I totally agree with this. I always buy aluminum bikes and focus on the wheelset. The weight savings from a carbon frame is miniscule (grams) compared to the complete bike weight. Also, most cyclist could just lose weight, which is far more effective than reducing the weight of a bike by a pound.
Having owned both I can attest to the fact that, unless you are an elite competitive cyclist, carbon is not worth the extra money (from strictly a performance perspective). Carbon bikes are often considered more desirable from aesthetic perspective but with hydroforming and the smooth welds on aluminum today it is getting harder to tell the difference by looking at them. Aluminum is a bit easier to work on simply due to the fact that you don't have to be critical about having a torque wrench to tighten bolts on an aluminum frame. IMO spending the money on a wheel upgrade is a substantially better investment that you will actually feel.
I could’t agree more. I started on an entry level alloy bike, after a few years I upgraded to a 2014 Tour de France level frame which is now on its last days, due to regular wear and tear and these days I prefer to ride my Domane ALR, due to geometry and tire clearance. I won’t win any races on either, so I might as well enjoy the ride more, right?
Thanks for your comment Mr Greg, I have an aluminium giant fastroad 2 right now and was thinking for my dream bike i would get the contend carbon fibre for my next bike but don't think I will now, just get the contend aluminium with full `105 group set if you're saying i won't notice much difference in speed or anything... right now my bike has flat handlebars and is shimano sora
I tend to agree for the most part and own 2 aluminium frames I love - but it is worth noting carbon absorbs a lot more vibrations than aluminium, and can be more comfortable in that regard. You can obviously upgrade your alloy frame set with more carbon (seat post, handlebars, wheels) to minimise this, but they’re not cheap upgrades.
@@ThisHaloFan nice ok good to note thanks, my bike has a carbon fork, may be next time i will do what you suggested, upgrade to giant contend which is aluminium but carbon fork and carbon seatpost, then upgrade the wheels and handlebar in time to carbon
@@ThisHaloFan indeed. i recently replaced my 6069 aluminum handlebar with a carbon bar and i'm amazed with the damping it provides on chattery surfaces (gravel, broken pavement, etc). this is on a stiff carbon framed-bike. i want to try one on my emonda ALR next, although that bike is pretty comfy - mostly because of tubeless 32c tires - although mine measure out at 35mm (!) wide, as i have them on 23mm internal width wheels.
I switched to carbon fibre in 2006 when I bought the trend setting Cervelo Soloist (Team CSC model) and being a carbon convertee, up until last year only rode carbon frames. However, last year after I decided to get a gravel bike, I picked up a great 2nd hand aluminium Cannondale Slate which I love. Yes, aluminium frames tend to be a bit heavier but hey, drop 0.5kgs in weight and the difference is negligible. With improvements in aluminium frames in recent years, I think they deserve serious consideration.
Having owned and ridden many steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon fiber bicycles over the years I can say without a doubt there is a difference in how a bicycle rides and performs based on what the frame is made of. Having said that you should test ride prospective bikes in various configurations to see if those differences will really matter to you. For me I’m purchasing the Emonda in the top spec 800 series SLR configuration because I buy brand new bikes rather infrequently and ride quite a bit, easily over 100 days a year so it’s worth it for me to spend the extra money. The extra snap and acceleration the race frame provides is addicting and worth it to me. Also from what I understand a lot of people have new car payments of over $1000 a month these days (%@#$&!). I do not have a car payment and will end up being one of those people with a bike worth more than my car so I don’t feel too bad about spending the extra few thousand on something I love to do and use frequently. But to each their own.
100% concur. Own all 3. Ti frames amazing ride quality but carbon for road racing. Steel for Gravel and CX. Top end components are what really make the edge.
