SuperSix Evo is truly a sluggish bike

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
konky
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:26 pm

by konky

I guess it is possible that a bike could be the stiffest, lightest and most comfortable rig out there but still not a great ride or be that quick. Tour mag doesn't test this. I wouldn't say that is a Tour mag flaw because it doesn't set out to measure such a thing but does illustrate a limitation. I don't think my Storck is much stiffer or lighter than my R5 but it's light years ahead in terms of ride quality and at least feeling of speed. I haven't done a scientific test though.

BobSantini
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:03 am

by BobSantini

Re steering geo: Canyon's aero bike has adjustable rake. Rotatable drop outs give 2 rake options. It's a pretty elegant detail.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/articl ... 6183?img=9
r o y g b i v

by Weenie


User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6807
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

konky wrote:I guess it is possible that a bike could be the stiffest, lightest and most comfortable rig out there but still not a great ride or be that quick. Tour mag doesn't test this. I wouldn't say that is a Tour mag flaw because it doesn't set out to measure such a thing but does illustrate a limitation. I don't think my Storck is much stiffer or lighter than my R5 but it's light years ahead in terms of ride quality and at least feeling of speed. I haven't done a scientific test though.

+100

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

kgt wrote:
konky wrote:I guess it is possible that a bike could be the stiffest, lightest and most comfortable rig out there but still not a great ride or be that quick. Tour mag doesn't test this. I wouldn't say that is a Tour mag flaw because it doesn't set out to measure such a thing but does illustrate a limitation. I don't think my Storck is much stiffer or lighter than my R5 but it's light years ahead in terms of ride quality and at least feeling of speed. I haven't done a scientific test though.

+100


Didn't Tour do a blind test some years ago and no one could tell the difference between framesets? If true it says alot about the human condition.

As for Sagan he's riding a custom. Only custom geometry? He was after all VERY reluctant to get on an Evo last year despite it offering the same Geometry as his beloved SS...

eric01
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:06 am

by eric01

Emphasize the OP's original gripe about the geometry in SMALL sizes.

If you look across the major manufacturers, the 50cm +/- sizes' geometry vary greatly.

No one will argue that geometry can have a big effect on handling.

As a small size rider myself, I test rode a number of frames years ago before settling on a Cervelo R3. Oddly enough, the small size Cervelo's have often been criticized for its funky geometry. But hey, it works for me and I've put a ton of miles on the bike.

Never tried a Cannondale Evo, but it is on my list of possible 'next bikes'.
AX Lightness Vial Evo, Carl Strong Titanium

User avatar
MajorMantra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:38 pm

by MajorMantra

mythical wrote:Head tubes longer than 140mm make a frame unsuitable for me and are out of the question. I had big problems trying to make my Scott Addict fit correctly until I found a stem of 130x-10º with a low enough stack height, which was all due to the 140mm head tube actually being 1cm higher due to the longer fork stack height.


Slightly OT but can you clarify this? A cursory look at the charts suggests that the Addict has virtually identical geometry to the Evo, at least the 52cm (my size) does. Are you saying the addict has a taller axle-crown or something that effectively increases the stack?

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

by sugarkane

One fork for all the different sized frames with different head tube angles... Farking lazy SOBs

I have a friend with a focus. And it's the same deal. He has a smaller frame which I've ridden and it's soo slow and heavy feeling. It really takes a lot or man handling to get through the tight stuff..

For god sake how hard is it to pair the right fork to the frame size. These frames wee ment to be the ducks nuts but cannondale are so slack that unless you get a 56 your not really gettin the full deal.
Plus every single surface has something stupid written on it. I'll keep my parlee thanks

KWalker
Posts: 5874
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Weird, my friend is an elite amateur racer with a hefty sprint and he's one of those stiffness above all else gurus and loves his EVO, however, he rides a 58.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

AaronT
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 5:30 am

by AaronT

I ride a 52cm '06 CAAD8 and I've never had an issue with getting the bike 'round turns. It doesn't feel slow or sluggish to me either. Maybe the smaller sizes are worse, but the 52 doesn't give me trouble.
ross wrote:At first you were like hurr. And then you derped

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

by sugarkane

AaronT wrote:I ride a 52cm '06 CAAD8 and I've never had an issue with getting the bike 'round turns. It doesn't feel slow or sluggish to me either. Maybe the smaller sizes are worse, but the 52 doesn't give me trouble.



Yea but in '06 cannondale weren't been cheap and shipping one fork with the whole range

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

by metanoize

If you look at the caad10 geo for the smallest two frames, you'll see it is simply awesome! Note how they did it right, and configured them with proper fork rakes
Attachments
c12-geo-caad10_51.gif

Zigmeister
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:09 pm

by Zigmeister

Peter Sagan and others on Team Liquigas think the TS has no clue what he is talking about.

It's the rider, not the bike.

Zigmeister
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:09 pm

by Zigmeister

airwise wrote:
kgt wrote:
konky wrote:I guess it is possible that a bike could be the stiffest, lightest and most comfortable rig out there but still not a great ride or be that quick. Tour mag doesn't test this. I wouldn't say that is a Tour mag flaw because it doesn't set out to measure such a thing but does illustrate a limitation. I don't think my Storck is much stiffer or lighter than my R5 but it's light years ahead in terms of ride quality and at least feeling of speed. I haven't done a scientific test though.

+100


Didn't Tour do a blind test some years ago and no one could tell the difference between framesets? If true it says alot about the human condition.

As for Sagan he's riding a custom. Only custom geometry? He was after all VERY reluctant to get on an Evo last year despite it offering the same Geometry as his beloved SS...



True, he is riding a custom mold that was for another rider. 58cm top tube, 54cm seat tube.

KWalker
Posts: 5874
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

where did everyone find the quotes from Nibali et al about not liking the Evo?
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

motorthings
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:56 pm

by motorthings

i remember those quotes from some of the initial reviews/rides of the evo by team members.

the rationale from Peck made enough sense, and I never saw any objective data to back up the complaints...it was all subjective opinion, so I didn't pay it much attention, esp. coming from a pro with more experience than myself. after reading more reviews from folks more my caliber that were all superlative, I stopped worrying and learned to love the evo.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post