2020 Domane

[eddief]

engineer and re-engineer. T47, seat post goes back in instead of on top. 32mm tires. fiddly storage under bottle cage. etc.

oops gotta find that video.

this instead:

https://cyclingtips.com/2019/07/2020-trek-domane-first-ride-review/

[m_sasso]

Another forgettable plastic bicycle with a bowling ball finish. Will it sell, yep by the thousands.

[sw3759]

Another forgettable plastic bicycle with a bowling ball finish. Will it sell, yep by the thousands.

:) funny..I knew I've seen that finish somewhere before.love the fact its been "upgraded" to a threaded bottom bracket

[R3awak3n]

I like it. T47 is nice. Room for 38mm is super nice. Paint looks different (unlike the new cdales that look like speedvagens from 2012).
Hate the proprietary seat post but all of them have it now.

Not surprise it will get hate here but I am into it. Also probably rides well.

[R3awak3n]

Another forgettable plastic bicycle with a bowling ball finish. Will it sell, yep by the thousands.

Honest question. When was the last time you ridden a carbon bike? Or have you ever even been on one?

[-dustin]

T47*

I hated on the Madone. Until I built one. I already think the Domane is a killer bike. I’m sure this one will be better.

[soulspinner]

Looks like you have to have discs?

[tigoat]

Nice to see T47 BB getting adopted by a big company.

[Blown Reek]

Maybe Kogel will now get off their high-horse and produce a T47.

[AngryScientist]

Smart bike for Trek, and I agree with their assessmsnt:

That’s how Trek kicked off its presentation of the new Domane, and that statement is certainly an accurate reflection of how road riding has evolved in recent years: less racing, more exploration, less tarmac, more “off-piste” routes that are less perfectly paved (or paved at all, in some cases), but devoid of motorized vehicular traffic.

Hidden fender mounts and room for 38s is great, and although a little gimicky, i think it's a great idea to utilize the empty space in the huge carbon tubes for small stuff storage, keep the essentials, spare tube, tire levers and multi tool inside the bike at all times and dont need something hanging off your saddle.

[weiwentg]

Honest question. When was the last time you ridden a carbon bike? Or have you ever even been on one?

I bought a 2006 Giant TCR carbon, raced it a couple times, then sold it. I liked it, just not as much as metal bikes. I've had all steel most of my cycling career now.

Responding to the original post from that perspective: if I were on the market for an all road bike, I'd be interested in something like the 2020 Domane. More specifically, I might wait for the new IsoSpeed thingy to trickle down to the Domane SL. (The article said that the Domane SLR, starting at $7,800, was getting the new IsoSpeed design; the Domane SL sticks with the old IsoSpeed.)

For the sort of riding I do, I think the Domane might fit. It's mainly a road frame. Clearance for 38mm tires would probably do most of the off-road rides I might be interested in.

I'm not as much a fan of this set of paint schemes.

If one is comparing steel road bikes, they are also a bit forgettable if you aren't into steel. They look rather similar at a distance. Aesthetics change, and I'm sure some people are reacting to that. To each their own.

[oldpotatoe]

engineer and re-engineer. T47, seat post goes back in instead of on top. 32mm tires. fiddly storage under bottle cage. etc.

oops gotta find that video.

this instead:

https://cyclingtips.com/2019/07/2020-trek-domane-first-ride-review/

hmmm, $10,000+ and 18+ pounds..remember, ya can only measure 2 things in a bike shop..weight and price..hmmm..expensive and.....heavy-ish...:eek:

[AngryScientist]

hmmm, $10,000+

haha!

i missed that part.

honestly, how many "regular people" can possibly be interested in a 5-figure bike? yikes that's a LOT of money!

[oldpotatoe]

haha!

i missed that part.

honestly, how many "regular people" can possibly be interested in a 5-figure bike? yikes that's a LOT of money!

Yup...'halo' bike..perfect for coffee shop points...Plenty of new cars and motorcycles for that $... I don't get it either..Even a DR Moots would be a little less.

