Vado SL 2 Carbon LTD premiered today!

Just do a flat bar conversion.
I've seen some people do that. Didn't seem worth it, but if you look at the Creo (and Canyon like above), seems like you can get a better drop bar bike, for a better price than the Vado SL2.

Removed my questions. Don't want to hijack this thread. May start a new thread for it. Has anyone purchased yet?
 
Last edited:
I've seen some people do that. Didn't seem worth it, but if you look at the Creo (and Canyon like above), seems like you can get a better drop bar bike, for a better price than the Vado SL2.

Removed my questions. Don't want to hijack this thread. May start a new thread for it. Has anyone purchased yet?
Sorry if I’m misunderstanding your implication… but the Canyon Grzl:ON CF 9 is just as if not more expensive than the new Spesh SL 6.0 (here in UK)
 
Sorry if I’m misunderstanding your implication… but the Canyon Grzl:ON CF 9 is just as if not more expensive than the new Spesh SL 6.0 (here in UK)
In the US, the top level Grizl:ON cf 9 is the same regular price as the base SL 2 6.0, but has better wheelset and drivetrain that are similar in spec level to the 6.0 LTD. Obviously, there are other factors and Specialized never really wins out in component level/$ since a lot of their value is in the warranty/local support/gee whiz sw addons...

@mogulman you may want to keep an eye out for the Cannondale Tesoro Neo Carbon 1 if flat bar is your thing. Not sure if you could swap in a suspension stem or gravel fork with the integrated headset and cable routing they've got on it, but otherwise a nice looking bike with wireless AXS for $6k.

Also a pretty direct competitor to the Vado SL 2 and seems to be more focused as a product than the new Vado, which is not to say it's necessarily better.
 
I think the Vado SL 2 compare well to Canyon Grizl:ON cf 9 and the Cannondale Tesoro Neo Carbon 1 . They each made different design choices. Specialized went for the 520 Wh battery vs the 400 Wh.
 
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 should advertise (unless it's not true) that these 6.0 bikes can go a legit 28 mph and easily so with the new added power.

The EBR review stated that and said it was good for 35 mile range at max speed so make that a positive, as on some commutes that could be a real safety feature.

My 5.0 naked SL won't even go 28 down a hill.

On flat land I can get up to about 23 mph max as I'm old and weak apparently, (68, 195lbs).
Sorry iMan f you want to go 28 Mph you need to pedal harder like around 90 to 100 cadenc on Turbo 100/100, I think I have got it up to 32 Mph and it was scary. The orginal SlL is pretty capable to go fast but it needs your help, maybe a better fit would had been the regular Vado with the bigger motor.
 
I've just made a comparison of two very similar 100+ km rides on a very similar route.

Vado SL 4.0
  • Actual batteries' charge: 450 Wh (degraded main battery and degraded Range Extender)
  • Ambient temperature: 24-34 C (hot summer)
  • Wind: 17 km/h (windy conditions)
  • Assistance: SL 40/100%
  • Weighted average rider's power: 80 W
  • Average speed: 21.9 km/h
  • Distance: 113 km
  • Elevation gain: 317 m
  • Moving time: 5 h 10 min
  • Calories: 1,316 kcal
Vado 6.0
  • Actual battery charge: 493 Wh (degraded)
  • Ambient temperature: 9-14 C (autumn)
  • Wind: 4 km/h (calm conditions)
  • Assistance: Full power 20/50%
  • Weighted average rider's power: 81 W
  • Average speed: 21.5 km/h
  • Distance: 108 km
  • Elevation gain: 300 m
  • Moving time: 5 h 2 min
  • Calories: 1,293 kcal
In both cases, I returned home still with some useful battery charge. As you can see, the ride on a heavy Vado 6.0 was actually slower than it was on a Vado SL! (This can be attributed to +10 kg of Vado 6.0 weight compared to the SL). However, both rides were done with comparable rider's power and assistance turned out to be very similar.

Having said the above, I can state a Vado SL 2 6.0 Carbon non-EQ could be a replacement for my two e-bikes. 47 mm tyres on SL 2 are what I use today on my 6.0. I could equip the SL 2 with Ortlieb Quick Rack and wide SKS mudguards. (I really hesitate when it comes to a kickstand, though!) The e-bike would be still lightweight enough to carry it over terrain obstacles. Only I am afraid of the CF frame and components, bearing in mind all my crashes of the past...
 
