SC is faster. integrated hydration on th Shiv. it is easier to wrench on. Shiv has more standard components so it is probably easier to fix when traveling. I would still pick the SC.

I've owned both of these bikes in pretty much the configuration you're describing.

Shiv:
I owned this bike for 3.5 years. I bought the SRAM rival build, but upgraded various bits throughout its life. By the end, it had Ultegra Di2 and Omega X front and rear. I liked the integrated bladder, but I had a hard time fitting gels anywhere. The Fuel Cell storage barely fits a flat kit and 2-3 gels. You can't put a top-tube bento box on because the fill port for the bladder is there. And most off-the-shelf BTA systems are just hydration, not storage. I ended up designing a 3D printed BTA bento box that held my Garmin too, but it wasn't the cleanest solution. The stock aerobars aren't the fastest things in the world. And unless anything has changed, since the recall on the extension clamps, you are not able to tilt the pads/extensions.

SC:
I bought the 7.5 frameset and moved the Ultegra Di2 over from the Shiv. The integrated front end is more difficult to build in that it feels like it requires 3 hands to hold everything at some points, but it's not that complicated of a design. So it's not hard to understand how it works and what needs to be done to clean/service it, but it can be difficult to manage all the pieces. I would not necessarily want to deal with it if I was running mechanical. Overall, I like the SC a lot more than the Shiv. It's lighter, most data would show that it's faster, and it looks so much cleaner with no cables at all hanging in the wind. Even though I lost the integrated bladder from the Shiv, I've found that my storage configuration is simpler. I can fit a flat kit in the draft box (2 tubes and CO2s this time, rather than barely 1 in the Shiv), 6-7 gels in the top-tube box, and an X-Lab torpedo BTA.

All things being equal, I'd no question choose the SC. What are the builds/prices you're looking at?

I have the SC 7.5 size M and I've raced the Shiv.

The SC is faster and I like it, though the front end is a true PITA for adjustments. I'm kind of wishing I had a size small Shiv with a 130-140mm stem. I have two reasons:

1. I want to use the Morph aerobar
2. And, I want to squeeze a 2 liter bladder into the Shiv frame so that I have no bottle exposed on the frame.

I think with the Morph aerobar and no bottles, and a single 5gel Gu squeeze flask mounted in a bento-style box, that set up of the Shiv would be faster than a lot of bikes out there.

Personally, I'd run the Magura hydro rim brake over the Tririg brake.

.... maybe next year, though I'd prefer an updated Shiv with the P5x seat-post-style front end adjustment for on-the-fly adjustments with super low and long possibilities, disc brakes (yep, I want them), and for the bike to come with a 2L fluid bladder, but still the option to attach a normal stem so that I can use the Morph bars. Fact is, used Shivs are getting cheap....

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

Well I only use aero bottle on down tube for nutrition and water bottle BTA. So I could eliminate the aero bottle on the down tube with the Shiv. I could keep my nutrition BTA. How about upgrading aerobars to Zipp Vuka....would this make the Shiv faster than Speed concept assuming no water bottle on downtube like I have on my Trek?

I don't think that would make it faster.

And, personally, I'd only go to the Shiv for those two specific reasons: Morph aerobar, and all fluids in the reservoir for a super streamlined bike. If not using the Morph bar and the reservoir, the SC is better.

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

I could be wrong, but isn't the fit of these two bikes quite different?

The SC is considered the "faster" of the two, but is it faster if it doesn't fit you as well? I can't answer that.

I do own a Shiv and I have not experienced many of the problems others have had (can't fit anything in the fuel cell, it won't hold gels, etc). Personally, I run the fuselage and the fuel cell. It requires some planning, but I can fit a spare tube, two Co2s, lever, tool for valve extensions, a bunch of spare zip-ties/rubber bands in the bottom, and then a few gells and packs of blocks in the top. Works for me, but YMMV.

The SC is an awfully narrow bike with well designed tube shapes so it is going to be hard for the Shiv to be faster without a really clean barstem combo, optimal use of the internal hydration, and ssome poor hydration/storage choices on the SC. The basic Shiv design dates back to 2009 or 2010 and they put a premium on simplicity of use and traveling. It is a good bike within those design parameters, but it isn't going to be the fastest bike you can buy.

It can take some time to learn how to appropriately work on the SC from a mechanical standpoint and can be difficult to adjust fit in certain ways. If you have a dedicated Trek store near you to handle these things though with good staff then I would definitely go with the SC.

---

Adam Feigh
Pianko Law, Speed Hound, Castelli, Sailfish, Base
Feighathlon.com

I own both. The Speed Concept has, arguably, the best cockpit in the industry though it can be tedious to wrench on. If you go with a Speed Concept, I highly suggest buying a frameset and then building it up with Ultegra Di2. The Shiv is a bike I just *like*. Great storage integration (not that the Speed Concept is a slouch) and I can easily set it up to do a 70.3 bike leg without having to break aero or grab a bottle at an aid station (drink solution in bta, water in frame bladder, gels in fuelsage).