Cannondale SuperSix Evo4

[Maddie]

The layout will be a bit different. But if you think a manufacturer will give you more specifics à la "in the headtube we used 8 layers of M40J fibers instead of 11 layers of T700 to achieve the same stiffness at less weight" then sorry to disappoint you. This is not going to happen.
Same with S-Works framesets compared to Specializeds ones. We all know S-Works frames are a bit lighter (Fact 12R compared to 10R).

Again, what kind of information do you expect? "More" is a bit unspecific.

[BadBoyR]

However, people with short torso and use short stem or people that like to sit far behind the bb may find they like a more compact bike more.

I'm curious about this. won't be the slacker HTA & relatively high stack an advantage to people in need of long seat height & shorter reach?

For stack and reach perspective, you are right.
I mean in term of front/rear weight distribution.
There are other bikes with the same stack and reach or even more relax. But has shorter front center length from crank to front wheel. Some of those bikes also have more trail value to make steering feel more stable, compensate for the lack of weight on the front wheel as well. Those bikes will fit even better for people whose their weight center of gravity is really far back.

This stretched front center geometry for size 44-54 means less weight on front wheel and more on rear wheel. It sync very well for fitting that usually is front heavy*. And it still work very well for average fitting. Just less so if you are particularly rear heavy and light on the front wheel**.

* front heavy in this context is relative. Strictly speaking, everyone carry more weight on rear wheel than front. If rear heavy is 63-70% weight on rear wheel and 30-37% on front wheel. Front heavy I mean like 55-59% rear, 41-45% front

** light on the front wheel is not to be confused with light on the hand. You may carry 0 weight on the hands but by your center of gravity location, front-rear wheel weight distribution vary.

So the elongated wheelbase is to keep the front end lighter?

Wouldn’t this feel elongated from a riders point as it so far stretched?

I’m looking at a 54 and have compared it to a 54 sl7 and 56 sl7, the cannondale is bigger in the wheelbase area, but a 56 sl7 is just not for me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan Gerous]

The longer wheelbase is just a by-product of the slacker Head Angle and bigger Rake IMO, it does add a bit of stability at very high speeds but I think the goal was to create a longer front center as riders on 54cm and down bikes often have problems with toe overlap, but adjusting the Rake together with the Head Angle keeps the Trail number constant and the steering feeling just as quick and nimble as with more traditionnal race geoemtries of the 56 and up and most other brands.

It works very well IMO, it keeps a racy nimble feel but as Hexsense mentionned, if you keep the same saddle position relative to the BB and the same stem length and bar reach as you did with older Evos or on a Tarmac, your weight bias will be more over the back wheel, less on the front. It might suit some but personnally, I started on my 54cm Evo 3 with the same fit numbers relative to the BB as I had on my Evo 2 but hated that shift in weight balance because I like to have more weight on my front wheel and like to corner aggressively. I felt a bit like I could not weigh my front tire as I wanted naturally and felt it lacked front tire grip/confidence and steering felt a bit too vague, too light for my tastes. But with a longer stem and my saddle moved more forward compared to what I did on older Cannondales, it's wonderful now, best of both worlds.

[BadBoyR]

The longer wheelbase is just a by-product of the slacker Head Angle and bigger Rake IMO, it does add a bit of stability at very high speeds but I think the goal was to create a longer front center as riders on 54cm and down bikes often have problems with toe overlap, but adjusting the Rake together with the Head Angle keeps the Trail number constant and the steering feeling just as quick and nimble as with more traditionnal race geoemtries of the 56 and up and most other brands.

It works very well IMO, it keeps a racy nimble feel but as Hexsense mentionned, if you keep the same saddle position relative to the BB and the same stem length and bar reach as you did with older Evos or on a Tarmac, your weight bias will be more over the back wheel, less on the front. It might suit some but personnally, I started on my 54cm Evo 3 with the same fit numbers relative to the BB as I had on my Evo 2 but hated that shift in weight balance because I like to have more weight on my front wheel and like to corner aggressively. I felt a bit like I could not weigh my front tire as I wanted naturally and felt it lacked front tire grip/confidence and steering felt a bit too vague, too light for my tastes. But with a longer stem and my saddle moved more forward compared to what I did on older Cannondales, it's wonderful now, best of both worlds.

That makes a lot morse sense as I like to be more towards the front of the bike. I love the geometry of my sl7 and the soloist matches it almost identical. I’ve never ridden a supersix so just going by the geometry on geometry geeks the wheelbase is confusing as the frame size is correct @54.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Karvalo]

Can someone share the facts/ info on what "exactly" is the difference with the LAB71?
Personally i think it should be a very detailed spec on what this is about, because if anything, that exclusivity is what they try to sell, so it should be easy access information.

But it's not. It never is. What exactly is the difference between an S-Works frame and a Pro frame for instance? What exactly is Fact 12r vs Fact 10r? How exactly does the layup differ? Would the precise details actually convey anything at all to people who don't work in carbon engineering anyway?

I'm honestly not sure what you want them to be telling you?

[wheelsONfire]

Can someone share the facts/ info on what "exactly" is the difference with the LAB71?
Personally i think it should be a very detailed spec on what this is about, because if anything, that exclusivity is what they try to sell, so it should be easy access information.

But it's not. It never is. What exactly is the difference between an S-Works frame and a Pro frame for instance? What exactly is Fact 12r vs Fact 10r? How exactly does the layup differ? Would the precise details actually convey anything at all to people who don't work in carbon engineering anyway?

I'm honestly not sure what you want them to be telling you?

For instace what one guy wrote up here^
That is sufficent.

Let's say you go to a car dealer who offers two cars. One cost 20% more and you ask him, what is the difference.
- It's faster, he reply!
Would you say, ah, ok here you have my money?

If he told you about the better engine and the enhanced gearbox, you would understand.
Do you understand what i mean?

Even Ax Lightness could tell me what they did from Gen 1 Vial EVO to the version i now have.
I don't ask for an x-ray or blue print, just some short description.

[cerro]

The longer wheelbase is just a by-product of the slacker Head Angle and bigger Rake IMO, it does add a bit of stability at very high speeds but I think the goal was to create a longer front center as riders on 54cm and down bikes often have problems with toe overlap, but adjusting the Rake together with the Head Angle keeps the Trail number constant and the steering feeling just as quick and nimble as with more traditionnal race geoemtries of the 56 and up and most other brands.

It works very well IMO, it keeps a racy nimble feel but as Hexsense mentionned, if you keep the same saddle position relative to the BB and the same stem length and bar reach as you did with older Evos or on a Tarmac, your weight bias will be more over the back wheel, less on the front. It might suit some but personnally, I started on my 54cm Evo 3 with the same fit numbers relative to the BB as I had on my Evo 2 but hated that shift in weight balance because I like to have more weight on my front wheel and like to corner aggressively. I felt a bit like I could not weigh my front tire as I wanted naturally and felt it lacked front tire grip/confidence and steering felt a bit too vague, too light for my tastes. But with a longer stem and my saddle moved more forward compared to what I did on older Cannondales, it's wonderful now, best of both worlds.

That makes a lot morse sense as I like to be more towards the front of the bike. I love the geometry of my sl7 and the soloist matches it almost identical. I’ve never ridden a supersix so just going by the geometry on geometry geeks the wheelbase is confusing as the frame size is correct @54.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SuperSIX Evo geo is more lively compared to the SL7. I had a SuperSIX Evo gen 3 standard mod, changed for a Tarmac SL7 Pro, then an Æthos Pro, now a SuperSIX Evo Gen 3 Leichtbau. Size 51cm (52 Spec), and I'm 174cm so am in the spectrum of those short persons with much longer front center on the Cannondale.
Same 58mm trail on all bikes, Specialized feels very good but the Cannondale is so much more fun. No matter if going straight or downhill with switchbacks, their Outfront geo feels like a success. Never ever felt the bike to be longer even when the difference is almost 2cm. Except I have less toe overlap on my roadbike than on my gravelbike...

[cerro]

Can someone share the facts/ info on what "exactly" is the difference with the LAB71?
Personally i think it should be a very detailed spec on what this is about, because if anything, that exclusivity is what they try to sell, so it should be easy access information.

But it's not. It never is. What exactly is the difference between an S-Works frame and a Pro frame for instance? What exactly is Fact 12r vs Fact 10r? How exactly does the layup differ? Would the precise details actually convey anything at all to people who don't work in carbon engineering anyway?

I'm honestly not sure what you want them to be telling you?

For instace what one guy wrote up here^
That is sufficent.

Let's say you go to a car dealer who offers two cars. One cost 20% more and you ask him, what is the difference.
- It's faster, he reply!
Would you say, ah, ok here you have my money?

If he told you about the better engine and the enhanced gearbox, you would understand.
Do you understand what i mean?

Even Ax Lightness could tell me what they did from Gen 1 Vial EVO to the version i now have.
I don't ask for an x-ray or blue print, just some short description.

To add to the Lab71 with it's lighter (less) Nano carbon tech it also got heavier more refined paintjobs. So while it's 40g difference in real there is a bigger difference with unpainted frames as the hi-mods got lighter (more boring) paintjobs.

