2020 Domane

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by tigoat

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)

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by prototoast

...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]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

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]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Burnette

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]

Originally Posted by R3awak3n

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!