# Help with the Madone Line Up (Pro vs. NonPro, etc)



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

What is the difference between the Pro and NonPro 5.2 other than the crank and cassette?

Speaking of which, because I am a noob, what is the difference between the two?

Were there any major changes / upgrades between 2007 and 2008 that I should be concerned about?

Thanks!

P.S. When would be a good time to look for used 2008 bikes, and where should I look?


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

1) the Performance fit has a 30mm taller Head Tube which gives a more upright and relaxed ride, as opposed to the Pro fit. The 2008 Pro fit is similar in geometries to last years Madone frames. 

2) That being said, as to the differences between the 2007 and the 2008 frames.... Uhm, to put it simply and bluntly, forget Trek ever made a road bike before 2008, the new frames are not comparable to prior year offerings. That is a bit unfair, as the pre'08 Madones are absolutely fantastic bike's. It's just that the '08s are very very different. 

HTH
zac


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

.....


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

Cool beans. Now, to get the money and find a good deal.  When is ideal to buy? September? October? Because I can wait.

Thanks


----------



## tg3895 (Mar 14, 2006)

Sept./Oct. is usually a good time to pre-order next year's model.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

To get a better deal on a current Madone might mean waiting until the next generation model is on the horizon. These are selling for full pop everywhere. A dealer would have to be less than smart to reduce his price on these.

On the pro vs. performance fit discussion, try not to think of the performance fit version as a comfort/easy ride sort of thing, it's more a way for guys with long legs and short torsos to arrive at a good fit without using a totem pole's worth of headset spacers or riser stems. The frames are exactly the same from a construction standpoint.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

*Misleading..*



davidka said:


> On the pro vs. performance fit discussion, try not to think of the performance fit version as a comfort/easy ride sort of thing, it's more a way for guys with long legs and short torsos to arrive at a good fit without using a totem pole's worth of headset spacers or riser stems.


The facts don't bear this out. Long legs? The geo of the pro and performance are exactly the same except for the 3 cm longer HT's on the performance, so saddle height is exactly the same. Short torso? The _measurements_ that change reach (STA, HTA and effective TT) are the same for pro and performance versions, so the additional HT length only helps to raise bar height (the equivalent of 3 cm's of spacers) and changes reach by a few millimeters.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Yes, the saddle height is the same. The handlebar height is not the same. If a rider's long legs require a high saddle height, the handlebars must be higher too. This is just as important and has just as big an effect on reach as length.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

davidka said:


> Yes, the saddle height is the same. The handlebar height is not the same. If a rider's long legs require a high saddle height, the handlebars must be higher too. This is just as important and has just as big an effect on reach as length.


You're confusing frame stack with frame reach. If you put the same rider on (as an example) a 54 cm performance or a 54 cm pro, the saddle height is exactly the same. All else being equal, the bars (as you point out) will be about 3 cm's higher on the performance because of the HT length (frame stack), BUT the _reach_ only changes by 8 mm's (< 1/3") between the two - hardly a fix for cyclists with short torso's.

Check out Trek's geo charts if you question my numbers.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I am not confusing anything. Bar height (stack as you call it) is just as important a component to reach as length is (horizontal length is not the only consideration). The point I am making is that with performance fit a rider can have a higher bar height without sacrificing any other aspect of the Madone's performance.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

davidka said:


> I am not confusing anything. Bar height (stack as you call it) is just as important a component to reach as length is (horizontal length is not the only consideration). *The point I am making is that with performance fit a rider can have a higher bar height without sacrificing any other aspect of the Madone's performance*.


If the bolded section was the only statement made, you'd be correct, but mentioning reach along with a remark that (paraphrasing) performance fit is for long legs/ short torso's is wrong. To someone with a short torso, the horizontal length is of primary importance. Bar height relates more to fitness/ flexibility. 

Again, _reach_ changes by 8 mm's on a 54. No fix for short torso's and certainly not a sole reason to purchase the performance fit. There are WSD's and natural fit's for that purpose.


