New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Arlberg
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:43 pm

New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Arlberg » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:02 pm

One for the weight weenies! The new mass produced (ie not a special one off build) Trek Emonda SLR 10 bike, comes in at just 4.6kg. That's lighter than most dedicated custom built weight weenie bikes. Some links:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ike-41576/
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... nge-128795
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/ro ... ce/emonda/

g-boaf
Posts: 8819
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby g-boaf » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:46 pm

At first I wondered if this might be some sort of practical joke. 4.65kg for a 56cm frame! :shock:

Will people buy these or just lose 2.5kg of their own weight?

harmonix1234
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby harmonix1234 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:43 pm

I have done poos bigger than that.

Has anyone here ever ridden a super light bike? What's it like?
Is it really that good?

I went from a 12 kilo mountain bike to a 8 kilo road bike and dont really notice much difference.
I'd be keen to ride one but I reckon I'd be over the maximum rider weight limit for that. Does it specify a maximum rider weight?

User avatar
flashpixx
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:04 pm
Location: Maylands WA

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby flashpixx » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:13 pm

$15k for the 10 :shock:

From what is on Trek website the weight limit is as per Trek road bikes (Madone and Domane) so 125kg (?)
Flash

Image

Riding: Pinarello Dogma2

User avatar
GeoffInBrisbane
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby GeoffInBrisbane » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:26 pm

g-boaf wrote:At first I wondered if this might be some sort of practical joke. 4.65kg for a 56cm frame! :shock:

Will people buy these or just lose 2.5kg of their own weight?


And how will you lose 2.5kg? :lol:

I figure the weight is a bit of a cheat - no pedals is a normal cheat, but it runs tubulars so there is a strong chance owners will want to change to clinchers and add weight that way. Mind you, 5kg ish with clinchers and pedals is still super light.
Veloviewer

MS-DOS Phone. For when you want it done right.

g-boaf
Posts: 8819
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby g-boaf » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:41 pm

GeoffInBrisbane wrote:
g-boaf wrote:At first I wondered if this might be some sort of practical joke. 4.65kg for a 56cm frame! :shock:

Will people buy these or just lose 2.5kg of their own weight?


And how will you lose 2.5kg? :lol:

I figure the weight is a bit of a cheat - no pedals is a normal cheat, but it runs tubulars so there is a strong chance owners will want to change to clinchers and add weight that way. Mind you, 5kg ish with clinchers and pedals is still super light.


Apparently I can - but I don't want to, or rather can't be bothered.

User avatar
mitchy_
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:15 am
Contact:

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:47 pm

harmonix1234 wrote:I have done poos bigger than that.

Has anyone here ever ridden a super light bike? What's it like?
Is it really that good?

I went from a 12 kilo mountain bike to a 8 kilo road bike and dont really notice much difference.
I'd be keen to ride one but I reckon I'd be over the maximum rider weight limit for that. Does it specify a maximum rider weight?


i can tell the difference between my 6.9kg and 9.something kg bikes. it might be the wheels however.

trek state all road bikes have a 125kg limit... not sure whether the emonda applies, but there didn't seem to be a note stating otherwise.

GeoffInBrisbane wrote:
g-boaf wrote:At first I wondered if this might be some sort of practical joke. 4.65kg for a 56cm frame! :shock:

Will people buy these or just lose 2.5kg of their own weight?


And how will you lose 2.5kg? :lol:

I figure the weight is a bit of a cheat - no pedals is a normal cheat, but it runs tubulars so there is a strong chance owners will want to change to clinchers and add weight that way. Mind you, 5kg ish with clinchers and pedals is still super light.


it's a 690 gram frame (at 56cm). supposed cheats aside, it's insanely light.
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

g-boaf
Posts: 8819
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby g-boaf » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:55 pm

56 is a fairly big frame too.

I know I can feel the difference between my Giant (6.8kg) and the Trek I also have (above 8kg)

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Xplora » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:47 pm

One of Trek's hallmarks is a technological leader. BB90, KVM tubing, Aeolus wheels, direct mount brakes, etc. Some of them have been a little "me-too" recently. A 10 pound bike is able to clearly indicate Yes We Are The Best.

The 10 is covered in non Trek parts - wheels and saddle are different, and the handlebars only appear stock on the 10. AKA I call shenanigans. Part of going Trek is getting the Bontrager parts all over. To me at least.

