Search results

Technically you are rechargeable.

195lbs, "ok fit" for a 67 year old, flat terrain with occasional forced slowdowns due to street crossings etc. Same route using slower pace would result in 30-35 mile range with Turbo used most of the time, with no assist for almost half the time would be 50 miles. For me the range is fine...

My SL 5.0 Turbo Vado will go 25 miles or so in max turbo mode on the flats riding briskly, (did that once). Supposedly the new SL 6.0 Turbo Vado will do 35 miles at a faster pace. Just changed my bike to 50/50 75/75 and 100/100 as my friend rides at 100/100 on the same bike all the time due to...

Not a chance, the SL 5.0 is the exact bike I wanted; a bicycle first, easy to pedal with no assist/light, and an e'bike second. Getting to the claimed max of 28 is actually a non issue for me as there is no need for that much speed where I ride.

Good points but what has marketing ended up with? Their lightest and nimblest E'bikes in the SL line are the cheapest and have great range with no attached anxiety as they so light they are as easy to pedal as analog bikes. They turned the world of marketing on its head. In the US perhaps...

They also relaxed the steering of the SL 6.0 with a pushed out fork and longer wheelbase

Indeed. To make weight up for having a Futureshock unlike the SL 4.0 I suspect. And justify a higher price though it also is said to have "step up" components vs the 4.0.

My SL 5.0 non EQ in large frame size weighed 33lbs on digital bathroom scale. The EBR test of the base 6.0 EQ had their weight 2lbs heavier than spec.

As we both know, range isn't an issue with an easy to pedal bike like the 4.0 and 5.0 SLs which is why I think they are the sweet spot for now. Until we can get a battery that is the same size and weight as the 320 in these bikes I'm fine even without bottle batteries as are you it sounds like.

Then I see no benefit. Personally I think if this 6.0 had come out first we'd say, "drop the price and weight even if that means less power a bit more noise and a smaller battery as we can buy bottle extenders."

Problem is with added power comes faster battery drain.

You should have bought a Sirrus X 4.0 at less than half the price and 10lbs lighter than the non eq SL 5.0.

Double checked, it is the LTD that weighs the same as our current bikes at $8000, the $6000 SL 6.0 weighs almost 2.5lb more at $6000 than my 5.0. As others have said, it also has chunkier heavy e'bike looks.

IDK, if one lowers the motor output to that of the 5.0 the range is extended significantly with a weight less than the 5.0/4.0 with bottle battery. But at a huge price. So not for me but for some out there with longer commutes it may be ideal.

The SL 5.0 non EQ fits my needs perfectly so no worries here.

I think I for one was day dreaming that battery tech would have progressed to the point that a longer range battery would carry no weight penalty so I have to admit to being a bit naive. Oh well, maybe in 10 years.

IDK, they provide the weights now for both...essentially identical though. IIRC when I weighed my 5.0 non EQ using a digital bathroom scale it was 33lbs. 6.0 LTD non EQ. Weight 14.98 kg (33 lb, 0.4 oz) Weight Size MD 5.0 non EQ: Weight 14.9kg (32 lb, 13.6 oz) Weight Size MD

I wonder if the new battery will fit the 5.0 but as I don't even have the need for the ancillary bottle battery at the moment the "got to do it if possible" factor is once again low. Maybe I'll ask Santa for the bottle battery.

Other than range this is not the big step forward I thought it might be. My SL 5.0 will not be replaced; the "got to have it" factor is thankfully low.

Odd, it looks like the 6.0 Carbon weighs more than the 5.0. Larger battery the culprit?