Tony_G

I just picked up my new Trek Domane SL 5. I had it weighted at the shop and with Race Face Chester pedals (360 grams per pair) already attached it was 21 pounds 7 ounces. This is with with tubeless tires. Deducting the pedals, it comes out to 20.64 pounds (sorry for mixing pounds and ounces, grams, and decimal pounds).

The Trek site says a size 56 cm 2024 SL 5 weighs 19.69 pounds (tubeless, no pedals). My frame size is 50 cm, so if anything I would expect it to be lighter. I know there is some variation with carbon frames, but is almost a whole pound out of the ordinary?

It is still a nice bike, and I am looking forward to taking my first real ride on it tomorrow. But I also feel that I didn’t get everything that I paid for.

shelbyfv

Did you weigh the pedals or are you assuming the mfg weight is correct? Obviously if the weight is a concern you should have declined to buy it.

Tony_G

I have not removed and weighed the pedals, I’m going by the claimed weight. But I don’t see how the pedals could be a pound heavier than claimed.

jaxgtr

Are you sure the scale was accurate? Possible their scale is off. If you are that concerned, I would try another scale to confirm the weight is what you think it is or not. Sort of like power meters, you only know what you know until you confirm with another power meter source.

Tony_G

Anything is possible. It was a Park Tool DS-1 scale and probably more accurate than any scale that I have access to. I did consider and cannot rule out the possibility that the mechanic forgot to zero the scale.

I do have a photo of the weight readout so I am certain that I am not mistaken about the scale weight.

Judging from the comments I’m getting, being .95 pounds over the claimed weight is unusual?

shelbyfv

I don't see any comments that suggest the weight difference is unusual. I think most assume actual weight will be higher than advertised weight. The mfgs generally have small print with disclaimers about weight.

Tony_G

I must have misinterpreted your comment about declining to buy it.

I’m aware of the small print. Just, .95 seems like a lot. Very specifically, what do YOU think about being .95 over, if it were your bike?

shelbyfv

I may not be the right person to ask! I've never weighed any of the dozens of bikes I've owned. I've bought Ti because it is lighter than steel but I never weighed it. I've bought wheelsets that were alleged to be lighter than what I had but I never verified. I'm 20# overweight, a few pounds on the bike one way or the other is irrelevant to me. Really, this discrepancy, if it exists, only matters if you choose for it to matter. Of our largish riding group, I don't think there are more than a couple who could say what their bikes weigh.

Tony_G

Okay. Thanks for that.

tempocyclist

I had to convert: 0.95lbs is 430 grams.

Maybe your pedals are heavier than you think? Did it have bottle cages attached? A computer mount? Maybe they added a lot of extra sealant? Difference in scale accuracy?

Could be many reasons, or simply Trek being optimistic in their advertised weight. Who knows.

Buy it. Ride it. Enjoy.

bboy314

Everyone knows Trek inflates the tires with helium before weighing for spec.

Maelochs

Remember that thread about why manufacturers don't list the weight of their bikes?

cyclezen

Have the same experience. I just purchased a new 22-23 Emonda SL5, 56 cm from local TREK store, and it weights, in stock form, with older Ultegra SPD-SL pedals 21.4 lbs. (6 oz) which is more than my 1980 58cm Colnago Super (Columbus SP tubing with Roubaix wheels & Tubulars) !
I ABSOLUTELY feel the weight when riding - which tells me most of it is in the wheels.
The frame is 500 OCLV (differing geometry, but prolly very similar in the amount of CF used as the Domane). Because I don;t have a 2nd disc wheelset (other than the weightier wheels on my gravel bike), I haven't taken the stock wheels off yet and subbed some lighter better wheels. WHen I get a moment I will take off both front & rear wheels and weight the wheels and then remaining bike - my guess is the extra pork are the wheels & tires... Plus I would guess the TERK weight is done with the short seatmast/post - I have the Long Mast.
I bought the bike full well knowing I was going to replace the wheels - buying a stock TREK EMonda with good carbon wheels meant I needed to also buy DI2, which I didn;t want.
So I have a set of CF 45mm wheels coming as replacement. My guess is that the CF wheels at 1400-1500 g and good/light tires & TPU tubes will drop the weight 2.5 lbs. Not fabulous, better.
And I am guessing that carbon bars/stem, some eggbeater or newer SPD-SL pedals, and a lighter cassette will drop close to a further pound. That 105 cassette is a true mooring anchor.
The stock Disc rotors are quite burly, so some lighter rotors (>130g) might drop at least another .25 lbs.
... haven't measured the stock saddle weight - but that likely is also carrying dead weight...
SO finally maybe slightly below 19 lbs.... but then 'Disc Brakes' can easily cost 1 extra lb over rim brake... on otherwise equal setups...
Which makes sense, since my 2010 Spec Tarmac weights in at 17.6 lbs with nothing special (Ultegra Mech Drivetrain, HED Kermesse 1600g wheels, Rubino Pro tires, eggbeaters & Spec Phenom saddle 250g).
The TREK OCLV 500 frame is not and was never among the 'light' CF frames available - but I expect it will live a long lifespan. LOL!
Ride On
Yuri

veganbikes

This is a joke right? A manufacturer builds bikes in a factory overseas and the weight is possibly slightly off but it wasn't measured by Trek for you and then the time it was measured was with un-measured pedals and tubeless tires that also probably has unmeasured sealant, valves and rim tape? Why do people buy these bikes then care about weight that may or may not be off.

If you care seriously about a lightweight bike, a bike listed at 19lbs would be heavy and you would build your own and make it light.

