Cannondale Super Six EVO: Released w/ pics

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
slipstream
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:25 am
Location: Los Angeles

by slipstream

maquisard wrote:No matter what Cannondale say, the round/oval downtube and less bulky BB area will not be as stiff as the massive squoval tubes and BB found on the likes of the new Cervélo R5 and Canyons SLX.


The thing with composites is that you can't make that judgment based only on appearances. Different layup schemes, different "wall" thicknesses, and different grades of carbon fabric can result in vastly different stiffness characteristics for the same outer mold line.

In the end, what you say may be true, but we won't know until people start riding them and testing them.

It's great to see builders really taking advantage of the design flexibility that is possible when working with composites. I had a bad experience with an aluminum Cannondale many years ago that put me off the brand, but this bike has my attention. I look forward to Peter Denk's version of the Synapse.

maquisard
Posts: 1736
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: France

by maquisard

Fair point, it will be interesting to see definitive test results for lateral bottom bracket deflection and head tube stiffness.

It is definitely good to see the likes of Cervélo getting more competition, it will only benefit folks like us buying the bikes.

by Weenie


eric01
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:06 am

by eric01

Sam wrote:Why the different setups on the exit of brake housing?

pic 1: http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/new ... 670-75.jpg

pic 2: http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/new ... 670-75.jpg


Must be for different frame sizes. On small frames, exiting out the seatstay/top tube junction wouldn't work --- your exit point would be too low for the brake to be effective without throwing in a crazy loop in the cable.

Take a look at any small size frame and you'll see what I mean.
AX Lightness Vial Evo, Carl Strong Titanium

User avatar
mythical
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:49 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

by mythical

2ndgen wrote:With an Enve 1.0, this frameSET would come in at under 1000g.
This frame requires a 1 1/8 to 1 1/4" tapered fork so an Enve 1.0 fork wouldn't work because it only comes in 1 1/8". Also, a tapered steerer Enve fork weighs more than the one included in the frameset. I'm sure that if you cut the Cannondale fork to length for, say, a 54cm frame and without spacers, it will easily be under 1kg anyway.
“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

RideWert.com
Wert Cycling on Facebook

User avatar
mythical
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:49 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

by mythical

Epic-o wrote:I'm tired of STW graphics...why don't just show the stifness and weight numbers and let us do the stupid divison?

The SuperSix EVO seems a new benchmark in stifness but when you get the real stiffness values (STW*Weight) the Tarmac SL3 one are 10Nm/º higher. The choice of STW graphics seems a marketing decision but we aren't stupid.
It's a simple calculation. According to Zedler's findings, the SuperSix Evo has a stiffness (not STW) of 98.7Nm/deg. STW just makes it look a lot more impressive, however, by no means is this frame a noodle. The S-Works Tarmac SL3 has been measured at 108.2Nm. Can you really FEEL the difference between the two?!

The R5CA is said to be 97Nm/deg by those same Zedler diagrams...
“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

RideWert.com
Wert Cycling on Facebook

JensW
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:41 pm
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

by JensW

djconnel wrote:
njleach wrote:Cannondale back their frames with a lifetime warranty regarding any issues with workmanship and/or materials so even if you do have an issue it's not like you've got to fork out more $$$. Personally i'd rather spend 1/3 of the r5ca's price for a bike 1g lighter + the lifetime frame warranty...


That's fine. But that's just your view. To someone else, the perception that more time and care is spent building the R5-CA is worth the extra cost. Nobody in their right mind would compare a Cannondale to a Calfee or Crumpton: the latter two are hand-built by artisans as opposed to pumped through an assembly line with a ticking clock.


but is R5-CA build after the riders weight and length? otherwise i don´t know if it´s right to compare it to Calfee or Crumpton either :D

Epic-o
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:18 pm

by Epic-o

mythical wrote:
Epic-o wrote:I'm tired of STW graphics...why don't just show the stifness and weight numbers and let us do the stupid divison?

The SuperSix EVO seems a new benchmark in stifness but when you get the real stiffness values (STW*Weight) the Tarmac SL3 one are 10Nm/º higher. The choice of STW graphics seems a marketing decision but we aren't stupid.
It's a simple calculation. According to Zedler's findings, the SuperSix Evo has a stiffness (not STW) of 98.7Nm/deg. STW just makes it look a lot more impressive, however, by no means is this frame a noodle. The S-Works Tarmac SL3 has been measured at 108.2Nm. Can you really FEEL the difference between the two?!

