Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
S-Works Tarmac SL3
Joined
·
826 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can anyone comment on the drive train stiffness between the Super-Six HM and Synapse HM as far as climbing is concerned? I mean if one is not sprinting, is there really any BB/drive train difference to speak of between these two bikes?
 

·
extremely biased
Joined
·
870 Posts
The Super is stiffer. The Super6 and the Cervelo R family of bikes are the only 4 bikes that are not a true monoquoces that have the BB shell assembly and chain stays built as a single unit. As in, there is no joint at the junction of the BB shell and chain stays. This hugely contributes the drivetrain stiffness of both.

That being said, buying a Super over a Synapse because of the drivetrain stiffness is a bit like buying a car based on how well it goes in reverse. The positions of the riders on those bikes is different. Buy the one that fits. As a plus both are BB30 friendly and thus SISL friendly.

Starnut
 

·
S-Works Tarmac SL3
Joined
·
826 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Thanks for this info. I can fit on either bike with the proper adjustments/components, much like most people, so fit is not an issue that would make me chose one over the other. I want an event bike, one that is good for centuries, with a lot of mountain riding in the plans. I want a bike that climbs very well, and descends well whether on smooth or rougher pavement. For this reason I slightly favor the more forgiving design of the Synapse. Also, I don't like drive train flex, regardless of how really important it ultimately is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
I haven't tested the 2009's, but In my experience there's a very noticeable difference in feel between the BB30 Synapse SL and 2008 BB30 Supersix. I don't know if their was a measurable difference in climbing speed (I never timed myself), but the Supersix is definitely more responsive to my power output. I'm 5'10" 145lbs fwiw.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top