Russ Roth

Weights may vary because parts can be swapped for "equal quality" or whatever happens to actually be available. It can be surprising how even a change to a slightly different tires or disc rotors might tack 60g each which moves you a quarter of a lb. The weight does seem a little surprising to me, at 20.64 lbs that's .3lbs heavier than my daughters aluminum Crockett with pedals, saddle bag and bottle cages installed so maybe the scale wasn't quite right. But its also coming with some basic parts like the r3 tires that might have more variation in weight, same for the more basic saddle, bars, stem and seatpost. These aren't high end parts and their weight can fluctuate a good bit especially since that's often where substitutions can happen. The frame/fork is very nice, the groupset is quality, and the weight shouldn't be a huge detractor, a 20lb bike isn't light, but it isn't heavy by any stretch of the imagination, and claimed weights are usually nonsense anyways.

Wildwood 

When buying 'by the pound', you got an extra one FREE.

tubular wheels, lightweight tires and rim brakes and = You're in like Flint! But that's a different bike.

Would I be upset over a pound? I don't race or Strava - never a need to weigh a bike - so I cannot answer the question.

13ollocks

I'm betting it's a combination of the variation in frame/bike weight and the inaccuracy of the scale. The Park scale is a glorified fish scale - the fact that the readout is digital has nothing to do with the accuracy of the spring system that's registering the weight.
While I understand that the importance of bike weight is somewhat overblown, bikes have definitely become porky - we're looking at 20-21lb as nothing unusual for a CF frame with decent bits - yikes

cyclezen

My take on the OP's question was his suprise, given the published approx weight by the Manufacturer, that a lb.+ is a significant deviation from what was published. Especially given his smaller sized frame/bike. All the components are a know quantity, quality frame should also not have much deviation, so a lb+ is a lot.

My post was mainly to 'confirm' that what he found was probably 'reality', not a major anomaly in just his bike.

In my case, I bought the bike fully knowing what I was getting, and not expecting more. Also fully expecting to be making some changes. Having ridden 'THIS' bike before committing to purchase.
Not unhappy with the bikes I currently ride a lot. If I can make this new bike feel as 'nice' as those - great! AND fully intending to make changes, upgrades if that fits, to see what might have a significant effect on 'ride', and see if 'weight' also is part of the story. It's an experiment...
If I can bring it to level of my current road bikes, which are all 10 yrs old or older, then Great ! If not, I'll sell it for whatever it might go for... No issues, no problem.
It's not the money, I have a bunch of fun learning what this experiment might teach me.
If I had spent 4 times what this bike cost me, I'd have very, very high expectations, and hopefully, mostly have them met... My expected changes will cost about half again of the bike cost, which would still be considered a bargain compared to the price of a similarly fitted 'Off the Shelf' bike cost.
I think most knowing riders also know that 'weight' isn;t everything, but it is a 'thing'.... So for a bike with $3400 MSRP, one might expect it to be in the 'light' road bike category... 21+ lbs is not that, compared to the similar bike, 19ish lb, of 8-10 yrs ago which prolly sold for $2K-$2.2K.
SO, with this thread a lot of questions get asked, some answers might be found, some not.
And, it also addresses expectations, so met, some not even close.
So, if one has expectations to be able to get a 'light bike from TREK (and other bike makes?), well under 20 lbs, it might not be met by even a $5k bike... ?
For some this might be an important consideration.
Ride On
Yuri
and , yes, I prefer my 2014 Tarmac well over any of my old gaspipe, and many of the 'great' newer bikes I've had some opportune miles to log a few miles on...
Not a plug for Spec or Tarmac, it's just a bike I like a lot. But had the experiment be able to be done with an ORBEA, WILLIER, CERVELO or RIDLEY, instead of a TREK, I would have quickly jumped on that.

rsbob 

Put two full large water bottles in the cages and all the weight issues will seem trivial.

SoSmellyAir

When I do test rides in my community (after making adjustments) without my iPhone or water bottles, my bike handles like a completely different bike.

PeteHski

I’m a sub 4W/kg FTP rider. So 1kg (2.2 lbs) to me is worth just under 4W when climbing or accelerating at FTP. It’s something, but not a lot. 1 lb would be in the noise.

I often carry 2x 1L water bottles on century events and when full I can “feel” their weight when handling the bike. But it is of no consequence when riding along a paved road. The 2 kg of weight would cost me about 8W on a threshold power climb, which is about the level that I start to actually notice.

eduskator

A pound difference is enormous.

Weight will vary from a bike to another as a result of manufacturing discrepancies in framesets and parts/components, but 1 pound is a lot. I mean, people will pay 5000$ more for a bike just to shave 1 pound out of the total weight.

The advertised weight for most manufacturers is for 56cm framesets so you're right saying that your 50cm should weigh less. For instance, my 2024 SL8 Pro in size 58cm came up at 7.3kg on the LBS' park tool scale. Its advertised weight is 7.16kg (size 56cm). I don't mind the 140g difference given that it's a size bigger.

Are you 100% sure that your scale is accurate? Have you tested it with other items to which you know the exact weight?

PeteHski

It’s 5% overweight. I agree it’s more than you would expect, even with minor spec changes. Assuming the scales were accurate.

Troul 

for me to be informed of those numbers would be useless as I know I wouldnt remember it long enough. Those number may be helpful at the time of a purchase to make a decision, but once the money is spent, my concern after that is what upgrades will I find myself doing... more money spending yAy!

Sy Reene

A lb seems like a lot, considering that not only is a 50cm frame smaller than the 56cm reference, but it also has 4cm narrower handlebars, 2cm shorter stem and a 4cm shorter seatpost. Interestingly though the 50cm comes with a wider saddle (155mm vs 145mm).

I know you have tubeless tires, but to confirm, the bike is setup tubeless and doesn't have tubes installed? Are there any tools included/not included in the in-frame compartment?