"Urban Bike"????
Dan Connelly
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=photos/2005/tech/features/trek_urban/trek_portland1
Dan
Phil, Squid-in-Training
That's because the "upgrade" to those wheels is a pair of 36h wheels...
It's obvious that the intent here with those bikes is fashion.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
RonSonic
Advertisable features anyway. What is that a fragile cross bike?
Ron
Mike Jacoubowsky
> well maintained :).
They are *very* durable wheels. The rims are built to take quite a beating
(city potholes etc) and it's not likely that an increased spoke count would
contribute significantly to wheel strength. Spoke failure in such wheels is
exceptionally rare. In general, as the number of spokes increases, the rim
can be lighter for similar strength. But since these wheels are built to
survive substantial impacts, requiring heavier rims to prevent denting,
there's no real advantage to using a greater number of spokes (since spokes
don't have much to do with dentability).
Besides, what's wrong with a bit of style in a commute bike? Obviously
"style" is in the eye of the beholder; some will like it, others won't. But
it will look distinctive and attract attention (or else this thread wouldn't
exist), and that's not a bad thing if you're a manufacturer or retailer.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
POHB
with the addition of fenders, a rack, panniers, lights, a strong lock, front
reflector, puncture-resistant tyres, tape over the logos...
mt9...@hotmail.com
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > What's up with those wheels? Maybe the roads in Portland are extremely
> > well maintained :).
>
> They are *very* durable wheels.
> Besides, what's wrong with a bit of style in a commute bike? Obviously
> "style" is in the eye of the beholder; some will like it, others won't. But
> it will look distinctive and attract attention (or else this thread wouldn't
> exist), and that's not a bad thing if you're a manufacturer or retailer.
nothing wrong with style but leaving aside the question of durability I
don't think a bike without mudguards or a rack or a lighting system
could be described as an ultimate commuter
best wishes
james
Luke
Squid-in-Training <phil_leeIHEA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
More innocent squirrels sacrificed! What price vanity?
Luke
Luke
Jacoubowsky <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The following description from
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2005/features/trek_urban
[quote]
Trek Portland's impressive mechanical details start with Shimano 105
2x10 gearing w/ Shimano STI shifting and a Bontrager Compact 36/50
Crankset. Hoops are the new lightweight and durable Bontrager Select
Disc Road wheel system featuring Bonty's paired spoke technology, a
smooth Bontrager Satellite Elite carbon fibre fork, mated to a Trek
Alpha SLR (smooth weld) aluminum frame with integrated disc mounts.
Avid BB disc brakes make for efficient all-weather stopping and the
cool quick-release mini fenders make the Trek Portland a diverse urban
commuter that can convert to a weekend fast touring bike.
[/quote]
Please note: You get a 'Disc road wheel system'. Pity the deprived
commuter who just makes do with a wheel - it's no good unless it has a
system. How about those 'cool quick-release mini fenders'? Perfect in a
downpour that transforms Bontrager's Select Wheel System into Bonty's
bidet spray system, shooting a jet of water up the derriere of the
fashionable commuter's neon green spandex kit. No doubt about it, this
ain't your everyday homogeneous rural racer, the Trek Portand is a
bonafide 'diverse urban commuter'!!
Hmmm, that's strange. No mention of smooth weld braze-ons or carbon
fibre rack mount systems in the writeup. I suppose a commuter needn't
bother with these ornaments.
Luke
Dan Connelly
Maybe it never rains in Portland.
On the question of durability: for a commuter, I want a bike with excess spoke
capacity. One breaks, I true up the rest, and still get to work. I am skeptical
those wheels have the robustness or strength of 36 hole 3-cross. So,
"durability aside"? Nothing aside about it: durability is the whole point.
For many people, my experience in Vietnam
me: http://www.djconnel.com/photos/VietnamThailand2005/hue_djcbike.jpg
more experienced cyclists: http://www.djconnel.com/photos/VietnamThailand2005/hue_loadedcyclist.jpg
convinced me something more in the line of http://www.breezer.com/ is more suitable.
