# System Six vs Super Six



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

If the TDF was a car race a would bet on the System6. with all the hype the bike was or is getting Liquid Gas is not doing so great in supporting the addition. BarolWorld is representing Cannondale System Six to the fullest. King of the Mountain and Stage winner. I have seen more Orbea in front than I have the Super Six. It is a great bike I am sure but I would have expected more or should I say a better performance in the Tour. I think the System Six will maintain it elite stature. 

If your looking for a climbing bike I would definately go with the System Six.


----------



## HillBillies (May 16, 2007)

As much as I love my System 6 - in the words of Lance Armstrong - "It's not about the bike". I really doubt even the Liquigas riders would be blaming the bike for their performance in GC, KOM or Points at the TdF. I also don't think the Barloworld Team would be putting their relative success down to the System 6. The riders themselves and their preparation would surely be 100 times the importance. It's not like they are riding a Huffy.

Cheers

HillBilly.


----------



## tcruse11 (Jun 9, 2006)

Don't forget that Danilo Di Luca won the Giro on his System 6.


----------



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

I have to agree to disagree. If it were not about the bike then we would all still be riding aluminum or even steel frames. That statement contradicts itself. I never seen lance in the wind tunnel without his bike. Most frames and rims are lighter stiffer areodynamic. It is all about the bike, or we would spend a couple of bucks and be happy. 

Liquid Gas has been there before and maybe it is motivation that is leading Barloworld. From the marketing standpoint how can Cannondale promote the Super Six. 

Besides if it is not about the bike then they would be riding Huffys.



HillBillies said:


> As much as I love my System 6 - in the words of Lance Armstrong - "It's not about the bike". I really doubt even the Liquigas riders would be blaming the bike for their performance in GC, KOM or Points at the TdF. I also don't think the Barloworld Team would be putting their relative success down to the System 6. The riders themselves and their preparation would surely be 100 times the importance. It's not like they are riding a Huffy.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> HillBilly.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

And that Liquigas didn't send a team to fight for GC, KOM or sprints. They had low ambitions since they used many of their top riders at the Giro, I think they only aimed to get a stage win, they did, voila. Pippo went back home.

But like others have said, it's not a bike that wins a race, it's a rider.

But in all, Cannondale are doing well, 3 stage wins, 2 on a System Six, one on a Super Six and the Mavic support spare bikes are all Cannondales CAAD9.... not that I have seen anyone on one this year though.


----------



## Speedy (Oct 30, 2005)

My defination of “it’s not about the bike” is that the results would be the same no matter what *pro tour* bike they ride.


----------



## RoyIII (Feb 24, 2007)

The tour sells lots of bikes.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

And don't forget C-dale couldn't get Soler a SuperSix because he rides a 60 and Cannondale hasn't had time to manufacture and deliver the larger SuperSix frame sizes.

Frankly, Pozzato and Soler and Hunter could have won their stages on Synapses or CAAD8s or CAAD9s or Six13s or SystemSixes.


----------



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

I think a certain percentage belongs to the rider and the other the bike. The greater belonging to the condition of the rider. Cannondale is doing great but we will never know what the results would have been if they were on other bikes.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

wilric44 said:


> Cannondale is doing great but we will never know what the results would have been if they were on other bikes.


I agree, we would never know the results of stage winners had they ridden other bikes in the peloton, but it's fair to speculate that the results would be exactly the same. Bottom line is that all the bikes in the ProTour and their equipment are high end and effective. Sure, each has its own little nuances, but altogether they're on a level playing field, IMO.


----------



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

That is true. I have been reading also that some riders are on thier third or fourth competition at this level for the year. I guess they pick and choose which ones they want to win. DSC seems to always focus on the TDF. No matter what rider they put in this race they have a chance to win or they win it. Is it the bike or the rider?


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

It's like the annoying Cervelo commercials that run a gizzillion times on Versus, with Fabian Cancellara holding up an R3 saying to the camera, "the people the say this is the best frame in the vorld" -- yet Cancellara's riding a Carbon Soloist in the Tour and won stage 4 on the Soloist.


----------



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

seems like that is the only commerical in the US also. Specialize or cervelo. for a bike race you think it would be more.


----------



## HillBillies (May 16, 2007)

wilric44 said:


> I have to agree to disagree. If it were not about the bike then we would all still be riding aluminum or even steel frames. That statement contradicts itself. I never seen lance in the wind tunnel without his bike. Most frames and rims are lighter stiffer areodynamic. It is all about the bike, or we would spend a couple of bucks and be happy.
> 
> Liquid Gas has been there before and maybe it is motivation that is leading Barloworld. From the marketing standpoint how can Cannondale promote the Super Six.
> 
> Besides if it is not about the bike then they would be riding Huffys.


Where I'm coming from is the real world difference between a System 6 and a Super 6 would be literally like splitting hairs. Same goes for Specialized vs Trek Vs Colnago Vs Cervelo or Record Vs Dura Ace Vs Force or Zipp Vs Fulcrum ...... you get the picture. The top shelf offerings are all capable of winning races at the highest level given the right engine. Now take any of those offerings and give it to your punter or weekend warrier or even your higher category racers and I'd say the bike matters even less.

