Trek Madone 2008

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> 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.

I think you've answered your own question. Trek isn't producing the new
bikes for the very tiny subset of the market that wants to mix & match
without limitation. That's a legit market, but nothing Trek does with the
new Madone is going to threaten your ability to find framesets to serve that
market.

At least, since this is coming from Trek, one doesn't have to be concerned
that five years down the road buyers will be hosed if the platform is yanked
or Trek were to go out of business. As long as Trek is in business, they
support whatever product they've made in the past, sometimes to
extraordinary ends. If they were to go out of business, the sheer volume of
product out there would make it very likely someone would step up to the
plate to provide parts for customers.

But seriously, your comment about buying a Toyota with Continental tires
pretty much nails it. The main difference would be that many LBSs would go
to some effort to try and accomodate a customer's request, if possible. But
Trek themselves? They're on record stating that they intend to support all
popular pipe-style cranks, including those not offered as an option on a
stock bike. But they're not going to go out of their way to encourage the
sort of thing that you (or sometimes I) do with mixing & matching a complete
custom bike from the brand of spokes on up.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Jul 4, 7:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>

Why make the TT horizontal? The point of the upsloping top tube is to
get the bars higher.

I mean, all of my drop-bar bikes have horizontal TTs, but the one with
a threaded steerer has a Technomic stem, and the threadless ones have
uncut steerers and big stacks of spacers. Compact geometry allows you
to have high bars and lots of standover height. That's a good,
utilitarian thing.

Why don't you like it? Because you think it's ugly? Then you're as
much of a poseur as the overweight Microsoft Millionaires on $6000
Madones.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> 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.

"Standards" can be argued and argued and argued... and then argued some
more... and never get anywhere, because each entity has it in their head
that *their* idea is the right one, no-one else's, and nobody will
compromise.

The pipe-style bottom brackets presented Trek with a unique opportunity,
because for reasons unfathomable, there was a possibly-coincidental
convergence on a single approach. Trek took that ball and ran with it. And
because it's Trek running with that ball, Trek being the 10,000 pound
gorilla, it becomes a de-facto standard. Trek's market power & influence is
rarely questioned... this is one of those times where many people will agree
that it is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Not everyone, obviously.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Jul 4, 6:47 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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
>
>

I'll keep that in mind in case my Phil Wood BB with French rings ever
dies

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> 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 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.

Absolutely correct about what you can't do with the new bottom bracket
design. What's not correct is comparing it to prior designs from Klein,
Merlin & Gary Fisher, none of who had the market force to create a long-term
standard. But even those Klein & Gary Fisher designs didn't create orphaned
bikes. Phil manufactures bottom bracket spindles that will work in them, and
the bearings are readily available.

This really comes down to what you expect out of your frame purchase. 30
years ago, 20 years ago maybe, it might have been reasonable to believe that
your frame would be compatible with whatever components were current, no
matter how long you owned it. Those days are gone. Is it progress (newer
designs with advantages not possible if we held to the old standards) or
something cruel & nasty because the bicycle frame itself will no longer be
considered something eternal? That's really what it all boils down to.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 3, 11:13 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > Ok. So for a middle range pro fit with ultegra sl components, what
>> >> > could be a price we can look at? When do you think Trek dealers
>> >> > could
>> >> > begin to have the new Madones in store?
>> >> > -Ron
>>
>> >> New Madone 5.2 & 5.5s in compact crank model are presently shipping,
>> >> although no 60 or 62cm yet to the best of my knowledge. Triple 5.2s
>> >> are
>> >> supposed to be shipping sometime soon.
>>
>> >> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>> >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>> > Ok Mike, since I can't get an answer from Lennard(he's in ITALY...poor
>> > guy)_...so I want a Madone with Record, new UT crank..does Trek supply
>> > the bearings or what? Same for shimano DA crank...Trek supplied BB
>> > bearings?? How does that work? I saw the shimano carbon crank(never
>> > say never) and it doesn't have 'cups' in the frame..what gives ohhh
>> > Trekguru??
>>
>> Well gosh, if you read our website, you'd know the answer. Or not, I
>> might
>> not have included that info, but it's in the Trek link.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jul 4, 9:49 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snipped for brevity and clarity>

>
> > 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).

<snip>
>

> 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.

That *only* applies to STI shifters, not DTs or barends, and almost
solely to the front shifting. (IMO, indexed front shifting is a
gimmick and a bad idea. Yes, it's better than it was, but friction
front shifting still beats the a** off it every time.)


> 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.

But there are the advantages of less expensive chains and cassettes.


>I won't argue that 24 speeds isn't enough.

Praise the lord!!!

<remainder snipped>

 

[Steve Gravrock]

On 2007-07-05, Hank Wirtz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 7:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 8:30 pm, Hank Wirtz wrote:

>> > 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.
>>
>
> Why make the TT horizontal? The point of the upsloping top tube is to
> get the bars higher.

