• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What happened to Cannondale? Review

Jun 10, 2009
4
0
0
Visit site
I am considering upgrading my older cannondale and just got finished reading the Velonews review on the new Cannondale compact system six.
What happened to this company??
The frame in 52cm size weights 1380g??:eek: how can that be?? That is more than my CAAD7 and my old CAAD4 (which I use on the turbo trainer) frames which come in at less than 1300g. I looked up on weight weenies website and there is a 52cm CAAD7 at 1202g.
Then the fork they spec'd is 700g??:eek: that can't be right. I mean, my old reynolds ouzo comp (alu steerer) weight 450g and my old cannondale SI fork weighs 320g.
It used to be that Cannondale sold you a great frame and the component spec got downgraded as you moved to a lower price point. No longer I guess:( Now it all gets crappier.
I wanted to upgrade the CAAD7 to a new Cannondale but what's the point if the new one is heavier and more expensive than the old one?
Who would buy this bike? I have a budget of $2k tops.
 
Mar 4, 2009
160
0
0
Visit site
Ha, you mean you read the review on *Cyclingnews*, right? ;)

Anyway, yes, that frameset is pretty heavy (and no, the 700g fork weight is NOT a typo). But the fact of the matter is that most of the market these days demands carbon fiber even when something similar or lighter can be had in aluminum.

The Six Carbon 3 is a very stiff and very comfortable frame - it's just that it has too much mass and not the best ride quality.

If you're considering a Cannondale, I would take a hard look at their CAAD9 series. Those aluminum frames are still amazingly good and offer outstanding value.

We're actually going to use a CAAD9 frame as a basis for an upcoming Project Bike feature, too.
 
Jun 10, 2009
4
0
0
Visit site
Of course, Cyclingnews review! I guess I'll take a closer look at the CAAD9.
At that $2k pricepoint it seems carbon just sells better even if aluminum outperforms it? :confused:
Look forward to hearing about this "project bike". Sounds like a "best bang for buck" deal.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
Visit site
I understand that Cannondale are moving the majority of their production offshore in the next 6-12 months and have started already. Whilst Taiwanese QA is probably up to scratch (see Giant warranty thread elsewhere), if you want a hand-made-the-old-way-in-the-good-old-US-of-A then I would make a purchase pretty sharpish. You might even want to look at a 2008 CAAD9 if the above is what you are after. It's one of my great regrets that I never got around to owning a Bedford made CAAD frame. By all accounts, they are superb and most likely superior to generic carbon frames available at the $2000 price point. Good luck!
 
Mar 10, 2009
221
0
0
Visit site
parmijo said:
Of course, Cyclingnews review! I guess I'll take a closer look at the CAAD9.
At that $2k pricepoint it seems carbon just sells better even if aluminum outperforms it? :confused:
Look forward to hearing about this "project bike". Sounds like a "best bang for buck" deal.

If you want to take a look at carbon that none of us hear about through the main line cycling media, go to bustedcarbon.com. Pretty scarey the number of carbon frames, stems, forks and bars that snap.
 
Jun 13, 2009
68
0
0
Visit site
Steel is real baby.
Stay away from anything that can't be bent back into shape to get you home from a ride. (carbon, Aluminium, paper mache, etc.)
Ti gets a pass although most people will think you are a dentist if they catch you riding one on a MUP. lol
 
Mar 13, 2009
42
0
0
Visit site
I quite like the Six to be honest. I don't think there is a problem with the bike, I just feel that it is at the wrong price point. Something like the Specialized Carbon Elite's.

Personally, I perfer the Synapse - especially the Hi-Mod versions.

However, personally, I would look elsewhere if I was to get a bike. There are far better prices points in some of the other big brands.

Oh, and ignore the anti-Carbon lobby, If good old steel was soooo good, we would all be using it. I've not hit that many cars, but I don't ever remember or have seen and Aluminium or Steel bike survive a collision with a Car!
 
Jun 16, 2009
346
0
0
Visit site
I've got to declare my hand before I post ... I'm a definite fan of Cannondale bikes, and currently ride a Six13, a X6 cross bike and a Carbon Scalpel - all custom speced to suit my particular gear fetishes (ie., Campag and Sram ...)

