Are We Getting A New Cannondale Supersix?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

Maximilian wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:00 pm
Dan Gerous wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:50 pm
For me, geo change seems good. 3mm higher stack and 3mm shorter reach in size 54 so I can get closer to fully slammed, maybe a slightly longer stem depending on the bar's reach. Slammed is a good thing with those headset spacers! :mrgreen:

Fork rake for a 54 though goes from 4.5 to 5.5 but with a slacker headtube angle, same trail value. Wheelbase grows too, should be very stable at high speed...
I could live with that change on my size but 15mm taller for the 58cm frame is bulls--t. I though this was meant to be a race bike...
Maybe it's having Damon Rinard who was at Cervélo... these bikes had realllllllly long headtubes, fine for old rich dentists but maybe not the best for more aggressive, fit riders and racers... :mrgreen:

Or it's from the fit data of the Guru bike fit system? :noidea: Let's face it, most consumers ride with a lot of headset spacers but at least you had to option to get lower.

tarmackev
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:59 pm

by tarmackev

Would still get the Ultegra one if it looked better.
Looking forward to all the tech.
Cannondale R&D usually give great insight.

by Weenie


Lugan
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:02 pm

by Lugan

Maximilian wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:26 pm
oldmac wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:12 pm
The geometry is more aggressive, so sad to see that. I can't find my size.
No it isn't. In a 58cm frame -->

SuperSix Evo Gen 3: Stack = 594mm. Reach = 395mm
SSE Gen 2: Stack = 584mm. Reach = 399mm
SSE Gen 1: Stack = 577mm. Reach = 399mm
CAAD9: Stack = 579mm. Reach = 399mm

Gen 1 SSE is almost identical to the CAAD9. The later two generations of the SSE have got taller and in the latest 3rd gen shorter in reach!

For the new one to fit me I'd need it slammed with a -17 110mm stem . At the moment my CAAD9 is slammed (on a #slamthatstem bearing cover) with a -6 stem (100mm)
I'm also a 58, and I don't like the slack seat tube angle paired with the proprietary seatpost that appears to only be offered in a setback version. I ride tilted forward and with low bars, usually using a zero setback post, so this bike is off my list.

refthimos
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:02 pm

by refthimos

And... Cannondale gave them a smack down and they pulled down the 2020 bikes... well at least until tomorrow!

(Good find with some good info while it lasted though)
EVO1 | 5.37kg
EVO3 | 6.51kg
SystemSix | 8.01kg
P5 | 9070 Di2 | SISL2 SRM | Enve 7.8/FFWD Falcon | Roval 321
T1 | P2Max Type S | Rolf Prima FX58/Zipp Super 9 Disc

User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

Lugan wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:56 pm
I'm also a 58, and I don't like the slack seat tube angle paired with the proprietary seatpost that appears to only be offered in a setback version. I ride tilted forward and with low bars, usually using a zero setback post, so this bike is off my list.
They eventually made a no setback seatpost for the SystemSix, they'll sell a lot more Evos and CAAD13s than SystemSix so hopefully they thought of that and will have a zero setback post available from the start.

BagelMaster
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:13 pm

by BagelMaster

Dan Gerous wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:33 pm
Lugan wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:56 pm
I'm also a 58, and I don't like the slack seat tube angle paired with the proprietary seatpost that appears to only be offered in a setback version. I ride tilted forward and with low bars, usually using a zero setback post, so this bike is off my list.
They eventually made a no setback seatpost for the SystemSix, they'll sell a lot more Evos and CAAD13s than SystemSix so hopefully they thought of that and will have a zero setback post available from the start.
I hope so too. Upgrading the seatpost from aluminum to carbon and 0-setback would be the first upgrade I'd make to the CAAD13.

nonamed
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:45 pm

by nonamed

No more 25.4mm seatpost??


