# SuperSix tops Evo



## designair (Jul 8, 2005)

Other than weight.
Very interesting over at the Giant website.


----------



## Super_6_3 (Aug 5, 2012)

designair said:


> Other than weight.
> Very interesting over at the Giant website.


link please.


----------



## designair (Jul 8, 2005)

Win With Giant - The Truth About Road Frame Testing


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

Interesting.

I may go download their stuff.

Got a little held up at the beginning when they assumed an ISP was worth 250g over a conventional frame.

That's just BS. An ISP still needs the top cap. So the "worth" is about 75g of carbon tubing. At the most.


----------



## pataww2001 (Jul 11, 2012)

designair said:


> Other than weight.
> Very interesting over at the Giant website.


saw this video a while back and it made me feel good about my supersix !

of course Giant is going to toot their own horn a bit, and I don't care. I was happier with the results of the evo vs SS numbers.


----------



## designair (Jul 8, 2005)

bikerjulio said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I may go go download their stuff.
> 
> ...


yeah 250g is a bit much.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

designair said:


> Other than weight.
> Very interesting over at the Giant website.





designair said:


> Win With Giant - The Truth About Road Frame Testing


Thanks for sharing.


And yes; very interesting indeed.


----------



## TriSliceRS (Sep 15, 2012)

pataww2001 said:


> saw this video a while back and it made me feel good about my supersix !
> 
> of course Giant is going to toot their own horn a bit, and I don't care. I was happier with the results of the evo vs SS numbers.


Ok, dilemma now.  I am waiting for Cannondale to replace my cracked 2009 Hi-Mod Super Six. Because I am a big guy (and need a 60cm frame) I've had to wait a while - since they don't have any 60cm's left. They said they would upgrade me to an 2013 Evo. But... the latest ship date says I won't get the frame until January. Now, I don't expect to ride much between now and January, so I can wait... but...

Now i wonder if i'll find the Evo too flex'y. I'm 205 lbs. And, frankly I prefer the color options for the SS.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

TriSliceRS said:


> Ok, dilemma now. I am waiting for Cannondale to replace my cracked 2009 Hi-Mod Super Six. Because I am a big guy (and need a 60cm frame) I've had to wait a while - since they don't have any 60cm's left. They said they would upgrade me to an 2013 Evo. But... the latest ship date says I won't get the frame until January. Now, I don't expect to ride much between now and January, so I can wait... but...
> 
> Now i wonder if i'll find the Evo too flex'y. I'm 205 lbs. And, frankly I prefer the color options for the SS.



According to Giant, C'dale SS is your ticket for stiffness and minimal flexing.


----------



## tranzformer (Dec 27, 2007)

Here is a direct link to the PDF with the data: http://www.winwithgiant.com/WinWithGiant–RoadFrameTestData–FINAL.pdf

If you want stiff steering and pedaling get the SS. What you lose is some weight ~230g between frames and forks. I love my SS-HM. I won't trade it in.


----------



## Dg designs (Jun 24, 2012)

Definitely feel much better about my SS since I am also over 2 bills. I really feel like I have a bike I can grow into, figuratively speaking.


----------



## Super_6_3 (Aug 5, 2012)

OK, OK. The Giant is better than my Supersix but mine is prettier.


----------



## designair (Jul 8, 2005)

Of course with all media, for me, there is always some sort of skepticism whether small or large. Is it true or lies?

What puzzles me from that list, if the SS is so stiff, why did the 2011 SS Hi Mod from Tour mag test so poorly? I know this was just prior to Peter Denk coming to Cannondale, but they improved it that much in one year and for a much cheaper cost?

Also, look at the weight listed. 54cm @ 925g
Cannondale site lists, although no size, 1050g
A competitor advertises a lighter weight..(scratching head)?


----------



## lemonlime (Sep 24, 2003)

bikerjulio said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I may go download their stuff.
> 
> ...


As with anything, we need to look closely on manufacturer provided copy. For instance, in their weight chart they gave the non-ISP 250 gram penalty (which I agree is way too much) to the Look 595. Which of course is wrong because the 595 is an ISP bike.

When they couldn't even get that right, or were outright lying, I lost interest in just about anything else they have to say.


----------



## tranzformer (Dec 27, 2007)

designair said:


> What puzzles me from that list, if the SS is so stiff, why did the 2011 SS Hi Mod from Tour mag test so poorly? I know this was just prior to Peter Denk coming to Cannondale, but they improved it that much in one year and for a much cheaper cost?


