spdracr39

If you like the bike you ride it will be faster than if you wish you had bought the other bike. Be happy and move on.

rpenmanparker 

Thanks for adding that. I knew there were other factors, but I just couldn't think of any and was in a hurry to finish up the post before a movie was set to start. This raises the question: what models are offered that include the comfort factors you and I have listed but with more aggressive geometry? And if not, why not? Sure, as we have said, the geometry of the finished bike can be adjusted quite a bit, but it would seem there would be a market for the aggressive frame geometry coupled (pun) with comfort factors other than upright riding position.

merlinextraligh

I think in large part its the perception that these bikes are "comfort bikes" not "race bikes",

a belief that implicitly underlies the OP's question.

We are starting to get to the point, that "race bikes" have more comfort features built in, i.e. Bianchi's countervail, C'dales speedsave.

The line between "comfort" "endurance" and "race" bike is likely to continue to blur.

RJM

I'm looking at the Trek website now...you can get the Koppenberg Edition Frameset with the H1 geometry...that would be the fit Spartacus rides.

ColaJacket

Don't a lot of those factors require some type of weight penalty? And for people that like a certain pedal, because it weighs 50 grams less than another pedal, wouldn't the weight penalty of those factors cause a lot of racers to discount a bike that "weighs more"? So manufacturers don't add these things to "race" bikes.

GH

gsa103

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For example, the "comfort" changes made to the SuperSix or Emonda SLR don't seem to have hurt the weight at all. Maybe they could've shaved another 20g, but that's very hard to say. Bianchi's CV technology probably adds a few grams to the frames, but since its really just an extra few layers in layup its not much. The elastomers, pivots, etc will all add weight, but really you're talking about ~100g total, so unless you're running full DA/Red/SR and carbon tubulars, there's plenty of other options to drop equivalent weight without sacrificing comfort & performance.

Pro level endurance bikes are still under UCI limits, and that's with power meters, computers, etc.

Flatbroke

Yes, with the Lord all things are possible.

exime

Good time to buy a Domane. All Domane prices dropped $200ish

tigat

My Domane and Bianchi come from different starting points (endurance vs. race geometry), but have ended up at the same place fit wise--same drop, same reach, same saddle position, etc.

With the Domane that means as low of a front end as possible without changing stems (flipped with no stack), whereas the Bianchi could go lower if my 58 year body suddenly regained the suppleness of youth.

Weight-wise, the Domane is a half pound lighter, coming in at 16 lbs. with pedals and cages and computer, largely a factor of DA di2vs. Ultegra and some mechanical parts on the Bianchi like an interrupter brake, cable splitter, and a bar end shifter on a snubbed off aero bar extension.

Bottom line: in a hard effort, somewhat flat solo half hour, the Domane is about 1 mph faster (roughly 23 vs. 22). It climbs faster as well. I chalk most of it up to the wheels (same weight but slight aero).

But to the OP's question, I am as low as I go on both bikes, so it's not a true test, other than to say that at 75 miles and beyond, the Domane wins hands down.

andr0id

Yep, Eddie could get low on a steel bike with a horizontal top tube just fine.
He probably has 3" of drop in this picture.



Sure, you can get a ridiculous amount of HB drop on a Madone, but it looks like you can still get 3 or 4 inches on a Domane. It's not going to force you to ride upright like you're on a beach cruiser.

Just look at the pictures on the two models main pages.

Domane - Trek Bicycle

Madone - Trek Bicycle

bikepro

A Porsche engine in a VW vs. a VW engine in a Porsche.

caloso

Eddy was more aero on the tops than most BF members will ever get in the drops.

Alias530

Sounds like confirmation bias.

Without power meter data and duplicated/multiple examples to back this up, I'm betting the difference is a lot smaller than 1.5mph.

bigcicero

Thanks! Okay, that makes sense and seems pretty simple. So it's basically about whether I can adjust the fit, as you said.

I noticed a couple other responses also delved into the notion that other frame features, besides geometry, that make you more comfortable may lead to increased speed. But it sounds like this might be subject to some debate. Very curious. It would be fun to be a bike designer and actually study all these factors in a controlled way...