It's partly a marketing exercise, I personally don't see the value unless it makes parts cheaper and lighter down the line (which in fairness it has - the Ultegra version with OCLV 700 carbon and regular clinchers is 6.6kgs (EDIT: CORRECTION) I think). I personally want to see more access and development for the Race Domane. That's where they need to move - getting better compliance vertically is where it's at IMO. Riding bikes isn't super comfy, especially on bad roads like I seem to ride on.
Last edited by Xplora on Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Baalzamon
Posts: 5341
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Baalzamon » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:09 am

Go from riding a fully loaded touring bike to a full carbon bike and it feels like there is nothing holding you up!
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Xplora » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:44 am

Panniers full of wads of $100 notes??? ;)

User avatar
rkelsen
Posts: 4480
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby rkelsen » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:26 am

It's an impressive achievement, no doubt. As mentioned in other conversations about this bike, I'd have concerns about durability, but then I'm probably not in the target market for this bike. I really like the direct mounted brake calipers.

Re: the 125kg limit & lifetime warranty: On balance, how many people buying this bike would weigh more than 85kg? My guess would be perhaps 1% to 2% of sales would be to people weighing more than 85kg, with a minimal number to people weighing more than 100kg. They've got a 25% to 35% buffer zone built into their 125kg limit. The ones that will cost them replacement frames under the lifetime warranty are the outliers. The fringe cases. The ones not worth worrying about. You can bet your bottom dollar that they have a line item for "replacement frame costs" in their budgets.

User avatar
mitchy_
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:15 am
Contact:

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:29 am

rkelsen wrote:You can bet your bottom dollar that they have a line item for "replacement frame costs" in their budgets.


of course, that's why it costs $16,000.
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

jasonc
Posts: 9431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby jasonc » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:03 am

saw one in the flesh yesterday "only" the SL
VERY nice looking bit of kit

geoff - you'd be jelly
Image

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Xplora » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:17 am

mitchy_ wrote:
rkelsen wrote:You can bet your bottom dollar that they have a line item for "replacement frame costs" in their budgets.


of course, that's why it costs $16,000.

This is the part I can't wrap my head around. Saddle, handlebars, wheels, group. The Red group is the same cash as DA, or less? The integrated handlebars are twice as much as the regular ones, which are rather exxy, but you don't need a stem which is a lot of cashola too. Full carbon saddle is around 800 bucks from Selle SMP.

I can accept there needs to be premium pricing, but a set of Aoelus wheels new off the floor is 2700-3000 bucks. We're trying to say these Tune wheels are 5000? It's pretty crazy mathematics. In fairness, my pricing of the Trek Package on various models comes out quite reasonable (if you're happy to pay for the lifetime warranty, which DOES cost quite a bit), they upgrade multiple things at once over the different levels in the lower end.

A project one Classics Domane (Cancellara team bike) is stock price 15K so maybe this isn't that ridiculous. Assuming you don't think a Classics Domane team bike isn't ridiculously expensive :lol:

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5858
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby biker jk » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:38 am

Sounds like marketing hype. The Cannonball Super Six Evo Black frame weighs 655 grams. Without resorting to non-custom parts it built up to a 5.2kg bike.

User avatar
foo on patrol
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am
Location: Sanstone Point QLD

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby foo on patrol » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:41 am

g-boaf wrote:56 is a fairly big frame too.

I know I can feel the difference between my Giant (6.8kg) and the Trek I also have (above 8kg)


:shock: Short arse! :lol: My Track frame is 60cm. :mrgreen:

Foo
I don't suffer fools easily and so long as you have done your best,you should have no regrets.
Goal 6000km
Image

jasonc
Posts: 9431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby jasonc » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:42 am

foo on patrol wrote:
g-boaf wrote:56 is a fairly big frame too.

I know I can feel the difference between my Giant (6.8kg) and the Trek I also have (above 8kg)


:shock: Short arse! :lol: My Track frame is 60cm. :mrgreen:

Foo


+1
trek call my new frame a 60. top tube is 58.6cm or something
Image

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Xplora » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:42 am

The trek video makes it clear that it's an exercise in what is possible. They use the words ten pound bike. The UCI limit is 2 kilos heavier. So what is the point? Of course it is marketing.

