New cannondale SYSTEMSIX road frame!

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

Hi Knokkelhaug,

Congratulations! I know you'll enjoy your SystemSix.

For sizing, most people can fit more than one size. You could probably have gone either 54 or 56. Normally small adjustments in stem or spacers can cover the differences.

For your size 56 SystemSix: stack is 9mm higher, reach 5mm longer. So consider the difference in handlebar reach, etc. and maybe adjust the spacers or stem length if you want.

If you had chosen a size 54 SystemSix: stack is about 11mm lower, so if you want your bars to be at the same height, you'd add a ~10mm spacer and be fine.

People who ride ride other sizes could also compare stack & reach, since, as in your case, not all the sizes fit exactly the same between SuperSix EVO and SystemSix.

Where did you get a chance to look at the bike? Glad you got that WOW feeling!

Cheers,
Damon
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo

by Weenie


Knokkelhaug
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:03 am

by Knokkelhaug

I went to the local CD dealer in Bergen, Norway (Host city for WC road race 2017).

I forgot to inform I'm 176 cm, leg inseam 83 cm. When I had bikefitting on my SuperSix I was a 54/ 56. I used 120mm stem on my two last SuperSix 54.

User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 419
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: Montréal, Qc, Can + Hautes Pyrénées
Contact:

by Dan Gerous

Not sure if shifting will suffer much but for those wanting a cleaner cable routing on mechanical groups, a nearby shop built one this week and routed the cables into the headtube, not using the downtube port (bike pictured is bought, not fitted yet).
SystemSix2.jpg
SystemSix3.jpg

DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

Dan Gerous wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:29 am
Not sure if shifting will suffer much but for those wanting a cleaner cable routing on mechanical groups, a nearby shop built one this week and routed the cables into the headtube, not using the downtube port (bike pictured is bought, not fitted yet).

SystemSix2.jpgSystemSix3.jpg
Hi Dan,

Very clean! Thanks for the photos. Yes, the mechanical cables can fit inside, and as you said the shifting could be a little slower, but it's a free choice for the rider.

Also, in our trials the housings could be pinched a little at the max/min steering angles, so take care not to force it.

Cheers,
Damon
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo

DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

Knokkelhaug wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:00 am
I went to the local CD dealer in Bergen, Norway (Host city for WC road race 2017).

I forgot to inform I'm 176 cm, leg inseam 83 cm. When I had bikefitting on my SuperSix I was a 54/ 56. I used 120mm stem on my two last SuperSix 54.
Hi Knokkelhaug,

Sounds like you chose the right size SystemSix.

Some friends went to Bergen to watch the WC. They said it's a beautiful city. :-)

Cheers,
Damon
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo

willmac
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:33 am

by willmac

DamonRinard wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:59 am
Dan Gerous wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:29 am
Not sure if shifting will suffer much but for those wanting a cleaner cable routing on mechanical groups, a nearby shop built one this week and routed the cables into the headtube, not using the downtube port (bike pictured is bought, not fitted yet).

SystemSix2.jpgSystemSix3.jpg
Hi Dan,

Very clean! Thanks for the photos. Yes, the mechanical cables can fit inside, and as you said the shifting could be a little slower, but it's a free choice for the rider.

Also, in our trials the housings could be pinched a little at the max/min steering angles, so take care not to force it.

Cheers,
Damon
Wold be interesting to try this out with jagwire. The sectioned outer is good for tight radius bends and being alloy could prevent pinching of the outer?

DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

Great idea, we didn't try that.
Would be difficult to assemble quickly in a production line, but for an individual rider who wants to try, it seems like it might work.
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6466
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

gwilson wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:17 pm
Got mine built up in the last few days and took it out for my first long ride this morning. Have to agree with what was written earlier about how well it corners and sprints. Feels amazing getting out of the saddle and putting power through the pedals. Felt a bit on the rigid side with the stock 23mm tires, but I was planning on switching over to 25s anyways. Cable integration might draw some away, but I didn’t find any negative effect on the performance. Definitely felt some performance benefit compared to my old road bike, especially at higher speeds. And before anyone asks, yes I’m going to cut down the steerer tube
Say what you want about how this frame accommodates cable routing options, but I don't see one mechanical cable routing option that I would consider "great" so far. Saying the completely inside the headtube right out of the bars option "could be a little slower" is wishful thinking imo. The acute bends inherent in that would in my mind absolutely be creating a lot of cable drag and in so doing compromise shifting from what it could be. I'm not much for these "it works" solutions. I want it to work and work perfectly. And the cable crossing internally would probably create quite a kink as the outers came around and had to fit into that rather high on the downtube cable port. All in all, maybe the nicest thing I could say about the mechanical cable routing on this frame is to echo @Nefarious's more polite comment (he is a moderator after all), is that it is "interesting".

But what I'm more interested in is how the new Shimano derailleurs work with this setup. Case in point... Here's a picture of @gwilson's setup from a few posts ago....
Image

I will bet that the rear derailleur is rotated significantly rearward from where it should be according to Shimano specs, and that there exists a gap between the rear derailleur tab on the B-link and the stop on the rear derailleur hanger. @gwilson: you can confirm that simply by removing the rear wheel and looking at the derailleur stop on the B-link of the derailleur and the stop on the derailleur hanger. Those should be in contact with each other. I suspect they are not. Now, there's two things that might cause that.... the first is simply a sloppy initial setup arising when the mechanic was torquing down the derailleur to the hanger, the B-link twisted from where it should be set, and pulled it away from the stop. The second way it might end up like that is entirely intentional, and done to allow a more easy removal of the rear wheel. Trouble is, that little rearward rotation of the derialleur assembly, while often giving enough room to make rear wheel removal easier in cases where it otherwise isn't, pulls the upper pulley of the derailleur significantly further away from the cogs, and thus shifting performance becomes much less that what it could be and should be. It basically negates one of the main perfromance gains of the new derialleurs, that "wrap around" of the cogs and engaging more of the chain sooner and faster by positioning the upper pulley so close to teh cogs. Again, it will "work", and if it is necessary in order to make rear wheel removal easier, or in some cases, possible, then so be it. But it is not ideal from a sheer shifting performance perspective.

Also, many consumers' main question regarding frame design these days is, whether valid or not... "How much tire clearance is there?" Given that @gwilson felt the ride was on the harsh side with the 23mm tires that came with the frame and he'd like to put 25mm tires on, I would like to know how this frame would fare with even 25mm tires mounted, AND with the new Shimano derailleur set up as it should be, with the hanger tab and derailleur stops in contact with each other. Since 25mm tires seem to be the minimum requirement these days for framesets, I think an easy removal of that same wheel should also be a requirement.

@gwilson: Perhaps you can confirm this if you have a 25mm tire to mount, ideally a Conti 4000sii since if it works with that, it will likely work with any 25mm clincher. But as a minimum, I wonder if you could confirm what I was saying about the rear derailleur setup as a miniumum. Thanks. Sometimes I think a lot of frames really do get completely designed at a computer desk these days and the actual "details" of how it will actually build up in real life from a functional standpoint end up somewhat as an afterthought.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

willmac
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:33 am

by willmac

Calnago, i just took a look at the ultegra mech on my caad. It looks like the bit between the hanger and the actual mech, whatever you want to call it, is not installed correctly. Whether it is deliberate or not for wheel change i don’t know but that bit should be horizontal basically.