Reynolds 

I asked because above 45kph or so it might be, but I doubt it happening at slow speeds.

bigcicero

Yeah, I admit it wasn't scientific. I don't have a power meter. (That's why I said "with the same perceived effort": so no one thought I was trying to be numerical on this.)

But here's what I did. Same 1/2 mile stretch of road with my hands on the hoods and bars in two different position: (a) all the way up; (b) slammed. I hit each with the same perceived effort. First ride was 21.6 mph, second was 22.9. So about 1.3 difference. No wind that day.

Why the differences? I can't say for sure. Apart from bar positioning, a few other plausible explanations:

- Wind changed direction
- My arms were more bent in the lower position so the aero difference was more pronounced than indicated just by bars being lower
- Engaged different muscles in a way that gave me more power
- I had more energy on the second ride

I may never know. But this is one of the reasons I started this thread. I'm genuinely interested to know how different rider positions affect average speed.

Reynolds 

Rider position isn't determined only by bar height IMO. You can see inexperienced riders on the drops who still are fairly upright, while the pros can achieve a horizontal back while on the hoods.

bigcicero

Yes, exactly, but let me tweak that. I'm not sure if I believe it... I'm inquiring to learn if it's true. As I'm reading through all the marketing material and reviews, I want to be able to distinguish fact from hyperbole. And as I get into this, I'm interested in the science behind why certain bikes and certain frames are faster than others -- given the SAME RIDER. i.e., what's the difference between the bikes themselves? I'm not trying to make some claim that a Domane isn't fast enough for me. When people think this is the claim, they write things like "well it's fast enough for Spartacus." But that's not my intention.

Case in point: Cervelo's marketing seems to make an excellent case, if one believes the math, that aerodynamics more than compensate for a little additional weight. One might dispute the math, but at least there's some math behind it.

But when I read Trek's marketing material for the Domane, and when I read all the reviews in favor - or against - it, I feel like a lot of it is subjective. They say "comfort makes you faster". Apart from this, I'm curious about the objective things: is it weight, is it aerodynamics, does the 'endurance fit' lead to a biomechanical advantage that yields more power? I'm merely interested to know to satisfy curiosity.

bigcicero

Thanks, this is a little gem to remember when I'm ready to make a purchase.

79pmooney

If you need a more aero position than a stock Domane offers, can't you simple swap out the stem for one with more down angle?

That said, I have written programs to calculate the stem required to get my preferred position on stock bikes. Most stock bikes require stems that I consider unreasonable and I steer clear of them.

Ben

Campag4life

I am sorry to tell you, but you are being very simplistic about your so called study. One only has to extrapolate from the pros...flat stages...cobbles stages...climbing stages. Pros now more than ever choose a different bike from the same mfr for each. So it isn't if a given frame is faster. No. Its the type of course that dictates the bike of choice. A Tarmac is faster in climbing stages than a Venge. A Venge is fastest on flat stages and a Roubaix faster on rough surfaces like classics races. It is even much more nuanced if you really start to understand the tradeoffs....why a Tarmac may sprint better than a Venge even though at 40 mph and above the Venge will have an aero advantage.

For the amateur however much of the above become less relevant. So first you need to decide what the bike is going to be used for....what type of riding. For example if you ride a hilly century, an endurance bike may still be better than a pure climbing bike after 50 miles of riding due to less fatigue...in particular if the road isn't pool table smooth. What type of roads...elevation change and even fitness of the rider. A less flexible more average rider will generally prefer an endurance geometry to a race geometry...friendlier position...less weight on the hands....better ride quality and less fatigue relative to distance. There are no absolutes about frame choice....depends on terrain and topography and rider fitness.

roadwarrior

A Domane is a race bike.

Ask Fabian Cancellara.

Some of these threads are pretty interesting. In an amusing sort of way.

roadwarrior

Five rear gears and no power meter. Toe clips. Amazing stuff.

I had a bike exactly like that. I wish I still did. They took it back at the end of the season.