Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane meet

Who are you (no off-topic talk please)

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Fisherfreerider
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:19 am

by Fisherfreerider

As a rider that went from the 6 series Domane to the current SLR, same everything else on the bike, I can definitely tell a difference in the front end compliance of the bike with the front IsoSpeed.

by Weenie


User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

@Fisherfreerider: That's good to know... I'll have to get out and actually try one for myself I suppose, but I'm still really hard pressed to think the difference could be worth the additional complexity and proprietary nature of it all, in particular for road riding, but I guess the whole idea is to provide a more comfortable experience off the smooth pavement, so maybe it's good for that. I've already heard a couple people (I know, I know... the old "I heard it from someone" analogy), but I tend to believe them, that when you hit a solid bump there was some definite "clunk" sounds to be heard much like you would hear if a normal headset was loose. I suppose this could easily be due to a maladjusted system, however. Still, it seems that it would be somewhat easy for it to get a little bit out of adjustment. And I can't really visualize how the bending of the fork, which all takes place between the two headset bearings, can be good for wear and tear on the frame. I think they use some sort of cup system in the bearings, I think they would have to, so that the bearings conform along with the different angles the fork would have to go through at the bearings. I don't know... but simple and serviceable are a couple of key factors I always consider as well when looking at bikes. Time will tell. Let us know if you have any issues with it, and also if you think it's the best thing ever.

SilentDrone wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:04 pm
Maybe I’m just being too skeptical. Trek would never release a marketing gimmick, right?
Of course not :wink: .

SilentDrone wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:04 pm
All of that said, I hasten to disclose that I’m in the process of spec’ing a project one Domane SLR 8 Disc (endurance geo) for my next ride. Hence my interest in all of this at this time. The thing that draws me to the Domane for my next bike is, first and foremost, the endurance geometry and tire clearance. But I will admit that I’m also interested to try the iso speed system myself, and I’m hopeful the advertised benefits with manifest themselves. We shall see.

I will add also that I was able to carefully test ride an 2018 Emonda SL against a 2018 Domane SL Disc, and the Domane was of course much smoother and slower in steering, ie. stable, as one would expect. So as a system it is “as advertised.”
By all means keep us posted on your thoughts as well when you get some time on it. Take it apart, take pics, and put it all back together. If I get my hands on one, that's what I'll do. The Domane is a fine bike, regardless of which version you get imo, a huge hit for Trek at the consumer checkout stand. And when people asked me about getting a new bike, I'm really completely ok pointing them to Trek as one of my first recommendations. I think Trek is really producing a top quality product in basically every cycling discipline out there. Sure they're not above marketing spiel, in fact I think they're really good at it... but it's not a "shove it down your throat" type of marketing in my opinion. And maybe that's why I think they're good at it. I think Trek is very happy to produce whatever trends in the bicycling world that seem to be gaining traction, without alienating the alternatives. I like that.
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

hlvd
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:54 pm

by hlvd

You're keeping us in too much suspense!!! Stop teasing us and tell us how it rides!!

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

yes, yes, ok... next post. I've already started it, then keep getting sidetracked with the damn technical stuff.. sorry.
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

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

And finally... Some Ride Impressions and other stuff that comes to me randomly...

Overall Impression: This bike is the bomb! So solid. I've never felt more confident about a frame's ability to stay true underneath me while trying to make my way down a fast hairy descent. I'm a big boy these days at 200+ lbs, and when you put that on a bicycle frame heading into a sketchy turn at around 30+mph the last thing you want to feel is your frame twisting and wobbling underneath you. I've felt that and on occasion come out the other side much worse for wear because of it. I'm sure we've all entered a turn a little too hot. Yikes...hate that, and sometimes there's little choice but to grab a little, or a lot, of brake. When you've already started your turn, that can have dire consequences. Any bike is fine in a straight line doing all kinds of things. But it's how it reacts at speed downhill in situations that you'd rather not find yourself in that really make a big difference. Really it's how it reacts in any less than ideal and/or unexpected situation that comes up.

Climbing: @Mr.Gib... you asked about this. Does the front end exhibit any kind of wheel flop? Absolutely not. Even though the trail numbers between the Koppenberg and my Colnagos are very similar, they get there in very different ways. Let's take my C60 for comparison: It's got a headtube angle of 72.88 degrees and a fork offset of 4.3cm, along with a bottom bracket drop of 70mm. Nothing too earth shattering up front, or the rear for that matter with chainstays of 412mm, about right I'd say for a frame my size. It's very neutral handling, but also very solid. And it fits me. It's also a hefty (by today's standards) frame. Now let's look at the Koppenberg. Trek takes a very different approach to front end geometry than most other manufacturers I know. The biggest difference is that they choose a relatively steep headtube angle at almost 74 degrees (73.9 to be exact), and pair that to a fork with only a 4.0mm offset. I can't think of another manufacturer that uses that shallow an offset for this size frame. It's one of the reasons I knew I had to try it out. Yet the trail numbers are very very close. Rear end is similar to the C60 with chainstays of 411mm. BB drop is 70mm on the Colnago and 68mm on the Trek. Seat tube angles both the same at 72.8 degrees. The top efffective top tubes are a little bit differrent with the Trek vs the C60 but exactly the same as my C59 at 586mm, while the C60 is 577mm (I prefer in the mid 580's actually). And the wheelbases. 1001mm for the Koppenberg and 1008 for the C60. The C60 is dab smack in the middle wheelbase wise between the Trek and my C59 (1015mm).

