# EVO ultimate



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

I just did a quick inventory of the parts on the EVO Ultimate and it appears that the same bike can be built for under $10K so I'm wondering why it's being sold for more than that. I'm sure Cannondale can buys their parts for a lot less than we, mortals, would have to pay for them. 
This isn't the case with the lower end bikes that are actually a bargain when purchased as a whole. Why is that?


----------



## Wicked2006 (Jul 9, 2005)

It's called corporate inflation. Cannondale has to support their race teams. So they increase the price to make profit. Thinking the buyer isn't aware. It's a game man.


----------



## Wicked2006 (Jul 9, 2005)

I can get this bike for 20% off MSRP. So it's a pretty good deal. I might pull the trigger this summer. 

SUPERSIX EVO 2 RED


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

2011 105 SuperSix was released with the MSRP of $1,900.00 

2012 105 SuperSix now has an MSRP of $2,500.00

Exact same frame from the exact same molds. When there are (3) month waiting lists for bikes, you can only imagine that corporate types will race to raise the prices.

It will swing the other way if popularity / demand drops off.

As far as the Ultimate pricing? The customers for a $10K bike are not on Forums. 
Forums have newbs getting into the sport and looking for advise. And Forums have vets who know how to get parts / prices cheaper and build their own.

The $10K bike guy lives in a half million dollar house on a golf course and is looking for the status, not the ride. And DOREL is fully aware of this.
They are all offering bikes like this now. Ever priced a VENGE McClaren?:yikes:


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Wicked2006 said:


> I can get this bike for 20% off MSRP. So it's a pretty good deal. I might pull the trigger this summer.
> 
> SUPERSIX EVO 2 RED


The EVO 2 is actually a good value and at 20% off it's a steal!


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

metoou2 said:


> 2011 105 SuperSix was released with the MSRP of $1,900.00
> 
> 2012 105 SuperSix now has an MSRP of $2,500.00
> 
> ...


Be careful regarding the Ultimate owner comments. I believe there are at least a few here on RBR. You can identify some of them if you search the forum.
I could almost understand the price of the Venge McLaren because it's a unique/special edition kind of bike. That's not really the case with the EVO Ultimate.

FYI: The 2011 SuperSix 105 listed for something like $2,125 or $2,150 (I don't remember the exact price now). I'm sure shops were selling it for less.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

In addition, the SuperSix 105 is still a decent value at $2,500. The 2011 price was awesome.. If we assume about $1,500 for the frame, add the groupset to it at roughly $500 (if you get a really good deal) and another $500 for everything else. You might end up close to breaking even if you were to build it yourself but most likely you'll go over the MSRP.


----------



## jronan2 (Sep 22, 2011)

My LBS in ny sells the supersix 105 for 2,000 out the door.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

ph0enix said:


> Be careful regarding the Ultimate owner comments. I believe there are at least a few here on RBR. You can identify some of them if you search the forum.
> 
> FYI: The 2011 SuperSix 105 listed for something like $2,125 or $2,150 (I don't remember the exact price now). I'm sure shops were selling it for less.


You are completely right. Never should have posted a general statement about Ultimate, or Venge or any other owner. I overstepped and mis-spoke.

I do remember the exact MSRP and I wrote it down in my 2011 catalog. It was $1,900.00. I'm NOT talking about what some shop blew it out at. I'm talking about MSRP. When it jumped from $1,900 to $2,500 the Weight Weenie community was screamin.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

jronan2 said:


> My LBS in ny sells the supersix 105 for 2,000 out the door.


That's a great price. Much more in line with the 2011 price.
Buy it as fast as you can.


----------



## Switchblade906 (Mar 4, 2012)

jronan2 said:


> My LBS in ny sells the supersix 105 for 2,000 out the door.


I wish my LBS did the same because i would have bought that instead of the CAAD 8 105 lol


----------



## jronan2 (Sep 22, 2011)

i bought one...just not the 105. I got the apex (i prefer sram over shimano) one for $1700 final price, putting the apex groupo on my CX bike and managed to get a red groupo and ksyrium elites off a evo red 2 for another $1700. So 3,400 for a nice supersix with red components and apex for my CX. I like the deal, I can't wait to pick it up, but I did spend waaay more than I planned on. Plus I still need pedals and road shoes cuz ive been running SPD's on my other bikes and want dedicated road shoes with this bike. Any suggestions on pedals? I'm a size 49 shoe if that means anything.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

jronan2 said:


> Any suggestions on pedals? I'm a size 49 shoe if that means anything.


All of the LOOK Keo's have been good pedals for me. I have yet to try the Keo Blade though. Buy some and post a review.


----------



## Switchblade906 (Mar 4, 2012)

I just bought these shoes, they will be here tomorrow. 

Ive just been using regular shoes so far so I'm sure this will be a huge improvement.

https://www.nashbar.com/webapp/wcs/...lQ8eGJAiAOkMe
X2Bk5+HJHw==&ddkey=http:Logoff


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

metoou2 said:


> You are completely right. Never should have posted a general statement about Ultimate, or Venge or any other owner. I overstepped and mis-spoke.
> 
> I do remember the exact MSRP and I wrote it down in my 2011 catalog. It was $1,900.00. I'm NOT talking about what some shop blew it out at. I'm talking about MSRP. When it jumped from $1,900 to $2,500 the Weight Weenie community was screamin.


Not that it's a big deal but $1,900 was not the price posted on cannondale.com. That's the price I'm talking about. I believe it was $2,125.

EDIT: it was $2,150 according to this post:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/cannondale/new-2011-supersix-105-a-233829.html

I know it was definitely over $2100. It couldn't have been lower than the 2010 Six 5.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Switchblade906 said:


> I just bought these shoes, they will be here tomorrow.
> 
> Ive just been using regular shoes so far so I'm sure this will be a huge improvement.
> 
> ...


Cool. Is this relevant to the thread?


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Switchblade906 said:


> I was replying to jronan2 post but after reading it again he asked about pedals and then put his shoe site and i must have thought he asked about shoes since he put his shoe size........my bad.


No harm, no foul


----------



## Switchblade906 (Mar 4, 2012)

I was replying to jronan2 post but after reading it again he asked about pedals and then put his shoe site and i must have thought he asked about shoes since he put his shoe size........my bad.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Somebody keeps messing with the forum server's clock and the posts are showing up out of order.


----------



## Switchblade906 (Mar 4, 2012)

yeah i just saw that, it weird. 

Your reply to my post is before i posted lol


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Switchblade906 said:


> yeah i just saw that, it weird.
> 
> Your reply to my post is before i posted lol


It happens when the clock is fast and gets sync'ed back to an earlier time. Basically if a person posts at, let's say, 9:20am (I'm disregarding seconds and fractions of seconds in this exercise), then the sync'ing occurs and the clock is moved back from 9:20 to 9:19. When someone else posts right after, their post will show up before the 9:20 post since its timestamp will be 9:19.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

ph0enix said:


> It happens when the clock is fast and gets sync'ed back to an earlier time. Basically if a person posts at, let's say, 9:20am (I'm disregarding seconds and fractions of seconds in this exercise), then the sync'ing occurs and the clock is moved back from 9:20 to 9:19. When someone else posts right after, their post will show up before the 9:20 post since its timestamp will be 9:19.


Is this relative to the Thread? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Actually I suppose it IS very relative.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

metoou2 said:


> Is this relative to the Thread? Sorry, couldn't resist.
> Actually I suppose it IS very relative.


It's relative to every thread with out of order posts


----------