[R3awak3n]

yall are too funny here. When we are talking about our heavy steel bikes, weight does not matter, but when its a carbon bike it matters a ton?

18lbs is heavy I am not going to deny it but its the norm on a disc brake bike. If that thing was not carbon it would be 20lbs. I also bet with some better component choices it could be 17lbs.

$10k is a lot of cash for sure but its the top of the line, sram red axs, fancy carbon wheels, paint, ect,ect.

I am not going to buy it but I think its a neat bike

[R3awak3n]

I bought a 2006 Giant TCR carbon, raced it a couple times, then sold it. I liked it, just not as much as metal bikes. I've had all steel most of my cycling career now.

Responding to the original post from that perspective: if I were on the market for an all road bike, I'd be interested in something like the 2020 Domane. More specifically, I might wait for the new IsoSpeed thingy to trickle down to the Domane SL. (The article said that the Domane SLR, starting at $7,800, was getting the new IsoSpeed design; the Domane SL sticks with the old IsoSpeed.)

For the sort of riding I do, I think the Domane might fit. It's mainly a road frame. Clearance for 38mm tires would probably do most of the off-road rides I might be interested in.

I'm not as much a fan of this set of paint schemes.

If one is comparing steel road bikes, they are also a bit forgettable if you aren't into steel. They look rather similar at a distance. Aesthetics change, and I'm sure some people are reacting to that. To each their own.

2006, that 13 year old bike now. Don't get me wrong, my current favorite bike is steel but new carbon bikes ride amazing as well.

[El Chaba]

It's ugly as sin.

[weiwentg]

2006, that 13 year old bike now. Don't get me wrong, my current favorite bike is steel but new carbon bikes ride amazing as well.

What I meant to say was that I have limited experience with carbon. I know this. I also know that carbon has improved very substantially in 13 years, especially in the ways that it can be tuned for variable stiffness in certain directions. I'd definitely expect a modern carbon bike to ride a lot better. I'd definitely be up for trying a modern carbon bike to compare it to my steel roadie.

I prefer to have fewer bikes. If I want to replace my steel road bike, chances are that something like the Domane or its descendants would be in contention. For the 2020 models, the SLR 6 looks like it's a $7,800 bike with Ultegra mechanical and carbon Bontrager wheels. The SL 6 (highest level SL Domane, still uses the older IsoSpeed system, slightly heavier carbon layup) looks like it has mechanical Ultegra also, and I think those are Paradigm Elite alloy wheels. That should be a $6,200 bike.

[Matthew]

I kind of like it. Far better than those ugly dropped stays. And you have more color options than matte black. And probably rides wonderfully.

[oldpotatoe]

yall are too funny here. When we are talking about our heavy steel bikes, weight does not matter, but when its a carbon bike it matters a ton?

18lbs is heavy I am not going to deny it but its the norm on a disc brake bike. If that thing was not carbon it would be 20lbs. I also bet with some better component choices it could be 17lbs.

$10k is a lot of cash for sure but its the top of the line, sram red axs, fancy carbon wheels, paint, ect,ect.

I am not going to buy it but I think its a neat bike

Cuz there are lots of steel bikes, who cost a bunch less and weigh(A little) less...too.

[benb]

I feel a little like I can't make an objective judgement on this bike cause the color scheme on the bike in the article is so horrible. That's like a horrid Project One scheme gone wrong.

I have a 2016 Domane (rim brakes) and I think I still like the original bike more than any of the newer Domane models.

This article is right these bikes have gotten further and further from race bikes.

I have the Domane for go fast and I have my All City Space Horse for big tires. I have 32c tires on the Space Horse right now. If you run with 35-38c tires I see no reason for the super complex proprietary ISOspeed stuff on this bike.

Since I run 26c tires on my Domane it does not really get used as an All Roads/Gravel bike but it has seen plenty of gravel when gravel had to get rode down. The carbon finish is chipped in spots. I only ride the Domane on nice weather days if I can help it. So it's probably got < 10,000 miles on it after 3.5 seasons.

I don't like the way carbon gets dinged up.. my previous carbon bike (BH) had the same kind of stuff going on with chips in the finish pretty quickly.