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

So with the pro I will be reaching farther down because the head tube is shorter? Is 30mm really that much of a change to inflict discomfort? One of my goals with the new bike is to be able to go on a long ride next summer (1 week or more) with 100-200 miles days.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

jsedlak said:


> So with the pro I will be reaching farther down because the head tube is shorter? Is 30mm really that much of a change to inflict discomfort? One of my goals with the new bike is to be able to go on a long ride next summer (1 week or more) with 100-200 miles days.


All else being equal, your saddle to bar drop will be about 3 cm's lower on the pro fit versus the performance fit. Whether or not the 3 cm's is much of a change to inflict comfort depends on many factors, primarily you flexibility/ fitness level. A good guideline would be to take some measurements off your current set up, compare to a new Madone, and go from there.

Don't forget that there are options available to minimize the 3 cm change - like using stems with higher rise.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

PJ352 said:


> If the bolded section was the only statement made, you'd be correct, but mentioning reach along with a remark that (paraphrasing) performance fit is for long legs/ short torso's is wrong. To someone with a short torso, the horizontal length is of primary importance. Bar height relates more to fitness/ flexibility.


 No, I am not wrong. I never said that performance fit was for any specific body type, I only suggested that it was of benefit for that body type. If you change the fit of a person's bike by lowering their handlebar 30mm and ask them to describe the change they will tell you that the reach to the handlebar is less comfortable (assuming that they were happy with the fit of their bike before). Long legs/short torso requires a frame that allows a high saddle and h-bar height without a longer top tube. The 30mm taller head tube achieves this over the pro geometry for people with that build.

jsedlak, yes you will find the handlebar to be lower on the Pro fit than the performance fit. That may be better or worse depending on your preference.


----------



## 08Madone5.2 (Dec 25, 2007)

If you buy a Performance version, you can always duplicate the Pro's stem height by removing the spacers. You will get more flexibility in terms of finding what's comfortable for you with the Performance version.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

davidka said:


> No, I am not wrong. I never said that performance fit was for any specific body type, I only suggested that it was of benefit for that body type.


And you were wrong for suggesting that.




davidka said:


> If you change the fit of a person's bike by lowering their handlebar 30mm and ask them to describe the change they will tell you that the reach to the handlebar is less comfortable (assuming that they were happy with the fit of their bike before).


First of all, that's pure conjecture, second of all if they did mention reach, they'd be describing the change in their words, it would still be a change in frame stack. 




davidka said:


> Long legs/short torso requires a frame that allows a high saddle and h-bar height without a longer top tube. The 30mm taller head tube achieves this over the pro geometry for people with that build.


_Correctly_ stated - Long legs/ short torso require the appropriate saddle height, proportionately shorter TT and saddle to bar drop that is comfortable for that individual. The 3 cm's in additional HT length on the performance series allows for a relatively higher bar while using less spacers.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

08Madone5.2 said:


> If you buy a Performance version, you can always duplicate the Pro's stem height by removing the spacers. You will get more flexibility in terms of finding what's comfortable for you with the Performance version.


Somewhat, but not totally. If you removed all the spacers from the performance you would have hit its limit, while the shorter HT on the pro would always allow a lower limit (all else being equal).


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

PJ352 said:


> And you were wrong for suggesting that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Falling Snow (Apr 2, 2008)

As has been said, I think the issue with considering the two fits is about saddle to bar drop (and color  ). I have long legs for my height and went with the Performance fit. I have never been particularly flexible even though I am pretty fit, and I do have some lower back issues that I had to consider. With my saddle height, I could still get about an 8cm drop to the bars if I removed all the spacers, even more if I changed the conical one too. Still, whatever your saddle height, you'll always be able to get more drop from the Pro fit.

Since Trek also significantly lengthened the headtube on (what is now) the Pro fit for 2008, I think the choice is less of an issue than it could have been. Just keep in mind that if you are not particularly long legged, you may not be able to get as much drop as is ideal for you with the Performance version - and again that also depends somewhat on your fitness, personal comfort, riding style, etc.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Falling Snow said:


> Since Trek also significantly lengthened the headtube on (what is now) the Pro fit for 2008, I think the choice is less of an issue than it could have been..


