Test Rode Cervelo Rouvida Road vs Trek Domane+ AL 5 Today. My Analysis

[Recycled Cycler]

I am in market for an electric road bike to help me keep pace with my 90 pound demon-cyclist-uber-fit sister, who is also 6 years younger than me. Well, maybe I'm exaggerating her capabilities, but I'm 70 she's 64 and she has been able to ride 2,000 miles a year the last few years. Plus I had a severe back issue come up late last year that damaged nerves to my legs.

I hope this analysis and my thoughts and observations are of help to others who are also considering buying an electric road bike.

I want a road bike. Not a funky weird looking thing. A bike that looks like a bike made for the road. I found several brands: Scott, Orbea, BMC, Cervelo, and Trek. I think Specialized and Cannondale also have such models, but I did not fully investigate them yet.

Today I rode and tested both a Cervelo Rouvida Road and a Trek Domane+ AL 5 today. Here is what I found.

Cervelo uses a mid motor Fazua Ride 60 with 60Nm torque and 450 watts max power and a 430Wh battery. It is a carbon frame with SRAM Rival AXS group along with hydraulic disc brakes. That means an electric shifting system. This was an excellent bike. The assist kicks in after barely turning the cranks. It has 3 assist levels that are easy to see on the top tube display and easy to switch up and down with buttons on the bars. The first level itself is quite a big boost on the flats and tiny rolling uphills. The 2nd level is a bigger boost, and the 3rd and highest level made me feel like Eddy Merckx (I'm dating myself lol). The ride on the carbon frame was smooth, as a carbon frame should be. The shifting was instantaneous.

The Trek Domane+ AL 5 is an aluminum frame with carbon fork. It is 31 libs, and weighs several pounds more than the Cervelo. It uses a rear hub motor, and the group is the familiar mechanical (that means cables) Shimano 105 group, along with hydraulic disc brakes. It also has 3 assist levels that are easy to see on top tube and easy to switch via buttons on the bars. The motor can put out 250W of power and 40Nm of torque. You can feel the difference between this motor and the more powerful Cervelo motor when riding. The lowest assist level was there but not all that noticeable on the Trek; I noticed when I quit pedaling, but to me it just felt like a light sub-20 pound road bike without a motor and an average BB when I turned the Trek motor on lowest assist. There was significantly more drag on the Trek when motor was off. I really had to turn it up to the 2nd assist level to get much benefit.

I suspect I could ride the flats and get several MPH gain on the Cervelo at the low assist level. The 2nd and 3rd assist levels made me feel like I was 30 years old again. With the Trek, I think I'd always be in at least the 2nd level of assist.

When I got home from testing, I went out on my Indy Fab Crown Jewel for a little 10 mile ride with one short moderate hill. As I rode I was thinking about the two motorized bikes and what assist level I'd be in. The Trek would seldom be in the low level it really didn't do much. The Cervelo I'd be in the low assist level for 9.5 miles of the ride, and only need to use the 2nd level on that one short moderate grade hill. I suspect I'd ride the Trek on level 2 most of the time. And it's not my weight - I only weigh 175.

It would be fun to turn both bikes up to the highest assist level on a real hill indeed any true hill. They both would give you a boost for sure.

Geometry of both bikes is surprising to me. I rode a Medium Cervelo, and a 56cm size Trek. I thought the Trek 56 would be a bit too big for me, but it was quite comfortable. The Cervelo M is a bit smaller but still felt about right. The standover height is 30.2. The 56 Trek is 1 inch taller. Not sure if it's anything else with the geometry, but I did not notice that 1" difference, and 1" is pretty significant. Reach on both bikes was the same, which is most likely why I didn't notice the Cervelo being any smaller than the Trek. That does seem odd; the Trek TT has a 1/2 inch longer TT. They both have virtually the same seat tube angle. One thing I did like more on the Trek than the Cervelo was chainstay length: the Trek is 1/2" longer. Interestingly, they are both longer than my pride and joy Indy Fab Steel Crown Jewel that has been my bike for several years.

The Cervelo seems to me to be better engineered. On thing that bugged me about the Trek are how cables are internalyl routed; the go through tiny little holes on the downtube. There is no rubber grommet in the holes to keep water out and to keep the thin aluminum from eventually cutting the cables. The Cervelo cables are neatly routed through the headset.

Will I buy one of these? Well, that was purpose of my test rides. The Cervelo is $5,000. The Trek is $3,400. The price difference sure has me thinking. Is the Cervelo worth $1,600 more? Maybe. It's quite a bike, and the motor is vastly superior in actual performance to the Trek. I don't mind the mechanical 105 group on the Trek - heck I grew up working with cables and mechanical derailleurs.

