Eurobike: Cannondale Scalpel 100
100mm of travel from an 18lb bike - Cannondale unveils all-new Scalpel
Cannondale's new Scalpel is unfeasibly light, without resorting to scary weight weenie tactics
With 45 World Cup podiums under its belt, Cannondale's XC race FS bike, the Scalpel, has been redesigned. It’s not just a facelift - the bike's new from the bottom bracket up. A team of eight designers were tasked with the challenge of designing the lightest full-suspension MTB for the company’s World Cup race team. No mean feat, given that the team riders were pretty happy with the existing Scalpel and essentially said, "If you can make something with more travel that's lighter and stiffer, that'd be great." Whether they asked for the moon on a stick too isn't recorded. But after 24 months of development, the Scalpel Carbon 100 is the result.
So what’s new? The flexible carbon chainstays remain, but with the flattened section extended to deliver more flex and hence greater travel. With more displacement at the rear axle, something had to articulate between the dropout and the rocker linkage, so Cannondale has added carbon fibre seatstays to the mix which give a little. The top-flight model in the range uses a carbon-canned DT Swiss shock to trim a few more grams.
An aluminium rocker drives the shock, with the pivots for the linkage welded to an aluminium seat tube. Using technology developed for its road bikes, Cannondale has equipped the carbon Scalpel with a composite carbon fibre/aluminium main triangle. The head tube and most of the down and top tubes are carbon fibre, with aluminium tubes moulded in and welded to the alu seat tube. The shock mount is bonded to the carbon section of the top tube. Cannondale's testing persuaded them that they could deliver a lighter main triangle with the carbon/alu construction than by using carbon alone. The front triangle is claimed to be 15% stiffer than the outgoing Scalpel. As well as the carbon bikes, there'll be a range of all-alu Scalpel 100s with just a 1-200g weight penalty.
The frame then, is light, but it’s in Cannondale’s integrated approach that really helps the company deliver a super-light full bike package. New Hollowgram SL Carbon cranks come in at 645g including bottom bracket and three chainrings. The Lefty SL Carbon fork includes a one-piece aluminium steerer and stem and weighs in at 1.225kg (2.7lb). Throw in a selection of lightweight (but non-scary, apart from a frankly painful looking all-carbon saddle) components and the finished product comes to the start line at a mind-boggling 8.25kg (18.2lb). Cannondale reckons that that makes it the lightest bike in the World Cup field, hardtails included.
It's certainly an impressive achievement. And this top-line model isn't a racer-only special - this will be a production bike (if you have the cash). More accessible models will be available in the five-bike (three carbon, two aluminium) range.
Seat tube is aluminium and co-moulded to carbon top and down tubes
Low weight is assisted with DT Swiss's carbon shock
No pivots: instead, the chainstays flex throughout their length
Latest Hollowgram SL is lighter and stiffer
I love it, it's been in development for a while, Nick hates Cannondales. It looks like a mini-Rush.
Posted: 31/08/2007 09:16
I remember the days when my 100mm suss bike weighed 35lbs  18lbs!...I've had curry's bigger than that..
Posted: 31/08/2007 09:19
"Les dommages causés par l'usure normale, comprenant le résultat de la fatigue ne sont pas couverts. Les dommages dûs à la fatigue sont un symptôme d'usure du cadre dûe à son utilisation. Il s'agit d'une forme d'usure. Voir section A." "Damage caused by normal wear as a result of fatigue are not covered. Fatigue failure is a symptom of wear due to use. It's a form of wear. See section A" They aren't called "crack n' fail" for nothing. And when they do crack n' fail their warranty clarly states the frame isn't covered. The other conditions are frankly ridiculous too.
Posted: 31/08/2007 10:03
Why did you need a new frame then Karlos?
That's a long and complex story, down to my LBS not knowing diddly-squat about the frame, in the end I got a new frame and the old one turned out to be fine but they'd already given me the new frame. I thought the swing arm was out of line a few mm, turned out that it was within their tolerances. All I'm saying is that their current line up of bikes are very good and solid IMO, their bad rep comes from the late 90 through to 03ish when they were venturing into carbon (Raven etc) and lots of frames split in two! Also their lightweight Alu XC were brittle back then. I think I've only seen one broken/cracked Prophet since it's first production in 05.
Posted: 31/08/2007 10:41
Surely one is too many....... *fans flames* 
Posted: 31/08/2007 10:48
03ish. That's not long ago and well into the company's history. Who's to say that their latest offering is going to be as reliable you claim the Prophet to be or as unrelible as you admit their earlier bikes were? Either way, I'd rather buy a Trek or a Spesh and know they'll replace it with something equivalent for years.
Posted: 31/08/2007 11:02
Good choice as it's a fair bet that the Trek will need replacing several times FWIW personally I've had good service from Cannondale Europe though I have heard bad stories, though no more than any other bike manufacturer.
Posted: 31/08/2007 11:11
John, I suspect they've just built this frame so light they are basically saying you are buying it at your own risk and expense of it failing, don't call them. Which is fair enough, if your the kinda weight weenie that wants to shave weight for the sake of durability.
Posted: 31/08/2007 12:29
Truth be told, a lot of warranties read like that - seen a few for high end mtbs that basically don't cover them if used off-road. Any decent manufacturer (and that includes Cannondale) will look at each case on its merit, and most likely replace even if the warranty says they don't have to. Frames snapping is bad publicity and in the long run it pays to shut the unhappy customer up. The reason the warranty is worded that way is because it does allow them to refuse to replace the obvious pisstakes without having to prove it really failed because the owner tried a 20 gap jump on their lightweight XC bike......
Posted: 31/08/2007 12:45
I see you've fully understood the Cannondale terms and conditions then Dylan. A couple of case histories from my triathlon club: Laurent broke his Cannondale road frame at the bottom of the seat stay. A classic fatigue failure on a not very old bike. He ended up buying a Look to replace it. Another Laurent broke his S-works Tarmac seat tube (probably due to overtightening of the seat clamp bolt if you ask me). He took it back to the shop not really expecting much. They sent a pic to Spesh by e-mail who agreed to replace the frame within minutes. As the dealer had an S-works Tarmac SL in stock Spesh said to give him that if he wanted it.
Posted: 31/08/2007 12:50
Spesh do tend to really not care ( not about the customer, but about giving frames away ), it's only a frame they must make them for 20p or something really, so it's not a case of a Dale being really bad, but Spesh being really good. Personally wouldn't touch a Dale, and this is one of the reasons I'm thinking about going over to Spesh, so you can understand why Spesh do it.
Posted: 31/08/2007 12:56
Like Dylan said, and further to what I said - neither bike would be covered under their respective warranties per se. Specialised would just rather replace and maintain the good will than argue. A happy rider on a nice S-Works is a great mobile billboard! Cannondale France at least clearly don't think that way. Either way its not really the warranty wording that matters here, rather tha fact that Specialised don't hide behind theirs........
Posted: 31/08/2007 13:06
Don't rise to it DK.LOL I'm not, I'm just giving my opinion, I think it's an outdated view. They are very high quality bikes these days. My next bike will probably be a Carbon Rush or I nearly got me credit card out for a Synapse t'other day 
Posted: 31/08/2007 13:16
I wonder how people would react if a five-year-old Ferrari snapped in half while someone were driving it to the shops? I was personally very happy when the UCI put a minimum weight limit on road race bikes (even if they set it too low in my opinion). Obviously in the abscence of weight limits there's competition between manufacturers to give teams an (unfair) advantage. The result is fragile bikes that IMO can be dangerous. Over the years I've seen head tubes part company with the rest of the bike, broken seat and chain stays, broken down tubes, broken seat tubes and all that on bikes less than a year old. Cannondale love to headline with the lightest this or that or "too light to race" and frankly I'd rather have a bike that's a few grams heavier but less likely to fall apart mid-ride.
