Rory McIlroy explains reasons behind decision to split with JP Fitzgerald

Rory McIlroy

Rory McIlroy said “sometimes to preserve a personal relationship you have to sacrifice a professional one” as he explained the reasons behind his split with caddie JP Fitzgerald.

Northern Ireland’s world number four, 28, parted ways with Fitzgerald on Monday, ending a nine-year partnership.

In that time, McIlroy had four major wins, but he is without one since 2014.

“JP has been a huge part of my life for the past decade, but I was getting very hard on him at times,” McIlroy said.

“You don’t want to be like that with anyone but sometimes this game drives you to it.

“I would say he is still one of my closest friends. We started together in 2008, we’ve had a lot of great times on and off the golf course.

“There’s nothing to say JP won’t work with me again at some point, but I felt like it was the right thing to do. It was a really tough decision.

“I hate the term fired or axed, it definitely wasn’t what it was. I changed my path a little bit but it was just a build-up of stuff, I felt I needed to make that change.”

The move came a week after McIlroy praised Fitzgerald at the Open at Royal Birkdale, saying the caddie had delivered some blunt words after the Holywood player started the tournament with a string of bogeys.

After fighting back to shoot a one-over 71 in the first round, McIlroy told reporters Fitzgerald had done a “great job” by giving him a “good talking to”.

McIlroy has decided to use Harry Diamond, a friend since childhood, at the Bridgestone Invitational at Firestone in Akron, Ohio and at next week’s major, the PGA Championship in Charlotte.

But he has not made a long-term decision about who to use after that.

“I just needed someone that knew me and that’s why I took Harry for the next couple of weeks,” he said.

“If something doesn’t work out and Harry and I say two weeks is enough I’ll need to find someone else but I’ve got 10 days between the end of the PGA and the start of the Northern Trust to do that.”

Go to Source

Maria Sharapova withdraws from Stanford's Bank of the West Classic


Five-time Grand Slam champion Maria Sharapova has withdrawn from Stanford’s Bank of the West Classic before her scheduled second-round match.

Tournament officials said the 30-year-old had pulled out on her doctor’s advice due to a left arm injury.

It means Ukraine’s Lesia Tsurenko has progressed in California.

Sharapova, given a wildcard to play in the US for the first time since March 2015, had defeated Jennifer Brady 6-1 4-6 6-0 on Monday.

The Russian had previously been out with a thigh problem since 16 May.

Sharapova returned in April after a 15-month doping ban, but was denied a wildcard for the French Open earlier this year and was unable to take part in qualifying for Wimbledon because of injury.

Having missed the entire grass-court season, she will not gain direct entry into the US Open, which starts on 28 August.

Sharapova will be eligible for qualifying but will need a wildcard from the United States Tennis Association if she is to automatically make the main draw.

Go to Source

Alyssa Helak, James Koval Headline Geneva Futures Psych Sheets

Photo Courtesy: @SPIRE_Institute Twitter

The Futures Championships in Geneva, Ohio begin Thursday, August 3, and the psych sheets reveal a packed field led by a few stand-out swimmers, including Alyssa Helak and James Koval. 

Alyssa Helak of Victor Swim Club tops the psych sheets on the women’s side. The LSU commit holds the first seed in the 100 backstroke, 200 backstroke, and 200 freestyle.

Additionally, a few specialists claim top seed in two events. In the 100 and 200 butterfly, Allison Piccirillo of Northern Kentucky Clippers is currently the name to beat. In the 100 breaststroke and 200 breaststroke, Kristen Vargas of Firestone Akron Swim Team will look to make an impact. Finally, in the sprint events–the 50 and 100 freestyle–Asphalt Green Unified Aquatics’ Charlotte Krevitt will aim to earn two golds.

Other names to watch on the women’s side include several young up-and-comers. 13-year-old Riley Huddleston of the Ohio State Swim Club is seeded second to Krevitt in the 50 freestyle with a blazing 26.72, a time that may put her within the wake of historic National Age Group ranking. Meanwhile, Huddleston’s fellow 13-year-old, Westchester Aquatic Club’s Joy Jiang, is enjoying a fourth seed in the 200 fly. Additionally, 14-year-old Summer Smith, swimming unattached, has cracked into the top eight in several events, including a third-place seed in the 200 backstroke, and a fourth-place seed in the 400 IM.

On the men’s side, Club Mountaineer’s James Koval, a rising senior at West Virginia University, will look to rack up some hardware, specifically in the 1500 freestyle and the 400 IM, in which he is the top seed. Another top male in Geneva this weekend is Lexo Walker of Wilton YMCA Wahoos, who will have a target on his back in both the 200 freestyle and the 200 butterfly.

Other swimmers of note include Kyle IorizzoWilliam Rose, and Dylan Porges, all of whom demonstrate an aptitude for a broad range of events. Scarlet Aquatics’ Iorizzo is primarily a distance specialist; he is the number-one seed in the 800, a close second to Koval in the 1500, and second seed in the 400 as well. To add to his busy program, Iorizzo is also seeded third in the 200 fly.

