Are We Getting A New Cannondale Supersix?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8532
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I can’t help thinking, when I see dropped seatstays like that, that his road bike broke at the rear somewhere so he just sawed up his kids bike and glued the rear end on to make do. Aesthetically it just doesn’t appeal to me at all, and functionally it doesn’t seem as sound as if the stays, top tube and seat tube all came together at the seat cluster. Two triangles joined with a common edge and supported where its most needed, at the seat cluster. Oh well, however more aero they claim it to be, it does not outweigh its incongruent ugliness, at least for me. Pass for sure on the dropped seatstays trend.
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

tinozee
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:53 am

by tinozee

Head tube area is fugly. Even in small frame sizes it looks like a lysol can

by Weenie


TobinHatesYou
Posts: 4188
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Aesthetics are a personal opinion so no one will deny your personal preferences. However, let’s not get into the whether it compromises the strength of the bicycle frame... Seatstays bear insignificant loads. A single triangle, the main triangle provides all the structural integrity needed for a seated human on a saddle/seatpost.

Karvalo
Posts: 737
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:40 pm

by Karvalo

Calnago wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:53 am
and functionally it doesn’t seem as sound as if the stays, top tube and seat tube all came together at the seat cluster. Two triangles joined with a common edge and supported where its most needed, at the seat cluster.
That's the whole point of the design. Less support, more give.

mag
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:23 pm

by mag

You can also do it like Trek (Madone), or Look (795 Blade RS), or just utilize more flexy seatstays. So there are other ways.

Here it's about reducing the drag in the 1st place anyway. And while it works on this front (and also the benefits of increased comfort and possibly reduced weight are there if you go this way) I don't like it aesthetically either. When the drop isn't that big it may look acceptable (Wilier, Basso), but it's just too much here. Some paintjobs may save the appearance to some extent, but here we know we can't expect much since Cannondale tends to have some of the worst paintjobs of everyone. And I'm not even talking about the rear brake cable routing on the rim brake models since they seem to be a dying breed already.

I at least hope it's going to provide a good ride so those who like it will really enjoy riding it as well.

Just wondering if all those "general purpose" road bikes are really going to look like this in the near future...
Generally I wish UCI would relax their technical regulations (weight limit included) so that we'd have a chance to see some really different designs.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 7827
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:38 am
Aesthetics are a personal opinion so no one will deny your personal preferences. However, let’s not get into the whether it compromises the strength of the bicycle frame... Seatstays bear insignificant loads. A single triangle, the main triangle provides all the structural integrity needed for a seated human on a saddle/seatpost.
Aesthetics are not about "personal opinion" at all. It is a brand of philosophy that you can study, like other academic disciples.

tarmackev
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:59 pm

by tarmackev

Gary71 wrote:Another pic of the EF Bikes in last nights Dauphine - old at the front new at the back......., it's not growing on me :(

There is something about the headtube angle :noidea:
It does look super slack, may be an optical illusion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tarmackev
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:59 pm

by tarmackev

Karvalo wrote:
Calnago wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:53 am
and functionally it doesn’t seem as sound as if the stays, top tube and seat tube all came together at the seat cluster. Two triangles joined with a common edge and supported where its most needed, at the seat cluster.
That's the whole point of the design. Less support, more give.
I’m with Calnago on this, unless it’s giving me an extra 50watts I find it hard to like aesthetically.
I really like the classic look of the older Super Six.
Good news for me as I should be able to pick one up at a great price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tarmackev
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:59 pm

by tarmackev

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Verbal
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:02 pm

by Verbal

So, definitively Disk only ?

Mep
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:11 pm

by Mep

Speaking of the dropped seatstays "dropping too far", what is up with that last picture? Is that the new Topstone? I guess the marketing message with this one is: "as we all know, the further dropped the seatstays are the more aero, so we dropped them as far as they would go before merging into a single tube".

User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

This is not the full Evo line, it's only the disc models with non Hi-Mod framesets, hence no top end groupsets and no rim brakes, there's more.

The new Topstone carbon will be launched this thursday, the 20th, and the dropped stays are even more dropped for even more compliance.

DartanianX
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:00 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

by DartanianX

Rim will be available as a frame only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hexsense
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

Were there any change to UCI rule about frame dimension lately?
I thought chainstay must join seat tube not further than a certain distance (8cm?) from where top tube join.
This gravel bike and new 2020 Specialized Shiv TT have really low chainstay, clearly join very far from top tube.

by Weenie


User avatar
Dan Gerous
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:28 pm

by Dan Gerous

Hexsense wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:09 pm
Were there any change to UCI rule about frame dimension lately?
I thought chainstay must join seat tube not further than a certain distance (8cm?) from where top tube join.
This gravel bike and new 2020 Specialized Shiv TT have really low chainstay, clearly join very far from top tube.
No need to follow UCI rules on a gravel bike, but I think some rules have changed a while ago, the 3:1 rule also changed.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post