Are We Getting A New Cannondale Supersix?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4023
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

kgt wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:46 am

That's exactly what the big brands want you to believe. In your case they succeeded.

:roll:

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Why hire engineers and designers at all in that case?

Troll.

sgtrobo
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:36 am

by sgtrobo

kgt wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:56 am
Again, my impression is that some details of the bike were not designed at US by Cannonadale but were outsourced elsewhere.

can you provide a detailed description of *Exactly* what you mean by this? I ask because I do not want to misinterpret what seems to be a rather inflammatory comment. My initial assumption is that I am simply misinterpreting, so if you could explain a bit further that would be pretty great. Or don't. It's your choice.
Thanks. :) :beerchug:

by Weenie


User avatar
kgt
Posts: 7771
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

The ugly and heavy stem, the ways cables are somehow integrated but not totally integrated, the stem spacers, the alternative cable route if one chooses a normal stem, the puzzling geometry, the failed graphic design, the heavy weights of some parts... All these are not a proof of great design IMO and certainly far from other modern frames which look much more well designed in all their details (Trek, Specialized, Wilier, Scott, De Rosa etc.)
Last edited by kgt on Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Devotional
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:26 pm

by Devotional

Still waiting on my ship to get a 51 and a 54 in to try . I’m wondering what a 54 with a saddle height of 69.5cm from bb will look like . I’m 5ft 8 . The shop had a caad13 in 51 in . Guy told me I’d be a 54 but I’m not so sure

User avatar
cerro
Posts: 1539
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

by cerro

Devotional: Why do you want a 54? I'm 174cm, sits on 72,8cm and would choose 51 without even thinking of bigger.
/jonas l
http://cerrol.wordpress.com (my cyclingblog)

Devotional
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:26 pm

by Devotional

cerro wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:26 pm
Devotional: Why do you want a 54? I'm 174cm, sits on 72,8cm and would choose 51 without even thinking of bigger.
I’ll prob go 51 with Long stem , I’m longer in body than leg

sgtrobo
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:36 am

by sgtrobo

kgt wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:01 am
The ugly and heavy stem, the ways cables are somehow integrated but not totally integrated, the stem spacers, the alternative cable route if one chooses a normal stem, the puzzling geometry, the failed graphic design, the heavy weights of some parts... All these are not a proof of great design IMO and certainly far from other modern frames which look much more well designed in all their details (Trek, Specialized, Wilier, Scott, De Rosa etc.)
ok, but what does this have to do with "not designed at US by Cannonadale but were outsourced"?

I mean, ultimately CDale had final say, so apparently they are perfectly happy with everything.
Not sure about the 'puzzling geometry'. What's puzzling about it?
Not sure about the 'failed graphic design'. What's failed about it? If you mean the puzzling bland color choices, sure.
Heavy weights? Yeah, that's an issue

sgtrobo
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:36 am

by sgtrobo

double post

User avatar
Spinnekop
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: South Africa

by Spinnekop

So I got the bike yesterday. Busy with the build over.

Out the box.......8.497kg.
Untitled.jpg
"In my experience, there is only one motivation, and that is DESIRE.
No reason or principle contain it or stand against it........"

TomSte
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:18 am

by TomSte

Great. Might be very interesting to see some pics of the original bike and what you make of it.

Hexsense
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

kgt wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:01 am
Again, my impression is that some details of the bike were not designed at US by Cannonadale but were outsourced elsewhere...
the puzzling geometry,.,.,., ... are not a proof of great design IMO and certainly far from other modern frames
The geometry is exactly the reason i say no to a good deal on S-works Tarmac frameset and will buy new Supersix instead. Mind you, Tarmac also design with improved geometry for smaller sizes compare to traditional geometry. It's just that Supersix take an even bigger step further than Tarmac.

I have 4 main criteria in selecting bike geometry for my next bike.
1.) bb drop of at least 72mm, check: smaller sizes Supersix and Tarmac both have 74mm bb drop.

2.) Trail value of 58mm preferred but no more than 63mm is acceptable. I want a bike that handle well in twitchy corner, i don't want to accept compromised trail value that most small bikes has.
3.) Stack of no more than 525mm (-17degree and slamthatstem headset cap in that config).
4.) If possible, long front center to minimize or eliminate toe overlap. Although i use 165mm crank, my proper cleats position is a few mm behind ball of the foot, that push my shoes closer to the front wheel.

Considering 2,3,4 the new Supersix size 48 hit home run on all of them.
Supersix Evo size 48: trail=58mm, Stack 519mm (so i can still use regular short headset cap), front center=588mm. All thanks to fork rake=55mm (vs 47mm of small Tarmac which is still better than 43mm traditional) and what you call puzzling geometry.

Close seconds:
Tarmac size 49: trail=63mm (on the slack side on my preference), stack=514mm, front center=574mm (still has toe overlap)
Tarmac size 52: trail=58mm, stack=527mm (a bit too tall already), front center=577mm

Both sizes of Tarmac has a bit of compromise (for me) while new Supersix does not. Outsourced design would take traditional approach and make it the same as everyone else. It is far easier than taking this new approach and having to defend it to people that hate every bit of changes, even for better.

MMW
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:23 pm

by MMW

Any ride reviews?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

reedplayer
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:10 am

by reedplayer

Hexsense wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:22 pm
.....
4.) If possible, long front center to minimize or eliminate toe overlap. Although i use 165mm crank, my proper cleats position is a few mm behind ball of the foot, that push my shoes closer to the front wheel.
......
Hello,

i see it differently.
front center/wheelbase are, at least in sizes 48-54, 2-3cm longer as it is the case with the predecessor, and with race-frames fom other manufacturers.
(of course a logical consequence of 71,2° angle and 55mm fork rake, it actually has not to be mentioned)

i personally would expect a different geometry from a race bike, short wheelbase and balanced relationship between front-center and rear.

toe overlap, on the other hand, has never been an issue for me during use, completely irrelevant.

regards

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4023
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

I have ridiculous toe overlap on my 54cm bikes with EU44.5/45 shoes and a rearward cleat position on 165mm cranks. It is annoying when making low-speed u-turns in tight spaces, but that's about it. Never been an issue when it mattered.

Hexsense
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

The front end should be longer than design of 10 years ago.
1.) From bigger tires than ever. (minor point)
2.) From general trend of racers' position. (major point)
2.1) more rearward cleats position.
2.2) more forward saddle position. At last more road racers abandon Knee Over Pedal spindle myth and go for position that give more advantage. Straight seat post and saddle push forward becoming much more common now. It is done to open up hip angle and allow more comfort and power in more aerodynamic position with more pelvic rotation.
If nothing done to lengthen the front end, we now have the bike weight balance that is more forward shifted than more traditional position. Longer front end counter exactly that.

However, i don't disagree that the length is a bit on the long side and can overcompensate depending on how much the saddle is moved forward from traditional position. 47-52mm fork rake would seems easier to swallow for people that want short wheelbase above everything else ( i don't, trail value must be right first, then also consider wheel base length as factor with less impact to bike handling).
Tarmac size 44-52 use 47mm, Cervelo S3 and S5 size 51 use 52mm. Cervelo S3 and S5 size 48 use 58mm fork rake. Non of those bikes got bad rant, because it apply for bike size up to 52. Cannondale Supersix got the bad take because they think size 54 should also get the same treatment as size 52 and smaller.

regards.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post