SuperSix Evo is truly a sluggish bike

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
metanoize
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:53 am

by metanoize

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 :)


shadwell
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Gold Coast Australia

by shadwell

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...)

darkblue08
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:56 pm

by darkblue08

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.

User avatar
sugarkane
in the industry
Posts: 1800
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:14 am
Location: SYD
Contact:

by sugarkane

gumgardner wrote:Fork rake plays a role as well


it plays most of the role

CamW
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:26 pm
Location: New Zealand

by CamW

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 :?

topflightpro
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:35 am

by topflightpro

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.

User avatar
Wingnut
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:41 am

by Wingnut

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's not the destination...it's the ride!"

KWalker
Posts: 5845
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

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. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

nicrump
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:18 pm
Location: Austin
Contact:

by nicrump

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.

Broid
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:39 pm

by Broid

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...

metanoize
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:53 am

by metanoize

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.

metanoize
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:53 am

by metanoize

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.

cyclenutnz
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Contact:

by cyclenutnz

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
http://www.velogicfit.com - 3D Motion Capture and Frame Finder Software

User avatar
elviento
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: In the industry
Contact:

by elviento

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

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post