She’s going to SD Worx but is still contractually obligated to wear her old kit until the end of the calendar year.
1 Like
- Lighter
- Stiffer
- More aero
- More comfortable
(None of these claims will ever be independently tested)
More expensive. (if that’s possible)
Mostly, to pay for the huge marketing campaign.
Someone, here will post a free thread on it. (because, they need free marketing)
Many humans will believe the marketing claims.
There will be an SL9.
Everything will be repeated…
3 Likes
Aero and lighter can and will be tested.
The SL7 was significantly faster than the SL6 in Tour Test.
Roadbike mag also Tests stiffness and compliance.
SL7 tested less stiff but more compliant than SL6 there.
I know people are fed up with marketing claims of bike brands, and a lot of that is BS. But it’s not all bad.
Colnago V4RS and Trek Madone SLR9 AXS prove there is headroom.
I posted this to discuss bikes, which I like doing, not because they need free marketing
That’s a bigger problem at hand, where the bike industry really is only the tip of the top of the tip of the ice berg.
As long as we try to solve global warming with more efficient cars, CO2 offset for airplane travel, and electricity produced by burning fossile fuels, we are doomed anyway.
That is a large social and political problem, that would upend everything in our current society, when solved. The people that have a say earn from consumption, not from recycling and extended usage of existing product. Don’t hold your breath for them to change anything.
2 Likes
I get that folks love cycling tech.
However, wouldn’t you think that doing everything possible to further prevent the relentless cycle of toxic consumerism would be a positive step, for all of us?
This is obviously not just a cycling problem.
Seeing this terrible cycle of consumption just makes me sad. I get this is a cycling forum. I get that a huge portion of road cyclists are gear addicted. I was myself, when I started cycling, very much so. However, I do believe that we can at least attempt to break the cycle.
Personally, I would go as far as saying that banning any form of marketing would go a long way to helping all of us living a more responsible life.
How that would be implemented on a global scale, now that’s a truly fascinating discussion.
Certainly, more interesting than the next miracle cycling gizmo.
Oh, and let me be very clear. Starting a thread on a cycling forum on a yet unreleased bicycle is by every measurement yet created by mankind, free promotion. Brands kill for people so incredibly loyal to their brand that they freely promote their products. It’s the absolute tip of the spear.
I’m very guilty of the same behavior, and am trying to improve it.
14 Likes
No, consumerism is the base of a healthy, developed economy. Insofar we all benefit from businesses thriving, it’s a win win.
Marketing is the grease that keeps the wheels turning!. 
I think I understand where you are coming from, however your diagnostic and recommendations are totally misguided at the societal level.
1 Like
So, we should just carry on, on our current trajectory, because it’s good for the economy?
There isn’t an alternative model that would better treat the planet we inhabit?
It’s just a thought experiment.
Imagine an entirely different reality. What would an optimal system actually look like? Assuming this new system is superior., how do we transition to it in a logical time frame?
10 Likes
Sorry everybody for the off-topic comments. This will be my last one. I don’t want to be rude and don’t answer to Mr. @TheBandit.
We are slouching towards this utopia of yours (borrowing from Prof. Delong). Innovation in materials, new energy sources will take us there. The market mechanisms will reward smart, greedy, entrepreneurial people that come up with solutions to our challenges. Governments should assist with basic research and targeted deregulation. Slowly but surely, environment friendly practices will become cheaper and total adoption will be the only option.
On the other hand, getting the developing world to our side of the curve will be likely the most beneficial thing for the environment, as advanced economies pollute a fraction of the emerging ones.
Good Night!
On the SL8, let us hope the bike is on the lighter side, competing with the Canyon Ultimate at a minimum.
1 Like
People in developed nations pollute many times more than those in developing countries. Burundi isn’t the problem, it’s consumption and consumerism.
4 Likes
@oldandfast @BigRed @TheBandit
Can y‘all please discuss this somewhere else. We‘ve now understood the point and nobody is disagreeing, but this thread is not about the effects of consumerism, but a speculation thread about a specific bike. Let’s just keep it at that. Creat your own thread and continue discussing there.
15 Likes
Looks really good, but the biggest question is, is that a Mirror saddle that has been ridden to the edge of death? Haha
Looks like a polished turd 
There always seemed to be these threads on various forums about new SLx releases. It’s a bit fishy imo.
Again, just my opinion - and the opinion of anyone I know who has ridden both - the Cervelo R5 is a much better bike and that’s unlikely to change with the new SLwhatever.
At $18k or whatever it is they’re planning to charge for it, the phrase ‘a fool and his money are easily parted’ comes to mind.
What’s fishy about it?
Nope, you are wrong. SL7 is better is my opinion. Have ridden SL6, last gen R5, last gen S5, SL7 and current R5.
SL7 is also more aero (as per Tour testing).
So as per independent testing, the R5 is pretty unaerodynamic, and also heavier than the SL7. Before you callout wheels, they do testing with standardized wheels (ZIPP 404) and the R5 2022 was much slower there, too.
While an R5 is a very sound investment.
1 Like
New Mirror saddle very likely. Not a looker, I agree.
1 Like
are people really choosing their bikes based off a magazines aero testing? Is their protocol available somewhere? Are they testing in transient conditions or is it just 4 watts faster at 45kph without a rider (or a static rider) on the bike in a wind tunnel?
Yes it is. Pedaling lower body dummy. Why no upper body? To not have position on the bike effect the data. They measure a weighted average for yaw angles. And do tests with standard and standardized wheels. It‘s explained in several issues of their magazine.
I am not buying it off their marketing, but Tour is the ONLY bike mag, including all the YouTube BS, that do actual comparative, standardized testing. Everyone else is just riding around in a circle for an hour, reads off the marketing claims, says the bike is amazing, and claims to have gotten a bunch of PRs.
Is Tour Perfect? No.
Do they provide by far the most telling and in-depth testing of current bikes? - Absolutely!
9 Likes
I asked this out of curiosity not to be snarky. So what is their testing protocol as I seem to be unable to find it online. I get that most of the rest is pure bullshit and to most people a bike that is 10W faster at 45kph will not make a difference over another. To me the most important metric is the fit. YMMV
Whoosh - my ‘joke’ about the R5 completely went over your head. I just picked a random competitor bike and said ‘everyone thinks it’s better’ and you jumped to defend the SL. Are you objective much?
You’re right that the new and greatest R5 will also be overpriced. In my opinion the bike industry is in for a serious correction in its pricing strategy but time will tell on that.
Anyway, I’m thinking of this of this thread as ‘Big Bike’ marketing, but anyway, continue.
ps The R5 is objectively better.
Yeah, but that is super individual. SL7 fits for a lot of people, surely not everyone though.
The bikes are sold off of claims about weight, stiffness and aerodynamics, and Tour are pretty much the only who actually test these things scientifically.
Not more or less than anyone else. I am not paid by anyone, I research, test, and buy what I think is best. I sold my Spesh TT bike for a Cervelo, because it was objectively faster for my usecase.
Objective much?
Opinion-based objectivity?
2 Likes