Replacement headset for Trek 5900

Mike Jacoubowsk

> OK, but what all that sounds like is that the advantage is a few ounces of weight savings. I mean,
> compared to other forks out there with aluminum steer tubes. I realize from a marketing
> perspective that would be an impossibly foolish thing to do but IMO it would still be a better
> bike that way.

Correct, it's all about sqeezing a few extra ounces out of the frameset, nothing more. I originally
thought it was a really dumb idea, since it meant creating a new world order in which the 5200
customer was no longer buying the exact same frameset as Lance (although, truth be told, they have
Lance riding the standard 5200/5500 frameset as often as possible, for marketing reasons). I thought
this was detract from its sales for that reason. I was wrong. What it did was make the 5200/5500 a
"safe" choice for the person who could now rationalize that he was being responsible and saving
money by getting the more establish, less-expensive model.

Are those few extra ounces important? To Lance they are. In a climbing stage, he wants the frame as
light as he can get it, and still have it reliable. He wants to push the weight limit hard, without
having to resort to stuff that doesn't hold up well. Those five or six ounces saved between the 5500
and 5900 frameset buy improved reliability elsewhere, while maintaining the same overall weight.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReaction.com

"Paul Southworth" <cnhyf-1043038800@usenet.etext.org> wrote in message
news:9Y7X9.30146$A%3.388979@ord-read.news.verio.net...
> In article <67GW9.104$VJ3.47070351@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, Mike Jacoubowsky
> <MikeJ1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> If it causes them such grief to get it right (on a flagship product no less - the one they
> >> should get perfect above all others) why do they stick with that design instead of something
> >> normal like a press-in headset? Does the strange proprietary design give them some amazing
> >> benefit they can't get with a well-understood industry-standard solution? It must be something
> >> really big to warrant tolerating the pain of annoyed dealers and customers.
> >
> >
> >As a matter-of-fact it does give them "some amazing benefit." It allows them to use an aluminum
> >steer column on a fork that weighs just 360 grams (in a size that fits a 60cm bike). Why is that
> >such a big deal? Work in
a
> >bike shop for a while and check all the carbon-fork-column forks that customers have destroyed by
> >either over-tightening or using the wrong
type
> >of star-nut-equivalent. Happens all the time. With the aluminum steer tube, use of a torque
> >wrench isn't required to tighten the stem, and
they're
> >not going to wreck it from the inside-out either. This is a real-life benefit, not something
> >theoretical. To me, it's worth the minor inconvenience. Another benefit is having better support
> >for the fork
crown
> >(less flex, more control) with the wider base there.
> >
> >So yes, the advantage is "something really big."
>
> OK, but what all that sounds like is that the advantage is a few ounces of weight savings. I mean,
> compared to other forks out there with aluminum steer tubes. I realize from a marketing
> perspective that would be an impossibly foolish thing to do but IMO it would still be a better
> bike that way.
>
> --Paul