New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

jasonc
Posts: 9410
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby jasonc » Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:28 pm

what size is it, and what does it weigh?
Image

Strange Rover
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 3:05 pm

jasonc wrote:what size is it, and what does it weigh?


58cm and just a touch under 5.1kg with Look Ti pedals and Bontrager RXL cages as I rode it this morning...as measured on bike shop scales. My kitchen scales get it at touch over 5.1kg.
The XXX cages for it only turned up today at bike shop so pinched the RXLs of my other bike.

Sam

jasonc
Posts: 9410
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby jasonc » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:18 pm

very nice but too small for me ;)
Image

Arlberg
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:43 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Arlberg » Sat Nov 29, 2014 8:40 pm

So Strange Rover, how does it ride?

I'd be interested to hear how it goes, particularly how it goes up hills and how your times on this bike compare with the times on your old bike with all the other variables constant.

Strange Rover
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:58 am
Location: Ipswich, QLD

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Strange Rover » Sun Nov 30, 2014 4:24 pm

So how does it ride??

Well, it rides really nicely.

For me it is probably the most impressive bike I have ever ridden. The difference between this bike and my regular bike would be comparable to the feeling I got when I first went from an aluminium flat bar road bike to a full carbon drop bar road bike five years ago. The shear lack of weight is overwhelming. Before I took delivery of this bike I figured I would change the seat and put some custom light clinchers on it so it was more usable but now I'm not so sure I want to do that. The lightness of it gives the feeling of effortless power and is probably the most enjoyable thing about it...I don't think I want to take anything away from that. The bike is absolutely amazing to ride.

Now my other bike is a 2013 Madone with Sram Red, Quarq, Shimano C24s. It's a 6.8kg bike that I can ride everyday. It's also a really nice bike to ride...I really love the handling of this bike. The steering on the Madone is a lot faster and the bike is a lot stiffer than my other, other bike (a 2011 Look 695). I prefer the Madone over the Look...the Look rides smoother and the handling is slower.

So the feeling/handling of the Emonda is very close to my Madone and it should be because the geometry is almost identical...but the Emonda is a lot lighter and that is obvious. In terms of ride quality or stiffness it's very hard to tell...the Emonda has a carbon shell seat and 22mm tubular tyres...the ride is definitely harsher. I would really have to swap the wheels and seat to make any realistic comparison. But in general terms the bike handles/feels very similar to my Madone.

Now when riding the Emonda... it really feels no different to any of my bikes in terms of effort or speed when riding while seated. Pedal along the flat, pedal up a hill, pedal down a hill...the effort feels no different. The difference, and this is a massive difference, is when you are cruising along riding seated and you come to a bit of a climb and you stand up to pedal over the rise...the Emonda just comes alive...as soon as you stand the lightness of the bike and the quickness of the handling makes it an absolute pleasure. Add soon as you stand you just want to crank it!! It's stiff and it's light and it flies uphill!! It's awesome to ride.

So is it any faster uphill?? Well the reality is that it's only 6.8-5.1= 1.7kg lighter than my Madone...I weigh 77kg plus some gear...so really only 2% lighter. So not much faster uphill in absolute terms...but if you are in a fast bunch on a climb on your limit then 2% could be a massive difference.

For me the extra speed performance doesn't matter...I understood the 2% calculation before I bought this bike. I also have 5 years of power meter data to know that there is way more variation in how I'm going day to day, or how aero you are, or how well you conserve in the bunch or how deep you go, or how hard you push. The bike feels way, way better than 2%. It's like the difference a set of tubular race wheels that save 0.5kg feel like but just so much more.

The bike is awesome, I'm really happy with it. The only problem with it is it will probably make my other bikes feel like tanks.

:)

Sam

yanjarra
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby yanjarra » Sun Nov 30, 2014 7:15 pm

For what it's worth - I rode this at the Trek Factory Demo day today. Was a nice ride. I felt it was possibly a bit smoother/more comfortable then a tarmac or bmcslr01 which is all i have to compare against, but not as stiff/responsive as either. That's the best I could make out with different wheels on and only a half hours spin around a crit track anyway.

Strange Rover
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:58 am
Location: Ipswich, QLD

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Strange Rover » Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:00 pm

Hey yanjarra, where did you do this? Which model did you ride?

Sam

yanjarra
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby yanjarra » Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:08 pm

This was at Murrarie. I rode the slr8 which is the same frame minus the vapor paint...about 95grams

Arlberg
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:43 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Arlberg » Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:16 am

So is it any faster uphill?? Well the reality is that it's only 6.8-5.1= 1.7kg lighter than my Madone...I weigh 77kg plus some gear...so really only 2% lighter.

This is an interesting point and makes me wonder just how much difference the weight makes in a bike (apart from the dent in your wallet).

The weight difference between Strange Rovers old Madone and his new Emonda is 1.7kg or 25%, which is in my opinion huge. However the overall weight difference when you factor in the weight of the rider is still 1.7kg, and which is only 2%.

