> I agree with Zinn. The Madone frame does eliminate bottom brackets,
> headsets and seatposts. Taking makers of those products out of the
> market is an unintended side effect of an innovation which will likely
> be adopted by every frame manufacturer. In the end, consumers will
> benefit: less complicated, more efficient, lighter bikes. We'll see
> how the market shakes down as to pricing two, three years down the
> line.
>
> Some differences between frames you mention and Trek:
>
> The Scott frame still requires a press fit bottom bracket - and there
> is only one you can get, made by Shimano. None for the Trek.
Correct. Scott cut a deal with Shimano and supports only their crank, using
a bearing arrangement that is similar to what Klein used on their high-end
road bikes (as well as Trek on the first two years of the 5900 run).
Pressed-in bearings are not user-friendly. Trek went out of their way to
design something that was incredibly simple and non-proprietary (you don't
have to buy bearings from Trek) to work on. One can gripe that it's not
"standard" but it's darned hard to argue it's not better. Yes, it obsoletes
older cranks (square-taper, Octalink, ISIS). It won't remove them from the
market though, and as long as demand exists for such product, people will
manufacture and sell them. But I believe we're looking at the future, with
other manufacturers seeing the obvious benefits to a bottom bracket that's
easier to work with, lighter weight (fewer parts) and, at 90mm wide, able to
give a lot more strength to the bottom bracket area of the frame. Not just
ridigity, but strength.
> While Cannondale (and don't forget Ridley) have 1.25' - 1.5" tapered
> headtubes, both require headsets. Again, none for Trek
Correct again. What Trek has done, for the time being, is removed the
consumer's ability to use a non-Trek fork in the frame. Other manufacturers
may or may not choose to support the new design, but it definitely limits
the consumer's choice of fork when they buy one of the new Madone framesets.
But I think it's silly to see it as a threat to the aftermarket fork
manufacturers. Most of them do a healthy business manufacturing forks (as
OEMs) for bike companies, and this won't change that, particularly since
they weren't making forks for Trek to begin with.
> The other integrated seatpost frames I have know of require cutting;
> the Trek is adjustable.
Right. This was a very big deal for Trek. They didn't want something that
would cause the customer to have to modify the frame in any way, and for
quite some time, agonized over whether to do the "external" seatpost in the
first place, and at what price points. But the weight savings were too
significant to ignore. This wasn't about locking out aftermarket seatpost
manufacturers; in fact, they're not locked out at all, and can, if they
wish, produce seatposts to fit the zillions of Madones that will be out on
the market over the next umpteen years. And whomever does so first, with a
nice design, is going to make some big $$$.
I think it laughable that some believe Trek is deliberately trying to
squeeze out aftermarket fork, headset, seatpost & bottom-bracket
manufacturers. The new Madone was the result of trying to make a superior
machine from the ground-up... superior meaning not just in performance, but
in ease of working with as well. The innovations in the new bikes aren't
going to be proprietary to Trek for very long.
I don't think Trek has done anything that will hurt the sales of Moots or
Waterford or anybody else who does extremely well within the confines of
what is, for all intents and purposes, a niche market within the mainstream
of bicycle producers. That niche will be there, possibly even further
enhanced by the sort of "raise the drawbridge, the infidels are attacking"
mentality that some promote. I can't wait to see if the Rivendel Reader has
anything to say about these new bikes!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Doug Taylor" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:26:11 -0000, Qui si parla Campagnolo
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 1, 9:02 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Will the Madone really break the 10,000 dollar mark? Geez, don't
>>> disappoint me already.
>>
>>Lennard states in the latest Velonews, 'this may signal the end of
>>threaded BB shells, conventional seatposts and fork crown races' or
>>words to that effect when talking about the new Mad-
>>One...lessseee..Scott made a BB shell w/o threads already, Pinarello
>>has an oversized BB shell, Cannondale has a 1.5 inch headset bearing,
>>MANY have non-seatposts. What this really does is attempt to take
>>seatpost, crank and fork/headset makers out of the market. Trek is
>>big, but I think the 'other frames', made well and selling well, may
>>not automatically hop on board with these 'items'.
>
> I agree with Zinn. The Madone frame does eliminate bottom brackets,
> headsets and seatposts. Taking makers of those products out of the
> market is an unintended side effect of an innovation which will likely
> be adopted by every frame manufacturer. In the end, consumers will
> benefit: less complicated, more efficient, lighter bikes. We'll see
> how the market shakes down as to pricing two, three years down the
> line.
>
> Some differences between frames you mention and Trek:
>
> The Scott frame still requires a press fit bottom bracket - and there
> is only one you can get, made by Shimano. None for the Trek.
>
> While Cannondale (and don't forget Ridley) have 1.25' - 1.5" tapered
> headtubes, both require headsets. Again, none for Trek
>
> The other integrated seatpost frames I have know of require cutting;
> the Trek is adjustable.
>
