I've been reading about these two bikes for three months right now. Things I know are:
- The SS was elected "best bike in the world" by tour
- The SL4 is more responsive than the SS
- BB stiffness of SS were considered one weakness of the frame
- For crits the best choice is SL4; For long rides and climbs the SS
Anyone out there has a review of the SS comparing SL4 ? Is the SS sluggish (I read it on a review). I'm not a racer but I like to hammer the pedals on short hilly rides.
This is largely untrue.
The SL4 is not "more responsive". The Evo has a shorter wheelbase, lower headtube and often a more aggressive headtube depending on the size. Also, the BB is lower depending on the size.
The SS Evo is not sluggish. The first day I owned it I did a sprint workout and I have a decent sprint. I actually race bikes and can tell you that it feels just as stuff as my Caad 10's did and the same as the Sl4, maybe better.
The better bike depends on what you want. The SL4 has more upright Fred geo. Sorry, that's just the truth. The Sl4 has much more stack in any given size than a Supersix. The SL4 also has more front center. To me, this would be a worse crit bike because it would likely have slower turn in plus its much higher in the front. I run a 79cm saddle height and around 120-125mm of drop with classic bend bars. On an Evo this is a -8 slammed, on an SL4 I'd have to use a -17 or something more aggressive to get the same position.
The biggest difference is out of the saddle climbing. The SL4 always felt muted and sluggish in this regard whereas my SS feels snappy. I've said good and bad things about my old Guru, but the SS is the only other frame I've ridden that has this weird, but awesome characteristic.
This isn't to say the SL4 is a bad bike and I'm splitting hairs but I would choose the SS over it any day of the week. I also felt that the SL4 cut corners in a lot of regards specifically with the cable routing.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate
Froome.GramzFailed Custom Bike