The R5CA is said to be 97Nm/deg by those same Zedler diagrams...


No, I can't feel the difference but if I wanted to buy one of this top-end frames i would ask myself what stiffness values I really need and I would choose the lightest frame of all of them that have higher stiffness numbers than what I need.

They could build a 400gr frame with 65Nm/º ST and 162.5Nm/ºkg STW. Impressive? No

User avatar
mythical
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:49 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

by mythical

I would ride such a frame! Hell, 65Nm/deg is plenty stiff for me. It was more than adequate in the old days, so why wouldn't it be today?

Anyway, what's more important is that frames are compliant with present-day safety testing, such as the new UCI or EN standards. The SuperSix Evo frame is already on the UCI '11 approved list where may others still aren't. http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTYwNzQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjczMDE&LangId=1

I wonder when the UCI will do away with the 6.8 kg weight limit... :roll:
“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

RideWert.com
Wert Cycling on Facebook

ttc359
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles USA

by ttc359

In general , these WW wars can only benefit us, as Cervelo, now Cannondale, join the extreme low weight range. I can remember only a few years ago the Addict blew my mind with a 800g frame, now this... imagine in 10-20 years we'll be riding very stiff frames in the 400g range with forks under 200g. :o Great time to be living if you're a Weight Weenie! :)

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

JensW wrote:
djconnel wrote:That's fine. But that's just your view. To someone else, the perception that more time and care is spent building the R5-CA is worth the extra cost. Nobody in their right mind would compare a Cannondale to a Calfee or Crumpton: the latter two are hand-built by artisans as opposed to pumped through an assembly line with a ticking clock.


but is R5-CA build after the riders weight and length? otherwise i don´t know if it´s right to compare it to Calfee or Crumpton either :D


I agree. I'd put the R5-CA between the Calfee & Crumpton and the Cannondale on the "artisan" scale, or at least the "perceived artisan scale". For all I know Cervelo tosses them together sloppier than the efficiency-optimized factory working for Cannondale.

So many complained when Cannondales went to Taiwan for the CAAD-10, but then when the bikes came out, I don't see many people seeking out the old CAAD-9's because they were "made in the US". All reports are that the CAAD-10 is the better frame.

ttc359
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles USA

by ttc359

Im suprised to see Cannondale go completely "retro" as far as tube shaping. Cannondale was one of the original large diameter proponents in their aluminum bikes way back when, then witness the Hi Mods and this years radical CAAD10 enlarged tube shapes. Of course its not only Cannondale, but now it's back to skinny, almost purely round tubes. Full circle.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

... and I really like it!

And I think the geometry is spot on (at least for me). More size options than almost anyone except Colnago, with short head tubes: http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/road/el ... mate-19273

The 53.5 cm comes very close to what I'd spec for a custom frame.

User avatar
2ndgen
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:18 pm

by 2ndgen

The stock Cannondale fork only weighs 20g more than an Enve anyway at 315g uncut. Not much.
The only lighter frameset is a Cervelo R5 CA I believe and even that's only by 19g.
But, the 'Dale performed better in testing.
Can't wait to test one.

User avatar
mythical
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:49 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

by mythical

Why not use a 3T Rigida tapered fork? It's specified at 285g uncut. :thumbup: http://www.3tcycling.com/products.aspx?i=road&t=Forks&p=rigida

It doesn't look as nice as the Cannondale fork designed for the SuperSix Evo frame but the rake is about the same.
Image
“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

RideWert.com
Wert Cycling on Facebook

ttc359
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Los Angeles USA

by ttc359

If the prices I hear are correct, it's low $6000 for the entry Evo. But if you look at the specs sheet, its otherwise similiar (actually, I think it's identical) to the current Hi-Mod Red- Ksyrium Elite, Red, FSA, etc. Sure, Id rather have the Evo, but at a $1300 price premium, thats a lot to pay for 220 grams and slightly more aero. You can buy a HM-Red, sell the Elite wheelset, plus with the price savings buy yourself a pair of R-Sys Sl's and feel a lot more improvement for the money. Im not hating now, I'm a huge Cannondale fan, but it seems the HM Red seems such a better value.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post