I have a nephew who has motion sickness and sometimes throws-up whenever he rides a car. Recently he has gotten better but my sis-in-law (his mother) warned us not to mention his motion sickness because the mere mention of the word "puke" immediately gives him a gagging reflex - leading to him throwing up.

-x-x-x-

With regard to your question.... 1,500 miles on my SC and I have not even noticed the top tube. If the top tube width caused you to hesitate buying the bike, then I recommend you read more about it before making your decision because there are other more "salient" features of the SC that may cause you some serious insomia.

p.s. I am being facetious in saying this.

---

.........................__0.............0
...................._.-\ <,_.........</\_
.....~_.o^,....(...)./.(...)......._/\...

Such as? I have read the Trek whitepaper, spoken to three different owners directly (its still quite limited in supply I gather), and read lots on forums/websites etc. There's not much point buying a more aero frame if you can't get your body as narrow as possible. Thanks.

I don't find the top tube any wider than any other tri bike I have had (P3, B2) and I concentrate on keeping my knees close to the top tube while pedaling. I have not measured it compared to others, I don't know what else to say. It is an outstanding bike.

---

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. George Orwell

Tell me what you have read and your concerns about the SC and I will respond to them one by one. I have been responding to many SC related concerns on ST since June when I got the bike and I believe I have been able to dispel many or most of the issues raised. The bike can be complicated depending on your perspective and some of the issues raised about it could have been potential deal breakers to a few people here but I have never read anyone say they will not purchase the bike because of something specific they did not like about it (except maybe for affordability). I may be wrong and I may not have read all the threads on the SC (I do try to keep abreast though and provide my commentary as a productive member of the ST society.)

However, I have never read anyone ever mention a concern about the width of the top tube. This is a new one. And what really caught my attention about your post is that you make it sound like it is a deal-breaker for you. Meaning you are reconsidering your decision to purchase the SC because of the top-tube width? Is that right? In that regard, based your discussions with the three different SC owners and the threads you have read, you are fairly comfortable with all the other SC related issues you have made yourself familiar with - except for the top tube width. Correct?

---

.........................__0.............0
...................._.-\ <,_.........</\_
.....~_.o^,....(...)./.(...)......._/\...

Such as? I have read the Trek whitepaper, spoken to three different owners directly (its still quite limited in supply I gather), and read lots on forums/websites etc. There's not much point buying a more aero frame if you can't get your body as narrow as possible. Thanks.
___________________________________________________________________________

If you look at two tubes from the front which are side by side, they have the same frontal area whether you have them next to one another, or separated by a number of meters. What may be different in this is how the air is handled as it passes between the tubes. If you do some searching through the archives both on ST as well as a number of other sites, you will find two themes; one much more common than the other:
1) The drag reduction seen without a person on is the same as the drag reduction with a person on. This does not help your question of wide stance in either supporting or refuting your point of view.

2) In a few instances the reduction of drag with a person is significantly different than without a person. This is the case of the Trimble, and seat tubeless bikes. Since these bikes are not made much anymore (of note: I currently ride a titanflex; so I have looked at all the discussions and data that I have seen/found on the web over the past 20+ years) there is not much discussion about it; but the point is that if you manage the airflow to go where you want it, it will help you reduce drag. This leads to the main point that I am trying to make...from what I understand, a bunch of money was spent on making the SC. If the shapes and distances did not help manage the airflow, then it would have been a different shape.

Think about it; if you made a bicycle with a narrow top tube, but the optimal knee width was larger, would you want to rely on the individuals to keep that wider stance; hoping that they did not fall into the trap of blindly thinking narrower is better because that is what everyone else was saying. Personally, I would make the design incorporate features (such as a wider top tube) that would FORCE the user to adopt the form that the bicycle was made to be used with.

Look around on the net some more; and don’t just talk to owners, as most high end bicycle owners in my experience do not show the breadth of knowledge that would help you make a data based decision. Look for the data and trends in the data, and try to listen to what the trends are telling you.

But hey, that is just one man's opinion.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

Yes, thats right. The top tube is the same width along its entire length. My existing Felt clearly narrows a few inches back from the headtube area and stays that (reduced) width.

No problems with the toptube. I have been racing on one since Feb. and have never had my knees hit the toptube. Yes, it looks wide but it works. You'll be fine!

---

Ian Stanford
Ally's Bar. AStacher LLC

Man I love my sc. The top tube is wwwaaaaaayyyy smaller than the ttx but the bike frigging rocks.I have never hit my knees on the ttx or the sc.buy it and live it!!!

First off, I have been part of the discussion group here on the SC and I have yet to hear this concern. I actually think of it as narrow myself. Finding a bike that allows a fit that allows you to get from point A to point B fastest is the fastest bike - assuming holding all else constant of course. Narrow is not necessary better.

I am not sure what kind of searching you did but there have been a bunch of posts on here with lots of good information. I'm not sure why you think you would find concerns in a Trek whitepaper but what I have told many people is that if you are a wrench and are good with bikes than I definitely recommend the high-end SC. Be prepared for some maintenance headaches now and then. If you are are not that type of person than I might suggest looking at one of the lower end versions of the bike - the maintenance seems to be more manageable.

---

Visit The Chipotle Calorie Calculator

I don't find it too wide. It is actually wider near the middle of the tube but not so much where my knees pass.

Not totally accurate. In fact, the top tube gets WIDER as it approaches the seat post, then finally narrows slightly before ending in a kamm back. You can't quite see it, but it's in some of the pictures in our review here: http://tririg.com/articles.php?id=1040_Trek_Speed_Concept_Review

For what it's worth, I've put a lot of miles into the Speed Concept and have had zero issues with knee clearance, although I have thought about it. I've touched the top tube once or twice with my knees, and wondered if it would bug me as time went on. It didn't.

There definitely ARE some issues with the bike. Read our review above if you're interested in our take. Most of my complaints have to do with the aerobars. They won't get quite low enough for some, unless Trek releases their reverse mounts (to put the pads right on top of the bar, and the extensions underneath). And the hardware is clunky. It takes 14 bolts to secure the extensions and pads. Since writing my review, I've rigged up a custom set of clamps that get the pads low enough for me. We might run another feature on those at some point in the future. They're pretty slick little bits of carbon rather than the clunky aluminum that comes stock. And they reduce the bolt count at four rather than fourteen.

---

---

TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide

I don't have any other concerns regarding the SC - that was something suggested *to me*. By saying that I had read the white paper etc I was merely making it be known that this wasn't just an impulse buy. Bike in question is a SC7.2 - so at least the front end is more standard with regard to maintenance and will be swapping the bars over to something more aero straightaway. Many thanks for the replies people...its appreciated.

I feel my top tube is quite wide, but my wife seems to disagree.