# 2008 Madone 4.5 Bottom Bracket Question



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

I was looking at the new Madones and read about they new way they put the bottom bracket bearings in the frame...and the significant width of the shell itself. Supposed to add a lot of stiffness...anyway, I can't remember but is this the same with the lower end TCT carbon frame on the 4.5 and 4.7? When i glanced at it at my LBS I thought it looked like regular shimano external bearings...any help would be appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

You are correct. Only the OCLV (5.x and above) Madones have the new features: Seat mast, 90mm integrated bottom bracket, and no90 fork. The 4.x series Madones, only share the frame shape, and none of the "new" features that make the new Madones special.


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

Isn't the fork setup the same? It looks the same but I'm no expert. Thanks for the info.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

bigmax098 said:


> Isn't the fork setup the same? It looks the same but I'm no expert. Thanks for the info.


The forks on the 5.x and above Madones use, among other things, carbon races which are part of the fork crown assembly. The TCT's use more conventional integrated headsets.

I don't know if you've had the opportunity to test ride the TCT's, but if not I suggest doing so. I was very impressed with the ride quality, handling and liveliness of the bike. In my area the 4.5 is discounted to $1,700 and IMO, making it a pretty good value even when comparing it to the upper end Madones.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

No, the forks are completely different. The 4 series Madones use a conventional integrated headset and the fork itself, other than exterior shape, is really just a conventional square top to steerer - fork layup. The 5 & 6 series Madones on the other hand have a new fork called a no90, named for the fact that the transition from the fork crown to steerer has eliminated the 90 degree angle. This was accomplished with a super big lower 1.5" bearing that gently tapers to 1.25" at the top. I am pretty sure the 4 series is 1-1/8" up and down.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

zac said:


> No, the forks are completely different. The 4 series Madones use a conventional integrated headset and the fork itself, other than exterior shape, is really just a conventional square top to steerer - fork layup. The 5 & 6 series Madones on the other hand have a new fork called a no90, named for the fact that the transition from the fork crown to steerer has eliminated the 90 degree angle. This was accomplished with a super big lower 1.5" bearing that gently tapers to 1.25" at the top. I am pretty sure the 4 series is 1-1/8" up and down.


No? You just were a tad more long winded and provided some additional details, zac.  
You're correct, The 4.x forks are 1-1/8", top to bottom.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> No? You just were a tad more long winded and provided some additional details, zac.
> You're correct, The 4.x forks are 1-1/8", top to bottom.


PJ the no wasn't for you, it was to one of the posts above (I just didn't quote it). But you are right I am long winded 

it was for bigmax. Yes the forks look the same, but that is all. Oh I think the 4 series forks get the integrated computer pickup in the fork blade.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

zac said:


> PJ the no wasn't for you, it was to one of the posts above (I just didn't quote it). But you are right I am long winded


Ah, gotcha. BTW, I was just joking regarding the 'long winded' remark. As always, you posted good info. :thumbsup:


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

Hi guys,

A few weeks ago, I e-mailed Trek about a similar topic as I'm interested in the 4.5 as my 1st road bike and wanted to know what cost reducing measures they took with the 4 series.

Straight from the horses mouth:

"Thanks for writing and for your interest in Trek bikes. * 4 Series Madone frames run some of the new technologies one finds on the 2008 5 and 6 series Madones, most notably the new E2 fork, head tube and headset which feature an oversized lower bearing and no-90 fork crown. The 4series Madone frames run a traditional 68mm wide BB shell and traditional seat post, though, unlike the 5 and 6 series Madone frames."*


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

eff_dee said:


> [Trek wrote:] 4 Series Madone frames run some of the new technologies one finds on the 2008 5 and 6 series Madones, most notably the new E2 fork, head tube and headset which feature an oversized lower bearing and no-90 fork crown.


Can't argue with that, but there is a small difference. The 4-series Madones have aluminum headset bearing cups bonded into the carbon. The headset bearings in the 5- and 6-series Madones install directly into the carbon frame sockets—no cups needed.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

One thing you do get with the 4.x series that you do not get with the 5/6.x series is a replaceable derailleur hanger. 

In the event that you bend the hanger it is dealer serviceable and you won't be without your bike for a long stretch.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> Can't argue with that, but there is a small difference. The 4-series Madones have aluminum headset bearing cups bonded into the carbon. The headset bearings in the 5- and 6-series Madones install directly into the carbon frame sockets—no cups needed.


