Forum home Road cycling forum Road buying advice

Bike upgrade

I have been riding for about 3 years and my bike is an entry level AL 5 Trek which is great. I only ride on roads (mostly country lanes, which can be less than smooth in places) and I usually ride about twice a week. My typical rides are 40-60k at about 25-26km/hr and once or twice a month I go out for a 100k ride and perhaps once or twice a year I may do a 100mile ride.I want to upgrade and have been looking on line at the 2021 Trek SLR 6 Disc which looks like a really nice bike but if I’m going to spend that amount of money (circa£5,000) I definitely want to feel the difference and I’m not sure I will. I also like the Cannondale super six evo Dura ace , albeit I’ve never ridden a Cannondale.
Any recommendations or advice appreciated

Posts

  • oxomanoxoman Posts: 7,567
    Colin, firstly welcome. Which SLR 6 are you referring to the Domane, Madone or Emonda. The current Domane is supposedly one of the most comfortable bikes going because of its iso-speed system. The Madone is more speed, race orientated and the Emonda is racier still. Not sure if I'd spend that kind of money on a bike that won't be getting that much use in the big scheme. I'd be looking at handbuilt and possibly titanium. Whatever you get will be a step up from what you've currently got, but ultimately it will only do the same job.
    Too many bikes according to Mrs O.
  • colin.hallcolin.hall Posts: 5
    Thanks Mrs O, I was actually thinking about the Emonda but the Domane May be an option, however I do like the look of the new Emonda. Hadn’t really considered a titanium bike.
  • oxomanoxoman Posts: 7,567
    Your best bet is to try as many as possible. Remember fit is everything with any bike. Given your budget you shouldn't have much of a problem with stock. Definitely not a Mrs either.
    Too many bikes according to Mrs O.
  • junglist_mattyjunglist_matty Posts: 1,680
    First, don't buy a bike purely because you like how it looks.

    Secondly, how much climbing would you do on a typical 40-50km route? If it's 20m per 1km t
    (Or more) then a lighter racier bike like the emonda might be a good choice. If it's 10m per 1km (or less) then the emonda is not the bike for you (sorry, you're too slow) you will just find it uncomfortable and it might even give you back pain. The emonda is a race machine designed for efficiency not comfort. You wouldn't (unless you are prepared to put in some serious training) get the benefit of such a bike.

    Do you know your power numbers? (Even rough average estimates i.e. from Strava or Zwift)?
  • fenixfenix Posts: 5,290
    5 grand for your second bike ? A bit overkill perhaps.
    Avoid the brand names and you can get a great bike for less than half that.
  • colin.hallcolin.hall Posts: 5
    oxoman said:

    Your best bet is to try as many as possible. Remember fit is everything with any bike. Given your budget you shouldn't have much of a problem with stock. Definitely not a Mrs either.

    Thanks Oxoman
  • colin.hallcolin.hall Posts: 5

    First, don't buy a bike purely because you like how it looks.

    Secondly, how much climbing would you do on a typical 40-50km route? If it's 20m per 1km t
    (Or more) then a lighter racier bike like the emonda might be a good choice. If it's 10m per 1km (or less) then the emonda is not the bike for you (sorry, you're too slow) you will just find it uncomfortable and it might even give you back pain. The emonda is a race machine designed for efficiency not comfort. You wouldn't (unless you are prepared to put in some serious training) get the benefit of such a bike.

    Do you know your power numbers? (Even rough average estimates i.e. from Strava or Zwift)?

    Looking at my strava feed it's more like 12m climb per 1km so thanks for the advice.
  • junglist_mattyjunglist_matty Posts: 1,680

    Looking at my strava feed it's more like 12m climb per 1km so thanks for the advice.

    I'd consider that rolling terrain, many others would consider it flat... I'd expect someone to be pushing upwards of 30kmh on that sort of terrain before considering a race bike like the emonda. That's not to say you wouldn't be happy on a race bike, they aren't all that comfortable to ride, especially slower.

    If I were you, I'd be looking at endurance bikes which have a more upright (relaxed) position, for example a Giant Defy, Trek Domane, or Cannondale Synapse.... This article explains...

    https://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-tests/endurance-bikes-buyers-guide-216736
  • i.bhamrai.bhamra Posts: 120
    I'm struggling to understand the comments suggesting you are too slow for a race orientated bike! If you want a bike with a racy geometry then get one! If you do want to spend that much cash on a bike though make sure you can try it (+plus several others) first though.
  • junglist_mattyjunglist_matty Posts: 1,680
    i.bhamra said:

    I'm struggling to understand the comments suggesting you are too slow for a race orientated bike! If you want a bike with a racy geometry then get one! If you do want to spend that much cash on a bike though make sure you can try it (+plus several others) first though.