Posted: 31/08/2007 13:35
The other way to look at it DK is, Spesh make there frames for 20p a time and replace without caring or giving a 2nd thought, maybe Dales frames cost alot ( £5 ) more to make so hence there not wanting to replace from likely crash damage. Spesh likely sell 10x's the frames that the Dales do, so economy of scale likely means they can make them cheaper. Rarely see a Dale on the trails, none stop Spesh's around here.
Posted: 31/08/2007 13:37
When did you ever see Cannondale and Specialized in the same shop in France Mike D? Different shops and the Cannondale was older so it's not totally comparable. The attitude of the shop staff is clearly a major factor. And the attitude of the client too no doubt. And client record too. The second Laurent spends thousands in the Spesh shop. That shouldn't matter though should it. I'll stick to arguing on the basis of Cannondale's own documentation and sales blurb as I agree that a case study with two examples doesn't produce statistically reliable results.
Posted: 31/08/2007 13:47
I could learn to love Cannondales, I must admit that that is pretty awesome! I'm not a fan of their insistance on using proprietary (sp?) components like the chainset, although it's fairly hard to argue with the finished product in this instance. Wonder what it'll be like to ride. Still, can't get one trade, and I'm not paying full price for one 
That and I think the way the Epic works is spot on, I'd sooner ride it than a Spark, I think the pound weight saving is wiped out by the need to fiddle with lockout levers constantly, not my style!
Posted: 31/08/2007 14:11
Minimum weight arguements Perhaps reading the link will help people understand why I find Cannondale irritating. They fought tooth and nail against the minimum weight rules on the basis that their bikes are quite strong enough. Then they have warranty clauses that exclude fatigue failures you would expect on bikes that are too light. If their bikes really are strong enough then I would expect a five-year guarantee which includes fatigue failure. Having failed to convince the UCI, they're now starting a weight war in the MTB world in which the only loser will be the MTBer. Have I made myself clear now?
Posted: 31/08/2007 14:40
John, but the people who are going to buy a Dale that light, will know about the warranty rules and make there own decision weather or not to risk saving that 200grams or whatever. ( personally I wouldn't ) MTB is becoming like F1 thats all, the parts are built so light they are only expected to do 1 race, if they've got the money to do so, then fair enough. It's not like the 200grams they've saved is a huge big deal on a MTB, so let them waste there money in the hope of winning races.
Posted: 31/08/2007 14:49
'I wonder how people would react if a five-year-old Ferrari snapped in half while someone were driving it to the shops?' Time was (pre Audi) most Lamborghini owners had their brand new cars breakdown bringing them home from the factory. It was just part of the 'ownership experience'. OK, so thats not snapping in half, but then the frame is just one component in a bike too. A big one, the main one, but still a single component. The point is, Lambo owners could live with the breakdowns because reliability isn't the point of supercars. And the same is true of superlight bikes - if you want it to weigh less than a gnats toenail clippings expect it to be fragile too.
Posted: 31/08/2007 21:47
This is all rather interesting. The whole light vs fragile thing is an interesting concept, and clearly incredibly subjective. I spend a lot of time lurking on the weight weenies website and one of the first things I realised was quite how much this was the case. People talk about forks not being as good as a SID, but lighter. Now I'm among the most anal on here, let's be honest, but I wouldn't use a current generation SID (although the 2008 ones...). I built my Epic to be as light as reasonable with off the shelf, good value (another subjective one), tough parts. The only things that I don't really see lasting are the Stan's Aluminium rotors, but I don't use them in the wet. If any parts failed catastrophically any time soon, I'd be pretty PO'd. On t'other hand, I can see the whole 'light bikes will break' thing from the manufacturers POV. Lose/lose it seems. I don't doubt they could offer longer warranties on things, with rider weight limits of 10 stone, and by limiting riding to pure XC stuff only, but that's never going to happen. The manufacturers are blatantly just covering their backs to avoid having to replace clearly abused frames. And who can blame them.
Posted: 01/09/2007 00:17
Proving the user was definately sub 10stone and the wheels never left the ground is always a tricky area ofcourse. Expect the Warranty to only guarantee a Frame / Part for 1 race or 100miles soon to Apeal to the more money than sense Weenies out there.
Posted: 01/09/2007 00:34
See more comments...
|
|