Which leads to the (somewhat rhetorical) question... if the headset cups become damaged is the frame a 'throw away' at that point? Or, like Specialized, is there a 'special tool' used to remove/ replace the cups. And that is just hearsay, I have no experience with the tool - nor do I want to!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

eff_dee said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> A few weeks ago, I e-mailed Trek about a similar topic as I'm interested in the 4.5 as my 1st road bike and wanted to know what cost reducing measures they took with the 4 series.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. Not very well documented on Trek's website, but IMO a plus for the 4.x series.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> Which leads to the (somewhat rhetorical) question... if the headset cups become damaged is the frame a 'throw away' at that point? Or, like Specialized, is there a 'special tool' used to remove/ replace the cups. And that is just hearsay, I have no experience with the tool - nor do I want to!


It's a good question, which deserves an answer even if it is rhetorical.  I'll see what I can find out. 

"Cups" could be misleading to some, so just to be clear: these 4-series "cups" are not races with little balls running around in them. Perhaps a better description would be "aluminum liners between the bearing assembly and the carbon."


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> It's a good question, which deserves an answer even if it is rhetorical.  I'll see what I can find out.
> 
> "Cups" could be misleading to some, so just to be clear: these 4-series "cups" are not races with little balls running around in them. Perhaps a better description would be "aluminum liners between the bearing assembly and the carbon."


I would think that my rhetorical question actually applies to any frame with integrated headset. It's all new to me because I'm coming from a steel frame, standard (nonintegrated headset), quill stem, d/ tube shifters... you get the idea. So integrated anything raises my concerns. 

Good that you clarified the cups/ races description. The way I'm envisioning it is the bonded cups basically replace the cups I press in on my frame and the races, in essence, remain the same. Now, I've probably just muddled your clarification!! :blush2:


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> It's all new to me because I'm coming from a steel frame, standard (nonintegrated headset), quill stem, d/ tube shifters... you get the idea. So integrated anything raises my concerns.


Same here—my main ride is a Surly Pacer with downtube shifters and a motley collection of surplus parts from the garage. 

Re the inegrated concerns: I agree with you. Part of the integrated thing is ease of manufacturing, of course. That's fine with me. But what saddens me a bit is the willingness of more of more and consumers to throw away an almost functional item because they've have been made to believe that it's too much trouble or impossible to repair or replace a small part. The kids across the street get new $49.95 bikes if a chain or a derailleur cable on the old ones break. With willing consumers like that, why have replaceable anything?


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

Thanks for the info and clarification...I'm going to pick up my new 4.5 after work today...I'm pumped!


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

bigmax,

Post pics and riding impressions asap!!


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

Yea, I'm in the Minneapolis, MN area so there is still a lot of snow/salt/sand on the roads, but you can be sure that I'll post riding impressions ASAP...and I'll post some pics today or tomorrow


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> Same here—my main ride is a Surly Pacer with downtube shifters and a motley collection of surplus parts from the garage.
> 
> Re the inegrated concerns: I agree with you. Part of the integrated thing is ease of manufacturing, of course. That's fine with me. But what saddens me a bit is the willingness of more of more and consumers to throw away an almost functional item because they've have been made to believe that it's too much trouble or impossible to repair or replace a small part. The kids across the street get new $49.95 bikes if a chain or a derailleur cable on the old ones break. With willing consumers like that, why have replaceable anything?


A Surly Pacer, now ya can't get any more back to basics than that (and I mean that in a good way). Should post some pics sometime - would love to see the set up.

Totally agree about the (paraphrasing) disposable society we live in. Companies seem to promote the notion and (like you mentioned) consumers rationalize that it represents progress. I'm... umm... frugal, so I do all my own wrenching, so I have to make sure that I understand the mechanics of any bike before making a purchase. 

I hope your neighbors at least got those bikes to an organization that would fix them up and give them to families less fortunate. That's what my partner did when she 'outgrew' her Trek.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

From the looks of this thread, Trek's gonna be selling a couple of 4.5's in the next few days. 

Bigmax, just curious, were you quoted a price on the 4.5?


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

eff_dee said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> A few weeks ago, I e-mailed Trek about a similar topic as I'm interested in the 4.5 as my 1st road bike and wanted to know what cost reducing measures they took with the 4 series.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the update. I am wondering if this is somehow a change after Trek dropped the 5.1? Because this is different from the information I had in October. I am wondering if after the demise of the White framed Madones, they are using left over HS shell lugs for the TCT Madones??? This is good news for the 4 series. It makes them just that much better.

For you guys that have the 4 series, do they all come with the integrated speed sensor pocket in the fork?


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> From the looks of this thread, Trek's gonna be selling a couple of 4.5's in the next few days.
> 
> Bigmax, just curious, were you quoted a price on the 4.5?