So what's that translate to on the road... The Koppenberg is quick steering and extremely responsive. Quicker than Colnagos geometry. The Colnago geometry is a little more stable and smooth. And we're talking differences that I'm not sure most people would really pick up on unless they had a lot of time on both bikes under a lot of conditions. Both bikes do everything well. But the front end handling of the Koppenberg is superb while climbing, and tracks in as straight a line as any bike I've ever ridden, with no wheel flop whatsoever. The Colnago tracks straight as well... shit... this is going to be really hard to write about the differences I can already tell. Let me recount a story here from when I was on a custom made steel bike and climbing in the French Alps. The bike had a 72.0-72.5 degree head angle (really shallow for my size in any case) and a 42mm offset. It was a large frame, my size. Trail ended up around 6.0cm or something like that, maybe a stitch more. I let the builder choose the front end geometry. In hindsight I would have chosen something else. All I could think of while following a guy in front of me was how straight his wheels kept seeming to be in line with each other while my front end kept kind of flopping around as we struggled up the climb. This is the "wheelflop" that @Mr.Gib is asking about. It was the same climb, the same speed, and we were about the same size, yet his wheels seemed to be tracking each other so much better. Well, it was the geometry. My front end was pretty much what a time trial bike geometry might be... terrible for going slow speeds up hill (wheel flop), and awful for trying to carve high speed turns (front end would feel like it wanted to wash out in a lean). But it was great for humming along the flats in a straight line. The Koppenberg is the opposite of that. That steep headtube angle (74 degrees) without a compatible fork offset might result in a trail so short that it compromised stability, but with the 40mm offset it is really good, and keeps the wheelbase relatively tight and balanced. And so is the Colnago, really nice damnit. Both with a trail of around 5.6cm yet each with quite different front end steering characteristics. The thing is, for ascending I prefer the Trek, by a small margin... and for descending, probably the Colnago. If I was doing a crit, with many tight turns in a tight pack and quick adjustments to your line always having to be made, I'd choose the Koppenberg hands down. Also, in a tight turn, this thing is so solid that you're not going to get any wobbly noodly feelings going on, and if your rear wheel is on the edge of skipping a bit in a turn, I think the iso-speed might just be enough to keep it in contact with the pavement just a smidge better. I, however, don't race crits. On the other hand, you need to keep focus on things a little bit more than with the Colnago for the same reason. Both great bikes. Either one keeps me happy from a handling perspective for sure.

But I'll tell you what makes either of these frames so confidence inspiring, especially if you're a larger guy. Providing you have a good fit in the first place, it's the frames solid yet nimble feel that is the best thing. When people talk about "quality of ride", what does that even mean? We can all probably define it in different ways. I know this is weightweenies and all, but when it comes to bike stuff, I know I've reached my limits in a lot of areas as far as weight goes. Going lighter just compromises my confidence in tricky situations I might find myself in. Sure, I absolutely want the lightest frame possible that I feel safe upon under the most varied conditions I may encounter. And at this point, going lighter is not a big goal for me. In fact, on my C59, while I initially built it up and met my goal of 6.8Kg, I later switched components which were either more functional (saddle, pedals), or just better handling (stiffer alloy bars over the expensive light carbon ones I initially used). I probably added about 450 grams or so (I showed the reconciliation in my C59 5 Years Later thread). But it was better in the end, for me. I am not a 150lb skeleton of a pro bicycle racer. Why should I think I can ride the same super lightweight stuff they can get away with. I have given away fine wheels that were too light for me but loved by the person I gave them to... at 120lbs they were perfect for her. I guess I've found my limits weightwise. I actually took a new 2018 Emonda SLR out around the block just to test out a couple things. I would get going and just kind of wrecklessly flip the bars suddenly sideways back and forth as if I was trying to make it go into a speed wobble. I wanted to see the reaction of the entire front end. How much does it sort of twist around etc., hard to describe, but I just wanted to compare it to how I already knew the Koppenberg reacted. The SLR is a super nice frame, and if I was a racer and it was a mountain top finish, then hell yeah... give me the lightest stiffest frame I can have that I like the feel and handling of. The SLR would be it. But in no way would it give me the level of confidence going down the other side that the Koppenberg does. Plain and simple, it just doesn't feel beefy enough for me, even though they give it a 275lb weight limit; how they arrive at that number I have no idea. What I felt on my short test ride would only be amplified on a fast descent, but as far as light bikes go... WOW... they've come a long way since the days I was trying carbon noodles.

