New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Xplora » Sun Aug 10, 2014 9:31 pm
-
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:58 pm
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby boss » Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:15 pm
I wouldn't call it pressure. Just exploiting a market segment. Much like price-based competition on a homogeneous product, differentiation based on weight is a futile race to the bottom.Xplora wrote:It's sad that Trek felt so much pressure to reduce frame weights, I don't quite see the point either.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Xplora » Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:58 pm
-
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:43 pm
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Arlberg » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:15 pm
Has anyone actually ridden one of these? Or even own one? What is it like to ride?
In the real world scheme of things, does the extremely light weight of the bike make any difference anyway? Assuming an average rider of say, 80kg has a pretty average 8kg bike, that is a total of 88kg which they have to haul up a hill.
An 80kg guy with the 4.6kg bike has 84.6kg to haul up the hill. The difference between the two is only around 4%. Is this even noticeable?
Whats the lightest bike you've ever ridden?
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Xplora » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:25 pm
-
- Posts: 10330
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Nobody » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:37 pm
Clarence Street is the place I'd expect to see one of these. Probably one of very few places in AU for floor stock.Arlberg wrote:I was in Clarence Street Cyclery yesterday and saw one of these Emonda SLR 10s with the weight of 4.6kg.
No. Assuming by "real world" you mean outside the racing circles.Arlberg wrote:In the real world scheme of things, does the extremely light weight of the bike make any difference anyway?
Maybe. The limit of our ability to notice a difference is usually considered to be 5%. I'd say if you bought one you'd notice the difference because of the placebo effect. Otherwise unlikely in a blind test.Arlberg wrote:Assuming an average rider of say, 80kg has a pretty average 8kg bike, that is a total of 88kg which they have to haul up a hill.
An 80kg guy with the 4.6kg bike has 84.6kg to haul up the hill. The difference between the two is only around 4%. Is this even noticeable?
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Xplora » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:00 pm
No point begrudging the wealthy their toys, but you quickly realise that you need to leave water bottles at home to get the value of the bike.
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:58 am
- Location: Ipswich, QLD
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Strange Rover » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:25 pm
I think the rule of thumb is a 5% reduction in effort (power) results in a tripling in time that you can maintain that effort.Arlberg wrote:I was in Clarence Street Cyclery yesterday and saw one of these Emonda SLR 10s with the weight of 4.6kg. I picked it up, well prepared to expect it to feel very light, but even with that preparation I was amazed at just how light it felt. It is hard for the brain to register that something relatively big, such as a bike, can weigh so little.
Has anyone actually ridden one of these? Or even own one? What is it like to ride?
In the real world scheme of things, does the extremely light weight of the bike make any difference anyway? Assuming an average rider of say, 80kg has a pretty average 8kg bike, that is a total of 88kg which they have to haul up a hill.
An 80kg guy with the 4.6kg bike has 84.6kg to haul up the hill. The difference between the two is only around 4%. Is this even noticeable?
Whats the lightest bike you've ever ridden?
So if you're on the limit in a fast group on a 10 minute climb...then your light bike will let you sit in at a pace that you could maintain for half an hour...very big difference.
5% or 4% reduction in effort when you're on your limit is massive.
Sam
-
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby eeksll » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:42 pm
if you carry your water bottles on your 8kg bike then your still the same amount lighter ... just saying.Xplora wrote:No point begrudging the wealthy their toys, but you quickly realise that you need to leave water bottles at home to get the value of the bike.
-
- Posts: 10330
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Nobody » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:57 pm
OK, the long version is; since you are not racing, the relatively small difference is not important outside of racing. If you are on a social group ride, a commute, or an exercise ride (remember, no racing, so not training), then 4 seconds per minute (1 second per Kg so DR says) isn't going to really make a significant difference to anything meaningful outside of racing/posing. And since it can't be officially raced, it's just a toy for the wealthy as you say.Xplora wrote:I have no question you'd be quicker, nobody, but the question is really whether the expense is worth it.
Another option would be to change your diet and lose 14Kg (as I did and if you can) then buy a $2K bike and still go up the hill faster. Or another option would be not to care and that way you don't even have to spend $2K on a bike. This last option seems alien to most males until they get closer to 50 and the hormones wear off a bit.Xplora wrote:10-12K for a bike (without a power meter!!!) vs 8K with a power meter, DA9000 and 1250gram wheels, that weighs 1 kilo more and is still way under the ICU limit, and you can go training with the money you saved and end up going up the hill faster anyway.
I think getting over the "must be faster than the next guy" attitude is by far the cheapest strategy in the long run. Probably not what the industry marketing people want us to think though. To state the obvious, not much profit in frugality and pragmatism.
