but no money to step up to Dura-Ace and don't see the need to either. I have nearly given up hope getting it under 7.0 kg without spending stupid money for exotic parts. I will work on it little by little, this month it's a SMUD Universal seat post clamp, should drop 10g from the Cannondale clamp. Next month the Ritchey stem goes, likely replaced with a Kalloy Uno ASA-105 that I picked up new for under $10.00.

According to the Cannondale Bike Junkie's Bible 1 the 56cm weighs in a 15.70 lbs (7.12 kg) without pedals or cages. Compare that to the Di2 Hi-Mod which is listed at 13.60 lbs (6.17 kg).

User avatar
WheresWaldo
in the industry
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 am
Location: North Carolina

by WheresWaldo

Update:
Found a couple of things in boxes in my garage that I forgot I had. Swapped out my Masterpiece 27.2mm x 350mm for a Masterpiece 27.2mm x 240mm seatpost. That alone was a 41 gram difference. Took my Ritchey WCS 4-Axis Stem 110mm off, I was surprised to find it weighed over 140 grams with Ti hardware. Decided to replace it with a Kalloy Uno Carbon ASA-105 110mm stem, once I put in Ti bolts the weight difference was 22 grams. Had I used the Alloy stem instead I would be down 34 grams over the Ritchey.

Right now I have a few things on eBay to fund some new wheels, I need something light and stiff with a slightly higher spoke count than 20/24.

User avatar
WheresWaldo
in the industry
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 am
Location: North Carolina

by WheresWaldo

Thanksgiving Update:
A few new things since my last update, will upload images tomorrow. Got my Smud seatpost clamp, that was less than half the weight of the original Cannondale seat binder clamp. Added some ceramic bearing alloy pulley wheels. Swapped out the SM-EW67 Junction A with the 5 port SM-EW90. Added the DFly Wireless module SM-EWW01. Sold all my Garmin 500 units and gave my old Edge 800 to my daughter and bought a new Edge 810 running beta firmware 3.28. Move my GoPro Hero3 to my Tarot Hexacopter and relinquished my Contour Action Cams to backup use only, all were replaced with a Sony HDR-AZ1VR. Swapped a couple of remaining steel bolts for Titanium and now it's about as set up as I want to get it.

Post Reply