Rose, representing Canton City Schools, is the top seed in the 100 freestyle, but he is also seeded second in the 100 backstroke. Similarly, Asphalt Green Unified Aquatics’ Porges is seeded first in the 400 free but remains a threat in the 100 fly, in which he is seeded second.

The relays, particularly the freestyle events, look to be no less competitive. The women’s meet will bring Cape Cod and Empire head-to-head in the 400 and 800 freestyle relays, and the men’s competition will see Hudson Explorers attempt double victory in both freestyle relays.

Live Results are available at the link on the sidebar. 

Go to Source

Hydration and the Swimmer

Photo Courtesy: Andy Ringgold / Aringo Photos

By Joe Buchanan, Swimming World College Intern.

The importance of hydration is not lost on swimmers. Coaches consistently harp on the need to hydrate before, during, and after practices. Hydrating is vital to the success of all swimmers.

Why is it important for swimmers to remain hydrated?

Water is required by the body to function while exercising. Water is essential in the transportation of red blood cells throughout the body, as well as the formation of protein and glycogen. All these functions are needed for the growth and recovery of muscles. Hydration also helps regulate the body’s temperature and helps lubricate joints, both of which are vital to success while swimming.

With a lack of hydration, swimmers can experience early onset fatigue during workouts, poorer response times, an increase in the risk of injuries, and sharp rise in the risk of cramping both inside and outside the pool. Dehydration of any degree can negatively affect a swimmer’s performance in the water.

How do I avoid dehydration?

There is debate over how much water a person should drink to stay hydrated. The Institute of Medicine recommends 3.7 liters a day for men age 19-30, and 2.7 liters a day for women age 19-30. A common rule of thumb that’s often stated for remaining hydrated is to take one’s body weight, divide it by two, and drink that much water in ounces.

Both of these techniques work effectively to hydrate the normal adult, however swimmers need to remain conscientious of the fluids they lose in the water. Swimmers especially run the risk of dehydration this way as it’s hard to tell if they are sweating, let alone how much. The most accurate way to check your hydration levels are to check your urine. Urine that is pale to light yellow indicates proper hydration, the darker the urine is, the more dehydrated someone is.

It is recommended that swimmers drink at least 16 fluid ounces of water two hours prior to working out and to consistently rehydrate during the workout to avoid any fatigue that could come from dehydration. Swimmers are also encouraged to hydrate following workouts to replenish any lost fluids and to promote recovery of muscles.

Alcohol and caffeine can also cause dehydration as they are diuretics. A diuretic is a substance that causes an increased production of urine by blocking the hormone that is used to reabsorb water in the kidneys and instead turns the fluid straight into urine. This increase in urine directly correlates with the dehydration of the body.

The best way to avoid dehydration is to know the signs:

  • Thirst,
  • Headaches,
  • Weakness,
  • Fatigue,
  • Dizziness

All commentaries are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Swimming World Magazine nor its staff.

All swimming and dryland training and instruction should be performed under the supervision of a qualified coach or instructor, and in circumstances that ensure the safety of participants.

Go to Source

Sjostrom’s World Record Highlights First Day of FINA World Cup Moscow

Photo Courtesy: SIPA USA

Editorial content for the 2017 FINA World Cup is sponsored by TritonWear. Visit for more information on our sponsor. For full Swimming World coverage, check event coverage page.

Sweden’s Sarah Sjostrom posted a world record in the women’s 50 free during the first day of short course meters competition at the FINA World Cup stop in Moscow. The swim marked her third global standard set in the span of 11 days, going back to the start of the FINA World Championships in Budapest.

Several other top performers from Budapest were also in action in Moscow, and both Chad Le Clos and Katinka Hosszu opened up their World Cup campaigns with multiple victories.

Read below for full event-by-event coverage of the finals session.

Full results

Women’s 100 Back

Hungary’s Katinka Hosszu skipped the 100 back at the World Championships last week but returned to the event in short course to in the first victory of the World Cup. She touched in 55.65, just about a half-second off her own world record of 55.03 and plenty quick enough to beat out Australia’s Emily Seebohm.

Seebohm, who knocked off Hosszu to win the World title in the 100 back, took second in 56.60, and Russia’s Maria Kameneva was third in 57.09.

The Netherlands’ Maaike De Waard grabbed fourth in 58.15, a tenth ahead of Poland’s Alicja Tchorz (58.25). Also swimming in the final were Colombia’s Isabella Arcila (58.40) and Russians Polina Lapshina (58.83) and Irina Prikhodko (59.63).


Men’s 200 Free

South Africa’s Chad Le Clos came from behind on the last 50 to overtake Russia’s Aleksandr Krashnykh and take the win. Le Clos split 25.71 on the way home to come in first at 1:42.54, while Krashnykh, the bronze medalist in the event at the World Championships, touched second in 1:42.69.

Le Clos was the Olympic silver medalist in the 200 free last summer but did not compete in the event in Budapest.