Last edited:
I've just made a comparison of two very similar 100+ rides on a very similar route.

Vado SL 4.0
  • Actual batteries' charge: 450 Wh (degraded main battery and degraded Range Extender)
  • Ambient temperature: 24-34 C (hot summer)
  • Wind: 17 km/h (windy conditions)
  • Assistance: SL 40/100%
  • Weighted average rider's power: 80 W
  • Average speed: 21.9 km/h
  • Distance: 113 km
  • Elevation gain: 317 m
  • Moving time: 5 h 10 min
  • Calories: 1,316 kcal
Vado 6.0
  • Actual battery charge: 493 Wh (degraded)
  • Ambient temperature: 9-14 C (autumn)
  • Wind: 4 km/h (calm conditions)
  • Assistance: Full power 20/50%
  • Weighted average rider's power: 81 W
  • Average speed: 21.5 km/h
  • Distance: 108 km
  • Elevation gain: 300 m
  • Moving time: 5 h 2 min
  • Calories: 1,293 kcal
In both cases, I returned home still with some useful battery charge. As you can see, the ride on a heavy Vado 6.0 was actually slower than it was on a Vado SL! (This can be attributed to +10 kg of Vado 6.0 weight compared to the SL). However, both rides were done with comparable rider's power and assistance turned out to be very similar.

Having said the above, I can state a Vado SL 2 6.0 Carbon non-EQ could be a replacement for my two e-bikes. 47 mm tyres on SL 2 are what I use today on my 6.0. I could equip the SL 2 with Ortlieb Quick Rack and wide SKS mudguards. (I really hesitate when it comes to a kickstand, though!) The e-bike would be still lightweight enough to carry it over terrain obstacles. Only I am afraid of the CF frame and components, bearing in mind all my crashes of the past...
Very interesting parallels. Many questions:

Q1. Do you recall how these rides compared subjectively — i.e., was one ride more tiring or fun or comfortable or smooth than the other?

Q2. If you had to repeat this ride tomorrow, which would you take — the SL 4 or big Vado? Why?

Q3. If you bought an SL 6 and had to give up one existing bike, which would you keep — the SL 4 or big Vado? Why?

Q4. Are you considering an SL 6 now? Sounds like it would meet your most important needs in a single bike.
 
Very interesting parallels. Many questions:

Q1. Do you recall how these rides compared subjectively — i.e., was one ride more tiring or fun or comfortable or smooth than the other?
Both rides were extremely similar to each other, which is proven by the leg power figure. (The Summer ride was tiring because of heat. The Autumn ride felt nicer but I returned with cold feet. Nothing related to the e-bikes).
Q2. If you had to repeat this ride tomorrow, which would you take — the SL 4 or big Vado?
I prefer SL 4 for that route. It is easier to climb at low assistance on the lightweight e-bike (as long as the grades are 1-4%, I need more assistance otherwise). On the other hand, I once went Turbo on the 6.0 to show my friend the Vado capability... It shoot forward like a rocket!
Q3 If you bought an SL 6 and had to give up one existing bike, which would you keep — the SL 4 or big Vado? Why?
I would keep Vado 6.0 as it is the only of my e-bikes that is good for high mountain road rides. I can remember several long and steep climbs I had to ride in full Turbo and 38-46T gearing!
Q4. Are you considering an SL 6 now? Sounds like it would meet your most important needs in a single bike.
Not (already having both 6.0 and SL 4!) I said the SL 2 could replace the role of both e-bikes if I were bikeless 😊
 
Last edited:
Sorry iMan f you want to go 28 Mph you need to pedal harder like around 90 to 100 cadenc on Turbo 100/100, I think I have got it up to 32 Mph and it was scary. The orginal SlL is pretty capable to go fast but it needs your help, maybe a better fit would had been the regular Vado with the bigger motor.
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.
 
Late to this discussion and not about to read 128 previous responses, so just my sum-up here. Fortunately for my budget, I'm just not interested in the SL2, especially since I've made some changes to my SL 5.0 that make it perfect for my purposes now. My main reasons for not "upgrading" are:
  1. I don't want a bike that weighs more.
  2. I don't need any extra range.
  3. I don't need any more power.
I'm sure that if I were using it for its advertised purpose as a "commuter bike" that I'd feel differently, but for the recreational riding with modest assist levels that I do it's simply overkill. Being able to fit larger tires though might be nice.
 