All this babble about frames being super stiff. Well, I think the following is a good analogy. Take a thin tooth pick and compare it to a sliver of glass. Which is "stiffer"? I think the sliver of glass. Which will bend easier without breaking? The toothpick. Which might feel harsher? The sliver of glass. Which is going to feel more "damped"... the toothpick. Which is more brittle? The sliver of glass... you get the drift. My point is it's always a compromise between stiffness, harshness and comfort and handling. They are all intertwined and it's a real balancing act to get everything in good order. Years ago, when I got my first C40, I took out a an early Trek Carbon frame for a test spin. It felt extremely "brittle" for lack of a better word. The C40 did not, it felt great. But the Treks of today, or most carbon frames for that matter, have come a long way since then. With intricate layups and various mixes of fibers and resins and orientations and layup schedules, there is a huge array of design possibilities. I think the SLR is a fine example of carbon bicycle engineering and layup schedule. I'd actually like to try one long term. But right now, I'm comfortable on something with a tad more heft to it. You didn't really expect to me say I was giving up ice cream, did you?

So, really in a nutshell... they both do all the things you read about in magazines... rail the corners, climb like mountain goats, stiff yet comfortable (ha, perhaps my favorite)... maybe solid and comfortable is more appropriate here, cuz when I hear stiff I think more a feeling of "brittleness" than compliance and comfort or even solid feeling. But the one biggest difference in handling between the two is definitely and directly relatable to the front end geometry... the Trek is quicker (and requires slightly more focus) with a shorter wheelbase, whereas the Colnago is slower, not in a bad way, but it is slower and allows me to think about the beer and fries I'm going to induge in a little later.

I dunno... hope that provides at least an idea of what I think...

Here's a reconcilation of the frame and fork weights of the Koppenberg versus the C60. It is done to the lowest common denominator, meaning, as an example, the Koppenberg has part of it's seattube and seatpost combined into the frame, so in order to compare apples to apples, I need to add the colnago seatpost and collar to the mix as well. Hope you get the drift when looking at the chart. Ultimately, they are both within 100 grams of each other. Maybe considered heavy, and we know Trek can produce a lighter frame, but ride quality of these frames as I define it is superb.... (I will be building up a new Time Skyon next week, and that thing is in the same weight ballpark as these frames too... in fact the fork is the heaviest I've seen at ~550grams. Somehow, I can't help think it's going to have a phenomenal ride as well). Ah what the hey, I may as well include it in the chart right now as well, for comparison sake...

Image

Well, I think that's a good start at least on my ride impressions. If you want to know any more details, feel free to ask.
Last edited by Calnago on Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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

dereksmalls
Posts: 2009
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: New Zealand

by dereksmalls

Fantastic detailed write up and what I have come to love about this site and the riders on it. Thank you. But I have one question, what's it like on cobbles? :lol:

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ha! I don’t ride cobbles. They hurt. And I fall off my bike and break the derailleur. Every single time. So far it’s only seen paved roads and packed gravel paths, nothing that a regular road bike couldn’t handle with ease.
Last edited by Calnago on Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I’ve actually never ridden “cobbles” the likes of ParisRoubaix has to offer, but I would like to maybe get a trip over to Flanders and actually ride this thing around there and up the Koppenberg. I will look into that. I had this thing all packed up in August and was in line at the airport to head to The French Alps before embarrassingly being told I wasn’t going anywhere because of a passport issue. D’oh. So I’m due for a replacement trip.
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

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I figure this might be a good place to post a link to possibly one of the best descents of all time... at least that was caught on film. Fabian Cancellara, Stage 7 of the 2009 Tour de France... chasing back to the peloton after a puncture. I'm sure most of you have seen it, but still... I'm putting it here just cuz. This was before he was with Trek, so no Koppenberg. I guess it's not really about the bike at all, is it... :)
https://youtu.be/RxXqQqAc2pA
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

Clean39T
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:29 am

by Clean39T

My Merlin Extralight in 61cm took a 40mm rake fork - and if anyone is rhyming with Tom Kellog, they’re doing something right...

