Madone vs. Madone SL

[insung]

I can't decide on a Madone vs. a Madone SL. I know the Madone has 110 carbon and the SL has 120 carbon and costs a little more. Just wanted to get other peoples thoughts.

[fixit]

I can't decide on a Madone vs. a Madone SL. I know the Madone has 110 carbon and the SL has 120 carbon and costs a little more. Just wanted to get other peoples thoughts.

Test ride both, then decide.

[insung]

yeah, i'm planning on test riding both when the SL come in. just wanted to see if anyone here had any inside info or thoughts.

[larryb]

yeah, i'm planning on test riding both when the SL come in. just wanted to see if anyone here had any inside info or thoughts.
i've been riding the botton of the line Madone 5.2T for about 6 weeks. for me it's a real sweet ride.

it can only get better from there.
i don't know how you can miss with any of these bikes.

[tafi]

I can't decide on a Madone vs. a Madone SL. I know the Madone has 110 carbon and the SL has 120 carbon and costs a little more. Just wanted to get other peoples thoughts.
You got it wrong. The madone 5.2 comes with 120 carbon fibre, the Madone 5.9 comes with 110 carbon, the Madone 5.2 SL comes with 120 carbon and the Madone 5.9 SL has 110 carbon. Either model has a choice of the two types of carbon. In my experience the real world differences betweenthe materials are small and the main choice is whether you like the "aero" shaped tubes or the straight ones.

[insung]

You got it wrong. The madone 5.2 comes with 120 carbon fibre, the Madone 5.9 comes with 110 carbon, the Madone 5.2 SL comes with 120 carbon and the Madone 5.9 SL has 110 carbon. Either model has a choice of the two types of carbon. In my experience the real world differences betweenthe materials are small and the main choice is whether you like the "aero" shaped tubes or the straight ones.

You're right. I got my numbers mixed up. Checking Trek USA website:
Madone 5.2 & 5.9 = 120 OCLV frame and fork
Madone SL 5.2 & 5.9 = 110 OCLV frame and fork

You're probably right about the difference being barely noticable. Its probably more aesthetics and gram shaving. I guess I'm more conservative and leaning towards the SL.

[phatdad]

well, I must correct you. the 2005 madone sl is 110 carbon, the madone is 120 carbon, and the ssl is 55 carbon. it is in my garage. i just bought it this week, and is hands down, bar none the best thing i have ever done. i would describe it as a blend of the stiffness of my first rigid aluminum bike and comfort of my last ironman softride, with the handling of a mountain bike. i weigh now (after having kids) 230lbs, and this thing does not flex! i have NEVER sat on a bike and felt so natural. you just have to gently press on the pedal and it lunges forward! i rode it last saturday during a trek demo-day, and after 2 minutes i was back and got off it. the rep asked if i had a flat, and i said no...i'll take it! he said it is the shortest test ride he has ever had. i cannot suggest this bike any more strongly. being a physiotherapist i can appreciate the body-saving efeects of carbon. do it. buy it. ride it. love it.



You got it wrong. The madone 5.2 comes with 120 carbon fibre, the Madone 5.9 comes with 110 carbon, the Madone 5.2 SL comes with 120 carbon and the Madone 5.9 SL has 110 carbon. Either model has a choice of the two types of carbon. In my experience the real world differences betweenthe materials are small and the main choice is whether you like the "aero" shaped tubes or the straight ones.