Sorry iMan f you want to go 28 Mph you need to pedal harder like around 90 to 100 cadenc on Turbo 100/100, I think I have got it up to 32 Mph and it was scary. The orginal SlL is pretty capable to go fast but it needs your help, maybe a better fit would had been the regular Vado with the bigger motor.
Actually, I can ride at 28 mph or even faster on occasion on my SL4 EQ. (My highest speed was 34 mph which according to a gearing speed calculator is the speed the bike can go ignoring whether there’s a motor.) Most often this is on the last mile of my usual route with a 3% down slope, often with a tail wind. While I usually go to turbo, I’ve done this at 60% assist in Sport. My cadence hits about 120 rpm at the lower assist levels. I’m 76 and as I’ve mentioned many times have only been riding as adult since I was 71.

What I can’t do on the SL is ride at speeds over 20 mph for long stretches. That probably would require a much more powerful motor.
 
I regeared my SL 5.0 EQ with a 10-52T cassette and a 46T chainring just so I could maintain 28mph on slight descents in 11th gear at a cadence of around 95 rpm. This way I can hit 32-33 mph still pedaling at a cadence under 100 rpm in 12th gear.

While I am a cardiac compromised 73 year old, I still ride at a nominal cadence between 75-85 rpm. My old days of riding competitively on 10-speeds from '69 - '73 taught me the importance of gear selection and maintaining an efficient cadence.

I could use all of the benefits of the Vado 2 6.0 EQ and would pay the weight penalty, BUT NOT the price. The extra power would help keep a higher cruising speed w/o having to use Turbo mode. The 10-51T Shimano would be fine, and I could swap my 46t chain ring on to it. I am certain that with proper tuning and effective use of Sport mode plus my two RE's I could get over the 65 mile@14+mph I can get now.

Doug
 
While I am a cardiac compromised 73 year old, I still ride at a nominal cadence between 75-85 rpm. My old days of riding competitively on 10-speeds from '69 - '73 taught me the importance of gear selection and maintaining an efficient cadence.
Cadence takes top priority with me, too. It's always been clear that I operate best at 80-90 rpm, and at 76, my funky knees demand it.

The motor and gearing are there to keep me at 80-90 rpm on all local climbs. My SL 5's motor prefers that cadence, too, and I don't mind giving up some pedaled speed on descents to get it. All that made lowering the gearing for local hills as easy as reducing the chainring from 44t to 40t.
 
Last edited:
The actual dry weight of my Vado SL 5.0 EQ (size L) is about 38 lbs. The actual weight of two recently tested Vado SL 2 6.0 EQ's (size L) was 41 lbs. (Note, the specs for size M are 36.5 lbs and 39.7 lbs respectively) These measurements suggest the actual difference between SL and SL 2 is around 3-ish lbs. To account for the difference, I did some reading through the manuals, comparing my 2022 Vado SL 5.0 EQ with the Vado SL 2 6.0 EQ Carbon.

The battery alone accounts for 2.4 lbs (4 lbs vs 6.4 lbs). The Nimbus II 700x38 tires on the SL are road tires at around 532g each while the Hemisphere 700x47 tires on the SL 2 are trekking tires at around 820g each. This adds up to 1.28 lbs difference for two tires. The standard Vado SL 2 6.0 has aluminum rims that are 2 mm wider than the rims on the Vado SL 5.0, so that will be just a bit more weight. I assume the weight of motor, electronics, Future Shock, and carbon fork are around the same. Hubs, brakes, and mech should be pretty equivalent. This leaves the difference between the carbon and aluminum frames. The space required for the larger battery eats up some of the weight benefit of the carbon frame on the SL 2. Probably the bare frame is just a bit lighter than the Al frame on my Vado SL.

All in all, I think we can account for almost all of the weight difference between the two generations is due to battery, tires, and wheels, with some minor "buyback" due to the use of carbon in the newer frame.
 
Last edited:
The actual dry weight of my Vado SL 5.0 EQ (size L) is about 38 lbs. The actual weight of two recently tested Vado SL 2 6.0 EQ's (size L) was 41 lbs. (Note, the specs for size M are 36.5 lbs and 39.7 lbs respectively) These measurements suggest the actual difference between SL and SL 2 is around 3-ish lbs. To account for the difference, I did some reading through the manuals, comparing my 2022 Vado SL 5.0 EQ with the Vado SL 2 6.0 EQ Carbon.

