Re: New Trek Emonda SLR 10. 4.6kg!
Posted: 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.
BNA - For the Australian Cycling Community
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 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!.
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?
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.
This!!!toolonglegs wrote:Got your what?
another bike? I'm only down the road. you can leave it at my placeStrange Rover wrote:OK...Ill get another one...
LOL
Sam
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!