Russia’s Mikhail Vekovishchev finished third in 1:43.26, and countryman Nikita Lobintsev was fourth in 1:44.11. Italy’s Gabrielle Detti, more known for his efforts in the longer distances, took fifth in 1:44.75.

Others in the final included Norway’s Markus Lie (1:45.13), Russia’s Danila Izotov (1:45.79), Poland’s Wojciech Wojdak (1:45.82) and Norway’s Henrik Christiansen.


Women’s 50 Breast

Jamaica’s Alia Atkinson touched out Lithuania’s Ruta Meilutyte to pick up the win, 29.46 to 29.51. Russia’s Natalia Ivaneeva picked up third-place honors in 29.87.

Finland’s Jenna Laukkanen took fourth in 30.18, followed closely by Poland’s Dominika Sztandera (30.25). Others competing in the final included Denmarks’ Rikke Moeller Pedersen (30.71) and Russians Daria Chikunova (30.76) and Mariia Temnikova (30.82).


Men’s 200 Breast

A Russian got the win in the men’s 200 breast, but it was not the man who stormed to a World title in the event last week in Budapest, Anton Chupkov. Instead, it was Budapest 100 breast bronze medalist Kirill Prigoda who dominated the field and won the race in 2:02.16.

Belarus’ Ilya Shymanovich actually led throughout the first half of the race, but he faded to second in 2:03.71. Chupkov settled for third in 2:04.08.

Belgium’s Basten Caerts took fourth in 2:05.57, followed by Russia’s Egor Suchkov (2:06.47), Rustam Gadirov (2:06.52) and Mikhail Dorinov (2:07.21). Japan’s Yukihiro Takahashi was eighth in 2:07.33.


Women’s 400 Free

Italy’s Federica Pellegrini got the better of Spain’s Mireia Belmonte and picked up a half-second win in the 400 free. Pellegrini came in at 3:57.80, and Belmonte was second in 3:58.24.

Pellegrini recently won her third World title in the 200 free, but she has been very successful in the 400 in previous years, winning the event at both the 2009 and 2011 World Championships.

Russia’s Anna Egorova finished well back in third in 4:04.31. Portugal’s Diana Duraes was fourth in 4:05.38, followed by Chile’s Kristel Kobrich in 4:05.93.

Rounding out the final were New Zealand’s Emma Robinson (4:07.51), Portugal’s Tamila Holub (4:12.51) and China’s Wang Guoyue (4:19.32).


Men’s 50 Back

Belarus’ Pavel Sankovich beat out the field by two tenths in the men’s sprint backstroke race, coming in at 23.20. Germany’s Christian Diener touched second in 23.40, and Japan’s Masaki Kaneko took third in 23.48, one hundredth ahead of Russia’s Vladimir Morozov (23.49).

Poland’s Radoslaw Kawecki, more known for his 200 abilities, was fifth in 23.61, just ahead of Belarus’ Viktar Staselovich (23.63.) Completing the top eight were Russia’s Andrei Shabasov (23.77) and Mark Nikolaev (24.70).


Women’s 100 IM

Hungary’s Katinka Hosszu picked up her second win of the day in the sprint IM, but she had to work harder than expected to hold off Sweden’s Sarah Sjostrom. Sjostrom, more known for her sprint free and fly, was able to put together 25 meters of back and breast to give Hosszu a run.

In the end, she just ran out of room, as Hosszu got the win in 57.02, to Sjostrom’s 57.10. Australia’s Emily Seebohm finished third in 58.63.

Jamaica’s Alia Atkinson touched out the Netherlands’ Femke Heemskerk for fourth, 59.55 to 59.57. Also swimming in the final were Finland’s Jenna Laukkanen (59.66) and the Polish duo of Aleksandra Urbanczyk (59.75) and Alicja Tchorz (1:00.13).


Men’s 400 IM

Germany’s Philip Heintz cruised to a 400 IM triumph, touching in 4:04.93 to out-pace the field by almost 3.5 seconds. The man who came the closest to him, it turned out, was Australia’s Mitch Larkin, more known for his backstroke exploits. He came in second at 4:07.93.

South Africa’s Aaron Sweeney claimed third in 4:09.47.

Russia’s Aleksandr Osipenko finished fourth in 4:11.35, followed by countrymen Eduard Valiakhmetov (4:12.53) and Ivan Pavlov (4:13.36), Colombia’s Jonathan Gomez (4:13.87) and Japan’s Masaki Kaneko (4:14.06).


Women’s 200 Fly

The women who won medals in the 200 fly in Moscow were the same as the trio who stood on the podium last week at the World Champs in Budapest, but the order was mixed up a bit in this short course race. Germany’s Franziska Hentke, who settled for silver in Budapest, pulled away from Hungary’s Katinka Hosszu on the last 50 to win in 2:03.43.

Hosszu, who actually faded badly down the stretch, took second in Moscow after claiming a bronze at Worlds, finishing with a time of 2:05.36, while World Champion Mireia Belmonte of Spain was third in 2:05.75.