So stronger (less) carbon and refined paintjobs. That's what you pay for. If you don't want the extra cherry on the cake the cheaper frames will provide the same stiffness and compliance for less money

[Stendhal]

Occasionally some bike companies will describe the different type of carbon used in premium frames, e.g. more use of higher tensile, lighter but more brittle carbon. I may be mis-recalling but Pinarello sometimes uses Torayca numbers, T700 or T1000 or T1100, where a higher number supposedly is better. Gerald Vroomen kind of made fun of this on the OPEN website.

[Dan Gerous]

Someone at Cannondale stated they didn't want to tell everything about the engineering of the LAB71 frames when it was released, not wanting to give away too much to other companies.

[Karvalo]

Even Ax Lightness could tell me what they did from Gen 1 Vial EVO to the version i now have.
I don't ask for an x-ray or blue print, just some short description.

What was that short description?

[pmprego]

I'd gladly prefer them to state the confidence intervals for frame weights based on 100 sample frames for each size than to tell me some Bs that I can't do nothing with regarding the perfect mix of carbon xpto and carbon xpto2

[wheelsONfire]

Even Ax Lightness could tell me what they did from Gen 1 Vial EVO to the version i now have.
I don't ask for an x-ray or blue print, just some short description.

What was that short description?

Ax?
New layups, plus beefed up for better stiffness but at the same time, not creating a harsher ride feel.
Ax also deviated from the ideal of ultimate lightness. They went for better stiffness and durability (which i probably can say these later frames have)
The disc version was made to be as close as possible in ride feel. And yes, i asked about the disc vs rim brake bikes in general and sure, it is more difficult to preserve same ride feel on a disc brake frame compared to a rim brake design. So i guess this idea of larger tires came as a sign from God. Otherwise i am sure that if you swapped between rim and disc back and forth, you would notice that the rim brake version have a better ride feel.

As far as i have understood, Sarto and Argonaut put great detail in this subject. Ride feel!

[BadBoyR]

The longer wheelbase is just a by-product of the slacker Head Angle and bigger Rake IMO, it does add a bit of stability at very high speeds but I think the goal was to create a longer front center as riders on 54cm and down bikes often have problems with toe overlap, but adjusting the Rake together with the Head Angle keeps the Trail number constant and the steering feeling just as quick and nimble as with more traditionnal race geoemtries of the 56 and up and most other brands.

It works very well IMO, it keeps a racy nimble feel but as Hexsense mentionned, if you keep the same saddle position relative to the BB and the same stem length and bar reach as you did with older Evos or on a Tarmac, your weight bias will be more over the back wheel, less on the front. It might suit some but personnally, I started on my 54cm Evo 3 with the same fit numbers relative to the BB as I had on my Evo 2 but hated that shift in weight balance because I like to have more weight on my front wheel and like to corner aggressively. I felt a bit like I could not weigh my front tire as I wanted naturally and felt it lacked front tire grip/confidence and steering felt a bit too vague, too light for my tastes. But with a longer stem and my saddle moved more forward compared to what I did on older Cannondales, it's wonderful now, best of both worlds.

That makes a lot morse sense as I like to be more towards the front of the bike. I love the geometry of my sl7 and the soloist matches it almost identical. I’ve never ridden a supersix so just going by the geometry on geometry geeks the wheelbase is confusing as the frame size is correct @54.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SuperSIX Evo geo is more lively compared to the SL7. I had a SuperSIX Evo gen 3 standard mod, changed for a Tarmac SL7 Pro, then an Æthos Pro, now a SuperSIX Evo Gen 3 Leichtbau. Size 51cm (52 Spec), and I'm 174cm so am in the spectrum of those short persons with much longer front center on the Cannondale.
Same 58mm trail on all bikes, Specialized feels very good but the Cannondale is so much more fun. No matter if going straight or downhill with switchbacks, their Outfront geo feels like a success. Never ever felt the bike to be longer even when the difference is almost 2cm. Except I have less toe overlap on my roadbike than on my gravelbike...

21mm extra wheelbase is better than 32mm on a 54.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk hi

[wheelsONfire]

Occasionally some bike companies will describe the different type of carbon used in premium frames, e.g. more use of higher tensile, lighter but more brittle carbon. I may be mis-recalling but Pinarello sometimes uses Torayca numbers, T700 or T1000 or T1100, where a higher number supposedly is better. Gerald Vroomen kind of made fun of this on the OPEN website.

Yes, he have done that alot. However, he also doesn't like to put much money into anything. So, perhaps we can suspect that Open rather make bikes as cheap as possible?