I’ve had aluminium, carbon , steel and titanium . My favourite was titanium. Had a lovely spring to it and definitely even with 25mm tyres dampened bad roads.. . The caad12 is another brilliant bike you can pick up used . I had mine at 7.6kg with pedals and zonda wheels .. some carbon bikes feel a bit wooden ..but yeah with the right wheelset you can make a big Difference
Bought an ALR5 a year ago. Crashed and used crash replacement discount so I opt for the Emonda SL frameset because why not, it's discounted. Everything was transfered over insto the new frame except the seatpost. The SL feels more responsive when you put down the power, at the same time it really takes a lot of the road harshness away. How can I carbon be more stiff, responsive and still compliant on road imperfections? Turns out it's just the versatility of the carbon fiber material, not just it's strength to weight ratio that is so easy for engineers to fine tune the ride. They can control tube shape, fiber direction, take out material to places where it doesn't need it and add to places where it's needed. Is it worth the extra $1000? well test ride both versions and decide. As for me, it was worth it.
Really good video and very informative. Nice to compare bikes from the same company as far as value goes within their bike line. Please do more like this...👍🏻
I have one of the original Emonda ALRs that came out in 2016 and I flipping love this bike. I plan to upgrade the drive train to SRAM Force AXS eTap in the very near future, it is that good. I originally planned to buy the Emonda SL, but opted for the ALR and put my Ultegra 11 speed mechanical on it from another bike, and it weighs right at 15.9 lbs with pedals. Edit: eTap AXS is now on my bike.
I've been riding my Trek Emonda ALR5 for 3 years now covering approx 20,000 kms I have upgraded to wheels to a set of DT Swiss alloys rim brakes total weight 8kgs
There are advantages and disadvantages to both carbon and aluminum. Aluminum is inexpensive as compared to carbon and is only slightly heavier. So a definte plus for Aluminum. However aluminum tends to be a harsher material (it is metal after all) and thus can transfer road vibration and impacts more than carbon would. This is why you often see an aluminum frame paired with a carbon fork. The carbon fork can compensate for the harsher ride of aluminum. Carbon on the other hand is less affected by road vibration and thus tends to have a smoother ride quality, which over a longer distance can reduce rider fatigue. So a plus for carbon. However, because aluminum is less expensive than carbon you usually can get a higher quality spec bicycle than you would for a carbon frame bicycle at the same price. So a plus for Aluminum. But, carbon has no limitations on frame design and shape that other materials, such as aluminum and titanium, might have. You can practically design a carbon frame to be any shape you want. This gives frame builders the freedom to enhance or diminish characteristics in a frame as they choose. True, you can do this with aluminum to a certain extent, but not nearly as much as you can for carbon. So a definite plus for carbon. In the end which material you choose should come down to what you want from your bicycle.
I couldn't agree more, but: this has been the case for years. I've got a 2016 ALR 4 which I upgraded to Ultegra the moment I bought it and it has been, and is, brilliant. I bought it as a winterbike next to my (carbon) Domane but loved it so much I since have another winterbike and use the ALR for races. Even the ALR 4 is light (the 5 weights less), looks like it's carbon from a small distance. My current winterbike is a (upgraded to 105) Domane AL2 Disc and with these bikes Trek proves you don't need carbon. Add in the lower pricepoint and 'classic' parts which make it cheap to maintain and upgrade and I don't see myself buying any more carbon bikes.
Carbon forks in particular, absorb road vibration otherwise it’s all metal down to the tire. In the past had to wear padded gel gloves, two layers of bar tape - at least. I don’t wear gloves at all now. The first time on a carbon bike with carbon fork - but had a chromoly steerer and crown, I thought the tires were flat 😲 - it was nearly void of the typical road vibration.
