# Madone sslx



## Greenday4561 (Aug 13, 2005)

When is the Trek Madone sslx going to be available


----------



## iriedub (Dec 30, 2004)

*Madone SSLX*

I was told it would be available sometime around January.


----------



## kevlar1973 (Sep 22, 2005)

uh, who cares buy a better bike like a Look, Argon18 or Willier.


----------



## Cyclenaut (Oct 23, 2005)

You must be high if you think a Look is better than a Trek, kevlar. Have a gander at a cross section of the frames, and it's easy to see that the frame construction of a Look is pretty damn shonky.

I'm guessing you aren't all that familiar with how carbon bikes are made.

Anyhoo...Greenday, do you want to wait for an SSLx? There's no weight difference between that an the SSL, fyi. The SSLx has the Boron insert, which allows the bike to maintain the stiffness while using the 55gsm carbon.


----------



## kevlar1973 (Sep 22, 2005)

Hey Cyclenaut nice pre-judgemant about someone you don't even know. As a matter of fact I HAVE seen the cross section of a Trek and a Look frame and if you think the Trek is better...... I guess your icon says it all though. No matter what I or anyone else says in your mind the dead as a log ride of a Trek is the best there ever will be. By the way I have also seen a cross section of 6 or 7 other carbon frames and while the Trek wasn't the worst it certainly was not the best and Look has been making carbon frames a lot longer then Trek. You might also be surprised at how much I DO know about carbon frame construction.


----------



## Cyclenaut (Oct 23, 2005)

My icon says that I'm a fan of Bontrager bikes. And aren't you assuming something about someone you don't know when you suggest that I feel Trek's are the be all and end all?

I've also seen cross sections of several other frames, and Look was one of the WORST of that lot, which was disappointing to me because I've always valued their frames. 

Who do you think has the best process?


----------



## kevlar1973 (Sep 22, 2005)

The problem with the question of who has the best process is that it's not as much the process as it is how the carbon is utilized. I think that for lugged frames the BMC makes an amazing couple of lugged frames I am also a big fan of Argon18's bikes both for lugged and monocoque. The other issue is that between two factories in Asia you get close to half the carbon frames on the market adn this is where fiber layer and orientation come into play in a huge way. Bang for the buck I think the Argon's are the best frames on the market. Chris Boardman considers the Argon18 Platinum to be one of the three best frames he has ever ridden, grantged that he may look for different things from a frame then you and I but that is a huge statement for a frame that sells for $2199 with fork.


----------



## elistan (Oct 12, 2005)

since when does filling your frame with foam like look does make a better cross section?

If you think foam in a frame is good, you have no idea what your talking about.


----------



## kevlar1973 (Sep 22, 2005)

Since when does Look fill their frame with foam? Maybe you have mistaken Look with Kestrel because Kestrel fills their frames with foam.


----------



## elistan (Oct 12, 2005)

apparently you have never seen a completely cut in half look frame. Not trying to be an ass or anything. It is full of foam at the head tube, bottom bracket, and steat post area, into the seat stays.

It is FULL of foam. Has been for awhile too.

.


----------



## soulsurfer104 (Jun 30, 2003)

doesn't Specialized make monococque (sp?) carbon frames? as in, it's all one piece of carbon? that would seem, to me, to be the strongest and stiffest, as well as lightest, method of carbon frame construction. 

feel free to correct me.


----------



## kevlar1973 (Sep 22, 2005)

Elistan, the older frames may have been filled with foam but the new ones are not. I have been to the factory. As for mono vs lugged both are good it comes down to what you are looking for in a frame. If super stiff is the answer then mono. If you want something with a little more comfort then lugged.


----------



## Koop (Oct 23, 2005)

*Filled?*



kevlar1973 said:


> Elistan, the older frames may have been filled with foam but the new ones are not. I have been to the factory. As for mono vs lugged both are good it comes down to what you are looking for in a frame. If super stiff is the answer then mono. If you want something with a little more comfort then lugged.


