# New Trek Emonda



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

So Trek just announced their latest bike line whose top end model comes in at 10.25lb:

Gallery: Trek's new 10.25-pound Emonda - VeloNews.com

I guess Trek is clearly betting the UCI weight limit will eventually be drastically reduced, but for now the UCI weight limit stands at ~15lb which gives a 4.75lb delta. What good does using a featherweight bike like this convey when all that weight just has to be added back on in the end anyways? How would the pros use this weight credit?


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

The $15K 10 pound version with super-esoteric Euro weight weenie gear is a headline-grabbing halo bike, the market for that kind of an offering is obviously pretty small (if high margin). 

To me, the more interesting question is the lower end offerings in this line. If you think of the Madone as Trek's equivalent of the Cervelo S5 and this new one as their equivalent of the R5, I'd say the Madone isn't sufficiently compelling. I think Trek needs to further differntiate the Madone and make it a more flashy and dedicated aero road bike. Most people aren't even aware that that's the intent of the Madone.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

The lightest Emonda doesn't have much in common w/ what the Factory team rides. I'd guess the frames aren't even the same. The team was riding Madones and Domanes that differ from standard production frames in various areas. The team bikes use Shimano, all the bikes have SRM power meters. They use Bontrager wheels. 

The SLR10 is made for the ultimate weight-weenie. It's a tour-de-force of technology available...to show what can be done. It's quite different from the bikes ridden at the pro-tour level.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

cooskull said:


> So Trek just announced their latest bike line whose top end model comes in at 10.25lb:
> 
> Gallery: Trek's new 10.25-pound Emonda - VeloNews.com
> 
> I guess Trek is clearly betting the UCI weight limit will eventually be drastically reduced, but for now the UCI weight limit stands at ~15lb which gives a 4.75lb delta. What good does using a featherweight bike like this convey when all that weight just has to be added back on in the end anyways? How would the pros use this weight credit?


IMO UCI regs have little to do with this, bottom line Trek has rolled out a very light frame that scales across the prices ranges (nice weight at the low end to sub UCI reg weight on the high end). Trek makes their money off of sales to consumers, not pros that have to meet UCI regs.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

Trek is on fire, spending gazillions to market and saturate the world with Trek bikes. They just took over a long established local bike shop in my town and moved it into a huge building, making it a Trek SuperStore. Now all they sell is Treks. I guess that's great if you're a Trek fan. I'm not one.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

Hiro11 said:


> The $15K 10 pound version with super-esoteric Euro weight weenie gear is a headline-grabbing halo bike, the market for that kind of an offering is obviously pretty small (if high margin).


The wheels and unified bar-stem admittedly are pretty esoteric, but the gruppo is standard SRAM Red-22 (except the brakes which appear to be Bontrager). Even with more mainstream stem/bars and wheels it seems the bike would still be in the 12lb'ish range which is still mind blowing to me.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

Read the headlines "World's Lightest Production Road Bike". That is the reason for this. As previously stated, a testament to what can be achieved. If you read the posted article (or the picture captions, I can't remember exactly where it is), you'll see that the Pros will ride a bike with a different seatmast. This will add significant weight per the article, plus they won't likely use the same wheelset, with crank-based powermeters, you start adding back the weight. 

Also previously stated, the mid-level Emonda is what will be most intriguing. You can still get a pretty light bike with good components for a much lower price tag (lower meaning compared to the $15K of the top of the line model). 

The place where I think Trek will miss the boat is not having the Project One option (at least not yet). The beauty of this program was you could mix and match to get what you really wanted (especially the paint color).


----------



## S2k552m (Apr 23, 2012)

Special Eyes said:


> Trek is on fire, spending gazillions to market and saturate the world with Trek bikes. They just took over a long established local bike shop in my town and moved it into a huge building, making it a Trek SuperStore. Now all they sell is Treks. I guess that's great if you're a Trek fan. I'm not one.


So what? What does this have to do with a 10lb bike? 
Always have to finder a hater to make a meaningless post.
At least as a cyclist try to respect the engineering ... 10lb bike is pretty darn sweet


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

S2k552m said:


> So what? What does this have to do with a 10lb bike?
> Always have to finder a hater to make a meaningless post.
> At least as a cyclist try to respect the engineering ... 1*0lb bike is pretty darn sweet*


At least when you have to go up a few flights of stairs CXing the bike.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Hiro11 said:


> The $15K 10 pound version with super-esoteric Euro weight weenie gear is a headline-grabbing halo bike, the market for that kind of an offering is obviously pretty small (if high margin).
> 
> To me, the more interesting question is the lower end offerings in this line. If you think of the Madone as Trek's equivalent of the Cervelo S5 and this new one as their equivalent of the R5, I'd say the Madone isn't sufficiently compelling. I think Trek needs to further differntiate the Madone and make it a more flashy and dedicated aero road bike.



I think there's more of a Specialized comparison than a Cervelo.

Madone/Venge. Domane/Roubaix. And now Emonda/Tarmac. 

And apparently the Madone is right up there in aeroness.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

S2k552m said:


> So what? What does this have to do with a 10lb bike?
> Always have to finder a hater to make a meaningless post.
> At least as a cyclist try to respect the engineering ... 10lb bike is pretty darn sweet



No, I'm not a hater. I've just been overwhelmed with Trek's presence lately. They actually make some very nice stuff. I just like more market choices being readily available. I did not comment on the 10 lb bike, but it is pretty awesome.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

Special Eyes said:


> I just like more market choices being readily available. I did not comment n the 10 lb bike, but it is pretty awesome.


Must be your area, but I have no lack for market choices in my immediate area, let alone within a hour of travel time, not to mention what I can find online.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

Same here, Mike. I am referring to the LBS experience.


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

For 2016, Trek will unveil the Nodame... or the Mednoa... or the
NOMADE
MONADE
DAMONE
NODAME
AMEDON
ADNOME
ENAMOD
ENODAM
DAMEON
MENODA
MEDAON
MEANOD
NEMODA
NOADEM

I'd love to hear the rationale for why all their new bikes have to be comprised of the same 6 letters.


----------



## dougrocky123 (Apr 12, 2006)

The top end Emonda is a rare and expensive bike. Down where I live in the 4&5 series bikes its nothing special, feature or weight wise. It looks like $5400 is the cut off for the SLR series and that is too rich for my blood.


----------



## kookieCANADA (Jan 20, 2011)

OldZaskar said:


> I'd love to hear the rationale for why all their new bikes have to be comprised of the same 6 letters.


Less chance of getting sued by Specialized


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

kookieCANADA said:


> Less chance of getting sued by Specialized


But Vic Damone is still alive. :lol:


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> But Vic Damone is still alive. :lol:


I was thinking Mike Damone: act like wherever you are, that's the place to be. 'Isn't this great?'


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Hiro11 said:


> I was thinking Mike Damone: act like wherever you are, that's the place to be. 'Isn't this great?'


I'm 61. Vic is the only Damone I know of.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

To further lighten the bike/rider combination prior to very hilly races, I hear they're coming out with the Trek Enema -- as soon as they can figure out a more clever spelling.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

"Accent aigu" over the E gives it the continental touch.


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

Soon, they'll be saying "Name DO!" 
(same 6 letters)

The English translation of the Romanian word "EMONDA" in the mark is "TO PRUNE".
(straight from their tm filing) 

I guess they're pruning weight.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

cooskull said:


> So Trek just announced their latest bike line whose top end model comes in at 10.25lb:
> 
> Gallery: Trek's new 10.25-pound Emonda - VeloNews.com
> 
> I guess Trek is clearly betting the UCI weight limit will eventually be drastically reduced, but for now the UCI weight limit stands at ~15lb which gives a 4.75lb delta. *What good does using a featherweight bike like this convey* when all that weight just has to be added back on in the end anyways? How would the pros use this weight credit?


Why does everyone assume that a bike will be ridden by pros/in UCI events? There really ARE people who just ride bikes for fun...


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

This bike is just like Felts IA TT bike. It does not meet UCI requirements but not everyone has to abide by those requirements. Its nice to see a big company pushing technology, it will trickle down at some point and force other companies to design something to compete against it and will also eventually push the UCI to update their outdated rules.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

jmorgan said:


> This bike is just like Felts IA TT bike. It does not meet UCI requirements but not everyone has to abide by those requirements. _*Its nice to see a big company pushing technology, it will trickle down at some point and force other companies to design something to compete against it*_ and will also eventually push the UCI to update their outdated rules.


You say that like it is necessarily a good thing.

For example how many different bottom bracket designs have come out since the final gen of square tapers...all promising to be the "new standard"...all making BS claims of being "__% stiffer"...but end up being less durable...more hassle...oh yea, and cost 5X as much as the old gear they replace for little or no conceivable benefit? 

How about cranksets? Remember when a top of the line Campy Record 9s or 10s crankset was $200 a decade ago?



Penis measuring "competitions" like this drives up profit margins but not much else for the little folk.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

cooskull said:


> all that weight just has to be added back on in the end anyways


Let's say I just bought one.
Explain to me why that weight has to be added.


----------



## TJay74 (Sep 9, 2012)

if you were to ride in a UCI race with minimum weight requirements you would have to add weight to not be DQ.