Aluminum has improved greatly, and for the price, weight and performance, I believe modern aluminum frames are better than production steel frames (with the exception of "tuned" production frames like Fairlight). The use case however matters more. For bikepacking, I am 100% sold...aluminum is the best material. it's light, stiff, and inexpensive for a sport where you're neither trying push yourself or your equipment to it's limits. Where the seperation starts to be more apparent is where weight becomes much more important or the most important, but also adding in additional technologies. An example since we're looking at Trek. The difference between the Crocket and the Boone is very apparent. The compliance, tuned ride and weight between the two...the jump in performance is very considerable. For C'dale, the Topstone and Topstone Carbon are two very different bikes. You're adding technologies ontop of weight that just change it considerably. There's a reason the Aluminum version of the ProCaliber never really took off (even though it sold well, and this is mostly Trek to blame) is the difference in price from the aluminum to the carbon, and what you got for not so much more. The two places I believe aluminum really competes is the road frame. Look at the CAAD series from C'dale and the Allez Sprint from Specialized. C'dale applied everything the could do w/ the SuperSix to an aluminum bike and Spesh from the Tarmac SL7 to the Allez Sprint. The other place is aluminum vs carbon suspension with bikes like the Ibis Ripley and Ibis Ripley AF where the components matter so much more because the inherent qualities of the frame exist in both aluminum and carbon alike...same geometry, same DW-Link suspension so its really just a difference in weight that you're paying for because in that instance...the front and rear shock and tires do far more for compliance than frame material. Which leads me to this video. 1:1 an Emonda ALR with the same 105 component group is not going to be that far off from an Emonda SL with all else being equal...it's just not. Everything else is too much of a factor. But I will say this, If you decked an Emonda ALR out with top of the line SRAM Red AXS, the best cockpit and carbon bits...it will be an absolute screamer of a bike....but the SLR will still be better and the accumulative watt difference, the power transfer....between the two in climbing something like Mont Ventoux will actually be considerable and measurable, and if you're....not even a pro, but competitive in the sport...it will be difference especially if you're a 61-65kg rider where the bike makes up more of your weight %...it will matter, and it will make a considerable difference. But its easier to cherry pick situations that fit the argument and then imply a blanket assumption on top of it, but in the end...it doesn't serve as a real benefit....nuance and the finer details matter...or they don't...if it doesn't apply to you or simply are priced out of the market.
I just got a Canyon Endurace Aluminum with 105. Essentially the Canyon version of the same bike. Everyone in my bike club and friends and neighbors I've talked to about it give me a look like I just farted and follow it with a patronizing "well, if you're happy with it..." or "I guess whatever works...". When asked, they all say carbon is much more responsive and so much better and insist it's not just about weight. I do get the feeling that I'm missing out. You're telling me I'm not missing that much.
Cyclists are such elitist snobs sometimes. Don't listen to them. None of them are good enough to be racing in the Tour de France with their over-priced carbon framed bikes.
There are other reasons beside weight to get a carbon frame. Like they tend to be more comfortable to ride. However if you put that extra $1000 into a mid tier wheel set then it might be just as good.
I've done this with a Specialized Allez Sprint, and now I'm on a cf emonda. There's still a noticable difference in compliance between the al vs carbon frame; even with carbon everything components. It really is worth the added expense to go carbon, unless you ride perfeclty paved asphalt or race crits.
Aluminum all the way. Got a domane al5 with 105 for 2k and threw my enve 8.7s on it and hit hauls! Thinking of putting my etap on it but 105 has been solid so far.
Just got the same bike myself. Going out for first ride today. Read many good things about ride and build quality. The only negative stuff I heard was from Hambini.
I just got an AL5 too, and they are on sale now. I paid $1850 for it. I had been looking at the SL5, but it was $3499 for basically the same bike only with carbon frame. Not worth it to me. Plus, I've heard lots of horror stories about issues with the Isospeed on the Domane's. I avoided that issue and bought nice carbon wheels for my AL5 instead. I love my AL5!
Given the beauty of the treatment of the welds on this bike I’d say, “forget the carbon”. Wish I had a place for using a road bike as I’d buy this in a second. Very pretty bike. Wish the fitness bikes got the same weld treatment on their aluminum frames. :(.