I'm not trying to "dis" what you said - no doubt a bike that wins races is likely to sell better but I don't think we can confuse that with it actually being materially better.

Cheers

HillBilly.


----------



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

HillBillies said:


> Where I'm coming from is the real world difference between a System 6 and a Super 6 would be literally like splitting hairs. Same goes for Specialized vs Trek Vs Colnago Vs Cervelo or Record Vs Dura Ace Vs Force or Zipp Vs Fulcrum ...... you get the picture. The top shelf offerings are all capable of winning races at the highest level given the right engine. Now take any of those offerings and give it to your punter or weekend warrier or even your higher category racers and I'd say the bike matters even less.
> 
> I'm not trying to "dis" what you said - no doubt a bike that wins races is likely to sell better but I don't think we can confuse that with it actually being materially better.
> 
> ...


You could never "Dis" me because this is a forum and we all have our opinions. Communication is what increases our knowledge. We all know that if you put each rider on the same bike that the best fit rider will win. With bike racing it is about fitness, but technology plays a part as well. If your as old as I am, you can appreciate the improvements.


----------



## MaestroXC (Sep 15, 2005)

It's not about the bike, because by and large riders don't choose what they ride; sponsors do. Nobody rides a steel bike because they aren't what the sponsors produce/promote anymore. Aluminum bikes are rare because they aren't the top of the line bike for most of these companies anymore; if Barloworld and Liquigas were riding CAAD8s, which I'm sure they'd be happy to do, people would be asking Cannondale, "Well, if the pros know best, and the pros ride CAAD8s, why should I spend all this extra money on a Super Six?"

The thing is, the pros don't know best; it's all a marketing decision. You may be able to choose between two top-range frames, like the System 6 vs the Super 6, or the C50 vs an Extreme Power, but that's it, and that's just if you're a team leader or well known rider.


----------



## teffisk (Mar 24, 2006)

I will agree Lance Armstrong would beat me on a huff when i am on a superisx or whatever. it is 95% the rider, but also you can tell a difference in the bikes. If you ride a trek1000 then get on a madone you say, wow this bike is fast. and a 1200g zipp wheels is going to make you go faster than a 32h 2000g set.

You cant completely dismiss the bikes to account for going faster.


----------



## ahhchon (Apr 16, 2007)

the arguement about the bike vs the rider is so simple that it takes effort to get it incorrect.

of course there is a difference in bikes, but you need to understand the context. you put me on a huffy road bike (if they even make one) and you put me on my systemsix.. of course there is a difference, you would have to be a moron to not know.

BUT there is A TINY difference in bikes when you take a pro rider and give him two different top of the line bikes. in percentage terms (no one can really measure this, just an educated guess) i would limit it to 5%. i might attribute another 5% towards comfort of the bike, ie saddle etc.. but most pro riders get to ride whatever saddle they want. 

it's that simple. pro riders ride certain bikes because they are sponsored by the company, it's that simple, one day a trek is the best the next day out of his mouth a cannondale is the best. 

like a previous poster stated, when you spend over the 5,000 mark they are all pretty damn good. you're better off spending 5k and training a lot, resting well, and eating very well than spending 10k on a bike and doing good in the previously stated 3 categories.

john


----------



## LeDomestique (Jan 17, 2007)

ahhchon said:


> (no one can really measure this, just an educated guess) i would limit it to 5%. i might attribute another 5% towards comfort of the bike, ie saddle etc.. but most pro riders get to ride whatever saddle they want.
> john


5% is really a HUGE difference. 50K time trials are won be a margin of 10-20 seconds. 5% in an hour is aprox 3 minutes. If bikes did make such a difference everyone will be riding those bikes. 

IMHO the bike (in pro racing context) makes possibly less than 0.5% difference.


----------



## teffisk (Mar 24, 2006)

agreed


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

Cervelo used Cancellara's stage victory of 9 meters over the chasing bunch to demonstrate the aero benefit of the Cervelo/zipp bike. It's simply statistical information applied to results. Only we can deciede if it was a koinkydink or not...
The various manufacturers continue to develop beautimous bikes and parts for fools like me that wants better parts everytime I open a new bikemag or walk into a LBS.
I'm a bike geek. A custom frameset with full record, and lightweights hits my senses hard, as does a ferrari, beautiful architecture, scantily clad hotties.


----------



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

LeDomestique said:


> 5% is really a HUGE difference. 50K time trials are won be a margin of 10-20 seconds. 5% in an hour is aprox 3 minutes. If bikes did make such a difference everyone will be riding those bikes.
> 
> IMHO the bike (in pro racing context) makes possibly less than 0.5% difference.


The bike makes a big difference. You can pedeal your heart out but if your bike is not properly maintain you will not be able to compete. I think the bike tours are arranged so each manufacturer has the opportunity to win and then market their bike. Never heard of any manufacturer marketing the rider. 

For me I think it is the bike, but we are all entitled to our opinion.


----------