 The lengths of the older bike and newer (Pro) bike are different on paper but they are actually the same. The old bike's headtube figure does not take into account the headset, the new bike has an internal headset.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Falling Snow said:


> Since Trek also significantly lengthened the headtube on (what is now) the Pro fit for 2008, I think the choice is less of an issue than it could have been.


Did you mean to say performance fit? Because the geometry for '08 Madone Pro's is the same as it was in '07, the 3 cm's added to HT length is on the performance fit.


----------



## Falling Snow (Apr 2, 2008)

Ah, my mistake then. No, I wasn't talking about the Performance, I didn't realize that the headset on the older models changed the length that much to the point that they're basically the same now as before. Sorry if I caused any confusion and thanks for pointing that out to me. :blush2:


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

No worries, the numbers on the geometry sheet would lead anyone to think that they were different. It (the specs) could use a foot note or something to clarify.


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

Also, how much weight can these bikes take? I weigh ~230lbs, but will get down to about 200 once I can get riding everyday.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

230 will be no problem. One thing to consider is the wheels. Low spoke count wheels will handle your weight but expect them to have a slightly shorter lifespan (spokes will start breaking sooner, a couple years instead of many years). It is a good idea to get some 32 spoke wheels to use as your daily drivers. Good quality Ultegra hubs laced 32h to good rims can be purchased for very little $$ compared to current high end wheels. They are a great investment.


----------



## preston (Feb 13, 2008)

Getting back to the Pro vs. Performance fit issue, I'm just curious.........what do most serious racing cyclists have for their saddle to handlebar drop distance? I also have long legs and a short torso and ended up getting a performance fit because of it. I'm starting to second guess myself a little bit since my aerodynamics might be a little better with the pro. But how much of a drop is too much?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

preston said:


> Getting back to the Pro vs. Performance fit issue, I'm just curious.........what do most serious racing cyclists have for their saddle to handlebar drop distance? I also have long legs and a short torso and ended up getting a performance fit because of it. I'm starting to second guess myself a little bit since my aerodynamics might be a little better with the pro. But how much of a drop is too much?


Working from the end of your post to the front, too much drop is when you experience neck and shoulder pain - sometimes accompanied by lower back pain. Saddle to bar drop is all about flexibility, fitness and experience, and as was pointed out in another thread recently, many riders use a fairly aggressive drop only to ride on the hoods or tops - makes no sense, except maybe when they take pics of their bike, it looks racy.

As with many other bike related setups, it's best to go slow with any changes and make them one at a time. As far as your second guessing yourself on the choice of the performance fit, I'd say don't sweat it unless you've found yourself down to 5 or 10 mm's of spacers and looking for a more radical (lower) stem.

Relating to your first comment regarding long legs/ short torso and the performance fit, it's as I've said here previously, people confuse reach with stack - reach changes the distance from saddle to bars and requires a change in TT and/ or stem length to accomplish, stack changes the saddle to bar drop and requires a change in frame stack (HT length), spacers and/ or stem angle to accomplish. Pro/ performance fits do not change reach more than a few millimeters, but they change stack by 3 cm's.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

PJ352 said:


> Relating to your first comment regarding long legs/ short torso and the performance fit, it's as I've said here previously, people confuse reach with stack - reach changes the distance from saddle to bars and requires a change in TT and/ or stem length to accomplish, stack changes the saddle to bar drop and requires a change in frame stack (HT length), spacers and/ or stem angle to accomplish. Pro/ performance fits do not change reach more than a few millimeters, but they change stack by 3 cm's.


I understand what you are saying about stack versus reach from a bicycle geometry point of view where stack is vertical and reach is purely horizontal, but think about it from the rider's perspective.