You know I have a 6.5 Pro, and I wouldnt hesitate to get a 4.5 at around 1800 or so. Great value, just wish they would option a standard double with it.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> I would think that my rhetorical question actually applies to any frame with integrated headset. It's all new to me because I'm coming from a steel frame, standard (nonintegrated headset), quill stem, d/ tube shifters... you get the idea. So integrated anything raises my concerns.
> 
> Good that you clarified the cups/ races description. The way I'm envisioning it is the bonded cups basically replace the cups I press in on my frame and the races, in essence, remain the same. Now, I've probably just muddled your clarification!! :blush2:


PJ, have you had a chance to pull apart your rig yet? You have to see first hand how the bearings seat in the BB and HS to see how any damage wear and tear would be catastrophic to impact the frame itself. The wear and tear parts are simple replacements. (I already have a spare set of bearings for the just in case instance) The typical "flat" spots that arise in a HS when/if they arise on the new Madone will happen to parts that are very easy to swap out. The bearing "assemblies" seat onto the "races" with such precision. It is hard to explain, you just have to see it. It is kind of like a "oh yeah, why hasn't anyone done this before" event. It really is simple, and easy as hell to work on them. Really, don't be afraid to pull it apart. 

But this is what has me still confused with the 4 series, because as I understand the 4 series uses a standard headset, and I don't know how that works with the Frame fork if it is like the 5+ series Madones. Dont even know anyone who makes a 1.5/1.125 integrated headset. If this is a special Trek proprietary part, then I suppose that could give me pause.


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

Ya zac, 

The 4 series is "speedtrap" compatible, which means the fork has that pocket for the sensor.

Also , spec-wise, Trek says the 4.5 uses -- *Aheadset w/cartridge bearings, integrated, sealed, alloy*

So essentially with an integrated headset, the outer race of the bearing is seated/pressed into the frame itself, rather than into a secondary shell?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

zac said:


> But this is what has me still confused with the 4 series, because as I understand the 4 series uses a standard headset, and I don't know how that works with the Frame fork if it is like the 5+ series Madones.


4-series Madones don't use a standard headset. They use the same type headset than the 5- and 6-series Madones with one small difference: the bearing assemblies don't drop directly into carbon sockets, but into aluminum cups (or liners) bonded into the carbon sockets. As you said, it's all very simple and straightforward.

Some confusion comes from using the term "race." A bearing race is in direct contact with the bearing balls. It's a part of the bearing assembly, not part of the frame.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

wim said:


> 4-series Madones don't use a standard headset. They use the same type headset than the 5- and 6-series Madones with one small difference: the bearing assemblies don't drop directly into carbon sockets, but into aluminum cups (or liners) bonded into the carbon sockets. As you said, it's all very simple and straightforward.
> 
> Some confusion comes from using the term "race." A bearing race is in direct contact with the bearing balls. It's a part of the bearing assembly, not part of the frame.


So the 4's use the same bearing assembly as the 5+s. That is good to know. But I am still wondering why the liners???? That doesn't make any sense, unless Trek is so secretive about the OCLV process, that it wont even allow use of the precision socket process for the TCT setups. It is not so much the process in making the fork and HS lug, as it is to get the alignment (which is nonadjustable) perfect. FWIW, my new Madone is spot on neutral when hands free. Never had a bike that didn't require some minute weight adjustment to compensate for alignment of the the fork/wheel.


As to the "race" "cups", yeah I know that. That is what I was trying to say above, the bearing assembly is different and to the point where you have to see it first hand. Then you understand why it is so simple. All the wear and tear parts are part of the simple (and cheap) assembly...that is literally a drop in part.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

eff_dee said:


> Ya zac,
> 
> 
> So essentially with an integrated headset, the outer race of the bearing is seated/pressed into the frame itself, rather than into a secondary shell?



Yes I know that, but that is what had me confused. The 5+ Madones dont have this. The inner and outer surfaces of the bearing assemblies make direct contact with the sockets of the frame/fork They dont move with repect to each other, as a traditional integrated HS would. All the surface (cup/race) to bearing contact is in the bearing assembly itself. Trek id's the 4 series as having a traditional integrated HS...well if it is like the 5+ series, it is anything but traditional. What am I getting wrong here? I am still confused.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

zac said:


> Trek id's the 4 series as having a traditional integrated HS...well if it is like the 5+ series, it is anything but traditional. What am I getting wrong here? I am still confused.


I'm confused now as well. From another source, I've just been quoted that the 4.5 Madone uses "Aheadset w/cartridge bearings, integrated, sealed, alloy." When asked about the 5.2 Madone, I was quoted "Cane Creek IS-2 Integrated with cartridge bearings, sealed, alloy, 1 1/8" top, 1.5" bottom." Seems like your confusion was caused by my confusion, for which I apologize. Tomorow, I'll pull a 4.5 apart and see what's up.


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

wim said:


> 4-series Madones don't use a standard headset. They use the same type headset than the 5- and 6-series Madones with one small difference: the bearing assemblies don't drop directly into carbon sockets, but into aluminum cups (or liners) bonded into the carbon sockets.


