Interesting video...

https://www.bikemag.com/videos/video-...ff-the-gloves/

Personally, Giant left a bunch of bikes off the list. Same tactic they accuse everyone else of doing perhaps?

It would be nice to know what the criteria was for the list. By looking at it I gather it is bikes with the most sales?

sending to my Trek buddy who gives me **** for riding a supersix (non-evo, which scored higher than the evo in the 2nd and 3rd tests).

he has a 6.9 and now a project one 7 series with full sram red. i wonder when the video was made and if the 7 was available for testing then, as i know thats the first argument im going to get.

It is interesting but it seems Mr. Swanson didn't bother to get his units correct in his narrative. He says that both stiffness measurements are in terms of N-m when, in fact, neither are. Torsional stiffness is in N-m/deg and BB stiffness in N/mm. This is shown in his table headings and is given in the .pdf files describing results at their website. Strange that this video would have went out like this???

So the SuperSix is the best?

According to Giant.. Giant is the best.

Those test results make me sad as a Madone 6 series owner

Starting with full disclosure: I ride a 2009 Giant TCR Advanced (not SL). Nevertheless I see a lot to criticize in the video. First the measurement unit errors mentioned above. Second the relative weights of the three Giant frames. My M frame actually weighs 1,207 g, not 968 despite being reviewed in magazines in the 900 g range. And third, 250 g for a top-of-the-line, light weight seat post is disingenuous. The Performance post I ride is only 150 g and similar weight posts are readily available. Removing that 100 g difference from all the non-ISP listings in the chart would make a big difference in the standings. I don't know why Giant did things this way. Being number one (as they readily admit) isn't all that important. Being close in weight and in the top three or four would suffice for most marketing purposes, especially if the stiffness results are real. This would be a great presentation if it had been done properly.

Haven't watched the video yet, but did you include your fork in the frame weight? They don't usually.

Also having just spent a long time trying to find a decent seat post under 200g....color me skeptical about widely available at 150g. Thomson masterpiece is close, but I had to settle for ~190 before being cut.

Where I wouldn't comment concerning the units of measure they used, I will say this. Giant has been making frames, not only for themselves, but for a lot of other companies for years. They have a heck of a lot of data and trial and error on their side where it comes to making them. It would be silly to consider that for all that experience they didn't know how to get a few things right. Maybe not the smartest marketing and advertizing...

No, frame is 1,207 and fork is another 351. I had expected something around 900 and was really bummed when I saw what I had. Rides great, and I love it, just sayin' the weight was not what I had expected.

I just looked and noticed that my Performance post isn't offered any more. Perhaps my idea of readily available is colored by the fact that I have had four of them over the last few years. Considering we are comparing the top, high volume frames in the world, wouldn't you think the appropriate corresponding posts should be the top ones also? Even if that is as heavy as the 190 g you were able to find, that 60 g difference changes the order of the lightest framesets. I just looked at the range of offerings on the Performance site. You're right about the difficulty of getting to 150 g at this time, but several posts were listed at less than 250. The Doric 3T was listed at 181 g for a 400 mm length. That is right in the ballpark. And as you said, the Thomson Elites come in at 158 g for 240 mm long and and around 190 g for 350 mm long. Why did Giant choose 250 g if not to skew the results.

BTW, it is good to know I am not the only one who cuts seat posts (DISCLAIMER: taking care to leave the minimum inserted length for safety).

the magazine tests are generally biased