I looked at the line the other night, looks to be a nice product for sure. My wife really likes her Domane 4.3. I am happy with my 16lb Giant Propel Advanced.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Marc said:


> You say that like it is necessarily a good thing.
> 
> For example how many different bottom bracket designs have come out since the final gen of square tapers...all promising to be the "new standard"...all making BS claims of being "__% stiffer"...but end up being less durable...more hassle...oh yea, and cost 5X as much as the old gear they replace for little or no conceivable benefit?
> 
> ...


Ok negative Nancy. And if no one ever pushed technology we would all we riding around on steel lugged bikes (which don't get me wrong have their place, but I do like my carbon too). We would still pay more for nicer or handmade steel bikes. There wouldn't be as many and the price would be higher because of demand for quality bikes. Innovation is not a bad thing and people will pay for the latest and greatest and some people will just stick to whatever is cheap or what they like. Options are a good thing and this is just another option and hopefully will lead to even more options in the future. 

Trickle down technology can be seen in Cervelo bikes. Old R5CA which used to be $10K is now in the the R5 for half the price and the old R5 is now the R3 again better bikes at lower costs. I do think the industry is a bit crazy with pricing but the demand is there and people have the money. If people didn't buy it they wouldn't produce it.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

TJay74 said:


> if you were to ride in a UCI race with minimum weight requirements you would have to add weight to not be DQ.


It was a rhetorical question. 
I am not going to be in any UCI races, ever, and neither are the people this bike is pitched to.
Like Platypius said, nattering on about the UCI weight limit is irrelevant.

The people who are complaining about this bike are people who would not buy it anyway.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Let's say I just bought one.
> Explain to me why that weight has to be added.


It doesn't unless you're doing a national championship. Then you must abide by UCI rules, and UCI rules have a minimum weight limit.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

runabike said:


> It doesn't unless you're doing a national championship. Then you must abide by UCI rules, and UCI rules have a minimum weight limit.


Read my post #29. I don't race! UCI rules have nothing to do with this bike, or the target market.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> Why does everyone assume that a bike will be ridden by pros/in UCI events? There really ARE people who just ride bikes for fun...


Apparently most readers here are unaware of that.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

jmorgan said:


> Ok negative Nancy. And if no one ever pushed technology we would all we riding around on steel lugged bikes (which don't get me wrong have their place, but I do like my carbon too). We would still pay more for nicer or handmade steel bikes. There wouldn't be as many and the price would be higher because of demand for quality bikes. Innovation is not a bad thing and people will pay for the latest and greatest and some people will just stick to whatever is cheap or what they like. _*Options are a good thing and this is just another option and hopefully will lead to even more options in the future. *_
> 
> Trickle down technology can be seen in Cervelo bikes. Old R5CA which used to be $10K is now in the the R5 for half the price and the old R5 is now the R3 again better bikes at lower costs. I do think the industry is a bit crazy with pricing but the demand is there and people have the money. If people didn't buy it they wouldn't produce it.



Options are a good thing...but some of these trends kill options. 

Try finding an alloy crank, or hell any crankset that costs less than $300USD when not on sale. Your best and only bet is fleabay or one of a handful of specialist retro shops like Velo Orange-almost none of the big names in the industry make them anymore. Try finding a bike frame/fork that fits tires bigger than a mere 25mm or the wider HED Belgium(+) wide-size rims like most of the normal riding population market wants or needs-they're getting hard to find. Which is pretty damn funny as you'd think the bike makers would want to market to as large a segment as possible by affording larger tire sizes for greater rider comfort-instead we have the exact opposite. Fella over in Wheels and Tires is fighting this now with his 2009 Felt Z35 racer. Try finding a roadie bike with fender and rack mounts-your only "option" are Surly specialist bikes (that I know of).


Weight weenie minimalist light weight racing bikes offer trickle down tech...to lightweight minimalist weight weenies, not necessarily anyone else.

These days every big name bike maker sells zoot lightweight carbon racing bikes and not much else...which is great, since most everyone riding a bike doesn't race....and really doesn't care that much about the weight of the bike (bragging aside) as much as themselves.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

runabike said:


> It doesn't unless you're doing a national championship. Then you must abide by UCI rules, and UCI rules have a minimum weight limit.


Not that it matters, but it's not just nationals. It's also NRC races and obviously any race that is sanctioned by the UCI. And races that select riders for nation team or international racing.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Read my post #29. I don't race! UCI rules have nothing to do with this bike, or the target market.


While the bike in it's uber featherweight form will never be ridden in an UCI santioned event, I have little doubt the frame (or some modified version of it) will be- the Velonews article alluded that the bike/frame would probably be seen in the upcoming TDF. Even if the target market is not pro riders, Trek will certainly want the PR hoopla by it having been seen in prominent events. Let's face it, many riders want the image thing of being able ride the same equipment and kit that the big boys ride. If you Mr. Joe Blow non-pro rider buy a $5k-$15K bike, you want bragging rights that it's a TDF/Giro caliber bike.

Also by pushing the weight limit, Trek adds more ammo to the notion that the UCI weight limit should be lowered. Some would say it's a solution in need of a problem (I think that's a bit harsh), but the bike companies need to focus their R&D efforts on something to make you want a newer model than want you have and also stand out from other companies. Weight is an obvious choice because in theory it isn't subjective.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

cooskull said:


> If you Mr. Joe Blow non-pro rider buy a $5k-$15K bike, you want bragging rights that it's a TDF/Giro caliber bike.


My bike would retail for around $8000. It would never be ridden in a race. Racing doesn't interest me, and I couldn't really give a crap less what the pros are riding.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

It's just one of those crazy things for people who love shopping.


----------



## RaptorTC (Jul 20, 2012)

Marc said:


> Options are a good thing...but some of these trends kill options.
> 
> Try finding an alloy crank, or hell any crankset that costs less than $300USD when not on sale. Your best and only bet is fleabay or one of a handful of specialist retro shops like Velo Orange-almost none of the big names in the industry make them anymore. .


Where are you shopping for cranksets? At Performance (not usually cheap at all) you can get Ultegra, 105, Rival, Apex, and FSA Gossamer cranksets for under $300. And a Sram Force 22 crankset is $320 before sales. I get the point that you're trying to make as stuff is expensive (I'm looking at you Di2/EPS derailleurs), but there's some hyperbole going on.


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

I can be missing something, but..

A sturdy carbon frame weights .. 1200g? A light carbon frame weighs... 800g, about a lb less, and builds a weight-weenie 13lb bike? 

Even if they take _another_ lb out of the frame (I'm uncertain they did do that), the other 2lb must come from the component spec... that they buy from other places, just like you already could have been doing? 

What's the achievement of distinction? It sounds like anyone could have produced a 10.5lb bike. Its merit as a talking point or advertisement vehicle is clear, but what are people going to say when they see the real weight of their bike, which is the same as any other bike they wanted?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

So all those other world's lightest bikes, formerly made by Cervello,Cannondale,Lightweight,etc are now obsolete?


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Trek_5200 said:


> So all those other world's lightest *production* bikes, formerly made by Cervello,Cannondale,Lightweight,etc are now obsolete?


Fixed and yes.


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

mpre53 said:


> "Accent aigu" over the E gives it the continental touch.


Absolutely! It looks very sophisticated, very specialized.










They should come out with a bi-directional model and call it the "Emondrilap".


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Trek_5200 said:


> So all those other world's lightest bikes, formerly made by Cervello,Cannondale,Lightweight,etc are now obsolete?


Only if you bought them w/ a compact crank...


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

The target market for the Trek Emonda are the few remaining rich fanboys still sunbathing on the Lance Armstrong Titanic.

$16k bike with mechanical Sram Red? LMAO. Money can buy you this bike but not common sense.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Read my post #29. I don't race! UCI rules have nothing to do with this bike, or the target market.


I don't care. 

My post isn't expressly for you.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> Not that it matters, but it's not just nationals. It's also NRC races and obviously any race that is sanctioned by the UCI. And races that select riders for nation team or international racing.



I figured most people in here, while perhaps being able to race Master's nats, weren't going to be rubbing shoulders in any NRCs or UCI races. But good call nonetheless.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

.je said:


> Even if they take another lb out of the frame (I'm uncertain they did do that), the other 2lb must come from the component spec... that they buy from other places, just like you already could have been doing?


You could, but the point that they're making is that this bike comes out of the box from the factory at 10.3 lbs. It's the lightest production bike you can buy. You don't have to go shopping around looking for all of these components. It's just there for you already. 

You can go out and source a bunch of stuff and build up a 7 or 8 lb bike if you wanted, but no bike companies are actually selling one.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> Only if you bought them w/ a compact crank...


Ahhh, beat me to it!!!


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

.je said:


> Absolutely! It looks very sophisticated, very *specialized*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wait, did SpecialEd trademark the accent aigu now, too?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

runabike said:


> I figured most people in here, while perhaps being able to race Master's nats, weren't going to be rubbing shoulders in any NRCs or UCI races. But good call nonetheless.


Don't be so sure. That guy from so-cal could be a contender once he gets his nutrition and cornering technique sorted!