I don't think anyone would notice a 2% weight difference. Heck, a course chip gravel road makes the bike feel a lot heavier than it actually is. (Of course there is absolituely no weight difference there at all)

So it is the overall weight difference, rather than just the weight of the bike that must be considered when wondering whether a really light bike is going to improve your cycling performance. Unless I am missing something?

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15451
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 Dec 01, 2014 7:45 am

So about 84 kgs all up ... so 2 percent is about 1,7 kgs... put it in a back pack and ride up a steep hill, it's not huge but you would prefer it wasn't there

jasonc
Posts: 9410
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby jasonc » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:18 am

i was going to go to the test day yanjarra but spent the weekend on the couch instead :(
nopt the coach, the couch!
Last edited by jasonc on Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

lobstermash
Posts: 1426
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby lobstermash » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:19 am

toolonglegs wrote:So about 84 kgs all up ... so 2 percent is about 1,7 kgs... put it in a back pack and ride up a steep hill, it's not huge but you would prefer it wasn't there


In a backpack, yeah, you'd rather it wasn't there. But on the bike itself (a la a couple of full drink bottles) it's not that noticable...
Image

lobstermash
Posts: 1426
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby lobstermash » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:20 am

jasonc wrote:i was going to go to the test day yanjarra but spent the weekend on the coach instead :(


Ahem, that's a very, er, 'hands on' coach you have there...
Image

g-boaf
Posts: 8704
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby g-boaf » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:22 am

Most unfortunate typo! :shock:

The Emonda SLR10 does seem like a great bike, and I wouldn't mind having one for a day - but I just couldn't see myself buying one. 5.1kg is very light for a 58cm bike.
Last edited by g-boaf on Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kb
Posts: 2314
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby kb » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:24 am

Ah! So that's what the expression "secret training" refers to..

I find post-maintenance test rides with no bottles or toolkit you definitely notice and that's only 1.5-2kg. I suspect the effect drops off and you get used to it quickly though.
Image

jasonc
Posts: 9410
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby jasonc » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:01 am

leave me alone. still not 100%. speeling fail
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 » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:45 am

OK I can work with some of this.

There is a difference between sprung and unsprung weight in a car. The weight in the wheels and brake calipers for example isn't affected by the suspension so you get a different "ride" if you increase your sprung weight vs unsprung weight if you don't change the suspension. It's a reality that has been managed for a long time without too much issue (and is one reason that commercial vehicles are awful to drive without a load).

Your bike has similar issues. The bike is the unsprung weight. You pull the bike forwards and back, side to side, especially when you "get out the seat" as was mentioned above. The percentage change in unsprung weight is huge - 25% less - so the bike feels more alive, feels lighter, but the real change in speed is sadly going to be quite small as we've discussed. So... are you able to afford this change? It probably feels awesome to ride out of the saddle, but we've got balance that against everything else, especially road feel and cost, which are issues.

User avatar
warthog1
Posts: 6857
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby warthog1 » Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:26 am

Xplora wrote:OK I can work with some of this.

There is a difference between sprung and unsprung weight in a car. The weight in the wheels and brake calipers for example isn't affected by the suspension so you get a different "ride" if you increase your sprung weight vs unsprung weight if you don't change the suspension. It's a reality that has been managed for a long time without too much issue (and is one reason that commercial vehicles are awful to drive without a load).


Having lighter wheels, brakes and some steering and suspension components (less unsprung weight) allows the wheel and suspension to track over a bump, or series of bumps more effectively. My Nissan Patrol has alot of unsprung weight with live axles and big heavy differentials at both ends. It does not cope with corrugations for example, as well as a vehicle with independent suspension and alot less unsprung weight. There is an advantage to each wheel being independent and unaffected by the other wheels travel, but less unsprung weight has a fair bit to do with it as well.

Commercial vehicles ride poorly with no load as the suspension is designed to carry heavy weight and is not very compliant without said weight. Airbag suspensions have improved this markedly however
Last edited by warthog1 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

fat and old
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby fat and old » Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:58 am

Funny thing I've noticed here and to a much larger degree on the weenies forum......Trek have come up with an off the shelf bike which is as light as you'll find until you start spending 20k plus which if you follow forums/cyclists at all you'd think was the answer to their collective prayers.

4.6KG!!!

Cyclists everywhere are always looking to shave 100 grams off this or 300 grams off that, and will spend big, big $$$$ to do it while squeezing into their 2xl shorts and tops :lol:

But the Trek cops flak at worst, or a meh indifference. Why is this so?

Personally, if I already owned a Colnago Master, a Bianchi EPS Infinito AND a BH Ultralight, I'd buy one in a shot. Just to stick it up people :lol:

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

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:04 am

fat and old wrote:Funny thing I've noticed here and to a much larger degree on the weenies forum......Trek have come up with an off the shelf bike which is as light as you'll find until you start spending 20k plus which if you follow forums/cyclists at all you'd think was the answer to their collective prayers.

4.6KG!!!

Cyclists everywhere are always looking to shave 100 grams off this or 300 grams off that, and will spend big, big $$$$ to do it while squeezing into their 2xl shorts and tops :lol:

But the Trek cops flak at worst, or a meh indifference. Why is this so?

Personally, if I already owned a Colnago Master, a Bianchi EPS Infinito AND a BH Ultralight, I'd buy one in a shot. Just to stick it up people :lol:


not to mention those bikes will have serious modifications to derailluers, shifters etc. it would be interesting to see what someone could do with the SLR 10.. there is some more weight that can be quite literally shaved from it.
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

Nobody
Posts: 8485
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Nobody » Mon Dec 01, 2014 12:48 pm

fat and old wrote:Funny thing I've noticed here and to a much larger degree on the weenies forum......Trek have come up with an off the shelf bike which is as light as you'll find until you start spending 20k plus which if you follow forums/cyclists at all you'd think was the answer to their collective prayers.
So the Emonda works out to be about 80% of $20K AUD. A reasonable saving but without the hobby/satisfaction of saying you've built it yourself. Probably one reason why there is no fanfare.
This is one reason why I stopped modifying cars many years ago. Eventually the mainstream manufacturers catch up and/or delve further into the niche markets. At least to a point where it's hardly worthwhile to try to gain any more of anything yourself without serious $$$ spent.

fat and old wrote:Cyclists everywhere are always looking to shave 100 grams off this or 300 grams off that, and will spend big, big $$$$ to do it while squeezing into their 2xl shorts and tops :lol:

But the Trek cops flak at worst, or a meh indifference. Why is this so?
Not everyone is a WW. My bike is about 12.4Kg (steel, discs, touring/MTB wheels, comfy saddle). But it's good to know that buying a 6.8Kg bike is getting cheaper every year. Not that I have a need for one. But then, how many people do really have a need for one?
Last edited by Nobody on Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Mon Dec 01, 2014 12:55 pm

Nobody wrote:http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/performance_race/emonda/emonda_slr_10_h1/
So the Emonda works out to be 93.75% (at current exchanges rates) of $20K AUD. Not a huge saving and without the hobby/satisfaction of saying you've built it yourself. Probably one reason why there is no fanfare.
This is one reason why I stopped modifying cars many years ago. Eventually the mainstream manufacturers catch up and/or delve further into the niche markets. At least to a point where it's hardly worthwhile to try to gain any more of anything yourself without serious $$$ spent.
Not everyone is a WW. My bike is about 12.4Kg (steel, discs, touring/MTB wheels, comfy saddle). But it's good to know that buying a 6.8Kg bike is getting cheaper every year. Not that I have a need for one. But then, how many people do really have a need for one?


i'm not sure why you would look at the US site when it is sold in Australia, and on the Australian website for a RRP of $15,999. :?
http://www.trekbikes.com/au/en/bikes/ro ... lr_10_h1/#

regardless of whether you'd buy one or not.. there seems to be a lot of negativity over trek building a ultra low weight bike when there is a clearly a market for them (there are forums dedicated to removing as much material as safely, and unsafely possible)

there is nothing to stop someone buying an Emonda and further modifying it... if you want to build an ultra light weight bike, it's a smart idea to start with an already light base. (not to say the SLR 10 is going to give the best bang for your buck, but starting with a heavy steel frame is going to be pushing poo up hill without goggles...)
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

Nobody
Posts: 8485
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby Nobody » Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:01 pm

mitchy_ wrote:i'm not sure why you would look at the US site when it is sold in Australia, and on the Australian website for a RRP of $15,999. :?
http://www.trekbikes.com/au/en/bikes/ro ... lr_10_h1/#
Thanks. Adjusted above. Also what happened to the Australia tax? I though everything in the US was supposed to be cheaper.

mitchy_ wrote:regardless of whether you'd buy one or not.. there seems to be a lot of negativity over trek building a ultra low weight bike when there is a clearly a market for them (there are forums dedicated to removing as much material as safely, and unsafely possible)
Jealousy? I don't really care that much on a personal level, but it's an interesting technical exercise as unlike the aftermarket modifiers, Trek has to put a warranty on it.
Last edited by Nobody on Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby mitchy_ » Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:06 pm

Nobody wrote:
mitchy_ wrote:i'm not sure why you would look at the US site when it is sold in Australia, and on the Australian website for a RRP of $15,999. :?
http://www.trekbikes.com/au/en/bikes/ro ... lr_10_h1/#
Thanks. Adjusted above.

mitchy_ wrote:regardless of whether you'd buy one or not.. there seems to be a lot of negativity over trek building a ultra low weight bike when there is a clearly a market for them (there are forums dedicated to removing as much material as safely, and unsafely possible)
Jealousy? I don't really care that much on a personal level, but it's an interesting technical exercise as unlike the aftermarket modifiers, Trek has to put a warranty on it.


i'd happily pay a (certain) premium for the warranty as well. it's no different to modifying cars, etc.. you can choose a standard car to modify to your hearts content, or choose a higher/special model and reap a lot of the same benefits with a factory warranty.
Designs by Mitch - drafting specialist.

boss
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:58 pm

Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

Postby boss » Mon Dec 01, 2014 2:08 pm

I think nobody is interested because it's a Trek.

Who actually gets excited by Trek?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users