- toolonglegs
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
- Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby toolonglegs » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:21 pm
Plenty of places it can be used competitively, Cyclosportives for example are raced at the front end, usually have enormous climbs etc. Take next years Etape du Tour, 142kms and nearly 5000m climbing .
If you ride in a competitive bunch you know that being the first up the climb on a Saturday thrash gains as much kudos as winning a race!.
But then I am not 60kgs or have the spare cash so not really an issue for me ... plenty of our guests over here in summer do have both .
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21456
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby g-boaf » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:37 am
I don't think Xplora needs to worry about losing 14kg - last I remember he was already thin as anything and more than fast enough.Nobody wrote:Another option would be to change your diet and lose 14Kg (as I did and if you can) then buy a $2K bike and still go up the hill faster. Or another option would be not to care and that way you don't even have to spend $2K on a bike. This last option seems alien to most males until they get closer to 50 and the hormones wear off a bit.Xplora wrote:10-12K for a bike (without a power meter!!!) vs 8K with a power meter, DA9000 and 1250gram wheels, that weighs 1 kilo more and is still way under the ICU limit, and you can go training with the money you saved and end up going up the hill faster anyway.
I think getting over the "must be faster than the next guy" attitude is by far the cheapest strategy in the long run. Probably not what the industry marketing people want us to think though. To state the obvious, not much profit in frugality and pragmatism.
Ding ding ding ding! Winner.toolonglegs wrote:If you ride in a competitive bunch you know that being the first up the climb on a Saturday thrash gains as much kudos as winning a race!.
As for light bikes, mine is already around 6.9kg - it doesn't need to be lighter. It's owner needs to get a bit faster. Some people probably just go a lighter bike to get KOMs on strava I suppose. Regardless of being on the 8.5kg Trek I have, or the Giant, I'm still the same speed on both. Probably quicker on the Giant now because I've got a really good fit on that.
-
- Posts: 1426
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:51 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby lobstermash » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:58 am
Not saying this isn't a valid question, but as has probably been iterated already in the thread that this bike wasn't built with performance as the goal. It was built as a statement of what's possible weight-wise with the materials and technology available in order to pressure the UCI into removing weight restrictions.Arlberg wrote: does the extremely light weight of the bike make any difference anyway?
Lowering weight has (rapidly) diminsishing gains and I'd be very curious to see a quantification any loss of durability...
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Xplora » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:46 am
Your % gains reduce, however. So the difference is 60+4.6+1.5kg of water = 66kgs vs 60+8+1.5kgs = 69.5kgs. Yes, it's still lighter, but if you didn't take water on that climb (or an empty bottle) you would only be talking about a 3kg improvement over my stock 5.2 Madone, for 15K more (no power meter remember). If my bike is sitting at 6.5kg, 7500 dollars per drink bottle in weight. with tools and food. etc.eeksll wrote:if you carry your water bottles on your 8kg bike then your still the same amount lighter ... just saying.Xplora wrote:No point begrudging the wealthy their toys, but you quickly realise that you need to leave water bottles at home to get the value of the bike.
I'm feeling much better about putting alloy stem and bars on my Madone all of a sudden
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:58 am
- Location: Ipswich, QLD
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Strange Rover » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:11 pm
Sam
- toolonglegs
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
- Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:58 am
- Location: Ipswich, QLD
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Strange Rover » Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:52 am
This!!!toolonglegs wrote:Got your what?
Trek Emonda SLR 10
- mitchy_
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:15 am
- Contact:
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby mitchy_ » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:04 pm
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:58 am
- Location: Ipswich, QLD
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Strange Rover » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:21 pm
LOL
Sam
-
- Posts: 12218
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby jasonc » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:31 pm
another bike? I'm only down the road. you can leave it at my placeStrange Rover wrote:OK...Ill get another one...
LOL
Sam
- flashpixx
- Posts: 746
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:04 pm
- Location: Maylands WA
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby flashpixx » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:48 pm
Get the impression from the couple of reviews I've read that is is VERY stiff in the frame which impacts on ride quality on anything but smooth tarmac. Doesn't sound like a bike for long rides (unless doing 250 laps at the velodrome).
Riding: Trek Domane SLR 7
-
- Posts: 12218
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby jasonc » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:50 pm
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:58 am
- Location: Ipswich, QLD
Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Postby Strange Rover » Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:56 pm
OK - here is a picture of a vaseline smeared photo of an SLR 10!mitchy_ wrote:you can't put up a vaseline smeared photo of an SLR 10!
Very cool bike BTW
Sam
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.