Cannondale SuperSix vs Canyon Ultimate vs Giant TCR vs Trek Emonda vs Cervelo R5 vs Focus Izalco vs...

[robeambro]

Cannondale SuperSix vs Canyon Ultimate vs Giant TCR vs Trek Emonda vs Cervelo R5 vs Focus Izalco vs...

Holy hell, you'd need to be a cycling journo to have ridden all those!
My opnion is weak as I haven't ridden all those bikes but IMHO would opt for the Emonda or SuperSix.
Ridden:I really like the Emonda for climbing and it's good on descents. Fuji SL is a nice too framset too and worth considering.
Reputation: I rented a CAAD12 and loved it so a Supersix would obviously be on my list, and the TCR and Canyon get rave reviews as well. Rented two S-Works SL5s, felt a bit dead and stiff but very capable, SL6 could be much better. I rented a Cervelo R3 and I didn't really get on with the handling on corners and at high speeds, but the R5 could also be better.

Riding all of those is as simple as having local shops that stock them...minus the Canyon of course. It’s odd that you are incredulous over the prospect of trying six bikes, yet moments later rattle off the names of five models you’ve ridden.

Other than this, I would keep pointing out that, while these posts have the best intentions, they could actually lead to poor decisions for the OP.
I mean, trying a bike once, or even worse renting it, is not a good way to assess its performance.

What size tires were on? What pressure? How worn were they? What about the wheels, how deep? Was the tire much wider than the rim forming a lightbulb shape, thus affecting cornering stability? What about stem length, too long or too short would affect handling? And the saddle, was it a good model for the rider? And, were all bikes tested wearing the same bibshorts? Handlebars, were they alloy on all bikes? Same width?

I could continue I guess.. But I think it's clear that bike feeling is already tremendously subjective, if then the bike is only tested once, the impression can be next to meaningless.

[TobinHatesYou]

How many of us put serious time on a particular bike or in a car before purchasing one? I didn’t ride an Emonda SLR at all before I put my order in. I knew it had a geometry that worked for me, it had an aesthetic I could live with and other specs like its weight appealed to me. Also the shop I am loyal to is a Trek dealer. Taking a bike for a test ride is just another checklist item.

Bike buying with minimal saddle time isn’t ideal, but it’s reality for many. I guess I am fortunate that my local shops collaborate with brands for official demo days where we’ll do something like a 30 mile loop on a fleet of bikes.

[wheelsONfire]

I would start off by looking at geometry. Second to that, ride feel.
According to Hambini Cannondale are the least precise manufacturered framesets.
Second was Cervelo. Don't if it matters, but anyway!??

[peted76]

I was at the local Giant dealer chatting about a new TCR next year with the owner and he's not convinced it will be happening. I asked why they wouldn't do it on what is their flagship model considering they've done big refreshes on the Defy and Propel (stems, fully internal routing, etc) and his reply was "because it's the perfect race bike. There's a reason the pros still ride it as is and it sells out every year".

Hehe, that's funny, since all the chat from Cervelo is that Sunweb ditched Giant because Dumoulin wanted an allround race bike more aero than the TCR, and Giant weren't interested in developing anything the pros were asking for.

Not saying either is 100% true, just an amusing contrast.

I'd imagine that's not even 1% true.
Dumoulin won the Giro on a TCR, the thought that he'd have enough influence to see off their multi million dollar main sponsor is absurd.

[stoney]

I was at the local Giant dealer chatting about a new TCR next year with the owner and he's not convinced it will be happening. I asked why they wouldn't do it on what is their flagship model considering they've done big refreshes on the Defy and Propel (stems, fully internal routing, etc) and his reply was "because it's the perfect race bike. There's a reason the pros still ride it as is and it sells out every year".

Hehe, that's funny, since all the chat from Cervelo is that Sunweb ditched Giant because Dumoulin wanted an allround race bike more aero than the TCR, and Giant weren't interested in developing anything the pros were asking for.

Not saying either is 100% true, just an amusing contrast.

I'd imagine that's not even 1% true.
Dumoulin won the Giro on a TCR, the thought that he'd have enough influence to see off their multi million dollar main sponsor is absurd.

Dumoulin's team is the only Pro Tour team without a win this season. Cervelo certainly hasn't helped them more than Giant.

[Lewn777]

Cannondale SuperSix vs Canyon Ultimate vs Giant TCR vs Trek Emonda vs Cervelo R5 vs Focus Izalco vs...