Fourth went to Russia’s Anastasia Guzhenkova in 2:06.59, and then there was a big gap back to Claudia Hufnagl in fifth at 2:09.23.

Also in the final were Hong Kong’s Kin Lok Chen (2:09.96), Portugal’s Victoria Kaminskaya (2:10.73) and Russia’s Valeria Shchelkotunova (2:14.06).


Men’s 100 Fly

South Africa’s Chad Le Clos pulled away from Great Britain’s Adam Barrett and the United States’ Tom Shields to capture the win in the 100 fly.

Le Clos set the world record in the event at the Short Course World Championships last year in Windsor at 48.08, and he finished about a second off that in Moscow at 49.13. Barrett came in second at 49.45, and Shields took third in 49.55.

Italy’s Matteo Rivolta claimed fourth in 49.77 to round out the sub-50-second performances.

Also competing in the final were Russia’s Oleg Kostin (50.51), Belarus’ Yauhen Tsurkin (50.56), Japan’s Masayuki Umemoto (51.12) and Finland’s Riku Poytakivi (51.69).


Women’s 50 Free

Sweden’s Sarah Sjostrom took down the world record in the women’s 50 free, touching in 23.10 to streamroll the mark twice achieved by the Netherlands’ Ranomi Kromowidjojo.

Sjostrom won three gold medals (100 fly, 50 fly, 50 free) at the World Championships last week and took down world record in both the 50 free and 100 free.

Kromowidjojo actually finished second behind Sjostrom — and not all that far back with her time of 23.39. Australia’s Cate Campbell, whose long course world records in the 50 and 100 free Sjostrom took down at Worlds, finished third in 23.96.

Kromowidjojo’s Dutch countrywoman Femke Heemskerk finished fourth in 24.14, just missing a spot on the podium.

The rest of the field included Poland’s Aleksandra Urbanczyk (24.36), Russia’s Daria Kartashova (24.63), Colombia’s Isabella Arcila (24.73) and Russia’s Maria Kameneva (24.73).


Mixed 200 Medley Relay

Russia topped the mixed 200 medley relay to cap off the evening of competition. Vladimir Morozov (23.59), Kirill Prigoda (25.49), Svetlana Chimrova (25.50) and Veronika Popova (24.52) won the race in 1:39.10, more than a second-and-a-half ahead of the runner-up Polish squad.

Poland’s Radoslaw KaweckiDominika SztanderaAleksandra Urbanczyk and Pawe Juraszek finished second in 1:40.79, and Germany’s Lisa GrafPhilip HeintzAlexandra Wenk and Christian Diener finished third in 1:42.71.


Go to Source

Sarah Sjostrom Takes Down 50 Free Short Course World Record in Moscow

Photo Courtesy: SIPA USA

Editorial content for the 2017 FINA World Cup is sponsored by TritonWear. Visit for more information on our sponsor. For full Swimming World coverage, check event coverage page.

Sweden’s Sarah Sjostrom has lowered the world record in the women’s 50 free (short course) at the FINA World Cup stop in Moscow. She came in at 23.10 to streamroll the mark twice achieved by the Netherlands’ Ranomi Kromowidjojo.

Sjostrom won three gold medals (100 fly, 50 fly, 50 free) at the World Championships last week and took down world record in both the 50 free and 100 free.

Kromowidjojo actually finished second behind Sjostrom — and not all that far back with her time of 23.39. Australia’s Cate Campbell, whose long course world records in the 50 and 100 free Sjostrom took down at Worlds, finished third in 23.96.


Photo Courtesy:

Go to Source

Cannondale SuperSix Evo range

Light, strong, powerful and quick to handle: the race frame in the Cannondale stable available dressed in everything from Shimano 105 to Dura Ace

Race numbers, chequered flags, last lap bells and the Cannondale SuperSix Evo: all quintessential components of traditional road race.

The Cannondale SuperSix Evo aims to be lightweight, whilst still offering race winning power transfer, and the geometry to put the rider in a fairly aggressive stance.

The same frame won the 2017 Cycling Weekly Women’s Bike of the Year title and was a runner up for the 2016 Lightweight Bike of the Year title, too.

The flagship race model from Cannondale is now available in a wide range of different iterations.

There’s the most expensive Black Inc options, then the Hi-Mod choices before the standard SuperSix Evo and women’s models – with disc brakes available on a smattering of the choices; we’ll explain what sets all the options apart below.

Cannondale SuperSix history

The Cannondale SuperSix first arrived on the scene in 2004; then carrying the title Six13, followed by ‘System Six’. The bikes were, at the time, incredibly lightweight with a carbon and alloy frame mixture.

The ‘six’ component of the name trickled down from the number the primary frame material – carbon – houses on the periodic table. When the entire bike became carbon in 2007, the name changed to SuperSix, then in 2011 we got the SuperSix Evo which weighed in at 695 grams for a size 56.