We used to carry a spare derailleur hanger on rides. My classic blur has a hanger as a frame component. One bolt in the seatstay one on the chainstay. And it is removed and the chain can be removed without breaking it.
Totally with you on this. I've had Trek bikes for as long as I've been a cyclist and they always seen to hit a sweet spot (on some models) for components and spec. A few years back, I bought my wife a Domane AL3 and, at the time, concluded that it would be an excellent first serious road bike. Good review.
Got a Emonda ALR 5 now for a couple of months. Bought it as a allrounder for me. Mostly Sunday rides and commuting twice a week. First had a gravelbike but the Emonda is way better fot me. And the advice me to go for the aluminum because of the weight limit and price. Better great aluminum than poor carbon. So now looking the internet for upgrades like wheels, tires, bike computer. But one thing at the time. Would love to see the difference to stock. Great video
I have a Trek Emonda and love it. I avoid brand new bikes because I won't pay the price that they want. I shop around and buy good used bicycles, both steel, carbon, and aluminum. I do find that carbon to be the most smooth riding bicycles.
It is a shame that you can't custom build these bikes. Esp. if parts such as saddle, tires, perhaps even wheels will be swapped out in the first few weeks of owning. I know you can buy a frameset and go from there, but that's usually a more expensive option. Great video!
you definitely can buy frame-sets and build them up yourself though. i personally still have a 2014 allez built up with a mix of shimano ultegra and sram red etap. picked up a really light pair of winspace carbon 38 wheels to use along side the ksyrium wheels i had on there for years. picked a nice fsa carbon seatpin and its a 7kg fully loaded, very well performing alloy bike. overall value? great. its not a cheap bike in terms of casual cyclists, but for an enthusiast or a racer, it'd be very good performance on a budget.
Yup. Agree. Buy only frame it will be more expensive. Buy a whole bike and change most of the parts is not good for the environment. This euro/west company talking about saving environment however they sell products to throw away the parts.
It would be even better without the costly disc brakes and through axle. A needless expense. The bike companies are discouraging new riders from entereing the sport with sky high prices that are not justfiable. thumbs up for the 11 speed drive train. Author is right about not needing to buy carbon. I have many aluminum frame carbon forked bikes that ride just as fast as my total carbon ride. hey bike companies, give us something around a thousand bucks with at least a 9 speed drive train and rim brakes, and that weighs 20 lbs. LIKE YOU USED TO.
It’s crazy. I took about 5 years off from cycling, and when I came back was shocked to see everyone with disc brakes. They seem seem like a lot of fuss.
My blur was a little over 25 lbs in 05 anodized aluminum XT trigger shifters v- brakes and dependable. 3 years later carbon blur was about 2 lbs heavier and cost more. I purposely went retro and missed rapid rise and sti shifting on off road bikes. Luck and being a little cheap. I bought mavic crossmax XL wheelset for half price and the 24 spoke aluminum spoked wheelset is as good as any i have had. It still costs way more to build a bike but it was nice to get what you want in the bike I quit counting at about $4,000. 18 yrs later I ride it almost every day.
I can say Treks Carbon bike are night and day from the Al ones. With the Carbon you also get seat damping. It's a big deal, they ride complexly different. Love the carbon models.
The problem that I noticed when looking at the SL version of the Trek Domane is the Isospeed on the seat tube. I've read all over the Internet about the issues that Trek is having with this, and it caused me to skip the carbon version and go with the AL5 instead. I upgraded my wheels to carbon and will probably upgrade the seat post and saddle to carbon to help with cushioning road noise.
Everything break, tytanium, steel, aluminum, and carbon. The question is about material fatique and technilogy, and quality control (welding, material, design).
Its not always about weight, the difference is power transfer. Carbon is stiffer so it transfer power better. I started from an alloy frame user then upgraded to carbon, certainly can feel the difference when accelerating and climbing.