Could be difference in testing standards/setup between Tour magazine vs. Giant testing. Btw, for Tour magazine, unless it is a German bike it scores very poorly. I don't ride a magazine score number. SuperSix HM still remains one of the best bikes I have ever ridden or owned. :thumbsup:


----------



## Wile_E_Coyote (Jul 15, 2011)

Isn't half of the ISP adjustment right there in the data? They say the TCR Advanced SL with ISP weighs 968 grams in size medium. TCR Advanced SL without ISP in size medium weighs 940 grams. Looks like 28 grams plus whatever their seatmast clamp weighs. Ritchey advertises theirs at 110 grams.


----------



## gus68 (Oct 19, 2010)

Are we sure the supersix is the HM, not the standard? Just curious.


----------



## threebikes (Feb 1, 2009)

Two weeks ago I had a chance to ride a SuperSix5. 
Great Bike!


----------



## scubad (Jun 22, 2004)

For a 205 pound rider, what is the better Cannondale and why? I have a 08 supersix and would like to replace it soon.

I love my bike but it seems to have lost some of the downhill steadiness it once had. This is with different wheelsets. So don't focus on that too much.


----------



## juanacity (Jul 11, 2012)

Hey scubad, just my two cents, but I would try to take really close look myself or have a really GOOD shop take a look at your headset etc. to see if this doesn't help what you're describing. I've seen plenty of bikes with very small flex at headset/steerer rejuvenated for handling and descending by a new, properly installed headset.


----------



## Ajost (May 27, 2012)

I own a Supersix, but you can 't tell me the SS is better than the EVO. If that was the case, why are the pros using the EVO and not the SS?

If I had a choice of the SS or the EVO, you can bet I would take the EVO any day of the week.

Have to use some common sense. 

v/r

Ajost

2012 Cannondale Supersix 105


----------



## tranzformer (Dec 27, 2007)

^ Not to speak badly against the Evo as it is a great bike, but what the pros ride has nothing to do with anything else except for sponsorships and what the team management/owners tell them to ride. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course they will ride the latest and greatest from the company that is co-sponsor of the team.


----------



## Ajost (May 27, 2012)

tranzformer said:


> ^ Not to speak badly against the Evo as it is a great bike, but what the pros ride has nothing to do with anything else except for sponsorships and what the team management/owners tell them to ride. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course they will ride the latest and greatest from the company that is co-sponsor of the team.


My point exactly. They will ride the top of the line. (best equipment)

v/r

Ajost


----------



## Sharknose (Aug 9, 2010)

Ajost said:


> My point exactly. They will ride the top of the line. (best equipment)
> 
> v/r
> 
> Ajost


Which is why "Bianchi Sempre carbon model is the official bike of the new Professional team Colombia Coldeportes for 2012 season." ? The Sempre is not the top of the line Bianchi, yet that's what Colombia Coldeportes rode all this year.


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

I think that Giant may be drawing some conclusions- and/or making assumptions here that are misleading. In particular, their claims about BB stiffness are highly suspect.
Why do I think this? Well, I own a 2012 Supersix. I have also ridden the Cervelo's tested, as well as a 2012 EVO. I have put (maybe) 100 miles on each, R3, R5, S5, EVO, in addition to 1000 or so on the Supersix. I think I have a fairly good baseline as to what_ feels_ faster. 
While I like my Supersix, and it fits me very well, it is not as good at transferring power as any of the Cervelo's. It just isnt. Sorry. Ride one and the difference will be fairly obvious.

Spec sheets are certainly interesting for BS'ing on a forum, or using in advertising, but real world riding feel and data is what is going to matter in the end...to me.

In my industry, we have seen chassis design theory all over the spectrum with stiffness- going from super stiff, to tuned flex- and everything in between. Stiff is not always best, even when running a 200hp superbike, or a 250hp motogp bike.

I think that translates here fairly nicely. a stiff BB is great, but only as part of a tuned chassis that can effectively transfer that power to the wheel. If you believe Giant, power transfer is a specific function of BB stiffness with no other variables. My experience in riding these bikes tells me otherwise. YMMV.


----------



## crbeals (Oct 3, 2012)

Full_Spectrum said:


> I think that Giant may be drawing some conclusions- and/or making assumptions here that are misleading. In particular, their claims about BB stiffness are highly suspect.
> Why do I think this? Well, I own a 2012 Supersix. I have also ridden the Cervelo's tested, as well as a 2012 EVO. I have put (maybe) 100 miles on each, R3, R5, S5, EVO, in addition to 1000 or so on the Supersix. I think I have a fairly good baseline as to what_ feels_ faster.
> While I like my Supersix, and it fits me very well, it is not as good at transferring power as any of the Cervelo's. It just isnt. Sorry. Ride one and the difference will be fairly obvious.
> 
> ...


Good point on the stiff frame tied to motorcycle race bikes. In some cases you would want to reduce the stiffness in the frame to allow the frame to become more of the suspension. This flex in the frame would keep the tire on the pavement better allow a better transfer of power. I have been on race bikes where stiffer is not always better.


