Ah I just read through and saw they use averaged drag across all yaw angles without a weighting…. That’s super lame so the s5 disc is likely only a watt faster than the old s5 once you weight it…
I assumed they used a weighting towards low yaw as everyone else does
…and then what happens when you put an actual aero brake (and better cable routing) on the front of the rim S5? 
Replying in general…
I’ll go against the grain…I think it is a good update. As a former owner of two SC’s, I think the main improvements that were needed were:
***1. Disc brakes ***
2. Get rid of the press fit BB (I’m assuming they did this?)
Anything else I think is icing on the cake. Of course the bike has to fit like any other bike would have to. But if the geo meets your fit needs, then good to go. And of course I’m also assuming they’ve put mounts on the back of the seat tube for an aero box like previous gen
We’ve already discussed to death how all these top end frames are so close in terms of aero that there is little to gain.
“Improvement”……
I used to use a tririg omega on my s5, but found the braking performance not up to par as I like in a mountainous area. So I switched to eebrakes.
I used to use a tririg omega on my s5, but found the braking performance not up to par as I like in a mountainous area. So I switched to eebrakes.
That performance can be highly dependent on braking surface material and pad material…that said, the eebrake (with aero cover) should be an improvement aerodynamically over what they tested.
edit: Although residing next to the Pacific Ocean, I too live in a mountainous area
I used to use a tririg omega on my s5, but found the braking performance not up to par as I like in a mountainous area. So I switched to eebrakes.
We’re off topic, but I use tririg brakes on all three of my road bikes including my S5 and they work great. My strava stats for Jan-May 2021: Distance 5461mi, Elevation gain: 547,119ft. Mountainous enough for you?
To keep things on topic, I do think the gen2 Speed Concept’s brakes had room for improvement, but if it means a slower bike I’m out.
Replying in general…
I’ll go against the grain…I think it is a good update. As a former owner of two SC’s, I think the main improvements that were needed were:
***1. Disc brakes ***
2. Get rid of the press fit BB (I’m assuming they did this?)
Anything else I think is icing on the cake. Of course the bike has to fit like any other bike would have to. But if the geo meets your fit needs, then good to go. And of course I’m also assuming they’ve put mounts on the back of the seat tube for an aero box like previous gen
We’ve already discussed to death how all these top end frames are so close in terms of aero that there is little to gain.
“Improvement”……
I get it. I guess from my point of view, its an improvement because I was sick and tired of dealing with hidden, finicky, cabled brakes. As far as aerodynamics and stopping power, no, I do not think disc brakes fix anything.
Replying in general…
I’ll go against the grain…I think it is a good update. As a former owner of two SC’s, I think the main improvements that were needed were:
***1. Disc brakes ***
2. Get rid of the press fit BB (I’m assuming they did this?)
Anything else I think is icing on the cake. Of course the bike has to fit like any other bike would have to. But if the geo meets your fit needs, then good to go. And of course I’m also assuming they’ve put mounts on the back of the seat tube for an aero box like previous gen
We’ve already discussed to death how all these top end frames are so close in terms of aero that there is little to gain.
“Improvement”……
I get it. I guess from my point of view, its an improvement because I was sick and tired of dealing with hidden, finicky, cabled brakes. As far as aerodynamics and stopping power, no, I do not think disc brakes fix anything.
Got it…so, what you’re saying is the improvement is in hydraulic brakes (which isn’t necessarily a disc or rim brake specific feature)…I can go with that (especially for TT/Tri applications) 
Hydraulic is part of it, but also by having discs (as opposed to hydro rim calipers like on the original P5), it still gets rid of the rim caliper, making it easier to use different width wheels etc.
Hydraulic is part of it, but also by having discs (as opposed to hydro rim calipers like on the original P5), it still gets rid of the rim caliper, making it easier to use different width wheels etc.
That would be a brake design issue. Plenty of brakes with easily adjustable pad width.
Hydraulic is part of it, but also by having discs (as opposed to hydro rim calipers like on the original P5), it still gets rid of the rim caliper, making it easier to use different width wheels etc.
That would be a brake design issue. Plenty of brakes with easily adjustable pad width.
Yes…but not the speed concept!! lol
Wonder what the 0:00 time stamp is?
Maybe the time difference between the new SC and the old SC?
How does a SC do against a P5 ? Let’s say rim vs rim.
One comparison I saw had the P5 better at 0 yaw and the SC better at yaw.
Though that was not a new frame design. It was more let’s slap discs on it and see how little we can change our molds as they are expensive.
Ummm…no…it was actually a case of actively changing the new rim brake version with questionable design choices so that it wouldn’t still be faster than the disc brake version. With BOTH being slower than the previous rim brake version :-/
Are you saying the new SC is slower than the rim brake version? Out of curiosity, how do you know? Is it a guess, or do you have info?
I know you are one of the resident aero gurus, but wondering if you could expand more on the statement.
Thanks
How does a SC do against a P5 ? Let’s say rim vs rim.
One comparison I saw had the P5 better at 0 yaw and the SC better at yaw.
14g is what trek said the difference was, and that was within the margin of error of their measurement. I would also argue, solely based on personal experience is that the main advancement on the madone from the previous version isn’t the aero benefit, but the balance of aero to improved ride compliance and improved braking. It’s a rocket ship when you step on the pedals and rides like a cadillac over poor road surfaces.
“Experimental results collected at the San Diego Low Speed Wind Tunnel are displayed in Figure 2. Final new Madone numbers show an average of 3,216 g across a -12.5° to 12.5° yaw sweep vs the current Madone at 3,202 g. A 14 g difference that is within Trek’s project goal and within a wind tunnel’s experimental error band”
I’d be quite happy if it was no faster than my current SC, as then I wouldn’t need to spend another 8k on a bike. **But I’m pretty sure it will be a few watts faster **as there’s no other reason Trek would have waited so long to release a disc brake TT bike.
With Trek’s track record on rim vs. disc, one shouldn’t be so sure (see Madone rim vs Madone disc)
Adjustable length, but no way to rotate the “ski poleâ€. They are angled, but it looks like additional Angle adjustability would require a different piece for the bar riser interface. They would probable work well for 90% of the target population, but I am sure Wattshop will be busy making a mounting system for their bars.
maybe that top “shim” above the pedestal can be swapped for different angles? I like the TR curve version for continuous adjustment better though.
Though that was not a new frame design. It was more let’s slap discs on it and see how little we can change our molds as they are expensive.
Ummm…no…it was actually a case of actively changing the new rim brake version with questionable design choices so that it wouldn’t still be faster than the disc brake version. With BOTH being slower than the previous rim brake version :-/
Are you saying the new SC is slower than the rim brake version? Out of curiosity, how do you know? Is it a guess, or do you have info?
I know you are one of the resident aero gurus, but wondering if you could expand more on the statement.
Thanks
No. That comment was in regards to the conversation about the previous experience of the Madone “updates”.
No, tri groupset will be still wired, road groupset will have wireless brifters
Junction bix will go.
Jeroen
How does a SC do against a P5 ? Let’s say rim vs rim.
One comparison I saw had the P5 better at 0 yaw and the SC better at yaw.
That lines up with data I have seen from another source.
That’s intresting to hear. I thought the new rim brake version would be faster than the previous one as they smoothed out the fork/downtube junction. Do you know how much slower the new rim brake madone is than the older one?
Tour magazine showed this
2019 Cannondale SystemSix Disc - 203w
2016 Trek Madone - 204w
2016 Specialized Venge ViAS - 204w
2016 Cervelo S5 - 205w
2016 Felt AR FRD - 205w
2019 Cervelo S5 Disc - 206w
2016 Canyon Aeroad - 208w
2019 Specialized Venge Disc - 208w
2016 Giant Propel Advanced SL - 210w
2016 Scott Foil Premium - 211w
2016 BMC Time Machine - 211w
2016 Look 795 - 212w
2019 Trek Madone Disc - 212w
2019 Ridley Noah Fast Disc - 213w
I don’t know if we ever saw data for the new Madone rim - just heard that it was downgraded to avoid making the disc bike look so bad…
Aside from Cannondale - discs haven’t gone well for anyone. Especially Cervelo who went from a bike with standard bars to full integrated
But Cannondale shows it is possible. Or it could have been an aberrant test??
We never did see the data for the new madone rim. Where’d you hear that they made it slower?