# Madone 5.2 vs Madone SL 5.2 Opinions anyone?



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

Ive been getting deep into the specs n such of these two bikes.

Here are the differences that I know about.

SL - $220 more in msrp $3219 vs $2999
SL - OCLV110 vs the OCLV120 for the regular Madone 5.2
SL - Race xxx lite fork vs the Race x lite fork on the regular Madone 5.2
SL - Ultegra 10sp vs Ultegra 9sp for the regular Madone 5.2

And the regular madone has that little shark fin thingie. 

I think that the upgrades more than justify the $220 difference - however...

Im curious about Ride Quality and weight. 

I'd guess that the Madone SL 5.2 is some ounces/grams lighter... 
Is it more than a pound? 

I ahve no idea about ride quality. 

Anyone care to share opinions on these two bicycles?
Thanks.
-J


----------



## avaron (Nov 13, 2004)

For 2999 you should be getting the regular 5.2 with Ultegra 10.

I've ridden the 5.2 with Ultegra 9 and the 5.2 SL with Ultegra 10. I like them both. I really can't tell the difference between the two on the road. I'd like to say that I can, but I can't. The weight between the two were a little less than a lb difference.

I've actually got a deposit for the regular 5.2 with Ultegra 10. Should be coming at the end of the month. Plus I like the nude color better than then SL's gold color. I know that sounds lame just based on a color, but since I can't tell the diff and its $200 cheaper, that's how I made my decision!


----------



## shokhead1 (Jan 21, 2003)

5.2 without the team colors,2699 at one shop down here and 2499 at another.


----------



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

Thanks.
I just listed those MSRP's... I talked to the local Trek dealer - I know they will be something less than MSRP... I just listed the msrp's because that's what Trek puts out there. There will be a difference between the two bikes... the SL will cost a wee bit more. I don't think the price differences are all that important. Im more interested in ride quality and weight.


----------



## shokhead1 (Jan 21, 2003)

jakerson said:


> Thanks.
> I just listed those MSRP's... I talked to the local Trek dealer - I know they will be something less than MSRP... I just listed the msrp's because that's what Trek puts out there. There will be a difference between the two bikes... the SL will cost a wee bit more. I don't think the price differences are all that important. Im more interested in ride quality and weight.


Those arent msrp, they are sale prices. I just saw treksandiego.com with 04 5200 for $2200,i'm going down to check it out. Also the Lemond Vic for $2499, 1K off.


----------



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

Just to throw a wrench in everything - when I went in to the dealership and talked with the owner today - he said that he had a 2004 5500 with Dura-Ace - in my size - that he would sell me for an even $3000.

I don't think that I can pass up that kind of deal.


----------



## WD11 (Apr 20, 2004)

I have ridden the Madone 5.2 and a Madone 5.9 SL. I purchased the SL and believe it is stiffer than the Madone 5.2(120 carbon). My ride on the 120 carbon was brief and several weeks ago, but I remember a smooth ride. LBS had a 5.2 SL(not my size) also. They said overall weight of 5.9 SL is approx. 1 lb lighter than 5.2SL and about 1.5 lbs lighter than Madone 5.2. Frame weight difference is 100 grams I believe. The 5.9 SL was 15.8 lbs while 5.2SL was 16.7. I do not know how accurate there scale is.


----------



## pavedroad (May 3, 2004)

I chose a regular Madone because I like those aero fins


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Spoke to Trek today about this and according to them, the 5.2 is actually stiffer and "more rigid" than the 5.2 SL, due to the shape of the tubes. The seat tube with the fin AND the downtube is different between the two frames.


----------



## WD11 (Apr 20, 2004)

YGB321 said:


> Spoke to Trek today about this and according to them, the 5.2 is actually stiffer and "more rigid" than the 5.2 SL, due to the shape of the tubes. The seat tube with the fin AND the downtube is different between the two frames.


I have a SL. It is pretty darn stiff, but I guess coming from an Litespeed Arenberg I should expect that feel. I have put about 500 miles on the SL frame. I rode a Madone 5.2 briefly-it was my feeling that the SL was harsher. I guess I would have to have to ride both bikes at the same time to tell. I am shocked that Trek is saying that the 5.2 is stiffer than the 5.2 SL.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Does seem weird. I even gave the nice guy at Trek the "are you sure" bit to confirm this and he did. And again...have a look at the two bikes...the seat tube and down tube are different shapes, which would logically indicate a difference in ride. 

Hey, fine by me....I want a stiffer bike and if the cheaper one is the stiffer one, then giddyup!


