Tome

Contrary to a number of opinions in this forum:
1. The Carbon Fiber frame on the 7.9 has the same warranty as does the aluminium framed bikes. Break it and we'll replace it. Not for five years, forever.
2. My new 7.9 weighs three pounds less than my wife's 7.5.
I was looking for a 7.9 or a 7.7. The shop where I bought the bike here in Washington charged me only about $300 more for the 7.9 which they happened to have in the shop.
It rides just like my wife's bike except it accelerates faster and handles a little better because of the slightly lower center of gravity.
I discussed the possibility of "hybridizing" a Madone 4.5 but two of the techs in the shop said that's definitely not the thing to do and gave me a number of reasons why, all of which made sense.

common man

i don't understand, please elaborate.

edit: of course i understand center of gravity but why would a 7.5 to a 7.7 improve handling when both bikes have same geometry? perhaps your bike is smaller and that's why it has lower c-o-g?

what were they? for my next bike (i'm a newbie), i am considering a road bike with a riser stem as an option. what's wrong with that? i would like to know for my own education.

sh00k

congrats on your 7.9. we needs pics!

Tome

The center of gravity is slightly lower because all the upper components are carbon fiber as opposed to aluminum on other bikes. The crankset and bottom bracket are metal so the lighter components and frame will cause the COG to drop down a little.

The techs at Gregg's in Seattle asked me about my riding history and simply told me since I've ridden both conventional road bikes and hybrids and prefer hybrids that the difference in layout of the frames will cause me annoyance. If I like the feel of a hybrid stick with a hybrid. You really can't make a road bike into a hybrid by using a taller adjustable stem.

common man

If you like it then that's all that matters. I, however, imagine that a few grams of drop in weight for components is going to minimally lower the C-O-G. There's a drop, for sure, but I don't know if the C-O-G lowers like it would from a 19" hybrid to a 17" hybrid (noticeable difference). That's just me. You're happy - that's all that matters.

Yep, make sense, I figured this would be the answer.

Riverside_Guy

I finally took a look at several road bike's gearing. With stock components, it seems like 7.6, 7.7, and 7.9s have pretty much the exact same gearing... am I missing something?

Congrats on the new ride!

meanwhile

No, not really. From the Trek warranty:

So -

1. This doesn't help at all with the big reason why an informed purchaser wouldn't buy a carbon hybrid - their much higher vulnerability to moderate speed crash damage. If your bike hits a pot hole and the frame PINGS! that's an accident and you're not covered by the warranty. (Do get your CF frame inspected after even a minor crash - damage can be hard to see but "activate" catastrophically later while you are on a CF bike. If you do need a new frame then Trek should provide one very cheaply.)

2. Any "lifetime warranty" that doesn't cover "normal wear and tear" isn't a lifetime warranty for any bike that isn't keep in a display case. It's a get out clause so vast as to render the whole warranty worthless.

But I'm glad you like your bike.

meanwhile

It's the power of the placebo effect - Secrets Of Marketing 101: "Customer pays more for bike; customer convinces himself there is a difference." In fact, the vehicle's centre of gravity has probably moved up - because the vehicle is the bike plus the rider, and now the bike's COG, which is the lower of the two, contributes slightly less to the weight average... So gosh, it'll have moved by several millimeters.

Alky

this

Riverside_Guy

I think the issue is that some folks have been given info, maybe from a LBS, that the carbon framed Trek's are covered differently than ALU frames. I read the printed catalog warranty and it sure seems they are equally covered.

ALL warranties have exclusions of varying nature, the point being carbon is not an exclusion.

I have read that some have found out there's a "replacement at cost" should Trek claim an exclusion.

WCoastPeddler

BS. Your statement is such a generalization that it can't be taken seriously. As much as you'd like to think that everyone is not intelligent, you're wrong. Many things that cost more are better -- in the bike world, this is particularly true.

mikeybikes

Considering your frame is lighter overall, the COG will actually have shifted higher.

You've got a frame which sits mostly below the rider. As is, the COG is fairly high - the rider considerably outweighs the frame. Decrease the weight below the rider (such as by introducing a carbon fiber frame), the COG actually shifts higher.

Now yes, the COG of the bicycle alone - with no rider - probably is lowered, but this isn't the COG you care about.

Handling has probably improved due to other factors.

meanwhile

It's very hard try to prove that ANY damage to a CF frame isn't "accident damage". Just ask about this on the racing bike forums - the guy whose racer fell broke in two when he rode over a minor dent in the road was given this line. Probably if the tubes fail at the glued joints you'd be ok (which I've never heard of) but if they delaminate or crack then you'd have a hell of fight. Especially as the bike will crash if this happens while you are riding.

The good thing is that such damage *is* rare.

Trek have generally provided replacement CF frames at a discounted price, yes.

Tome

Placebo effect!! Try the ride before you comment! My 7.9 is a lot lighter than my Jamis Coda Comp. 21 pounds verses 24. It's far more comfortable to ride. I can feel the weight difference very clearly between the wheels from my wife's 7.5 and my 7.9.
We went north to a little town of Winthrop, WA for the weekend. Winthrop is a tourist town and is always full of cyclists. There are a number of roads for roadies and Hybrid riders to ride loops on as well as a multitude of Mt. Bike trails. We took two rides which totaled about 40-50 miles. My 7.9 is far faster thn my Comp over the road. I haven't got my computer mounted yet because I need longer ty-raps.
My wife rode my 7.9 so now we have one on order for her, to arrive in the next week to ten days so now we have two bikes for sale, my Jamis and her 7.5.

Tome

Thank you West Coast Peddler! Finally somebody who values actuality over opinion. You know what they say about opinions!!

mconlonx

I work at a (new) Trek store. So far, we've replaced three Madones under warranty, no questions asked from Trek, other than they wanted the frames shipped back to them for inspection. We're also on our third aluminum frame. The only frame they wouldn't deal with was a Klein with obvious crash damage -- bent rear derailleur hanger.

Personal experience: Trek covers warranty issues very well, regardless of the legalese they could use to get out of it. Oh, and they would not cover my son's frame when it got bent because my (ex-)wife backed over it with her car. This was a warrantied frame from when my son busted a canti boss off his old bike.

Who's got stories of Trek not covering a pretty straightforward warranty issue?

Panthers007

This helps explain why Trek is considered to have the best warranty for their bikes. Cradle to grave pretty much. I don't ever recall anyone who had a complaint about Trek. Some bike-shops, though, have been reluctant to help a customer who bought a Trek. Often wrongly telling the customer that Trek won't take back their frame, and yadda yadda, and having the customer have to force the shop into starting the ball rolling. This was all in another thread around here somewhere. In the outcome, Trek did take the frame back without question and the customer got a brand new frame from Trek.

The customer also found a new bike-shop to patronize.