New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!

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 » Sun Aug 10, 2014 9:31 pm

It's sad that Trek felt so much pressure to reduce frame weights, I don't quite see the point either.

boss
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

Xplora wrote:It's sad that Trek felt so much pressure to reduce frame weights, I don't quite see the point either.


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.

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 Aug 11, 2014 5:58 pm

Rephrase to "felt the need to chase the weight segment". In the same way that Pinarello or Colnago don't worry about 10 pound bikes, I thought Trek was focused on aero and comfort in the madone and domane directions.

Arlberg
Posts: 409
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

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?

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 Nov 24, 2014 9:25 pm

I can see the value for races like Tour of Bright when the lads are racing uphill for 45 minutes solid, because it's actually a 55kg bloke with a 4.6kg bike vs the 8kg bike, the % is actually more significant... bearing in mind that the 80kg rider is a sprinter, not a climber. BUT it's not UCI legal right now, and races like that don't justify a 10K street price. Cheaper to actually save the money and fly to Europe and work on your climbing in the French Alps for a month. :idea:

Nobody
Posts: 8509
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

Arlberg wrote:I was in Clarence Street Cyclery yesterday and saw one of these Emonda SLR 10s with the weight of 4.6kg.
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:In the real world scheme of things, does the extremely light weight of the bike make any difference anyway?
No. Assuming by "real world" you mean outside the racing circles.

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?
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.

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 Nov 24, 2014 10:00 pm

I have no question you'd be quicker, nobody, but the question is really whether the expense is worth it. 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.

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.

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 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:25 pm

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?


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.

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

eeksll
Posts: 2290
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

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.


if you carry your water bottles on your 8kg bike then your still the same amount lighter ... just saying.

Nobody
Posts: 8509
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

Xplora wrote:I have no question you'd be quicker, nobody, but the question is really whether the expense is worth it.
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: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.
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.

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.

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 Nov 24, 2014 11:21 pm

For a 60kg guy its going to be about 4% less power on a 6% climb (AT) 18kmph... that's a pretty solid difference ( against an 8kg bike ).
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 :mrgreen: .
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 :lol: .

g-boaf
Posts: 8821
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

Nobody wrote:
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.
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.

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.


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. :shock:

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!.


Ding ding ding ding! Winner. :)

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.

lobstermash
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

Arlberg wrote: does the extremely light weight of the bike make any difference anyway?


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.

Lowering weight has (rapidly) diminsishing gains and I'd be very curious to see a quantification any loss of durability...
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 » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:46 am

eeksll wrote:
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.


if you carry your water bottles on your 8kg bike then your still the same amount lighter ... just saying.

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.

I'm feeling much better about putting alloy stem and bars on my Madone all of a sudden :lol:

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 » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:11 pm

Got mine just now...insane how cool this thing is...going for a ride tomorrow morning...

Sam

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 » Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:18 am

Got your what?

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 11:52 am

toolonglegs wrote:Got your what?

This!!!

Image

Trek Emonda SLR 10

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 Nov 27, 2014 12:04 pm

you can't put up a vaseline smeared photo of an SLR 10!
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 » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:17 pm

+10000

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 12:21 pm

OK...Ill get another one...

LOL

Sam

jasonc
Posts: 9431
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

Strange Rover wrote:OK...Ill get another one...

LOL

Sam


another bike? I'm only down the road. you can leave it at my place
Image

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 Nov 27, 2014 12:48 pm

interested to hear your thoughts.

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).
Flash

Image

Riding: Pinarello Dogma2

jasonc
Posts: 9431
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

trek have a test day in brisbane on sunday at murrarie. am waiting to find out if they are going to have the domane disc before i go. if they do, i'll obviously test the emonda as well
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 1:56 pm

mitchy_ wrote:you can't put up a vaseline smeared photo of an SLR 10!


OK - here is a picture of a vaseline smeared photo of an SLR 10!

Image

Very cool bike BTW

Sam

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 Nov 27, 2014 2:02 pm

Hoods too high :oops:

8)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users