If Trek uses bonded in cups to house the bearings on the 4 series, than isn't this a standard headset, rather than an integrated one? i.e. The Chris King components website states that *"...what has been "integrated" by the integrated headset? The bearings now rest inside the frame instead of inside pressed-in cups."*

The tech. rep did state that the headtube, head set and fork design on the 4's were the same as the 5's. So I guess Trek used the net molding technique for the headset and used a traditional BB to reduce costs.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

eff_dee said:


> If Trek uses bonded in cups to house the bearings on the 4 series, than isn't this a standard headset, rather than an integrated one? i.e. The Chris King components website states that *"...what has been "integrated" by the integrated headset? The bearings now rest inside the frame instead of inside pressed-in cups."*
> 
> The tech. rep did state that the headtube, head set and fork design on the 4's were the same as the 5's. So I guess Trek used the net molding technique for the headset and used a traditional BB to reduce costs.



wim: thanks

eff_dee: I supose that is what had me confused because the rep I spoke to said otherwise. But what you are saying makes more sense. The BB on the 4 series is just a standard 68mm (you choose the flavor to match your crank) BB. But they would need a special one shot use headset, if it was a different design than the 5+ series, especially if they are running the no90 fork there too. I was lead to believe that the no90 fork was not to be used in the 4 series, and the fork similarities to the Madone line was cosmetic only. I wonder if Trek changed design in the last half year or so?


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

Wow, my first post really took off...haha. Anyway, If no one else takes their 4.x apart in the near future I can when I get the time and take some pics. Not that I have seen what the 5.x & 6.x fork/headset looks like but I'm sure someone will know if its the same or not.


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> From the looks of this thread, Trek's gonna be selling a couple of 4.5's in the next few days.
> 
> Bigmax, just curious, were you quoted a price on the 4.5?


PJ - Getting the 4.5 for 1900....I know I could get it cheaper if I called all over, but I don't mind paying a little more and making sure I have one now...It'd be hard to wait if they go on backorder...not to mention i haven't given my LBS any business for quite some time...thanks internet :-\


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

zac said:


> ...But they would need a special one shot use headset, if it was a different design than the 5+ series, especially if they are running the no90 fork there too. I


ya exactly...5/6 series headset...standard Trek parts bin BB. No headaches for Trek and cheaper for us.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> I'm confused now as well. From another source, I've just been quoted that the 4.5 Madone uses "Aheadset w/cartridge bearings, integrated, sealed, alloy." When asked about the 5.2 Madone, I was quoted "Cane Creek IS-2 Integrated with cartridge bearings, sealed, alloy, 1 1/8" top, 1.5" bottom." Seems like your confusion was caused by my confusion, for which I apologize. Tomorow, I'll pull a 4.5 apart and see what's up.


That would be great, wim. 

I suspect that eff_dee was misinformed by Trek. Here's what was posted previously:

"Thanks for writing and for your interest in Trek bikes. 4 Series Madone frames run some of the new technologies one finds on the 2008 5 and 6 series Madones, most notably the new E2 fork, head tube and headset which feature an oversized lower bearing and no-90 fork crown. The 4series Madone frames run a traditional 68mm wide BB shell and traditional seat post, though, unlike the 5 and 6 series Madone frames."

Now, unless they've changed their specs, Trek's website describes a standard integrated type, not the oversized version found on the 5/ 6 series Madones. I think what wim is going to find is just that - a 1 1/8" integrated headset. At this price, still not a bad set up, but it brings me back to a previous post where I have concerns regarding how bonded in cups are repaired/ replaced if/ when needed.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

zac, I don't own a Madone (yet). I test rode a 5.2 pro but opted out for several reasons. I'm now considering a 4.5. I have seen the 5/6 series headset assemblies so I'd know the difference if I saw the 4 series disassembled.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

*+1*



zac said:


> You know I have a 6.5 Pro, and I wouldnt hesitate to get a 4.5 at around 1800 or so. Great value, just wish they would option a standard double with it.


I agree. I don't care for compacts. I find that when I'm considering bikes spec'd with them I use a gear calculator to see if changing cassettes would put me back in a range comparable to a standard crank. The majority of the time I'm in the 53/ 19T, so using a compact 50 I have to drop to an 18T cassette.


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

Here are a few shots of the new 4.5


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> That would be great, wim.
> 
> 
> Now, unless they've changed their specs, Trek's website describes a standard integrated type, not the oversized version found on the 5/ 6 series Madones. I think what wim is going to find is just that - a 1 1/8" integrated headset.