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

runabike said:


> You could, but the point that they're making is that this bike comes out of the box from the factory at 10.3 lbs. It's the lightest production bike you can buy. You don't have to go shopping around looking for all of these components. It's just there for you already.
> 
> You can go out and source a bunch of stuff and build up a 7 or 8 lb bike if you wanted, but no bike companies are actually selling one.


True enough, but don't you think this is more marketing than innovative technology? I could only buy my RCA as a frame, specifically because there's no point with a frame like that with someone else spec'ing the components for you. At that price point I'd much rather chose my own components, than let someone do it for me. This whole thing just smacks of Pinarello level marketing voodoo as opposed to technological innovation.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

goodboyr said:


> True enough, but don't you think this is more marketing than innovative technology? I could only buy my RCA as a frame, specifically because there's no point with a frame like that with someone else spec'ing the components for you. At that price point I'd much rather chose my own components, than let someone do it for me. This whole thing just smacks of Pinarello level marketing voodoo as opposed to technological innovation.



i take it you're not interested? You do know the SLR comes in frame only to right? So you can customize it anyway you want. Or you can even wait for Trek do that for you when P1 becomes available.


----------



## TheSame (Jun 29, 2014)

Looks very cool. Every company needs a halo bike to bring excitement to the brand / customers in. 

As for UCI, who cares? not everyone races. This is for the weigh weenie. if you're racing, just go a bike that complies with the UCI's restrictive rules. lots of other bike companies sell bikes that won't comply with the UCI's weight limit.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

r1lee said:


> i take it you're not interested? You do know the SLR comes in frame only to right? So you can customize it anyway you want. Or you can even wait for Trek do that for you when P1 becomes available.


But if I bought it frame only, it would no longer be part of the "lightest road bike line in the world"..............


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

goodboyr said:


> True enough, but don't you think this is more marketing than innovative technology? I could only buy my RCA as a frame, *specifically because there's no point with a frame like that with someone else spec'ing the components for you. At that price point I'd much rather chose my own components, than let someone do it for me. *This whole thing just smacks of Pinarello level marketing voodoo as opposed to technological innovation.





goodboyr said:


> *But if I bought it frame only, it would no longer be part of the "lightest road bike line in the world"..............*


Are you serious, you just complained that you would want to spec it to your likings and then someone pointed out it is available in frameset only also (at a much cheaper price then your RCA). Now you are just talking out of your ass.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

.je said:


> What's the achievement of distinction? It sounds like anyone could have produced a 10.5lb bike. Its merit as a talking point or advertisement vehicle is clear, but what are people going to say when they see the real weight of their bike, which is the same as any other bike they wanted?


It's not as easy to build a 10.5lb bike as you seem to think. I think the distinction here is the cost of the complete 10.5lb bike and the ability to buy an SLR frame (for $4200) and build it to your spec if you desire to go the custom build route. Plus, Trek is listing the weight of the complete Emonda builds on their website for all to see. So you don't need to speculate about how much your bike is going to weigh.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

jmorgan said:


> Are you serious, you just complained that you would want to spec it to your likings and then someone pointed out it is available in frameset only also (at a much cheaper price then your RCA). Now you are just talking out of your ass.


You've missed my point. The sole marketing distinction is based on it being the lightest road bike line in the world. Which is artificial because the non trek components that are spec'd on it are what make it so light. So, then someone says "you can buy it frame only", at which point it no longer is the lightest in the world. I was just trying (obviously too subtlely) to show the irony of this. The only advantage it has is that its cheaper than the RCA (which is true for pretty well everything out there!). In fact the new Cannondale EVO Nano is lighter. I guess my bottom line is that there is really nothing special about this bike compared to what's already available in the marketplace.......other than the special marketing language that Trek has used!


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

goodboyr said:


> You've missed my point. The sole marketing distinction is based on it being the lightest road bike line in the world. Which is artificial because the non trek components that are spec'd on it are what make it so light. So, then someone says "you can buy it frame only", at which point it no longer is the lightest in the world. I was just trying (obviously too subtlely) to show the irony of this. The only advantage it has is that its cheaper than the RCA (which is true for pretty well everything out there!). In fact the new Cannondale EVO Nano is lighter. I guess my bottom line is that there is really nothing special about this bike compared to what's already available in the marketplace.......other than the special marketing language that Trek has used!


What bike has every single part from one company besides Shimano (they do have a frameset I believe)? 

They are saying they have the lightest production *bike* in the world which is true. You can buy it how it is and it will weigh 10.2lbs. No one else offers that. RCA is not offered as a complete bike. Yes you can build a lighter RCA but you can also build a lighter Emonda.

Cannondale EVO Nano is 11.4lbs with Dura-Ace 9000. Hey not Treks fault Cannondale didn't spec it with Red 22 and call it the lightest production bike. Cannondale (might) have the lightest production frame, Trek has the lightest production bike.

One of the things that makes it light is the integrated bar/stem made by Bontranger=Trek and also the brakes.

Trek "The lightest complete production bike available" which is true. Sure anyone can build a lighter bike with enough money and the right parts. They are offering it as a complete production bike though.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

goodboyr said:


> But if I bought it frame only, it would no longer be part of the "lightest road bike line in the world"..............


Wow glad you're able to understand the English language. 

Here's cannondale's marketing.
SuperSix EVO Black Inc. - ROAD - BIKES - 2014

"The lightest production frame" at under 700g. Is it really lighter cause it could be 699.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

r1lee said:


> Wow glad you're able to understand the English language.
> 
> Here's cannondale's marketing.
> SuperSix EVO Black Inc. - ROAD - BIKES - 2014
> ...


Someone posted online and said their nano was 695g (56cm) which could be more than the Emonda. Either way, Trek has the lightest production bike.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

TheSame said:


> Looks very cool. Every company needs a halo bike to bring excitement to the brand / customers in.
> 
> As for UCI, who cares? not everyone races. This is for the weigh weenie. if you're racing, just go a bike that complies with the UCI's restrictive rules. lots of other bike companies sell bikes that won't comply with the UCI's weight limit.


Agree not everyone races professionally. Trek is marketing very smart. They have a weightweenie bike, an aero bike and a comfort bike, something for everyone, "a comedy tonite!". However personally, I see myself highly unlikely to ever purchase another Trek as I don't like the direction the company is going in with their designs, but it's good business.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

If I bought it then nobody would take me seriously because it has a compact crank. But it would be heavier then they say because I would have to take a bathroom scale with me on rides so that I could periodically pull over and weigh the bike to make sure it has not been sneaking cookies during the night and plumped up on me.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

BikeLayne said:


> If I bought it then nobody would take me seriously because it has a compact crank. But it would be heavier then they say because I would have to take a bathroom scale with me on rides so that I could periodically pull over and weigh the bike to make sure it has not been sneaking cookies during the night and plumped up on me.


Just think about how much water weight it puts on at the beginning of a ride, should you fill up with two bottles. Did someone quote Ernesto earlier, saying everyone wants to climb on a light bike but nobody wants to descend on one.


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Ehh, at one point I had my scott addict sl down to about 11.3 lbs-- with pedals and with computer and speed/cadence sensor. Also w/ edge/enve 45 tubular wheels, not those shallow carbon rims. I have doubts about their claimed weight if they're using the sram 22 drivetrain. It's light, but w/out modification you generally don't get the superlight weights. I'm also interested to see what the weight is for their brakeset and handlebar/stem combo.

They're also using the cane creek aer headset-- great for saving weight, until it fails.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Charlie the Unicorn said:


> Ehh, at one point I had my scott addict sl down to about 11.3 lbs-- with pedals and with computer and speed/cadence sensor. Also w/ edge/enve 45 tubular wheels, not those shallow carbon rims. I have doubts about their claimed weight if they're using the sram 22 drivetrain. It's light, but w/out modification you generally don't get the superlight weights. I'm also interested to see what the weight is for their brakeset and handlebar/stem combo.
> 
> They're also using the cane creek aer headset-- great for saving weight, until it fails.



Handlebar stem combo is close to 220g (saw it somehwere) which is around 100g less than a regular setup. The wheels are light too Tune Skyline tubular rims, MIG45/MAG150 hubs. Fairwheels says the wheelset is 835g. Saddle is around 86g also.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

I look forward to seeing one of these guys riding one.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

velodog said:


> I look forward to seeing one of these guys riding one.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.


there is a weight limit on the emonda.. well the Tune's can only handle 90kg anyways


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Trek_5200 said:


> Just think about how much water weight it puts on at the beginning of a ride, should you fill up with two bottles. Did someone quote Ernesto earlier, saying everyone wants to climb on a light bike but nobody wants to descend on one.


 You would just have to ride with dehydrated water.


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

jmorgan said:


> Handlebar stem combo is close to 220g (saw it somehwere) which is around 100g less than a regular setup. The wheels are light too Tune Skyline tubular rims, MIG45/MAG150 hubs. Fairwheels says the wheelset is 835g. Saddle is around 86g also.