I won't pretend like I know how they are manufacturing their frames, but from my experience I doubt if they are filling the frame with foam. More likely, they carbon fiber material is laid up over a foam core and vacuum bagged. Again, I might be wrong about what they're doing but I have fabricated carbon fiber parts with this method in the past. It seems a little archaic to be manufacturing bike frames this way.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 4, 2005)

Greenday4561 said:


> When is the Trek Madone sslx going to be available


I live in england just picked up my sslx very nice too


----------



## floresb (Aug 29, 2005)

*SSLX is available now*



Greenday4561 said:


> When is the Trek Madone sslx going to be available


My LBS in Cary, NC received their first one two weeks ago. Incredible machine. $10k is a little beyond my price point and skill level. I don't think I would be ever able to sell my wife as to why and how come I deserve a bike like that.


----------



## Greenday4561 (Aug 13, 2005)

Post some pictures of it please.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

kevlar- you say look makes better carbon because they've been doing it for longer, yet you admit that for a long time they stuffed those frames with foam..... it says a lot more when a company has been making awesome carbon frames for a short time than when a company has been making useless carbon frames right from the start. experience isn't everything.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*I smell a religous bigot.....*

I am deeply unbiased here - I like both Look and Trek..... 

IMHO I sincerely doubt a pro-team such as USPS/Discovery would have used inferior carbon frames for last 5 seasons (excluding the litespeed Lanced used in 1999, I think). Same goes for Look equipped teams to be fair!

What I am trying to say is that when referring to high end equipment from any maker of bicycle frames who supply the pro-teams nowadays I think they are all between very good and great now..... Look, Trek, etc. Some charge more premium for the badge though! Such as Colnago, Time, Pinarello and to some extent Look! 

Being a 2005 Madone 5.9 owner myself who wanted to buy Look 555(just to be different!) I found out that a built-up Look costs quite a bit more (badge) than Madone 5.9 if you include regular discounting that goes on in the industry all the time.

And if you think Look frames are so superior then why does Look only offer 5 year warranty on their frames which is below Trek and Specialized warranty? 

Good riding everyone!


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 4, 2005)

Greenday4561 said:


> When is the Trek Madone sslx going to be available


Here is my picture done on my phone


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

*just wondering why*

you would pay 3k more for the sslx than the ssl , when all the part spec is the same
except for some boron in the bb lug? is boron in the bb lug really worth 3k?


----------



## johngfoster (Jan 14, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Here is my picture done on my phone


Great looking bike, Peel. Wish I had one, but no way I could justify that kind of money for a bike right now. Enjoy it, and make it do some work! (ride it)


----------



## kevlar1973 (Sep 22, 2005)

Back in the day everyone used foam in their frames because they didn't know of a better way to do things yet. Now that they do they don't use foam anymore. As far as the who Lance Trek factor goes, Lance has definitely stepped up the quality of their product becuase their first few carbon frames where dead wood. Having said that they still don't really have the same snap as some other guys (Look, Argon18, Willier etc). So again I don't think that the SSLX is worth the kind of money that Trek is looking for for it.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 4, 2005)

johngfoster said:


> Great looking bike, Peel. Wish I had one, but no way I could justify that kind of money for a bike right now. Enjoy it, and make it do some work! (ride it)


Thanks for the postive reply i having do my road miles on a cheap mtb i did have a 5.9sl 
but sold it to buy sslx.Have only road it once training on my local climb it is so good you have ride it to belive it.You have to go out with good friends to have a good day on the bike 
its not about the bike.


----------



## jsherman02 (Oct 16, 2005)

My LBS has had two of these allready. Around $10,000 each. The owner told me the same guy bought both of them.


----------



## cmatcan (Oct 6, 2005)

as an employee of a trek dealer, not some random know-it-all, i would really encourage you to look at the ssl before the sslx. as someone has already keyes into, the sslx charges A LOT more for very minor, hard-to-notice improvements. if you have way too much cash to burn, and want the most exclusive trek, go for the sslx. but if you just want the performance and value having a couple grand left over (just think, that's a madone 5.2 sl in price difference, why not spend the same amount and get 2 bikes?? have a single-speed?? mtb?)


----------



## HazemBata (May 20, 2004)

Hi,

I have a question for cmatcan and peel5: how do you guys like the xxx wheels? I am looking to get high end carbon tubular wheels and am interested in the xxx because bontrager claims they are durable anough for everyday use and its products are usually durable. Any other wheels to compare it to? Also, do the aero advantages of deeper rims make that much of a difference?

