Standover measurement

[pstallwood]

According to the Evans site the Domane 2.0 has a triple but the Domane 2.3 is a compact. The Trek website only has the 2.3 seems to be no mention of a 2.0.

[andrewjoseph]

to the OP,

don't worry to much about standover height, i'm a 'snug fit' on both my mtb and road/tourer, but i don't spend any time in this position.

i fall off my mtb a lot and have never hurt my 'bits'. lots of other things though.

as long as you feel comfortable when riding, that's the main issue.

[reohn2]

to the OP,

don't worry to much about standover height, i'm a 'snug fit' on both my mtb and road/tourer, but i don't spend any time in this position.

i fall off my mtb a lot and have never hurt my 'bits'. lots of other things though.

as long as you feel comfortable when riding, that's the main issue.

My "bits" are precious and I like a bit of clearance between them and the toptube is always appreciated,until you've crushed them on horizontal TT and been passing blood for a week, you've not lived
I prefere a compact frame such as my Salsa Vaya(size 57cm which is the virtual toptube size,the seatube is 53cm) or Kona Dewdrop(size large 58.5cm v/toptube 53cm s/tube).
I can tolerate a toptube length from 570 to 585 with different stem lengths to the h/bars the right distance from the saddle providing I don't have toe overlap and I like 700x 35mm> tyres.
I'm not going to go into "comedy" seatube angles as it seems to upset some folk on here

[Mark1978]

According to the Evans site the Domane 2.0 has a triple but the Domane 2.3 is a compact. The Trek website only has the 2.3 seems to be no mention of a 2.0.

Yep Triple for the 2.0 and double for the 2.3. You also get 105 instead of Tiagra.

On balance I would go for the 2.3 for the better spec components. Yes the OP wants low gears which is good. But the compact double has a 30 tooth rear cog so the lowest gear isn't a lot higher than the triple. So don't just assume it must be triple or nothing.

This is all on the Trek site so not sure where you're looking?

[Mark1978]

PS to the OP I started a thread Madone vs Domane which considered many of these points.

[reohn2]

According to the Evans site the Domane 2.0 has a triple but the Domane 2.3 is a compact. The Trek website only has the 2.3 seems to be no mention of a 2.0.

Yep Triple for the 2.0 and double for the 2.3. You also get 105 instead of Tiagra.

On balance I would go for the 2.3 for the better spec components. Yes the OP wants low gears which is good. But the compact double has a 30 tooth rear cog so the lowest gear isn't a lot higher than the triple. So don't just assume it must be triple or nothing.

34x30 isn't a low gear if you want to get up serious climbs on long rides,say finding yourself at the foot of a 15 or 20% climb with 60 or 70 miles in your legs,oh and it's been persisting it down for the last 2 hours and the cafe was closed
The Boy Scout's motto is "Be Prepared" 34x30 isn't prepared 26x32 is

[531colin]

According to the Evans site the Domane 2.0 has a triple but the Domane 2.3 is a compact. The Trek website only has the 2.3 seems to be no mention of a 2.0.

Yep Triple for the 2.0 and double for the 2.3. You also get 105 instead of Tiagra.

On balance I would go for the 2.3 for the better spec components. Yes the OP wants low gears which is good. But the compact double has a 30 tooth rear cog so the lowest gear isn't a lot higher than the triple. So don't just assume it must be triple or nothing.

This is all on the Trek site so not sure where you're looking?

Well done for finding the truth about double/triple...I think I just logged into what I had for the earlier thread.

I'm sure Ron will compare the gears with the 2 Treks against his existing bike gears......I would only add that its easy to get a really really low gear on a bike that has an existing triple.....until I was past 50 I couldn't see the point of really really low gears.......

[reohn2]

.....until I was past 50 I couldn't see the point of really really low gears.......

Yebbut you'd been riding all your life.The number of people I've spoken to and have admited that they wish they had lower gears,but I've never ever spoken to anyone who wished they had higher gearing.
TBH I think there's a lot of bikes being sold with really crap high gearing thats not fit for purpose because it's wot the pro's use

[531colin]

Well, I would agree, I think its better to have the ability to fit really low gears easily, ie. its better to have a triple. If you're thirty, you can probably get fit enough to ride a compact double, provided you don't mind choosing a route (or touring area) to avoid the really big hills, which is what a lot of clubs do. But I think the OP is over fifty, and I think he has decided for himself that a triple is the way forward.....unless that should be upward!

[Wesh-Laurence]

A triple will enable the OP to obtain lower the gearing which is what he was trying to achieve in his original thread.

However, going for a road race bike will probably make the riding position very uncomfortable for him. He can of course fit a shorter stem, but he can't shorten the top tube of the frame. The OP was also given lots of advice about "bike fit" in one of his threads. Bike fit is of course as important as getting the correct gearing on his bike.

I get toe overlap on my "compact frame" but I can cope with that. However "old touring frames" had long top tubes to avoid toe overlap but I couldn't ride a bike with such a prone riding position.

[Mark1978]

Note that while I was the person who started the thread about bike fit. I am not the person who started this thread.

[ron2old]

In reply to all the above comments. Yes the lowest gear on the trek triple is quite close to the lowest gear on the compact about 32". But I was thinking forward at 50/39/30 triple it would be possible to later on either put a smaller inner/middle ring on or wider cassette whilst starting of with the gearing where I'm at now. I think I would prefer a slightly longer top tube to the one I have now because I do feel a little cramped to the point where I feel that the frame is too small for me but at 66" tall it is not. I am currently using a 1200mm stem at the moment after going through the fit adjustments with everybody's help on here. For such a small frame the stem seems too long to me and out of proportion to the rest of the bike but is the only way I can get the fit right. The steering is very skittish and hard work on the concentration front for me. As for the trek having caliper brakes as opposed to disc brakes - Whoopee! I can't stand the disc brakes with the constant squeaking even when not braking. I have spent a fortune on disc brake cleaner at £6 a can to no avail. Colin531 I was looking at the 54cm model not the 52cm. The 54cm gives me that longer top tube and taller head tube whilst maintaining the 50cm length in the seat tube centre to top. The 52cm is practically the same top tube length I already have and don't like, and the seat tube is only 47.5cm smaller frame still than I already have. I also don't like the seat angle I have (75) feeling it is too steep and contributing to the lively steering I have. The models I was looking at we're Trek Domane 4.3T or the 5.2T. The T in the model number stands for triple as they do do a compact version as well as you probably realize.

[531colin]

Ron
Your current bike has very stable steering at 70 deg and 50 offset. Trek at 71.3deg and 53 offset is a little livelier. Seat tube angle has no effect at all on steering, but the trek is very similar to your current bike anyway, theres about a degree in it depending on size. Havn't you put your saddle forward on your existing bike?
if you look at frame reach in treks diagram, the 54 is actually only 3mm longer than the 52. (where it matters, ie in front of the BB)
On this thread http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=73343&hilit=madone&start=15 Mark 1978 who is 5'6" went for a 52, but I originally guessed a 54 for him....I'm getting a bit boggle-eyed with all these numbers! At the end of the day, at most there is 20mm difference, and you are going to have to try them. As I remember, the biggest difference between the 52 and 54 is the head tube length.
BTW, I'm assuming all the 4.3/5.2 etc have the same frame geometry, but I havn't checked!

[ron2old]

Yes the 4.3and5.2have the same frame geometry. Only difference in being standard of carbon, 4 series carbon and 5 series carbon. The pros ride on 6 series. The other difference is in component quality. Ultegra group set on the 5 series and 105 on the 4 series.

[531colin]

Ron...yesterday I lost the bit about the 120mm stem amongst all the numbers.
If you're really riding with a 12cm stem, my advice is to pay for a bike fit.
I regularly lampoon the bike fit "industry", but 12 cm stem on any bike is unusual, on a bike for a man under 6 feet tall its unique.
A bike fitter will tell you the frame dimensions you need...... I don't think you will find the dimensions you seek in an off the peg bike.