    Generally speaking, if you are a slow rider why would you want to be riding a bike designed to be as efficient as possible when the downside is that it's going to be far more uncomfortable than an endurance bike.... Not to mention good endurance bikes aren't necessarily any "slower".
  • johngtijohngti Posts: 787

    i.bhamra said:

    I'm struggling to understand the comments suggesting you are too slow for a race orientated bike! If you want a bike with a racy geometry then get one! If you do want to spend that much cash on a bike though make sure you can try it (+plus several others) first though.

    Generally speaking, if you are a slow rider why would you want to be riding a bike designed to be as efficient as possible when the downside is that it's going to be far more uncomfortable than an endurance bike.... Not to mention good endurance bikes aren't necessarily any "slower".
    Because you can? And they look good? Not that I would; perfectly happy with my domane

  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 3,647
    This thread is depressing. There is a bit too much of exactly the sort of thing that puts people off cycling.

    Firstly, "at least 30 kph" is absolute horse wee. Just look on Strava and see how many people actually manage that. The really keen racers in my club manage 30-32 on long training rides, I can manage 27-29 but it nearly kills me. A brisk club run is similar. Most solo rides are mid to high 20s. Besides, who is to say that you won't be there in fairly short order yourself. Urgh, that kind of talk makes me quite angry.

    Secondly, any inference that "you aren't fast enough to spend X, or buy Y" is also insulting. It usually comes from someone who can't afford to buy what you are currently looking at. For sure it is more difficult to get what you want/need if you are less experienced, but that kind of logic would have us all riding much cheaper bikes.

    If you spend that much on a bike, you aren't going to notice that much difference in speed, but it will probably be a nicer thing to ride.

    "Endurance" vs "race" is also a highly misleading part of bicycle babble in my view. If anything, "endurance" will lock you in to a certain geometry and riding position, whereas a "race" bike gives you more options in the longer term. There are some endurance frames with additional compliance (the Domane in particular) but only you know if that is necessary. For the most part the differences are in geometry only (so far as that relates to comfort).

    I've rented a few of the old Emondas and they are a bit dull to ride but certainly comfortable. Cannondale are a great brand. I have a classic 6-13 and I've rented the previous version of SuperSix, which was a lot more engaging than the Trek. (You might also want to look at Cervelo by the way.)

    I certainly would not recommend titanium or steel for performance or value, but it is possible to get a great bike that will serve all our amateur needs at your budget.

    But this is all personal, and if you have the money then I certainly don't begrudge you the fun of shopping around.

    Finally, aesthetics DOES matter. If you like the look of a bike, you'll be more likely to like riding it.
  • N0bodyOfTheGoatN0bodyOfTheGoat Posts: 4,081
    Looking at the geo numbers from https://www.trekbikes.com/in/en_IN/bikes/road-bikes/performance-road-bikes/domane/domane-al/domane-al-5/p/23528/ , the stack for any given reach is pretty high, even higher than my 58cm Cube Attain (610mm stack for 388mm reach).

    Something with less stack for a given reach will naturally make you go faster due to less aero drag, providing you are ok with the more aggressive riding position, if you frequency reach and surpass ~15mph.

    Have you experimented with the lowering the stem and flipping the stem to a negative angle on the AL5, to see what your lower back thinks of a more aero position?
    ================
    2017 Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016
    2016 Voodoo Wazoo
  • 50x1150x11 Posts: 56

    This thread is depressing. There is a bit too much of exactly the sort of thing that puts people off cycling.

    Firstly, "at least 30 kph" is absolute horse wee. Just look on Strava and see how many people actually manage that. The really keen racers in my club manage 30-32 on long training rides, I can manage 27-29 but it nearly kills me. A brisk club run is similar. Most solo rides are mid to high 20s. Besides, who is to say that you won't be there in fairly short order yourself. Urgh, that kind of talk makes me quite angry.

    Secondly, any inference that "you aren't fast enough to spend X, or buy Y" is also insulting. It usually comes from someone who can't afford to buy what you are currently looking at. For sure it is more difficult to get what you want/need if you are less experienced, but that kind of logic would have us all riding much cheaper bikes.