The trickle down is significant, they've got Ultegra mechanical without carbon wheels around 6kgs - that is the more impressive feat to me. You can put light wheels on anything, but crappy wheels at 6kgs is nice.

I would assume this will force the Commissaire's hand to bust out the scales more regularly though, if this is the start of a wave of 5.5kg bikes throughout the bunch.

User avatar
mitchy_
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:15 am
Contact:

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:52 am

biker jk wrote:Sounds like marketing hype. The Cannonball Super Six Evo Black frame weighs 655 grams. Without resorting to non-custom parts it built up to a 5.2kg bike.


and that is still a $13,500 affair... and over half a kilo heavier.
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Xplora » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:07 am

mitchy_ wrote:
biker jk wrote:Sounds like marketing hype. The Cannonball Super Six Evo Black frame weighs 655 grams. Without resorting to non-custom parts it built up to a 5.2kg bike.


and that is still a $13,500 affair... and over half a kilo heavier.

And this is the difficulty... if we want a p*ssing contest, then the Trek wins. If it's a matter of cost, well the Mclaren Venge is 18000.

I don't think p&ssing contests are very useful here, because there is no real value for a bike that is so far below the UCI limit unless the rules change (maybe Trek knows something we don't) - assuming we are sensible people who left high school quite some time ago, which I know we all are. Who has the lightest bike? Who cares. The true test is the fastest bike, which is limited by 6.8kgs right now. Get the boys climbing on Aeolus 9s, I will certainly be impressed then :lol:

g-boaf
Posts: 8819
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby g-boaf » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:10 am

foo on patrol wrote:
g-boaf wrote:56 is a fairly big frame too.

I know I can feel the difference between my Giant (6.8kg) and the Trek I also have (above 8kg)


:shock: Short arse! :lol: My Track frame is 60cm. :mrgreen:

Foo


That's gigantic then - compared with someone I know who has a tiny size Giant TCR Advanced SL. :lol:

It's becoming excessive especially give the mandated racing weight limits. I'm happy enough with what I have being a reasonable weight without resorting to extremely exotic special components.

User avatar
mitchy_
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:15 am
Contact:

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:13 am

Xplora wrote:
mitchy_ wrote:
biker jk wrote:Sounds like marketing hype. The Cannonball Super Six Evo Black frame weighs 655 grams. Without resorting to non-custom parts it built up to a 5.2kg bike.


and that is still a $13,500 affair... and over half a kilo heavier.

And this is the difficulty... if we want a p*ssing contest, then the Trek wins. If it's a matter of cost, well the Mclaren Venge is 18000.

I don't think p&ssing contests are very useful here, because there is no real value for a bike that is so far below the UCI limit unless the rules change (maybe Trek knows something we don't) - assuming we are sensible people who left high school quite some time ago, which I know we all are. Who has the lightest bike? Who cares. The true test is the fastest bike, which is limited by 6.8kgs right now. Get the boys climbing on Aeolus 9s, I will certainly be impressed then :lol:


of course it's a pissing contest. it's similar the Zonda R... you cant actually use it anywhere legally, nor race it in any category. i'd sure as hell own one (car and bike) if i had the cash though.
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5858
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby biker jk » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:39 am

mitchy_ wrote:
biker jk wrote:Sounds like marketing hype. The Cannonball Super Six Evo Black frame weighs 655 grams. Without resorting to non-custom parts it built up to a 5.2kg bike.


and that is still a $13,500 affair... and over half a kilo heavier.


My point is that Trek are crowing about building a light bike when the Cannonball frame is lighter than the Trek frame. Looks more like Trek catching up to the competition on weight weenie frames than being at the forefront of innovation.

User avatar
mitchy_
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:15 am
Contact:

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:27 pm

biker jk wrote:
mitchy_ wrote:
biker jk wrote:Sounds like marketing hype. The Cannonball Super Six Evo Black frame weighs 655 grams. Without resorting to non-custom parts it built up to a 5.2kg bike.


and that is still a $13,500 affair... and over half a kilo heavier.


My point is that Trek are crowing about building a light bike when the Cannonball frame is lighter than the Trek frame. Looks more like Trek catching up to the competition on weight weenie frames than being at the forefront of innovation.


what size frame is the 655 grams though? trek announce theirs is 690g vs 710 for the cannondale in 56cm

ImageImage
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users