For my 10c worth on the topics in this thread, try this:
- having started riding and racing on frame-fork combos that were well over the 2kg mark and were made out of floppy, flexy steel combos, I laugh every time someone complains about modern frame weights. Take a classic race bike of 15 - 20 years ago out for a spin and then see if you are really going to be so badly off on a "heavy" 1300g frame ...
- an interview with Ernesto Colnago on this site a few years back had a line like "everyone wants to climb on a sub 1kg frame, but no-one wants to descend on one". Having taken a Scott carbon TT bike for a test ride a few years ago - with a seat tube that you could flex by pushing into it with your thumb (yes, no exaggeration), I kinda get where Ernesto's coming from ...
- why the obsession with weight at the "gotta lose 100g" level? I can pretty much bet that everyone reading this thread could find an unnecesary 200g-500g (that's roughly 0.5lb - 1lb for you imperial types ....) to lose from the biggest single weight item on a bike - namely the rider! Why don't we worry about increasing the power:weight ratio of the engine - either get lighter or get stronger - rather than fiddling over frame weights and carbon fibre bottle cages with titanium mounting bolts?
- light often doesn't also equal reliable. Check out the story on another site by someone who has had pretty catastrophic problems with a really light carbon spoked wheel. I also can tell you of hassles on my MTB with a super light XTR front derailleur which warped because it couldn't handle the sort of heavy duty punishment that the old, heavy model that it replaced just swallowed up. That 20g sure as hell wasn't worth the subsequent hassle - not to mention the very slow ride back home in my granny ring!
- why the need for carbon in everything? Yes, I know that two of my bikes have carbon sections, but I'm also glad that they have as much alloy as they do as I prefer that ride. And you'd be surprised how many pros still ride alloy. My partner worked as a masseuse for a couple of teams a couple of years back and there is more metal in the peleton than you may think - and not for budgetary reasons either (eg., when a former world champ chooses to ride alloy while their team mates are all on carbon, you know that it's not a cost thing ...)
- be very careful of some of the weights that you read - and back what you read up by actually getting out and weighing the bikes and also taking them for a ride. Weight may or may not be as much of an issue in reality as it seems on paper depending on where it's distributed. An example of that is the Giant Trance that a friend of mine has. It feels heavy to lift, but something about the weight distribution means that you don't notice it that much when you ride it ...
- as I say, take the weights with a few pinches of salt. I remember reading a review of a bike (can't remember where) and was astounded by the weight that they gave. Having some spare time and doing some maths, I worked out that, if it was true, the frame and fork combined weighed 1kg! Not bad for a $4k bike! I took this to a friend who works in a shop and he backed up my maths and said that the manufacturer was notorious for putting out b-s weights ... This reminds me of my days of riding motorbikes where you could supposedly buy a $15k road legal sports bike that weighs about 2kg more than a $200k tricked out race bike ...
- lastly, remember, it's not the bike so much as the rider. I took great delight last 'cross season - which was my first and came after me spenidng a very inactive southern hemisphere winter and having just moved to Canada - kicking **** in the races I was in and consistently finishing top 10 on my $1000 stock standard Cannondale X6 (with a 1500g frame and 700g fork - and almost 2000g wheelset!). It was such a blast beating people on multi-thousand dollar carbon bikes with carbon tubular wheelsets that cost more than my bike did. I'm not saying that I'm any sort of legend or anything (not even a "legend in my own lunchtime"!!) - it's just making the point that, as it has always been, riders win races, not bikes ...

OK, this is an overly long diatribe ... time to step down from the soap box and let all of those gear heads, bike shop owners and manufacturers' marketing departments who disagree with me have a shot at what I've written ... The floor is yours .... ;-)
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
From pros who rode them I've only read good reviews of cannondale all aluminium frames. If I could find one with a hollowgram crankset, but alas it'd need to be an older one and I'd need to find someone willing to part with it.
Carbon fibres have superior properties in line, but once you make an orthotropic layup its really not that far ahead. There are also good fibres and bad fibres, as there are good steels, aluminiums etc.
There are manufacturing advantages shapes etc. but for a road bike not tt really?
If you want a 6.8kg bike, it can still be done with a frame over 1kg without ridiculous part choices, over 1.2 it gets tricky.
I like the 6.8 rule, and its a matter of time before the idustry catches up. Soon we will be sold on stiffness numbers. Already starting to happen. Ie this bike is 6.8kg, and has bottom bracket stiffness of 90Nm/degree.