Now that I know what 60Nm torque and 450 watts max power feels like on the road, I'm gonna look more closely at some other brands and compare the motors based on those specs. An alternative that looks very interesting is the Scott Addict with Mahle X20 Motor Hub Drive motor: 250W with a torque output of 55 Nm. Almost same amount of torque as Cervelo, and torque is what gets us up hills. And it's a carbon frame weighing what the Cervelo weighs but can now be purchased for $2,999. Same shifters and such as Cervelo, too. I'm gonna try and find some place within 100 miles to test.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

The major difference between the Cervelo and the Trek is the mid-drive motor on the Cervelo, which is the game changer. A mid-drive motor is appropriate for long and steep climbs. It also explains the price difference between these two e-bikes. (Trek uses a Chinese Hyena hub-drive motor on the AL model).

Trek Domane+ SLR 6 Pro comes with a highly respected TQ HPR 50 mid-drive motor. Have you looked at it?

Don't believe Mahle x20 can output 55 Nm. It is a marketing lie. Generally, avoid hub drive motors on a road e-bike; these are not climbers, and are only used because of their lower weight.
Please never look at the torque spec: it is meaningless. The only parameter that matters is the peak motor power.

FYI, Specialized currently does not make a road e-bike. Creo 2 is a gravel e-bike.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

@Calcoaster, would you chime in?

 

[stompandgo]

Some others to look at:
Cannondale Synapse Neo 2
Specialized Turbo Creo 2 Comp
Orbea Denna
Pinarello Nytro E7

That Independent is a sweet bike. They always have been. Was it built custom, or do you live in the area?

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Specialized Turbo Creo 2 Comp

Cannondale Synapse Neo 2

Orbea Denna

Gravel e-bikes. Definitely not road racing ones

Pinarello Nytro E7

Yes. A road e-bike.

 

[stompandgo]

Gravel bikes? The Denna, yes. The Creo, maybe. The Synapse, no. The analog Synapse is a comfort road bike that can be raced, but every racer I know that started on one ended up on a bike with real racing geometry.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Gravel bikes? The Denna, yes. The Creo, maybe. The Synapse, no. The analog Synapse is a comfort road bike that can be raced, but every racer I know that started on one ended up on a bike with real racing geometry.

Let me disagree with you.
Synapse Neo Allroad 2 is equipped with:

• GRX groupset
• Flared handlebars
• 40 mm tyres

Did you mean another Synapse Neo 2 model?

Specialized Creo 2 is defo a gravel e-bike, from the 55 mm tyre clearance through gravel groupset through flared handlebars through gravel-sized hubs through a dropper seat-post to multiple bosses for the equipment.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

P.S. Many big e-bike manufacturers realised the road e-bikes did't sell well in the principal market, which is the EU. At the same time, people want gravel bikes, and the EU 25 km/h restriction is not that restricting off paved roads. Who has remained? The manufacturers whose main business is the road bike: BMC, Pinarello, Cervelo...

 

[RidgeRunner500]

Please never look at the torque spec: it is meaningless. The only parameter that matters is the peak motor power..

Why is that?

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Why is that?

The power is the product of the torque and rotational speed (in radian per second). If the rotational speed is unknown, then the torque is of no meaning. That's why Mahle can give any torque figure because no reference rotational speed is mentioned. If the peak power is given, it will be the same power available as long as you are pedalling at a reasonably high cadence (the torque will vary with the cadence: mid-drive motor or with the e-bike speed: hub-drive motor).

When you buy a car, do you look at the engine power or at the torque?

 

[stompandgo]

Let me disagree with you.
Synapse Neo Allroad 2 is equipped with:

• GRX groupset
• Flared handlebars
• 40 mm tyres

Did you mean another Synapse Neo 2 model?

Specialized Creo 2 is defo a gravel e-bike, from the 55 mm tyre clearance through gravel groupset through flared handlebars through gravel-sized hubs through a dropper seat-post to multiple bosses for the equipment.

You can disagree with me all you want. It's all marketing and perception, anyways.

The Synapse Neo Allroad 2 is one of the very few e-bikes with a front derailleur. That alone makes it a road bike, IMO.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

The Synapse Neo Allroad 2 is one of the very few e-bikes with a front derailleur. That alone makes it a road bike, IMO.

With the gravel groupset, flared handlebars and 40 mm tyres? FYI: many gravel bikes come with the front derailleur.

 

[dodgeman]

I had to look up the Trek you test road. The way I view it that it’s a road bike with a little bit of assist. It doesn’t have a powerful motor or a very big battery. I also know it has the “look“ you’re after. You might think outside the box and go for a bike that has more power and a bigger battery but doesn’t look like a traditional road bike. It won’t have the look your after but from a practical point of view you might enjoy it more. I know I look like a dorky old but riding my Trek Verve step through but that kinda what I am.