As for cable routing, i haven’t seen any nice recent mechanical setups. Trek and BMC also do it this way. If you are spending this sort of cash on a bike then I would think that the majority of sales will be for di2 anyway which eliminates the worry in the first place. From a manufacturing process i guess that they are all using the junction box mount for cable routing. Only Specialized hasn’t done this and they are also the only ones without the junction box in the frame based on this years releases.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6466
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Hi @wilmac, don’t think I saw your install, so I’m just referencing @gwilsons build. For comparison, here is another build from a few posts back which looks much more “correct” as far as the rear derailleur setup goes. The b-link should actually be angled downwards towards the rear when “properly” installed. However, to get the most clearance in cases of difficult wheel removal, the B-link needs to be adjusted to a horizontal position, which means there will be a gap between the support stops, so you’d better be sure you have the derailleur torqued down well enough to allow the torque alone to be holding it in place. Shimano specifically has a line drawn through this setup in their tech docs indicating this would be a NO NO, but sometimes you gotta work around a particular frame design.
Here’s the setup that looks more “correct” as far as the rear derailleur goes. Wonder how rear wheel removal would be with a 25mm Conti 4000sii installed....
Image
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

Karvalo
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:40 pm

by Karvalo

Calnago wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:21 pm
Here’s the setup that looks more “correct” as far as the rear derailleur goes. Wonder how rear wheel removal would be with a 25mm Conti 4000sii installed....
I dropped a set of Enve 4.5AR with 28mm Pro Ones in and out of that very bike with zero issues :beerchug:

spdntrxi
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

Karvalo wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:08 pm
Calnago wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:21 pm
Here’s the setup that looks more “correct” as far as the rear derailleur goes. Wonder how rear wheel removal would be with a 25mm Conti 4000sii installed....
I dropped a set of Enve 4.5AR with 28mm Pro Ones in and out of that very bike with zero issues :beerchug:
this is the setup I want to use.. but I have doubts the new BMC TMR will let me. I figure it will measure 30+ in width.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6466
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Karvalo wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:08 pm
Calnago wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:21 pm
Here’s the setup that looks more “correct” as far as the rear derailleur goes. Wonder how rear wheel removal would be with a 25mm Conti 4000sii installed....
I dropped a set of Enve 4.5AR with 28mm Pro Ones in and out of that very bike with zero issues :beerchug:
:beerchug: Good to know @Karvalo, thanks for that info. Sounds like all is good on this front then, and I would simply advise @gwilson to have his rear derailleur setup looked at to ensure that he can fully enjoy the superb shifting of the new derailleur as it was intended to be.
Last edited by Calnago on Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

ryanw
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:52 pm
Location: London

by ryanw

ryanw wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:20 pm
DamonRinard wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:43 am
ryanw wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:59 am
I was actually referring to traveling with my bike in my Bike Box Alan (see pic).
Hi ryanw,

Thanks for the photo. I don't know anyone who's tried the SystemSix in a BBA. The fork is truly limited to 50 degrees, so if it must go 90 to fit, then obviously it's a no-go.

If it could fit at 0 degrees (straight ahead) or between +/-50 degrees then do you think it could it be a possibility?

Cheers,
Damon
Hi Damon,

I'm actually packing my S5 this week since I'm off getting married in Maui, and of course the bike is coming with me!

I'll check to see if the forks can be askew and if they'll fit, but from memoery, I've tried this before and it was a no go.

It really goes to show how much thought is required when producing these bikes.

Fingers crossed for you guys and all the eventual SuperSix owners, that this can be resolved somehow, since for me, it woud be a deal breaker.

Just thought I'd let you all know that the SystemSix WILL fit in a BBA... Not how I would ideally pack one, but it will fit with the fork at 0 degrees.
'16 Cervelo S5 - 6650g
'17 Focus Mares Force 1
'15 Scott Addict Team - 6850g Sold
'17 Cervelo R3D DA - 7580g - Sold
'16 Cannondale CAAD12 DA Disc - 7560g - RIP

