[Len J]

Because of computer modeling, the frames are going to converge very quickly in what is effective. Stress points, aerodynamics, functional considerations- all of these play a role in the so-called "unification" of form. There is a reason (besides maybe the design rip-off issue brewing) that the Tarmac, Orca, RT700, and Madone share a bunch of the same features, and it is not all because of them being built in the same CF factory.

Sorry, I disagree. Because carbon Fiber allows for the alignement of stresses with direction of stress....I don't believe that there is one optimal form. Rather, I think that while a good development effort is way out on the edge from a design standpoint, Marketing is pulling them back afraid that if they get too far out there on the aestetics end, they will los the heart of the market. That's is why there is a convergence of form....fear of alienating the market....I've been in these discussions in too many businesses.

There is some of that "me-to"ism that you were complaining of. I love the look of a lugged bike, but I don't pretend for one second that I am buying it because of its repairability in the field per se. You could also argue that steel has hit its apex in design and that while there is no more room to improve, whereas carbon fiber gets to start with the design experience of other materials and improve quickly.

Possibly, but I think it's more about guessing at what might be acceptable to the market.

The things that make a CF frame better are invisible to the naked eye, whether the weave or modulus, as opposed to steel where you can somehow magically see the lug tube interface internally.

I own three steel bikes and one aluminum. I will probably one day change the aluminum for titanium or CF, but will always have steel. Each material has its advantages and disadvantages. To some extent, I think that Ti will continue to challenge steel far more than CF ever will, which, if the price came down, would probably bump a lot off the market (e.g. Cannondale's Super Six).

My problem, is that I was hoping that they would use their market position to take a larger aestetic risk......clearly, IMO, they were afraid of taking too big a risk...too bad IMO.

Len

 

[Len J]

Absolutly.......

len, these are good points, but IME they are based on looks. the new bottom bracket design is VERY new. the dealy they have going on for the fork crown is quite interesting as well. specifically the fork design is meant to make the MOST of CF's capabilities. my team is sponsored by a trek "dealership" (though i don't ride a trek) so they've been passing around a lot of the marketing info...the overall bike of the look isn't anything stunningly new, but the changes (innovations?), especially for bb and fork/headtube, are at least interesting in a functional way...of course ymmv, etc etc.

if you read my posts, I was only adressing the aestetics/

I'll be interested a year or so from now to see how those 2 innovations hold up and what tweaks are done to them.

I thought the ISP design was a pretty clever approach. It both maximizes the production process while still allowing for enough variability to allow for test rides.

Len

 

[ampastoral]

if you read my posts, I was only adressing the aestetics/

I'll be interested a year or so from now to see how those 2 innovations hold up and what tweaks are done to them.

I thought the ISP design was a pretty clever approach. It both maximizes the production process while still allowing for enough variability to allow for test rides.

Len

indeed, agreed. i was too lazy to read all the posts, then too lazy to find my post and note that :crazy: the looks are VERY safe. time will tell how these other "innovations" hold up. i'm still waiting to hear real world reports on how the integrated bearings/bb cluster works out with, say, my campy cranks...

 

[uzziefly]

I'd hit it!

I would like the new bike if I could get it. Pro fit too

I'm hoping some guy will have it soon so I could try his ride out

 

[Guest]

I have nothing against the Madone, or Trek bikes in general.

They just don't appeal to me, in any way.

I appreciate the bikes of my youth and those which are evolutions of those bikes.

Carbon bikes in general do not appeal to me, "flowing" shapes and the like do not appeal to me - I just don't care for them.

I greatly dis-like, and would not buy, any bike using integrated parts or proprietary parts - just seems like a bad idea to me.

I am of the school that thinks a bike should be comppletely rebuiladble and serviceable and should long outlast me.

People like the Treks, and Orbea's and what not - fine. Enjoy them and ride them. I just don't care for them and have desire to own one or actually even to ride one.

This gets difficult in that one of the larger Trek dealers here-abouts is a friend of mine - I am running out of polite ways to make him understand that I don't care for the bikes he sells, no matter how light they are.

 

[terzo rene]

Very true about CAD and convergence. With the same materials, same component and rule limitations and essentially the same rider forces input into the models the resulting designs are all going to wind up very close very quickly. When they fail they will also all tend to fail the same way too.

What will be interesting someday is when they put you on a fully strain gauge kitted trainer and have you thrash on it a while and then custom build a carbon frame based on the forces actually measured, rather than using a "typical rider" who is then inflated even more than his overly generous diet plan to provide a safety margin for outliers and manufacturing inconsistencies.

 

[SmileyTown]

Trek hater - why don't you go hang out in the Moots forums with all the rest of the androids.

Forrest has got a good point...it's too early judge the bikes because the new Madones just barely came out. Have you ridden one? If not, then ride before you judge.

 

[gradosu]

I know I am very young to the biking world but aren't there some logical conclusions we can come to?

The new Treks will be ridden by many riders in the Tour along with other elite races.

Trek is a business interested in making money. A poor performing bike on the largest bike stage of the year (the tour) would not be good for business.

I ride a Trek 5500 and think it is great. It is more bike than I could possibly put to good use. The next bike I buy will not be a Trek, not because of the quality of the bike, but because I want to explore different makes and appreciate the subtleties of the way the bikes are designed.

The rider makes the bike, the bike doesn't make the rider.