 

[RidgeRunner500]

The power is the product of the torque and rotational speed (in radian per second). If the rotational speed is unknown, then the torque is of no meaning. That's why Mahle can give any torque figure because no reference rotational speed is mentioned. If the peak power is given, it will be the same power available as long as you are pedalling at a reasonably high cadence (the torque will vary with the cadence: mid-drive motor or with the e-bike speed: hub-drive motor).

Peak horsepower has been widely and wildly exaggerated in markets like Shop Vacuums where you can buy a 6 HP vac that plugs into a 15 amp, 120 V circuit.

When you buy a car, do you look at the engine power or at the torque?

Both, tbh.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

When you buy a car, do you look at the engine power or at the torque?

Torque WAY above horsepower — especially the low-end torque. Low-end torque makes a car responsive, and I can enjoy it almost anywhere — even around town — and still drIve responsibly.

But horsepower goes mainly to top speed, and there are very few safe places to enjoy that now that almost any car can top 120 mph.

Agree, power and torque figures in ebikes should come with the associated shaft speeds — e.g., cadence in mid-drives and drive wheel or ground speed in hub-drives. Problem is, ebike controllers make for complicated power and torque vs. shaft speed curves, and it's hard to pick good reference points that would be meaningful to buyers.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Problem is, ebike controllers make for complicated power and torque vs. shaft speed curves, and it's hard to pick good reference points that would be meaningful to buyers.

Honest (or, almost honest) companies using mid-drive motors use 60 rpm (6.28 rad/s) together with the motor peak power to determine the motor torque.

Then, the marketing department manipulates the torque figures to make them look good on paper.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Honest (or, almost honest) companies using mid-drive motors use 60 rpm (6.28 rad/s) together with the motor peak power to determine the motor torque.

Then, the marketing department manipulates the torque figures to make them look good on paper.

Interesting. Why 60 rpm, and taken where? At the crank? Not very helpful if peak power doesn't actually come at 60 rpm.

 

[Recycled Cycler]

Why is that?

I read the opposite on most posts from experts. Watts mean nothing they can be fudged. Torque is what you should rely on.

 

[Recycled Cycler]

I stewed over these bikes all day yesterday until I went to bed, then woke up Googling and studying their geometries again. I just could not talk myself into the Medium Cervelo. Even though Reach was about same as Trek, the Stack is way shorter. Which is why, when I got on the Trek, it felt so much more like a good fit for me.

The Scott Addict eRide 30 was a contender, but none in town to test ride, and they have hub motors. Better specs on motor than the Trek, but not quite up to the Fazua Ride 60. And as much $money$ as these cost, I just wasn't willing to take a flyer.

So, I called the only other Cervelo shop in town (luckily we have 2 such shops). They had a Cervelo Rouvida Road model in size 56. I rode it and bought it.

Tonight I spent the evening figuring out how to charge the motor and the SRAM system, which is actually pretty easy. I like how the Cervelo motor is a magnetic connection to bike just like the magnetic charger on my Apple computer.

FYI here are the different geometries I compiled for my Indy Fab, Cervelo, Trek, and Scott.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Interesting. Why 60 rpm, and taken where? At the crank? Not very helpful if peak power doesn't actually come at 60 rpm.

Jeremy, let me explain it in more detail.

Any mid-drive motor manufacturer knows the peak mechanical power of their motor. Now, the manufacturers are unwilling to share the actual motor power to avoid investigation from the European Union as you know the nominal motor power limit is 250 W there. The figure of torque is used for the marketing purposes instead.

60 rpm is 1 Hz (1 revolution per second) and it is the reference value to calculate the torque figure for marketing. It does not mean the peak power occurs at 1/s frequency or 6.28 rad/s. It is just a reference value.

SL 1.1: Maximum mechanical power: 240 W. 240 W/6.28 = 38 Nm. Torque specified by marketing: 35 Nm.
SL 1.2: Max power: 320 W. 320/6.28 = 50.9 Nm. Specified torque: 50 Nm.
2.0E: Max P: 430 W. 430/6.28 = 68 Nm. Specified torque: 50 Nm
2.0: Max P: 470 W. 470/6.28 = 74.5 Nm. Specified torque: 70 Nm
2.2: Max P: 560 W. 560/6.28 = 89.2 Nm. Specified torque: 90 Nm
1.2.s: Max P: 520 W. 520/6.28 = 82.8 Nm. Specified: 85 Nm.

I once checked it for Yamaha motors, DJI and Specialized/S-Works versions of the 3.1.

Example motor specs

Have you noticed how nicely it looks in the marketing material? 50, 70, 85, 90 Nm They can juggle with the torque values as they please. However, you and I know the SL 1.1 motor has the maximum power of 240 W and measurable max electrical power of 303 W, giving the efficiency of 0.792, and it is 38 Nm calculated at the reference rotational speed.