Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR

Who are you (no off-topic talk please)

Moderators: MrCurrieinahurry, maxim809, Moderator Team

stripes
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:58 am

by stripes

I've never been a Trek fan but this bike looks GREAT and begs me to reconsider.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



em3
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:57 pm
Location: NYC

by em3

...looking forward to your Bora Ultra 35 ride review. I took delivery of a set 6 weeks ago but the snow in NYC has been relentless this winter and is just now beginning to melt....have not had a chance to mount them yet. BTW, not to boast, but my Bora One 35 wheels weighed in at 1185, a scant 9 grams more then your Ultras. Based on what others have reported it appears the Bora One is coming in under reported weight and the Bora Ultras are coming in a bit over reported weight. EM3
______________

Michel
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 7:43 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

by Michel

em3 wrote:...looking forward to your Bora Ultra 35 ride review. I took delivery of a set 6 weeks ago but the snow in NYC has been relentless this winter and is just now beginning to melt....have not had a chance to mount them yet. BTW, not to boast, but my Bora One 35 wheels weighed in at 1185, a scant 9 grams more then your Ultras. Based on what others have reported it appears the Bora One is coming in under reported weight and the Bora Ultras are coming in a bit over reported weight. EM3


got mine (Bora one 35) last week. Went out for a ride on sunday. They are great wheels. smooth ride, stiff, very responsive. Since they have the same weight as my LW Clincher, I'm asking myself, if i still need them. :wink: ok, they are clincher...

ultyguy
Posts: 2332
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Location: Geneva

by ultyguy

I really like the Teflon tubing idea, I also tend to get a lot of sports drink gunk down there and have issues with sticky shifting.

Also interesting is the issue with Duotrap and Neutrons. I had a Giant with their integrated Ant+ thing and was getting spoke 'ping' against the sensor as well. Didn't really think about the spoke pattern (offset) + low rim. I was surprised it was rubbing as my Neutrons (tubs) but this makes total sense.

edit- actually got an Emonda booked for rental in Mallorca for Easter, now I'm quite intrigued to ride it, just thought it'd be my mule for a few days.

Rich.H
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:48 pm
Location: South Derbyshire, UK

by Rich.H

That has come out very nice indeed. I would be keen to hear your views of the Bora 35's having just picked up a set myself

Cheers

Rich

LionelB
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Aix en Provence

by LionelB

As a guy who rides the same size frame as you do I think this frame does not look that good in a 60. The HT is very big compared to the rest of the frame and is disproportionate. The tiny looking fork does not help either.

Components are all nice though ;)

User avatar
FIJIGabe
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

For a 60 frame? I think it looks pretty good! We can't all be 5'9 and ride 54's!

nd2rc
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:20 pm
Location: Tennessee

by nd2rc

Just a beautiful build!

Fisherfreerider
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:19 am

by Fisherfreerider

Calnago wrote:@Fijigabe: Forgot to answer about the chaincatcher question. The chaincatcher that comes with the bike is a little piece of plastic that wouldn't seem to do much imo except prevent the chain from getting jammed between the crank and the bottom bracket. But it seemed to me that the chain could still come off under certain conditions. I may be wrong about that, but the new K-edge chain catchers, with the independent adjustment from the derailleur mounting bolt itself, are superb. Properly adjusted, I don't think there's any way the chain can get between the small ring and the chain catcher. I also run a standard crank. The crank came with this bike was a compact. In hindsight I should have tested how the stock chain catcher actually performed, but I didn't like it and just couldn't be bothered. Maybe when I have the crank off doing some maintenance I'll put it back on just to see what the implications would be with my current setup.


There is a different chain catcher for standard cranks. Yours came with the one for a compact which is why it wouldn't work properly. You can get 431223 from the dealer and it will have the right one. (They come as a kit of 2)

User avatar
FIJIGabe
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

Good to know.

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Fisherfreerider wrote:
Calnago wrote:@Fijigabe: Forgot to answer about the chaincatcher question. The chaincatcher that comes with the bike is a little piece of plastic that wouldn't seem to do much imo except prevent the chain from getting jammed between the crank and the bottom bracket. But it seemed to me that the chain could still come off under certain conditions. I may be wrong about that, but the new K-edge chain catchers, with the independent adjustment from the derailleur mounting bolt itself, are superb. Properly adjusted, I don't think there's any way the chain can get between the small ring and the chain catcher. I also run a standard crank. The crank came with this bike was a compact. In hindsight I should have tested how the stock chain catcher actually performed, but I didn't like it and just couldn't be bothered. Maybe when I have the crank off doing some maintenance I'll put it back on just to see what the implications would be with my current setup.


There is a different chain catcher for standard cranks. Yours came with the one for a compact which is why it wouldn't work properly. You can get 431223 from the dealer and it will have the right one. (They come as a kit of 2)


@Fisherfreerider: That makes sense and I was wondering if there might be two different ones depending on whether you had a compact or standard crank. But I just opted from the start to use the K-edge. Also, @Fijigabe... didn't you say yours would still fall off? Did you change cranks from what was supplied with the bike? Seems even though you have the right one, in your case it could still fall off, correct? Or did I misinterpret you?
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
FIJIGabe
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

Yeah, my only experience is from putting the bike in the back of my car, where the chain actually came off the small chain ring. I ended up having to manually place it back onto the small chain ring. I'm not sure if that's the best representation of what the chain catcher can do on an actual ride (not that I really want to find out, either).

Although this isn't the original crank, it is the same size (Ultegra 6700 to DA9000 - both compact).

Steve921105
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:08 am

by Steve921105

I have a emonda sl5 too. i also ues the campagnolo which the bbcup do you ues?•Ultra-Torque™ OS-Fit integrated cups 86,5x41? can you give me a picture or link?

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7917
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Nice! The Emonda SL frame really doesn't deserve to be lumped in w/ the SLR as a "light" frame -- 1222 grams is anything but for carbon, especially such an unaerodynamic design (it's CAAD-10 territory). But for a relatively large rider it makes sense to not have a super-light frame.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Response and Updates:

Looks like there's quite an interest in my choice of "cable guide". I'm trying to get some more of that Teflon tubing but it's dimensions are 1/8" outer diameter and 1/16" inner diameter. Not at all like the super thin teflon tubing you might find at most bike shops. I initially got it for routing the front derailleur cable around the bottom bracket of my C59 way back in 2011 as there were two places it would rub on the frame and compromise shifting. I had to actually dremel out the channels of the original cable guides to accommodate this tubing since the channels weren't wide enough as it came. Ultimately, the original cable guides on my C59 and EPQ really serve only as a place holder for this tubing. The Trek Emonda has molded in grooves and this tubing seems to just fit fine as is in there with no need for the cable guide at all. It's a really nice implementation for sure. The stock cable guide is really fine, but since I like using this tubing and it fit and I plan on using this bike in our rainy weather, I figured I'd just go with the tubing from the start.

Here's a pic of the stock cable guide. Note there is no screw to hold it in place, it just fits in the molded grooves and the cables will keep it in place...
Image

Here is the lengths of tubing I opted to use. @FijiGabe: the tubing is not permanently fixed and does not run full length through the downtube, it's just long enough to fit up into the downtube and guide the cables around the bottom bracket and keep dirt and crud off them. You said you had trouble fishing the cables through. I use a couple of things... a little awl with a hook on it and that usually allows me to get it first time. Just let gravity ensure the cables want to exit out the BB. If they seem to not be cooperating sometimes a little magnet can help guide them through. But basically an easy internal routing. I had no preinstalled cable guides to use as I just stripped the entire 105 group that came on it...
Image

And here's the runup to the front derailleur. I used one of those grubseals that comes with Gore cables as a finishing touch to help seal out the crud from getting in at the top. Works really well...
Image

So, that's it for the bb tubing solution.


@EM3: Regarding the new Bora Ultra 35's. I love these wheels. They seem to be unaffected by wind, but I haven't really had them in bad conditions yet, but in any case, they seem to be a really nice profile if you're going to be using them in the mountains where a windy descent can really start causing you to question your sanity if running higher profile rims. And you're right, the weight difference between the Bora One's which you got and the Ultras is really negligible. The difference seems to be mainly the CULT bearings that are in the Ultras. You will like them I'm sure. And so sorry about your winter. While you guys on the east coast seem to be getting pummeled with storm after storm, we over here on the west coast are having probably the mildest winter I can remember. Hardly seems like we had winter this year.

@Ultyguy: I think you'll be really pleased with your "mule" over in Mallorca. Just spend some time setting up the position as close to your current bike as much as possible. Make sure you take the relevant measurements with you, like saddle height and tilt, setback, reach to bars, etc. Have fun... always wanted to ride in Mallorca but so far haven't made it.


@LionelB: I get what your saying about the aesthetics, but the more I looked at various frames, the more I gravitated towards the Emonda. I've always liked Trek's geometry and knew I could get a good fit with one. I don't find the fork "tiny" looking at all and think it works nicely with the frame. What I never liked before was the cutout in the front of the fork to accommodate direct mount brakes. I think the whole package is a big improvement over the Madone. I really like the looks of this frame. Headtube is kind of tall for sure, being the H2, but the H1 would have been ridiculous for me being a full 3cm shorter. The saddle to handlebar drop I'm running with this setup is 79mm as shown. If I wanted I could use a shorter top cover and omit the 3mm red spacer and get a full 11mm more drop (ignoring angle of headtube difference) to 90mm, which is actually a millimeter more than the drop on my C59 or EPQ. That is as aggressive as I would ever want to get, especially running the classic bar setup that I do.

@Steve921105: There is only one option for putting Campagnolo cranks on a Trek with their BB90 bottom bracket. You use the standard Ultratorque crankset and you use the adapter kit supplied by TREK (I hope they're still selling them now that they've dropped Campy as a build option). Anyway, the part number for that kit is listed in my build list above. It consists of two seal seats, two spacer washers, one wavy washer and a plastic spindle shield. I opted to omit the plastic spindle shield. I run the Super Record cranks which have unsealed Cult bearing systems. I installed the shield initially to see how it all fit together but it created some added friction and while it does provide a good internal barrier for water coming in through the fairly large opening in the BB, it would also keep water in very well that managed to get through the bearings from the crank openings. Weighing the options, I chose to leave off the shield and let natural ventilation dry things out after a wet ride. The CULT bearings are extremely impervious to water it seems. I've yet to have to replace any. I cannot say the same for the steel bearings.
Here's a pic of the kit you get from Trek to install a Campy crank:
Image

And be sure to install it correctly with the proper Loctite and primer recommended in the instructions. They say you can just put them in by hand but the slip fit is pretty loose. To ensure a good firm fit I installed them and used a press overnight to ensure everything was good to go...
Image

@djconnel: This is really a great bike. It's actually slightly lighter than my Colnagos, by a negligible amount. You are absolutely right that it makes no sense for a larger rider to jump on one of the superlight frames they have out now. I am very happy with this ride, and there are reasons I would have still chosen this frame over the SLR even if they both weighed the same and cost the same. Not the least of which is the brakes. Aesthetically, I think the direct mount brakes are just plain fugly. And secondly, I know that I am going to be putting full fenders on this bike and really wanted a center mount brake as I use the boss there to help with fender support. I will show this in detail when I mount them. And the fact remains, that superlight frames are simply more fragile than heavier frames. There are sections so thin in the layup that it's easy to press an indent with your fingers. I'm sure a company like Trek has tested the crap out of them, and they are safe for riding, but what about a sudden impact in that thin area in the event of a crash, or simply even dropping a wrench accidentally on it. This is an area where my colnagos seem much more robust. They may weigh the same, but the construction of the Trek is such that there are probably thinner areas (top of top tube for example), and thicker areas, which provide more strength and support where needed, whereas the colnagos are likely more uniform throughout due to their tube to lug construction. The Colnagos just seem overall to be a very strong bicycle.

Oh, as a reference to understanding a bit more about carbon fiber layups etc, member @davidalone posted a great post in a recent thread entitled: "Should I buy a carbon frame". Sorry but I don't know how to post a direct reference to it here, but if you do a quick search you could find it easy enough I would guess.

Now that I've had this frame for a while, I'm getting used to the little nuances that differentiate it from my colnagos.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

Post Reply