Wysłane z iPhone za pomocą Tapatalk Pro

flying
Posts: 2221
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am

by flying

Calnago wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:13 pm
Physics schmysics.... I’ll never be throwin’ a leg over something that’s butt ugly.
:lol: :lol: :beerchug:

You & me both

flying
Posts: 2221
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am

by flying

Dan Gerous wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:06 pm
30w is huge, even at 30mph, even for amateurs! Yes most don't ride at these average speeds, but we do go faster than that sometimes during rides
It is true I do go that fast & faster every day on my rides but....by that point I am usually not even pedaling :wink:

wrenegade
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:36 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

by wrenegade

from looking at Cannondale's own aero data from a few pages back it's a bit disappointing to see that Cervelo was able to make the R5 as fast as it is with a pretty traditional looking frame. I was hoping Cannondale might be able to do something similar albeit with a flatter top tube and fully integrated cables.

This thing surely is fast, especially as a disc model, but it's unfortunately not something I think I'd be interested in buying since is both pretty unnattractive and not particularly light. If this thing builds up to ~7kg, and a Venge can be built up to ~7.2kg or so in a similar size, but is quite a bit faster, I'd rather go full aero. Maybe it's irrational, but I'd give up 10w for 200-300g and hopefully a more traditional looking frame, just with the modern clean integration. I can't wrap my head around going from a 6.3kg bike to over 7kg. Oh well, guess I'm holding onto my '14 SS Evo for a while longer.

Miles253
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:32 am

by Miles253

For me, Cannondale just cannot get the colour and graphic design right. It's all wrong. Not complementary to the frame shape at all.

Not for me

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Specialized S-Works Venge Disc | 7.8kg
Rose Backroad | 9kg (Deceased R.I.P.)
Canyon Ultimate CF SL | 7.7kg

https://www.findyourroad.co.uk/
Instagram: @miles_bc

refthimos
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:02 pm

by refthimos

Oh dear. Just saw a photo of one of these on a shop floor with mechanical and it's sooooooo hard for me to understand how you can buy one of these bikes with the sleek integrated front end (whether EVO3, SystemSix, etc) and then ruin it with mechanical cables... I die a little bit inside each time I see this.
EVO1 | 5.37kg
EVO3 | 6.51kg
SystemSix | 8.01kg
P5 | 9070 Di2 | SISL2 SRM | Enve 7.8/FFWD Falcon | Roval 321
T1 | P2Max Type S | Rolf Prima FX58/Zipp Super 9 Disc

refthimos
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:02 pm

by refthimos

So I am probably having a senior moment here, but in comparing the geometry charts for a 56cm EVO1 (I have a 2015 EVO) and the new EVO3, it seems that the EVO3 has 3mm more BB drop (vertical distance between dropouts and BB) AND a 3mm higher BB height (distance between ground and BB). Unless I am missing something, isn't this impossible?

Tire height aside, dropout height (distance between ground and dropouts) is not something framebuilders can choose - it is the same for all 700C bikes. So all you can really choose is the BB height in relation to this fixed dropout height.

If you lower the BB, you increase BB drop (and make for a more stable, but perhaps sluggish handling bike) but now you have greater risk of pedal strikes, particularly with longer crankarms or wider spindles/Q-factor.

If you raise the BB, you decrease BB drop (and make for a less stable, but perhaps more nimble handling bike) and you have less risk of pedal strikes.

If all that is correct, how can you lower the BB 3mm (relative to the dropouts) and then have 3mm more clearance between the BB and the ground?
EVO1 | 5.37kg
EVO3 | 6.51kg
SystemSix | 8.01kg
P5 | 9070 Di2 | SISL2 SRM | Enve 7.8/FFWD Falcon | Roval 321
T1 | P2Max Type S | Rolf Prima FX58/Zipp Super 9 Disc

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

That’s why I really put a lot more weight on BB drop than BB height, which some manufacturers use. BB drop is not dependent on tire size. BB height is, so you can’t say “Tire height aside...” when discussing BB height. Theoretically you could increase BB drop and, by putting some stupid fat tire on, increase BB height if the difference in tire size is greater than the increase in BB drop.
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

by Weenie


User avatar
alexneumuller
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Munich, Germany

by alexneumuller

https://sm-parts.net/Cannondale-SuperSi ... tegra.html


Looks pretty bad like that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
--
IF Crown Jewel TI
Open New UP
Stinner Ti
Speedvagen
Parlee Z-Zero Disc
Cannondale System Six
Cielo Road Racer
Cervelo P5 Disc
English Cycles 10th Anniv Edition
Cannondale Super Six Evo Disc

Post Reply