HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 2:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:53 am
Posts: 181
I got to ride the Felt F1 for 53 miles. It is a night/day difference! The Felt has a 72.5 degree head tube and a fork rake at 50mm. I did the same exact route that I took the SuperSix Evo and used the same wheels Reynolds Thirty two tubulars (same tires)

I simply could not descend and turn the SuperSix the same way I was able to ride the Felt at 40 mile/h descending for 7 miles with lots tight turns! The felt was far more agile and snappier too out of the saddle, it was simply straight-forward, none of that tiny little adjustment which I had to make with SuperSix.

I still wont buy the Felt! I know I'm being weird, each of my Ti and steel bikes cost twice the cost of either carbon bike. But I just order the new Hongfu FM066 :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 2:49 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 2:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:43 pm
Posts: 438
Location: Canada
:popcorn:

_________________
Flickr
Tarmac SL3 Project Yellow
Follow on Instagram


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:25 am
Posts: 573
Location: Gold Coast Australia
You'll be waiting a while for your Hungpooo...??

I have been quoted another 50 days leadtime for mine... ordered it a few weeks ago....

Back to crappy handling bikes... (which my Hangpeu may well join the ranks of... we'll see...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 79
I bought a Madone 6.9SSL 2012 size 50, H1 (low headtube). It feels like I have 2-3 bar less air in the rear wheel compare to my old Trek alu. Im using the same wheels, tires, tubes and tire pressure. Strange feeling, but it drives faster and the crankbox is stiffer then the alu bike. The ride all depends on what technic I use. If Im over the handlebar, playing it aggressively, the bike respond. If I sit back, the bike is laid back.
After 1200 km I still has the flat-tire feeling, strange. But as long as it drives fast Im happy, so is my back :)
I wounder if its the same sluggish ride you are talking about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:14 am
Posts: 1201
gumgardner wrote:
Fork rake plays a role as well


it plays most of the role

_________________
project black


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:26 pm
Posts: 140
Location: New Zealand
Interestingly the 3 smallest size of CAAD10 are listed as having 50mm rake forks as opposed to the 45mm rake forks on the EVO's while having very similar angles. The smallest EVO has a trail of 66mm which in my brief readings on the topic seems huge.

I think my 48cm CAAD9 is pretty similar to the EVO's, might explain why it never felt like it cornered as nicely as my old bike. Maybe I should give a 50mm rake fork a whirl, would help with toe overlap as well :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:35 am
Posts: 446
I don't have a lot of experience with the Evo, having only ridden it on a short test ride, but I would not describe it as sluggish, and I thought it accelerated quite well.

It handled as well as my System 6 and a bitter better than my Caad 9 - all the same geometry and size 56.

My only complaint is that I didn't feel it was a very smooth ride. In fact, I want to use the word "Rattling" to describe how it rode. Of course, that also could be the Mavic wheels and Schwalbe tires that were on there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 1314
artray wrote:
Light Bikes are twitchy and it is a very different ride from a heavier stiffer bike which stays a lot more stable and feels easier to ride fast . A light bike is just as quick, I find you have to be a bit more agressive until your up to speed, except when climbing , thats when you get the real pay off.


I tend to agree with artray.

Until yesterday I had been riding my heavy aluminium training bike for the last few weeks, it has the same dimensions as my Ti bikes but as soon as I went for a ride on the lighter Ti I felt that instant twitchiness. It wasn't there for long, once I had adjusted to the weight difference it went away. The lack of weight in the front end just made my steering jerky & and all over the place till I settled into it. :noidea:

_________________
"It never gets easier, you just go faster..." - Greg Lemond

"I enjoy climbing...I enjoy seeing people disappear behind me." - Robert Millar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Posts: 3927
Location: Bay Area
For me, front center is the biggest factor in bike handling. If that's off by even 5mm, handling can go from amazing to shit. I rode a 56cm SL3 all last season, which had a front center of 590, however, the stack and reach are the same as my current CAAD10 but that has a front center that's 15mm longer. The difference is ridiculous and the CAAD is obviously heavier.