PJ,

Trek's spec sheet lists the 4.5 as having the E2 fork:

*Bontrager Race Lite, carbon w/E2 aluminum steerer; SpeedTrap compatible*

Look at the Aluminum fork comparo at the bottom: 

http://www.trekbikes.com/madone/technology/strength/

Note in their points: *1.5 inch built-in, self-aligning lower bearing race.* ..... *Tool-less installation. No machining or pounding required. No cups, no races to install.*


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

bigmax,

The bike looks awsome:thumbsup: A really swoopy looking frame...I can't wait


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

You're right, eff_dee. I'm familiar with the document you linked to, but thought that only applied to the 5/6 series Madones. Also, on the 4.5 web page, the Aheadset is spec'd, so (to me) that says it's standard integrated. Not doubting you, but at this point we can only wait to see what wim is able to find out firsthand.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Beautiful bike, Bigmax. Congrats!!


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

It's probably just a crappier version of what the 5/6 series has. But it still gotta be 1 1/8 - 1.5" as per their specs. I'd be surprised if it were a one-off headset just for this frame, as per your previous comment, but who knows??

I'm also interested in seeing the real thing though


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Well just to add more fuel to this fire. I checked on the 4 series yesterday. I was at my LBS for another issue, and asked the owner about the 4 series and the differences to the other Madones. The obvious came out: Overseas TCT/Not American OCVL, seat post/not mast, standard BB/not oversized, AND (wait for it) different fork. Yes, it is a 1.5/1.125 split, but the lower larger diameter is achieved with an aluminum insert on the steerer, as opposed to an oversized lower steerer that would be necessary to achieve the no90. I asked specifically if it was the no90 fork like mine and he didn't "think so." We then looked at them and they (the 4s and the 5/6s) are different. The 4 series does not have that cosmetic crown indicative of the sweep transition that the fork to steerer makes in the 5/6 without the 90° bend. Instead it "appears" that the 4 series fork has that beefed up transition that is required for any 90° bend to be strong enough to handle the stresses.

So while I would not say that this is definitive, it just adds more confusion. (By the way, this is somewhat the same info I got from the Trek rep last year) 

I am going to take a 4 series out for a test ride and see how they ride, my hope is, and I expect it to be, a pretty good ride.

zac


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

Zac - Looks like you're right, here is Trek's page on the two Madone forks used:

http://www.trekbikes.com/madone/technology/strength/

The top left one is the 5/6 fork and the bottom left one is on the 4's.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

bigmax098 said:


> Zac - Looks like you're right, here is Trek's page on the two Madone forks used:
> 
> http://www.trekbikes.com/madone/technology/strength/
> 
> The top left one is the 5/6 fork and the bottom left one is on the 4's.



max I was just looking at that again for the 20th time  and you know. I think I am getting it.

But Trek left out the Race X Lite fork found on the 5 series Madones!

It appears the E2 designation is for the lower large 1.5" steerer requiring the 1.5" bearing.

So the RXXXL (in the 6s), RXL (in the 5s) and RL (in the 4s) forks all get the E2 designation. That seems plain and obvious.

Also plain and obvious is the Race XXX Lite in the 6 series is all carbon, has the no90 transition from fork to carbon steerer and is essentially laid up all in one peice. I can attest, that this "new" fork is super stable and its tracking is dead on neutral.

Also plain and obvious is that the Race Lite fork also uses the E2 tech, but with a one piece aluminum steerer/crown. The carbon forks are then moulded into (not the other way around) the crown. This definitely IS NOT a no90 fork because of the interface that you can see, BUT, that designation maybe irrelevant since it is NOT an all carbon fork, instead the one piece aluminum steerer/crown (with the E2 tech) may indeed "simulate" the no90 found in the all carbon RXXXL. (?) What do you all think?

But then, where is the Race X Lite fork found in the 5 series Madones??? Is it more like the Race Lite fork or the Race XXX Lite fork? Clearly the RXL in the 5s has the same/similar aluminum steerer/crown as does the 4 series (or does it?), but there must be something different. The 5 series uses the cosmetic crown, but the 4 series does not.

Are the 4 and 5 forks more alike with their one piece aluminum steerer/crowns? 

Given all this, perhaps it is more accurate to describe the differences in forks between the 4/5/6s as they all have the E2 technology in that they all have the large lower 1.5" bearing and oversized steerer tube. But only the 6 series is an all carbon one piece fork. That large lower tube and lower bearing (which takes all the hits and abuse in a HS) should be just so much better than a traditional 1 1/8" set. The thing is huge. And the load characteristics just from the 3/8" difference are most likely exponentially rather than linearly different. So, all in all, it is the E2 that is the most important and in that respect, the 4 series share the same advanced fork tech as its bigger brothers.

zac


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I suspect the differences between the Race Lite and Race X Lite are mainly cosmetic and weight, with construction being very similar.

Let us know what you think of the 4 series. I haven't had the saddle time on the 5/6 series that you have, but my initial reaction is that the difference between the 5/6 and 4's is primarily weight (quicker acceleration), but I found the ride/ handling qualities to be very similar.

