2014 Trek Madone

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7917
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Chader09 wrote:Trek is playing catch up...


I don't see this. The Madone was an excellent balance of aerodynamics and low weight: they anticipated with the saturation of gains to be made in lightness that dedicating some bandwidth to aerodynamics made sense, and it did. But they they retreated to the Emonda, yet another fat-tube-bike, which saves less than 40 grams on the top-end model (not counting seat tube/cap comparisons), and which is downright heavy on anything lower than the top-end model. So in a sense, they've gone from a bike which had demonstrable advantages in the wind tunnel (Madone) to one against which is just one-of-many fatties.

The Domane, on the other hand, remains at top of class in the "vertical compliance" crowd. The pivot thingy really does work. It's another fatty, so aerodynamics likely suffers, but it accomplishes its goal, and in the Cancellara geometry it would be a very tempting racing option here in NorCal where the road quality is generally poor. I think they scored big on that bike.

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

The Domane in the "Cancellara" geometry is rare and only available as a frameset (Koppenberg edition). Very limited production to satisfy UCI "available to the public" requirements. Not really even close in geometry to all the other Domanes. In fact, it's geometry is identical to the H1 Emonda. So if you wanted to race it, probably just better off with an Emonda, especially since the Koppenberg Domane also has a non repalceable steel derailleur hanger.
As for vertical compliance, not sure what "top of the class" means. It is not nearly as compliant as, for example a Giant Defy, vertically but it is a better balance between front and rear "feel". The Defy borderlined on solid front/mushy rear where the Domane felt more balanced between the two. Still, both the Defy and the Domane were too short in overall reach for me personally.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7917
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Identical to H1 Emonda?

Image

By "top of class" the bike scores exceptionally well in such tests as those published by Tour and VeloNews. In Tour May 2014 it tested best vertical compliance among 9 "endurance" frames tested: you can download it using their app.

sawyer
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

In the EU Trek need to look at what Specialized are doing and do it as well / better
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yup, the "Cancellara" (Koppenberg edition) Domane bears little resemblance to the rest of the Domane line aside from the "iso speed" technology. Geometry is the same as an H1 Emonda.
As for vertical compliance, I personally rode the Domane and the Defy on some good test rides. The Defy was significantly plusher over the bumps than the Domane, which was not how I was thinking it would be before riding them both. However, at some point that plushness ends up feeling just mushy and I prefer a firmer feel. The Domane was a good balance.
I don't really care what the tests you're citing say or conclude or know what their methodology was. But riding them in the real world I know what I felt. The Defy has very thin seatstays with a low junction with the seat tube and a shaped thinnish seatpost which as a system provided a whole lot of compliance which some might appreciate. A very different approach than what Trek took with the Domane, but effective. There's always more than one way to skin the cat.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

Chader09
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:35 pm

by Chader09

djconnel wrote:I don't see this. The Madone was an excellent balance of aerodynamics and low weight: they anticipated with the saturation of gains to be made in lightness that dedicating some bandwidth to aerodynamics made sense, and it did. But they they retreated to the Emonda, yet another fat-tube-bike, which saves less than 40 grams on the top-end model (not counting seat tube/cap comparisons), and which is downright heavy on anything lower than the top-end model. So in a sense, they've gone from a bike which had demonstrable advantages in the wind tunnel (Madone) to one against which is just one-of-many fatties.

It may be a great bike in theory and practice, but it suffered in sales. Plain and simple, it didn't sell well enough in its current form. If it did, there would be more than two models for sale this year. Trek chose to replace it with the Emonda for the standard road bike.

The current Madone seems like too much of a compromise to me. It was somewhat aero, but didn't perform nearly as well when compared to full aero bikes from Specialized, Giant, etc. It sacrificed some ride quality to achieve that minimal advantage. Something that is very clear now that people are comparing it to the ride of the Emonda which is notably better in every review I have seen.

