Trek Madone 2008



On Jul 3, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:35 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 8:22 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 6:21 pm, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > > > >> The new frame will work with any pipe-style crank from Campy, SRAM,
> > > > >> Shimano,
> > > > >> TruVativ, FSA and a couple others I forget. The bearings used for all of
> > > > >> those cranks are so similar it was not an issue for Trek to design very
> > > > >> simple kits that include a shaped washer to allow each to fit.
>
> > > > >> What will *not* work are any Octalink, ISIS, or square taper cranks. So
> > > > >> anything that's not current isn't going to work. Very wide compatibility
> > > > >> with current product, but it's not a frame you're going to use your
> > > > >> favorite
> > > > >> old cranks on.
>
> > > > > So, if these "pipe-style" cranks fade out, the frame will
> > > > > be .....er....useless?
>
> > > > I wouldn't try to pretend that a current frame is going to be something
> > > > easily maintainable (as a bike) 15 years down the road.Without question we
> > > > have entered an era where "standards" mean something entirely different than
> > > > in the past, whether we're talking about bikes, cars, A/V gear, whatever.
> > > > This creates concern both real and illusory; the computer world is full of
> > > > stories about people who are scared to trust their photos to DVDs and hard
> > > > drives, not because they're worried either will suffer from deterioration
> > > > and fail, but because they think the day will come when they'll have no
> > > > means to read what's on the device.
>
> > > > If/when that day comes, whether for a bicycle frame or a DVD, it will not
> > > > happen without warning. Opportunities will exist to buy spares before
> > > > technologies go away. Inconvenient at times, to be sure, but if you're
> > > > buying something with an eye towards utility over 15+ years, that's a very
> > > > rare and unusual purchase.
>
> > > > I do still own a couple 30+ year old bicycles. A 1973 Cinelli road bike, and
> > > > a 1974 or thereabouts Benotto track bike. Yes, it's possible to still get
> > > > parts to keep each on the road, but, at least in the case of the Cinelli,
> > > > modern eqiupment far surpasses what that bike has to offer. Track bikes
> > > > haven't changed much over the years, nor likely will they much in the
> > > > future. But even so, I doubt many people buy track bikes thinking that it's
> > > > a once-in-a-lifetime investment. The Cinelli I keep around only for the
> > > > memories. I call it "The Iron Pig", an apt description of its abilities vs
> > > > modern machines.
>
> > > A simple "yes" would have been to the point.
>
> > > Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight (little
> > > enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
> > > which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a threaded
> > > interface that also accepts other BB designs?
>
> > butbutbut, with a conventional BB shell, it would not be like the
> > bikes the professionals ride!!!
>
> You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.

But in 2008, when Discovery is gone, I wonder if Trek will show up in
the peloton at all, in Europe.
 
On Jul 3, 7:56 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight (little
> > enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
> > which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a threaded
> > interface that also accepts other BB designs?
>
> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago. The
> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take your
> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a 5mm
> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This technology will
> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger advantage
> for mountain bikes than for road.
>
> --Mike--
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com

BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
hang any component onto. Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
for DT shifter bosses and clamp on fders. Trek(and others like Cervelo
and Pinarello) can point and talk about the superiority of this and
that, it really means they want you to buy the Bontrager/shimano
equipped complete bicycle, PLEASE ask for no sustitutions. Any more
than the Toyota dealer wants you to ask for Contiental tires.
 
On Jul 4, 7:25 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:56 pm, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > > Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight (little
> > > enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
> > > which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a threaded
> > > interface that also accepts other BB designs?
>
> > Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago. The
> > bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take your
> > crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a 5mm
> > allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This technology will
> > likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger advantage
> > for mountain bikes than for road.
>
> BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
> decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
> something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
> hang any component onto.

Agreed. This standardization should extend to seat post sizes,
handlebar diameters, etc. And someone should lock the head people at
Campagnolo and Shimano together in a room and not let them out until
they agree to produce compatible gearing systems.

> Why when we order Waterfords, we still ask
> for DT shifter bosses and clamp on f[ront] der[ailer]s.

Cheeseheads are accommodating. :)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:22:38 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight (little
>enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
>which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a threaded
>interface that also accepts other BB designs?

It's a racing bike, not designed for you.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:41 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.

What is it that causes you to have such an obsession with "wannabes"?
Were you one? Or were you a "nevercould" or something?

Please, show us a picture of you and your bike.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:56:14 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight (little
>> enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
>> which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a threaded
>> interface that also accepts other BB designs?
>
>Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago. The
>bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take your
>crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a 5mm
>allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This technology will
>likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger advantage
>for mountain bikes than for road.
Mike, that doesn't fit the meme of newer stuff only existing to serve
racer wannabe egos. So what you said is probably not true ;-)
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:25:58 -0000, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> BUT I have always been chagrined about a frame maker that takes
> decisions away from the consumer. As long as a bicycle frame is
> something you hang components onto, it should be something that I can
> hang any component onto.

If all frames manufactured had to be compatible with the largest possible
subset of existing component standards, how could significant
improvements in these standards ever occur?

As long as there are plenty of frame makers supporting backward
compatibility, I don't see why you resent a very few of them offering
frames which don't, and possibly creating improved standards in time
if they catch on. There are people who'll spend a lot of money
to have the newest toy and/or trim a bit of weight, but they're not
impinging on your ability to buy something more traditional and keep
using older components on it. More likely, the silly money they spend
keeps older, less profitable lines afloat.
 
"Michael Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There are people who'll spend a lot of money
> to have the newest toy and/or trim a bit of weight, but they're not
> impinging on your ability to buy something more traditional and keep
> using older components on it.

Maybe, but try to find these once popular items that I want on my commuter
bike:
a. kickstand
b. fenders
c. chainguard
d. road brakes that fit anything larger than racing tires with levers
that work on drop handlebars

Sure you can find these items and I did, but its not easy. In the United
States, an after market chainguard is almost impossible to get.

These items are disappearing because bike manufacturers are supplying and
consumers seem to want (or these are being lead by marketers) only super
light racing machines, the vast majority of which never get raced or raced
only rarely in low level competition where saving 42 gm on whatever makes no
difference.

How many people that are going to buy the new Madone actually are troubled
by bottom bracket flex such as the chainring rubbing the derailleur on their
current bike? What percentage will notice any objective benefit from the
new ("everything else is history") oversized bottom bracket system on the
new Madone?

BobT
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> Once you play with one, you'll wonder why it wasn't done years ago.

Ummm... it was. It still is, and not in a bike-specific or brand-
specific way.

> The
> bearings literally drop in. No force. No special tools needed. Take your
> crankset out of the bike, replace the bearings, reinstall with only a 5mm
> allen tool (for a Shimano crank). 5 minutes, seriously. This technology will
> likely migrate downward and laterally; I see it as an even bigger advantage
> for mountain bikes than for road.

American cups usually have to be smacked or pressed into the BB shell,
but I've had plenty of sealed bearing American carriers whose bearings
were slip-fitted to their cups. I've had others whose cartridges were
tapered inside and out so that they never got stuck in their bores.

The only thing wrong with Trek's approach (and it's a big mistake IMO)
is that it doesn't use an existing standard. That puts it at risk of
eventually being like the Merlin and Klein sealed bearing shells--
orphaned and difficult to support with spare parts, a big liability to
the brand's long-term reputation in exchange for a fleeting marketing
advantage to a small portion of the market.

I understand that using the American shell might have added 3 oz. or
so to a frame whose marketability rests largely on its weight. But as
much as I believe that a threaded shell is unnecessary and dumb, I
think it's even dumber to use a shell standard that isn't common to
any other manufacturer. So if durability and serviceability were the
key criteria, I think Trek should have used the American shell, and if
low weight were the main criterion, I think they should have used a
threaded shell.

The world needs more new BB standards like it needs more reanimated
archaic wheel sizes to deal with.

Chalo
 
On Jul 4, 8:17 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:41 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> >You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.
>
> What is it that causes you to have such an obsession with "wannabes"?
> Were you one? Or were you a "nevercould" or something?
>
> Please, show us a picture of you and your bike.

There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
any use but racing or training for racing.

Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).

Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 8:35 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 8:22 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
>>>> On Jul 3, 6:21 pm, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>>>> The new frame will work with any pipe-style crank from Campy, SRAM,
>>>>>>> Shimano,
>>>>>>> TruVativ, FSA and a couple others I forget. The bearings used for all of
>>>>>>> those cranks are so similar it was not an issue for Trek to design very
>>>>>>> simple kits that include a shaped washer to allow each to fit.
>>>>>>> What will *not* work are any Octalink, ISIS, or square taper cranks. So
>>>>>>> anything that's not current isn't going to work. Very wide compatibility
>>>>>>> with current product, but it's not a frame you're going to use your
>>>>>>> favorite
>>>>>>> old cranks on.
>>>>>> So, if these "pipe-style" cranks fade out, the frame will
>>>>>> be .....er....useless?
>>>>> I wouldn't try to pretend that a current frame is going to be something
>>>>> easily maintainable (as a bike) 15 years down the road.Without question we
>>>>> have entered an era where "standards" mean something entirely different than
>>>>> in the past, whether we're talking about bikes, cars, A/V gear, whatever.
>>>>> This creates concern both real and illusory; the computer world is full of
>>>>> stories about people who are scared to trust their photos to DVDs and hard
>>>>> drives, not because they're worried either will suffer from deterioration
>>>>> and fail, but because they think the day will come when they'll have no
>>>>> means to read what's on the device.
>>>>> If/when that day comes, whether for a bicycle frame or a DVD, it will not
>>>>> happen without warning. Opportunities will exist to buy spares before
>>>>> technologies go away. Inconvenient at times, to be sure, but if you're
>>>>> buying something with an eye towards utility over 15+ years, that's a very
>>>>> rare and unusual purchase.
>>>>> I do still own a couple 30+ year old bicycles. A 1973 Cinelli road bike, and
>>>>> a 1974 or thereabouts Benotto track bike. Yes, it's possible to still get
>>>>> parts to keep each on the road, but, at least in the case of the Cinelli,
>>>>> modern eqiupment far surpasses what that bike has to offer. Track bikes
>>>>> haven't changed much over the years, nor likely will they much in the
>>>>> future. But even so, I doubt many people buy track bikes thinking that it's
>>>>> a once-in-a-lifetime investment. The Cinelli I keep around only for the
>>>>> memories. I call it "The Iron Pig", an apt description of its abilities vs
>>>>> modern machines.
>>>> A simple "yes" would have been to the point.
>>>> Geez, what is the advantage, aside from saving a little weight (little
>>>> enough so as not to be an actual issue to a recreational cyclist,
>>>> which is where most of these will be sold), of eliminating a threaded
>>>> interface that also accepts other BB designs?
>>> butbutbut, with a conventional BB shell, it would not be like the
>>> bikes the professionals ride!!!
>> You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.
>
> But in 2008, when Discovery is gone, I wonder if Trek will show up in
> the peloton at all, in Europe.

Hard to imagine Trek won't find a team to sponsor, they have enough
bucks to throw around.[1] Or is your point that Trek won't bother if
there isn't a team with Disco-like visibility in the US?

[1] I know, not /that/ many bucks, but still.

Mark J.
 
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:07:11 -0500, BobT wrote:

Maybe, but try to find these once popular items that I want on my commuter
bike:
a. kickstand
b. fenders
c. chainguard
d. road brakes that fit anything larger than racing tires with levers
that work on drop handlebars

> These items are disappearing because bike manufacturers are supplying and
> consumers seem to want (or these are being lead by marketers) only super
> light racing machines, the vast majority of which never get raced or raced
> only rarely in low level competition where saving 42 gm on whatever makes no
> difference.

Sorry, I don't agree that this is the reason. The number of people willing
to spend thousands on light racing bikes is really quite small, and I don't
see how their purchases could affect the availability of other items if
there were still a large enough market for them.

My impression is that cheap mountain bikes have replaced heavy,
sturdy road bikes as the chariot of choice for the great majority of
commuters and recreational riders. I think it's this far larger group whose
preferences have caused the market for the accessories you want to
pretty much disappear, not the weight weenies.
 
"Michael Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:07:11 -0500, BobT wrote:
>
> Maybe, but try to find these once popular items that I want on my commuter
> bike:
> a. kickstand
> b. fenders
> c. chainguard
> d. road brakes that fit anything larger than racing tires with levers
> that work on drop handlebars
>
>> These items are disappearing because bike manufacturers are supplying and
>> consumers seem to want (or these are being lead by marketers) only super
>> light racing machines, the vast majority of which never get raced or
>> raced
>> only rarely in low level competition where saving 42 gm on whatever makes
>> no
>> difference.
>
> Sorry, I don't agree that this is the reason. The number of people willing
> to spend thousands on light racing bikes is really quite small, and I
> don't
> see how their purchases could affect the availability of other items if
> there were still a large enough market for them.
>
> My impression is that cheap mountain bikes have replaced heavy,
> sturdy road bikes as the chariot of choice for the great majority of
> commuters and recreational riders. I think it's this far larger group
> whose
> preferences have caused the market for the accessories you want to
> pretty much disappear, not the weight weenies.

I don't think we disagree all that much.

I agree the market for the $6000US racing machines is limited, but $1100US
road bikes try to emulate the high end.

Full suspension, disc brake, knobby tired mountain bikes are purchased by
thousands to ride around the neighborhood on pavement.

When I visit most bike shops, I see them filled with bikes most suited to
either full out road racing or jumping rocks on singletrack and careening
down a ski run. This seems true whether you want to spend $700US or
$7000US. Practical (in my view) bikes for recreation/fitness/transportation
are scarce and mostly relegated to cheap, poorly equipped "comfort" bikes.

Of course bike shops stock what sells so perhaps I'm the one who is out of
step, yet I wonder whether the bike consumer was really crying out for
Shimano to "upgrade" to 9 speed from 8 speed and then 9 speed to 10 speed?
Were many mountain bike riders having lots of problems with cantilever rim
brakes and demanding disc brakes or were we all led there by the bike
manufacturers / marketers?

BobT
 
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:18:16 -0500, "BobT"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>When I visit most bike shops, I see them filled with bikes most suited to
>either full out road racing or jumping rocks on singletrack and careening
>down a ski run. This seems true whether you want to spend $700US or
>$7000US. Practical (in my view) bikes for recreation/fitness/transportation
>are scarce and mostly relegated to cheap, poorly equipped "comfort" bikes.

Maybe it's the shops you're visiting. The one closest to my house
sells simple hybrid and mountain-appearing bikes with front
suspensions. For riding in comfort on roads.

The next one in distance has racing bikes and touring/cross bikes,
plus mountain bikes and hybrids. A little further is one that's all
racing bikes plus some kids bikes.

Lots of stuff out there.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Jul 4, 1:25 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:17 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:41 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> > >You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.
>
> > What is it that causes you to have such an obsession with "wannabes"?
> > Were you one? Or were you a "nevercould" or something?
>
> > Please, show us a picture of you and your bike.
>
> There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
> it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
> any use but racing or training for racing.
>
> Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
> when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
> wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
> fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
> useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
> 99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).
>
> Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
> how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
> and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?
>
> --

You just described the Trek Pilot 1.0.

http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1402000&f=4
 
On Jul 4, 5:09 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> wrote:

> So no Zipp cranks, no Campagnolo triples, no way to use my 2006 Record
> carbon CT crank. Not 'old' cranks at all. I would think that Trek
> would have learned from Klein, Merlin, Gary Fisher about unique BB
> shells.
>


At least an old PX10 can be retapped as Italian....
 
> On Jul 4, 5:09 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So no Zipp cranks, no Campagnolo triples, no way to use my 2006 Record
>> carbon CT crank. Not 'old' cranks at all. I would think that Trek
>> would have learned from Klein, Merlin, Gary Fisher about unique BB
>> shells.

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> At least an old PX10 can be retapped as Italian....

or even filled/tapped to BSC:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/forkthrd.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Jul 4, 8:30 pm, Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Jul 4, 1:25 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 8:17 am, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:49:41 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" wrote:
> > > >You're right! That's very important to the members of Team Wannabe.
>
> > > What is it that causes you to have such an obsession with "wannabes"?
> > > Were you one? Or were you a "nevercould" or something?
>
> > > Please, show us a picture of you and your bike.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
> > it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
> > any use but racing or training for racing.
>
> > Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
> > when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
> > wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
> > fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
> > useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
> > 99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).
>
> > Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
> > how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
> > and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?
>
> > --
>
> You just described the Trek Pilot 1.0.
>
> http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1402000&f=4

Replace the carbon fiber composite fork and seat post with steel and
aluminium alloy, the brifters with bar-ends and make the top tube
horizontal and Trek would have it about right.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On 2007-07-05, BobT <[email protected]> wrote:

> When I visit most bike shops, I see them filled with bikes most suited to
> either full out road racing or jumping rocks on singletrack and careening
> down a ski run. This seems true whether you want to spend $700US or
> $7000US. Practical (in my view) bikes for recreation/fitness/transportation
> are scarce and mostly relegated to cheap, poorly equipped "comfort" bikes.

They exist, they're just not carried in or emphasized by a lot of shops.
Most of the major US brands offer a line of lightweight bikes with flat
bars, road tires, and the ability to carry rack and fenders covering a
wide price range. If drop bars are your thing, bikes that are practical
and comfortable but still reasonably sporty are available from companies
like Trek, Specialized, Fuji, and Raleigh. You just can't get them at
Wal-Mart, and you'll probably end up with something less appropriate if
you listen to fashion-driven advice from sources like Bicycling magazine
or rec.bicycles.tech.


> Of course bike shops stock what sells so perhaps I'm the one who is out of
> step, yet I wonder whether the bike consumer was really crying out for
> Shimano to "upgrade" to 9 speed from 8 speed and then 9 speed to 10 speed?
> Were many mountain bike riders having lots of problems with cantilever rim
> brakes and demanding disc brakes or were we all led there by the bike
> manufacturers / marketers?

Maybe people weren't "crying out" for those things, but they do offer
real benefits that make the new stuff an easy sell and the old stuff a
hard sell. Last year I went from cantis to V brakes to discs on my
mountain bike. I switched to V brakes because I was damned if I was
going to adjust those horrible late 90s Shimano cantis one more time. I
switched to discs because they came on a new bike. Each time I was happy
because the new stuff stopped noticeably better and was easier to
maintain.

Likewise with drivetrains. Each incremental change may bring small
benefits, but it adds up. When I replaced my road bike last year I went
from 6 to 9 speeds. That let me run 12-30 with reasonably close spacing
instead of 14-25. Likewise, going from a 7 speed mountain bike to 9
speed let me go from 14-32 to 11-34. That's a big deal. It doesn't hurt
at all that the 9 speed stuff is much easier to adjust than 6 or 7 speed.

Yes, some of the older stuff that the retro-grouches tout here is
simpler, more durable, or more widely compatible than newer replacements.
That's worth considering, but those arguments will usually lose out to
"it works better". And an awful lot of the newer gear does work better.
 
> There is nothing wrong with bicycle racing and racing bikes. However,
> it is silly to believe that a racing bicycle is the best choice for
> any use but racing or training for racing.
>
> Unfortunately, due to marketing and hype, people want racing bicycles,
> when they would be better off on a road bicycle with a slightly longer
> wheelbase, clearance for reasonable tires (e.g. 28-mm width and
> fenders) and slightly higher handlebars (so the drops are more
> useable). A less finicky 8-speed drivetrain is plenty of ratios for
> 99% of non-racers (especially when combined with a triple crank).

A bit longer wheelbase? Trek still uses 412mm chainstays, a good
half-centimeter longer than many, a full centimeter longer than some (and
good grief, there are even some running 395mm for reasons unfathomable).

28mm tires? You can fit those to the '08 Madone, or any of the Pilot series,
which include carbon fiber as well as aluminum frames. Fenders? You can run
fenders on an '08 Madone with a 25, but not a 28c tire. For any of the
Pilots, you can run fenders plus 28c, maybe even 32c.

Higher bars? Again, the '08 Madone offers this (in the "Performance" frame,
which is 30mm higher at the front end than the otherwise-identical "Pro"
version). And, again, any of the Pilot series.

Less finicky 8-speed drivetrain? Whom are you kidding? Have you worked in a
shop? Shimano has made substantial improvements over the years to shifting,
and newer 9-speed levers are much superior to anything they did with 8.
Perfect? No. But there is nothing to recommend an 8-speed drivetrain over 9,
in terms of either durability or ease of shifting or setup. I won't argue
that 24 speeds isn't enough. But the less finicky part about 8-speed STI
drivetrains simply isn't true.

> Yet, go into an LBS. How many road bikes like this will you find (and
> how many shop employees that understand why such bikes are desirable
> and better than racing bicycles for non racing use)?

Guess it depends which shop you go into.

Having said all that, I think you overstate the disadvantages to a "racing"
bike. Beyond the ability to winterize one, a "racing" bike can provide a
fun, reliable, stable and efficient platform for perhaps the majority of
cyclists. Even credit-card touring is something that can be done on a
"racing" bike. And the way most people ride... fair-weather cyclists,
carrying nothing with them that won't fit in a jersey pocket or small seat
pack... unless they're planning to ride on nasty roads, what's the big deal?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
2010 Trek 2.1 vs 2008 Trek Madone
Replies
1
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
teamhonda15
T
Markdg991
2008 Trek Madone 5.2 Pro
Replies
1
Views
4K
Cycling Equipment
JTE83
JTE83
B
Trek Madone 2008 testride
Replies
2
Views
332
Cycling Equipment
Bill Sornson
B
O
Trek Madone 4.6
Replies
30
Views
14K
Cycling Equipment
oldbobcat
oldbobcat
L
Headset Lower Bearing for a Trek Madone 6.9 2010
Replies
2
Views
3K
Cycling Equipment
531Aussie
531Aussie
Top Bottom Back