For a particular cyclist, let's assume that the cyclist's desired position in terms of knee-over-pedal, saddle height, saddle fore/aft, and back angle is the same for both performance and pro fit cases. The cyclist's "effective reach" is then from shoulder to hand placement on the handlebars - this is not just purely horizontal reach.

The body geometry will vary from cyclist to cyclist of course, but let's say that the back is at 45 degrees and the shoulder to hands line is at 45 degrees too (subsititute whatever numbers you prefer). If you increase the stack height by 3cm and reduce the horizontal reach by a few mm, the overall effect on the diagonal "effective reach" from shoulders to bar is going to be quite a lot more than those few mm. So I would expect that the performance fit is going to help on reach issues for these long-legged, short torso riders.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

ukbloke said:


> I understand what you are saying about stack versus reach from a bicycle geometry point of view where stack is vertical and reach is purely horizontal, but think about it from the rider's perspective.
> 
> For a particular cyclist, let's assume that the cyclist's desired position in terms of knee-over-pedal, saddle height, saddle fore/aft, and back angle is the same for both performance and pro fit cases. The cyclist's "effective reach" is then from shoulder to hand placement on the handlebars - this is not just purely horizontal reach.
> 
> The body geometry will vary from cyclist to cyclist of course, but let's say that the back is at 45 degrees and the shoulder to hands line is at 45 degrees too (subsititute whatever numbers you prefer). If you increase the stack height by 3cm and reduce the horizontal reach by a few mm, the overall effect on the diagonal "effective reach" from shoulders to bar is going to be *quite a lot more *than those few mm. _*So I would expect that the performance fit is going to help on reach issues for these long-legged, short torso riders*_.


You could expect anything you want, but an appreciable change in _reach_ going from pro to performance fit geometry is not going to happen. And your use of words and phrases like _effective reach _, _body geometry _ and (my favorite) _quite a lot more_, aren't going to change the facts that I posted (and you quoted). Nor is your suggestion that I look at it from a riders prospective. Perspectives aren't facts, and people frequently think things that just aren't so. 

So I repeat: *Reach* changes the distance from saddle to bars and requires a change in TT and/ or stem length to accomplish. I will add that STA can also change reach. *Stack* changes the saddle to bar drop and requires a change in frame stack (HT length), spacers and/ or stem angle to accomplish. _Pro/ performance fits do not change reach more than a few millimeters, but they change stack by 3 cm's._


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Well, no need for me to continue with that line of discussion.

Another aspect that long-legged, short-torso struggle with is pedal to bar distance. If you go with the performance fit you will get more clearance. You might then be able to get away with a frame that's one size smaller, and this will reign in the top tube and help with reach. This doesn't work for all, but is something to think about if you are in-between sizes and worried about bashing your knees on the bar (which I am).


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

ukbloke said:


> Another aspect that long-legged, short-torso struggle with is pedal to bar distance. If you go with the performance fit you will get more clearance. You might then be able to get away with a frame that's one size smaller, and this will reign in the top tube and help with reach. This doesn't work for all, but is something to think about if you are in-between sizes and worried about bashing your knees on the bar (which I am).


Good point, the performance fit will help with the situation you describe. If someone were experiencing this type of issue I'd also suggest a higher stem. It raises bars about .5 cm's per every +2 degree change and shortens reach, but only slightly. Also, shallow drop/ reach bars, preferably with shorter distance at the drops. There's a brand/ model (the name now escapes me) that has that design. Probably a few do. A slacker STA would also help, but the catch 22 is that it would lengthen reach.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

preston said:


> Getting back to the Pro vs. Performance fit issue, I'm just curious.........what do most serious racing cyclists have for their saddle to handlebar drop distance? I also have long legs and a short torso and ended up getting a performance fit because of it. I'm starting to second guess myself a little bit since my aerodynamics might be a little better with the pro. But how much of a drop is too much?


As was said be very careful here. Remember the addage, don't cut, stack. What is good for me or the next guy, may not be right for you.

