Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
My question was why only go with the SL frame and not the old Madone with aero advantages.

I liked the way the regular Madones look.

Not that the SL isn't bad, but I remember Scott Daubert saying on the Science of LA that they were aero advantages of the seat tube flare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
lol-fanatic you have it backwards man. The sl frame is a step up from the aero. the aero frame is a stupid gimmick. the 'aero advantages' are something i've never really bought. Anyways, the 5.2 has the aero frame and the 5.2sl has the sl frame. the sl is more expensive eventhough there is less frame material and the components are the same. what does this tell you???
BTW i like the new disco colors. very slick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
chrislh said:
i think the weight to aero isn't big enough. Like having that little extra part of the frame weighs to much.
If I understand correctly, the regular Madone frame is stiffer than the SL (been discussed here many times before).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Lance never liked the Aero...

Apparently, Lance and many of the other riders strongly prefer the SL to the Aero. He rode the Aero for only 2 or 3 stages ever and went back to his older bikes while pressing Trek for SL and the SSL. Now, he says its not about the bike and I don't think either bike will make too much difference if you don't have the engine but I thought I'd add that to the discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
pspande said:
Apparently, Lance and many of the other riders strongly prefer the SL to the Aero. He rode the Aero for only 2 or 3 stages ever and went back to his older bikes while pressing Trek for SL and the SSL. Now, he says its not about the bike and I don't think either bike will make too much difference if you don't have the engine but I thought I'd add that to the discussion.
youre right-in fact, the aero version was presented to lance before the sl existed, and lance wasn't that impressed. so, the sl versions were made from lighter forms of carbon (110 and 55) However, the trek people were stubborn and felt that the aero versions would attract more sales in the mainstream, so they reached an agreement that lance would ride the aero version in the flatter stages and save the sl's for the mountains. it is debatable if the aero version is stiffer-the difference wouldn't be that huge. afterall, if the difference in flex between 120 and 110 oclv carbon is that noticeable, then in theory a switch down to oclv 55 would make you spring right off of your bike.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,834 Posts
cmatcan said:
the sl is more expensive eventhough there is less frame material and the components are the same. what does this tell you???
Good marketing? :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
cmatcan said:
youre right-in fact, the aero version was presented to lance before the sl existed, and lance wasn't that impressed. so, the sl versions were made from lighter forms of carbon (110 and 55) However, the trek people were stubborn and felt that the aero versions would attract more sales in the mainstream, so they reached an agreement that lance would ride the aero version in the flatter stages and save the sl's for the mountains. it is debatable if the aero version is stiffer-the difference wouldn't be that huge. afterall, if the difference in flex between 120 and 110 oclv carbon is that noticeable, then in theory a switch down to oclv 55 would make you spring right off of your bike.

That makes the most sens, but how in the world did you get your top secret information?

I want to join that club badly!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
in defence of the Aero

cmatcan said:
i work at a trek dealer and my knowledge comes from hours of gossipping about trek news with the owner.
I agree that the aero tube is Trek visual/marketing gimmick and I am biased as I own 2005 5.9 Madone 110OCLV with the aero seat tube. Silly looking thing IMO but I got it for great price and it rides the same as the other Madones for 98% of folks. But it can't be such a bad bike as Paolo Savoldelli won 2005 Giro d'Italia on it. 8^)

My prediction is that with Lance retired you will see new Madones developing a slight "slope" in the top tube and a bit longer head tube in next ~2 years..... Start the gossip 8^)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
acid_rider said:
I agree that the aero tube is Trek visual/marketing gimmick and I am biased as I own 2005 5.9 Madone 110OCLV with the aero seat tube. Silly looking thing IMO but I got it for great price and it rides the same as the other Madones for 98% of folks. But it can't be such a bad bike as Paolo Savoldelli won 2005 Giro d'Italia on it. 8^)

My prediction is that with Lance retired you will see new Madones developing a slight "slope" in the top tube and a bit longer head tube in next ~2 years..... Start the gossip 8^)
i agree with most of that- and an aero tube on a 110 carbon frame wouldn't be the worst-at the end of the day it comes down to preference. most of my comparisons were considering a oclv 120 aero frame, not 110. i am not buying the aero idea, and it is mostly a gimmick, but if it works for you then that's great. if i rode an aero and non-aero without seeing my bike, i wouldn't be able to tell which is which.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
VEN said:
It's a nice paint job, but I would prefer a darker blue. I really liked the 2005 scheme.

I agree with you. I liked the 2004 (last US Postal) color scheme the best, but the 1st DC looks really good. I think it looks much better in person. I'm also slowly warming to this most recent color scheme, but agree that a darker blue would have been more attractive to me.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top