Holy hell, you'd need to be a cycling journo to have ridden all those!
My opnion is weak as I haven't ridden all those bikes but IMHO would opt for the Emonda or SuperSix.
Ridden:I really like the Emonda for climbing and it's good on descents. Fuji SL is a nice too framset too and worth considering.
Reputation: I rented a CAAD12 and loved it so a Supersix would obviously be on my list, and the TCR and Canyon get rave reviews as well. Rented two S-Works SL5s, felt a bit dead and stiff but very capable, SL6 could be much better. I rented a Cervelo R3 and I didn't really get on with the handling on corners and at high speeds, but the R5 could also be better.

Riding all of those is as simple as having local shops that stock them...minus the Canyon of course. It’s odd that you are incredulous over the prospect of trying six bikes, yet moments later rattle off the names of five models you’ve ridden.

Hmm, maybe shops allowing people to ride bikes 'demo' is an American thing. When I used to ride MTB it certainly was. In the UK, Spain and China (where I live or spend holidays) it's actually pretty hard to ride a thing unless you own it or rent it. Sometimes you can borrow a friends bike, but that's something many are uncomfortable with.

Seems you judge entire planet judging from the circumstances of the exact place you live. Seems rather norrow minded.

[Lewn777]

Cannondale SuperSix vs Canyon Ultimate vs Giant TCR vs Trek Emonda vs Cervelo R5 vs Focus Izalco vs...

Holy hell, you'd need to be a cycling journo to have ridden all those!
My opnion is weak as I haven't ridden all those bikes but IMHO would opt for the Emonda or SuperSix.
Ridden:I really like the Emonda for climbing and it's good on descents. Fuji SL is a nice too framset too and worth considering.
Reputation: I rented a CAAD12 and loved it so a Supersix would obviously be on my list, and the TCR and Canyon get rave reviews as well. Rented two S-Works SL5s, felt a bit dead and stiff but very capable, SL6 could be much better. I rented a Cervelo R3 and I didn't really get on with the handling on corners and at high speeds, but the R5 could also be better.

Riding all of those is as simple as having local shops that stock them...minus the Canyon of course. It’s odd that you are incredulous over the prospect of trying six bikes, yet moments later rattle off the names of five models you’ve ridden.

Other than this, I would keep pointing out that, while these posts have the best intentions, they could actually lead to poor decisions for the OP.
I mean, trying a bike once, or even worse renting it, is not a good way to assess its performance.

What size tires were on? What pressure? How worn were they? What about the wheels, how deep? Was the tire much wider than the rim forming a lightbulb shape, thus affecting cornering stability? What about stem length, too long or too short would affect handling? And the saddle, was it a good model for the rider? And, were all bikes tested wearing the same bibshorts? Handlebars, were they alloy on all bikes? Same width?

I could continue I guess.. But I think it's clear that bike feeling is already tremendously subjective, if then the bike is only tested once, the impression can be next to meaningless.

So if I rode a R3 rental for 2 weeks and 1000kms my experiences with it are totally meaningless? That's total nonsense.
All opinions on bikes are totally subjective.

[robeambro]

Cannondale SuperSix vs Canyon Ultimate vs Giant TCR vs Trek Emonda vs Cervelo R5 vs Focus Izalco vs...

Holy hell, you'd need to be a cycling journo to have ridden all those!
My opnion is weak as I haven't ridden all those bikes but IMHO would opt for the Emonda or SuperSix.
Ridden:I really like the Emonda for climbing and it's good on descents. Fuji SL is a nice too framset too and worth considering.
Reputation: I rented a CAAD12 and loved it so a Supersix would obviously be on my list, and the TCR and Canyon get rave reviews as well. Rented two S-Works SL5s, felt a bit dead and stiff but very capable, SL6 could be much better. I rented a Cervelo R3 and I didn't really get on with the handling on corners and at high speeds, but the R5 could also be better.

Riding all of those is as simple as having local shops that stock them...minus the Canyon of course. It’s odd that you are incredulous over the prospect of trying six bikes, yet moments later rattle off the names of five models you’ve ridden.

Other than this, I would keep pointing out that, while these posts have the best intentions, they could actually lead to poor decisions for the OP.
I mean, trying a bike once, or even worse renting it, is not a good way to assess its performance.

What size tires were on? What pressure? How worn were they? What about the wheels, how deep? Was the tire much wider than the rim forming a lightbulb shape, thus affecting cornering stability? What about stem length, too long or too short would affect handling? And the saddle, was it a good model for the rider? And, were all bikes tested wearing the same bibshorts? Handlebars, were they alloy on all bikes? Same width?

I could continue I guess.. But I think it's clear that bike feeling is already tremendously subjective, if then the bike is only tested once, the impression can be next to meaningless.

