trek speed concept wsd

• Training Plans
• Beginner Advice
• Bike Insurance
• Swim Clothing
• Training Kit
• Run Clothing
• Heart-rate Monitors
• Run Computers
• Bike Clothing
• Accessories
• Recovery Products
• Transition Kit
• Multisport Watches
• Power Meters
• Energy Bars
• Energy Gels
• Long Distance
• Race-day Advice
• Off-season Training
• Open-Water Swim Venues
• Competitions

Trek Speed Concept 7.0 review

Designed to be an integrated, aero system – but is it all systems go, or is there a spanner in the works?

Jamie Beach

Trek Speed Concept 7.0 triathlon bike review

The Speed Concept 7.0 may look like a bike but it’s really more of a system – a system to transport air smoothly over its surfaces, while transporting you, your fuel and your spares smoothly to T2.

>>> Best triathlon bikes of 2014

You could say that of any bike, though, as they all fit the definition of system: a selection of parts assembled to form a mechanism that performs a particular task. But very few of them use parts that are as integrated as those on the Trek Speed Concept.

Sure, some bikes have a frame and fork that are built to work together and others might even amalgamate the brakes into the design. But Trek has gone further and incorporated the storage options, brakes, brake booster and even quick releases to help the Speed Concept perform its task.

The headset provides a rock-solid platform for cornering and has a number of storage options on the heads tube

First of all, there’s the frame. It’s constructed from Trek’s 500-Series OCLV carbon fibre made into Kamm-tailed tubes for the main triangle. The flat-backed, ‘truncated-teardrop’ profile not only makes for stiffer tubes than those using the full aerofoil shape, it also means the tubes are just as aerodynamic but less susceptible to the will of crosswinds.

Airflow around the head tube is smoothed out by its Kamm-tailed trailing edge but also by the fork’s prow that sits in front of it to provide even more of a fairing. Built into the top of the fork is a centre-pull brake, while the bottom is shaped so the quick-release lever can sit flush with it.

The rear brake is positioned behind the bottom bracket shell and is covered by Trek's Speedfin for aero gains

Similar consideration has been paid to the frame and attachments at the rear end. The seat and chainstays meet at a dropout that’s shaped to blend with the quick-release lever on the non-driveside and provide an exit port for the internally-routed rear-mech cable on the other. The rear brake is not only hidden behind the bottom bracket shell, it’s also shrouded by Trek’s Speedfin – a fairing that acts as a brake booster as well as smoothing out the airflow.

Storage options and computer sensors are also integrated into the Speed Concept (although sold separately). A mount for a Duotrap sensor is built into the non-driveside chainstay while mounts on the top tube and behind the seat tube allow you to add aerodynamically optimised tool and fuel carriers. In the 7.0 configuration, the Speed Concept also comes with Bontrager bars, a Vision saddle and a Shimano 105 drivetrain.

Carbon forks complete the aero set-up, although the wheels would be the first thing to upgrade

The wheels supplied are from Bontrager – Trek’s in-house component brand – and they’re fairly standard shallow, alloy training wheels, performing with no issues or thrills on standard training rides. The benefit of the training rims is that they keep the price down in comparison to coming supplied with deep-rim race wheels (especially if you’ve already got your own) but, if you haven’t got a set of race hoops stashed in the garage, these will be the first things you’ll want to upgrade if you’re serious about increasing race-day speed.

A lot to carry

You get a lot of bike with the Speed Concept 7.0. Not just in terms of all the aerodynamic shaping and integration but also in terms of weight. It tips the 220 scales at 9kg, which is exactly the same as the £2.5k Specialized Shiv Elite tested recently , but the Trek feels heavier when you’re riding it than that other major player.

Once it’s going, the Speed Concept is fine but getting it going takes quite a bit of coercion. It’s not one of those bikes that springs into action; rather accelerating it is a noticeable labour. And although the Speed Concept’s weight helps somewhat when you’re cruising on the flat, you can feel gravity taking its toll on the hills – the speed bleeds out of it.

It’s a shame because in other respects the Speed Concept handles well. It’s a rock-solid platform that corners with confidence and has the stiffness needed to let you push all your effort into it knowing that none of it’s getting lost in flex. The only trouble is the weight that makes it so stiff also makes it so difficult to shift.

The integrated brakes are good, especially the boosted back brake. Often integrated brakes can be a little lacking in stopping power, especially on tri/TT bikes, but not in this case. The Speed Concept has plenty of stopping power – and frankly, given the momentum you can build up with the weight it’s carrying, it needs it.

There are no worries on the comfort and adjustability front with plenty of scope for shifting the bars and saddle back and forth, in and out, and up and down to get them in the right places before you ride. And even though stiffness was a priority for the Speed Concept, it’s not been engineered in at the cost of its comfort while you’re riding.

The Speed Concept 7.0 has plenty going for it. But it’s in a very competitive price bracket and its weight is holding it back. Granted it’s not significantly heavier than many of its rivals, but it feels like it is out on the road. And that’s when all it’s carrying is a rider and a 500ml bottle. So you can imagine what it’s like when it’s loaded down with the full complement of storage options, integrated or not.