----------



## spopepro (Dec 22, 2004)

*stiffness*

While trek would never say this- I seem to remember hearing that some manufactuer commented on the finned design saying that "Theres no way that could be comfortable enough for a grand tour".(Zinn article in velonews I think) I think it is worth noting that in the tour many riders who have a choice opt for more forgiving frames (csc and everyone on postal riding SLs are two that jump to mind) Also, consider many csc riders chose either the R2.5 or prototype R1 bicycles for paris-roubaix. I think the question may be one of what type of stiffness those fins or choice of type of fiber provide. Not being an engineer, I am not always sure how the "torsional vs. lateral" stiffness thing works, but one thing is for sure, not many pros liked those fins, for one reason or another. Trek must not have been very happy about that.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

spopepro said:


> While trek would never say this- I seem to remember hearing that some manufactuer commented on the finned design saying that "Theres no way that could be comfortable enough for a grand tour".(Zinn article in velonews I think) I think it is worth noting that in the tour many riders who have a choice opt for more forgiving frames (csc and everyone on postal riding SLs are two that jump to mind) Also, consider many csc riders chose either the R2.5 or prototype R1 bicycles for paris-roubaix. I think the question may be one of what type of stiffness those fins or choice of type of fiber provide. Not being an engineer, I am not always sure how the "torsional vs. lateral" stiffness thing works, but one thing is for sure, not many pros liked those fins, for one reason or another. Trek must not have been very happy about that.


Well, that would make sense that tour and P/R riders would want something with more "give", given the miles and roads they are on. 

For me, I can only go with that Trek tells me. And given that their advice lead me to the cheaper bike, have to believe its true.

Besides, Im not racing the Tour or P/R any time soon. And personally, I think the whole "Lance doesnt like the Madone, so it cant be good" thing is very overrated. By his own admission, hes more finicky than "Morris the Cat".


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

spopepro said:


> While trek would never say this- I seem to remember hearing that some manufactuer commented on the finned design saying that "Theres no way that could be comfortable enough for a grand tour".(Zinn article in velonews I think) I think it is worth noting that in the tour many riders who have a choice opt for more forgiving frames (csc and everyone on postal riding SLs are two that jump to mind) Also, consider many csc riders chose either the R2.5 or prototype R1 bicycles for paris-roubaix. I think the question may be one of what type of stiffness those fins or choice of type of fiber provide. Not being an engineer, I am not always sure how the "torsional vs. lateral" stiffness thing works, but one thing is for sure, not many pros liked those fins, for one reason or another. Trek must not have been very happy about that.


Seems the 2005 Discovery team bike has the fins. I HAVE TO think that if the team really didnt like them, they would have been shitcanned by now. But they are still there.


----------



## Henndo (Feb 11, 2005)

*Madone 5.2 vs. 5.2 SL*

I literally just got back from a sort of LBS. It isn't local but we were in the area and we happened to see a bike store so we stopped by. I was very happy to see the 5.2 SL because all the bike stores in my area have had to order these and they are all a month out.

I rode the 5.2 just last weekend and just got of the 5.2 SL. I have to say I like the 5.2SL MUCH better than the regular 5.2. It felt to me, much smoother and crisper. I was in a fairly bumpy parking lot and it just glided over the bumps. The bike just wants to take off, I have to admit the regular 5.2 was very nice and smooth as well but I like the SL much much better. I couldn't stop smiling after the ride.

I DID however, like the color scheme on the 5.2 better when I saw it on the internet and in person. But the SL's was very nice also and I ended up falling for it.

I've read on previous posts that the SL is 1.5 lbs lighter. Not just saying this but it really felt MUCH lighter to me. It could be just because I know it is 10 grams lighter PER SQUARE METER than the 5.2 but it felt much lighter. The bike literally jumped when I stood on the pedals and I was floating. The LBS said it was 16lbs even on a 56cm frame.

Needless to say I put a lil down payment on the SL and I will be a very proud owner by the end of this month!


----------



## Henndo (Feb 11, 2005)

Oh and by the way the 5.2 SL was only $30 more than the 5.2 in a double at the LBS that I went to.


----------



## goride (Oct 19, 2003)

*SL 5.2 weight*



Henndo said:


> The bike literally jumped when I stood on the pedals and I was floating. The LBS said it was 16lbs even on a 56cm frame.


Great choice. I agree that paint job on the SL 5.2 looks much better in person. 
But their quoted weight is a little off. We weighted some modones at the LBS, a 54cm SL 5.9 came in at 15.4 lbs, and a 54cm SL 5.2 was 17.6 lbs. Both were without pedals.