@@cumberbatchpepperpot I bought one of the cheapest Canyons new in 2012 (Roadlite AL 6.0 SL) and still ride it to this day. I paid €999 for it 10 years ago and it has total weight of 8,15 kg, their slightly more expensive (couple of €100+ max) Roadlite AL 7.0 has a weight of 7,95 kg... Their modern day (entry level/comparable price) "equivalents" are all considerably heavier: Endurace 6 RB (rim brakes): 8,72 kg (€1099) Endurace 7 RB (rim brakes): 8,46 kg (€1299) Endurace 6 (disc brakes): 9,44 kg (€1399) Endurace 7 (disc brakes): 9,20 kg (€1699)
Weight is due to heavy wheels and disc brakes!!. Better wheels and tyres would bring the weight down considerably don't think you can get a rim brake version anymore!!. So weight is up by half a kilo before you start any weight saving measures!. Don't right this bike off though as the cheaper carbon frames are nothing like the top versions and in a lot of brands they are the same weight as the top alloy versions sometimes even heavier!.. all modern bikes seem to be getting heavier lol!!! Unless you spend an absolute fortune!!. I would happily buy the alr5 or better still the alr6 which I think you can still get?. This is ultegra equipped and is a little bit lighter still.
i ride a Cervelo Aspero (stiff carbon frame) but recently built up a 2021 Emonda ALR frameset and i am impressed with the comfort. re: tires - you can actually squeeze a 32c on these. a 700x32 specialized roubaix widens up to 35mm on a 23mm internal width rim and fits perfectly. there is about 2mm of clearance between the rear tire and the seat tube, but plenty of clearance elsewhere.
On an organized ride in Waco I was drafting on a carbon fiber tandem. The top tube and down tube broke behind the headtube and they crashed hard. I kept riding my $250 cromolly bike and still ride it since 91. I spent about $1200 on upgrades in 02 and realized I could have gotten a new one instead.
I agree, there is no reason to buy Carbon. I’m planning to do a similar video myself. Also: Don’t buy TREK (All their bikes are super heavy for some reason.) Like 9 to 10kg for even some of their carbon bikes.
I bought a Fuji SST 2.0 (full carbon) back in 2012, so that is my designated road bike. I recently upgraded my "gravel/trail" bike from a Trek FX 7.3 to a Domane AL5 Disc, and i am loving this new ride. I looked at the Domane SL5, but couldn't justify paying $1,500 more just for the carbon frame. Instead, i used $1K of that money and bought a solid pair of carbon wheels. Now if i only had one bike, i might have gone with the SL5, but I'm spoiled with options.🤣 😂😂
so true, I have mountain bikes and wont buy another trek. They take control of bike shops and want to have propriety components. They have been smelling their farts for too long.
When I was about to buy a CX in 2018 end of, considering a dual use for road events, too, I compared the Focus Mares 105 Alu to Carbon. Price wise it made little sense to go for the carbon, although it was stiffer, something I could feel (90kg) under me. However, I was able to grab a 2017 model at a great discount, and I can say that I could not be happier. My next bike will again be a carbon one, last year or older model, or a test one from a shop. I love the stiffness and the vibrations absorption.
I get it that this applies to like 1% of road riders, but as a dude over 100kg, Alloy just isn't stiff enough for someone my size and power output. I would love to see a GCN style video that puts a 105kg fit rider on an alloy bike and a carbon bike same groupset and all and looks at the difference.