Thanks.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Koop said:


> I won't pretend like I know how they are manufacturing their frames, but from my experience I doubt if they are filling the frame with foam. More likely, they carbon fiber material is laid up over a foam core and vacuum bagged. Again, I might be wrong about what they're doing but I have fabricated carbon fiber parts with this method in the past. It seems a little archaic to be manufacturing bike frames this way.


Currently Scotts system of carbon welding is one of the lightest and stiffest on the market. It also allows Scott to more easily adjust frames, as half million dollar molds are not required for each frame, simply mitre the joints and away you go. Not to start a debate but check out a CR1 cross section one time, pretty impressive. 

K


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 4, 2005)

HazemBata said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a question for cmatcan and peel5: how do you guys like the xxx wheels? I am looking to get high end carbon tubular wheels and am interested in the xxx because bontrager claims they are durable anough for everyday use and its products are usually durable. Any other wheels to compare it to? Also, do the aero advantages of deeper rims make that much of a difference?
> 
> Thanks.


The xxx wheels are real good there are durable and faster and lighter than mavics.Aero wheels are for long flats rides and not very good if it is windy where you are.Depends on what type of riding you do if you do a lot of climbs you will not get so much of a advantage i hope that helps.


----------



## trumpetman (Dec 9, 2001)

*XXX Lite*

I have a 2005 P1 Madone 5.9 with XXX-Lite tubular wheels and I think they are great wheels - and I have a lot of wheels. For fast, flat courses I use a set of X-Lite Carbons but the XXX lites are much lighter, and brake better. The picture is the bike taken with flash so it is not optimal. Great bike. While I understand the snobbery toward Treks I must say I think the Madone is truly a great bike.

John


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

*Phhhhhttttt!*

Nyah na nyah na nyah na.

Phhhhhttttt.

My bike is cooler than yours.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

BTW, there is nothing wrong with foam core carbon structures, just another way of molding carbon. It is most commonly used in aircraft. The foam is not like what you would see coolers made of. Bianchi has used foam cores in their Aluminum frames to reinforce their bottom brackets. It provided wall support from inside.


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

If you really want the best carbon frame made -- get yourself a Specialized Tarmac SL. The save the $2k over the Trek thingy and get a pair of carbon tubbies. By the numbers, this is the stiffest, both BB and laterally, of any bike made. the ride is also pretty damned good.

BTW, it's the only true monocoque road bike made -- not a front mono with stays attached, a true one piece. Thus Specialized name of Az1 -- "as one".


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

critchie said:


> BTW, it's the only true monocoque road bike made -- not a front mono with stays attached, a true one piece. Thus Specialized name of Az1 -- "as one".


BBIIZZZZZTTTTTT, wrong. It uses carbon welding, they stole the way they bond the tubes together from scott. The Cr-1, orbea opal, a wiler, and others use the same technology....


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

FTF said:


> BBIIZZZZZTTTTTT, wrong. It uses carbon welding, they stole the way they bond the tubes together from scott. The Cr-1, orbea opal, a wiler, and others use the same technology....


NO, you are wrong. It does not use carbon welding.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

critchie said:


> NO, you are wrong. It does not use carbon welding.


How much do you want to bet?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

If all of those brands use "carbon welding" (how many ways can we say "bonding") then they probably didn't steal it. It is probably a technology that belongs to the 3rd party vendor that makes all of those bikes for them.
Besides, wasn't this thread about the SSLx?


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

davidka said:


> If all of those brands use "carbon welding" (how many ways can we say "bonding") then they probably didn't steal it. It is probably a technology that belongs to the 3rd party vendor that makes all of those bikes for them.
> Besides, wasn't this thread about the SSLx?


No, the Chinese factory leaked the info... Which is why Scott moved their production back to Tiwan factories.


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

FTF said:


> How much do you want to bet?


Every last $ you have!


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

davidka said:


> If all of those brands use "carbon welding" (how many ways can we say "bonding") then they probably didn't steal it. It is probably a technology that belongs to the 3rd party vendor that makes all of those bikes for them.
> Besides, wasn't this thread about the SSLx?