    If you spend that much on a bike, you aren't going to notice that much difference in speed, but it will probably be a nicer thing to ride.

    "Endurance" vs "race" is also a highly misleading part of bicycle babble in my view. If anything, "endurance" will lock you in to a certain geometry and riding position, whereas a "race" bike gives you more options in the longer term. There are some endurance frames with additional compliance (the Domane in particular) but only you know if that is necessary. For the most part the differences are in geometry only (so far as that relates to comfort).

    I've rented a few of the old Emondas and they are a bit dull to ride but certainly comfortable. Cannondale are a great brand. I have a classic 6-13 and I've rented the previous version of SuperSix, which was a lot more engaging than the Trek. (You might also want to look at Cervelo by the way.)

    I certainly would not recommend titanium or steel for performance or value, but it is possible to get a great bike that will serve all our amateur needs at your budget.

    But this is all personal, and if you have the money then I certainly don't begrudge you the fun of shopping around.

    Finally, aesthetics DOES matter. If you like the look of a bike, you'll be more likely to like riding it.

    Wonderful post, the poster you are referring to is precisely one of the worst things about the cycling world.

    I tested the last iteration of the Emonda (2019) last year and it was lovely, I was 6 stone heavier than I am now but even then I felt the power riding up the hills. I will certainly be looking to pick one up as I think it's the most stunning frame around, I'd have loved this years without disks.

    The looks are very important, if it looks good generally you'll ride it more.

    As said here I'd look at some Cervelo's, my friend had one which came with a great length in the streerer which meant he could get more aggressive over time.
  • colin.hallcolin.hall Posts: 5
    50x11 said:

    This thread is depressing. There is a bit too much of exactly the sort of thing that puts people off cycling.

    Firstly, "at least 30 kph" is absolute horse wee. Just look on Strava and see how many people actually manage that. The really keen racers in my club manage 30-32 on long training rides, I can manage 27-29 but it nearly kills me. A brisk club run is similar. Most solo rides are mid to high 20s. Besides, who is to say that you won't be there in fairly short order yourself. Urgh, that kind of talk makes me quite angry.

    Secondly, any inference that "you aren't fast enough to spend X, or buy Y" is also insulting. It usually comes from someone who can't afford to buy what you are currently looking at. For sure it is more difficult to get what you want/need if you are less experienced, but that kind of logic would have us all riding much cheaper bikes.

    If you spend that much on a bike, you aren't going to notice that much difference in speed, but it will probably be a nicer thing to ride.

    "Endurance" vs "race" is also a highly misleading part of bicycle babble in my view. If anything, "endurance" will lock you in to a certain geometry and riding position, whereas a "race" bike gives you more options in the longer term. There are some endurance frames with additional compliance (the Domane in particular) but only you know if that is necessary. For the most part the differences are in geometry only (so far as that relates to comfort).

    I've rented a few of the old Emondas and they are a bit dull to ride but certainly comfortable. Cannondale are a great brand. I have a classic 6-13 and I've rented the previous version of SuperSix, which was a lot more engaging than the Trek. (You might also want to look at Cervelo by the way.)

    I certainly would not recommend titanium or steel for performance or value, but it is possible to get a great bike that will serve all our amateur needs at your budget.

    But this is all personal, and if you have the money then I certainly don't begrudge you the fun of shopping around.

    Finally, aesthetics DOES matter. If you like the look of a bike, you'll be more likely to like riding it.

    Wonderful post, the poster you are referring to is precisely one of the worst things about the cycling world.

    I tested the last iteration of the Emonda (2019) last year and it was lovely, I was 6 stone heavier than I am now but even then I felt the power riding up the hills. I will certainly be looking to pick one up as I think it's the most stunning frame around, I'd have loved this years without disks.

    The looks are very important, if it looks good generally you'll ride it more.

    As said here I'd look at some Cervelo's, my friend had one which came with a great length in the streerer which meant he could get more aggressive over time.
    Thank you for your advice, really appreciate it. I will certainly be trying out as many bikes as I can and will add the Cervelo to the Trek and Cannondale short list. I do struggle with the general categorisation of the bikes between aero, race/light weight and endurance. Not sure what my Trek AL 5 is but I don't find it particularly uncomfortable but if I am only riding 50 to 100K plus the occasional 100 miler is comfort going to make too much difference?
Sign In or Register to comment.