Later came the Cannnodale SuperSix Nano, with a frame weight of 665g for a size 56. The frame weight was later beefed up again, to 760g, when it was felt that the low weight had a negative impact on the ride quality.

Now, Cannondale has developed an integrated system, which again boosts the claimed frame weight but reduces the overall build weight.

Cannondale SuperSix Evo technology

As per any long standing bike model that’s seen success for over a decade, the SuperSix Evo has enjoyed a fair dose of technological upgrade in its time.

Any race bike needs to be stiff enough to accelerate well in a sprint, but also needs to be light. Cannondale uses its ‘BallisTec’ carbon – which is its own proprietary high-strength carbon construction.

Peter Sagan’s Cannondale SuperSix Evo, Tour de France 2014

BallisTec is tailored to offer stiffness where it matters, but the layup is kept light where weight can be saved. The recently added Hi-Mod versions use a newer weave of high and ultra modulus fibres which add additional rigidity whilst keeping the ride quality lively.

An asymmetric BB30a bottom bracket also adds to the stiffness. However, in order to ensure the frame stays compliant, Cannondale uses its ‘Speed Save’ micro suspension system which absorbs road buzz and shocks.

Unlike the more notable suspension we see on bikes such as the Specialized Roubaix and Diverge, which carry ‘Future Shock’, Cannondale’s ‘Speed Save’ just means the tubes at the rear chainstays and seat stays, fork or seatpost can deflect to absorb shock.

Cannondale also uses a 25.4mm seat post, as opposed to the standard 27.2 – this offers further bump-smoothing by reducing flex by a claimed 36 per cent.

The 2017 Cannondale SuperSix frames are slightly heavier than former years – 2017 frames come in at 777g compared to the previous at 760g in a size 56cm. However, the brand has gone all out for integration with a lighter fork, integrated crown race and seatpost – so the newest Evo has an overall weight 70g lighter than previous iterations.

Where disc brakes have been incorporated, the brand has used an integrated design so that only 150g is added to the frameset.

Whilst the SuperSix Evo is far from an aero road bike in the traditional sense, a few watt savings here and there have been added. ‘Truncated Aero Profile’ tubes and a lower placed water bottle mount save an average of 6 watts when riding at 45kph. Not a bike that you would choose for time trials, but a nice additional nod.

The feature that always sets a Cannondale SuperSix Evo apart on test is the responsive handling – perhaps in part down to the Continuous Carbon Speed Save Fork which is constructed from one piece of carbon, from dropout to steerer, delivering high strength and low weight.

Cannondale SuperSix Evo Geometry

‘Flat backs for flat out rides’ is the way that Cannondale describe the geometry on their SuperSix, and it’s a bike created for racing.

Cannondale SuperSix Evo geometry

Cannondale SuperSix Evo geometry

This means a fairly long top tube, with a short stack and a short wheelbase to create nippy handling. The stack and reach on a 56cm measures 56.7cm/39.3cm.

The women’s versions share the same frame – a size 54 with a stack of 55.1cm and reach at 38.7cm, but the women’s models feature compact handlebars and women’s saddles.

Cannondale SuperSix Evo Componentry

Cannondale doesn’t just do frame technology – it created the now industry wide BB30 and it makes its own Si chainsets and HollowGram wheelsets.

Cannondale fit their own Si cranksets to BB30a bottom brackets

Cannondale fit their own Si cranksets to BB30a bottom brackets

The Si chainsets are known for being stiff, and on the upper end of the range they become Si HollowGram, at which point they’re stiff and incredibly light. The bikes at the top of the tree come with the Cannondale HollowGram SiSL2 crankset, which retails at close to £1k on its own, so it’s a component of note with a claimed weight of 483g vs a Dura Ace version which comes in at 609g.

The only exception to Cannondale’s exclusive fitting of the Si chainset is on the bikes with a SRAM Red eTap build.

Wheels are less uniform, with Cannondale using its own HollowGram options on some models, but speccing Mavic and Enve hoops where they better fit the overall package and price.

Cannondale SuperSix Evo range

While the Hi-Mod and standard SuperSix Evo models differ in material construction, the frames in the range share matching technology and geometry.

Spending more will result in incremental improvements – the stiffness of the Hi-Mod, better shifting of a top end groupset, but trickle down tech means that you can enjoy much the same ride quality on a Shimano 105 equipped model coming in at £1,799 as the top end model at £8,199.

Here are the models in price order, from the most expensive to the least.

SuperSix Evo Black Inc

SuperSix Evo Black Inc

SuperSix Evo Black Inc

Stylishly stealthy, the aero wheeled Black Inc bikes come with ENVE Carbon Smart clincher wheels, sporting Chris King Hubs and Dt Swiss spokes as well as boasting the Cannondale HollowGram SiSL2 crankset. They also have a special lightweight paint job, hence the “Black Inc” moniker.