It is, but invariably that should bring you back to why one would spend so much more on an inferior bike that rides so poorly.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I feel that the SSLX is a nostalgia machine. Trek seels it to those who want the exclusivity of owning a bike that Lance and few others have ridden. Would I pay $10,000? No. But I would ride a 5.9SL all year and be very happy about it. Some would call the ride "dead". I call it stiff. It does a nice job of eading road roughness (hard to beleive when you get on it at first). When a bike feels lively you are feeling flex, nothing more. If it feels like it has rebound, energy return, personality... Yep, all those things are the result of flex (not bashing flex here, I ride a Ti bike). Does it ride poorly? I don't think so, I think it rides exactly the way the racers on the Discovery team asked Trek to make them ride. Stiff.


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

davidka said:


> I feel that the SSLX is a nostalgia machine. Trek seels it to those who want the exclusivity of owning a bike that Lance and few others have ridden. Would I pay $10,000? No. But I would ride a 5.9SL all year and be very happy about it. Some would call the ride "dead". I call it stiff. It does a nice job of eading road roughness (hard to beleive when you get on it at first). When a bike feels lively you are feeling flex, nothing more. If it feels like it has rebound, energy return, personality... Yep, all those things are the result of flex (not bashing flex here, I ride a Ti bike). Does it ride poorly? I don't think so, I think it rides exactly the way the racers on the Discovery team asked Trek to make them ride. Stiff.


There is the crux of the issue. It is stiff when compared to steel or Ti, but it is not particularly stiff in the BB and torsionally when compared to some other carbon bikes. For example, a Scott CR1, Specialized S-works Tarmac, Tarmac SL, Roubaix (Pro or S-works), Ridley Damocles, Issac Sonic & Impulse, Storck C1.1 & CD1.0, Simplon Pride, Kuota Kredo, etc. Dead, who cares, that steel speak for "my bike's a noodle, but I'm too old school to admit it". It does ride "stiff" and the technology is there that carbon can be both. Trek has not embraced that technology (monocoque) and their bikes ride accordingly.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The 5.9 SL is very stiff in the BB, by any standard. The SSLX was altered from the SSL to make it as stiff as the SL (the SSL was a touch softer in the bb than the regular SL 9 out of 10 people would not tell the difference). In the region I was racing in the biggest guys always picked the Treks for their BB stiffness. Where are people getting the idea that they are soft?
The most remarkable aspect of the Madone is the front triangle stiffness. I have never ridden a bike that had a more solid tracking front end.


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

davidka said:


> The 5.9 SL is very stiff in the BB, by any standard. The SSLX was altered from the SSL to make it as stiff as the SL (the SSL was a touch softer in the bb than the regular SL 9 out of 10 people would not tell the difference). In the region I was racing in the biggest guys always picked the Treks for their BB stiffness. Where are people getting the idea that they are soft?
> The most remarkable aspect of the Madone is the front triangle stiffness. I have never ridden a bike that had a more solid tracking front end.


The 5.9 is not stiff in the BB by comparison to many other carbon (even some Al - Storck Team - 108) bikes.

Where are they getting the idea that Treks are soft? Well, EFBE (these guys are the industry std.) did some testing for Tour Magazine (a German bike rag). BB stiffness of the 5.9 was 88, a CAAD7 was 93, Storck C1.1 - 105, Storck CD1.0 - 109, Specialized Roubaix Pro - 110. Are you getting the idea? The Roubaix Pro is 25% stiffer, the S-works Roubaix is 15% stiffer still and the new S-works Tarmac SL even stiffer -- I heard somewhere near the 140 mark, but that is Specialized's number. If 140 is in the ballpark, the Tarmac SL is 59% stiffer in the BB than a 5.9. That means the Trek is soft -- in comparison.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Do you think those numbers would be the same wherever you had them tested? I recall reading some Cannondale propaganda that claimed their bike was stiffer than everyone else's (Trek, Colnago, Litespeed, Specialized). The tests were conducted by Cannondal and the numbers from softest to stiffest were about 5% apart. That was Cannondale's result. 59% stiffer from one to another? 

I call BS. 