So if I rode a R3 rental for 2 weeks and 1000kms my experiences with it are totally meaningless? That's total nonsense.
All opinions on bikes are totally subjective.

Not totally meaningless, but potentially misleading.

That’s not about impressions being subjective, but rather them being biased due to different gear/components. You talk about poor handling on the R3; this could come down to poor wheel/tires, stem length, what have you, rather than the frame itself.

[Lewn777]

I would start off by looking at geometry. Second to that, ride feel.
According to Hambini Cannondale are the least precise manufacturered framesets.
Second was Cervelo. Don't if it matters, but anyway!??

Hambini says 'you can't judge the quality of bearings with a spin test, it's how they act under load' then uploads a video of him doing a 'spin test' video of his own BB.
He also says Cannondale have the least well machined BB, but Luchner says they have very well laid up carbon ((amongst the best) (from cutting up a damaged frame)), and from my own experience have excellent geo.
He also says SRAM have garbage quality crank machining tolerances. Yet the 4 Truvativ and SRAM cranksets and shifters I've owned over the last 10-15 years have worked flawlessly.

It reminds me of an engineer I knew when I was a kid. He worked on high perforamce cars and irrationally hated on Lotus because one time a door fell of when he was working on one. Everyone is perfectly entitled to an opinion, but you're just as entitled to disagree.

[Lewn777]

Riding all of those is as simple as having local shops that stock them...minus the Canyon of course. It’s odd that you are incredulous over the prospect of trying six bikes, yet moments later rattle off the names of five models you’ve ridden.

Other than this, I would keep pointing out that, while these posts have the best intentions, they could actually lead to poor decisions for the OP.
I mean, trying a bike once, or even worse renting it, is not a good way to assess its performance.

What size tires were on? What pressure? How worn were they? What about the wheels, how deep? Was the tire much wider than the rim forming a lightbulb shape, thus affecting cornering stability? What about stem length, too long or too short would affect handling? And the saddle, was it a good model for the rider? And, were all bikes tested wearing the same bibshorts? Handlebars, were they alloy on all bikes? Same width?

I could continue I guess.. But I think it's clear that bike feeling is already tremendously subjective, if then the bike is only tested once, the impression can be next to meaningless.

So if I rode a R3 rental for 2 weeks and 1000kms my experiences with it are totally meaningless? That's total nonsense.
All opinions on bikes are totally subjective.

Not totally meaningless, but potentially misleading.

That’s not about impressions being subjective, but rather them being biased due to different gear/components. You talk about poor handling on the R3; this could come down to poor wheel/tires, stem length, what have you, rather than the frame itself.

No it was the frameset.
I tried the R3 at different tire pressures and the tires where normal fairly new Contis, stem length was a length I fairly used to, maybe 10-12cm.
It just seemed to drop into corners too easily and then need to be picked up again at the end. It's just a handling charactaristic that's not to my taste, and not necessarily bad.
I like to use weight to force a bike in, and the have it almost want to pick itself up after the turn.

Also the bike's back end became a bit unstable on smooth road surfaces on speeds over 70kmh. Adding extra tire pressure helped, but still wasn't enjoyable.

Although it's entirely possible someone else might like the R3. I didn't and therefore a R5 wouldn't be on my to buy list either.

[wheelsONfire]

I would start off by looking at geometry. Second to that, ride feel.
According to Hambini Cannondale are the least precise manufacturered framesets.
Second was Cervelo. Don't if it matters, but anyway!??

Hambini says 'you can't judge the quality of bearings with a spin test, it's how they act under load' then uploads a video of him doing a 'spin test' video of his own BB.
He also says Cannondale have the least well machined BB, but Luchner says they have very well laid up carbon ((amongst the best) (from cutting up a damaged frame)), and from my own experience have excellent geo.
He also says SRAM have garbage quality crank machining tolerances. Yet the 4 Truvativ and SRAM cranksets and shifters I've owned over the last 10-15 years have worked flawlessly.

It reminds me of an engineer I knew when I was a kid. He worked on high perforamce cars and irrationally hated on Lotus because one time a door fell of when he was working on one. Everyone is perfectly entitled to an opinion, but you're just as entitled to disagree.

Layup isn't same as tolerance of a bearing seat.
Hambini is a supplier of some brand (bearings) in a few countries here in EU, so i guess he knows what he's doing.
You may have your opinion ofcourse.
(One might also listen to what is told and who have the facts to support what they say)

Sram garbage?
He mentions tolerances, better or worse. That much i have read. But what is wrong with that?

[spud]

I would start off by looking at geometry. Second to that, ride feel.
According to Hambini Cannondale are the least precise manufacturered framesets.
Second was Cervelo. Don't if it matters, but anyway!??