There are some folks on RBT who argue that sloping top tubes are an
attempt by manufacturers to save money by putting people on smaller
frames than normal and thus carry fewer sizes. The fact that Trek and
its competitors obviously aren't doing that with bikes like the Pilot
doesn't carry much weight.

In a doubtless futile attempt to put a stop to that argument before it
begins, I'll post a picture of my Pilot and a version that I edited to
have a level top tube:

<http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg>
<http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-level-top-tube.jpg>

Note the long head tube extension required to get the same handlebar
height with a level top tube.

> I mean, all of my drop-bar bikes have horizontal TTs, but the one with
> a threaded steerer has a Technomic stem, and the threadless ones have
> uncut steerers and big stacks of spacers. Compact geometry allows you
> to have high bars and lots of standover height. That's a good,
> utilitarian thing.
>
> Why don't you like it? Because you think it's ugly? Then you're as
> much of a poseur as the overweight Microsoft Millionaires on $6000
> Madones.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will deride others for
buying a bike on the basis of fashion rather than practicality, then
turn around and insist that function take a back seat to form.

Besides, sloping and level top tubes look the same from the cockpit.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

http://canadiantire.ca/browse/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT<>prd_id=8455
24443291317&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474396673781&bmUID=1183613988276

There you go! And look at that top tube. It's flat as the Platte!

Also, the flyer that came to my house says this bike is currently for
sale for C$200.

But seriously folks, I see a lot of people arguing in this thread that
the Trek Madone, explicitly designed and built as an all-out racing
bike, wouldn't make a good touring bike or commuter.

For heaven's sake, people! I don't even have a Trek catalog in front of
me, and I can still say Pilot, Portland, XO-1, 520 and I'm sure more.

What, do you go into MTB shops and whine that the Norco Shore Two is too
heavy, has a major monkey-motion problem, and there's no place to mount
your panniers??

Bah. The Madone was designed to a purpose, and the very top model is
designed to fulfill that purpose with cost and practicality as very
second-order concerns.

I assure you, nobody is going to Treks "R" Us and buying a $3000 bike
for commuting, or even as an all-rounder. But that's okay.

There certainly are a lot of people here who wish to tell people what
they should buy, and companies what they should offer for sale.

You wanna know a secret? Trek not only has bikes in that market, they'd
love to sell more. The problem is that if you want to buy a simple and
sturdy steel bike that has lots of clearance for fenders and fat tires,
a simple DT-shifted drivetrain (barcons $75 option), and an English BB,
you can get them in near-new condition from garage sales for $20, used
bike shops for $100, and from garbage tips for free.

The issue with these bikes is they make the market for new bikes that do
the same thing (be they Rivendells, Surlys, or Trek 520s) much smaller
than it might otherwise be, because paying $800+ for a bike whose base
functionality is available for $20 is...extravagant.

So what y'all seem to be complaining about is that Trek has decided to
enter the viable market for $3000+ bikes instead of entering the
untenable market for practical $1000 bikes.

I mean, it's cool that you don't want one, but please understand: you
were never going to buy one, no matter what. Ergo, nobody should care
what you think.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:18:16 -0500, BobT wrote:

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

Perhaps things are different in the US, but the vast majority of bikes I
see on the road and paths are basic mountain bikes with no suspension. A
few have front suspension, but rear is rare due to the cost.

> 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.

I'm not claiming that bike shops always try to sell the most suitable bike,
but something to bear in mind is that they probably don't need to stock a
wide variety of basic bikes, because fewer styles and variations will make
more people happy. They're also likely to go to a pawn shop or garage sale
and pick up something even cheaper (and badly fitting).

> Shimano to "upgrade" to 9 speed from 8 speed and then 9 speed to 10 speed?

I gather that Shimano went to 10 to compete with Campy, who went there to
impress their narrower racing/wannabe market. All the serious poseurs I
know have Record, not Dura-Ace - I think the carbon levers and other
trinkets make the difference

> 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?

I don't own a mountain bike, but I'm told that disc brakes are
significantly better in the wet (as cantilevers are over rim brakes).

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jul 4, 9:49 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity and clarity>
>
> >
> > > 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).
>
> <snip>
> >
>
> > 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.
>
> That *only* applies to STI shifters, not DTs or barends, and almost
> solely to the front shifting. (IMO, indexed front shifting is a
> gimmick and a bad idea. Yes, it's better than it was, but friction
> front shifting still beats the a** off it every time.)

And the nine-speed down tube click shifter has it all
over friction shifting, to which the click shifter can
be transformed in an instant.

[...]

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Warner <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 see the mountain bicycles all over the city streets.
They look ideal. Do bicycle store people ever ask
their customers if the customer would like to exchange
the full knobby tires for a slick urban tire?

--
Michael Press

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Gravrock <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2007-07-05, Hank Wirtz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 7:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 4, 8:30 pm, Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >
> > Why make the TT horizontal? The point of the upsloping top tube is to
> > get the bars higher.
>
> There are some folks on RBT who argue that sloping top tubes are an
> attempt by manufacturers to save money by putting people on smaller
> frames than normal and thus carry fewer sizes. The fact that Trek and
> its competitors obviously aren't doing that with bikes like the Pilot
> doesn't carry much weight.
>
> In a doubtless futile attempt to put a stop to that argument before it
> begins, I'll post a picture of my Pilot and a version that I edited to
> have a level top tube:
>
> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg>
> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-level-top-tube.jpg>
>
> Note the long head tube extension required to get the same handlebar
> height with a level top tube.

In fairness to the level-tube crowd, they would have you raise the rear
of the tube rather than drop the front of the tube.

This compromises standover but gives the benefit of more room inside the
triangle, which, as your bike illustrates, would make getting your water
bottles out a lot easier.

Of course, I like the reduced number of frame sizes compact requires,
because it increases the liquidity of the used market for bikes!

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Jul 4, 11:09 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> I see the mountain bicycles all over the city streets.
> They look ideal. Do bicycle store people ever ask
> their customers if the customer would like to exchange
> the full knobby tires for a slick urban tire?
>


A guy I work with just spent $900 on a new hardtail mountain bike that
he only rides to work and back, less than a mile each way (although
it's a hilly mile). Gnarly knobby tires. Day 2 that he has the thing,
he bombs down the hill to the parking garage, does a 60-foot radius
hairpin turn into the garage, and his knobby tires slide out from
underneath him. He broke his elbow.

He knows I ride a lot, and asked me what's wrong with his bike. His
tires are knobby, he said, he should have plenty of traction.

I took a deep breath and explained the concept of "contact patch," and
that pavement doesn't deform for the benefit of rubber knobs.

 

[Steve Gravrock]

On 2007-07-05, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve Gravrock <[email protected]> wrote:

>> In a doubtless futile attempt to put a stop to that argument before it
>> begins, I'll post a picture of my Pilot and a version that I edited to
>> have a level top tube:
>>
>> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-loaded.jpg>
>> <http://www.panix.com/~sdg/usenet/pilot-level-top-tube.jpg>
>>
>> Note the long head tube extension required to get the same handlebar
>> height with a level top tube.
>
> In fairness to the level-tube crowd, they would have you raise the rear
> of the tube rather than drop the front of the tube.

The problem with that argument is that I already have essentially zero
standover clearance. Raising the rear of the tube without dropping the
front produces a bike I can't straddle. I created the second picture by
rotating the top tube around roughly the point that I stand over, to
preserve the "largest frame I can ride" characteristic. As you can see,
the top tube/head tube junction has to come down quite a bit.

Assuming that suitable frame sizes are available, a sloping top tube
will always allow you to get the handlebars higher. That doesn't matter
to a lot of people -- in particular, I think taller riders can often
tolerate geater saddle-to-handlebar drop -- but it matters a lot to me.



frame I can stand over.
>
> This compromises standover but gives the benefit of more room inside the
> triangle, which, as your bike illustrates, would make getting your water
> bottles out a lot easier.
>
> Of course, I like the reduced number of frame sizes compact requires,
> because it increases the liquidity of the used market for bikes!
>

 

[Michael Warner]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:09:30 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

> I see the mountain bicycles all over the city streets.
> They look ideal. Do bicycle store people ever ask
> their customers if the customer would like to exchange
> the full knobby tires for a slick urban tire?

Perhaps they're supposed to give the same "I might go
off-road one day" impression that the SUV crowd are after

 

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:46:06 -0700, Hank Wirtz wrote:

> I took a deep breath and explained the concept of "contact patch," and
> that pavement doesn't deform for the benefit of rubber knobs.

He just needs to move to a hotter climate where the asphalt is a bit
softer.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:20:34 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That *only* applies to STI shifters, not DTs or barends, and almost
>solely to the front shifting. (IMO, indexed front shifting is a
>gimmick and a bad idea. Yes, it's better than it was, but friction
>front shifting still beats the a** off it every time.)

Can you show us a picture of you and your bike? I'm really curious
what you ride and what you look like.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:23 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But seriously folks, I see a lot of people arguing in this thread that
>the Trek Madone, explicitly designed and built as an all-out racing
>bike, wouldn't make a good touring bike or commuter.
>
>For heaven's sake, people! I don't even have a Trek catalog in front of
>me, and I can still say Pilot, Portland, XO-1, 520 and I'm sure more.
>
>What, do you go into MTB shops and whine that the Norco Shore Two is too
>heavy, has a major monkey-motion problem, and there's no place to mount
>your panniers??
>
>Bah. The Madone was designed to a purpose, and the very top model is
>designed to fulfill that purpose with cost and practicality as very
>second-order concerns.

Well said.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:32:57 +0930, Michael Warner <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm not claiming that bike shops always try to sell the most suitable bike,
>but something to bear in mind is that they probably don't need to stock a
>wide variety of basic bikes, because fewer styles and variations will make
>more people happy.

Do you run a shop?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 7:35 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!!!
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

tryin to sound like Gene?

u still aint gonna be like him