  •  SUPERSIX EVO DISC BLACK INC.: £10,499.99 (Shimano Durs Ace Di2, Cannondale HollowGram SiSL crankset, ENVE Carbon Smart SES 5.6 Clincher Disc wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO BLACK INC.: £8,999.99 (Shimano Durs Ace Di2, Cannondale HollowGram SiSL crankset, ENVE Carbon Smart SES 5.6 Clincher wheels)

SuperSix Evo Hi-Mod road bikes

SuperSix Evo Hi-Mod road bikes

SuperSix Evo Hi-Mod road bikes

The top end versions in the range use the new Ballistec Hi-Mod carbon. This combines high and ultra-high modulus fibres, offering a high level of stiffness with the low weight associated with using minimal material.

  • SUPERSIX EVO HI-MOD DISC TEAM SHIMANO DI2: £8,199.99 (Shimano Dura Ace Di2, Cannondale HollowGram SiSL2 crankset, Mavic Cosmic Pro Carbon SL Disc wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO HI-MOD SHIMANO DURA ACE 1: £6,499.99 (Shimano Dura Ace, Cannondale HollowGram SiSL2, Mavic Ksyrium Pro Carbon SL wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO HI-MOD SRAM RED ETAP: £6,399.99 (SRAM Red e-Tap, Cannondale HollowGram Carbon wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO HI-MOD DISC SHIMANO ULTEGRA DI2: £4,699.99 (Shimano Ultegra Di2, Cannondale HollowGram Si cranks, Cannondale HollowGram Carbon wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO HI-MOD DISC ULTEGRA: £3,999.99 (Shimano Ultegra, Cannondale HollowGram Si cranks, Mavic Aksium  wheels)
  • Review: Cannondale SuperSix Evo Hi-Mod Team

SuperSix Evo

Cannondale SuperSix Evo Disc Ultegra

Cannondale SuperSix Evo Disc Ultegra

  • SUPERSIX EVO ULTEGRA DI2: £3,199.99 (Shimano Ultegra Di2, Cannondale Si crank, Mavic Aksium wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO DISC ULTEGRA: £2,799.99 ((Shimano Ultegra, Cannondale Si crank, Mavic Aksium wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO ULTEGRA: £2,099.99 (Shimano Ultegra, Cannondale Si crank, Mavic Aksium wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO ULTEGRA: £1,799.99 (Shimano 105, Cannondale Si crank, Mavic Aksium wheels)
  • Review: The new Cannondale SuperSix EVO Disc – First Ride

SuperSix Evo Women’s bikes

Cannondale SuperSix Evo Women Ultegra

The bikes in the women’s line up come specced with compact handlebars and women’s saddles, with a smaller range of sizes at 44cm – 54 as opposed to the men’s models from 44cm – 63cm.

  • SUPERSIX EVO CARBON WOMEN’S ULTEGRA: £2,099.99  (Shimano Ultegra, Cannondale Si crank, Mavic Aksium wheels)
  • SUPERSIX EVO CARBON WOMEN’S 105: £1,799.99 (Shimano 105, Cannondale Si crank, Mavic Aksium wheels)
  • Review: Cannondale SuperSix Evo Women’s Shimano Ultegra

Go to Source

Team Sky’s Danny Van Poppel steers clear of crashes to win stage five of Tour of Poland

Sagan extends overall lead with bonus seconds for third place

Danny Van Poppel (Team Sky) won stage five of the Tour of Poland as he sprinted clear of Luka Mezgec (Orica-Scott) and Peter Sagan (Bora-Hansgrohe) while crashes and wet conditions disrupted the finale.

Despite a lumpy parcours, a bunch sprint looked likely on the approach to the finish in Rzeszow, but wet conditions caused a crash with little more than a kilometre to go, meaning a group of just ten or so riders remained to contest the stage win.

Van Poppel was locked in the wheel of team-mate Lukasz Wisniowski who produced a textbook lead-out effort to put the Dutchman in a perfect position to take his first stage win of the race.

Meanwhile Peter Sagan’s third place meant that he was able to pick up bonus seconds to extend his lead at the top of the general classification ahead of two tough stages in the mountains on Thursday and Friday.

The short 130km stage from Olimp Nagawczyna to Rzeszow saw a strong five-rider break go clear from the gun: Maxime Monfort (Lotto-Soudal), Tejay Van Garderen (BMC Racing), Antwan Tolhoek (LottoNL-Jumbo), Maximilian Schachmann (Quick-Step Floors), and Moreno Moser (Astana).

With such a strong group out in front on such a short stage, the peloton didn’t allow the gap to grow to any more than three minutes, beginning to bring the gap down for the lumpy second half of the day.

With 30km remaining the heavens opened making for slippery conditions that saw Schachmann hit the ground as he followed Moser and Tolhoek in taking the wrong line through a corner.

The downpour was brief, with Joe Dombrowski (Cannondale-Drapac) the only other rider to suffer a fall, and the peloton’s chase was unaffected, bringing the gap down below 30 seconds with 15km remaining at the start of the final climb.

