2014 Supersix Evo ballistic frame VS 2013 SL4 S-Works

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

Post Reply
User avatar
Starter
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:28 am

by Starter

I recently bought a 2014 Supersix Evo Red, at a great price. A little buyer's remorse about the sizing, but the shop is totally cool and actually giving me two options... Either they can order another identical bike in my preferred size, or for an additional $750, they will strip the frameset and build up an SL4 S-Works frameset they have, also in my preferred size.

My knee-jerk reaction, and I'm sure that of many others is to take the S-Works. While the debate between a Supersix Evo Hi-Mod and an S-Works will be more about which ride quality you prefer, one naturally would take one of those models over a lower-end non hi-mod frame. Particularly when the extra money isn't that much. But after doing the math, I'm actually on the fence.

From what I've read and people I've spoken to, the SL4 and the S-Works differ more in ride quality than they do in weight (something in the neighborhood of 100g). On the other hand, the Supersix Evo ballistic and the ballistic hi-mod ride identically, according to everyone I've spoken to, and the main difference between the two is just the weight. So here's where it gets interesting to me... We weighed the proposed S-Works SL4 at 920g. The non-hi-mod Evo is claimed to be 950g. Assuming that's accurate, the base Evo is basically the same weight as the S-Works. If that's the case, and the base ballistic and hi-mod Evos ride identically... Then comparing the S-works with the base Evo is actually a matter of taste, and one isn't necessarily getting "more bike" in the S-works.

As far as my experience between the two... Well, I've ridden the Evo ballistic and I've ridden the standard SL4, but not the S-Works. Between the Evo and the SL4, I could go either way. I suspect that the Tarmac's extra .8cm of top tube fits me slightly better than the Evo. But the Evo certainly fits too, and I really appreciate the creamy nature of the bike. But I also like how responsive the SL4 is.

Honestly, I'd be very happy on either. I've ridden a lot of bikes, and these two frames are some of the nicest I've sat on. I've thoroughly enjoyed my test rides. The $750 gamble is if the slightly different ride quality of the S-Works versus the SL4 would be enough to tip it into the stand-out preferred frame for me.

Thoughts?
Oof.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Svetty
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country

by Svetty

No brainer : Evo + $750 》S-Works :D

User avatar
WheresWaldo
in the industry
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 am
Location: North Carolina

by WheresWaldo

Agree with Svetty, I have ridden both as well, EVO was more comfortable. As far as EVO vs. EVO Hi-Mod, I don't think you will notice any difference in ride quality. I had the opportunity to ride a lot of EVO's this past year as well as CAAD10's and with the same wheels/tires at the same tire pressures you will be hard pressed to tell any difference on smooth/new roads. Where the EVO vs CAAD10 differs on harsh pavement. Otherwise all three handle and ride pretty much the same.

Take that $750 and put it toward some good wheelset or other accessories you might not have normally bought, take your significant other out to dinner and call it good.

User avatar
Starter
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:28 am

by Starter

My significant other just laughed snarkily at the idea that there may be "other accessories I might not have normally bought". Clearly she's unaware of the existence of Exposure lights. But she's open to the idea of my taking her out for a nice meal. Or $750 worth of shoes, for that matter.

In concept, I'm agreed that the Evo standard ballistic represents an equal match to the S-Works, both in weight and in ride quality (the second being subjective, of course), and therefore the $750 less base Evo frame represents the greater value. However my last wavering doubt is in that extra .8 CM of top tube length on the Tarmac. Both the standard SL4 and the Evo I rode had fast and loose fits done for me, and I have no doubt that either would be even better with a proper fit (not to mention my own saddle)... That said, if I were to have a frame custom-built for me, it would probably feature a TT a hair over 54... I guess at this point I'm debating perfect fit VS really perfect fit.

And I assume my significant other is debating whether to stab me with a steak knife or a pair of scissors.
Oof.

User avatar
WheresWaldo
in the industry
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:52 am
Location: North Carolina

by WheresWaldo

Starter wrote:...
In concept, I'm agreed that the Evo standard ballistic represents an equal match to the S-Works, both in weight and in ride quality (the second being subjective, of course), and therefore the $750 less base Evo frame represents the greater value. However my last wavering doubt is in that extra .8 CM of top tube length on the Tarmac. Both the standard SL4 and the Evo I rode had fast and loose fits done for me, and I have no doubt that either would be even better with a proper fit (not to mention my own saddle)... That said, if I were to have a frame custom-built for me, it would probably feature a TT a hair over 54... I guess at this point I'm debating perfect fit VS really perfect fit.
...

.8 cm is nothing that a 1 cm longer stem or a long reach handlebar won't cure. I would be more concerned about stack height rather than reach. Are you able to match the saddle to handlebar drop on each frame? If so, then it should be a no brainer, go with the EVO. With a 1 cm longer stem, you are now looking at a 2 mm difference in reach, I would think that such a small measurement change would be imperceptible. Who knows maybe the EVO reach is the really perfect fit and the Tarmac just perfect!

weekapaugin
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:18 pm
Location: phoenix, az

by weekapaugin

I would compare reach numbers instead of tt length, even if comparing effective top tube length. Comparing the EVO's more traditional geo to the sloping of a tarmac is quite different when talking actual reach measurements.

Although I do not know what sizes you are considering, I had different perceptions on the frames. My last bike was a 49cm tarmac sl3 pro (518 ETT, 386 reach), which I found to ride a little harsh in the front end, especially through rough corners (which makes sense now that you read the new (sl5) literature). I had also ridden an s-works sl3 for a few days straight and could not tell a difference.

For the last 11 months I have been on a 50cm '14 Evo (520 ETT, 376 Reach), which I found to be a very well balanced and smooth riding bike. 2.5 weeks ago that frame was replaced with a hi-mod in the same size, which weighed a scant 769g, and although not scientific, I feel that the hi-mod rides a little firmer up front. Like you, everything I had heard and read stated the Evo and Evo hi-mod should ride the same with just a weight difference, so I don't know if the higher mod fibers in such short tube lengths attribute to that, or I just have a bad memory.

User avatar
Starter
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:28 am

by Starter

Thanks for the replies. Settled on the Evo, the 2015 Sram Red model actually, in the matte black with red accents. Should be here soon... Already spec'ing out the build list...
Oof.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7917
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Matte black with red accents? Oooohhh.... you clearly made the correct choice.

I really like the Cannondale geometry, BTW. Of course, a given bike might fit better or worse, depending on the person.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Post Reply