The stem combo isn't bad, but I think my current setup is about 258g (extralite 90mm stem w/ 3T Ergonova LTD). Wonder if they have options to match different riders to their proper reach. I think my extralite saddle is about 79g, the wheelset makes sense, but I'm not following their groupset. It'll be interesting to see if their claimed weight is accurate or if it turns into one of those "selle italia weights" where you add 20-30% on.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Charlie the Unicorn said:


> The stem combo isn't bad, but I think my current setup is about 258g (extralite 90mm stem w/ 3T Ergonova LTD). Wonder if they have options to match different riders to their proper reach. I think my extralite saddle is about 79g, the wheelset makes sense, but I'm not following their groupset. It'll be interesting to see if their claimed weight is accurate or if it turns into one of those "selle italia weights" where you add 20-30% on.


Trek Emonda - a 10lb road bike - BikeRadar

Video weighed the bike at 10.4lbs


----------



## Soaring Vulture (Jun 25, 2013)

I ain't allowed to give you more reputation but I would if I could. The Illinois Enema Bandit is still on the loose.


----------



## Soaring Vulture (Jun 25, 2013)

PlatyPius said:


> Why does everyone assume that a bike will be ridden by pros/in UCI events? There really ARE people who just ride bikes for fun...


Well, they're just *wrong*.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Special Eyes said:


> Trek is on fire, spending gazillions to market and saturate the world with Trek bikes. They just took over a long established local bike shop in my town and moved it into a huge building, making it a Trek SuperStore. Now all they sell is Treks. I guess that's great if you're a Trek fan. I'm not one.


Does Trek make good bikes?


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

jmorgan said:


> Trek Emonda - a 10lb road bike - BikeRadar
> 
> Video weighed the bike at 10.4lbs


Watched the video- didn't see the bike on a scale and the other thing they tried to dismiss is the lack of ability in adjusting the bar/stem combo. 

Running some numbers it's possible, but I'd still like to see it on a scale ( or have weight weenies verify it ).


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

So, why exactly is a 10.4 lb bike desirable? Is it just the novelty of having a super light bike? That seems to be the only selling point. I don't see anything else about this bike that seems even remotely interesting.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

PaxRomana said:


> So, why exactly is a 10.4 lb bike desirable? Is it just the novelty of having a super light bike? That seems to be the only selling point. I don't see anything else about this bike that seems even remotely interesting.


In the video the weight was the main selling point but the guy said it would be in the TDF. I suppose with a heavier build but He was a little vague about it. However people need or want a lot of different things out there and this bike will appeal to some. I like Columbus steel myself so I will not be stampeding to the Trek store.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

An extremely light bike with a very stiff bottom bracket is going to be a climber's dream. This is going to be an excellent choice for rides like La Marmotte.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

bradkay said:


> An extremely light bike with a very stiff bottom bracket is going to be a climber's dream. This is going to be an excellent choice for rides like La Marmotte.


 At least until some girl on a Surly Crosscheck says "on your left" and you squint at her with your sweat and sunscreen soaked Oakley glasses and wheeze out a "good morning" as she drops you like a rock.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

BikeLayne said:


> At least until some girl on a Surly Crosscheck says "on your left" and you squint at her with your sweat and sunscreen soaked Oakley glasses and wheeze out a "good morning" as she drops you like a rock.


This is what gets me. People buying weight weenie bikes with compact gears in the hopes of being the fastest climber on the hill in the hopes they don't have to train or take off those excess body pounds. The two best ays to improve times on a climb, are to train for it, and to not be overweight.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Trek_5200 said:


> This is what gets me. People buying weight weenie bikes with compact gears in the hopes of being the fastest climber on the hill in the hopes they don't have to train or take off those excess body pounds. The two best ays to improve times on a climb, are to train for it, and to not be overweight.


And some people have no hopes of being the fastest up the hill, they just want a nice bike and can afford. Should they have to get clearance from you to own a bike like that and not 'train' w/ some goal in mind? Can they go on a ride and not even think about improving their PR? Is that acceptable?


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Trek_5200 said:


> This is what gets me. People buying weight weenie bikes with compact gears in the hopes of being the fastest climber on the hill in the hopes they don't have to train or take off those excess body pounds. The two best ays to improve times on a climb, are to train for it, and to not be overweight.


Back to deciding for yourself what kind of bike people should have and how they should look riding it?
Has it even been a entire week since you pissed everyone off and they jumped on you like a bum on a bologna sandwich?


----------



## MikeWMass (Oct 15, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> And some people have no hopes of being the fastest up the hill, they just want a nice bike and can afford. Should they have to get clearance from you to own a bike like that and not 'train' w/ some goal in mind? Can they go on a ride and not even think about improving their PR? Is that acceptable?


I could not agree more. Nobody questions people spending big bucks on fast cars that never get driven at 10/10ths on a closed course, and I see lots of people who are not affluent by any standards riding Harleys that cost well into 5 figures, but buying a bike that costs less than a decent used car makes you a poseur. I don't have a $15K bike. I could if I wanted to. I will *never* be fast, no matter how much I "train". If I want to ride an expensive bike, or even buy it and let it sit in the garage and look at it, what is the problem?
The flip side is that I ride a bike that was pretty nice when I bought it. It is now almost 10 years old. Some of the people I see on group rides assume that I don't know what I'm doing because I don't have the latest greatest.
They are just bikes!


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

5200 has a c59 if my memory is good.. Are you deserving ? ... I'm not a great climber so I'll take any help I can get.. Light frame.. Compact cranks.. It all good. People always bring up this weight loss issue.. How the hell do you know that they are not doing that also.. ?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

You guys just aren't real cyclists.


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Trek_5200 said:


> This is what gets me. People buying weight weenie bikes with compact gears in the hopes of being the fastest climber on the hill in the hopes they don't have to train or take off those excess body pounds. The two best ays to improve times on a climb, are to train for it, and to not be overweight.



This is what gets me. What's to say the person isn't in top shape already? My current setup is just under 12 lbs. the other day I was out riding and I ended up with a couple of other riders for about 3-4 miles. We all took turns pulling but the one thing I really noticed was how they'd get out of the saddle every time we hit a rise while I'd just spin right over it. They were riding a Richard Sachs and an IF (both steel). Incidentally, we parted ways when they turned off to a flat road while I went straight to do a 3 mile climb.

PS- I love my compact crank!


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Richad Sachs makes great bikes.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Part of riding a road bike is the confidence that it won't break under you. I don't think I would have that confidence with a 10 lbs bike under me (and I am less than 150 lbs). Even if I had all the cash, I would never buy any bike that is absurdly light, because I would not be able to focus on anything but the damn thing cracking. 

Having said that, I have nothing against Trek or any other bike manufacturer.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

serious said:


> Part of riding a road bike is the confidence that it won't break under you. I don't think I would have that confidence with a 10 lbs bike under me (and I am less than 150 lbs). Even if I had all the cash, I would never buy any bike that is absurdly light, because I would not be able to focus on anything but the damn thing cracking.
> 
> Having said that, I have nothing against Trek or any other bike manufacturer.


"everbody wants to climb on a light bike, nobody want to descend on one" - Ernesto Colnago


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

O.k., so for those of us who are a little less sophisticated about the nuances of frame design, besides light weight and a stiff BB shell, what makes this frame worth any more attention than the rest of Trek's line-up? While I'm not a fan of Trek bikes, I'll admit they have good bikes, what makes this one better?


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Thats my point. There's nothing technically unique about this frame. The only claim to fame is that you can buy it with tune components directly from trek as a package deal. Whoopee. And I wonder what happens if there's a warranty issue on a tune component. Will trek handle it or pass you over to tune?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

junior1210 said:


> O.k., so for those of us who are a little less sophisticated about the nuances of frame design, besides light weight and a stiff BB shell, what makes this frame worth any more attention than the rest of Trek's line-up? While I'm not a fan of Trek bikes, I'll admit they have good bikes, what makes this one better?


It's not really the _frame_, it's the _complete bike...out of the box_. Trek isn't making a huge deal about the frame. It's 100g lighter than the lightest Madone. That's big, but it's not the point. It's been mentioned here again and again. 

Trek's aim was to put together the lightest production bike in the world. You can go to your local dealer and order a bike that will come out of the box at less than 10.5lbs. You (the customer) don't have to shop around for hard-to-find parts. You buy a bike and it's all there. Light wheels, light bar/stem, light saddle, light parts...built on a light frame. 

It's all about the BIKE...not just the frame. How hard is this to understand?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

goodboyr said:


> Thats my point. There's nothing technically unique about this frame. The only claim to fame is that you can buy it with tune components directly from trek as a package deal. Whoopee. And I wonder what happens if there's a warranty issue on a tune component. Will trek handle it or pass you over to tune?


Who cares as long as it's handled? Who handles SRAM issues on Trek bikes? SRAM. Is it a problem? No.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

spdntrxi said:


> 5200 has a c59 if my memory is good.. Are you deserving ? ... I'm not a great climber so I'll take any help I can get.. Light frame.. Compact cranks.. It all good. People always bring up this weight loss issue.. How the hell do you know that they are not doing that also.. ?