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

crbeals said:


> Good point on the stiff frame tied to motorcycle race bikes. In some cases you would want to reduce the stiffness in the frame to allow the frame to become more of the suspension. This flex in the frame would keep the tire on the pavement better allow a better transfer of power. I have been on race bikes where stiffer is not always better.


In motorcycles this year, we can see dramatic illustrations of excessive chassis stiffness in the appearance of chatter. In production racing, the Kawasaki ZX6 is nicknamed "chatterbox" and in prototype racing, the RC213V chatters so violently that it is the continued source of discussion among the educated watchers. 
This is even more true on a bike with no suspension. Leaned over, accelerating over bumps on a carbon framed SuperSix you want to have a certain amount of flex, in certain direction and so forth. 
Again, I really like my Super Six and will never being to approach a level of competence which will be beyond this bikes capabilities. What I am saying is that Giants claims that ultimate stiffness- with no qualifications or context- is always best...is likely false.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

IMO you guys have it exactly correct. See my post in the Giant area if you wish. I have a 2012 TCR SL.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/giant/giant-going-after-competition-292183.html

Riding both back-to-back on anything other than a very smooth surface will tell the story as well. With the EVO, Cannondale has chosen (correctly IMO) some degree of measurable flex in order to achieve vertical compliance, and they have succeeded quite well.


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

Absolutely right.

In the end, these are all fantastic bicycles, all of which offer performance which is far beyond the performance capabilities of all but a small handful of riders. Some are better than others, and there are lots of ways to design a frame to make it work for its intended application. I think that is what seemed so disingenuous about the Giant data and video. To point to a single data point and say "this is all that matters", should send up the BS flag immediately.

As for the SuperSix v EVO, well, I am very content with my SuperSix- considering what I paid for it- but there is no question that the EVO is a better frame in most every regard.

Now, if they would just stop with all of the logos everywhere...


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

TriSliceRS said:


> Ok, dilemma now. I am waiting for Cannondale to replace my cracked 2009 Hi-Mod Super Six. They said they would upgrade me to an 2013 Evo.


Warranty stories are always very informative and interesting. If you don't mind, start a thread and tell us about your particular case. What failed etc.
So you were told you would get an EVO for your SuperSix, interesting, very interesting.


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

Wow- ton of views and no new comments.


----------



## gus68 (Oct 19, 2010)

> Wow- ton of views and no new comments.


To me, you are spot so nothing more to add.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

Full_Spectrum said:


> Wow- ton of views and no new comments.


Forums mirror society; everyone likes to look, few want to get involved.


----------



## designair (Jul 8, 2005)

> As for the SuperSix v EVO, well, I am very content with my SuperSix- considering what I paid for it- but there is no question that the EVO is a better frame in most every regard.


And you feel the Cervelo's are better than the Evo?


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

Again, "better" is really subjective. My opinion is that the EVO was just amazing. It did everything really well. I really like the Cervelo's, though I wound up buying and riding the SuperSix.

Personally, my body fits on the Cannondale 52 really well. The Cervelo 51 was a bit small- too much toeverlap, and the 54 was too big- needing a much shorter stem and/or post change. It just wasnt "right" for me.
Thoughts on these bikes. All were 2012 model bikes. Riding was done with these back to back in most cases.
I thought the S2 was really stiff- perhaps too stiff, but very fast...especially considering the price point.
I think that the S5 was probably faster on flats (than EVO) with better power transfer, but didnt climb as well as the EVO.
I did not do any fast descents with these bikes, so I cant comment there.

The Cervelo R3 was very compliant, with excellent power transfer. Handled really nicely. This is a really good alternative to the EVO, IMO, given the price point. 
The Cervelo R5 was a toss up with the EVO, components aside. It does everything really well, and just like the EVO, is so far beyond my ability to exploit or even understand it capabilities that I feel a little goofy even comparing them.
Again, this is all subjective based on feel at my skill level. I ride between 60-100 miles a week averaging between 18-19mph. Im certainly no pro or even expert. YMMV.


----------



## designair (Jul 8, 2005)

Holding the Evo frame in hand makes it difficult to believe how good it is.
Scary light weight and the tubes have a smaller diameter than a Seven Eleven Big Gulp straw.

We see the Pros ride it but then again Sagan rides a 58cm top tube and 54 seat tube so nothing stock about that.
I would think I would be losing way too much transfer but I am no engineer.
But doesn't the energy have to go somewhere?

A group rider has the S5 and I don't think i have seen another bike with a more massive BB and chain stay construction. Truly looked line Mr Olympia couldn't flex it yet the test results I have seen conclude otherwise.

Man am i confused.


----------



## scubad (Jun 22, 2004)

Went to a LBS today to look/ride a EVO. Nothing in my size. Bummer

However in looking and comparing the EVO frame with my 08 Supersix it appears that the front end is more laterally stiffer than mine. I would love to ride a EVO, Tarmac SL4 and a Cervelo back to back.

