In the results, the supersix evo has a lower weight when compared to the supersix (note no EVO). However, the non-evo version has both higher steering and pedaling stiffness. More than 20% higher pedaling stiffness and 4% higher steering stiffness than the evo version. The weight (frame and fork) difference is 235g (1065g for the evo and 1300g for the non-evo version).
Anyone has ridden both and can tell the difference? Especially when stomping down on the pedals? And do you think it is worth paying more for the evo version just to save a little weight but lose stiffness in the process? I believe this weight can be lost throught the rider losing weight or carrying less water.
P.s. I’m making the assumption the the report is true.
Well, if you think you can notice 235g or 4%/20% more/less stiffness - you definitely need to spend some more $ on bike stuff … YOU will eventually come around and decide where the line can be drawn amongst things that you really want in a bike.
As to carrying LESS water … I had 3 giant bottles (2 on the bike, 1 in the back pocket) for the final road race of a stage race today (hot humid, mid 80s) and still took a hand up. I’ll take all the fluid I can carry, thanks.
First off, high stiffness is not necessarily always good. For instance when cornering on rough roads you really want some flex so the rear end doesn’t skip and maintains traction. The other thing is I believe their weights but 250 grams is a fairly heavy post. Anyone who pays the $$ for an evo isn’t buying a 250 gm post to put on it. Half that would be typical.
Rroof: Yup, I definitely have not been in this game long enough, around a year only. The only difference I can notice is between carbon and alu bikes. I have a carbon tri bike and alu road bike. I find the alu road bike flex a lot when I put down the power, not something I find on the carbon. But of course, the stiffness of carbon and alu is quite far apart whereas that of different grade of carbon can be quite close, to the point that one might not tell the difference. Until I can try two different grade of carbon, I cannot comment. As for the weight part, I live in a pretty flat country without hills. So I can’t tell the different between my heavier tri bike and lighter road bike. And my point about carrying less water or losing weight is just to say that I believe the weight difference between the two supersix can be eliminated.
Styrrell: good point there about the skipping and traction part. But if the roads are smooth and have little cornering, would you recommend a stiffer bike? With regards to the seat post, I also think that it is bs. I didn’t include the weight of the seat post in my initial post. Let’s just leave it out. But do you think the seat post will affect the stiffness? I think it will affect at least the pedaling stiffness.
Rhett: ya, I guess we always have to take things with a pinch of salt if they come from the companies. Just like Styrrell mentioned about the seat post. That’s quite a heavy seat post. They probably used it so that their bikes are lighter than the rest. But after all, we are just comparing the supersix, so let’s keep giant bikes out of the picture.
I grew up in Mi and live in GA. MI has incredibly crappy roads. GA is decent but I ride a lot of long distance ride with mixed surfaces, so with that background, sure if your roads are all freshly rolled blacktop or you ride 50 miles or less at a time stiffness doesn’t much matter.
But in the real world or at least my world its a priority. Not to say flexy is best either but the right balance is, well, right.
Unless you’re spending your time behind someone else most of the time-
by the Giant study, I’d get the Felt AR1 or the Cervelo S5.
Personally- I’m adverse to road shock and vibe. When things are rough, I get uncomfortable and literally put out less power. A bike that smoothes things out a bit helps me flow power more smoothly. But- that’s just me.
The tricky thing with composites is that it’s not just the material that matters but how it is assembled.
You can use the exact same carbon and epoxy but with different weave alignments you get different stiffness and strength.
You also can’t assume carbon is always stiffer than aluminum for the same reasons noted above. That said, carbon bikes should generally have stiffness closer to steel.
I had a 56cm Hi-Mod Supersix (2 years). I now have a 54cm Evo Hi-mod (1 year). Both are fantastic frames you will not go wrong with either. That said the Evo is the best frame of the two period. I noticed no loss in stiffness (there is a independent German publication that did stiffness testing and has the Evo much more “laterally” stiff than the SuperSix…been a while since I read the article). What you do notice is the Evo is a more comfortable bike for long rides. The vertical compliance and micro-suspension babble that Cannondale talks about is surprisingly true. The Evo is definitely a smoother riding bike than the SuperSix, especially on chip-n-seal or surfaces that have a “buzz” to them. Don’t confuse compliant with a flexible frame because I have never noticed any flex in any pedal stroke (but then I don’t think my wattage output is going really going cause this ). The Evo is not a lightweight noodle. It is a stiff bike and it handles like a dream being very responsive to all inputs. If you believe Cannondale the narrower tubing is also more aero
I was on a supersix hi-mod the last year and am now on an Evo hi-mod. Like many have said, both are great bikes, but there is a difference. The EVO is laterally stiff as a board…in a great way. Keep in mind though, wheels have as much to do with lateral stiffness as the frame.
If I hadn’t broken my SSHM, I would have never replaced it. But since I had to, I went with the evo.
). The Evo is not a lightweight noodle. It is a stiff bike and it handles like a dream being very responsive to all inputs. If you believe Cannondale the narrower tubing is also more aero