Correct. but I'm still using the 5200 in the winter. The difference in bikes is between two pounds and three pounds I believe. Most of the improvement I've gotten is attributable to a better fit/geometry and my riding more and incorporating more climbs in my routine. And no, I'm not deserving, the bike is clearly capable of doing more than I can take advantage of, but that's true with just about everyone.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

goodboyr said:


> And I wonder what happens if there's a warranty issue on a tune component. Will trek handle it or pass you over to tune?


 if I were to buy a bike like that, I'm real certain my Trek Dealer would handle the issue with who ever they needed to. They have been great to work with in the past on any issue with much lesser bikes and components, don't see that changing with one of these.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> It's not really the _frame_, it's the _complete bike...out of the box_. Trek isn't making a huge deal about the frame. It's 100g lighter than the lightest Madone. That's big, but it's not the point. It's been mentioned here again and again.
> 
> Trek's aim was to put together the lightest production bike in the world. You can go to your local dealer and order a bike that will come out of the box at less than 10.5lbs. You (the customer) don't have to shop around for hard-to-find parts. You buy a bike and it's all there. Light wheels, light bar/stem, light saddle, light parts...built on a light frame.
> 
> It's all about the BIKE...not just the frame. How hard is this to understand?


Might be the way I think about bikes that colors my question. I view bikes a little like houses, in that the frame is the foundation and all the parts are influenced by the initial choice. You can slap wood siding and a tile roof on any old shack, but the foundation determines how big, long, tall a structure you get. I might be wrong but I see bikes the same way. You can slap a set of Enve wheels and a Brooks saddle on just about any bike, but depending on whether that frame is a cruiser or a carbon aero frame makes the determination on how your effort will result on your ride.

So if 100g difference between this frame and the Madone's, why buy this bike and not the Madone? Are these parts worth the cost vs the lightest Madone build?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Great point. Bikes Direct makes sells a lot of bikes on the theory that all they are buying is SRAM or Shimano and to compare bikes that way and ignore the frame. A lot of the ride quality comes from frame geometry, tube size, etc.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

My next bike is going to be a Flying Pigeon.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

junior1210 said:


> So if 100g difference between this frame and the Madone's, why buy this bike and not the Madone? Are these parts worth the cost vs the lightest Madone build?


Maybe you don't like hwere the madone rear brakes are placed. 

Are they worth the cost? Totally subjective


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

goodboyr said:


> Thats my point. There's nothing technically unique about this frame. The only claim to fame is that you can buy it with tune components directly from trek as a package deal. Whoopee. And I wonder what happens if there's a warranty issue on a tune component. Will trek handle it or pass you over to tune?


I hope they stocked up on extra tune parts. Tune parts tend to stand up well, but customer service can be hit or miss w/ them. I think they should have gone w/ Extralite and as much as I don't trust Ax Lightness (personal experience) I'll admit their saddles are probably the most durable out there, my 73g ax endurance saddle is (now) over 5 years old and still going strong.

I'm also interested to see if the trek mechanics destroy any of those LW parts going heavy handed on them ( particularly the saddle clamp and/or ISP/seatpost clamp ). Could be ugly!


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

cxwrench said:


> Who cares as long as it's handled? Who handles SRAM issues on Trek bikes? SRAM. Is it a problem? No.


I guess you've never dealt with tune customer service. SRAM it ain't.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

goodboyr said:


> I guess you've never dealt with tune customer service. SRAM it ain't.


True enough, not many are as good as SRAM.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

BikeLayne said:


> At least until some girl on a Surly Crosscheck says "on your left" and you squint at her with your sweat and sunscreen soaked Oakley glasses and wheeze out a "good morning" as she drops you like a rock.





Trek_5200 said:


> This is what gets me. People buying weight weenie bikes with compact gears in the hopes of being the fastest climber on the hill in the hopes they don't have to train or take off those excess body pounds. The two best ays to improve times on a climb, are to train for it, and to not be overweight.


Who cares if someone else is faster up a climb? Some people buy lightweight climbing bikes because they love to climb and appreciate a bike designed for it. It is not always about being the top dog on the block - we'll leave that up to those of you with big egos.


----------



## jaggrin (Feb 18, 2011)

I think Trek makes really, really good bikes. Personally I have gravitated toward Bianchi because everyone here in Atlanta seems to be on a Trek or Specialized but that is just my thing. I kept my 2011 Madone 5.2 and weighed it for the first time at the bike shop after the release of the Emonda just for curiosity sake and it weighed in at 15.95 pounds on a 60cm frame. I just don't see the difference in Trek's marketing that the Emonda is a climbing bike and the Madone is a racing bike. It seems to me that the Emonda will cannibalize Madone sales.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

bradkay said:


> Who cares if someone else is faster up a climb? Some people buy lightweight climbing bikes because they love to climb and appreciate a bike designed for it. It is not always about being the top dog on the block - we'll leave that up to those of you with big egos.


 I like humble pie. It's yummy!


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Trek_5200 said:


> "everbody wants to climb on a light bike, nobody want to descend on one" - Ernesto Colnago


Guilty! But my fear of failure in descents far outweighs my love of light bike in climbing.  So I compromise like everyone else.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

jaggrin said:


> I think Trek makes really, really good bikes. Personally I have gravitated toward Bianchi because everyone here in Atlanta seems to be on a Trek or Specialized but that is just my thing. I kept my 2011 Madone 5.2 and weighed it for the first time at the bike shop after the release of the Emonda just for curiosity sake and it weighed in at 15.95 pounds on a 60cm frame. *I just don't see the difference in Trek's marketing that the Emonda is a climbing bike and the Madone is a racing bike*. It seems to me that the Emonda will cannibalize Madone sales.


You're only half right. The Madone is Trek's 'aero' bike. They're both (all 3 w/ the Domane) 'racing' bikes.


----------



## kookieCANADA (Jan 20, 2011)

Quite a few bike companies have road racing bikes (3) that cover: aero, endurance/comfort and climbing (lightweight).

bmc, scott, giant, specialized


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

jaggrin said:


> I think Trek makes really, really good bikes. Personally I have gravitated toward Bianchi because everyone here in Atlanta seems to be on a Trek or Specialized but that is just my thing. I kept my 2011 Madone 5.2 and weighed it for the first time at the bike shop after the release of the Emonda just for curiosity sake and it weighed in at 15.95 pounds on a 60cm frame. I just don't see the difference in Trek's marketing that the Emonda is a climbing bike and the Madone is a racing bike. It seems to me that the Emonda will cannibalize Madone sales.


Your Madone predates the newer version that has been redesigned as an aero bike, leaving Trek with a need for a bike to appeal to those who aren't interested in an aero racing bike. The Emonda fits that role.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

PlatyPius said:


> Why does everyone assume that a bike will be ridden by pros/in UCI events? There really ARE people who just ride bikes for fun...


Even the pro's aren't often riding sponsor bikes anyway!


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

mambo said:


> Even the pro's aren't often riding sponsor bikes anyway!


Have any examples?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

tihsepa said:


> Have any examples?


Pro's ride what's provided to them by the teams. It's pure advertisement. I would not draw conclusions here.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Trek_5200 said:


> Pro's ride what's provided to them by the teams. It's pure advertisement. I would not draw conclusions here.


I know that. I am looking for examples not some cheesy opinion.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

Trek_5200 said:


> Pro's ride what's provided to them by the teams. It's pure advertisement. I would not draw conclusions here.


tihsepa was referring to Mambo statement basically staying pro are not riding their sponsors "bikes" often.. Clearly untrue, although it does happen it's the exception rather then widely done.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

spdntrxi said:


> tihsepa was referring to Mambo statement basically staying pro are not riding their sponsors "bikes" often.. Clearly untrue, although it does happen it's the exception rather then widely done.


Yeah, thats why I quoted it. 
Both of those guys are good at just crapping out a true story. I realise there are some overlabled products out there. I seriously doubt that is going on these days with the primary manufacturer.
The days of guys like Ben Serotta labeling bikes as Murrays or Huffys are long gone.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

tihsepa said:


> Yeah, thats why I quoted it.
> Both of those guys are good at just crapping out a true story. I realise there are some overlabled products out there. I seriously doubt that is going on these days with the primary manufacturer.
> The days of guys like Ben Serotta labeling bikes as Murrays or Huffys are long gone.


In 2011 Purito Rodriguez rode Sarto frames built to look like the Focus ones. I know that for a fact. A colleague of mine believes other team members were riding Sarto frames too. That years Focus model was not rigid enough.

There is one pro tour team riding TT bikes that are not made by their sponsor frame manufacturer. I cannot name the team for confidentiality reasons. I cannot name other current individual riders because it is also privileged information. These are not hearsay comments, I have seen this in person.

In the UK for instance, the Condor pro team is not riding Condor built frames, neither is the Windymilla sponsored pro team.

A careful look at a number of pro tour rider bikes will allow you to spot small details that give away that they were not made by the sponsor bike supplier (Often slight differences in tube profile or size). If you had the chance to closely check some of the frames, you will also see that the frame measurements do not match the standard models. This is logical - the cost of manufacturing a mold is $40k. While this is a feasible expense for riders like Peter Sagan earning 4 million, who need very specific geometries/tube lengths, it is not feasible for Joe Domestique Bloggs. It is cheaper to get a company such as Cyfac to make these frames as the rider is likely to just need a few frames to get through a season.

Whilst not as prevalent as in the past, when up to 50% of pro bikes were not manufactured by the frame sponsor, it is still a more regular occurrence that many believe. Even riders like Lance Armstrong, Fondriest & Rominger often didn't ride sponsor frames. In fact the latter as far as I am aware only ever rode bikes from one particular frame manufacturer throughout his career.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

I read that or had seen that somewhere about Purito ... so you can try to pretend that's privileged knowledge... but it's not. The other stuff it just sounds like you are trying to act like some kind of insider to impress = not working.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

spdntrxi said:


> I read that or had seen that somewhere about Purito ... so you can try to pretend that's privileged knowledge... but it's not. The other stuff it just sounds like you are trying to act like some kind of insider to impress = not working.


Exactly. Name names for each and every accusation or don't bother accusing.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

mambo said:


> In 2011 Purito Rodriguez rode Sarto frames built to look like the Focus ones. I know that for a fact. A colleague of mine believes other team members were riding Sarto frames too. That years Focus model was not rigid enough.
> 
> There is one pro tour team riding TT bikes that are not made by their sponsor frame manufacturer. I cannot name the team for confidentiality reasons. I cannot name other current individual riders because it is also privileged information. These are not hearsay comments, I have seen this in person.
> 
> ...


I had alphabet soup for lunch and crapped out a better story than that.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mambo said:


> In 2011 Purito Rodriguez rode Sarto frames built to look like the Focus ones. I know that for a fact. A colleague of mine believes other team members were riding Sarto frames too. That years Focus model was not rigid enough.
> 
> There is one pro tour team riding TT bikes that are not made by their sponsor frame manufacturer. I cannot name the team for confidentiality reasons. I cannot name other current individual riders because it is also privileged information. These are not hearsay comments, I have seen this in person.
> 
> ...


Privileged information my ass. If they're riding the bikes in public and the sun it out there are pictures on the inter webs somewhere. Armstrong (& the rest of USPS) rode Litespeed TT frames the first year because Trek didn't make a TT frame. Big deal. That was 1999. Fondriest & Rominger? Ancient history. 
It happens now w/ tires and saddles, maybe bars, stems, and seat posts every now and then. Being that the UCI keeps an eye on those little 'approved frame' stickers, (that are not actually stickers, they're permanent) it's hard to believe anyone is riding a frame not made by their bike sponsor these days.
Trek made Domane frames w/ short head tubes for 2 years before they released them to the public. Custom geometry isn't out of the question for carbon frames these days. The Factory team bikes don't have replaceable derailleur hangers either...which means the dropouts aren't carbon.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

As some of you are aware I will shortly be offering custom carbon made frames under my own brand. Over the last year, I visited a number of frame building companies and not only saw these frames already manufactured or being built, but in some cases was allowed to take photographs of them being put together. I wasn't asked to sign confidentiality agreements, but it was made clear that it would be a breach of confidence for me to divulge what I saw and I gave my word I would not do so. 

Some of you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that I have named two _complete_ pro teams that are riding bikes not built by their brand sponsors.

If as cx correctly points out, it happens with other parts, why shouldn't it happen with frames too?

Quite a number of the Italian pro's tend to get their frames custom made by Italian frame builders too.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

You keep saying that you have visited all these atrocious manufacturing facilities in Asia yet you have not offered one bit of evidence to prove it. I think you are just talking out of your ass in an attempt to be seen as an expert as you flog your future frames. I'm not buying it and I doubt many others do either.

The most apt saying is "put up or shut up."


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

LVbob said:


> You keep saying that you have visited all these atrocious manufacturing facilities in Asia yet you have not offered one bit of evidence to prove it. I think you are just talking out of your ass in an attempt to be seen as an expert as you flog your future frames. I'm not buying it and I doubt many others do either.
> 
> The most apt saying is "put up or shut up."


I call it. Lip service.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

spdntrxi said:


> I read that or had seen that somewhere about Purito ... so you can try to pretend that's privileged knowledge... but it's not. The other stuff it just sounds like you are trying to act like some kind of insider to impress = not working.


Just more shilling for Sarto.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Who said anything about Asia in reference to this thread?

I did put up. Is two whole pro teams not enough "put up" for you? Is one of the worlds top ranked riders of the last few years not representative enough, or do you think Purito is the only one? Come on, flame with reasoning not just for the heck of it...

I am not going to be cajoled by you or anybody else into naming names I have given my word not to. The truth eventually tends to come out in the wash anyway.

Frankly, I don't really care whether you believe me or not. Knowing who builds frames for who and which team, doesn't make me any sort of expert anyway. 

I made a statement of fact based on personal observation, not hearsay, that I stand by. Take it or leave it.

I'd be more interested in knowing the rigidity specs for the Emonda. I can't find them anywhere on the website.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

We have a 54cm Emonda SL in our store. Today I will try to get it out for a short test ride - we have a 12% climb within a few blocks of the store so while that isn't empirical data it gives me a good idea of how well a bike climbs and how stiff the bottom bracket is.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

jaggrin said:


> I think Trek makes really, really good bikes.


So does BMC, Cannondale, Felt, Fuji, Giant, Specialized, etc., etc., etc. Frames these days are commodities. Sure, the marketing types still manage to BS the naïve buyers with crap like stiffness this way, compliance that way, power transfer, efficiency, blah, blah, blah... Truth is, there's no meaningful difference from one manufacturer's frame to another one's. And they all cost around 300-500 bucks or so to manufacture, and all the rest is profit. 90% profit margin for a high-end frame, that's not a bad business to be in.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

mambo said:


> Some of you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that I have named two _complete_ pro teams that are riding bikes not built by their brand sponsors


Condor is quite open about their frames being built in Italy. So is Windymilla. 

Hardly shocking news.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Pirx said:


> And they all cost around 300-500 bucks or so to manufacture, and all the rest is profit


So I guess you could provide a quick breakdown of how you got that figure?

Include labour (not just per hour but also benefits, sick leave, holidays, etc), raw material (do you know how much some carbon costs? Good stuff ain't cheap! And resins?), plant, property taxes, business taxes, debts etc. If a half decent frame has a hundred swatches of fabric that's a couple of hours of labour right there.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> So I guess you could provide a quick breakdown of how you got that figure?


 That's how much the frames sell for straight from the manufacturer. See the Asian Carbon thread.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Pirx said:


> So does BMC, Cannondale, Felt, Fuji, Giant, Specialized, etc., etc., etc. Frames these days are commodities. Sure, the marketing types still manage to BS the naïve buyers with crap like stiffness this way, compliance that way, power transfer, efficiency, blah, blah, blah... Truth is, there's no meaningful difference from one manufacturer's frame to another one's. And they all cost around 300-500 bucks or so to manufacture, and all the rest is profit. 90% profit margin for a high-end frame, that's not a bad business to be in.


I agree. Most CF frames these days are decent enough, even the Chinese manufactured Chinese brands. In fact some of these brands (and I know it is definitely Trek's philosophy) just look on their frames as hangers for the parts, which is where they realise more profit.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

mambo said:


> I agree. Most CF frames these days are decent enough, even the Chinese manufactured Chinese brands. In fact some of these brands (and I know it is definitely Trek's philosophy) just look on their frames as hangers for the parts, which is where they realise more profit.


This is Treks philosophy huh? 

Is the source of that information top secret too. 

How long does it take you to think of this crap?


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Condor is quite open about their frames being built in Italy. So is Windymilla.
> 
> Hardly shocking news.


So you agree with me?


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> So I guess you could provide a quick breakdown of how you got that figure?
> 
> Include labour (not just per hour but also benefits, sick leave, holidays, etc), raw material (do you know how much some carbon costs? Good stuff ain't cheap! And resins?), plant, property taxes, business taxes, debts etc. If a half decent frame has a hundred swatches of fabric that's a couple of hours of labour right there.


If you shop around and commit to a certain level of purchases you can actually purchase a CF frame from a Chinese manufacturer for as low as $150.00.

Cost of good quality Carbon fibre pre-peg 70 euros (around $100) per m2.

Tihsepa will probably ask for copies of the invoices!


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

mambo said:


> Who said anything about Asia in reference to this thread?


Your two main talking points are always the same:
1) Pro riders are riding bikes that are other than the team-sponsored bikes under some cloak of secrecy;
2) Bikes made in Asia are made under deplorable conditions without giving any regard to the general standard of living in those countries.

You never back up the claims by naming names in general (2011 is a long time ago as far as I am concerned) or by posting pics of these atrocious conditions in the manufacturing facilities that you have supposedly visited. In other words, you're all talk.

You have made it clear on numerous occasions that you and Mark Stemmy are going to be some sort of saviors by making reasonably priced bikes in Italy. I wish you well in that venture. But you come across as nothing more than a businessman with a marketing line and some supposedly top-secret information. Your attempts are fairly transparent as you post this stuff in this (and I assume other biking) forum(s).

Post the pics of the horrid working conditions with young people being forced to work long hours against there will. You can't because they choose to work there to make money that will afford them a lifestyle better than that of many of their countrymen.

I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable to chime in on you claim of pros who are currently riding bikes other than their team sponsors. If all you have is history then it appears that the UCI has dealt with this situation. If it is a current situation, then name names.

No one is interested in hearing your unsubstantiated claims or history of past abuse.

