# Supersix stronger than Caad10 frame??



## neilcrumpton (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm looking for some quick advice - is the carbon fiber Supersix a "stronger" frame that the new aluminum Caad10 frame (likewise for Synapse vs. Carbon Synapse)? My LBS told me this (as well as likening the Caad10 to a tin can - very strong in one direction but very fragile if hit at the wrong angle) and I'm looking for a second opinion before I jump up to a higher price-point!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

neilcrumpton said:


> very strong in one direction but very fragile if hit at the wrong angle)


I'd say this is true of all frames. I don't think you can go wrong with either.


----------



## neilcrumpton (Aug 5, 2010)

The LBS guy got me concerned when he said that they can't even clamp a work stand to the Caad10 frame as the aluminum is now so thin (and can only clamp it around the cf seat post).

I'm ultimately looking for a frame that will withstand the occasional bump and is going to last the longest.


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

well they DID lighten the frame up... a LOT. However if it can't stand up to a frame clamp (using a foam pad or rag or something, which I would do for ANY frame, even an old steel one) then it won't stand up to riding either. I highly doubt Cannondale would make a frame that couldn't be put in a stand. Now when it comes to tube shapes, you probably can't clamp the top tube (due to it not being round) but I think they may be trying to sell you a bike with a higher profit margin...


----------



## neilcrumpton (Aug 5, 2010)

aengbretson said:


> well they DID lighten the frame up... a LOT. However if it can't stand up to a frame clamp (using a foam pad or rag or something, which I would do for ANY frame, even an old steel one) then it won't stand up to riding either. I highly doubt Cannondale would make a frame that couldn't be put in a stand. Now when it comes to tube shapes, you probably can't clamp the top tube (due to it not being round) but I think they may be trying to sell you a bike with a higher profit margin...


Thanks for the insight aengbretson. I got the same feeling that they were looking for a quick upsell, spotting that I was an amateur cyclist with limited bike knowledge.


----------



## BikeNerd2453 (Jul 4, 2005)

aengbretson said:


> well they DID lighten the frame up... a LOT. However if it can't stand up to a frame clamp (using a foam pad or rag or something, which I would do for ANY frame, even an old steel one) then it won't stand up to riding either. I highly doubt Cannondale would make a frame that couldn't be put in a stand. Now when it comes to tube shapes, you probably can't clamp the top tube (due to it not being round) but I think they may be trying to sell you a bike with a higher profit margin...


Are you kidding? Most high-end bikes on the market wouldn't stand up to having a frame tube clamped. You should never clamp a bike by it's frame, any frame. The tubes weren't designed around that, the tubing is thin in places where there isn't a lot of external stress. Butting does this, thinner frames in the middle where nothing touches it. Yes, it means that it's not as resistant to clamping forces, but this is how we get 800g carbon road frames, 1200g alloy frames, etc.

Old steel frames, no worries to clamp, but pick any modern frame, from any company, and it's the same: don't clamp. Clamp the seatpost, or use a tool from Park for example, that fits into the seattube and is designed to be clamped. Or use a dropout/BB mount stand.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

My CAAD 4 over ten years ago came with a warning decal telling not to clamp the frame in a worstand, to clamp the seatpost. Same thing with my Prophet mountain bike from 2005 and that one is burly. Actually, I think Cannondale gives these notice with every bike they make.

I think both the SuperSix and the CAAD10 are strong enough to be ridden as meant to be. Just don't clamp them on the frame. Same thing for most bikes as bikeNerd2453 said.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

BikeNerd2453 said:


> Are you kidding?



I'm assuming he meant "wouldn't" since he referenced old steel frames which are notoriously tanks.  

But I agree with you. Never clamp a frame.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/interbike-2010-first-ride-cannondale-caad10

This should be a good read for the OP.


----------



## neilcrumpton (Aug 5, 2010)

88 rex said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/interbike-2010-first-ride-cannondale-caad10
> 
> This should be a good read for the OP.


Thanks 88 rex - I'll read this now!


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

What do you mean by "stronger?" Seriously, if I crashed my 08 Super Six, I would cry over its shattered remains. If I crashed in my old CAAD4, I would swear/cuss left and right over a small ding or a scratch.

The newer carbon frames maybe more efficient or comfortable but I doubt that they're as "strong" as the older frames. This assumes you refer to impact resistance and durability.

CHL


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

BikeNerd2453 said:


> *Are you kidding?* Most high-end bikes on the market wouldn't stand up to having a frame tube clamped. You should never clamp a bike by it's frame, any frame. The tubes weren't designed around that, the tubing is thin in places where there isn't a lot of external stress. Butting does this, thinner frames in the middle where nothing touches it. Yes, it means that it's not as resistant to clamping forces, but this is how we get 800g carbon road frames, 1200g alloy frames, etc.
> 
> Old steel frames, no worries to clamp, but pick any modern frame, from any company, and it's the same: don't clamp. Clamp the seatpost, or use a tool from Park for example, that fits into the seattube and is designed to be clamped. Or use a dropout/BB mount stand.


No, not kidding, but definitely victim of re-writing a sentence three times and not reading it afterwards for coherency. I certainly wouldn't clamp my bike by the frame, even my 20 year old steel bike. That's what seatposts are for. Again, non-circular tube shapes + extensive butting = a recipe for a dented frame.

I've been very kind to my system six so it hasn't had a chance to sustain damage, but at the same time I've never felt like its walls were "beer can thin"... That being said, a crash is quite often terminal for ANY kind of light, racing-oriented frame. Even steel will dent and bend.


----------



## Briko (Jun 17, 2009)

CHL said:


> What do you mean by "stronger?" Seriously, if I crashed my 08 Super Six, I would cry over its shattered remains. If I crashed in my old CAAD4, I would swear/cuss left and right over a small ding or a scratch.
> 
> The newer carbon frames maybe more efficient or comfortable but I doubt that they're as "strong" as the older frames. This assumes you refer to impact resistance and durability.
> 
> CHL


CHL hit the nail on the head! These new light weight carbon frames are fragile. I have seen guys who accidently knocked the bike over and the bottle cages ripped out.


----------



## mike5065 (Aug 30, 2009)

BikeNerd2453 said:


> ...Most high-end bikes on the market wouldn't stand up to having a frame tube clamped. ....


CAAD5 gently clamped for 8 years running, no dents, no scratches, no fatigue, no issues. And I consider my CAAD5 to be high end (it certainly rides that way). Would I do this with carbon? Probably not. With CAAD10? Probably.


----------



## nathanmixon (May 3, 2004)

*I have to weigh in...*

I'll throw my two cents in here and hopefully make a healthy contribution to this discussion.

When comparing carbon fiber (as a general material) to aluminum and/or steel, carbon fiber is generally the overwhelming favorite in all properties with the exception of cost and ease of manufacture (essentially cost repeated). Carbon fiber is of course made in various ways with various layups and various resins however, it is almost always true that carbon fiber (in its finished form) will have better mechanical properties than aluminum or steel. 

Carbon fiber has a higher tensile strength than aluminum or steel. I have seen tensile test data that has carbon fiber 8 to 10 times (and more) stronger in this regard than aluminum. Carbon fiber (depending on the resin used) is less dense than aluminum. Think of two tubes, one made of carbon and one made of aluminum, that are the same diameter, length, and wall thickness. Bending test, carbon wins. Tensile test, carbon wins. Fatigue test (stresses applied in cycles repeatedly over a long period of time) carbon wins. The "win" refers to the aluminum yielding (permanently deforming) well before the carbon does. Carbon does all of this while being lighter! The fatigue property, to me, is one of the most important ones. Bikes go through A LOT of fatigue, cycles of loading, and carbon fiber resistance to fatigue makes it a great choice for bikes.

Some say carbon is more brittle and will crack easier. From what I know, this is not entirely true. Generally, aluminum frames don't crack when impacted. Usually if an aluminum frame is cracked, it is around welds and is due to fatigue loading. Take the same two tubes I mentioned above and subject them to an impact test with a hammer. Using the same amount of impact force, the aluminum tube will deform (dent) before the carbon cracks. Carbon does not (generally) permanently deform (like a dent) because of it's elastic modulus compared to aluminum. Once aluminum is loaded (stress applied) enough to deform it, it can still withstand a good bit of load before it ruptures. Carbon fiber will take a lot more load than aluminum before it starts to deform but, once that magic deformation load number is reached, the additional load needed to fracture the carbon is minimal. 

There is no doubt, in my mind, that carbon fiber bikes will last longer than aluminum bikes under the same conditions. If you were in a crash severe enough to "shatter" a carbon fiber bike, that same crash would leave your aluminum frame warped and bent to the point of being un-rideable. 

If you have the dough to spend, buy the carbon. If not, buy the aluminum. Both will serve you well, especially if this is your first bike. Just know that if you go with the CAAD10, it will be more fragile in all aspects. Hope that helps...


----------



## neilcrumpton (Aug 5, 2010)

nathanmixon said:


> I'll throw my two cents in here and hopefully make a healthy contribution to this discussion.
> 
> When comparing carbon fiber (as a general material) to aluminum and/or steel, carbon fiber is generally the overwhelming favorite in all properties with the exception of cost and ease of manufacture (essentially cost repeated). Carbon fiber is of course made in various ways with various layups and various resins however, it is almost always true that carbon fiber (in its finished form) will have better mechanical properties than aluminum or steel.
> 
> ...


Thanks - this helps a lot. Now I just have to decide on whether to go with the "aggressive" fit of the SuperSix 5 or the more "relaxed" fit of the Synapse Carbon 5!


----------