it depends on the frame. we can't just generalize alloy all together. just like there are well made, and poorly made carbon bikes, there are well made, and poorly made alloy bikes. and when it comes to the well made alloy bikes, they are stiff. really stiff. problem isn't that they're stiff enough, the problem is that they're too stiff. in good ways, and also all the bad ways. cuz you can't engineer in compliance like you can with carbon. you can make it flex laterally but be stiff vertically, or vice versa, depending on where you are on the frame, or what you want from that part of the bike. with alloy, its just uniform stiffness throughout the whole bike. cannondale CAAD series and specialized allez (upper tier models, around 2012-2015, and then the sprint models, starting in 2016 i think) were all really well made. the lower tier ones were made differently and did not perform the same. there were many riders who tested the top frames for the allez, when the s-work models were being produced, 2014/2015, and they said it rode just as well as the tarmac. it was just far more punishing than their carbon counterpart. i haven't had much experience with the trek series alloy bikes. they look nice, but never personally tried it, nor do i know anyone with them. but since the CAAD's and allez's been around much longer, the circle of ppl i know for cycling, have far more experience with these. still a good number of really light and fast CAAD's and allez's around. so yeah, with the way materials can be manipulated now. a good alloy bike with good components, i'd wager, is a better choice than a low end carbon model with entry level or lower range components. saving money means you pay for it somewhere. and unfortunately with carbon fibre, being still considered a "premium material", you pay for the status of carbon, despite not getting anything particularly good.
@@chickenpoodle I absolutely agree if we are doing the "same price" game. I.e. nice alloy bike with ultegra vs. Lower end carbon with 105. But this video is specifically about saving money, so I guess I'm just saying the extra money is worth it to me for a better riding experience, better times, more stamina, less power loss etc.
@@chickenpoodle Without doing a Google search, can an aluminum frameset with carbon forks and carbon rear triangle, correct saddle, seatpost, handlebars and stem, which cost much less, provide the desired compliance?
@@everettkincaid1214 I'm not familiar with any readily available alloy frame bicycle with carbon rear stays. You can probably get a custom bike frame made as per your specification, but that's expensive. I've seen titanium carbon frames made in a similar manner. But as for alloy frame, with carbon fork, seat pin, and standard alloy stem and bars, it can come close. A lot more of the compliance equation comes from our wheels and tire choices more than the actual frame itself. And remember some wheels are far more stiffer than others too. Comfort and compliance is a balancing act between stiffness and flexibility of your components. Size of rider plays a big role too. Smaller riders can get away with more flexible components as they weigh less, and require far less watts to propel themselves forward
Hey buddy, great video and can say with a 1000 to spend, I would go for top notch carbon wiels on this gem of a bike. The sl carbon version has a flaw in the frame design.. because of the internal storage it can start to break just above it. Reinforcing the entire tube would make it to heavy so Trek did it partially The SLR doesn't have that.
Just a note. ALR & SL models does not share the shame fork. The SL has an aero fork that the ALR doesn't. I own the 2017 ALR, and love it, but I did trired out an 2021 SL5 for a week and despite being havier than my ALR (custom build) the SL blew the shocks of the ALR in every aspect expept weight.
The 2023 will probably have the same semi integrated front end and t47 bb as the current carbon emondas, which IMHO is actually giving up nothing, where this still is somewhat.
I have an 2015 Emonda ALR and it's the best road bike I've ever owned. I've rented lots of carbon road bikes when I travel, including a Pinarello, and I can say my Emonda does not feel out of place. I admit, better spec'd carbon bikes are a bit more comfortable, nicer shifting, and I now want disc brakes. BUT at a five digit price tag. Not worth it for me and certainly no faster.
Thank you for this video. I am interest to know if the "feel" between aluminum and carbon. Would you be able to accelerate faster using carbon vs aluminum? How is the pedal stroke be transfer to forward movement of these bike.
Stuck. This or Domane AL5? This has better aluminum (though I don't know how) which would make it stiffer, perhaps? 2 pounds lighter too. But the Domane has 11-34 VS 11-30 gearing so the Domane should potentially climb better?
I can't speak to the Emonda, but I recently bought an AL5 Disc and it is fantastic. The best thing about the Domane is the relaxed geometry. I also love that it comes with full 105 group set including hydraulic brakes. You get a lot of bang for your buck, and I used the savings that I would've spent on the SL version on a nice set of carbon wheels.