----------



## mx125 (Mar 6, 2005)

I own a Madone 5.2 in 58cm and have to agree wit the last post re: the 5.2 SL at 17.6 Lbs. All the dealer and random scales I tried were way off (usually are). I Had a balance calibrated with a 20lb test weight and my bike came in without pedals (no accessories) at 17.95 pounds. That seems to jive with the previous numbers. The XXX lite fork on the sl is apporx 70grams lighter than the race x lite and the frame 110 vs. 120 is likely within 50-100. There NO WAY that a 10 grams per square meter difference will bring the frame down by 1-1.5 pounds! I still wish I had the 5.2 SL but bought last fall before the 5.2 SL was avail. 

I'm surprised at the 5.9 SL weight. I would think the dura ace takes approx 250 grams off, and the race x lite wheels the same. Stem, seat, etc. another 130ish . . and would bring the 17.6 of the 5.2 SL down to 16.2"ish". I wonder where the extra savings comes from?

Either way, I think most OCLV dealers stretch the truth and sell all the bikes as "16-17 pounders". .


----------



## Henndo (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm surprised at the 5.9 SL weight. I would think the dura ace takes approx 250 grams off, and the race x lite wheels the same. Stem, seat, etc. another 130ish . . and would bring the 17.6 of the 5.2 SL down to 16.2"ish". I wonder where the extra savings comes from?

Either way, I think most OCLV dealers stretch the truth and sell all the bikes as "16-17 pounders". .[/QUOTE]

Really...that's good to know. Even at 17+ pounds it felt like a feather. Have you had any issues with your paint finish on your 5.2? I keep hearing about the paint finish being sub-par on Trek bikes. The dealer of course said that they do a better job with it in '05 but that is what I would say if I was selling the bike.


----------



## mx125 (Mar 6, 2005)

I haven't had any problems. I've knocked it a few times and expected trouble but no scratches. The first frame I had (sept. 04) was replaced under warranty as the seatpost hole was molded to large. They noticed it at intitial setup but shimmed it and let me ride it until the new one came in. Same thing there . . . no trouble with paint. I believe that the effects are mainly stick-on graphics and had heard of issues but i think it has improved . .in my experience anyway. I love it it. I just wish I didn't (irrationally) envy the new 10 speed stuff.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

When I was shopping Trek told me that the SLs were flexier and softer riding than the plain Madones were. I opted for the higher weight, but stiffer ride of the plain 5.2 and so fars, its lived up to expectations. 

It IS a heavier bike, mine coming in at 18.4 with some heavy MTB pedals I threw on for now (waiting on the Ritchey v4s). This is right around Trek's claimed weight, too. But it still feels nice and light. Not 16lb light.....but nice and light. Ive picked up a few SLs in stores and they are pretty light. I also picked up a plain 5.9, also OCLV110, and it didnt feel much lighter than my bike, if at all. For kicks, I picked up a nice Colnago, too...not sure which one, but the price tag was about $5K...and it was heavier than my 5.2, the 5.9, and of course, the 5.2SL. So there you go.

As far as paint goes, Trek does seem to be doing a better job. My bike in the "Pearl Carbon" was shot with a heavy coat of clear coat, which makes the bike shine real nice. The 5.9 and SLs also have the same effect. You may not like the colors, but the paint jobs on these frames do stand out in person and do not look dull like they do in pictures. MUCH nicer in person.


----------



## mx125 (Mar 6, 2005)

That's good info. It's nice to know that my experience isn't an abberation (or I've got a heavy sample). I agree . .I think my bike is nice and light. I've never ridden a 15 pounder but to me 19 pounds with pedals, bage, cages, computer feels light. 

Just out of interest, where did you find the trek claimed weights? I understand trek not publishing them in the catalogue as they will only be criticized if they are honest (against all the other "claimed" light competitors). However, if there is a source for their HONEST weights I'd love to compare the different models. 

It seems that cannondale, giant etc. are actually lighter in the same price range than the OCLV's. Either that's actually not true due to fudged weights or perhaps the OCLV's trade smoothness/durability for weight advantage?? Any thoughts there? 

I'm considering buying dura-ace crank/bb, front/rear derailer, shifters, cassette, chain (approx $1200) as I really like my frame but wonder if wasting $$. Maybe I'm better off riding for 2 years and then buying an dura-ace SL frame . .or whatever frame technology trickles down in a couple of years (OCLV 55?). 

Rob.


----------



## mx125 (Mar 6, 2005)

Just to update for those that care, I called Trek to discuss various weights in order to decide whether a component upgrade was worthwhile. Customer service again froved flawless and very honest. 

Weights in pounds for 5.2, 5.2SL, and 5.9 SL are as follows:

5.2 frame/fork 2.9, complete 18.0 (right on my calibrated result)
5.2 SL frame/fork 2.6, complete 17.4
5.9 SL frame/fork 2.4, complete 15.7

Seems the 110 frame saves 65 grams and the xxx fork saves 70 to save 0.3 pounds on the 5.2 SL frame and the new ultegra group is lighter and saves the additional 0.3 pounds. The 5.9 frame/fork are 0.2 lighter due to fastidious savings on paint and careful manufacturing. It could also be the hand picked frames which are slightly lighter examples before they are painted. The additional 1.5 are in the race x lite wheeels, dura-ace group, and other components. He agreed that my 5.2 (120) frame will be a little smoother and forgiving than the 110 frame.