Hambini says 'you can't judge the quality of bearings with a spin test, it's how they act under load' then uploads a video of him doing a 'spin test' video of his own BB.
He also says Cannondale have the least well machined BB, but Luchner says they have very well laid up carbon ((amongst the best) (from cutting up a damaged frame)), and from my own experience have excellent geo.
He also says SRAM have garbage quality crank machining tolerances. Yet the 4 Truvativ and SRAM cranksets and shifters I've owned over the last 10-15 years have worked flawlessly.

It reminds me of an engineer I knew when I was a kid. He worked on high perforamce cars and irrationally hated on Lotus because one time a door fell of when he was working on one. Everyone is perfectly entitled to an opinion, but you're just as entitled to disagree.

To be fair, spinning the cranks unloaded will tell you if bearing alignment is good. If it's not, the crank won't spin well, assuming the bearings aren't utterly out of spec/loose. In which case, when loaded they will clank away when you actually pedal it. And again, you can't tell how good a bearing is until you measure the friction with a real load on it.

Re Cannondale BBs, I have no dog in the fight. But integrity of the construction is NOT the same thing as tolerances of the bearing surfaces. You can have a BB that is in tolerance when unloaded, but flexes like hell under load and the bearings are no longer concentric and parallel. Equally, you can have a BB that is very strong and stiff, but the bearings are not concentric and parallel. The average shop guy, including me, does not have the tools to measure concentricity with the required precision. But you can sure tell when a BB shell is out of tolerance and you try to install a fully rigid BB (ie no plastic cups to deform).

[TobinHatesYou]

Hmm, maybe shops allowing people to ride bikes 'demo' is an American thing. When I used to ride MTB it certainly was. In the UK, Spain and China (where I live or spend holidays) it's actually pretty hard to ride a thing unless you own it or rent it. Sometimes you can borrow a friends bike, but that's something many are uncomfortable with.

Seems you judge entire planet judging from the circumstances of the exact place you live. Seems rather norrow minded.

Either way, you’ve tested a large number of bikes without actually owning them. Whether this is putting collateral down at a bike shop and going for a test ride, going to a demo day or paying a small amount for a rental, the end result is the same. Shops here let you rent saddles too for a small fee, which gets reimbursed if you buy a saddle from them.

Perhaps the one in disbelief is the narrow-minded one?

[Karvalo]

I was at the local Giant dealer chatting about a new TCR next year with the owner and he's not convinced it will be happening. I asked why they wouldn't do it on what is their flagship model considering they've done big refreshes on the Defy and Propel (stems, fully internal routing, etc) and his reply was "because it's the perfect race bike. There's a reason the pros still ride it as is and it sells out every year".

Hehe, that's funny, since all the chat from Cervelo is that Sunweb ditched Giant because Dumoulin wanted an allround race bike more aero than the TCR, and Giant weren't interested in developing anything the pros were asking for.

Not saying either is 100% true, just an amusing contrast.

I'd imagine that's not even 1% true.
Dumoulin won the Giro on a TCR, the thought that he'd have enough influence to see off their multi million dollar main sponsor is absurd.

Point being, that makes what the sales guy said not even 1% true either.

[diegogarcia]

Here is a funny one. Last May I sold my TCR SL to fund a Cervelo R5. On the flat the Cervelo rode well and climbed well. Not a lot between the two bikes in that sense. Descending / going down, the R5 rapidly became one of the worst bikes I have owned period. The bike would stand up, pull you out of the natural apex and go wide. The only way I can describe it is a bit like that car film Herbie where the beetle cars front wants to go a different way to the rear. I live in a very hilly area and descending at 45mph + not an issue til I got on the R5. Riding friends noticed it, noticed me backing off and saw the bike pulling me across the road. The TCR was and is one of best descending bikes I have ever ridden - if not the best. Over Drive 2 at play perhaps ? Both bikes ran 73% seat and head tube angles and identical BB drop from memory.

I tried to ascertain what made the R5 do what it did. Did it with different wheels. The only thing I can suggest is written in this review regarding the trail -

"In a move to further improve stability, Spearman claims the manufacturer has placed a lot of importance in ‘matching front trail and rear trail’.

The latter is a new concept to us – what with the rear wheel not having a steering axis – but Spearman assures us that it really does exist.

While the science of rear trail and its effects on a bike’s performance are mind-bendingly complex, a reduction in trail at the front thanks to an increased fork rake, with a corresponding increase in chainstay length at the rear are more straightforward"

Read the review here.

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/cervelo/r5

Anway, in real world terms as a sh*t middle aged bike rider like most on here it was enough for me to sell the frame on.