This last ascent gave a chance for Van Garderen to spring clear, dispatching his breakaway companions on the 15 per cent gradients.

The American crossed the top of the climb alone, but his gap was down to little more than 15 seconds over a whittled down peloton including race leader Peter Sagan who had successfully made it over the climb.

With Danny Van Poppel also in the group Team Sky led the chase, but Van Garderen was putting up a fight, holding his advantage to five kilometres to go.

However it was not to be, with the catch being made with three kilometres remaining, meaning that the stage would be decided in a sprint.

Wout Poels led the race under the two kilometres to go banner, followed by three other Team Sky riders, the last of whom was Danny Van Poppel with Sagan locked in his wheel.

It looked like it would be a bunch sprint, but with a kilometre remaining a crash near the front of the peloton caused a split in the group, leaving around ten riders at the front to contest the stage win

Lukasz Wisniowski was forced to do a long lead-out for Van Poppel, including chasing down an opportunistic late attack from Youcef Reguigui (Dimension Data), but was able to put the Dutchman in the perfect position to sprint from the front and take the win ahead of Mezgec and Sagan.


Tour of Poland 2017, stage five: Olimp Nagawczyna to Rzeszow, 130km

1. Danny Van Poppel (Ned) Team Sky, in 2-59-44
2. Luka Mezgec (Slo) Orica-Scott
3. Peter Sagan (Svk) Bora-Hansgrohe
4. Roberto Ferrari (Ita) UAE Team Emirates
5. Enrico Battaglin (Ita) LottoNl-Jumbo
6. Niccolo Bonifazio (Ita) Bahrain-Merida
7. Daniel Oss (Ita) BMC Racing
8. Jose Rojas (Spa) Movistar
9. Tomasz Marczynski (Pol) Lotto Soudal
10. Lukasz Wisniowski (Pol) Team Sky, all at same time

General classification after stage five

1. Peter Sagan (Svk) Bora-Hansgrohe, in 18-41-27
2. Dylan Teuns (Bel) BMC Racing, at 14 secs
3. Rafal Majka (Pol) Bora-Hansgrohe, at 20 secs
4. Wilco Kelderman (Ned) Team Sunweb, at 24 secs
5. Odd Christian Eiking (Nor) FDJ, at 31 secs
6. Domenico Pozzovivo (Ita) Ag2r La Mondiale, at 32 secs
7. Wout Poels (Ned) Team Sky, at 33 secs
8. Adam Yates (GBr) Orica-Scott, at 33 secs
9. Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Bahrain-Merida, at 39 secs
10. Gorka Izagirre (Esp) Movistar, at 39 secs

Go to Source

2017 FINA World Cup Moscow: Day One Finals Live Recap

Photo Courtesy: SIPA USA

Editorial content for the 2017 FINA World Cup is sponsored by TritonWear. Visit for more information on our sponsor. For full Swimming World coverage, check event coverage page.

Follow along with full coverage of the first night of finals at the 2017 FINA World Cup stop in Moscow, Russia. The session begins at 6 p.m. local time (11 a.m. ET in the USA).

Hit refresh for updates throughout the session.

Live results
Prelims recap

Event schedule:

  • Women’s 100 back
  • Men’s 200 free
  • Women’s 50 breast
  • Men’s 200 breast
  • Women’s 200 free
  • Men’s 50 back
  • Women’s 100 IM
  • Men’s 400 IM
  • Women’s 200 fly
  • Men’s 100 fly
  • Women’s 50 free
  • Mixed 200 medley relay

Go to Source

Shimano Ultegra R8000 – here’s how it differs to Shimano Ultegra 6800

Everything you need to know about the new Shimano Ultegra R8000 series groupset, and the key differences between it and the older Shimano Ultegra 6800 model

As you might expect, the new Shimano Ultegra R8000, R8050 and R8070 groupsets have benefited a great deal from the trickle down in technology from the Shimano Dura-Ace groups.

It won’t be much of a surprise, Shimano loves to spec its latest technologies across its newest products, which is great for those wanting to buy a less expensive groupset, but still get good performance.

It does, however, mean that there are now some key differences between the older Shimano Ultegra 6800 series and the new Shimano Ultegra 8000 series.

The most immediate difference is, of course, the looks. The new Ultegra model now mirrors the flagship Dura-Ace with the dark colour scheme and chunky crank that’s far fatter than the now seemingly skinny old Ultegra model.

Aside from the facelift, other notable changes include the medium rear derailleur’s ability to accommodate an 11-34 cassette and the brake callipers now accepting 28mm tyres.

It might also come as surprise that the new, R8000 series actually weighs more than the old model, but Shimano has always been committed to making the best product it can, rather than slimming the scales.

Shimano Ultegra R8000 (mechanical) vs Shimano Ultegra 6800 (mechanical)

Shimano Ultegra R8000

Spitting image. Each Shimano series follows similar patterns

Despite the increasing popularity of electronic shifting, mechanical groupsets are still the bread and butter of the majority of riders so we’ll start here.