Take ~5mm of spacer from under the stem and move it on top of the stem. Ride that for a couple of weeks to see how you like it. Keep doing this incrementally as you feel comfortable. DO NOT cut your steerer until you are ABSOLUTELY SURE you like the position. Also note that if you are just a fair weather rider, and don't ride year round, you may not like the more aggressive fit when first starting out the following season. As cool as it may seem to have a big drop, it is stupid to do so at the risk of back and neck issues, saddle discomfort, and labored breathing airways, all which will reduce power output. 

Unless you are racing, it doesn't make alot of sense to have a flat back drop position. Some riders are used to this and don't mind, indeed prefer the aggressive drop, but others, especially newer riders, or riders with some back issues prefer a slightly more relaxed position.

HTH
zac


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

OK.....sorry if i am missing something here.....
If the only difference between the two geo models is, for the most part, the head tube length, then how would that change -anything- with regards to the rider position??
I mean, if I normally have my stem height at 18cm from the bottom of the head tube, then I am still going to have that same measurement regardless of which model I go with. The only difference being that with pro fit, I'll get the height using more spacers, with the performance fit, I'll get the height using less spacers because of the increased head tube length. No?

I'm genuinely interested....I'm interested in trying a Madone. I do use a fairly high handlebar height, but confess to not liking the look of the performance fit. Just a bit too sloping/tourist looking!  I know.....it shouldn't matter...
I have 73cm saddle height, and an 18cm bar height, from bottom of headtube/headset to bottom of stem (not a pop up stem, pretty flat).
My current ride has a 54 TT, 74 STA, with a 120 stem.
I was thinking of trying a Pro fit Madone in a 56 with a 110 stem..

Others that I'm thinking of looking at are Cdale Supersix, and the new Felt AR's when they come out..


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

gibson00 said:


> OK.....sorry if i am missing something here.....
> If the only difference between the two geo models is, for the most part, the head tube length, then how would that change -anything- with regards to the rider position??
> I mean, if I normally have my stem height at 18cm from the bottom of the head tube, then I am still going to have that same measurement regardless of which model I go with. The only difference being that with pro fit, I'll get the height using more spacers, with the performance fit, I'll get the height using less spacers because of the increased head tube length. No?
> 
> ...


I think what you're missing is that there is a range between max spacers and minimum spacers that both pro and performance fit can accomodate. In those instances, it's up to the individual what way they choose to go. At the max/ min points however, there are differences. At min, the pro will always be lower, at max, performance will always be higher. 

As an example, let's say your current set up has a 120mm HT, 15mm headset cap and 10mm spacer. With the stem (most 40mm) you have a total height of 185mm. This height can be accomodated by either pro or performance. But with the pro you'll use a 10mm spacer, with the performance, a 5mm.
EDIT: Changed example to HT length of 185mm. Pro would use the 16mm headset cap and 20 mm's of spacers, the performance would need the 5mm headset cap (replacing the 16mm) - no spacers. 

An example that only a performance will accomodate is: 120mm HT, 15mm headset cap and 30mm's of spacers. With stem, the total height will be 205mm's - given the pro's HT length and max spacers allowed, this cannot be attained (all else being equal, meaning no change in stem angles, geo, etc.).

BTW, all my examples use a 52cm Madone as reference, but that doesn't matter because the numbers stay constant no matter what frame size is in question. They all differ in the HT length (3cm's).

You've already posted saddle height and a couple of other numbers. I calculated your total HT height at 220mm's, but I measure from bottom of HT to top of stem, measuring along the HT. If you want to double check that number, we can combine that with saddle height and narrow down the size and model of Madone that would be the best fit.


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

PJ352 said:


> I think what you're missing is that there is a range between max spacers and minimum spacers that both pro and performance fit can accomodate. In those instances, it's up to the individual what way they choose to go. At the max/ min points however, there are differences. At min, the pro will always be lower, at max, performance will always be higher.
> 
> As an example, let's say your current set up has a 120mm HT, 15mm headset cap and 5mm spacer. With the stem (most 40mm) you have a total height of 180mm. This height can be accomodated by either pro or performance. But with the pro you'll use a 10mm spacer, with the performance, a 5mm.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I'll take a bunch more measurements from my current setup later tonight and post them.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

gibson00 said:


> Thanks. I'll take a bunch more measurements from my current setup later tonight and post them.