But my heart is with a Cannondale

Dennis


----------



## scubad (Jun 22, 2004)

So, I rode a Evo Red frame today. The non-HM version and here are my thoughts. Let me know if you concur or differ.

- coming for my older Supersix, It felt lighter. With the heavier Equipe wheels I test rode with it was a bit lighter but only by 1/4 to 1/2 pound. 

- it felt the same climbing as the Supersix. Had a couple of good short climbs but not a clear winner.

- flats appeared to have good power transfer and the bike responded well to the power. 

- sprinting - I felt that this was a bit better than the Supersix. Had some zip and accelerated well. Good handling I sprinting on the hoods and drops. 

- descending - it was a short down hill but the bike tracked well and was very smooth and stable.

- handling - turn a few corners at speed multiple times and the steering is faster and quicker than my old Supersix. This was a definite.

- comfort - this appeared to be in favor of the EVO. Riding over rough roads and man no,e covers the EVO was smoother. This could be attributable to the frame and the seat. I usually ride a Specialized Romin compared the the Fizik Antares which has a bit more padding could be a factor. Tires were pumped up to the same PSI. Supersix wheels are Fulcrums versus the Mavic Equipes.

Overall, I would take the EVO over the Supersix even though it is a Non High Mod version. The High Mod version would be better for the weight. My LBS is giving me a great deal on the EVO Red version where I can live with the slightly heavier weight. Not a fan of the SRAM Red group so might take it off and sell it to put on Shimano. 

The only thing I would have like to do is ride my SS, EVO HM and EVO back to back to back.

Thanks for reading and hope it helps someone.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

Nice review, thanks for the input.


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

No real surprise there (re: SS being stiffer than the Evo). I found it kind of funny though that Giant didn't mention whether or not they were factoring in the ISP clamp with their weight calculations. They also added in the 250g seatpost penalty for both the Look frames and the Madone 6.9... Furthermore they keep saying how amazing stiffness is until they are no longer tops in the charts (although I would agree that too much BB/chain stay stiffness can produce a poor-riding bike). They also use a dummy crank which likely negates any advantages of a BB30 crank and artificially enhances a BB86 setup. Finally, what about front end stiffness? When is enough enough? When will the deflection of the tire, wheel, stem, and bars be orders of magnitude more than what we see at the fork and front end of the bike?

I spent years reading into scientific papers during grad school, so presenting data like these sets alarm bells off in my head!

Also I'm happy to be riding my SuperSix


----------



## trauma-md (Feb 6, 2004)

aengbretson said:


> No real surprise there (re: SS being stiffer than the Evo). I found it kind of funny though that Giant didn't mention whether or not they were factoring in the ISP clamp with their weight calculations. They also added in the 250g seatpost penalty for both the Look frames and the Madone 6.9... Furthermore they keep saying how amazing stiffness is until they are no longer tops in the charts (although I would agree that too much BB/chain stay stiffness can produce a poor-riding bike). They also use a dummy crank which likely negates any advantages of a BB30 crank and artificially enhances a BB86 setup. Finally, what about front end stiffness? When is enough enough? When will the deflection of the tire, wheel, stem, and bars be orders of magnitude more than what we see at the fork and front end of the bike?
> 
> I spent years reading into scientific papers during grad school, so presenting data like these sets alarm bells off in my head!
> 
> Also I'm happy to be riding my SuperSix


Interestingly, I am back on my 2007 System Six once again....love that bike! :thumbsup:


----------



## zamboni (Sep 11, 2003)

trauma-md said:


> Interestingly, I am back on my 2007 System Six once again....love that bike! :thumbsup:


MD how about the new EVO? Love to hear your feed back on the ride.


----------



## designair (Jul 8, 2005)

scubad said:


> So, I rode a Evo Red frame today. The non-HM version and here are my thoughts. Let me know if you concur or differ.
> 
> - coming for my older Supersix, It felt lighter. With the heavier Equipe wheels I test rode with it was a bit lighter but only by 1/4 to 1/2 pound.
> 
> ...


What year Supersix are you comparing?


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

trauma-md said:


> Interestingly, I am back on my 2007 System Six once again....love that bike! :thumbsup:


Are you kidding? Some of us on the Cannondale forum are betting on WHEN, not if, you return to the System Six. 

Let's face, lighter is okay but I'm wagering that you don't have any problems going uphill. So who cares for the super light bike. Let's get one that has the most precise handling, stiffest bottom bracket and a good dose of comfort. 

I'm surprised you haven't thrown a leg of the Slice RS.

C.


----------



## zamboni (Sep 11, 2003)

I could tell you are still i love with your systems six MD.


----------