by Weenie


gwilson
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:41 am

by gwilson

Calnago wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:24 pm
gwilson wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:17 pm
Got mine built up in the last few days and took it out for my first long ride this morning. Have to agree with what was written earlier about how well it corners and sprints. Feels amazing getting out of the saddle and putting power through the pedals. Felt a bit on the rigid side with the stock 23mm tires, but I was planning on switching over to 25s anyways. Cable integration might draw some away, but I didn’t find any negative effect on the performance. Definitely felt some performance benefit compared to my old road bike, especially at higher speeds. And before anyone asks, yes I’m going to cut down the steerer tube
Say what you want about how this frame accommodates cable routing options, but I don't see one mechanical cable routing option that I would consider "great" so far. Saying the completely inside the headtube right out of the bars option "could be a little slower" is wishful thinking imo. The acute bends inherent in that would in my mind absolutely be creating a lot of cable drag and in so doing compromise shifting from what it could be. I'm not much for these "it works" solutions. I want it to work and work perfectly. And the cable crossing internally would probably create quite a kink as the outers came around and had to fit into that rather high on the downtube cable port. All in all, maybe the nicest thing I could say about the mechanical cable routing on this frame is to echo @Nefarious's more polite comment (he is a moderator after all), is that it is "interesting".

But what I'm more interested in is how the new Shimano derailleurs work with this setup. Case in point... Here's a picture of @gwilson's setup from a few posts ago....
Image

I will bet that the rear derailleur is rotated significantly rearward from where it should be according to Shimano specs, and that there exists a gap between the rear derailleur tab on the B-link and the stop on the rear derailleur hanger. @gwilson: you can confirm that simply by removing the rear wheel and looking at the derailleur stop on the B-link of the derailleur and the stop on the derailleur hanger. Those should be in contact with each other. I suspect they are not. Now, there's two things that might cause that.... the first is simply a sloppy initial setup arising when the mechanic was torquing down the derailleur to the hanger, the B-link twisted from where it should be set, and pulled it away from the stop. The second way it might end up like that is entirely intentional, and done to allow a more easy removal of the rear wheel. Trouble is, that little rearward rotation of the derialleur assembly, while often giving enough room to make rear wheel removal easier in cases where it otherwise isn't, pulls the upper pulley of the derailleur significantly further away from the cogs, and thus shifting performance becomes much less that what it could be and should be. It basically negates one of the main perfromance gains of the new derialleurs, that "wrap around" of the cogs and engaging more of the chain sooner and faster by positioning the upper pulley so close to teh cogs. Again, it will "work", and if it is necessary in order to make rear wheel removal easier, or in some cases, possible, then so be it. But it is not ideal from a sheer shifting performance perspective.

Also, many consumers' main question regarding frame design these days is, whether valid or not... "How much tire clearance is there?" Given that @gwilson felt the ride was on the harsh side with the 23mm tires that came with the frame and he'd like to put 25mm tires on, I would like to know how this frame would fare with even 25mm tires mounted, AND with the new Shimano derailleur set up as it should be, with the hanger tab and derailleur stops in contact with each other. Since 25mm tires seem to be the minimum requirement these days for framesets, I think an easy removal of that same wheel should also be a requirement.

@gwilson: Perhaps you can confirm this if you have a 25mm tire to mount, ideally a Conti 4000sii since if it works with that, it will likely work with any 25mm clincher. But as a minimum, I wonder if you could confirm what I was saying about the rear derailleur setup as a miniumum. Thanks. Sometimes I think a lot of frames really do get completely designed at a computer desk these days and the actual "details" of how it will actually build up in real life from a functional standpoint end up somewhat as an afterthought.
Thanks for pointing this out, surprised I didn't notice myself. Checked the bike and it was just the b-tension needed to be let out a bit. Put on the GP400S IIs last night as well and taking the wheel is still pretty easy (speed release thru-axle helps). The only negative I have found is that tire swaps are incredibly tough, took two people over half an hour to swap both tires. The wheel comes with what appears to be a tubeless rim strip which could probably be replaced with a standard one to make it easier. Only other guess as to why the swap was so hard was that the super wide internal rim diameter (21mm) is counteracted with a super shallow internal rim.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post