----------



## Henndo (Feb 11, 2005)

mx125 said:


> Just to update for those that care, I called Trek to discuss various weights in order to decide whether a component upgrade was worthwhile. Customer service again froved flawless and very honest.
> 
> Weights in pounds for 5.2, 5.2SL, and 5.9 SL are as follows:
> 
> ...


Good info. Thanks for looking into it. I think I will be happy with the SL. It's got the new ten speed grouppo, that should be worth it in itself. As far as the SL having a flexy frame I'm sure that is what made the ride (to me) smoother. Did you get the triple or the double?


----------



## mx125 (Mar 6, 2005)

I got the double but bought a 12-27 cogset . . just for those moments . . 

i agree with you on the SL. If it was available when I bought I absolutely would have got the SL. You'll love it.


----------



## ciao bambino (Aug 27, 2004)

My 5.9 SL with look keo pedals, 2 bottle cages and wireless computer weighs in at 16 lbs. on the nose. (62cm).
My 63cm Trek 2300 with similar equipment weighed in at 19.5 lbs.
A bit of a difference.


----------



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

*Bit the bullet today...*

Well, I bit the bullet today and put a deposit on the 5.2. 
NOT the 5.2sl. 

The strength of the frame is much more important to me than a half pound of weight savings. Besides, I have a nice set of black American Classic 420's that oughta shave a good chunk of that poundage right off. 

I expect to have the bike sometime next week. I will post a pic when I get it...


----------



## dcp (Feb 17, 2005)

*SL 5.2 Weight*

For what it is worth, I bought a SL 5.2, but I changed the wheels to the X Lite version and changed the cassette to a DA 12-23. With a Flight Deck, bottle cages, and Speedplay X-2's fitted, the bike was 17.2 on a bike shop's digital scale.

I am very pleased with the comfort of the ride, but then it is my first CF bike. Striking difference from my steel bike, but then it doesn't feel quite as nimble. That is a trade I would make any day.



mx125 said:


> Just to update for those that care, I called Trek to discuss various weights in order to decide whether a component upgrade was worthwhile. Customer service again froved flawless and very honest.
> 
> Weights in pounds for 5.2, 5.2SL, and 5.9 SL are as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## mx125 (Mar 6, 2005)

i just bought ksyrium sl's and dura ace group for my 5.2 (NOT SL). Not the smartest financial decision, but i love the way my 5.2 frame looks and it's smooth. We'll see how much lighter it ends up after the rebuild.


----------



## trauma-md (Feb 6, 2004)

*I went from the Madone to the Madone SL*

I recently sold my 2004 Madone 5.9 which I had ridden for about a year. I have always wanted a Project One paint job, so I decided to give the Madone SL a try. It is noticeably more comfortable than the original Madone. The shape of the down and seat tubes of the original are what make the difference in ride quality. I have mine spec'd pretty custom to my preferences, and it tips the scales around 15.5 lbs. (it's a 52cm). If you like the looks of the aero tubes (I guess they're kinda cool), get a 5.2 or 5.9; if you like a smoother quality ride, get an SL.


----------



## mx125 (Mar 6, 2005)

so your new bike is a madone 5.9 SL (non-aero tube 110) and you find it more comfortable than the 2004 5.9? Was the 2004 bike aero or straight? And was it the 120 or the 110? Sorry for the questions. . . just interested in the differences.

Rob.


----------



## trauma-md (Feb 6, 2004)

There was only one Madone (the 5.9) available in the 2004 line-up. I owned this original 5.9 made from carbon 110, with the aero tubes. My new one is the SL made from carbon 110 (every SL is 110), with the round seat and down tubes. I don't mind the questions...


----------



## Henndo (Feb 11, 2005)

*Post your pic*

Does anyone have a pic of their 5.2 or 5.2 SL? Please post them! I am dying, sitting here waiting for mine to arrive! I am into the end of week 3 now. 1-3 more to go!


----------



## trauma-md (Feb 6, 2004)

*pic...*

Here it is...custom component mix. Campy Record 10 shifters/RD, Dura-Ace cranks/BB/FD/brakes, Race-X-Lite wheels, Newton stem, 215 bar, King Headset. I know that this is sacreligious to all of the Campy vs. Shimano fanatics/holy rollers....but I like Campy shifting, and the new Dura Ace cranks and brakes....


----------