So for me if you're going to bias the bike towards rough roads and gravel I'll take a metal frame. The big tires & such start making the bike heavy, at that point I want the durability of metal as it's not going to cost much in weight.

I actually got the Domane to save money over getting a custom Ti frame.. hilariously the money rapidly became a non-issue, if I was to buy it again I'd get a Ti frame, but I wouldn't even get the Ti frame I wanted in 2016. It'd get big tire clearance and hydro discs and really be an all road bike that I wouldn't worry about the finish on.

[Mark McM]

Nice to see T47 BB getting adopted by a big company.

I'm glad to see threaded BBs coming back. But I wish that Trek had used the original T47 BB standard, instead of creating their own proprietary version of it. The original T47 BB used a 68mm BB shell, which allows for cranks with narrower Q and U factors (which I prefer). Instead, Trek is using an 85.5mm wide shell. Oh well, since we already have like 1,001 different BB shell standards, what's one more?

[benb]

Yah I should have mentioned I do like that they put the threaded BB back in.

I've had 0 problems with the press-in BB on my Domane but I'm still not crazy about it. I have not bought a press. It's the most proprietary bike I've had in some ways, and I haven't been willing to buy the special tools. I think it will be the last bike I buy with so much weird stuff on it cause normally I can do everything I need at home except fix wheels & install headsets.

Though maybe I should be less afraid of buying a press if it turns out I could buy one press and be more future proof than these ever changing threaded standards.

[R3awak3n]

Cuz there are lots of steel bikes, who cost a bunch less and weigh(A little) less...too.

with discs? not really.

My Cielo with similar kit weights a bit over 20. Not that matters, that bike is amzing, one of my favorites and I paid 1/7th of this used.

[Elefantino]

For that money I'd call Rob English and work out a steel bike that weighs less, is more comfortable and doesn't look like the aforementioned bowling ball.

[tigoat]

I'm glad to see threaded BBs coming back. But I wish that Trek had used the original T47 BB standard, instead of creating their own proprietary version of it. The original T47 BB used a 68mm BB shell, which allows for cranks with narrower Q and U factors (which I prefer). Instead, Trek is using an 85.5mm wide shell. Oh well, since we already have like 1,001 different BB shell standards, what's one more?

I don't think the 86 mm wide is proprietary as there are inboard T47 BBs available for that width. It puts the BB bearings inside the shell vs. 68 mm with outboard cups. I think some custom builders even prefer to build with a wider shell so they have more room to attach the chain stays.

Here are some T47 BB shells with different widths offered by Paragon for custom builders:

https://www.paragonmachineworks.com/frame-building-parts/bottom-bracket-shells/titanium.html?bb_style=400&cat=225

[prototoast]

For that money I'd call Rob English and work out a steel bike that weighs less, is more comfortable and doesn't look like the aforementioned bowling ball.

...and you'd wait 2 years to get it. Custom builders are great, but Trek sells thousands of Domanes every year, and Rob builds maybe 50 bikes in a year. If Trek is able to mass produce great bikes that meet the needs of a lot of riders, they're doing a great thing.

[Marc40a]

I want an SL7.

[yinzerniner]

I'm glad to see threaded BBs coming back. But I wish that Trek had used the original T47 BB standard, instead of creating their own proprietary version of it. The original T47 BB used a 68mm BB shell, which allows for cranks with narrower Q and U factors (which I prefer). Instead, Trek is using an 85.5mm wide shell. Oh well, since we already have like 1,001 different BB shell standards, what's one more?

This isn't exactly correct. The original spec for T47 accounted for the most widely-used BB shell widths of 68mm (Shimano) and 86.5mm (PF86) so that the threads could be simply milled into the most widely used shells. Don't think any frame builder ever offered a T47 inboard system bearing system for use with a 68mm shell.
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a20049643/first-look-the-new-t47-bottom-bracket-standard/

While the 68mm wide shell should theoretically provide narrower Q and U factors in reality this is hardly true since they use the outboard T47 shells. The exterior width of the outboard BB 68mm shells are roughly the same as inboard shells - ~86mm. In fact, the narrowest q and factors on widely available cranksets seem to be the Red Exogram and Cannondale Hollowgram models, which use the dreaded BB/PF30 standard.