Also, be advised that the brakes are..umm.. subpar on the 4.5 (I'm being kind), so plan ahead if that's the model you test. The 4.7 has Ultegras. 
Not impressed with the wheelset either. The bike I test rode needed both wheels trued after about 3-5 miles.


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

The Race X-Lite probably uses higher strength carbon for the fork legs...otherwise, it's still basically this, as PJ suggests:










Ya PJ, I was worried about the brakes being shyte....thanks for confirming that...also disappointed to hear about the wheels. I thought they would've been decent to say the least.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> I suspect the differences between the Race Lite and Race X Lite are mainly cosmetic and weight, with construction being very similar.
> 
> Let us know what you think of the 4 series. I haven't had the saddle time on the 5/6 series that you have, but my initial reaction is that the difference between the 5/6 and 4's is primarily weight (quicker acceleration), but I found the ride/ handling qualities to be very similar.
> 
> ...


That's too bad about the brakes, as these bikes are made to be ridden hard. Get a set of 105 or Ultegra calipers and put them on the swap will take less than 10 minutes and easily less than $100.00. I haven't ridden a set of 105s but the Ultegra's are pretty damn good, and may be worth the $20 or so more that they cost.

No experience with the Race wheelset. The truing could just be lack of LBS advance checking. Get trued and tensioned properly and they should be a good wheel. The Race Lites though, I must say are pretty bombproof, and cheap. I have yet to touch my RXLs and I am well over 1000 potholed miles on them, they are dead on. Not bad for a wheel that everyone thinks is crap. (Slowly starting to come over to Bonty's paired spoke philosophy!)

zac


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

zac said:


> That's too bad about the brakes, as these bikes are made to be ridden hard. Get a set of 105 or Ultegra calipers and put them on the swap will take less than 10 minutes and easily less than $100.00. I haven't ridden a set of 105s but the Ultegra's are pretty damn good, and may be worth the $20 or so more that they cost.
> 
> No experience with the Race wheelset. The truing could just be lack of LBS advance checking. Get trued and tensioned properly and they should be a good wheel. The Race Lites though, I must say are pretty bombproof, and cheap. I have yet to touch my RXLs and I am well over 1000 potholed miles on them, they are dead on. Not bad for a wheel that everyone thinks is crap. (Slowly starting to come over to Bonty's paired spoke philosophy!)
> 
> zac


It just so happens I have a new set of Ultegra brakes on hand. Was planning on putting them on my current bike but never did. I do all my own wrenching (except for wheel truing, unfortunately), so yes, 10 minutes will fix that issue.

I actually made mention of the brakes because you said you were going to test ride the bike. I just wanted to give you a heads up on them. 

As far as the wheels go, I'm not that concerned. It's as you say, true them up and they'll be good for a couple of years. Then it'll be time to upgrade anyway. The Race lites are definitely better.

Are you still planning a test ride? If you do, let us know your thoughts.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> It just so happens I have a new set of Ultegra brakes on hand. ...
> 
> ...Are you still planning a test ride? If you do, let us know your thoughts.



Good to hear (and I know you were trying to give me the heads up, thanks) 

Oh yeah. I ride with him once a week, so next clean day...I'll swap the pedals and saddle and take it out. We have a pretty good group (lots of Masters 1s through 3/4s and some former roadies like me.) and so I should be able to put it through the paces. I am sure some of the guys will try and kill me on the hills, so we'll see how it responds. I can tell you though I am itching to cut down my steerer, and the 5.2 Performance I tested before was just too upright for me, so I am thinking the 4 will be similar. I am just more interested in ride quality and responsiveness.

As I put more miles on this thing, I can see that Trek accomplished their goal. These new Madones DO NOT beat you up over the long ride. I did ~83 on Saturday (I no longer ride a computer) and felt very fresh when I got in, despite the fact that the temp never got above 30 (well it was actually a somewhat split ride as we stopped for coffee for 20 mins or so at probably 30 in). I did a very fast and windy 50 yesterday just after work and the same.

Im going for a ride
zac


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

zac said:


> Given all this, perhaps it is more accurate to describe the differences in forks between the 4/5/6s as they all have the E2 technology in that they all have the large lower 1.5" bearing and oversized steerer tube.


Sorry for the delay and for the continued delay in pulling a 4-series Madone headset apart. What is obvious to me now is that the combined wisdom of the contributors to this thread far exceeds that of shop service managers and the Trek rep who happened to be in the shop when I tried to get to the bottom of this. What I've gotten so far is "ummmm, the 4-series has a different headset, but I really don't know the details," and "don't know, gotta call Trek and will get back with you." Needless to say, no one got back with me. So what everyone here surmised and what's been summed up by the quote above is far better information than anything coming from the people who are supposed to be in the know.