I’ll concur on Trek nailing the handling on the H1 geometry - my Emonda SLR has been a true pleasure these first few rides.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yes, it’s nice. A fork rake of 40mm by itself however means nothing. For example, a rake of 40 on that bike I described I was climbing with would have made the handling even slower and “floppier” than it was since the headtube angle was already so shallow. It would have served to increase the trail even further.
That’s why on small bikes, where there’s potential for toe overlap you will see shallower headtube angles and bigger offsets, like 45 or even 50mm, in order to keep the trail withinin reasonable boundaries while moving the front wheel out as much as possible.
Used to be that steel frames had custom paired forks and frames. Nowadays, most companies with carbon molds etc find it easier to produce maybe just a couple different forks with just two, maybe three different offsets and tweak the headtube angles to get the desired trail.
Two bikes can have exactly the same trail but have quite different handling characteristics. That’s a large part of why I wanted to try out the Treks, to really get a sense for how the different front end geometries behave. It’s a never ending process.
@Clean39T: I’m curious now about your 61 Merlin. Do you know its headtube angle? And how would you say it handles versus your Trek, from strictly a steering perspective? Slower, quicker? The thing is though, unless other things are the same, like wheelbase and BB drop it still muddies things up for a complete comparison but I’ve always been fascinated by bicycle geometries. It’s weird I know.
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

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Mr.Gib wrote:Did I miss your ride impressions? Curious about how the Koppenberg feels is all situations. Most curious about the steering feel when climbing out of the saddle. Does it want to flop a bit? Or does it stay dead straight no matter how much you throw the bike around? What about tight curves at the limit? Does it take more lean to get it to carve your line (like my Parlee) or does it hook right away with the slightest effort (like my Colnago)?
I wrote quite a bit a few posts back and already talked a lot about “wheel flop” while climbing. As for taking curves at the limit, you can take them as tight and hard as you feel comfortable with. The bike won’t be the limiting factor.
Your next question was very interesting to me... “Does it take more lean to get it to carve your line (like my Parlee) or does it hook right away with the slightest effort (like my Colnago)?”
When talking about how much lean is necessary to start and carry through a turn, steering geometry is certainly very important but I think other factors play into that as well, like wheelbase, chainstay length, even BB height. What I enjoyed so much about this comparison with my Colnagos is that the chainstays are within a millimeter of each other, and setups and rider are identical. Plus, I’ve had a lot of time on both bikes and have a fair bit of experience in studying the theory of bicycle geometry so I try not to just throw out random superlatives about what is really happening (I didn’t see any “rails” in the turns). But still, stuff puzzles me to the point I want to test it out somehow. I’m not 100% sure about how much lean it actually takes but it will “hook” a turn as you call it quicker than your Colnago for sure. But I found I needed to stay a little more focused as I adjusted to the differences for a bit, and this goes for getting used to any new bike that’s different than the one you’re intimately familiar with. After that, it’s just like riding a bike. You become a part of it in no time.
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

Mr.Gib
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

I wrote "hook" but meant "hook up". Nothing severe about the handling of my Colnago.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ok... yes, it hooks up right away, even quicker than the Colnago, it is very responsive. Not severe, but just like changing anything, you need to adapt to it. When I would go on these 8 week fully loaded cycle tours, with about 95lbs of bike and gear, I got so in tune with riding that thing... then when I'd get back home and jump on one of my road bikes it was like "holy crap, I can't even ride this anymore"... felt so twitchy in comparison, but it just took a quick adaptation period and then it felt so good again, sports car vs touring sedan kind of difference.
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


User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ok... just basically a photodump with a few blurbs of description to get rid of some of the other photos I took along the way...


Image

Image


Interesting out of the way graphic... "Go and take it", thieves excepted...
Image


The saddle, a Bontrager Serana RXL works remarkably well for me. Up till this point I had been very pleased with the Specialized Romin Pro, but they cut off a centimeter in length in the newest version. I tried it, but didn't like it so much. I like the ~270-275mm length of the saddles I'm used to. This Bontrager saddle looked to be the shape I like, and fit well with the bike. It works really well...
Image


These little jems of Teflon with the ends flared out as a stopper are really great, and Trek uses them in their cable housing entry/exit points. I think they were much better and are more durable than other combined ferrule/liner ends that I've seen and used. I really prefer using metal ferrules over plastic ones, and combined with these things, they make smooth work out of any rough internal edges in the frame that might have to clear upon entry and exit...
Image


And another shot of the saddle from above, showing that it's perforated with some matching Viper Red padding underneath...
Image


Looking at the top of the front "S2" derailleur, you'll see that I've removed the support arm which serves to stiffen things up by bracing itself against the frame if the frame or derailleur tab is a bit flexy. Firstly, the frame tube or derailleur tab, like my Colnagos is not flexy at all so this support arm is not necessary. Secondly, it won't even fit properly on this tab. In that regard, Shimano's support bolt is probably more versatile and likely fits more frames as it should. I know I have a picture somewhere that maybe I'll dig out to show, but for now, here its is without the support arm...
Image
Last edited by Calnago on Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post