BTW, I've got the real scoop on the JFK assassination. I'd share but I'm sworn to secrecy.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

" In fact some of these brands (and I know it is definitely Trek's philosophy) just look on their frames as hangers for the parts, which is where they realise more profit."

I am sorry, but this is not Trek's philosophy. If it were, they would not spend all the time and effort on R&D that they do. I still have some "ins" with Trek and know their commitment to designing top quality frames. Yes, when it comes to producing their overseas frames they take some cheap shortcuts - as does everyone on their "value" frames - but that doesn't mean that they look at them as merely platforms for the components. 

Keep in mind that this comes from a person who lost his favorite job ever to the Waterloo based gang so I shouldn't have any real affection for the company (and I don't for their management but I do respect their product development group).

EDIT: I know that in the mid-90s their philosophy was "look at what the other guys are doing and copy that" but since then they have developed a different one: "look at what the other guys are doing and improve on it".


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

LVbob said:


> Your two main talking points are always the same:
> 1) Pro riders are riding bikes that are other than the team-sponsored bikes under some cloak of secrecy;
> 2) Bikes made in Asia are made under deplorable conditions without giving any regard to the general standard of living in those countries.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry Bob, but you are exaggerating statements out of all proportion.

I have mentioned one brand that is manufactured in Asia whose manufacturing methods I find unacceptable for the prices being charged for their product. There are numerous other facilities that are excellent and I have just stated that most Asian made CF frames are decent enough. I would have no problem with manufacturing product in Asia if I identified an opportunity.

I named two current pro teams (2014) or are you pretending you can't read?

You obviously don't have a clue what you're writing about if you think the UCI have had a "situation" to deal with. As long as the frames are UCI legal, it doesn't matter who makes them or who they are badged by. Specialized as an example don't manufacture their own frames, neither do most other major brands, they contract manufacturers to make them to their spec and design. Does the UCI need to take action about that? Methinks not.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

bradkay said:


> " In fact some of these brands (and I know it is definitely Trek's philosophy) just look on their frames as hangers for the parts, which is where they realise more profit."
> 
> Keep in mind that this comes from a person who lost his favorite job ever to the Waterloo based gang so I shouldn't have any real affection for the company (and I don't for their management but I do respect their product development group).


Brad, it was management philosophy I was referring to not the R &D department.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

mambo said:


> I'm sorry Bob, but you are exaggerating statements out of all proportion.
> 
> I have mentioned one brand that is manufactured in Asia whose manufacturing methods I find unacceptable for the prices being charged for their product. There are numerous other facilities that are excellent and I have just stated that most Asian made CF frames are decent enough. I would have no problem with manufacturing product in Asia if I identified an opportunity.
> 
> ...


As was pointed out by another (I am no expert) it is apparently no secret that those teams are using other frames.

As far as the "manufacturing methods" (by which you seem to be referencing the use of young workers) what difference does the price of the bike make?

I will freely admit that I am not knowledgeable about bike manufacturing but I've got a pretty good bullsh!t detector which is so often pegged with many of your posts where you can't substantiate your claims. You do have some pretty good one-liners though.


----------



## Seneb (Sep 29, 2009)

This thread sure went downhill fast. So much for a discussion on the Emonda. Time to close it up.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Seneb said:


> This thread sure went downhill fast. So much for a discussion on the Emonda. Time to close it up.


I'm out. The super bike discussion went south.


----------



## pete2528ca (Jun 17, 2011)

No ****. This guy is doing all the right things to scare off any potential business.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

LVbob said:


> As was pointed out by another (I am no expert) it is apparently no secret that those teams are using other frames.


With today's frame shapes any team riding other thatn their team's manufacturer would stand out like a sore thumb



Cinelli 82220 said:


> Condor is quite open about their frames being built in Italy. So is Windymilla.
> 
> Hardly shocking news.


So they made a separate mold just for Contador's bike and sent it to Italy?


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

ewitz said:


> With today's frame shapes any team riding other thatn their team's manufacturer would stand out like a sore thumb
> 
> 
> 
> So they made a separate mold just for Contador's bike and sent it to Italy?


No CONDORcycles team.. not Contador.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Pirx said:


> So does BMC, Cannondale, Felt, Fuji, Giant, Specialized, etc., etc., etc. Frames these days are commodities. Sure, the marketing types still manage to BS the naïve buyers with crap like stiffness this way, compliance that way, power transfer, efficiency, blah, blah, blah... Truth is, there's no meaningful difference from one manufacturer's frame to another one's. And they all cost around 300-500 bucks or so to manufacture, and all the rest is profit. 90% profit margin for a high-end frame, that's not a bad business to be in.


I agree with this. There are some differences out there in the performance of frames, but they're mostly down to geometry and rider preference. Most everything carbon these days is 1Kg frame weight, stiff as a bridge truss and relatively comfortable. Given that, the concept of a $5,000, mass produced, off the rack carbon frame is totally bizarre to me, especially given that you can buy something for litterally 1/10th the price that will be functionally exactly the same. And yet, people buy them.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Pirx said:


> So does BMC, Cannondale, Felt, Fuji, Giant, Specialized, etc., etc., etc. Frames these days are commodities. Sure, the marketing types still manage to BS the naïve buyers with crap like stiffness this way, compliance that way, power transfer, efficiency, blah, blah, blah... Truth is, there's no meaningful difference from one manufacturer's frame to another one's. And they all cost around 300-500 bucks or so to manufacture, and all the rest is profit. 90% profit margin for a high-end frame, that's not a bad business to be in.


Wow...90% margin. Really? You seem like such an intelligent guy then you post this stuff.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

myhui said:


> That's how much the frames sell for straight from the manufacturer. See the Asian Carbon thread.





mambo said:


> If you shop around and commit to a certain level of purchases you can actually purchase a CF frame from a Chinese manufacturer for as low as $150.00.
> 
> Cost of good quality Carbon fibre pre-peg 70 euros (around $100) per m2.
> 
> Tihsepa will probably ask for copies of the invoices!


Those are definitely not the same as a Trek, BMC, whatever. And the carbon that Trek uses in the 7 series frames is just a little more expensive that what you're talking about. Then you have to pay a bunch of pretty smart folks to design & engineer & test. Then engineer some more, & test some more. Repeat for a few more cycles. Once you've got it figured out, make a bunch of molds. Make a bunch of frames...that need to be painted, so you need a top notch paint facility and some expert personnel to get the job done. There's a bunch of good reasons why U5 Vapor Coat is so damn expensive. Then pay the UCI to approve/test the frames/forks. After that you can pay your marketing people to do photo shoots, produce catalogs, put the product on the website, develop marketing strategy. Once you start producing the frames you'll have to have someplace to put them, and that's not free. Someone has to build and box them. And ship them. Don't forget you have to pay both inside and outside sales staff, warranty reps, and financial staff just to name a few. 

After building some Chinese frames, one of which the customer swore up and down was actually a real Pinarello that came 'straight from the factory', I can tell you that this doesn't happen the same way with $500.00 frames from China. 
Not. 
Even. 
Close.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Some of those Chinese carbon frame manufacturers even claim they hire mechanical engineers from fancy universities with fancy degrees to design their frames, so their moulds are designed in-house, instead of copied illegally.

I check my WS-02 frame and Farsports wheels for cracks before and after every ride. So far, so good. I ping every spoke to check their tension, and haven't noticed anything bad yet. But maybe I'm a gentle rider. Maybe that's why.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

cxwrench said:


> Those are definitely not the same as a Trek, BMC, whatever.


 In what way?


> And the carbon that Trek uses in the 7 series frames is just a little more expensive that what you're talking about.


What proof do you have? The vast majority of carbon used in bikes comes from one company, Toray. They offer different grades, but is the raw material really 10x the cost? What functional difference does this material make, "stiffness", shaving 150g off of a bike? Why does any of that actually matter?


> Then you have to pay a bunch of pretty smart folks to design & engineer & test. Then engineer some more, & test some more. Repeat for a few more cycles. Once you've got it figured out, make a bunch of molds.


This is a somewhat better argument, but I'd argue that the engineering involved in making a bike frame is much simpler than most engineering challenges. The forces involved are minute. Also, the gains from advanced engineering are similarly minute in the real world. Lastly, once you've made the molds marginal costs start to plummet pretty quickly.


> Make a bunch of frames...that need to be painted, so you need a top notch paint facility and some expert personnel to get the job done. There's a bunch of good reasons why U5 Vapor Coat is so damn expensive. Then pay the UCI to approve/test the frames/forks.


...which costs thousands of dollars per frame? I don't think so. Also, again, what functional difference does any of this make?


> After that you can pay your marketing people to do photo shoots, produce catalogs, put the product on the website, develop marketing strategy. Once you start producing the frames you'll have to have someplace to put them, and that's not free. Someone has to build and box them. And ship them. Don't forget you have to pay both inside and outside sales staff, warranty reps, and financial staff just to name a few.


All good arguments, but let's be clear about what we're paying for. 



> After building some Chinese frames, one of which the customer swore up and down was actually a real Pinarello that came 'straight from the factory', I can tell you that this doesn't happen the same way with $500.00 frames from China.
> Not.
> Even.
> Close.


There's a lot of middle ground between a Dogma F8 and a counterfeit Ebay special. This is a false dichotomy.