However Trek is using a 85.5mm wide shell so that the exterior flanges are .5mm thicker on each side. This supposedly makes it easier for mass-produced bikes to be assembled quickly since you have more BB tool purchase.
https://cyclingtips.com/2019/06/trek-t47-threaded-bottom-brackets/

[prototoast]

I don't think the 86 mm wide is proprietary as there are inboard T47 BBs available for that width. It puts the BB bearings inside the shell vs. 68 mm with outboard cups. I think some custom builders even prefer to build with a wider shell so they have more room to attach the chain stays.

Here are some T47 BB shells with different widths offered by Paragon for custom builders:

https://www.paragonmachineworks.com/frame-building-parts/bottom-bracket-shells/titanium.html?bb_style=400&cat=225

Trek uses a 85.5mm width shell, unlike the 86.5 which is standard. They put the extra mm into the thickness of the bottom bracket, which they say makes it easier on their tooling for mass production. Trek claims that their is enough tolerance in cranksets so that if you use a normal T47 bb on their slightly narrower shell, everything should still work fine (though the converse isn't necessarily true). So they are sort of making a different standard, but it supposedly works with actual standard items.

[Mark McM]

I don't think the 86 mm wide is proprietary as there are inboard T47 BBs available for that width. It puts the BB bearings inside the shell vs. 68 mm with outboard cups. I think some custom builders even prefer to build with a wider shell so they have more room to attach the chain stays.

The original T47 standard was created by cutting 47mm threads into a PF30 shell (which is 68mm wide). In fact, T47 taps were intended as a way to "fix" already existing PF30 BB shells. Since it is an open standard, that doesn't stop people from deciding on their own to use different shell widths, but the original standard is for a 68mm shell width. (And since nobody else uses a "standard" 85.5mm wide shell, that makes Trek's T47 very proprietary)

https://cdn-cyclingtips.pressidium.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/BB_specs.jpeg

[Clean39T]

Yup...'halo' bike..perfect for coffee shop points...Plenty of new cars and motorcycles for that $... I don't get it either..Even a DR Moots would be a little less.Not w AXS and those wheels..

You're looking at $11k w Mavic Allroad Pro for DA Di2. AXS is more expensive, plus going to carbon wheels.

www.moots.com

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[R3awak3n]

For that money I'd call Rob English and work out a steel bike that weighs less, is more comfortable and doesn't look like the aforementioned bowling ball.

...and you'd wait 2 years to get it. Custom builders are great, but Trek sells thousands of Domanes every year, and Rob builds maybe 50 bikes in a year. If Trek is able to mass produce great bikes that meet the needs of a lot of riders, they're doing a great thing.

yes, also not every english is sub 15lbs and specially not a disc english.

That said, I would prefer an English to that domane every day but like prototoast said, you would be in a queue for a minute

[yinzerniner]

The original T47 standard was created by cutting 47mm threads into a PF30 shell (which is 68mm wide). In fact, T47 taps were intended as a way to "fix" already existing PF30 BB shells. Since it is an open standard, that doesn't stop people from deciding on their own to use different shell widths, but the original standard is for a 68mm shell width. (And since nobody else uses a "standard" 85.5mm wide shell, that makes Trek's T47 very proprietary)

Trek's shell is proprietary yes, but if your main complaint is q and u factor then you'd never use a Shimano or Campy crank at all since they don't offer the narrowest form factors. You are stuck with SRAM or Cannondale cranks for use in a 68mm wide T47 shell.

True that nobody is stopping frame builders from using any shell width, but for a large company like Trek it probably made sense to go with a larger flange since it lessens install error and time. And before with BB90 the incompatibility was worse with the same wider theoretical q and u factor.

[Mark McM]

Trek's shell is proprietary yes, but if your main complaint is q and u factor then you'd never use a Shimano or Campy crank at all since they don't offer the narrowest form factors. You are stuck with SRAM or Cannondale cranks for use in a 68mm wide T47 shell.