Verdict: Potentially a great bike but in this guise it’s buried under what feels like a lot of extra weight, 69%

Contact : www.trekbikes.com

Share this article

• Advertise with us
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Code of Conduct
• Manage preferences

• off.road.cc
• Dealclincher
• Fantasy Cycling

Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

• Sportive and endurance bikes
• Gravel and adventure bikes
• Urban and hybrid bikes
• Touring bikes
• Cyclocross bikes
• Electric bikes
• Folding bikes
• Fixed & singlespeed bikes
• Children's bikes
• Time trial bikes
• Accessories - misc
• Computer mounts
• Bike bags & cases
• Bottle cages
• Child seats
• Lights - front
• Lights - rear
• Lights - sets
• Pumps & CO2 inflators
• Puncture kits
• Reflectives
• Smart watches
• Stands and racks
• Arm & leg warmers
• Base layers
• Gloves - full finger
• Gloves - mitts
• Jerseys - casual
• Jerseys - long sleeve
• Jerseys - short sleeve
• Shorts & 3/4s
• Tights & longs
• Bar tape & grips
• Bottom brackets
• Brake & gear cables
• Brake & STI levers
• Brake pads & spares
• Cassettes & freewheels
• Chainsets & chainrings
• Derailleurs - front
• Derailleurs - rear
• Gear levers & shifters
• Handlebars & extensions
• Inner tubes
• Quick releases & skewers
• Energy & recovery bars
• Energy & recovery drinks
• Energy & recovery gels
• Heart rate monitors
• Hydration products
• Hydration systems
• Indoor trainers
• Power measurement
• Skincare & embrocation
• Training - misc
• Cleaning products
• Lubrication
• Tools - multitools
• Tools - Portable
• Tools - workshop
• Books, Maps & DVDs
• Camping and outdoor equipment
• Gifts & misc

My vernier callipers give the following tube measurements at the thickest points: down tube 81.5 x 30mm; seat tube 80 x 32.5mm; seatpost 69 x 20mm. Trek say it's the most aerodynamic shape ever designed for a bicycle, and it certainly looks the business. Fellow racers appraised it keenly.

However, the aerodynamics of the frame itself isn't a huge deal in terms of the seconds it will save. The most important thing is the aerodynamics of you, the rider: your position, your skin-tight gear, and your pointy hat. After that you want deep section (or rear disc) wheels with the fastest-rolling tyres you can finish your race on. A faster frame is incrementally helpful but it's not a substitute for these other factors – as I found out when I raced it.

Frame, fork & fit

Two things are striking about the frame, apart from the tube profiles. Thing one is the attention that's been paid to aero details. The cables run internally. The rear brake is mounted out of the way underneath the chainstays. The junction between the head tube and the carbon fork (aluminium steerer) is neatly filled in.

Thing two is the steep seat tube angle, a feature common on aero bikes these days but which was largely introduced by triathletes. I measured it at 78.5 degrees. The effective seat tube angle will depend where exactly you clamp the saddle rails and whether you set the clamp facing forward or backward on top of the post; layback is plus/minus 10mm. Whatever you do, the angle will be somewhere between very steep and very, very steep.

The benefit of this for time trialling (and presumably triathlon) is that you can get forward over the bottom bracket. This opens up your hip angle: for a given torso angle, you end up bending less acutely at the waist than you would if you were sitting further back. If feels less squashed and it's good for putting the power down when you're on the tri bars.

If you're sitting further forward, you want the armrests a bit further forward too. (Note that CTT regulations state that the back of your elbow can't be more than 3cm in front of a line drawn through the centre of the head tube, so there's a limit to how far forward you can go.) On the Speed Concept 2.5, the armrests aren't further forward.

Reach is unusually short on this bike. The effective top tube length is only 52cm, which is small for a Medium sized bike. It's that short not because Trek have scrimped on the front centre distance – they haven't; there's enough room between the front hub and the bottom bracket to avoid toe overlap, a nice bonus on a race bike – but because the steeper seat tube eats into the top tube length. The cables that bulk up behind the stem are close enough to catch your knees on if you get out of the saddle.

A longer stem would maintain the saddle-to-handlebar distance. This one is 8cm, and just sitting on the bike in a TT position, I felt cramped. I wanted a stem about 12cm long, maybe longer. That's not an expensive or difficult upgrade, admittedly. The alternative, even though I am only average sized, would be to go up a size to the Large. The knock-on effect of that would be to raise the handlebar by another 2.5cm, since the Large bike's head tube is that much taller. A higher bar is the last thing I'd want; even a glance showed that there wasn't much drop from the saddle to the armrests.

The tape measure confirmed this. With the stem at its lowest point on the steerer, the relative position of the armrests on the Trek was more than 6cm higher than those on my own bike. (That has a dropped stem, true, but I could get the same bar position on my bike with a flat stem; the dropped stem gives scope to go another 2-3cm lower than shown.) The reason for the Trek's high bars relative to the saddle is a combination of a few things, the smallest of which is crank length. (I race on 165mm cranks.)

The two big differences are the tri bar arrangement and the bottom bracket height. The Trek's armrests fit on top of the tri bar extensions, which themselves sit on top of the base bar. While you can turn the tri bar brackets upside down to run the extensions underneath the base bar, the armrests then won't fit properly because the base bar is in the way. If this were my bike, I would immediately ditch these Bontrager tri bars and fit some with lower armrests. Easton Aeroforce bars would do it – they're about £90 – and there are plenty of others.

The bottom bracket height is something you can't change. It's deliberately low. Trek have made it low 'for stability', they say. On corners, they may have a point; in a straight line, like what you do in time trials most of the time, I've not found that bottom bracket height makes a difference, even on the tri bars. The other effect of lowering the bottom bracket height is that it lowers the saddle height, and reduces the drop from saddle to handlebar, by the same amount. Result: you sit that much more upright.

There are a few unusual frame/fork features. The fork is 'SpeedTrap compatible', so you can fit a computer sensor without messing up the airflow around one of the fork legs. If you use a wheel magnet computer rather than GPS, this is a worthwhile extra. There are a couple of sets of bottle bosses, and what looks like a third set on top of the top tube, behind the stem. This is for a Speed Storage box – essentially an aerodynamic Tupperware box for snacks. I didn't have the opportunity to try this.

The Speed Concept's sophisticated frame and fork no doubt absorb quite a bit of the entry-level budget, so there isn't money left for fancy wheels. You get straightforward aluminium clincher rims with 23mm road tyres; the only nods towards speed are the spokes (24 per wheel rather than 32, and they're bladed) and the cool-looking aero quick releases.

Deep section carbon wheels aren't cheap, so it's understandable that they're absent on this entry-level bike. But you definitely want faster tyres. I'd fit Continental Grand Prix Supersonics with latex innertubes.

The groupset is Sram Apex with bar-end levers. Apart from the levers, it's Sram Apex as you would fit it to a sportive bike: 50-34 compact chainset and an 11-28 cassette. On a time trial or triathlon bike, this is a bizarre setup. A 34-tooth chainring is neither use nor ornament, and if you find yourself using it in a race, you may as well sit up and pedal gently back to the finish. The 11-28 cassette means that you have relatively wide steps between gears, potentially spoiling your racing cadence. A compact double and a wide cassette make sense on a road bike, which you might ride recreationally or race somewhere hilly. On an aero race bike like this, even if it's meant for novices, sportive gearing makes no sense at all.

The cranks are slightly longer than most average-sized bike riders would normally use, being 172.5 rather than 170. I can't say I noticed any difference when pedalling, but it does mean that the saddle will be slightly lower. And you'll have 5mm less room between your knee and your chest at the top of the pedal stroke – a consideration if you can adopt a very low tuck.

You don't use brakes much when time trialling, but these worked fine. The aero levers are a nice touch.

The acid test on a TT bike is: how fast do you go on it? Given that I was sitting more upright and felt a bit cramped, I thought I'd be slower. I was. Racing 10-mile TTs on courses that I know well, with the same kit, the same heart rate, and similar weather conditions, I was 45-60 seconds slower. That's measured against my own times in events just days apart, and more importantly against competitors who were present each time I was racing.

Some of this is down to wheels and tyres: my own bike has 50mm carbon rims and Schwalbe Ultremo TT tubulars. Some of it may be because of the gearing. Much of it, I'm sure, is down to the riding position. I couldn't get aero enough. It was marginally better when I slid the saddle right back to try to gain some breathing room.

Whether you'll run into this fitting problem is hard to say. It depends how tall you are, how much of your height is in your legs compared to your torso, and how low you want to go when you're on the tri bars. If you're taller, and particularly if you've got relatively long legs, you'll automatically get more drop from the saddle to the bars than I did.

For what it's worth, I'm average height (178cm), averagely proportioned (maybe a little longer in the torso), and not particularly flexible, due to some fused vertebrae in my lower back. If this review and Mat's of the 9.9 don't seem to chime, it's worth bearing a couple of things in mind: firstly, that the 9.9 is a much more expensive and much nicer bike; and secondly, that Mat is 12cm taller than me.

Despite what the blurb promised, I didn't find the Speed Concept 2.5 especially stable when riding on the tri bars. I'm used to having more bodyweight bearing down on the armrests, so the steering actually felt quite light and wandery.

The Trek Speed Concept 2.5 has a nice, aero frame, but everything else, including – for me - the riding position, is a bit of a let-down. It's not a bad bike but I wouldn't choose to race on it unless I could immediately spend another £200 on it. I'd get a longer, steeply dropped stem, different tri bars, and some faster tyres and tubes. (New wheels and gears would have to wait.) The other option would be to use that extra £200 to get a different bike: £1600 buys a carbon Planet X Stealth with 82/101mm carbon wheels and better gearing.

For racers taller than me, and for those who don't want as much drop between saddle and handlebar, the Speed Concept 2.5 could represent a good investment. There are things you'll want to upgrade – not least the weird sportive-style gearing and the non-aero wheels – but this chassis is worth hanging some upgrades on. Yes, it's aluminium rather than carbon, and that means a weight penalty, but for racing against the clock, aerodynamics is a bigger concern. Just make sure that you'll be aerodynamic enough when you're sitting on it before you go ahead and buy it.

An aero aluminium frame with a curious component selection and a riding position that's too sat up for flat-out TT speed

road.cc test report

Make and model: Trek Speed Concept 2.5

Size tested: Medium

About the bike

State the frame and fork material and method of construction. List the components used to build up the bike.

Frame and fork: Trek 200 series Alpha Aluminium, Kammtail Virtual Foil shape, fittings for 2 x bottle and top tube 'Bento box'. Bontrager Race Lite E2 Speed Concept carbon forks, SpeedTrap compatible

Wheels: 23-622 Bontrager R1 Plus tyres, Bontrager 622x14 aluminium clincher rims, 24 bladed spokes (radial front, cross-two rear), unbranded aluminium hubs

Transmission: no pedals, Sram Apex chainset 172.5mm 50/34T, Truvativ GXP external bottom bracket, KMC X10 chain, Sram PG 1050 11-28T 10-speed cassette. Sram 500 TT bar end levers, Sram Apex derailleurs. 20-speed, 32-121 inches

Braking: Bontrager Race Lite aero levers, dual pivot front brake, Tektro Quartz chainstay-mounted rear brake

Steering and seating: 420x31.8mm Bontrager Race Bull Horn handlebar with Bontrager Race Lite clip-on aero bars, 80mm x 7� Bontrager Race Lite stem, FSA integrated headset (1in top, 1 1/8in bottom). Vision AeroMax Tri saddle, Bontrager Speed Concept Race X Lite seatpost.

Tell us what the bike is for, and who it's aimed at. What do the manufacturers say about it? How does that compare to your own feelings about the bike?

Trek say: This stellar aluminium tri series is perfect for the value-conscious triathlete looking for a stable, super-aero ride.

I say: it wasn't super aero when I was on it. Nor is the guy riding it in the picture on Trek's website.

Frame and fork

Tell us about the build quality and finish of the frame and fork?

Well made, aero, and looks the business.

Tell us about the materials used in the frame and fork?

Aluminium frame, carbon fork (with aluminium steerer).

Tell us about the geometry of the frame and fork?

Very steep seat angle. Low bottom bracket. Good front centres distance. Sensible head angle - not too twitchy, although I needed more weight on the bars.

Here are the measurements I made of the bike:

Seat clamp centre to stem clamp centre (horizontal) 600mm

Effective top tube 520mm

Standover 770mm

Seat angle 78.5 degrees

Head angle 72.5 degrees

Fork offset 45mm

Overall wheel diameter (inc tyre) 676mm

Crank length 172.5mm

Seat tube length (centre to top) 550mm

BB to ground 264mm

Chainstay length 400mm

BB to front hub 595mm

Wheelbase 985mm

Rear wheel hub spacing 130mm

Rim bead seat to chainstay brace 35mm

Tyre width 23mm

ISO wheelsize at bead seat 622mm

How was the bike in terms of height and reach? How did it compare to other bikes of the same stated size?

Reach is short. I'd expect a medium to have an effective top tube of 53-54cm. The stem is short too, which compounds this. Bar height feels high, relative to the saddle.

Riding the bike

Was the bike comfortable to ride? Tell us how you felt about the ride quality.

No saddle problems. Armrests generously padded. So it was comfortable enough, just slow.

Did the bike feel stiff in the right places? Did any part of the bike feel too stiff or too flexible?

No noticeable flex.

How did the bike transfer power? Did it feel efficient?

Power transfer was fine but it didn't feel efficient, because I was bludgeoning through the wind with my upper body.

Was there any toe-clip overlap with the front wheel? If so, was it a problem?

No overlap. An unexpected bonus.

How would you describe the steering? Was it lively, neutral or unresponsive? Somewhat light when riding on the tri bars, due to lack of bodyweight on the bars, but not a problem.

Tell us some more about the handling. How did the bike feel overall? Did it do particular things well or badly?

It felt like a road bike with clip on TT bars due to the riding position. It didn't accelerate as quickly as my carbon TT bike, because it's heavier.

Which components had the most effect (good or bad) on the bike's comfort? would you recommend any changes?

I'd probably swap the saddle at some point. It's okay, but there are better ones available.

Which components had the most effect (good or bad) on the bike's efficiency? would you recommend any changes?

I'd swap tyres, tubes, stem and bars immediately, and wheels and gears when I could afford it.

Power transfer is good. It just didn't make the most efficient use of that power out on the road.

Slow out of the blocks, but I'm used to a lightweight carbon fixed wheel bike.

You don't really need to sprint on a TT bike, but when you are winding up the pace the bike's weight and gappy cassette are an issue.

Pretty good.

Not applicable. Cruisers are losers in a TT.

Not applicable for TTing.

It will get you up any hill you encouner, although not as punchily as I'd like.

The drivetrain

A bizarre choice for a TT bike.

The 34T ring will last forever because you'll never use it!

Smaller cassette please.

Not great, because you'd want to replace much of it.

Tell us some more about the drivetrain. Anything you particularly did or didn't like? Any components which didn't work well together?

This is a sportive groupset - on a TT bike.

Wheels and tyres

Not affected by side winds.

They're a necessary economy.

Tell us some more about the wheels and tyres.Did they work well in the conditions you encountered? Would you change the wheels or tyres? If so, what for?

I would change the tyres for Continental Grand Prix Supersonics and the wheels for carbon clinchers - unless I could get a good deal on some carbon tubular wheels and tyres.

Shifters a bit clunky.

Tell us some more about the controls. Any particularly good or bad components? How would the controls work for larger or smaller riders?

Nice brake levers.

Your summary

Did you enjoy riding the bike? No.

Would you consider buying the bike? No.

Would you recommend the bike to a friend? Possibly, if they could get a decent aerodynamic fit on it and were prepared to spend money on upgrades.

Anything further to say about the bike in conclusion?

The stopwatch doesn't lie. It didn't provide what I'm looking for in a TT bike. That's not to say it's bad as such, nor that it won't suit you better. I would suggest getting the frame and fork only and building it up with a shrewder choice of components, except that's only possible with the carbon version. Trek have done some clever stuff with the frame, but I can't help feeling that this budget version is too compromised as a complete bike.

Overall rating: 5 /10

About the tester

Age: 42   Height: 1.78m   Weight: 65kg

I usually ride: Ridgeback Solo World fixed wheel   My best bike is: Planet X Pro Carbon Track (with front brake)

I've been riding for: Over 20 years   I ride: Every day   I would class myself as: Experienced

I regularly do the following types of riding: time trialling, cyclo cross, commuting, touring, club rides, sportives, general fitness riding, fixed/singlespeed, mtb,

Help us to fund our site

We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99. 

If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.

Help us to bring you the best cycling content

If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.

Add new comment

Re frame geometry - Just goes to prove, really, that different shapes and flexibilities of rider may need to look at different bikes, even within the same manufacturers range ... which is why buying something as personal as a bicycle without reference to a good retailer who knows his stuff is such a bad idea. Low bracket height, BTW, will enhance stability if the other factors in ride position are correct and the general geometry of the bike is right - but won't make a jot of difference if the weight distribution is wrong, or, say, the head geometry / fork geometry is mis-matched.

As for compact gearing, you have to be careful not to assume that all riders will be riding TTs on pan-flat courses. 50 x 11 is a tall enough top gear for most (in reality, even if not in their fantasy lives)and the 36 sure gives a great get-out-of-jail card on a hilly bike section when you have to face a run after your TT. Granted the 28T bottom seems a bit OTT though - a 25 would have done! Mind you, that's a Southerner's perspective ... I take on board what Faroon says above.

As for the wheels, well, I am constantly amazed at the number of "new cyclists" and triathletes that run one pair of wheels all the year around, for everything, so providing them with a pair of fast training wheels that they can upgrade when they feel the need (as presumably this bike is aimed at entry level) is maybe not such a bad thing. Wheel aerodynamics are pretty near irrelevent until you are doing over about 35-40kph anyway - cube / square law of drag to speed applies!

• Log in or register to post comments

Sounds to me like this might have initially been designed as a women's bike and changed to a unisex one at the last minute:

Long legs, short torso - check. Low bottom bracket for toe down stopping - check. Lower gearing a less powerful rider - check.

The only thing that goes against it is the longer crank length.

I would say that somebody of 6'2" should definitely be riding a large! Which does prove the point about this bike being a peculiar set-up.

Great review.

I have a Speed Concept 7.0. It also came with a compact which I immediately swapped out for a double - I kept the 11-28 cassette as Sccottish Triathlons are notoriously hilly. I also immediately swapped out the Bontrager tri-bars, and put on Easton Carbon jobs - they are 'under-slung', sit further forwards, and are much lighter, and they allow me to get much further down at the front end.

I have a medium frame, but I'm 6'2", so I find it a nice fit and plenty aero enough.

Latest Comments

Looks more like a tram, than a train.

Yeah, I can't find any authoritative studies from a quick search. Anecdotally, EV owners are wearing through tyres quicker than with ICE vehicles...

I'd report it, I'd also report anyone that showed tendencies towards rape too. As a citizen, it's my job and responsibility to report anyone that I...

I think we disagree in what primary is tbh, primary is to the right of the centre of the lane imo, that's what I was taught on advanced motorcycle...

If you're interested, Westbrook Cycles have them down to £140 already, albeit in a very limited range of sizes.

Bugger! I guess I'll have to squeeze another year out of my highly unfashionable MTB top that I paid a tenner for 25 years ago! #scrooge.

Great article!...

Dont think "cheap" is the correct word. The correct price, non rip off.  I've 'expensive LeCol, Rapha and PNS (bought for me) jerseys and the...

Quite the car-dominated main page in the Hereford Times today ...

So that 2nd article is about the rantings of people in Bury - home of the Yates twins. Proud of their professional cyclist local heroes? Wanting to...

Related Reviews

There are highlights when it comes to stiffness and aero performance in the frame, but it's a mixed bag elsewhere

Wilier TwinFoil frameset

Super-slippery, pro-level time trial frameset that's stiff, lightweight and comes comes with a pro-level price tag too

Jamis Xenith T Time Trial bike

Well featured frame and great component spec for the money makes the Xenith T an ideal first time trial bike.

Trek Speed Concept 9.9

Super-fast aerodynamic machine - it could be the most aero bike out there; if not, it's certainly right up there - with excellent adjustability and a top spec sheet

• Rider Notes

2012 Trek Speed Concept 2.5 WSD

An aluminum frame women’s triathlon bike with mid-range components and rim brakes. Compare the full range

For This Bike

View more similar bikes →

A bike with lower gearing will be easier to ride up steep hills, while a higher top end means it will pedal faster down hills.

Speed Concept 2.5 WSD

Similar Bikes

(descending)

Add custom gearing

4'11" – 5'5"

5'2" – 5'8"

5'5" – 5'11"

🐐 Estimated

Do you have this bike? Help other riders make a decision about which size will work for them by sharing your own size and fit notes. Report your fit

Jul 2013 · William Tracy

The 2014 versions can save around two minutes during the 112-mile bike leg of an Ironman race

Read Review

An aero aluminium frame with a curious component selection and a riding position that's too sat up for flat-out TT speed

Jul 2011 · Guy Kesteven

The latest aerodynamic science at an affordable price, but rider fit and responsiveness issues leave the Trek disappointing overall

Last updated June 29 Not listed for 2,487 days

• MAGAZINE OFFERS
• BIKE INSURANCE
• Best Products
• Maintenance
• Accessories
• Long-Term Reviews
• BikeRadar Podcast
• First Look Friday
• Bike of the Week
• Tech Features
• Routes and Rides
• Bike Galleries
• BikeRadar Bargains
• Buyer's Guides
• Fitness & Training
• Sizing & Fit
• Mountain Biking UK
• Cycling Plus

Trek Speed Concept 2.5 review

Latest aerodynamic science at an affordable price

Joby Sessions

Guy Kesteven

Trek’s Speed Concept 2.5 gets the same aggressive position and chopped teardrop profiling as the carbon 7-series bikes. The overall ride is more heavy metal than an Aerosmith chart-topper though.

The Speed Concept looks amazing, with all sorts of tricks to cheat wind and attract buyers, while the alloy frame’s weight is impressively close to the carbon version’s. But it’s still heavy in comparative terms and although the aero effect is obvious at higher speeds, fit, handling and overall responsiveness issues meant our test team rarely experienced the benefits.

Ride & handling: Low acceleration and responsiveness

While Trek have clearly spent a vast amount of time in the wind tunnel and on the drawing board to chase drag out of every part of the bike, the war on wind seems to have been waged at the expense of friendly rider interaction and easy ergonomics. In other words, while there might be the option to extend the seat tube aerodynamics and store your mid-ride munchies in a more aero manner, all our testers, apart from a couple of die-hard drag queens, found the fit of the Speed Concept uncomfortable and restrictive, even after spending time tweaking the contact points.

The narrow shoulder and arm position caused by the narrow-span bar and extensions was an obvious problem for some broader-shouldered riders. Several riders also complained of reflux when trying to rev the bike, which was hard even in the tallest position possible. Issues like cable contact between the knees, the bulky tension screw adjusters looping out from behind the stem, and even rattling internal cables got on riders’ nerves.

While the handling in the tuck was sure-footed and stable for those who eventually got comfy, it’s positively frightening if you lift out of the saddle to inject speed out of a corner or up a climb. And although power transfer from the big frame tubes is reasonable, high bike weight – particularly the wheels – also meant low acceleration and responsiveness in general.

Combine this with the soft braking and you’ve got a bike with a cruiser rather than combative feel – as evidenced on group rides where the Trek struggled to keep the other bikes in sight. On the bright side it’s not as jarring as we feared from such a slab-sided alloy frame. You’ll need to keep an eye out for any significant potholes or rough patches though, otherwise you’ll be punished through your palms and shorts pad.

Frame: Kammtail aerodynamics and integrated storage

The aggressively deep maintubes and the tapered headtube (all coated in sparkling metallic paint) are certainly striking, and the Kammtail Virtual Foil (KVF) aerodynamics are something of a talking point too. The tubes’ blunt, flat backsides are designed to create flexible vortices trails and a smoother overall airflow in crosswinds than a full teardrop.

Anti-drag detailing is equally comprehensive. Internal brake and gear cable routing disappears vertically behind the stem. The extended fork top and downtube dovetail via a right-angled notch. The carbon aero seat mast is clamped with a wedge system that’s flush with the tapered horizontal top tube. While it’s not the complex, custom-faired in-brake of the carbon bikes, the rear U-brake is mounted under the chainstays behind the cranks in already ‘dirty’ air.

The frame is also drilled and pocketed to take Trek’s aero Speed Box top tube and Draft Box seat tube storage systems, as well as Speed Trap direct-mounted computer sensors. It’s not smooth-welded, but the Alpha Red aluminium is extensively shaped, which means this is actually a lighter frame than its carbon sibling if you include the integrated rear brake. It’s still heavy compared to most bikes though, especially if you include the amount of outer cable rattling round inside the frame.

Equipment: High weight and poor braking

Complete bike mass is relatively high too, and the Bontrager wheelset is the weightiest on test, which dulls acceleration. The SRAM Apex kit works smoothly though, and while we’d normally grumble about smaller compact chainset rings on a dedicated aero bike, when it’s designed for the entry-level market like this one, it’s much less of an issue. The Bontrager cockpit gives plenty of potential for adjustment too, although pad angle is crucial for a secure-feeling fit.

While the chrome-effect Trek brake levers are particularly neat and pretty, convoluted internal cable routing also makes braking feel mushy. The fat-nosed Vision saddle is also very much in the mushy mould, which was appreciated by some, although others found the breadth between their legs too much for comfort.

Share this article

• Terms & Conditions
• Subscribe to our magazines
• Manage preferences

2012 Trek Speed Concept 7.0 WSD

Stock photo of a 2012 speed concept 7.0 wsd color may not match.

• Serial: WTU219MC5080G
• Manufacturer: Trek
• Model: Speed Concept 7.0 WSD
• Primary colors: Green and White
• Wheel diameter: 700 C

Distinguishing features

500 Series OCLV Carbon, KVF (Kammtail Virtual Foil) tube design, DuoTrap & SC Draft Box/SC Speed Box compatible

Frame and fork

Drivetrain and brakes, additional parts.

• Fork Bontrager Race Lite E2 Tri Speed Concept, carbon
• Headset Integrated, sealed bearings, 1" top, 1-1/8" bottom
• Front Wheel Alloy hubs, Bontrager Approved alloy rims (XS: 650c)
• Rear Wheel Alloy hubs, Bontrager Approved alloy rims (XS: 650c)
• Front Tire Bontrager R1, 700x23c (XS: Bontrager Race Lite, 650x25c)
• Rear Tire Bontrager R1, 700x23c (XS: Bontrager Race Lite, 650x25c)
• Front Shifter SRAM 500 TT, bar end control, 10 speed
• Rear Shifter SRAM 500 TT, bar end control, 10 speed
• Front Derailleur SRAM Apex, braze-on
• Rear Derailleur SRAM Apex
• Crankset SRAM Apex, 50/34 (compact)
• Cog/Cassette/Freewheel SRAM PG-1050 11-28, 10 speed
• Front Brake Alloy dual-pivot front brake; Speed Concept integrated rear brake w/Bontrager Race Lite aero levers
• Rear Brake Alloy dual-pivot front brake; Speed Concept integrated rear brake w/Bontrager Race Lite aero levers
• Saddle Bontrager Race Lite TT WSD
• Seatpost Bontrager Speed Concept Race X Lite, carbon, +/-10mm offset
• Handlebar Bontrager Race Bullhorn w/Race Lite clip-ons
• Stem Bontrager Race Lite, 7 degree, 31.8mm

Moskva-Class Cruisers

Separate design teams often attempt to meet a set of ship specifications with completely different, although equally valid, strategies. To fulfill the requirements issued in April 2169 for the successor (NX-223) to the Daedalus class, which was introduced at the end of the Romulan War, Prosser & Ankopitch proposed a ship with an extremely large, spherical command hull attached to a nearly vestigial engineering hull. The proposal from the Mikoyan-Tupolev-Dassault Bureau used a long narrow command hull with a minimal frontal silhouette counterbalanced by an equally long engineering hull.

The engineers at Tezuka-Republic decided that the division of ship's functions between a command/crew hull and an engineering hull was arbitrary and unnecessarily restricted design options. Therefore, rather than gathering all the specified facilities in a single hull, their design TR-223A spread them across two hulls, as in Daedalus , and segregated the SSWR-IV-C warp core to a "bustle" at the extreme aft end of the secondary hull. This bustle could be separated easily and quickly from the rest of the engineering hull in the event of a warp core breach. The now-unpowered warp nacelles would then be shed. In this way, the demands of safety would be met without warp dynamics being degraded either by an excessively large frontal silhouette or by longitudinal warp field imbalance.

Although the Ship Specifications Review Board praised Tezuka-Republic for its creative solution to the problem of admittedly contradictory requirements for extreme safety and improved warp performance, they were forced to disqualify design TR-223A for not precisely meeting contract specifications. Therefore, in October 2171, construction contract NX-223 for Starfleet's new cruiser was awarded to Prosser & Ankopitch for what would become the Wasp class .

However, almost no one was happy with the new Wasp ships. Even before the contract was awarded, voices within Starfleet and within industry had strongly criticized the specifications of April 2169. These critics charged that they would lead to a mediocre, albeit safe, fighting ship. Two separate classes were needed, not a single class that was neither a proper explorer nor a proper warship. When Wasp was finally launched in 2173, her performance during precommisioning trials clearly showed that the critics had been correct. Although the performance problems were related in part to the continuing unavailability of the more powerful Tezuka-Republic Hiryu ("Flying Dragon") mark III warp nacelles, Wasp was obviously not the ship Starfleet had hoped for.

In a second attempt to obtain a reliable and capable warship, new specifications (NX-374) were issued in September 2175, little more than a year after USS  Wasp had entered service. Adding to this sense of urgency were intelligence reports suggesting that the Romulans had either developed or otherwise acquired matter/antimatter (M/AM) reactors. This time the specifications put less emphasis upon safety. The original requirement for completely separate command and engineering hulls was eliminated; instead, any hull configuration was allowed as long as the warp core could be quickly separated from the rest of the ship. Furthermore, requirements for speed, acceleration, and maneuverability both under impulse power and under warp power were increased, as were performance levels for target acquisition, tracking, and servicing.

These new specifications were a clear, albeit belated, admission that the critics had been correct all along: one class could not be expected to serve as both an explorer and a main battleship. In fact, starship technology was not considered sufficiently mature for a single ship to adequately fulfill both mission profiles until 2245, when the Constitution -class heavy cruiser was launched. (The controversy continues even today in the wake of the problems of the Galaxy -class explorer.)

Luckily, the designers and engineers at Tezuka-Republic had not been idle since their disappointing loss of the Wasp contract in 2171. Instead, they had spent their time refining design TR-223A so that their new entry (TR-374A) was markedly superior to what had been submitted 5 years earlier. In particular, the new SSWR-V warp reactor allowed the bustle to be made smaller, lighter, and even more easily separable. Therefore, it was hardly surprising when in November 2176 Tezuka-Republic was awarded the production contract over designs from Shimata-Dominquez, Prosser & Ankopitch, Mikoyan-Tupolev Dassault, Monarch R&U, and Thornycroft/Ebisu for what was to become the Moskva class.

However, engineering prowess may not have been the only factor in Tezuka-Republic's winning of the contract. There were accusations that the delay in delivery of the Hiryu warp engines was an attempt by Tezuka-Republic to prevent Wasp from reaching her designed performance levels. While no conclusive incriminating evidence has come to light, the delivery of the long-awaited engines shortly before the scheduled launch of Moskva in December 2177 is certainly suspicious. Tezuka-Republic maintains that if their submission of 2169 had been selected, its performance would also have not have met design specifications without the Hiryu engines. However, critics charge that TR-223A was not as reliant as Wasp on the type of engine used. Furthermore, once the Wasp contract was awarded, and even after Wasp was launched, Tezuka-Republic certainly made no efforts to accelerate delivery of Hiryu.

These controversies were soon rendered moot as the new Moskva class was recognized as a significant advance in starship design. The most important new feature was Moskva's discoid primary hull. Earlier designs had chosen a spherical primary hull for reasons of economy. Simple geometric relationships dictate that a spherical hull has the smallest surface area for a given volume. Therefore, construction costs are lower and shields are more efficient. Furthermore, institutional inertia had led nearly all exploratory cruisers originating until that time from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States Astronautics Agency, the United Earth Space Probe Agency, and its successor organizations to have spherical hulls.

The designers of USS  Moskva employed a biconvex disc for several reasons. Their initial motive was to increase hull volume while minimizing both frontal and lateral silhouettes. A warship with large frontal and lateral silhouettes would be at a greater disadvantage in most tactical situations than would be a ship with an increased superior silhouette. However, the discoid hull allowed the traditional radial layout of command hulls to be retained.

More important than these tactical advantages were functional advantages. As was shown with the Wasp class, warp field geometry would have been awkward if a spherical hull with its relatively large frontal area had been used. The discoid hull was also found to channel warp field flow across its upper surface towards the bussard ram scoops of the warp nacelles. This channeling effect improved field efficiency at all power levels and speeds. As the understanding of warp field mechanics was refined, the trend towards saucer-shaped primary hulls would be intensified in later Starfleet vessels.

In most respects, the Moskva class continued design and engineering trends established in the Comet and Daedalus classes introduced at the end of the Romulan War. As in these classes, ship functions were clearly divided between a command/crew hull and an engineering/propulsion hull. The bridge was returned to its customary position atop the command hull and the shuttlecraft bay was again placed in the secondary hull. The fusion reactor was centered along the longitudinal axis of the ship, and impulse thrust ports exited immediately in front of the warp bustle detachment seam.

Weaponry was the then-standard mix of fusion-warhead missiles and lasers. New to this class was an early type of ultraphased pulse laser cannon, two of which were mounted in the chin of the primary hull. Although the on-target energy output of this new weapon approached that of early phasers, its power requirement was higher and its range was substantially less. However, subsequent refinements lead to steady improvement and, ultimately, to the development of true phasers in 2202. Although Moskva -class ships were the first to be fitted with phasers in 2204, lasers were still carried by the Moskva class and later classes until the 2220s. Finally, warp capability was supplied by the long-awaited Hiryu mark III drive units.

The first ship of the new class, USS  Moskva (NCC-374), entered service with Starfleet in April 2179. An additional 30 ships (NCC-375 to NCC-404) joined the fleet through 2183. Moskva -class ships gained immediate popularity with officers and crews. First, total laser firepower was increased some 75% over that in the preceding Wasp class. Second, because the ship's mass was more equally distributed along the longitudinal axis than in the Wasp class, Moskva was significantly more maneuverable at both sublight and warp speeds. Finally, the more warp-dynamic design allowed greater cruising and maximum speeds.

The Moskva class had an outstanding safety record. No ships were lost because of mechanical failures. However, an incident occurred aboard USS  Johannesburg in 2186 when a faulty nacelle flow monitor falsely indicated a runaway positive feedback power loop within the plasma flow governor. Believing that a catastrophic warp core explosion was imminent, Chief Engineer Roberta Bocharnikov ordered the warp nacelles and warp bustle to be separated. Although unnecessary, these maneuvers were successful in causing the separated warp core to initiate its automatic shut-down routine. The warp core, nacelles, and the rest of the ship were towed to Starbase 13, where they were successfully re-mated. Despite her supreme embarrassment, Bocharnikov oversaw the reassembly and relaunching of Johannesburg and retained her position as chief engineer.

Although most ships of the Moskva class had left front-line service by 2215, some continued to serve as auxiliaries and training vessels until the 2240s. After retirement from active duty, Moskva -class ships were used as testbeds for many emerging technologies owing to the similarities of their layouts to those of succeeding classes. USS  Moskva was the site of the first successful ship-to-surface transport of a Human being in 2206, and USS  Gato was the first ship to fire photon torpedoes in 2214. In addition, Taurus -class tugs, which entered service in 2182, and Sanford -class repair tenders, which entered service in 2185, were derived from the Moskva class and used the same primary hull and warp drive assembly.

The Moskva -class cruiser USS  Aurora (NCC-377), a participant of the Battle of Eohippus IV, is on display at the Starfleet Museum.

Standard displacement: 67,750 t

Crew complement: 160 (27 officers + 133 crew) Weapons: 8 Type VI laser turrets (8 × 1 mounts), 2 Type VII laser cannons (fixed mounts), 2 missile launchers with 36 Spartak missiles Embarked craft: 4 medium cargo/personnel shuttlecraft, 2 light personnel shuttlecraft, 5 fighter/scouts Warp drive: SSWR-V-A spherical cavity M/AM reactor with 2 Hiryu III nacelles Velocity: wf 4.0, cruise; wf 5.0, supercruise; wf 5.2, maximum Units commissioned: 31

• Trek Speed Concept 7.0 WSD 2011

151cm - 164cm

160cm - 172cm

166cm - 179cm

Bike summary

Bike components.

TCT Carbon, KVF (Kammtail Virtual Foil) tube design, DuoTrap & SC Draft Box/SC Speed Box compatible

Suspension Fork

Bontrager Race Lite E2 Tri Speed Concept, carbon

Rear Derailleur

Front derailleur, shift levers.

SRAM 500 TT, bar end control, 10 speed

SRAM PG-1050 11-28, 10 speed

SRAM Apex, 50/34

Bontrager SSR (XS: 650c)

Bontrager R1, 700x23c (XS: Bontrager Race Lite, 650x25c)

Alloy dual-pivot front brake; Speed Concept integrated rear brake w/Bontrager Race Lite aero levers

Bontrager Race Lite, 7 degree, 31.8mm

Bontrager Race Bullhorn w/Race Lite clip-ons

Integrated, sealed bearings, 1" top, 1-1/8" bottom

Bontrager Race Lite TT WSD

Bontrager Speed Concept Race X Lite, carbon, +/-10mm offset

Bike geometry

About this model.

Speed Concept 7.0 WSD completes the Trek Speed model. There are 112 bikes that carry this model name. Take a sneak peek at all Trek Speed bikes models from 2011 , by clicking here .

Your safety is a top priority so always wear a helmet when you ride your bike. Moreover, wear the right clothing. You want to be visible to other drivers, so avoid wearing dark clothing.

Triathlon bikes average price

Our math shows that the average cost of a dependable Triathlon bike is 4177 $ . However, this doesn’t mean that if you spend less money on a Triathlon bike, you couldn’t get a decent one. In short, before purchasing your ideal bike do some research about its components, and also check for reviews online.

Overview of components

Fork material.

The fork is made out of carbon, so, it’s a great addition to the bike’s value. However, carbon forks should be regularly inspected for damage because even the smallest crack could cause the fork to fall apart.

Wheels size

When it comes to wheels, the Speed Concept 7.0 WSD bike is equipped with the 700c aluminum model. These wheels are the most used kind for road bikes in general. However, these wheels don’t perform so well when passing over obstacles.

Nothing is more important on a bike than its ability to brake properly. Trek Speed Concept 7.0 WSD is equipped with Rim brakes. Rim brakes deliver an average performance overall. However, you could spend a little extra and get a bike that has hydraulic brakes.

Speed Concept 7.0 WSD comes in 3 sizes , that range from 151 cm – 179 cm (4.95 ft – 5.87 ft) . In short, you can easily find one that suits you.

Trek Speed models from 2024

Trek speed models from 2023, trek speed models from 2022, trek speed models from 2021, trek speed models from 2020, trek speed models from 2019, trek speed models from 2018, trek speed models from 2017, trek speed models from 2016, trek speed models from 2015, trek speed models from 2014, trek speed models from 2013, trek speed models from 2012, trek speed models from 2011, trek speed models from 2010.

Not sure what's your riding style?

Find your ideal bike in seconds!

Take our 30 seconds quizz and find out which bikes suit you the best.

Handy tools

Tools to help you even more.

• New comments
• Military Photos
• Russian Military
• Anti-Aircraft
• SA-21/S-400 Triumf

• May 8, 2011

Media information

Share this media.

• This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Accept Learn more…

• Speed Concept 2.5