The battery alone accounts for 2.4 lbs (4 lbs vs 6.4 lbs). The Nimbus II 700x38 tires on the SL are road tires at around 532g each while the Hemisphere 700x47 tires on the SL 2 are trekking tires at around 820g each. This adds up to 1.28 lbs difference for two tires. The standard Vado SL 2 6.0 has aluminum rims that are 2 mm wider than the rims on the Vado SL 5.0, so that will be just a bit more weight. I assume the weight of motor, electronics, Future Shock, and carbon fork are around the same. Hubs, brakes, and mech should be pretty equivalent. This leaves the difference between the carbon and aluminum frames. The space required for the larger battery eats up some of the weight benefit of the carbon frame on the SL 2. Probably the bare frame is just a bit lighter than the Al frame on my Vado SL.

All in all, I think we can account for almost all of the weight difference between the two generations is due to battery, tires, and wheels, with some minor "buyback" due to the use of carbon in the newer frame.
For sure the battery, tires/tubes, and frame are the biggest pieces factoring in the weight. The wider rims are 70g heavier ea according to DT Swiss specs, so not a big difference there.

The other factor you left out are the beefier rack/fenders on the SL2. IF you assume the weights listed by Specialized are at least consistent if not accurate then the difference in the unequipped to the EQ version is 1.6kg for the SL and 2.01kg for the SL2 which is almost a pound (weight well spent IMO -15kg weight limit and MIK compatibility are nice usability upgrades). BTW - the SL2 also has carbon cranks and seatpost as opposed to the SL with alloy versions of the same.
 
For sure the battery, tires/tubes, and frame are the biggest pieces factoring in the weight. The wider rims are 70g heavier ea according to DT Swiss specs, so not a big difference there.

The other factor you left out are the beefier rack/fenders on the SL2. IF you assume the weights listed by Specialized are at least consistent if not accurate then the difference in the unequipped to the EQ version is 1.6kg for the SL and 2.01kg for the SL2 which is almost a pound (weight well spent IMO -15kg weight limit and MIK compatibility are nice usability upgrades). BTW - the SL2 also has carbon cranks and seatpost as opposed to the SL with alloy versions of the same.
I neglected to mention that I have a carbon handlebar, carbon seatpost, and lighter Bontrager 700x38 tires that weigh in at 450g each. So comparing my 38 lbs bike with the Vado SL 2 6.0 EQ takes similar things (except cranks) into account.
 
I neglected to mention that I have a carbon handlebar, carbon seatpost, and lighter Bontrager 700x38 tires that weigh in at 450g each. So comparing my 38 lbs bike with the Vado SL 2 6.0 EQ takes similar things (except cranks) into account.

Interesting, I like to give my SL 5.0 a little present every now and again and a carbon seat post could well be an option in the future, a little less weight and a little more compliance maybe - which one did you get may I ask?
 
My manager is about to buy an e-bike in Norway. He was lured by a heavily discounted Vado SL 4.0 but said his family needs required a full power e-bike. I asked him what he thought about the Vado SL 2 6.0 Carbon, to which he exclaimed: 'Not at this price!'
 
Interesting, I like to give my SL 5.0 a little present every now and again and a carbon seat post could well be an option in the future, a little less weight and a little more compliance maybe - which one did you get may I ask?
I went with Redshift seat post Pro and I love it, the shock is adjustable so you can tune in to how you like it. Just some thing to think about, it's not Carbon
 
Interesting, I like to give my SL 5.0 a little present every now and again and a carbon seat post could well be an option in the future, a little less weight and a little more compliance maybe - which one did you get may I ask?
I purchased a Specialized CG-R FACT carbon seatpost. It helps take up just a bit of the road vibration.. I had various "sprung" seatposts on my prior e-bike, but found them too "bouncy" at higher cadence rates. When combined with my Selle Anatomica leather seat, I find the CG-R to be more comfortable than the elastic or sprung seatposts I had used prior.

It is on the Specialized web site here: https://www.specialized.com/cy/en/cg-r-carbon-seatpost/p/156334?color=229919-156334 but can be had for less from eBay, which is where I got mine
 
Back