Something else that's become a little clearer to me now: technical specs are written by technicians, but they're final-edited by the marketing folks. When asked why the larger lower headset bearing wasn't mentioned in the 4.5 Madone specs I had in front of me, one of the Trek gurus said "we didn't think 4.5 buyers would be interested in that." So the omissions in the spec sheets are often there for a reason that has nothing to do with the actual component described. For technical-minded people, that invariably causes confusion.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

zac said:


> I did ~83 on Saturday... despite the fact that the temp never got above 30


And the nomination for the hardest core rider goes to...


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

PJ352 said:


> Which leads to the (somewhat rhetorical) question... if the headset cups become damaged is the frame a 'throw away' at that point? Or, like Specialized, is there a 'special tool' used to remove/ replace the cups. And that is just hearsay, I have no experience with the tool - nor do I want to!


 You can fix anything with the slow drying version of JB Weld.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I hope you enjoyed your ride, zac. We got hit with 4" of snow, so I'm spending time on the trainer for the next couple of days. 

I agree about the performance versus pro stack height. I preferred the pro position as well, and my bike set up isn't aggressive - 4.5cm drop to bars. If I go for the 4.5, over the course of time I'll fine tune the fit and am anticipating cutting the steerer down as well. For some reason, I thought you had the pro, but guess not.


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

PJ,

Have you given any thought to the 5.1?

Have you noticed if it's even available at any shops since it's been discontinued?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> Sorry for the delay and for the continued delay in pulling a 4-series Madone headset apart. What is obvious to me now is that the combined wisdom of the contributors to this thread far exceeds that of shop service managers and the Trek rep who happened to be in the shop when I tried to get to the bottom of this. What I've gotten so far is "ummmm, the 4-series has a different headset, but I really don't know the details," and "don't know, gotta call Trek and will get back with you." Needless to say, no one got back with me. So what everyone here surmised and what's been summed up by the quote above is far better information than anything coming from the people who are supposed to be in the know.
> 
> Something else that's become a little clearer to me now: technical specs are written by technicians, but they're final-edited by the marketing folks. When asked why the larger lower headset bearing wasn't mentioned in the 4.5 Madone specs I had in front of me, one of the Trek gurus said "we didn't think 4.5 buyers would be interested in that." So the omissions in the spec sheets are often there for a reason that has nothing to do with the actual component described. For technical-minded people, that invariably causes confusion.


Thanks for the info, wim. I think part of the problem trying to get good info is that we're asking people who do this for a living. It's a job, so if they actually have an interest, so much the better, but we can't count on that. We, on the other hand, bordering on OCD with anything bike related, dig and dig and dig some more until we find what we're looking for. Did I say obsessive/ compulsive? I mean 'genuine interest'.  

My adventure to the LBS consisted of a couple of us standing around looking at the 4.5 HT offering our opinions. No one there offered to disassemble the headset, only offering that, no, only the 5/6 series had the oversized lower bearing. I'm looking at the same HT they are, thinking it flanges out at the bottom, so I'm leaning towards the 1.5 lower.

Bottom line is we still don't know for sure, but some day, some day we will. Because we have that _genuine interest_. :thumbsup:


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

eff_dee said:


> PJ,
> 
> Have you given any thought to the 5.1?
> 
> Have you noticed if it's even available at any shops since it's been discontinued?


For a period of time I did eff_dee, but as you say, Trek is discontinuing it and have limited sizes still available. I've never even seen one. My first choice of all the Madone models is the 5.2 pro, but I'm a little skittish about the new technologies the 5/6 series offers.

I'm what I'd categorize as a fitness rider, doing about 100 miles/ week - 3,500 + miles/ yearly, so I'm not sure I can even justify the bike. At almost 1/2 the price (discounted) the 4.5 offers a lot of the performance, with more traditional BB/ seat tube designs. Of course, we still don't know about the HT!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

California L33 said:


> You can fix anything with the slow drying version of JB Weld.


Yes, that would be used for installation of new parts, but removal of the corroded/ bad parts comes first.


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

So I took my 4.5 out for its inaugural ride last night after work...and froze my sack off for about 15 miles. So...its not like thats much of a ride to offer great insights into the ride quality and performance of the bike, but I did get a general feel for it. Keep in mind that this is my first road bike and I have been riding Intense full suspension mtbs for the last few years...so my contributions can be taken with a grain of salt as they say. 

-I love the feel of the frame and fork. Very stiff and lively feel yet not too harsh...I think this is the general consensus. Felt like a very efficient power transfer when crushing it on the hills. 
-The bike tracks extremely well. The 1.5'' lower presumably contributes to this quality...and I know there has been considerable debate on whether or not it is a 1.5''...but I'm pretty sure it is. There was very little flex in the fork laterally, although the aluminum stem and bar combo was a bit flexy from what I could tell. 
-The shop must not have setup the limiting screws on my front derailleur correctly because my first shift onto the big ring and the chain came off and put a big F'n scratch on my crank arm...that pissed me off but once I fixed that not problems. The 105 stuff works fine and the ultegra shifted spot on. 
-The wheels were slightly flexy under power, but overall they seemed to be pretty decent. I rode on a really crappy road with lots of bumps and they were perfectly true when I got home...so thats good for now. 
-the brakes are not good, but hey where I ride most i dont brake at all so unless im doing some city rides or races I'm not too worried about it. 