I used the numbers you posted earlier and came up with the following:

Madone 5.2 Pro:
With the tall cap, the 54cm frame would fit. The effective TT is 540mm (the same as your current set up) so you'd probably go with a 120mm stem. Problem is, the total HT height will only be 206mm, as opposed to your current 220mm. Depending on how sensitive you are to saddle to bar drop, this may or may not be an issue. Of course, there's always the option of flipping the stem or going to 4 or 6 degree rise (gain is about 5mm's per 2 degrees of rise) 

With the standard cap, the 56cm frame would fit. The effective TT is 557mm, so the reach increases by about 17mm's, so if you went with a 110mm stem, you'd still gain 7mm's, a 100mm stem would put you close to where you are now. The total HT height for this frame is 226mm, so you'd remove one 5mm spacer and have close to the same saddle to bar drop. My only concern with this choice is that your position on the bike may move back slightly because STA is about a half a degree slacker than the 54cm frame.

Madone 5.2 performance:
Because the geometry is the same for the pro and performance, the only difference is going to be with the total HT height. The 54cm performance would be 236mm, so you'd remove 15mm's of spacers to duplicate your current 220mm. The 56cm frame brings the HT height up to 256mm's but between that and the fact that the TT = 557mm, I don't see this as your best option. IMO, the 54cm performance is the best fit for you, but I'm thinking you'll disagree. 

EDIT: These numbers assume the saddle height was measured from center of BB to top of saddle. I know you measured HT up to the bottom of stem, so I added 40mm's to bring the numbers to top of stem.


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

PJ352 said:


> I used the numbers you posted earlier and came up with the following:
> 
> Madone 5.2 Pro:
> With the tall cap, the 54cm frame would fit. The effective TT is 540mm (the same as your current set up) so you'd probably go with a 120mm stem. Problem is, the total HT height will only be 206mm, as opposed to your current 220mm. Depending on how sensitive you are to saddle to bar drop, this may or may not be an issue. Of course, there's always the option of flipping the stem or going to 4 or 6 degree rise (gain is about 5mm's per 2 degrees of rise)
> ...


I pretty much agree with your assessment, that it would be a toss up between the 54 performance, or the 56 Pro...
I don't think I'd go with the Performance because I just don't like the look of it. I know thats just vanity... but I can't help it. Its like it is a bit too sloping looking...
I think I'll probably try to test ride a 56 Pro, and if it doesn't work, I'll probably just pass on the Madone bikes altogether, and try a Cannondale Supersix in a 54, which I know should fit (I've ridden several 54 Cdales in the past).


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

gibson00 said:


> I pretty much agree with your assessment, that it would be a toss up between the 54 performance, or the 56 Pro...
> I don't think I'd go with the Performance because I just don't like the look of it. I know thats just vanity... but I can't help it. Its like it is a bit too sloping looking...
> I think I'll probably try to test ride a 56 Pro, and if it doesn't work, I'll probably just pass on the Madone bikes altogether, and try a Cannondale Supersix in a 54, which I know should fit (I've ridden several 54 Cdales in the past).


Not vain. It makes no sense to ride something you don't like. I thought the same about the performance fit until I saw them at the LBS, so if you're only judging from pics, I'd suggest hunting one down and check it out in 3D.


----------



## Falling Snow (Apr 2, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> Not vain. It makes no sense to ride something you don't like. I thought the same about the performance fit until I saw them at the LBS, so if you're only judging from pics, I'd suggest hunting one down and check it out in 3D.


...And I thought the same thing about the look of the Pro fit until I saw one in the store. I'm not much of a fan of the color blue, and I didn't think all that much of the Pro (5.2) in pictures, but when I saw it in the store I thought it looked gorgeous. Appearance is definitely important!


----------