Boy that high prices are ridiculous for that haevy bikes ! I build up my own Winspace slc 2.0 bike with the hyper 38 se wheelset and à Mix of mechanical dura ace and ultegra groupset for around 3.5k euro and it weighs 6.6kg.
I think most cyclists would be better served by buying a good metal frame instead of carbon fiber, and should put their money into quality components. Tires, rims, derailleurs, brakes, saddle… are will make a big difference in the quality of the ride.
Not sure i agree, i bought recently a trek sl5 carbon and since then been claiming a fair few KOM strava segments on some pretty nasty climbs. The sl5 carbon is worth paying more
I compared two hybrid bikes recently - one carbon fiber frame, the other not. The weight diff was noticeable for me, so I splurged and spent the extra $600 on the carbon fiber Trek 4X. Living in Colorado, I ride at an elevation of about 6K ft above sea level and the hills around my house mean I don't spend a lot of time "flat riding." I can only report my personal experience, which is the lighter frame of my new bike compared to my old bike has given me about a 20% boost in my ride strength / duration, but I do tend to feel more bumps with the lighter frame.
Too bad there are no eyelets on the Emonda ALR 5 for a rack and fenders because this bike is not really light enough to be a racing bike. But it is lighter than the Domane AL 5. Sure the Emonda frame is not as strong as the Domane and thus cannot hold as much weight, but having something is better than not having a rack and fender at all. And an 11-32 cassette would be better. And a longer cage rear derailleur would be even better for the opportunity to swap to an 11-34 cassette as needed.
yes, but other brands have their Alu bikes at little over 1000 USD. Decathlon's Van Rysel range sells the full carbon EDR 105 CF at 2000 USD. Would you not chose that over this Alu Trek?
All my friends say the r1 tires are not the best .but being winter with all the crap on rhe roads .been pretty reliable. Any suggestions for upgraded tires ??
If you're looking for speed and less rolling resistance, go with Conti GP5000's. I have those on my Fuji SST and they are super fast. I don't get punctures either but I ride only on roads and I keep the psi at 110. The tires are rated up to 120 psi.
An disadvantage of the Aluminium frames (not only from Trek, but also from, for example, Cannondale) is that they come only with a 105 groupset at best, and fairly simple wheels. If you want Di2 or E-tap, you will spend the difference between Al and carbon (or more) on the groupset and wheel upgrade, paying customer prices.
I own this as my winter with DI2 and top-end carbon zipp components and wheels throughout. Bike weighs in at 7.8 kilo. Bike has absolutely nothing on my carbon summer bikes 6.7 kilo. it’s not even slightly close. 2.5mph slower over a 37 mile effort. It’s also ludicrously sluggish in comparison. Bikes decent enough, but it’s absolutely no replacement for a legitimate race bike.
The trek alr frame life time warranty and it's price is what i would consider buying this than the carbon version tho , we all have our carbon frames chipped or chain drop causing dmg to the frame, even tho i use eletrical tape to cover it , but knowing it has a scracth on the frame or so just worries me
I used to think that aluminum frames had a lot of vibration feed back. My arms would ache riding long distances on an aluminum frame. Now I am wondering if lower tire pressures would cure that. It used to be high air pressure was the way to go and now we know that is not correct.
You can add some 30 or 32 tires with lower pressure. I have an Emonda ARL 5 and I replaced the stem and handlebar for the carbon version and you really feel the difference.
Anyone pitch in, I'd like to go to 30 and if possible 32 on the Emonda 58cm alr disc. Can peeps recommend brand and style tire that have worked for you...Thx
ALR is a great bike. I almost bought one, but went with carbon because I'm in the industry. I didn't think I ever would, but I want to try a carbon bike once in my life. I defintely agree that the ALR is one the best bikes young recreational riders could want.