Actually Campagnolo cranks have some of the lowest Q- and U-factors among the major crank manufacturers. Shimano and Campagnolo Q and U factors hit their narrowest when they were using 103mm/102mm square taper cranks. Shimano later widened their U-factor, first when they went to Octa-Link, and then further when they went to external cup BBs. Most crank manufacturers have followed Shimano's lead in this regard. But when Campagnolo replaced square taper cranks with Ultra-Torque, they kept the same narrow Q and U factors of their 102mm square taper cranks. Currently, Campagnolo Ultra-Torque cranks have a Q-factor of 145.5mm, and a U-factor of 130mm (which I have confirmed).

There are a few BB30 cranks which have a U-factor a little lower than this. But as you say, these only fit frames with 68mm BB shells. Even still, there is a limit beyond which a lower U-factor doesn't help much. A low U-factor primarily helps with ankle clearance. But ankle clearance is also limited by the chainstay spread where the ankles sweep by. On a typical frame, chainstay spread is about 130mm where the ankles sweep, so a U-factor narrower than this does not increase ankle clearance throughout the pedal circle.

Q-factor is limited by clearance between the crank and the front derailleur. On a modern 2x drivetrain, The minimum Q-factor possible is about 140mm, but this requires a very narrow crank and minimal clearance with the front derailleur, so the range of Q-factors for most cranks starts at around 145mm, and goes to about 160mm. Campagnolo's cranks are at the narrow end of this range. SRAM cranks are actually a bit wider - their narrowest Q-factor cranks are about 148mm, and for aluminum cranks it is about 150. (SRAM claims their carbon cranks have a Q-factor of 145mm, but they fudge this a bit - it is 145mm between pedal flats, but the pedal flats are inset into the arms by 1.5mm, so the true Q-factor at the faces of the crank arm is closer to 148mm).

Perhaps this doesn't matter to a lot people, but it matters to me. I'm not particularly tall, plus a bit knock-kneed, so my legs are happiest with narrow cranks.

[Burnette]

yall are too funny here. When we are talking about our heavy steel bikes, weight does not matter, but when its a carbon bike it matters a ton?

18lbs is heavy I am not going to deny it but its the norm on a disc brake bike. If that thing was not carbon it would be 20lbs. I also bet with some better component choices it could be 17lbs.

$10k is a lot of cash for sure but its the top of the line, sram red axs, fancy carbon wheels, paint, ect,ect.

I am not going to buy it but I think its a neat bike

Yeah I agree, the curmudgeons suddenly care about weight when it's something new and not metal, lol.

That Trek is a lot of coin but today's bikes are more versatile, gravel, road or commute, with a modern bike it's one to rule them all and yeah, with different components the selective weight wennies here could get that down, if that really mattered.

[R3awak3n]

Yeah I agree, the curmudgeons suddenly care about weight when it's something new and not metal, lol.

That Trek is a lot of coin but today's bikes are more versatile, gravel, road or commute, with a modern bike it's one to rule them all and yeah, with different components the selective weight wennies here could get that down, if that really mattered.

I just think its cool that it fits such big tires. A lot of the current carbon bikes only fit 28-32 which is great but how much better if it can fit up to 38mm. As long as you can maintain the geo why not do it, that is the beauty of disc. I am loving my cielo because its pretty much a road bike but I can throw a 35mm knobby in there and go have some real fun.

[Burnette]

I just think its cool that it fits such big tires. A lot of the current carbon bikes only fit 28-32 which is great but how much better if it can fit up to 38mm. As long as you can maintain the geo why not do it, that is the beauty of disc. I am loving my cielo because its pretty much a road bike but I can throw a 35mm knobby in there and go have some real fun.

The cy cycling industry is just providing what consumers were asking for. People use to but cyclocross bikes (like me) and ride on gravel, then put on different tires and ride on the road. Adding the ability to commute and you have the trifecta.

And you can find all if this at a much lower price point too. It's a great time for bikes and gear!