Go ride them and try to FEEL a difference. You will feel the stiffness of the wheels, tires, handlebar, stem and steerer tube before you feel the stiffness in the bottom bracket.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*these are numbers only*



critchie said:


> The 5.9 is not stiff in the BB by comparison to many other carbon (even some Al - Storck Team - 108) bikes.
> 
> Where are they getting the idea that Treks are soft? Well, EFBE (these guys are the industry std.) did some testing for Tour Magazine (a German bike rag). BB stiffness of the 5.9 was 88, a CAAD7 was 93, Storck C1.1 - 105, Storck CD1.0 - 109, Specialized Roubaix Pro - 110. Are you getting the idea? The Roubaix Pro is 25% stiffer, the S-works Roubaix is 15% stiffer still and the new S-works Tarmac SL even stiffer -- I heard somewhere near the 140 mark, but that is Specialized's number. If 140 is in the ballpark, the Tarmac SL is 59% stiffer in the BB than a 5.9. That means the Trek is soft -- in comparison.


Well, I had a Roubaix Pro 2005 and loved it. Then it was stolen. 8^( 
I now have 2005 Madone 5.9 and it does not feel any softer and rides just as well as Roubaix did. The point I am trying to make here is that those numbers may be right but 99% of riders will not be able to tell any difference and when they can tell the difference there is nothing they do to exploit the extra stiffness. Else Specialized equipped pro teams would have been winning far more races than thay have of late 8^).


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

davidka said:


> Do you think those numbers would be the same wherever you had them tested? I recall reading some Cannondale propaganda that claimed their bike was stiffer than everyone else's (Trek, Colnago, Litespeed, Specialized). The tests were conducted by Cannondal and the numbers from softest to stiffest were about 5% apart. That was Cannondale's result. 59% stiffer from one to another?
> 
> I call BS.
> 
> Go ride them and try to FEEL a difference. You will feel the stiffness of the wheels, tires, handlebar, stem and steerer tube before you feel the stiffness in the bottom bracket.


First, I think many riders, especially heavier or stronger riders, can feel the difference. However, that has nothing to do with the numbers. You ask why so many people have gotten the notion that Treks are soft. I proceeded to give you empirical data from an independent third party that tests bikes for the whole industry - but you want to call BS because you don't like the numbers. Too bad.

Cannondale gave numbers and the difference was a meager 5%. That's about right. I gave the independent data having 5.9 - 88, CAAD7 - 93. That difference is 5.68%, if you want to be technical -- so, C-dale gave the correct numbers, they just tried to hide the real difference. Specialized doesn't even use the numbers as a marketing tool -- probably because, like yourself, people will try to pooh pooh the results even though they are from an independent third party who is (or has been) used by many in the industry.

I also indicated, to be fair, that the number of 140 for the Tarmac SL was a number heard from Specialized, but they have been honest with their previous data, so there is good reason to believe this. But even if you don't, the independent third party says the Roubaix Pro is 25% stiffer. Therefore, Treks can be perceived, quite logically, to be soft.

Lastly, I have ridden CAADs from C-dale, Roubaix and Tarmacs (including the SL) from SBC, and the Treks. There is a difference. Now, if you prefer the Trek and want to ride it, it's America, feel free.

To the guy who replied after about winning -- I guess what that really means is that LA would have won by more if he weren't handicapped by inferior climbing equipment.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I don't like or dislike any of the numbers, I really don't care about the numbers. (you can't feel those either) I guess you will choose to ride/feel what you want. I hope whatever you ride makes you happy. The most repeated phrase I have heard about the Trek carbon is: "It's the best bike I have ever ridden". In my experience, heavier and stronger riders can feel the difference and many of them buy Madones.


----------



## stihl (Oct 27, 2005)

critchie said:


> First, I think many riders, especially heavier or stronger riders, can feel the difference. However, that has nothing to do with the numbers. You ask why so many people have gotten the notion that Treks are soft. I proceeded to give you empirical data from an independent third party that tests bikes for the whole industry - but you want to call BS because you don't like the numbers. Too bad.
> 
> Cannondale gave numbers and the difference was a meager 5%. That's about right. I gave the independent data having 5.9 - 88, CAAD7 - 93. That difference is 5.68%, if you want to be technical -- so, C-dale gave the correct numbers, they just tried to hide the real difference. Specialized doesn't even use the numbers as a marketing tool -- probably because, like yourself, people will try to pooh pooh the results even though they are from an independent third party who is (or has been) used by many in the industry.
> 
> ...