At the end of the day, this comes down to preference. Some people like to say that their bike is made out of super-secret, 100 ton carbon that can only be found in the middle of meteorites, that their frame has been proven... PROVEN to save 2 watts at 40 MPH in a wind tunnel and that their bike weighs 37 grams less than yours. Others couldn't care less. I obviously fall in the latter.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> Those are definitely not the same as a Trek, BMC, whatever. And the carbon that Trek uses in the 7 series frames is just a little more expensive that what you're talking about. Then you have to pay a bunch of pretty smart folks to design & engineer & test. Then engineer some more, & test some more. Repeat for a few more cycles. Once you've got it figured out, make a bunch of molds. Make a bunch of frames...that need to be painted, so you need a top notch paint facility and some expert personnel to get the job done. There's a bunch of good reasons why U5 Vapor Coat is so damn expensive. Then pay the UCI to approve/test the frames/forks. After that you can pay your marketing people to do photo shoots, produce catalogs, put the product on the website, develop marketing strategy. Once you start producing the frames you'll have to have someplace to put them, and that's not free. Someone has to build and box them. And ship them. Don't forget you have to pay both inside and outside sales staff, warranty reps, and financial staff just to name a few.
> 
> After building some Chinese frames, one of which the customer swore up and down was actually a real Pinarello that came 'straight from the factory', I can tell you that this doesn't happen the same way with $500.00 frames from China.
> Not.
> ...



It depends. I'm sure there are various ways costs can be shared with he company in Taiwan or China who will ultimtely build the frame. Sometimes the frame being sold by a major label is identical or near identical to one sold by another. Pretty sure I saw one of the De Rosa frame's being identical to the offering of another company(I forget the model)


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> Wow...90% margin. Really? You seem like such an intelligent guy then you post this stuff.


This is a very simplified model:

Top of the range frame purchase cost from manufacturer Asia: $750.00 (This is being very generous)

Freight and insurance Asia to USA $5,000.00 (400 boxed frames per container) = $12.50

Customs clearance: $150.00 = $0.38c

Merchandise processing fee: 21 cents per $100.00 = (400 frames x $750.00 = $300,000.00) = $630.00 = $1.58 per frame

Harbor maintenence fee: 12.5 cents per $100.00 = (400 frames x $750.00 = $300,000.00) = $375.00 = $0.94 per frame

Customs Duty: 400 frames x $750.00 = $300,000.00 @ 3.9% = $11,700.00. = $29.25 per frame.

Delivery to central depot assume $10.00 per frame max.

Delivery to Distributors and onward to retail outlets where applicable - approximately $200.00 (this is a pure guess, I am not certain of freight rates in the USA. I have used $200.00 as a reasonable figure but stand to be corrected.

So: $750.00 + 12.50 + $0.38 + $1.58 + $0.94 + $29.25 = $10.00 = $200.00 = Total $1,004.65.

Let’s work backwards:

Assumed retail price: $5,000.00

Assuming standard shop margins of 30%: Shop purchase price = $3,500.00.

The shop makes $1,500.00

Distributor standard margins of 30%: Sell price to shop $3,500.00. Cost price $2,450.00

The Distributor makes $1,050.00

The Importer sell price to Distributor: $2,450.00. Cost price: $1,004.65

The Importer makes: $1,445.35 = 41% margin. Then factor in costs of advertising, R & D, sponsorship etc.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

myhui said:


> Some of those Chinese carbon frame manufacturers even claim they hire mechanical engineers from fancy universities with fancy degrees to design their frames, so their moulds are designed in-house, instead of copied illegally.
> 
> I check my WS-02 frame and Farsports wheels for cracks before and after every ride. So far, so good. I ping every spoke to check their tension, and haven't noticed anything bad yet. But maybe I'm a gentle rider. Maybe that's why.


You're fooling yourself. You frame is rigged to asplode in three weeks time. Mark my words.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

BikeLayne said:


> I'm out. The super bike discussion went south.


Back to the super bike discussion.

Light bike parts can be obtained by anybody so to the frame.

The 690g weight they have achieved for the quoted 56cm size is as good as it gets for a production frame. I would like to really know some stiffness stats and the ride quality as those will determine whether it's a super bike or not. For some reason Trek don't seem to declare stiffness stats for their frames.


----------



## Chader09 (Jun 10, 2014)

I'm looking forward to results from Velo Labs once they get to ride and measure one extensively. That data compared to the other bikes they already tested will be great to see.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

jmorgan said:


> .... Its nice to see a big company pushing technology, it will trickle down at some point and force other companies to design something to compete against it and will also eventually push the UCI to update their outdated rules.


I don't think they're pushing technology at all. I think that if I gave you $15,000 5 years ago, you could have put together a ~10 pound bike very easily. as easily as putting together a 16 pound bike, just more expensive. I don't see any "new technology", just a production bike doing what serious weight weenie hobbiests have been doing for years with existing technology.

As for the UCI thing, I could care less if the UCI limit is 10 lbs or 20. It's not the bike that counts, certainly as long as everyone has access to the same technology.

Just FWIW, I love light bikes and have nothing against Trek marketing this bike as something new. It's not, but my personal dig on Trek is that they've always been a marketing based company from the day they were established as opposed. I don't view them as a company that generally advances technology, they market technology as if they were though.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Agreed that trek is marketing first now......but back in the day when they created the oclv frame they were innovators. Sadly that day is long gone.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

myhui said:


> That's how much the frames sell for straight from the manufacturer. See the Asian Carbon thread.





mambo said:


> If you shop around and commit to a certain level of purchases you can actually purchase a CF frame from a Chinese manufacturer for as low as $150.00.
> 
> Cost of good quality Carbon fibre pre-peg 70 euros (around $100) per m2.
> 
> Tihsepa will probably ask for copies of the invoices!





Camilo said:


> I don't think they're pushing technology at all. I think that if I gave you $15,000 5 years ago, you could have put together a ~10 pound bike very easily. as easily as putting together a 16 pound bike, just more expensive. I don't see any "new technology", just a production bike doing what serious weight weenie hobbiests have been doing for years with existing technology.
> 
> As for the UCI thing, I could care less if the UCI limit is 10 lbs or 20. It's not the bike that counts, certainly as long as everyone has access to the same technology.
> 
> Just FWIW, I love light bikes and have nothing against Trek marketing this bike as something new. It's not, but my personal dig on Trek is that they've always been a marketing based company from the day they were established as opposed. I don't view them as a company that generally advances technology, they market technology as if they were though.


Domane...Speed Concept...Crockett...you're right, they're all marketing fluff.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Camilo said:


> I don't think they're pushing technology at all. I think that if I gave you $15,000 5 years ago, you could have put together a ~10 pound bike very easily. as easily as putting together a 16 pound bike, just more expensive. I don't see any "new technology", just a production bike doing what serious weight weenie hobbiests have been doing for years with existing technology.
> 
> As for the UCI thing, I could care less if the UCI limit is 10 lbs or 20. It's not the bike that counts, certainly as long as everyone has access to the same technology.
> 
> Just FWIW, I love light bikes and have nothing against Trek marketing this bike as something new. It's not, but my personal dig on Trek is that they've always been a marketing based company from the day they were established as opposed. I don't view them as a company that generally advances technology, they market technology as if they were though.


I have to agree with your comments. To me it's about the frame not the parts used to put it together. 

My framebuilder can build a frame that is lighter than that but I'd have doubts as to how well it would ride or whether a rider weight limit would have to be set.

I read how Trek makes its OCLV military grade carbon frames - _"Trek then takes the molds and compresses them together under extreme pressure, inflating the air bladders to compact all of the layers of carbon fiber together"_ - and frankly as far as I can tell this is the way other monocoque frames are manufactured??? I can't imagine their "_military_" grade carbon " _"only available in NATO countries"_ is any different to the carbon my framebuilder uses that is sourced from the aerospace industry in a NATO country. 

We built a prototype that weighed 690g in a 53cm size that rides beautifully, however for an extra 160g we built a model that is even more comfortable and 10nm stiffer. This is why I would like to know the real stiffness figures as it would provide me with an understandable point of reference.


----------



## jsjcat (Jun 25, 2011)

bradkay said:


> An extremely light bike with a very stiff bottom bracket is going to be a climber's dream. This is going to be an excellent choice for rides like La Marmotte.


I'd have a hard time going up La Marmotte on foot much less on a bike.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

jsjcat said:


> I'd have a hard time going up La Marmotte on foot much less on a bike.



La Marmotte is an organized ride that crosses the Col du Glandon, Col de Telegraphe, and the Col du Galibier before finishing with the climb up L'Alpe d'Huez. Three of those are Hors Categorie climbs.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

These threads crack me up. I just moved all (and I mean ALL) of my components (Campy Chorus 11) from a 2008 Wisconsin made Madone 6.9 to a Taiwan built Emonda SL. The Madone frameset retailed for north of $3k when new - the new Emonda SL frameset can be had for around $1400. I wound up with a bike that rides significantly better, descends better, is at least as stiff where it matters and weighs 100 grams less. That's not marketing, that's progress. 

P.S. I also have several vintage Columbus and Reynolds lugged steel bikes which I love.


----------