User avatar
Kayrehn
Posts: 1776
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:06 pm

by Kayrehn

I think it tested quite well at the aero front, and don't feel that ride quality is compromised in any aspect significantly. Fact is, all reviews will rave about new bikes. When the Madone came out it was the best and greatest too. For me, I like it for being a comfortable ride that's racy at the same time. I felt the Emonda is the step back, but that's just me.
Attachments
uploadfromtaptalk1413909153197.png

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7917
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

The challenge with comparing bikes is since the tire/inner tube has more influence than anything else, in particular tire pressure, casing stiffness, tire width, and perhaps rim width, then there's the influence of the seat post and saddle, then you need to make sure these are all matched (unless a bike works with a particular specific post) in the comparison. But I agree there's a lot more to "comfort" than Tour's tests, for example geometry and high-frequency damping (it's a static load test). There's also the fork, which Tour also tests and includes in its ratings.

People do claim the Emonda has better ride quality, but I can't comment on that since anectdotal reviews are generally so heavily confounded (as was noted, "new" = "better" by default)

cajer
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:26 am

by cajer

Kayrehn wrote:I think it tested quite well at the aero front, and don't feel that ride quality is compromised in any aspect significantly. Fact is, all reviews will rave about new bikes. When the Madone came out it was the best and greatest too. For me, I like it for being a comfortable ride that's racy at the same time. I felt the Emonda is the step back, but that's just me.

That test was with it having aeolus 5 aero wheels and everything else had stock wheels. They were comparing stock as bought packages

amey
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:09 am

by amey

Chader09 wrote:
djconnel wrote:I don't see this. The Madone was an excellent balance of aerodynamics and low weight: they anticipated with the saturation of gains to be made in lightness that dedicating some bandwidth to aerodynamics made sense, and it did. But they they retreated to the Emonda, yet another fat-tube-bike, which saves less than 40 grams on the top-end model (not counting seat tube/cap comparisons), and which is downright heavy on anything lower than the top-end model. So in a sense, they've gone from a bike which had demonstrable advantages in the wind tunnel (Madone) to one against which is just one-of-many fatties.

It may be a great bike in theory and practice, but it suffered in sales. Plain and simple, it didn't sell well enough in its current form. If it did, there would be more than two models for sale this year. Trek chose to replace it with the Emonda for the standard road bike.

The current Madone seems like too much of a compromise to me. It was somewhat aero, but didn't perform nearly as well when compared to full aero bikes from Specialized, Giant, etc. It sacrificed some ride quality to achieve that minimal advantage. Something that is very clear now that people are comparing it to the ride of the Emonda which is notably better in every review I have seen.


let me guess; you think this is more aero: http://cdn3.coresites.mpora.com/rcuk/wp ... G_8542.jpg

Than this: http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/file ... ture-1.jpg

Chader09
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:35 pm

by Chader09


I am guessing you have a point, but didn't bother to state it :noidea:

Based on the tests I have seen (Velo, etc.) the Madone did not perform as "aero" as bikes like the Venge, Propel, etc that have a more "traditional" aero look.
It just seems like a half-step or compromise type bike. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that choice comes with compromises, just like any bike.

I could care less really. Aero bikes have no appeal for me. I got the new SLR8 Emonda because of my style and riding areas.
But, Trek must have found issues with the Madone (lack of sales) or they would still offer a complete line. They had versions from 2 series on up to the 7 series with many versions inside each series. They dropped it almost entirely to only maintain an entry level aluminum bike and a top tier carbon.

Again, I fully expect them to release a new Madone (or some other letter variation) that looks like most other aero bikes and probably outperforms the current Madone.
Time will tell.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7917
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

According to Angry Asian James Huang, the losing factor on the Madone is the rear brake. He also says for painted frames (not vapor coat) @ 52 cm he measured a frame mass difference of 80 grams (not 30 grams, which I got by comparing claimed masses of 720 and 690 grams). I don't know what Tour measured.

NGMN
Posts: 1497
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:13 am

by NGMN




Yes, but I can't wait to hear some illusion all theories about round tubes and crosswinds or something...

Also, the Malone makes a way great all around bike but it's not that aero on an apple to Apple basis against the s5, but killing it for the emonda still baffles me.

amey
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:09 am

by amey

lol no; stack heights ..

Basically gain 5w by getting an aero frame and lose 30w with you position is my point.

Most "aero frames" have massive stacks.

Aero frames are great if you are TT-ing or something where you are your best aero position and all that is left is the frame to be aerodynamic.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply