onibox

Hey all, I'm a complete beginner with bikes and never toured/raced before so I'm here for some advice.
Today I was at a Trek store near-by, looking for an entry level road bike. Tested the Emonda ALR5 2016 model and loved it, but was told by staff that the Emonda S5 2015 model is lighter and absorbs shock better (being carbon). I couldn't test ride the S5, so i just trusted the staff and bought the S5. When I got home, I started looking at some specs, and I saw that the S5 is in fact heavier than the ALR5 by .5 kg! I don't want to get unnecessarily upset, is the S5(2015) model better than the ALR5? The price difference was only $50 (S5 being more expensive) so I only care about getting the better bike.

Bunyanderman

The weight difference is most likely in the other components, such as handle bars, seat post, and in the drive train. That is a little weird to buy a bike with out testing it, but I am sure you will like it either way.

If you are worried about the weight, there are thousands of other components you can "upgrade" or change to drop weight.

jrossbeck

The difference in weight is likely negligible. One 16 ounce bottle of water weighs a pound.

However - the carbon S5 frameset will indeed absorb more shock than the aluminum ALR5. For a $50 difference, the only real advantage of the aluminum frame vs. the carbon is if you plan to be very "rough" on your bike - i.e. not take care of it. Or maybe if you have kids, etc. who might knock the thing over frequent - i.e. not take care of it.

WalksOn2Wheels

As far as I can tell, they both have 105 11 speed. I would buy the carbon over the aluminum for a difference of 50 bucks. It is going to be the base entry level carbon for Trek, so it won't be as nice as the SL, but it will overall feel nicer than aluminum.

I would think the build spec is near identical on the two bikes given that they are both 105 builds. Where are you getting your weight information?

onibox

Thanks, sounds like the S5 is the way to go then.

In several reviews they mentioned the weight, as well as this list. I's in Japanese but it's the column with the numbers listed in kilograms (kg).
TREK�i�g���b�N�j�d��

Lanovran

Between the 300 Series aluminum of the ALR and the 300 Series carbon of the S, the weight difference will be negligible. In fact, the ALR is lighter than a lot of other carbon bikes out there. The main advantage of the carbon in this case will be in its vibration-dampening qualities, offering a smoother ride in comparison to the aluminum (though, to be honest, the aluminum �monda is not a bad ride at all). They're pretty similar bikes overall, so it's a question of whether you'd prefer the ride feel of the carbon over the aluminum, or vice-versa. When you go up a step to the �monda SL, which is made with Trek's 500 Series carbon, that's when you'll really notice more of a weight savings (along with a few other features).

RDB

The price for the s5 is $2100. The price for the alr5 is $1759. That's a $341 difference not $50. In any case, I considered the s5 but I bought the alr5.

The s5 uses 300 series carbon which is a low grade. The alr5 uses 300 series alpha aluminum which is their best. IMHO the price difference is not worth it.

BTW, the alr5 is a superb bike. I'm not disappointed one bit with mine.

cicatrize

QFT on all accounts. The ALR5 is wonderful.

Demobrett

I paid $1599 for my ALR 5

cicatrize

Yeah, I think everyone's paying $1599 for it. His point is that MSRP is higher for the S5. IIRC, my LBS had the S5 for $1949, which would be $350 more.

onibox

Yeah if there was a huge difference in price I would have definitely went for the ALR. Really good looking bike and I loved the ride on it (albeit it was only 10 minutes). The S5 was on sale, and the price ended up being only a difference of $50.

RDB

That's what I paid for mine. i was talking about list price on Trek's website.