# 2006 Trek Madone Sl 5.2



## Greenday4561 (Aug 13, 2005)

Does anyone have a picture of the New 2006 trek madone sl 5.2. i have seen the ones from the internet but i was wondering if someone had a real one.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

mines gonna be here in 2 weeks. i'll take pics as soon as it comes. i won't tell you the prodeal price i got through the dealer i work atto avoid jealous fainting and rage.


----------



## Cyclenaut (Oct 23, 2005)

It looks like a nude carbon bike with red and white decals. Pretty sharp looking. There are pictures elsewhere on the forum.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

cyclenaut- wrong bike. that's the madone 5.2, we're talking about the SL 5.2.


----------



## windcheater (Sep 18, 2005)

*sl 5.2*



cmatcan said:


> cyclenaut- wrong bike. that's the madone 5.2, we're talking about the SL 5.2.


i will try to post some pics. i am very pleased with the bike. have the 06 5.2sl (sans shark fin) the paint is quite unusual, looks black.purple in low light, dark metallic gray / blue in full light. a few blemishes in the clearcoat but that apparetnly is common for trek. the bike rides wonderfully.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

nice!! mine's taking longer than expected, but it should be here ANY_DAY_NOW so I'm definitely excited. of course being in canada, i might not get many rides this winter, but we'll see. i've never actially seen the 5.2 sl in real life. ive seen the 5.5, the 5200, the ssl, the wsd, but not the paint job of the 5.2sl so i'd love to see some pics in different lights!


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

*You mean one of these....?*

Hi there:

You mean one of these?...Just got it a month ago....Great ride! Or is it an '05? (It didn't matter to me...it was exactly what I was looking for!)

EasyRider47

PS - It's a stable mate of my other Treks...


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

that is indeed an 06, in the discovery paint scheme. very cool!! how's it ride? How do you find the wheels?


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

the update for me is that my order was kind of a disaster. the LBS i work at sent off my pro deal order form, but the trek rep lost it in the shuffle, so while it looked like there just weren't enough in production yet, the reality was that my order never got past square 1. on the plus side, i re-ordered the 5.2 sl as a pro-deal staff order yesterday so itll be here soon enough (few weeks??) and coincidentally i got a sweet new camera for christmas, so lotsa pics will follow.


----------



## Mattman (Jan 28, 2005)

*Thats a 2006 5.2 not 5.2 SL*



EasyRider47 said:


> Hi there:
> 
> You mean one of these?...Just got it a month ago....Great ride! Or is it an '05? (It didn't matter to me...it was exactly what I was looking for!)
> 
> ...


I work in a shop and we have both and I've been studying them quite carefully as I will order one in the next couple weeks. I'm 99% sure that the one you have is the 5.2 with the carbon 120, aero tubeset and the cool team paint job. The 5.2 SL is made of carbon 110, a bit lighter but, does not have the aero tubeset or the cool team paint job. The 5.2 SL is the newer design by a year I believe and is supposed to be lighter and stiffer for only about $150 or 200 more. I'm frankly quite confused about which to get as I really prefer the looks of the bike you have but, would like the newer and more technologically advanced model. I'm a real big guy so I may contact Trek and ask their recommendation, it may help me decide. This is a pic of the 2006 5.2 SL in midnight duotone, the ones in the shop look just like it.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

You're correct, the one pictured is the 5.2, not the sl. I also work at a trek dealer- best workplace you can get if you ask me. I leaned towards the sl model because of the cosmetics, mostly. I prefer the clean cut and the paintjob. While there are more important considerations you need to make with a bike-frame geometry, components- I think that how a bike looks is super important. You are, afterall going to be riding this one bike a lot and looking at it should make you wanna go ride.
Truth is, the sl model isn't going to ride faster than the regular 5.2. You save some weight, but it's definitely not much. We're talkin grams, not pounds. A light wheelset would make a much bigger difference in climbing performance than the sl frame. As you know, Trek produces 3 variations of the OCLV carbon- 120, 110 and 55. The numbers refer to the weights of sheets of the given carbon material. Obviously, 120 and 110 aren't very gapped apart. My advice would be to really acknowledge what you want from the bike, what kind of riding you do, and really, which bike just appeals to you the most.


----------



## pspande (Jan 5, 2006)

*Thanks, what about the diff. btw 5.2 D and 5.2 T?*



cmatcan said:


> Truth is, the sl model isn't going to ride faster than the regular 5.2. You save some weight, but it's definitely not much. We're talkin grams, not pounds. A light wheelset would make a much bigger difference in climbing performance than the sl frame. .


The Trek website has offered no clarification.


----------



## kws_man (Aug 11, 2005)

*No Triple in 2006*

I checked with Trek, and they are not offereing a Triple in 2006.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

correct- no triple's. The 5.5 and the sl 5.9 both have compact drivetrain options, but no such luck for the 5.2. Remember though people, this thread is for the *5.2 SL*, not the 5.2.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

pspande said:


> The Trek website has offered no clarification.


It doesn't have to offer clarification for me to be sure of this. I work at a trek dealer and I get my information directly from trek reps.


----------