While the design changes are the most noticeable, they aren’t just aesthetic. They do bring some marginal benefits in stiffness and weight saving.

Meanwhile, there’s currently no word as to whether the crankset will be compatible with Shimano’s power meter, but it is the same Hollowtech design, so logic would suggest so and it is something Shimano wanted when launching its new Dura-Ace model.  

Shimano Ultegra R8000

Ergonomics have been improved

Up front, the hoods and levers have received a redesign so they’re more like Dura-Ace, in both comfort and size.

The hoods are now designed with a pattern and no longer smooth, aiding grip if you don’t like riding with mitts. The kink at the top, like that of Dura-Ace, creates a better hand position and more room. 

Watch: Shimano Dura-Ace 9100 review

The front derailleur has also seen a major overhaul, and now mimics the far slimmer, almost skeletal Dura-Ace 9100 model. Supposedly, this should now give a much lighter shifting action, and more flexible cable routing options.

The Shimano Ultegra R8000 rear derailleur really drives home the Shadow design of the Dura-Ace rear mech, incorporating the same slant angle and giving slicker, smoother shifting, reducing cable friction as well as keeping the body up and out of harm’s way.

The medium cage derailleur will now accept an 11-34 cassette, giving much larger gearing options should you head for the hills.

Shimano Ultegra R8000

Rear cage similar to that of our off-road counterparts

The mechanical, calliper brakes are still of a dual pivot design but they’ve now been given the extra clearance to accommodate 28mm tyres – a sign that Shimano is well aware of the trend for bigger rubber.

Other, minimal changes include a now sleeker gap between the arms of the brakes, which should give better, more assured performance.

Shimano Ultegra R8050 (Di2) vs Ultegra 6870 (Di2)

Shimano says it has made the shifting for Di2 more intuitive, which means a distinct separation of the upshift and downshift levers, which addresses a minor scruple we had when we first rode the 6870 model.

Shimano Ultegra R8050 receives the same wireless functionality as the new Dura-Ace model which means they’re now compatible with 3rd party cycling computers thanks to Shimano’s E-Tube software. Buttons on top of the hoods now let you remotely switch screens on your Garmin.

Synchro-Shift, recently introduced to Ultegra 6870, is also being continued on the new model, as is multi-shift, this is programmed through the E-Tube app.

Happily, Shimano Ultegra R8050 should also benefit from continued firmware updates for the E-Tube software, including rider profiles, meaning different programs can be ran on a Di2 system for different occasions, whether that’s racing or riding.

Shimano Ultegra R8070 (hydraulic) vs Ultegra 6870 (hydraulic)

Shimano Ultegra

Updated discs for better stopping power

The real changes here are with the levers and rotors. We’ve had qualms with the large Ultegra 6870 hydraulic levers for a while but it looks like they may have been shaved down for the new R8070 version. Shimano claim that the bracket has been shrunk for improved ergonomics.

Other interesting news is the greater reach adjust and free stroke adjustment built into the levers – something Campagnolo has done very well on its recent disc brake groupset launch.

Elsewhere, Shimano claims to have improved the heat dissipating properties of the SM-RT800 rotors thanks to its Ice technologies Freeza properties.

Shimano PD-R8000 vs Shimano PD-6800

That’s right, lets not forget Shimano’s trusty pedals, and the Shimano Ultegra level platforms have undergone a series of revisions.

The 8000 series pedals are now 0.6mm lower in stack than their previous iterations, come with a 4mm longer axle and are a claimed 248g.

Shimano Ultegra ST-R8060 vs Shimano Ultegra ST-6871

The time trial shifters are another area that get a sizeable shake up. They receive a general slimming down thanks to Shimano removing the switch box, and now only have button on the side, rather than the previous two. Despite this, it still remains compatible with Shimano’s Synchro-Shift.

Shimano Ultegra 6800 weights

Levers                      425g (pair)
Front/rear mech   104g/195g
Chainset                  676g
Front/rear wheels 705g/944g
Pedals                      248g

Shimano Ultegra R8000 weights

Levers                       438g (pair)
Front/rear mech    106g/200g
Chainset                   674g
Front/rear wheels  625g/943g
Pedals                       248g

Shimano Ultegra R8050 Di2 weights

Levers                       295g (pair)
Front/rear mech    132g/242g
Chainset                   674g
Front/rear wheels  625g/943g
Pedals                       248g

Shimano Ultegra R8000 pricing

Levers                        319.99 (pair)
Front/rear mech     £52.99/£84.99 (£89.99 medium cage)
Chainset                    £249.99
Cassette                     11×25,28 and 12×25 £74.99 / 11×30,32 and 14×28 £79.99 / 11×34 £84.99
Front / rear Brakes £69.99 (£79.99 direct mount)
Wheels                       £749.98 (rim brake pair)
Pedals                        £149.99

Shimano Ultegra R8050 Di2 pricing

Levers                       £299.99 (pair)
Front/rear mech    £209.99/£244.99 (£249.99 medium cage)

Go to Source