Trek Emonda SLR 10, Thoughts?

[KWalker]

Quite a few other riders also race(d) on the Domane when the Madone was available, Andy Schleck is the one that comes to mind the fastest.

Aero road frames at this time are another selling point. What it comes down to is convincing someone, usually a wealthy old male that is moderately educated, that the value add of a frame is going to make or break their use case. Race? Well, then aero will definitely get you more results. Comfort rider? Well you need the more compliant frame so you don't shatter to pieces on your mild chipseal rides. It goes on and on. In reality most riders could ride almost any decent fitting high end bike of any sort and be fine. I never had a problem racing Tour of the Battenkill on aluminum frames and have probably put in thousands of miles on gravel fire roads and never felt that a comfort bike was 100% necessary or would improve performance, but they sell like hot cakes.

DJ- what are the sources of your chart and can you summarize them with watts saved at various yaw angles? Maybe I just am an idiot that doesn't see it as much of a value add yet especially since most of the time in a race it will not matter one single bit and even when it does "matter", something as simple as if the rider has a rear bottle and how high their head is can matter more. When riding solo or for non-racers it shouldn't be an issue at all.

[boots2000]

I agree that for everyday riding an aero frame matters not at all.
But for racing I think there is a shift occurring similar to when aero wheels became necessary (or you would be racing at a disadvantage).
I did a race that had a bunch of wind and some fast tailwind descending this weekend. I could tell that riders with the full aero kit- aero frame, aero helmet and 2 in 1 type suit, were going faster in these fast sections (they all had aero wheels too- that is old hat).
So for racing I recommend getting something aero like a Venge, Madone, Cervelo S3, Felt AR or similar.

[djconnel]

DJ- what are the sources of your chart and can you summarize them with watts saved at various yaw angles? Maybe I just am an idiot that doesn't see it as much of a value add yet especially since most of the time in a race it will not matter one single bit and even when it does "matter", something as simple as if the rider has a rear bottle and how high their head is can matter more. When riding solo or for non-racers it shouldn't be an issue at all.

I think whenever one says whether something "matters" the relevant comparison is how much weight matters. Answer: for most riding, very little...

That pro riders are using the Emonda suggests the ride quality is better than the Madone. But Trek said, and all the reviews said, the Madone had excellent ride quality... vertically compliant, torsionally stiff, responsive, yadda yadda.

Wind tunnel tests are generally done @ 30 mph. To convert to watts @ 40 kph multiply by 0.075. At 45 kph, multiply by 0.11. To convert to watts @ 50 kph multiply by 0.15. Coggan recommends 0.1. So 10 grams is around 1 watt.

Source is Cervelo white paper for last 2, Parlee for first plot, and 2nd plot is from aeroweenies (not sure original source).

[dunbar42]

Madone tests remarkably well.

Not compared to a "real" aero road bike like the Giant Propel. That's a ~15-20w difference between the Propel and Madone.



https://www.giant-bicycles.com/backoffi ... st_low.pdf

[KWalker]

I agree that for everyday riding an aero frame matters not at all.
But for racing I think there is a shift occurring similar to when aero wheels became necessary (or you would be racing at a disadvantage).
I did a race that had a bunch of wind and some fast tailwind descending this weekend. I could tell that riders with the full aero kit- aero frame, aero helmet and 2 in 1 type suit, were going faster in these fast sections (they all had aero wheels too- that is old hat).
So for racing I recommend getting something aero like a Venge, Madone, Cervelo S3, Felt AR or similar.

There are lots of riders racing at high levels on non aero and even box section wheels just fine. The USA Crits series is often a great example of what people can race successfully while not the latest tech.

You're still overblowing the aero benefit even for amateur racing. The difference on a descent or fast section would mainly be due to large drag sources. I have been fine in very windy races on fast courses with training wheels, a non-aero Cannondale, and a non-aero helmet. This year so far in the races I've done (and I've paid attention because of this aero vs. non-aero debate) only 2 aero bikes have won at the cat 3 level. This weekend the winner of a Pro 1/2 race that featured some extremely fast descending and tailwinds won on a non-aero roundtubed frame without an aero helmet. If these small margins are make or break for a person their tactics, position, or skills must be pretty terrible. Even on the pro level lots of non aero bikes are winning stages where it should "matter" even more. Its nice to have, but it won't win or lose a race most of the time. Aero gear has exploded the past two years and I haven't seen a single rider that was within the margins before all of a sudden start rapidly winning and improving their placings because of a switch.

The main concern I have with this thread is that people are slamming a bike for absolutely ridiculous reasons. Its somehow bad because its not as aero as the Madone, or might weigh the same as a Super Six. The differences people are going on and on about are minor. When compared to top end bikes the frame is really light, it supposedly is very compliant and very stiff, and the geometry is a good middle ground for lots of types of racing/riding. If someone were to be asking for a comparison between the Madone and Emonda then sure, post one of the drag graphs to show what could perhaps be saved if both bikes could be made to fit identical and whatnot, but lets not act like somehow the Emonda is a giant piece of shit that a rider can't win a buttload of races on.

Amateur racers have somehow convinced themselves that all of these details are the keys to success, which is probably some weird sort of cognitive dissonance that stems from actually having to purchase our equipment. It seems to have completely shrouded our judgement regarding new products. The Emonda is a much more advanced and better bike than anything that probably existed in 2012 save for a few of the uber top tier frames (hi-mods, S-Works models, etc.) and it seems to be getting hammered on here, while a bike such as the Felt AR1 is seen as the only bike that one could possibly successfully race on is praised like its a diety. Oddly I know two riders that have ridden both and found the AR1 to be a very sub-par in many areas and several Felt sponsored team members have felt the same way. The bike isn't for them and it could be great for someone else, but great specs online doesn't necessarily equate to anything in real life.

[TwiggyTN]

Maybe we should have an aero-weenies forum too? [emoji12]. People are just delusional about what matters and by how much on here in many instances. Weight and aero both. Just ride more. [emoji41]

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[KWalker]

Its all just confirmation bias. Everyone wants to feel that they paid an absurd amount of money for the best possible bicycle.

[mpulsiv]

Since some of you mentioned ride quality, let's shift to vertical compliance topic. Last I checked Trek's Ride Tuned seatmast provide more comfort than competition.

Frame comfort (shock absorption):
275N/mm TCR Advanced SL
238N/mm Scott Addict RC
211N/mm S-Works SL3 race
297N/mm Cannondale Super Six Hi mod
182N/mm Trek Madone 6 SSL

[djconnel]

Madone tests remarkably well.

Not compared to a "real" aero road bike like the Giant Propel. That's a ~15-20w difference between the Propel and Madone.



https://www.giant-bicycles.com/backoffi ... st_low.pdf

The two top bikes in that test had Zipp wheels, the two bottom bikes did not. The Trek didn't even have carbon rims.

[dunbar42]

The two top bikes in that test had Zipp wheels, the two bottom bikes did not. The Trek didn't even have carbon rims.

Velolab uses the same wheels on all of the bikes in the wind tunnel. The Propel put up very similar drag numbers in the Felt white paper.

[mpulsiv]

Trek's BB deflection looks bad on paper but ride tuned seatmast is the stiffest of them all? This is quite interesting!

[SLCBrandon]

@Kwalker

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I race my bikes a lot, and do fairly well at it in general. I'm also fortunate enough to own quite a few high end road and MTB bikes. These are 2 separate hobbies. Similar, but separate.

I don't tell myself I need my 6.7's or my Evade to win my next crit. I just like them. So I buy them.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but feel like you're painting with a very wide brush. Sure, there are "those guys" in every area that their fitness is 110% their hurdle to cycling glory that think their biggest issue is their 17lbs bike. We know it's not. But you didn't choose your EVO because it was the first bike you saw. But it also doesn't have much to do with your race results either. You like it. You put cool shit on it. Then you race it. 2 different hobbies. No?

[uraqt]

Anybody going to ride a real aero bike all day anymore? (garmin road the S5 on the flat TDF days when it 1st came out) I think, a few people have said to finish the TDF, it's about recovery and not getting beat up on the bike, the S3 delivers enough of the aero, great ride and weight.

I think the point that cervelo made with R5ca/R5/s3 is that they can build an aero enough/superlight/great ride bike and a aero/light enough/great ride bike. You get to pick your priority. You can have your cake and eat it too..

It's not, the right horse for the right course anymore, the all round bikes can really do it all well enough.

You have to remember that the S5 is an old bike, and that the R5ca/R5/S3 are all a generation ahead of all the other large manufactures.

I would guess that the S5 replacement is going to move the bar again with P5 aero and S3 comfort. However I wound bet we don't see it this year.. and after reading more about the S3... it sounds like they might not need to keep making the S5. It's a close call, it sounds like they could make an S3 VWD and move the aero weight bar another step.

[djconnel]

I couldn't find in the article that Velolab used standard wheels. But I hope that's what they did!

Looking back at the Parlee data I posted, the difference between the Madone and the Giant is about the same as the difference between the Madone and the Cervelo S5 was there: it's not a specialized aero bike. It's more of a semi-aero. The Parlee Z5, on the other hand, in that test was a far greater wind-bucket (to my dismay -- I like that bike). The Emonda, I expect, would be much more like the Z5. Indeed I'd expect it to be worse. The Emonda has about the biggest down tube I've seen. It looks very much like the Trek-built Gary Fishers the last year those were sold.

This is why I said the Tarmacs do "surprisingly" well. If you look at the bike, it doesn't scream "aero" at you. It's like the Cervelo R5: designed with aero considerations but also to ride well. This is why I'm shocked the pros are using the Emonda. But maybe the ride quality on the Madone isn't as good as they'd been claiming.

I'd love to see a one-inch steel frame undergo the same tests, like my Ritchey Breakaway which gets the vast majority of my miles these days.

[Kayrehn]

I'm guessing the pros are using the Emonda to flood the Internet with pictures of Trek's newest bike though. It may be the newest bike for the brand, but I'm not sure it does better than the madone, seeing that it doesn't have aero credentials and only the slr10 is significantly lighter than the madone 7. Aero advantage might be marginal, but it's as good a yardstick to measure a bike by.