_________________
Don't take me too seriously.
Bike
Strava


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:18 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Austin
metanoize wrote:
Very disappointed in the SuperSix Evo. I test rode the smallest two sizes, I can ride either size depending on different stem/seatpost configurations. The bike rides very sluggishly. It requires enormous effort to turn. While climbing it requires a a lot of attention, the front-end is goes all over the place. Maybe the situation is different on the bigger sizes. But the smallest two sized have quite a bit of trail 6.6 and 6.3. What were they thinking!

I wish companies would stop be being cheap, and just use different fork rakes for different frame sizes.


you called it. the "smallest" of a lot of stock bikes are "sluggish" because they stick a general fork rake in a very slack HTA frame. the EVO is no exception. 71.5 HTA with 45mm rake? i bet it feels like you are stuck in a groove on the pavement.

_________________
www.crumptoncycles.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 11:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:39 pm
Posts: 26
I rode nearly 2 dozen bikes before I ended up with the Evo, my conclusions are the exact opposite of yours. I ride a 54, am 5"10" and 160#. The Evo was the most outstanding bike out of all the similarly priced bikes I test rode including Pinarello, Specialized, Trek, Moots and others. Just saying...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:53 am
Posts: 181
Broid wrote:
I rode nearly 2 dozen bikes before I ended up with the Evo, my conclusions are the exact opposite of yours. I ride a 54, am 5"10" and 160#. The Evo was the most outstanding bike out of all the similarly priced bikes I test rode including Pinarello, Specialized, Trek, Moots and others. Just saying...


I'm only talking about the two smallest sizes, you could even say the 3 smallest! On paper sizes 54 and up look really good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:53 am
Posts: 181
nicrump wrote:
metanoize wrote:
Very disappointed in the SuperSix Evo. I test rode the smallest two sizes, I can ride either size depending on different stem/seatpost configurations. The bike rides very sluggishly. It requires enormous effort to turn. While climbing it requires a a lot of attention, the front-end is goes all over the place. Maybe the situation is different on the bigger sizes. But the smallest two sized have quite a bit of trail 6.6 and 6.3. What were they thinking!

I wish companies would stop be being cheap, and just use different fork rakes for different frame sizes.


you called it. the "smallest" of a lot of stock bikes are "sluggish" because they stick a general fork rake in a very slack HTA frame. the EVO is no exception. 71.5 HTA with 45mm rake? i bet it feels like you are stuck in a groove on the pavement.


I'm honored that you agree :) I think you did an awesome job on the geo of your stock bikes. Had you put twin-stays on them, I would have immediately bought one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Posts: 590
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Broid wrote:
I rode nearly 2 dozen bikes before I ended up with the Evo, my conclusions are the exact opposite of yours. I ride a 54, am 5"10" and 160#.


That's because you are the lucky medium size that most manufacturers can get right. The 54 is 73 HTA, 45 rake and 57 trail - a pretty nice place to be. The problem for the OP is that they use that same fork on a much slacker HTA in his size. And then at the other end of the spectrum I don't like the big bikes having steep HTA with the 45mm fork.

If you look at the sizing referenced above for Crumpton you'll note that he changes the HTA and rake together to stay in the trail sweet spot. For the tall and not so tall among us this is a big plus (no I don't have a Crumpton, but I did choose my Trek for having a 40mm rake fork with the steep HTA).

So both your impression and that of the OP are completely valid as the handling design is consistent in the wrong way across the sizes.

_________________
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 12:56 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: In the industry
People also get used to geometries over time. Ride a bike and only that bike, for 30 hours, and then speak.

Also "handling quickly" doesn't mean "going fast".

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: djwalker, Google [Bot], mpower, Raineman and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. SRM SISL2 in Supersix Evo

in Road

Paoloest

13

959

Tue May 06, 2014 8:27 pm

Paoloest View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Seatpost can't choose supersix

in Road

gaisdergerman

4

693

Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:28 am

lannes View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2014 SuperSix Evo Hi-Mod ride quality

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

in Road

merkyworks

31

2686

Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:50 am

beeatnik View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. frame weight for 2014 SuperSix EVO 3?

in Road

chiltonp

1

1670

Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:27 am

Ian123 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Actual weight of Supersix Evo frame (non hi-mod)?

in Road

Starter

8

959

Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:16 am

Starter View the latest post


It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:07 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB