trek madone 4.5 tct carbon

ALL (67 Forums)
WHEELS & TIRES
SPECIALIZED
CYCLOCROSS BIKES
TIRES & WHEELS

Trek Madone 4.5 Road Bike

From cruising back roads to enjoying all-day epics to getting your feet wet in the racing circuit, Trek's Madone 4.5 does it all. This full-carbon beauty boasts a stiff, light frame that floats up the climbs, along with Bontrager's Race Lite oversize carbon fork that provides maximum steering precision. Plus, Bontrager's Race wheelset cheats the wind, while the Shimano components include a slick-shifting drivetrain with the perfect gears to spin up the climbs and powerful dual-pivot brakes for complete control on the way back down. This able roadster sports a sweet spread of Bontrager's carbon and aluminum components, and a plush Bontrager seat, too.

USER REVIEWS

Fast ride, handles road irregularities and bumps well, effortless to ride, climbs well, handles curves expertly, absolute beauty to look at.

custom stickers | print stickers | business printing | printing company

Awesome frame - brilliant handling, climbs well, comfortable and fast and Radioshack graphics on mine look awesome - this is a keeper :-)

Saddle a bit uncomfortable - replaced with Fizik Aliante. Did replace wheels, chainset and brake calipers - Ultegra 6800 bought off a mate - did make a difference. Wheels were eventually replaced with Mavic Ksyrium Elites but only after I wore out the original Bontrager's.

OK. So this review is about 3 years out of date - but hell these things are now appearing on EBay at bargain prices! - thinking about buying one as a winter bike! Bought my Madone 4.5 in 2013 - 1st carbon bike - and 3 years on, and despite the additions to my bike collection it is still my fave. OK, so I have upgraded the brake calipers and chainset - Ultegra 6800 - and it does make a difference (although the original 105's are great) and the wheels are are bit stiffer, BUT if you want a bike that does everything well then it is brilliant - I cannot praise this bike (well mine at least) enough the Madone 4.5 is brilliant - no matter what I won't be selling mine.

Very good value, responsive bike, Excellent in sprints, nice color scheme, duotrap is very neat

extremely logo happy, terrible bontrager saddle, heavy stock wheels, stock crankset is shimano but not even 105, no-name weak brakes

I bought this bike in August 2011. I can say that I am quite satisfied with it. It is very responsive under sudden power, climbs well (the little climbs that I have done) and handles well in turns, which is really important when riding fast and aggressive in close circuits, similar to crits. I find it very comfortable and fast for long rides; I ride with a very fast group in Miami with speeds that oscillates around 28-30 mph and I have hit 38 mph in sprints on a couple of occasions with this bike, smoking in the process many riders in way more expensive machines. About upgrades, the first component to go was the saddle. That thing is awful, I am still thankful to this day that some good soul gave me $25 bucks for it in eBay; It was replaced by a Selle SMP stratos. Then I upgraded the wheels to Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL (I also have a Mavic Ksyrium elite set) and brake calipers to Shimano ultegra 2010. I rode with this setup for a year and then I decided to upgrade further: - I installed a new cool looking cockpit (Ritchey Evo carbon HB and ritchey carbon stem) thus getting rid of the alum bontrager HB, stem and rusted bolts; - I wrapped the HB with a beautiful and comfortable Lizard Skin black tape - 2 new bottle cages (Blackburn carbon) - New group set (2013 SRAM force with standard GXP crankset and 11/23 cassette) - Fizik saddle bag in small size - Upgraded GPS computer from Garmin FR305 to the Garmin Edge 500 with SRAM mount - Replaced the look keo classic pedals by Look keo blades carbon My bike now looks mean, is fast as the fastest (the engine is not so bad if you know what I mean), and all in all I am very happy with its performance. I have been considering upgrading the frameset but it is not really due to low performance but to the fact that the frame size might be a tad too big for me and my back is bothering me in long/hard rides

Well balanced, power transfer, descending, and comfort.

I just feel the need to comment on the last reviewer, and his/her bad experience with Trek brakes. As a bit of background, I have owned three carbon road bikes and a Cannondale Caad10 in the last six yeaes, so I have a bit of experience to compare brands and their corresponding brakes. When I test rode the Madone at the shop, I immediatly noticed that the brakes were weak. Everything else was superb, but I knew the brakes needed a fix. So... after purchasing my Madone, I immediatly replaced the brake pads for 'KoolStop' brand Brake Pads. Problem solved, with strong stopping power, even on long and steep descents. Price = $12.00 per pair. Installation takes about two minutes, and about five for those that find changing a light bulb to be a challange. To be fair, my other bikes had kinda weak brake pads as well, but the Madone version was even a step below. So, the moral of the story here is that yes, the brake pads are inferior (and yes, Trek should not be shipping finished bikes with these pads), but you should not dismiss this amazing bike, especially for such a quick and easy fix.

Hot Deals See All Hot Deals >>

Get the latest roadbike reviews, news, race results, and much more by signing up for the Roadbikereview Newsletter

EDITORIAL REVIEWS
CLASSIFIEDS

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

TERMS OF USE
PRIVACY POLICY
ADVERTISING

VISIT US AT

Forum Listing
Marketplace
Advanced Search
Classic Forums
General Cycling Discussion

Featured User Review: Trek Madone 4.5 Road Bike

Bicycle frame Bicycle tire Bicycle wheel Bicycle wheel rim Bicycles--Equipment and supplies

Attachments

?
205.3K members

Top Contributors this Month

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 Madone 4.5 Compact review

Affordable and ideal for longer rides

Guy Kesteven

Trek's multi Tour de France winning Madone family has been around for years, and the 4.5 is the most affordable member for 2010. it does mean you get Oriental TCT carbon, rather than the pricier US-built OCLV carbon of the 5 and 6 family bikes, but it’s the overall ride, not the origin, that matters here.

Ride & handling: Agile and confident handling complements friendly overall feel

While Trek don’t do a speciﬁc sportive bike, Madones have always been a popular choice among high-mileage riders, and we can see why. It’s immediately obvious this bike is smooth from fork to far end, sitting on the road quietly over rough sections that rattled many price rivals.

Despite sharp and snappy-looking angles on paper, it’s got a neutral stability too, letting us ride no-handed without worry when ﬁshing energy bars out of back pockets.

It’s not just the easy mid-picnic handling that encourages you to put those extra miles in either. This bike just melts away underneath you, barely registering the tactical tarmac conditions that are a real issue on stiffer bikes.

The Bontrager tyres are usefully smooth rolling without being worryingly slippery in wet corners. The short stem makes exploring the traction limits fun on descents, with an agile twitchy feel through the steering when you’re ﬂicking between manhole covers and potholes, or changing lines mid-corner.

Stability and the stiffness of the front end means this never develops into anything nasty on long, fast descents though, with only the soft brakes acting as a mental parachute.

While it’s a great smooth, ‘go the distance’ choice for longer rides, the pliable smoothness of the Trek can work against it as workload goes up. Its buoyant, ﬂoated ride when you’re tapping out a tempo develops into a real bounce as you press the pedals harder.

This results in a deﬁnite rubber-chain effect if you’re ﬁghting the hill. The compact chainset ratios mean you can spin rather than stomp most of the time though, and the light wheels hold speed towards summits well too.

Chassis: Smooth and comfy frameset, but weight limits upgrade potential

At 1,250g the frame isn't the lightest at this price, but the reasonably light tapered alloy steerer fork puts it back into the right ball park. The extended hourglass proﬁle E2 head tube puts stiffness and accuracy into the steering.

The triangular top tube gets a ﬂattened centre section to feed some comfort back in, and while the down tube is broad, it’s also relatively shallow to suck out some road sting. The seat tube is single diameter, which means a conventional front mech ﬁts ﬁne.

The bottom bracket is an external screw-in rather than oversize push-ﬁt type. Mid-size multi-section rear stays meet at simple alloy dropouts, with a scalloped wishbone section morphing smoothly into the seat tube/top tube area.

The polished seat collar matches the similar-ﬁnish Shimano 105 gear and you get twin bottle cage mounts. A metal plate protects the chainstays if you drop the chain off the back, and there’s even a socket for Trek’s Duotrap computer speed and cadence sensor unit.

The unusual crossover brake cable routing under the top tube gives a clean look with a UK-style left-hand front brake. With no fewer than seven sizes they'll ﬁt most riders, although you have to hop up to the Madone 4.7 (£1,900) to get Women's Speciﬁc Design versions.

Equipment: Bontrager kit shaves weight and Shimano transmission performs well

Like most bikes at this price, transmission is predominantly Shimano 105 with a similar-quality FC600 compact chainset. A 27-tooth big sprocket on the cassette means a proper crawler gear for climbs, with the option of a triple chainset.

Shimano Tiagra brake callipers feel soft, but the combined STI levers and shifters are 105, and ﬁtting cartridge brake pads will make a big difference to feedback. Gear adjusters next to the levers make in-ﬂight tweaking easy. The rest of the bike is a selection of Trek’s Bontrager house-brand kit.

Saddle and seatpost kept everyone happy, while the well-shaped handlebars sit on a big stack of carbon headset spacers for easy adjustment. The Bontrager kit – particularly the wheels – is light enough to offset the extra frameset mass and put the Trek back into contention on weight.

Share this article

Terms & Conditions
Subscribe to our magazines
Manage preferences

4.5 Trek Madone TCT Carbon Bike

From cruising back roads to enjoying all-day epics to getting your feet wet in the racing circuit, Trek’s Madone 4.5 does it all. This full-carbon beauty boasts a stiff, light frame that floats up the climbs. Plus, Bontrager’s SSR wheelset cheats the wind, with the perfect gears to spin up the climbs and powerful dual-pivot brakes for complete control on the way back down.

This able roadster also sports a sweet line-up of Bontrager’s carbon and aluminum components, and a women’s-specific Bontrager seat, too.

Size: 46 in

Finish: white/shell gold/coastal blue

Frame: 400 carbon frame with the Kammtail aero design

Other Featured Bikes for Sale

1989 Bridgestone Radac admin 2023-04-21T20:45:22+00:00

About the Author: Ryan O'Donnell

Felt Cafe 8-Speed

1989 bridgestone radac.

GIANT TCR1 Road Bike

Cannondale RT3000 ULTRA Lite Tandem

15% OFF ALL BIKES

Hugo Dewar Archive | ETOL Main Page

The Moscow Trials

(march 1962).

This article was first published in Survey , No. 41, April 1962, pp. 87–95. Prepared for the MIA by Paul Flewers.

AT the twenty-second congress of the CPSU, N.S. Khrushchev once again raised the question of the “great purge”, this time in open session and with more detailed references to individual instances of Stalin’s persecution of his opponents. Khrushchev did not directly mention the three great Moscow trials, but the whole tenor of his reply to the discussion on the party programme made it clear that these trials were frame-ups. His remarks on the Kirov assassination alone were sufficient to demonstrate this, since the Kirov affair was the king-pin of the entire structure of these trials.

The assassination, 25 years ago, of Sergei Mironovich Kirov – Secretary of the Leningrad party organisation and member of the Politbureau – was the signal for the merciless repression of all Stalin’s known, suspected or potential opponents in the party. The range and thoroughness of this action was matched by the domestic and international propaganda campaign that accompanied it: for the Stalinist objective was not merely the physical destruction of all those who might conceivably constitute a rallying point for opposition within the party; not merely the creation in the USSR of an atmosphere of terror in which self-preservation should become the overriding consideration for each individual; it was also the complete moral annihilation of the leading figures of the Russian Revolution. Only Lenin would remain untouched, a great messianic figure; and by his side would rise the figure of Stalin, his sole true disciple. Consciousness of the past history of the Russian Revolution was to be erased from the mind of man and a new history was to take its place, the Stalin legend.

The campaign launched for this purpose – which may truly be termed a brain-washing campaign – was on a colossal scale. Its highlights were the three great Moscow trials in August 1936, January 1937 and March 1938, when almost the entire Bolshevik “old guard” was found guilty of organising the murder of Kirov, of wrecking, sabotage, treason, plotting the restoration of capitalism, etc. And it was precisely the defendants at these trials who, with their self-accusations, their abject penitence, their acceptance and praise of Stalin’s policies, showed themselves as eager as the Stalinists to support this campaign. Never before in history had there been a conspiracy of such dimensions, conspirators of such former eminence, and at the same time conspirators so uniformly anxious to attest the unrighteousness of their cause and the utter criminality of their actions.

At once sordid and deeply tragic, combining the grim reality of apparently normal juridical procedure with the lack of any evidence against the accused other than their own nightmarishly unreal confessions, these trials shocked the liberal conscience of the entire world. Yet it was, strangely enough, in Great Britain, a country proud of its tradition of liberal thought and action, that the most influential voices were raised in their defence.

Thus A.J. Cummings, then a political columnist of considerable standing, although admitting to some difficulty in accepting the guilt of all the accused, wrote of the first trial that “the evidence and the confessions are so circumstantial that to reject both as hocus-pocus would be to reduce the trial almost to complete unintelligibility”. (News Chronicle , 25 August 1936) The Moscow correspondent of the Observer also wrote (23 August 1936) that: “It is futile to think that the trial was staged and the charges trumped up. The government’s case against the defendants is genuine.” Sir Bernard Pares ( Spectator , 18 September 1936) likewise expressed the view that:

As to the trial generally, I was in Moscow while it was in progress and followed the daily reports in the press. Since then I have made a careful study of the verbatim report. Having done that I must give it as my considered judgement that if the report had been issued in a country (that is, other than the USSR) without any of the antecedents I have referred to, the trial would be regarded as one which could not fail to carry conviction ... The examination of the 16 accused by the State Prosecutor is a close work of dispassionate reasoning, in which, in spite of some denials and more evasions, the guilt of the accused is completely brought home.

These statements were made use of by the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee in presenting to the public its summarised version of the official report (itself not verbatim) of the first Moscow trial. Its account of the second trial (compiled by W.P. and Zelda K. Coates) was introduced by Neil Maclean, MP, with a preface by the Moscow correspondent of the Daily Herald , R.T. Miller, and contained two speeches by Stalin, “in that simple and clear style of which Mr Stalin is such a master”, as Maclean put it. Maclean in his introductory foreword asserted that:

... practically every foreign correspondent present at the trial with the exception, of course, of the Japanese and German – have expressed themselves as very much impressed by the weight of evidence presented by the prosecution and the sincerity of the confessions of the accused.

In the course of his preface Miller wrote that “the prisoners appeared healthy, well-fed, well-dressed and unintimidated”; that “Mr Dudley Collard, the English barrister ... considered it perfectly sound from the legal point of view”; and that the accused “confessed because the state’s collection of evidence forced them to. No other explanation fits the facts.” [1]

Leaving aside Mr Collard, whose well-known political sympathies might explain his easy acceptance of surface appearances, it is clear that none of these commentators had the slightest understanding of the political struggle raging in the Soviet Union; a struggle of which these trials and those that had preceded them from 1928 onwards (which these gentlemen had apparently totally forgotten) were a reflection. Nor could any of them have really made a serious study of the official report. The circumstances of the time made many politically conscious people desire above all to think the best of the Soviet Government, and the views quoted above, deriving in part from this very desire, in part from sheer ignorance, were very welcome to the Stalinists. If they did not wholly convince, they at least helped to lull suspicion.

* * *

The most outstanding and the most influential supporter of the Stalinist campaign in the country was D.N. Pritt, an MP, a KC, and formerly president of the enquiry set up to investigate the proceedings of the Reichstag fire trial. Pritt entered the campaign with an article in the News Chronicle (27 August 1936), later reprinted in pamphlet form, The Moscow Trial was Fair (with additional material by Pat Sloan). He then expanded his analysis and argument in a booklet of 39 pages entitled The Zinoviev Trial (Gollancz, 1936). In this he first of all suggests that the bulk of the criticism of the trial emanated from the extreme right-wing opponents of the Soviet government. Still, he admits that much of it was made in good faith and came from “newspapers and individuals of very high reputation for fairness”. However, he goes on to imply that these critics had not, as he had, really studied the whole of the available evidence, but had relied upon incomplete reports. Moreover, they had not his advantage of being an eyewitness of the trial and a lawyer into the bargain. Having established in the reader’s mind that all criticism coming from sources hostile to the Soviet regime is ipso facto baseless, and having made plain his own geographical and professional superiority to the “fair-minded” critics, he argues that:

It should be realised at the outset, of course, that the critics who refuse to believe that Zinoviev and Kamenev could possibly have conspired to murder Kirov, Stalin, Voroshilov and others, even when they say themselves that they did, are in a grave logical difficulty. For if they thus dismiss the whole case for the prosecution as a “frame-up”, it follows inescapably that Stalin and a substantial number of other high officials, including presumably the judges and the prosecutor, were themselves guilty of a foul conspiracy to procure the judicial murder of Zinoviev, Kamenev and a fair number of other persons. (pp. 3–4)

The most general and important criticism of the trial, Pritt says, is that it was impossible to believe that “men should confess openly and fully to crimes of the gravity of those in question here”. (p. 5) In fact, of course, the critics” difficulty was not to believe that “men” should confess to “grave crimes”, but that these particular men should confess in that particular manner to crimes so contrary to everything known of their very public political pasts, so contrary to their known political philosophy, and so manifestly incapable of achieving their alleged objectives. For among those 16 accused there were, as Khrushchev has now obliquely reminded us, “prominent representatives of the old guard who, together with Lenin, founded “the world’s first proletarian state”. ( Report on the Programme of the CPSU , Soviet Booklet No. 81, 1961, p. 108) These were now transformed, in the words of the indictment, into “unprincipled political adventurers and assassins striving at only one thing, namely, to make their way to power even through terrorism”. ( Report of Court Proceedings: The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre , People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Moscow 1936, p. 18)

Pritt himself, however, does not appear to be wholly at ease about the lack of evidence adduced other than the confessions, for he suggests that the Soviet government would have preferred all or most of the accused to have pleaded not guilty, for then the “full strength of the case” would have been apparent. As it was, “all the available proof did not require to be brought forward”. (p. 9) He assumes the existence of this proof; he writes that we cannot possibly know “what further facts there were in the record that were not adduced at all”. Not, that is, whether further facts were available, but what facts.

Although there is constant mention of facts, Pritt never gets down to a consideration of verifiable factual evidence adduced in alleged corroboration of the confessions. The closest he gets to giving an example of this is when he refers to an alleged conversation between two of the accused in which “a highly incriminating phrase was used”. Each of the accused denied using it, but each said that the other had. Pritt found this highly significant. He does not explain why the accused should have shied at admitting the use of “incriminating phrases” when they had already confessed to capital crimes.

Pritt claims to have reached his conclusion on the basis of a careful study of the official report of the trial. Surely, then, he must have been aware that, when it was not simply a question of “incriminating phrases”, conversations about conversations, but of concrete facts, some very glaring discrepancies were exposed, such as, for example, the flatly contradictory evidence of two of the accused, Olberg and Holtzmann, and the alleged meeting at a non-existent hotel.

It hardly seems possible that a man of Pritt’s professional training could have failed to see that the whole structure of the confessions simply did not hang together. He did not even notice anything strange in the tale of those two desperadoes Fritz David and Bermin-Yurin, who, after spending two and a half years preparing a plan to kill Stalin at the Congress of the Communist International, decided, when it came to the point, that they could not shoot “because there were too many people”!

For Pritt “anything in the nature of forced confessions is intrinsically impossible”; it was “obvious to anyone who watched the proceedings in court that the confessions as made orally in court could not possibly have been concocted or rehearsed”; and not even the keenest critic had been able to find a false note (pp. 12–14). The picture he gives of himself is that of an utterly credulous bumpkin. Any reasonably objective student of Soviet politics must have been aware at the time that this trial and those that followed were frame-ups. It did not require Khrushchev to admit that “thousands of absolutely innocent people perished ... Many party leaders, statesmen and military leaders lost their lives”; that “they were ‘persuaded’, persuaded in certain ways, that they were German, British or some other spies. And some of them ‘confessed’.”

For the Moscow trials were all of a piece with those that had preceded them: the Shakhty trial in 1928; the Industrial Party trial in 1930; the Menshevik trial in 1931; and the Metro-Vickers trial in 1933. [2] No student of these trials would fail to see that they served a definite political purpose and that justice had been perverted to this end. The very occurrence, previous to the Moscow trials, of exactly similar confession trials – with all their “technical” failures (attempted retraction of confessions; an accused going insane; long dead men named as conspirators, etc) – should have been enough to raise doubts in the mind of the most prejudiced. But the supporters of Stalin clearly did not want to see the truth. [3]

Here, as elsewhere, it was the paramount task of the Communist Party to “sell” the trials. For this purpose, in addition to public meetings throughout the country and articles in the Daily Worker and other periodicals, a stream of pamphlets was published. The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Worker , W.D. Shepherd, wrote two pamphlets in 1936: The Truth About the Murder of Kirov (31 pages) and The Moscow Trial (15 pages). In 1937, two leading English communists, Harry Pollitt and R. Palme Dutt, wrote The Truth about Trotskyism: The Moscow Trial (36 pages), and in 1938 R. Page Arnot and Tim Buck dealt with the third trial in Fascist Agents Exposed (22 pages). Supplementing all this there were the so-called verbatim Reports of the Court Proceedings (published in English by the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR), and the abridged version of the official report of the August 1936 trial, published by the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee. This does not, of course, exhaust the list of published matter issued directly or indirectly by the Communist Party in defence at the trials. Party contributors to the Left Book Club publications naturally also supported the campaign. In this respect JR Campbell’s Soviet Policy and its Critics (Gollancz, 1938, 374 pages) and Soviet Democracy (Gollancz, 1937, 288 pages) by Pat Sloan, are notable.

The bulk of this material eschews any attempt at reasoning and concentrates on invective in the verbal knuckleduster style typical of the Stalinist school. Campbell’s book is a much more ambitious effort in that he admits knowledge of the Dewey Commission [4] , quotes from its proceedings, and also uses quotations from Trotsky’s writings, albeit within strict limits. Thus he quotes Trotsky’s words:

Why, then, did the accused, after 25, 30 or more years of revolutionary work, agree to take upon themselves such monstrous and degrading accusations? How did the GPU achieve this? Why did not a single one of the accused cry out openly before the court against the frame-up? Etc, etc. In the nature of the case I am not obliged to answer these questions.

Here Campbell stops and comments: “But if there is no answer then a most important element in the case of the Soviet government is upheld.” (p. 252) He does not follow the quotation further, which runs:

We could not here question Yagoda (he is now being questioned himself by Yezhov), or Yezhov, or Vyshinsky, or Stalin, or, above all, their victims, the majority of whom, indeed, have already been shot. That is why the Commission cannot fully uncover the inquisitorial technique of the Moscow trials. But the mainsprings are already apparent. ( The Case of Leon Trotsky , pp. 482–83)

A very striking illustration of the Stalinist technique – low cunning, contempt for the truth, contempt for the reader’s intelligence – is to be seen on page 213 of Campbell’s book in his quotation from Trotsky’s The Soviet Union and the Fourth International . He begins in the middle of a paragraph:

The first social shock, external or internal, may throw the atomised Soviet society into civil war. The workers, having lost control over the state and economy, may resort to mass strikes as weapons of self-defence. The discipline of the dictatorship would be broken down [5] under the onslaught of the workers and because of the pressure of economic difficulties the trusts would be forced to disrupt the planned beginnings and enter into competition with one another. The dissolution of the regime would naturally be thrown over into the army. The socialist state would collapse, giving place to the capitalist regime, or, more correctly, to capitalist chaos.

And on this, Campbell writes: “This was more than a prophecy. It was the objective of the conspirators.” The very next paragraph in Trotsky’s essay begins: “The Stalinist press, of course, will reprint our warning analysis as a counter-revolutionary prophecy, or even as the expressed ‘desire’ of the Trotskyites.”

Campbell’s book is a long diatribe against “Trotskyism” and of its 374 pages there is hardly one on which the name Trotsky does not appear. Since this was written after the third Moscow trial, he has caught up with the Soviet scenario, successively developed with each trial. The crimes of the accused are now “only a culminating point in the struggle which Trotsky and his followers have been waging against the Bolshevik party since 1903”.

One of the curiosities of this period is the book written by Maurice Edelman from the notes of a Peter Kleist, entitled GPU Justice (1938). [6] According to Edelman, Kleist was “by no means a communist”. Efforts to convey an impression of objectivity are evident. The book dispenses with the usual Stalinist bludgeoning invective and affects a dispassionate, disengaged attitude, but its phraseology and tone are unmistakably pro-Stalinist. The Soviet Union is a classless society; the GPU is simply a police force like any other (only superior, of course); it is a misconception to consider it a secret police; if you are innocent no one can make you guilty; talk of GPU torture is Polish fascist slander; he, Kleist, is treated considerately, without brutality, and, therefore, so is every other suspect. There are many little touches designed to bring out the humanity of Kleist’s captors. The Lubyanka and Butyrki prisons are depicted as rest-homes, where lengthy discussions (reproduced apparently verbatim) permit Stalinists to defend Stalin and Trotskyites to expose themselves as avowed wreckers and saboteurs in collaboration with the White Guards. The book could obviously only have been written by someone with a very clear idea of the party line, and at the same time someone anxious to appear non-partisan. The cloak of non-partisanship is worn pretty thin, however, by the author’s efforts to defend and extol, not merely “GPU justice”, but almost every aspect of Soviet life, including the forced labour camps. Finally, in an appendix, Kleist on the Moscow Trials , all pretence of impartiality is dropped. There one reads: “Why do they confess? was the typical journalistic question, and no one, except the communist papers, supplied the obvious answer: ‘Because they were guilty.’” (p. 211) In this section the stock Stalinist arguments are put forward by Kleist himself and not, as in the main narrative, through the mouths of others.

To these arguments he adds one of his very own. It gives the appearance of having been inserted to show that in spite of his total agreement with the party line, he is nevertheless by no means a communist. For he says that, the GPU having established the guilt of the accused, they were “at this point quite conceivably offered remission of the death sentence”. This, he argues, “would account for the fluency of the confession and for the calm with which the majority of the prisoners heard the sentence of death” (p. 217). Apparently, Kleist regards this kind of double-crossing as a mark of the humanity of GPU justice.

His final sentence is worth noting:

In the years which have passed since this my release , the bursting into flames of the Spanish-Fascist rebellion, the risings and intervention of the Nazis in Austria and the promise of intervention in Czechoslovakia, have convinced me that whatever bewilderment is felt outside the Soviet Union at the unearthing of these Fascist conspirators, Fascist conspiracy in conjunction with Trotskyist conspiracy does exist and that its extirpation, so far from endangering the USSR, marks another peril avoided. (p. 218)

Leaving aside the peculiar logic of this passage, attention is drawn to the words emphasised. The book was published in 1938. Kleist was released in April 1937. Thus, no “years” could have passed since his release. The reader may work out for himself the chronology of the events to which he refers, all of which he says took place after his release.

The verdict of the British press was in general unfavourable to the Moscow trials. Among the dailies the Manchester Guardian stood out as their sharpest critic. In addition to its own editorial comment, it published cables from Trotsky rebutting the evidence and attacking Stalin’s policy, earning what is probably the rarest praise ever bestowed by a revolutionary on a “bourgeois” newspaper. “I know full well”, Trotsky telegraphed from Mexico (25 January 1937), “that the Manchester Guardian will be one of the first to serve the truth and humanity.” Typical of the Manchester Guardian ’s attitude was its statement of 28 August 1936: “He [Stalin] surrounds himself with men of his own making [7] and devotes all the power of the state to removing those who, however remotely, might become rival centres of authority.”

Nothing as bluntly condemnatory as this came, however, from The Times . Indeed, in 1936 and 1937, its attitude might justly be construed as favourable to Stalin. The trials, it thought, reflected the triumph of Stalin’s “nationalist” policy over that of the revolutionary die-hards. The conservative forces, with the overwhelming support of the nation, had now demonstrably gained the day. On this single point it was curiously at one with Trotsky himself, who wrote in an article in the Sunday Express (6 March 1938) that: “From beginning to end his [Stalin’s] programme was that of the formation of a bourgeois republic.” It was only with the 1938 trial that The Times expressed doubts as to the general trend of affairs in the Soviet Union. On balance one cannot say that The Times saw very clearly in this matter. [8]

The labour press was naturally in agreement with the views expressed by the Socialist International and the International Federation of Trade Unions (Louis de Brouckère and F. Adler on behalf of the LSI, and Sir W. Citrine and Walter Schevenels on behalf of the IFTU sent telegrams of protest on the occasion of each of the trials). Writing on the second trial in Reynolds News (7 February 1937), H.N. Brailsford said that it left him “bewildered, doubtful, miserable”; pointed however to the confessions – “If they had been coerced, surely some of them ... would have blurted out the truth”; referred then to the conflict of the evidence with known facts, and concluded: “In one Judas among 12 apostles it is easy to believe. But when there are 11 Judases and only one loyal apostle, the Church is unlikely to thrive.” In the Scottish Forward , Emrys Hughes” witty, ironic articles bluntly exposed the trials as “frame-ups”.

On the other hand, however, it was the communists alone who maintained a campaign consonant with their objectives. There can be little doubt that they did finally succeed in diverting the attention of left-wing opinion and those others whom they courted from the essential issues raised by the trials, and in persuading a very large body of public opinion that Stalin’s policy was right.

In this task they received powerful support from the New Statesman and Nation , which reached an audience not in general susceptible to direct communist approach. This journal gave an exhibition of dithering evasiveness and moral obtuseness rarely displayed by a reputedly responsible publication. The 1936 trial, “if one may trust the available reports, was wholly unconvincing” (28 August 1936). At the same time:

We do not deny ... that the confessions may have contained a substance of truth. We complain because, in the absence of independent witnesses, there is no way of knowing ... When we hear that so close and trusted a friend of Stalin as Radek, is suspected ... we are compelled to wonder that there may not be more serious discontent in the Soviet Union than was generally believed.” (5 September 1936)

An article on the second trial, Will Stalin Explain? (30 January 1937), stated that “the various parts of the plot do not seem to hang together”; but the confessions could not be doubted because that would mean doubting Soviet justice; on the other hand, “to accept them as they stand is to draw a picture of a regime divided against itself”. If there was an escape from this dilemma, would Stalin please tell them what it was?

In the absence of any answer from Stalin to this complaint, the journal had to be, and apparently was, satisfied with matters as they stood. For after the verdict it asserted that: “Few would now maintain that all or any of them were completely innocent.” (6 February 1937) Reference is made to a letter from Mr Dudley Collard (the letter noted earlier in this article) and the comment made: “If he is right, we may hope that the present round-up and the forthcoming trial will mean the final liquidation of ‘Trotskyism’ in the USSR, or at least of the infamous projects to which that word is now applied.”

The third trial again demonstrated the New Statesman and Nation ’s remoteness from reality and indifference to the moral issues raised: “The Soviet trial is undoubtedly very popular in the USSR. The exposure of Yagoda ... pleases everyone and seems to explain a great deal of treachery and inefficiency in the past.” But: “the confessions remain baffling whether we regard them as true or false, and the prisoners as innocent or guilty. There has undoubtedly been much plotting in the USSR.” (12 March 1938)

True or false; innocent or guilty: one could take one’s choice – what was important was that the confessions were baffling. Even more baffling were the mental processes by which an otherwise humane and intelligent man could write in a manner at once so callous and so superficial.

This type of confusion and refusal to face facts dominated the thinking of many left-wing intellectuals and the left wing of the labour movement during the 1930s. The experience of the great Russian purge destroyed no illusions, taught them nothing. And even today it is doubtful if there is a full appreciation of the profound effect those events had on Russian society and the men who lead it.

1. A member of the Fabian Society, Mr Collard performed the same service for the second Moscow trial as Pritt had done for the first (see D. Collard, Soviet Justice and the Trial of Radek , 1937). In 1936 he sent from Moscow a long telegram of protest against the appeal for mercy addressed to the court by Adler and Citrine. Yet in the New Statesman of 6 February 1937 he stated that “English reports of previous trials induced in me certain misgivings as to the genuineness of the charges”.

2. There were 53 accused at the 1928 trial – far too many for its proper staging. Right at the beginning it was announced that one, Nekrasov, had gone mad. Two other accused tried to withdraw their confessions during the course of the trial, giving a sickening glimpse of the preliminary investigation’s “rehearsal” horrors. At the next trial, in 1930, one Osadchy was brought into court under guard to give evidence as a member of the “conspiracy”. Osadchy had been one of the state prosecutors in the 1928 trial. With each trial the staging “improved”, but in the very nature of such trials perfection was impossible. Even at their “best” they could only deceive those suffering from what Ignazio Silone called the disease of juridical cretinism. It is worth noting that at the third Moscow trial the State Prosecutor, Vyshinsky, himself called attention to the connection between all these trials. ( Report of the Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Bloc of Rights and Trotskyists , Moscow 1938, pp. 636–37)

3. It is worth recording that Moscow University recently conferred on D.N. Pritt the honorary degree of Doctor of Law. During the ceremony Academician Ivan Petrovsky, Rector of the University, praised Pritt as an “outstanding lawyer and selfless defender of the common people”.

4. See The Case of Leon Trotsky and Not Guilty (Secker and Warburg, 1937 and 1938).

5. The original reads: “The discipline of the dictatorship would be broken. Under the ...”, etc.

6. Recommended in Philip Grierson’s Books on Soviet Russia, 1917–1942 (1943) as “sober and matter-of-fact narrative; an admirable corrective to more sensational writings” (p. 125).

7. Among them, of course, N. Khrushchev, who, speaking from the roof of Lenin’s tomb to a parade of 200,000 workers after the 1937 trial, said: “By lifting their hands against Comrade Stalin they lifted them against everything that is best in humanity, because Stalin is the hope, Stalin is the expectation, Stalin is the lighthouse of all progressive humanity. Stalin, our banner! Stalin, our will! Stalin, our victory!” ( Daily Telegraph , 1 February 1937)

8. “Stalin’s policy of nationalism has been amply vindicated. Russia has made much industrial progress, social conditions are improving.” ( The Times , 20 August 1936) “Today the Russian dictatorship stages what is evidently meant to be the most impressive and terrifying of its many exhibitions of despotic power ... The customary overture has already been played by the Soviet press ... howling for the blood of those whom it denounces, in the grimly proleptic phrase, as “this Trotskyist carrion”.” ( The Times , 2 March 1938).

Top of page

Last updated: 17 February 2023

Madone 4.5 H2 (Compact)

History of cooperation
Areas of cooperation
Procurement policy
Useful links
Becoming a supplier
Procurement
Rosatom newsletter

Rosatom Global presence
Rosatom in region
For suppliers
Preventing corruption
Press centre

Rosatom Starts Life Tests of Third-Generation VVER-440 Nuclear Fuel

16 June, 2020 / 13:00

This site uses cookies. By continuing your navigation, you accept the use of cookies. For more information, or to manage or to change the cookies parameters on your computer, read our Cookies Policy. Learn more

1 Description
2 Dual Format
3 Operation

Description

The Moskva-5 (MOCKBA-5 in cyrillic writing) was produced by KMZ ( Krasnogorskii Mechanicheskii Zavod or Krasnogorsk Mechanical factory) in the 1950s. Earlier models of the Moskva were copies of the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta C , but it makes more sense to call the Moskva-5 an adaptation. Unlike the Super Ikonta, its solid top plate has a built-in rangefinder and a dual-format viewfinder . The best thing about the Moskva-5 is the coupled rangefinder. A lever with rotating wedge-shaped prisms is fixed to the lens plate. Turning the lens to focus rotates the glass, thus adjusting the rangefinder: a very sophisticated device inherited from the Super Ikonta, with no mechanical linkage between the lens and the body. The two windows are 6.5 cm apart for accurate focusing. The separate viewfinder has a larger field of view, which helps composing the picture. As stated above, a sliding frame in the viewfinder selected on top of the camera can be set to 6×9 or 6×6.

The back of the camera showing the year of production (1958), two red windows for 6×6 and 6×9 numbering, the rangefinder window (left) and the separate viewfinder window (right). The symbol to the left of the serial number is the Krasnogorsk company logo.

Dual Format

Super Ikontas were made either for the 6×9 or 6×4.5 format. The Moskva-5 is a 6×6 and 6×9 camera. Since it has a fixed 105mm Industar lens, at 6×6 you have a mild tele at your disposal. To use the 6×6 size, you need to set the viewfinder to the square format. there is a lever to select the right window so you can see the numbering on the film back. The pressure plate does not need to be removed. The 6×9 red window is now blocked, so there's no room for confusion.

As a last step, the 6×6 mask has to be inserted. The camera locks right into its holes. Close the camera and you're ready to shoot.

The Moment 24c is a leaf shutter with speeds of B, 1 to 1/250s. To fire it, the film needs to be transported or the release button will be blocked, indicated by a red window on the top plate. The shutter isn't set by advancing the film; it has to be cocked at the lens by a lever. To take a picture, press the button on the left of the camera top. The button on the right is for unlocking the front plate when the camera is collapsed. Before folding the camera, you shouldn't forget to push down the lever with the polarised glass window.

Moskva-2, -4 and -5 user manual at Butkus.org
Tips for using the Moskva at Photosensitive
Moskva 5 archived bulletin-board discussions, formerly at Robert Monaghan's Medium Format Photography Megasite (archived copy dated 8 May 2006, at Internet Archive )
Locating light leaks in a Moskva 5 at Nelsonfoto forums (archived)
Fixing light leaks (in french) at Dirapons'site
Flickr image
6x9 rangefinder folding
6x6 rangefinder folding
Soviet cameras
Image by Dries van den Elzen
Image by Siim Vahur

View source
View history
List of Companies
Community portal
Recent changes
Random page
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Page information
This page was last edited on 31 December 2021, at 07:13.
Text is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 ; other licenses apply to photos.
Privacy policy
About Camera-wiki.org
Disclaimers

Victor Mukhin

Scientific Program

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

However, up to now, the main carriers of catalytic additives have been mineral sorbents: silica gels, alumogels. This is obviously due to the fact that they consist of pure homogeneous components SiO2 and Al2O3, respectively. It is generally known that impurities, especially the ash elements, are catalytic poisons that reduce the effectiveness of the catalyst. Therefore, carbon sorbents with 5-15% by weight of ash elements in their composition are not used in the above mentioned technologies. However, in such an important field as a gas-mask technique, carbon sorbents (active carbons) are carriers of catalytic additives, providing effective protection of a person against any types of potent poisonous substances (PPS). In ESPE “JSC "Neorganika" there has been developed the technology of unique ashless spherical carbon carrier-catalysts by the method of liquid forming of furfural copolymers with subsequent gas-vapor activation, brand PAC. Active carbons PAC have 100% qualitative characteristics of the three main properties of carbon sorbents: strength - 100%, the proportion of sorbing pores in the pore space – 100%, purity - 100% (ash content is close to zero). A particularly outstanding feature of active PAC carbons is their uniquely high mechanical compressive strength of 740 ± 40 MPa, which is 3-7 times larger than that of such materials as granite, quartzite, electric coal, and is comparable to the value for cast iron - 400-1000 MPa. This allows the PAC to operate under severe conditions in moving and fluidized beds. Obviously, it is time to actively develop catalysts based on PAC sorbents for oil refining, petrochemicals, gas processing and various technologies of organic synthesis.

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents. Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.

Quick Links

Conference Brochure
Tentative Program

Rider Notes

2008 Trek Madone 4.5

A carbon frame aero bike with upper mid-range components and rim brakes.

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.

Similar Bikes

(descending)

Add custom gearing

157cm – 164cm

161cm – 169cm

166cm – 175cm

172cm – 181cm

178cm – 186cm

183cm – 191cm

188cm – 195cm

🐐 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

Aug 2009 · Lennard Zinn

Can I get a Trek Madone seatcap with more setback?

Read Review

Jan 2009 · Mat Brett

Lightweight, stiff and comfortable with superb ride quality

Dec 2008 · VeloNews.com

Well, the manuscript of the third edition of Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance is due today, and I’ve been burning the midnight and daybreak oil for some time now, especially the last week, to get it done. Still not certain I’ll make it. But somehow, despite not riding or answering the phone these days, I got sucked into answering this question in some serious detail while writing Chapter 8 on cranksets. Back to the book now. Lennard Red crank in a Madone? Dear Lennard,

Jul 2008 · R BA

The Madone totally belies its racing heritage and design intent-it never felt like a race bike. More than anything, it shone as an all-around, long-day-in-the-saddle bike.

Mar 2008 · Cycling News

Trek's top dog offers lightweight option

Last updated 29 June Not listed for 2,495 days

IMAGES

4.5 Trek Madone TCT Carbon Bike
My road bike, Trek Madone 4.5 (2009).
File:Trek Madone 4.5.jpeg
Trek Madone 4.5 OCLV full carbon
2010 Trek Madone 4.5
Trek Madone 4.5 Road Bike

VIDEO

Xe đạp TREK Madone 4.5 Group Ultegra 6800, cặp bánh Mavic Ksyrium cao cấp. Tuấn HD
Trek Madone 4.7 Por Carbon.. ULtega 6750 Liên Hệ 0902972345
Trek Madone
NEW TREK MADONE 5.9 SL DISCOVERY CHANNEL
Trek madone 4.7
Trek Madone Gen7 Review

COMMENTS

Madone 4.5
Madone 4.5. Model 14420001110. Retailer prices may vary. Compare. Color / Gloss Black. Select a color. Select size. This product is no longer available online, but it could be in stock at your local Trek shop! Check in-store availability below.
Madone 4.5
Discover your next great ride with Madone 4.5. See the bike and visit your local Trek retailer. Shop now! ... 4 Series TCT Carbon, E2, DuoTrap compatible. Frame fit H2. Fork Bontrager Race Lite w/E2 aluminum steerer, carbon legs; Wheels. Wheels Bontrager SSR. Tires Bontrager R1, 700x23c;
Trek Madone 4.5 Road Bike
The Trek Madone 4.5 may be the last road bike that you own -- because it can kill you. My 2011 Trek Madone 4.5 nearly killed me. The main problem with this bicycle is the braking system. To make this an "entry-level" carbon fiber bicycle at a low "price point," Trek used cheap no-name brand components on the 2011 Madone 4.5.
Trek Madone 4.5 review
Trek's Kammtail carbon aero design at a more achievable price
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
TREK MADONE 6.9: Carbon dating and the legacy of yellow. Aug 2010 · R BA. No, not the new 6 Series SSL, but still a (2009) Tour winner. Read Review. Taylor Phinney's Trek Madone: A photo gallery. ... 4 Series TCT Carbon, E2, DuoTrap compatible. Fork: Bontrager Race Lite w/E2 aluminum steerer, carbon legs.
Trek Madone 4.5 review
Trek Madone 4.5 review - BikeRadar
Madone 4.5
2013. WSD Triple. The Trek Madone 4.5 is a road/triathlon bike with a carbon 400 Series OCLV / TCT frame. The frame comes in colors like White Shell, Matte Black and Matte Trek White. Originally released in 2008, there are 5 versions of this bike. Due to the frame materials and other factors, we estimate that this bike weighs around 20 pounds.
Trek Madone 4.5 review
Madone frameset in OCLV carbon
Trek Madone 4.5 Reviewed
Check out the Trek Madone 4.5 review, see why it makes such a great entry level road bike. www.bikeexchange.co.nz ... The 4.5 is an entry level version of the Madone, carbon frame with 4 Series TCT carbon, aluminium steerer with carbon legs, featuring Shimano 105 (triple compact no less - more on that later), classic H2 fit and comes standard ...
2009 Trek Madone 4.5
A carbon frame aero bike with upper mid-range components and rim brakes. ... Can I get a Trek Madone seatcap with more setback? Read Review. Trek Madone 5.2 and 5.2 Pro. Jan 2009 · Mat Brett. ... TCT Carbon. Fork: Bontrager Race Lite, carbon w/E2 aluminum steerer; SpeedTrap compatible.
Quality of TCT Carbon Madone 4.5 vs. Cannondale Synapse5
In terms of the Trek's Madone range I'd go Madone 5.1 ("white" carbon), which for me personally has all I'd need in a race bike and the best bang for the buck, even if the Madone 4.5/4.7 models are cheaper. Also, there must be a reason that they (Trek) use "white" carbon instead of "black" carbon for the 64 cm frame of the Madone 5.5.
Featured User Review: Trek Madone 4.5 Road Bike
thien · Oct 26, 2011 · Edited by Moderator Apr 2, 2014. Featured User Review: Trek Madone 4.5 Road Bike. by Guadalupe River Bum. Price: $2100.00 at Bike World. Overall Rating: 5 of 5. Value Rating: 5 of 5. Favorite Ride: Anywhere in the Texas Hill Country. Bike Setup:
Madone 4.5 WSD H3 (Compact)
Madone 4.5 WSD H3 (Compact) Model 14420030413. Retailer prices may vary. Compare. Color / Satin Gunmetal/Trek Black. Select a color. Select size. This product is no longer available online, but it could be in stock at your local Trek shop! Check in-store availability below.
Trek Madone 4.5 Compact review
How does the compact version of Trek's Kammtail carbon aero bike perform? Read our review and find out.
4.5 Trek Madone TCT Carbon Bike
From cruising back roads to enjoying all-day epics to getting your feet wet in the racing circuit, Trek's Madone 4.5 does it all. This full-carbon beauty boasts a stiff, light frame that floats up the climbs. Plus, Bontrager's SSR wheelset cheats the wind, with the perfect gears to spin up the climbs and powerful dual-pivot brakes for ...
Re-Cyclery Bike Shop
TCT carbon fiber frame with 54cm seat tube and matching fork. 20-speed Shimano 105 drivetrain w...". Re-Cyclery Bike Shop | 🔔 SOLD🔔 Trek Madone 4.5 road bike.
Hugo Dewar: The Moscow Trials (March 1962)
The campaign launched for this purpose - which may truly be termed a brain-washing campaign - was on a colossal scale. Its highlights were the three great Moscow trials in August 1936, January 1937 and March 1938, when almost the entire Bolshevik "old guard" was found guilty of organising the murder of Kirov, of wrecking, sabotage ...
Madone 4.5 H2 (Compact)
Madone 4.5 H2 (Compact) Model 14420002112. Retailer prices may vary. Compare. Color / Starry Night Black/Bright Silv. Select a color. Select size. This product is no longer available online, but it could be in stock at your local Trek shop! Check in-store availability below.
Rosatom Starts Life Tests of Third-Generation VVER-440 Nuclear Fuel
16 June, 2020 / 13:00. 10 704. OKB Gidropress research and experiment facility, an enterprise of Rosatom machinery division Atomenergomash, has started life tests of a mock-up of the third-generation nuclear fuel RK3+ for VVER-440 reactors. The work is carried out within the contract between TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom and Czech power company ...
Moskva-5
The Moskva-5 is a 6×6 and 6×9 camera. Since it has a fixed 105mm Industar lens, at 6×6 you have a mild tele at your disposal. To use the 6×6 size, you need to set the viewfinder to the square format. there is a lever to select the right window so you can see the numbering on the film back. The pressure plate does not need to be removed.
Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental
Therefore, carbon sorbents with 5-15% by weight of ash elements in their composition are not used in the above mentioned technologies. However, in such an important field as a gas-mask technique, carbon sorbents (active carbons) are carriers of catalytic additives, providing effective protection of a person against any types of potent poisonous ...
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
TREK MADONE 6.9: Carbon dating and the legacy of yellow. Aug 2010 · R BA. No, not the new 6 Series SSL, but still a (2009) Tour winner. Read Review. Taylor Phinney's Trek Madone: A photo gallery. ... 4 Series TCT Carbon, E2, DuoTrap compatible. Fork: Bontrager Race Lite w/E2 aluminum steerer, carbon legs.
2008 Trek Madone 4.5
A carbon frame aero bike with upper mid-range components and rim brakes. ... Can I get a Trek Madone seatcap with more setback? Read Review. Trek Madone 5.2 and 5.2 Pro. Jan 2009 · Mat Brett. ... TCT Carbon. Fork: Bontrager Race Lite, carbon w/E2 aluminum steerer; SpeedTrap compatible.