Are you certain that you have actually ridden a Madone frame? With the same wheels and setup as the other frames that you have "tested"? If not, you are making a fool out of yourself saying that the Madone is flexy. Maybe you're 300 pounds. I have ridden numerous AL frames including a CAAD7 frame and I could say that they are very stiff. But why in the hell don't all racers ride AL? Why in hell would top bike manufacturers make carbon frames? It is because carbon has the ability to be stiff but still forgiving in a way that it decreases the bone-jarring ride of an AL frame. Carbon has the ability to be stiff in one direction and forgiving in the opposite direction.
And also, you are wrong saying that the Tarmac is a monocoque frame.


----------



## funkenstein (Sep 25, 2005)

*mono vs lugs*



critchie said:


> If you really want the best carbon frame made -- get yourself a Specialized Tarmac SL. The save the $2k over the Trek thingy and get a pair of carbon tubbies. By the numbers, this is the stiffest, both BB and laterally, of any bike made. the ride is also pretty damned good.
> 
> BTW, it's the only true monocoque road bike made -- not a front mono with stays attached, a true one piece. Thus Specialized name of Az1 -- "as one".


I guarantee you the Specialized has way more carbon voids (air pockets) than the Trek does. Trek can get much better carbon compression using the lugged technique because the molds and bladders are much smaller (than monocoque). you can concentrate more air pressure into the smaller molds than you can with a large mold. If the Specialized is monocoque, the molds have to be MUCH larger (the size of the whole frame) and getting proper carbon compression into all those crazy nooks and crannies over that large of an area is really hard. They all look nice on the outside, but not all carbon frames look nice on the inside.


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

stihl said:


> Are you certain that you have actually ridden a Madone frame? With the same wheels and setup as the other frames that you have "tested"? If not, you are making a fool out of yourself saying that the Madone is flexy. Maybe you're 300 pounds. I have ridden numerous AL frames including a CAAD7 frame and I could say that they are very stiff. But why in the hell don't all racers ride AL? Why in hell would top bike manufacturers make carbon frames? It is because carbon has the ability to be stiff but still forgiving in a way that it decreases the bone-jarring ride of an AL frame. Carbon has the ability to be stiff in one direction and forgiving in the opposite direction.
> And also, you are wrong saying that the Tarmac is a monocoque frame.


Are you for real? This all started with someone asking why people (not just me) have the notion that Treks are soft/flexy. What I gave were empirical test data from a respected third party test firm that is used (or has been) by many of the worlds leading brands -- not just those we know in the US. These BB data are from the test of a frame only. The numbers I gave are the N/m (squared) that are required to deflect the BB 1".

I never said the 5.9 was flexy, I said it would be considered flexy in comparison to the other bikes for which I gave data. You can read anything into that that you care to, it does not change the fact that Treks are not particularly stiff (in comparison to) many other manufacturers products -- especially carbon models.

Now, how the hell did you get to the CAAD7 deal? I never said that it, or any other Al frame, was a better ride than carbon. I am all about carbon and would not choose to ride any other material.

As for your complete ignorance regarding whether or not the Tarmac (any Tarmac, not just SW Tarmacs) is a monocoque, I think you might be the one making a fool of himself.

Kid, as I teach my son, if you don't know what you're talking about don't say anything.


----------



## critchie (Apr 27, 2004)

davidka said:


> I don't like or dislike any of the numbers, I really don't care about the numbers. (you can't feel those either) I guess you will choose to ride/feel what you want. I hope whatever you ride makes you happy. The most repeated phrase I have heard about the Trek carbon is: "It's the best bike I have ever ridden". In my experience, heavier and stronger riders can feel the difference and many of them buy Madones.


Dude, but that is the point. This started with some asking about the notion that Treks are soft/flexy. The numbers are empirical test data that show the difference in the amount of force required to deflect the BB of various models.

I don't care that people have said that "it's the best bike they have ridden". It may well be, but what else have they ridden, are they then the determiner what is what or are they biased because they bought a Madone -- mostly because LA rides one (and there are sales data to back that fact as well.

BTW, I believe it was you who earlier questioned who could feel the difference. Now, after I stated that heavier and stronger riders can frequently tell, you are using this to defend a position that is indefensible. Mechanically tested data proves that a Madone is not as stiff in the BB as many other frames, especially carbon.

Lastly, let them ride what they want -- I don't care.


----------

