# Madones - big difference?



## cpecrivaine (Jul 8, 2011)

So I have an opportunity to upgrade to a nice new carbon Trek Madone through my collegiate club at a heavy discount--for the 2011/12 models. Every model is available and I'm trying to decide whether I should grab a 4.7 or go better. 

Anyone have an opinion on the difference in components? I want decent wheels and components, but the 4.7 seems good enough. Would you go to the 5 or 6 series?


----------



## cpecrivaine (Jul 8, 2011)

Also, I meant to add, which model has good stock wheels that I won't have to upgrade them? I'm not up on wheel specs.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

Anything above 105 is about lower weight, not better performance, so I would not really be concerned with components. Trek does not exactly put the best wheels on their bikes, and both the race and race lite sets used up to the 6.7 SSL are basically decent enough for training, but not really a race wheel. You'd have to go to the 6.9 SSL, or one of the special edition Madones for that. Personally I'd probably go 4.7, and use the extra money for some good hand built wheels.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

The 5 and 6 series have integrated seat masts which may interfere with proper fit for riders who are short for that frame size. E. G., you may be able to stand over the top bar but unable to get the seat low enough to optimize pedal stroke because your leg is too straight. This also causes hip and knee pain.

The 4.7 gives you all the Madone benefits AND uses a conventional seat post (almost infinately adjustable).

I'm selling my 50 cm Madone 5.2 which is 1 cm too big in leg reach (and uncorrectable without structural damage) and going to a 50cm Madone 4.7 just to get the increased fitting flexability provided by the traditional seat post.


----------



## lrodrig (May 25, 2007)

My wife is 5 foot tall on a good day and rides/races a 47cm 6 series Madone and has no issues with the integrated seat mast / cap. That feature alone makes the 5 or 6 series Madones worth it in my opinion (I ride a 6 also). You get the benefit of an integrated seat mast without having to cut it. It really makes long rides on the bike very comfortable and makes up for the lower level carbon (versus OCLV in the 6) not being quite as nice.

If that isn't important to you then get a 4 series. They are very nice bikes. If you think you'll get upgradeitis then go 5.2 which has Ultegra instead of 105. If wheels are most important to you save the money by buying a 4 series and then buy a nice set of wheels. As stated before Bontrager race wheels are quite heavy.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

cpecrivaine said:


> Also, I meant to add, which model has good stock wheels that I won't have to upgrade them? I'm not up on wheel specs.


If your current bike is nice, why skip the upgrade and spend your money on a nice set of wheels?

I'm imagining that if you're in college, even with a discount, the upgrade is going to amount to a big chunk of change. If you don't have the cash (i.e., you have to buy on credit), skip the upgrade.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

Trek2.3 said:


> The 5 and 6 series have integrated seat masts which may interfere with proper fit for riders who are short for that frame size. E. G., you may be able to stand over the top bar but unable to get the seat low enough to optimize pedal stroke because your leg is too straight. This also causes hip and knee pain.
> 
> The 4.7 gives you all the Madone benefits AND uses a conventional seat post (almost infinately adjustable).
> 
> I'm selling my 50 cm Madone 5.2 which is 1 cm too big in leg reach (and uncorrectable without structural damage) and going to a 50cm Madone 4.7 just to get the increased fitting flexability provided by the traditional seat post.


It's important to buy the correct size bike.


----------



## cpecrivaine (Jul 8, 2011)

Tlaloc said:


> It's important to buy the correct size bike.


Agreed! I've never had an integrated seat mast--is it not adjustable at all? Would you just err on the small side to make sure you can get a full stroke?


----------



## cpecrivaine (Jul 8, 2011)

jorgy said:


> If your current bike is nice, why skip the upgrade and spend your money on a nice set of wheels?
> 
> I'm imagining that if you're in college, even with a discount, the upgrade is going to amount to a big chunk of change. If you don't have the cash (i.e., you have to buy on credit), skip the upgrade.


Good advice. My current bike is pretty low end (Tiagra components, heavy, etc), so I just can't pull the power out of it to keep up on fast rides. I have worked hard to be a decent rider, and now I feel like it's my bike holding me back (despite the nostalgia I feel toward it). 

This discount it too good to pass up! I can get a brand new 4.7 for 1,800 OTD or even a 2010 6.9 for 2,100. Been saving up for a while, so hopefully will have the cash.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

cpecrivaine said:


> Good advice. My current bike is pretty low end (Tiagra components, heavy, etc), so I just can't pull the power out of it to keep up on fast rides. I have worked hard to be a decent rider, and now I feel like it's my bike holding me back (despite the nostalgia I feel toward it).
> 
> This discount it too good to pass up! I can get a brand new 4.7 for 1,800 OTD or even a 2010 6.9 for 2,100. Been saving up for a while, so hopefully will have the cash.


Ah, you'll really appreciate the upgrade to a nice frame and substantially better components.

If I'm looking at the correct 2010 bike, I'd probably go the extra $300 for the Dura-Ace components and nicer wheels. But the 4.7 will be a great bike, too.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

cpecrivaine said:


> Agreed! I've never had an integrated seat mast--is it not adjustable at all? Would you just err on the small side to make sure you can get a full stroke?


It's quite adjustable. Trek makes several lengths of cap as well. Still you should get the right size frame.


----------



## kmunny19 (Aug 13, 2008)

cpecrivaine said:


> Agreed! I've never had an integrated seat mast--is it not adjustable at all? Would you just err on the small side to make sure you can get a full stroke?


they'll fit you to the right sized bike as best possible. don't worry about integrated/not integrated until you're in the place sitting on them and see if they can't find the right fit. 

as for which to go for, you're young and in good shape now, get a bike that is too. I started way to late in life and will never be to the point of truly justifying top end components/build. if I were your age and had the extra few hundred bucks, I'd go all the way and be happy with the wheels on the 6.9


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

Tlaloc said:


> It's important to buy the correct size bike.


It was sold to me as the "correct" size bike. I had a professional fitting (paid extra for that). Everyone assured me that they could make it fit. In fact, they claimed, after adjustments, that it did fit. As a relatively new cyclist, I thought it did seem to fit. The pains seemed to be part of getting used to cycling. 

Then I rode a 4.7 in Europe for a month with the top of seat to center of crank distance reduced and discovered the truth.

A 47cm Madone 5.2 would have come with its own set of problems. To get the, now l-o-n-g-e-r seat to pedal length, the seat would have to be mounted high and the handlebars would have to be raised. Bad for the center of gravity and stability.

All avoided on the "adjustable" 4.7.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Trek2.3 said:


> I'm selling my 50 cm Madone 5.2 which is 1 cm too big in leg reach (and uncorrectable without structural damage) and going to a 50cm Madone 4.7 just to get the increased fitting flexability provided by the traditional seat post.


Curious: with the Madone seat mast system offering an ample 95 mm (9.5 cm) range of adjustment, how exactly did you wind up at the limit of that range? A rider-bike mismatch that significant should have been apparent to everyone attending your fitting, including yourself. Any details you can share?


----------



## litespeedchick (Sep 9, 2003)

Trek2.3 said:


> It was sold to me as the "correct" size bike. I had a professional fitting (paid extra for that). Everyone assured me that they could make it fit. In fact, they claimed, after adjustments, that it did fit. As a relatively new cyclist, I thought it did seem to fit. The pains seemed to be part of getting used to cycling.
> 
> Then I rode a 4.7 in Europe for a month with the top of seat to center of crank distance reduced and discovered the truth.
> 
> ...


I'm curious too. Something just seems wrong here. What's your inseam? had you moved the saddle as far to the front as possible on the rails? Have you considered going w/ a non-Trek? maybe a compact geometry frame?


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

I believe the 6-series will be well worth the difference, and with a heavy discount you will end up with pretty much a bonafide bargain. The 6 series are modern lightweight high tech bikes built here in the states that will provide years of pleasure, and you can forget about upgrading frames because it will likely be years before Trek or anyone else puts a bike on the market that represents a significant upgrade. 

Don't settle for "good enough", especially when you don't have to. 

Get the lower end 6-series (ex, the 6.2) if you want to save money then get a pair of Shimano 7900 24CL wheels. You'll have a ride that is so smooth and refined you will be loosing sleep at night thinking about saddling up again.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

litespeedchick said:


> What's your inseam?


Pelvic floor height is 77 cm. I'm now trying a 50cm Trek 4.7 WSD with the seat 2 cm lower (impossibe on the ISP models). It increases my knee bend about 5* and it feels much better in the shop.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Trek2.3 said:


> Pelvic floor height is 77 cm. I'm now trying a 50cm Trek 4.7 WSD with the seat 2 cm lower (impossibe on the ISP models). It increases my knee bend about 5* and it feels much better in the shop.


Thanks for the details, appreciate it. No question, you need to go with what feels better to you regardless of the numbers.

For what it's worth: The 50 cm ISP Madone saddle height adjustment range is 62 - 72 cm. So you not being able to go 2 cm lower must mean you need at an astoundingly low (for your 77 cm pelvic floor height) 61 or 60 cm saddle height. And I agree: with the 47 ISP Madone having an adjustment range of 59 - 69 cm, you'd be near the lower limit with that smaller ISP bike as well. Nevertheless, you can't blame the ISP system for your sizing issue. It has its roots in your extraordinarily low seating position, not the ISP system as such.

/w


----------



## MtnBikerChk (Sep 18, 2009)

It looks like we're generally talking about the 4 vs 5 series but just to note (I think no one mentioned it) the 6 series is a different type of carbon - OCLV where as the 5 and below are TCT. OCLV is made in the USA, TCT is not.

What does that mean for performance? OCLV probably has a smoother ride but if you can get your hands on both try them!

Oh and you can't buy a carbon road bike and put tiagra components on them  I haven't looked at the Shimano lineup in a while but the Tiagra and lower shifters used to actually use a different mechanism than 105 and above (thumb actuated) so I'd look for that. At least go 105 or better yet - SRAM


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

I rode a bike in Europe for 5 weeks last month. It had the thumb lever for shifting up. Didn't like it at all.

*Go with 105's.* Either of the last 2 series are fine.

P. S. I hate SRAM's. They are definately designed for large hands.


----------



## MtnBikerChk (Sep 18, 2009)

Trek2.3 said:


> P. S. I hate SRAM's. They are definately designed for large hands.


How can you say that?! They are completely adjustable! I have a low center of gravity (translation: I'm short with small hands etc) and they work great for me!


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

Trek2.3 said:


> Pelvic floor height is 77 cm. I'm now trying a 50cm Trek 4.7 WSD with the seat 2 cm lower (impossibe on the ISP models). It increases my knee bend about 5* and it feels much better in the shop.


Typically one measures his cycling inseam ("pelvic floor height"?) and multiplies this by .67 to get the size of a frame measured Center to top. This is for a bike with a horizontal top tube. A bike with a sloping top tube will have a shorter seat tube.

See: http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/

Since the top tube slopes several centimeters, it sounds like this would be too big.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

cpecrivaine said:


> This discount it too good to pass up! I can get a brand new 4.7 for 1,800 OTD or even a 2010 6.9 for 2,100. Been saving up for a while, so hopefully will have the cash.


If you can get a 2010 6.9 for $2,100, do it! It would be a crime to pay $1,800 for a 4.7 when you can get a 6.9 for $300 more.


----------



## Pegster (Jul 28, 2011)

*Go with the 6 series*

Hi,

I am 5"3 and i own two Madones, 6 series, go for it! They are great! The higher end components just work better, faster shifting etc. I have the carbon Bontrager XXX wheels and those babies roll! One set of wheels has over 15,000 miles and with no problem. I have an old Trek with Tiagra components and the difference is SUV vs sports car!


----------