So yea, thats the first ride...so we will see. Can't wait for it to warm up...smoother roads and longer rides


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Pretty good review for a mountain guy, Bigmax! Not that it's a goal, but I notice a lot of your riding impressions regarding the frame/ fork mirrored mine. The FD on my test ride functioned flawlessly, so it's just a matter of adjustment on your bike, I'm sure.

The brakes speak for themselves. At least you now know what you're dealing with, so hopefully you'll be prepared if/ when need be. If you aren't going to replace them, then maybe consider getting the Coolstop (I think that's what they're called) pads. Other forum members have posted positive impressions, so for a little $$ you may be able to improve their performance. 

We have different impressions of the wheels, but I'm a light rider (138 lbs.) and the wheels were out of true right out of the box. After 3-5 miles the front was worse, but I'm thinking once trued they'll hold for awhile. 

I didn't notice flex in the bar/ stem either, then again, I'm no Clydesdale. :nonod:


----------



## eff_dee (Mar 25, 2008)

Really glad to hear the positive impressions, bigmax. This pushes me even more into choosing the 4.5. 

Just how crappy are the brakes though? Is this strictly in terms of outright braking power (or lack of)? Could it be down to a shyte choice in pads by Trek or just all round crappy brakes?


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> I hope you enjoyed your ride, zac. We got hit with 4" of snow, so I'm spending time on the trainer for the next couple of days.
> 
> I agree about the performance versus pro stack height. I preferred the pro position as well, and my bike set up isn't aggressive - 4.5cm drop to bars. If I go for the 4.5, over the course of time I'll fine tune the fit and am anticipating cutting the steerer down as well. For some reason, I thought you had the pro, but guess not.


I do have the 6.5 Pro, but it comes with 3 8mm spacers, and my drop would be one 5mm spacer. I just haven't cut it yet.


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

Yea I am 6'2'' and with gear on about 195lbs so when I was really hammerin on it I could feel a fair amount of flex in my bars...not that big of a deal though. I used to use Kool Stop brake pads in my BMX days and they were much better than the standard pads that come with most brakes...so that would be a cheap upgrade that I am sure would significantly improve performance. I'm used to disc brakes so it was really strange using calipers again.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

eff_dee said:


> Really glad to hear the positive impressions, bigmax. This pushes me even more into choosing the 4.5.
> 
> Just how crappy are the brakes though? Is this strictly in terms of outright braking power (or lack of)? Could it be down to a shyte choice in pads by Trek or just all round crappy brakes?


IME, bikes in this price range spec'd with "alloy, dual caliper brakes" are crappy. As I mentioned other posters (and now Bigmax) vouch for Kool Stop pads, so that's a cheaper fix. 

IMO, it's not worth fretting over just how crappy the brakes are. If I think their subpar, they get swapped out. When you need them, you need them. Funny thing is, the most severe crash I was ever involved in happened so fast I never touched the brakes, but I still think they should function optimally.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

zac said:


> I do have the 6.5 Pro, but it comes with 3 8mm spacers, and my drop would be one 5mm spacer. I just haven't cut it yet.


I know. After I posted it dawned on me that you were essentially talking about dropping some spacers.


----------



## tubadude (Feb 9, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> IME, bikes in this price range spec'd with "alloy, dual caliper brakes" are crappy. As I mentioned other posters (and now Bigmax) vouch for Kool Stop pads, so that's a cheaper fix.


The crappy braking was the only issue with my 4.5 Madone when I purchased it last month. I swapped out the pads for Kool Stops and it was a night and day difference. Braking works perfectly now. Modulation is pretty good and overall power is plenty. I am much more confident in braking late.

All this talk about the minutia of fork construction strikes me as funny. Take the darn bike out for a ride and decide based on that along with customer service and track record, which are exceptional for Trek.

The 4.5 is a killer bike for the avid enthusiast. 500+ miles so far on mine and loving every minute of it.


----------



## bigmax098 (Mar 24, 2008)

tubadude I hear ya about just going out and riding...I think its just that some of us are a bit obsessed with bikes and that translates into discussing seemingly minute details...


----------



## Bizkit5598 (Mar 6, 2008)

bigmax098 said:


> ...and I know there has been considerable debate on whether or not it is a 1.5''...but I'm pretty sure it is



I work at an LBS in the Twin Cities which was the very first Trek dealer ever. To answer your question about the headseat, yes it is wider on the bottom.


----------