I still like my "racing" bike, though....
Dan
Ryan Cousineau
Luke <lucasi...@rogers.com> wrote:
The big photo on the Trek site makes it obvious that the Portland has
all the necessary mounting points for a normal rear rack: threaded
mounts on the sides of the seat stays and holes in the dropout area. It
looks like there may be two sets of holes near the rear dropouts,
suggesting a full fender is also possible.
In Vancouver, Standard Procedure calls for the winter training bike to
have full fenders plus a long fender extension in the rear (the best
ones come within inches of the ground) to ensure comfortable group
rides. I believe that our combination of rideable-but-wet-and-gritty
conditions through most of the winter is particular on this continent to
the Pacific Northwest. A Hamiltonian visiting us last weekend mentioned
that fenders on training bikes is an unheard of phenomenon in Ontario,
but then there aren't many winter group rides in Hamilton, either.
http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1037000&f=7
The specs on this page also suggest the Portland will include a triple
ring up front, despite the bike that Cyclingnews saw. The photo also
doesn't seem to show any front-fork mounting holes, but Trek already
makes a touring bike, and I see precious few commuters running front
racks.
Looks like it would make a pretty good disc-cyclocross bike, too, if the
frame clearances are there.
Full disclosure: I'm currently turning a 1970s Motobecane tourer into an
STI-equipped cyclocross bike.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca 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
Ryan Cousineau
mt9...@hotmail.com wrote:
The bike does come with mudguards, at least as advertised on Trek's
site. It also has the proper mounting points for a rear rack, and
presumably Trek is clever enough to think that commuters willing to drop
a grand or so on a new bike are going to have their own preferences in
racks and (especially!) bike lights.
This is no Dutch city bike, but on the other hand, it's almost certainly
faster than a Dutch city bike.
Ozark Bicycle
And this babble is presented in Cycling News in the guise of a "Tech
Feature"! What it really is is an overheated magazine hack
regurgitating the hype of a Trek marketing flak. IOW, this is
effectively a Trek press release. So much for "journalism".
Qui si parla Campagnolo
No racks, lights, fenders...hardly a 'commute' bike at all. Unless you
commute a round trip back home.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
As long as places like CN and any other bike mag survives on
advertising, you may as well forget about journalism.
Most mags could give their rags away for free and still survive, with
advert $, so they are pretty
unlikely to badmouth a big advertiser, like Trek.
As for the bicycle, stylish but not as functional as it could be.
Paired spokes are just plain marketing 101, in spite of Rolf(now
Bontrager) paired spoke 'technology'.
When I hear,' add 16 spokes and reduce the weight of the rim', I just
cringe. 16 spokes weigh 120 grams. What trek ought to do is keep the
weight of the rim the same but use 36 spokes but that wouldn't be
fashionable, fo course.
If Trek was really interested in making a commuter, it would be very
different, as mentioned by all but one of the posters.
maxo
designed in Holland:
http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/citybike/l200.jsp
I asked about that model at my local Trek dealer, the saleslady said,
"I have no idea what you're talking about" then turned, walked away,
and ignored me.
The second Trek dealer was unable to find it on the site. I begged:
"just google Trek L200", but the young man refused. He did say that if
I was to find a SA hub, they could build me a wheel.
Third bike shop around here that I visited recently, the kid behind the
counter asked, "what are those cool silver strips over your tires?!"
Obviously he had never seen a skinny tired bike with full coverage
fenders before.
All this leads me to believe that Trek and Co. are part of a big
conspiracy to not let us buy normal commuter bikes. Scary.
Some shops like Chicago's Rapid Transit remain unbrainwashed.
Mark Janeba
> mt9...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>> What's up with those wheels? Maybe the roads in Portland are extremely
>>>> well maintained :).
>>>
>>>
>>> They are *very* durable wheels.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Besides, what's wrong with a bit of style in a commute bike? Obviously
>>> "style" is in the eye of the beholder; some will like it, others
>>> won't. But
>>> it will look distinctive and attract attention (or else this thread
>>> wouldn't
>>> exist), and that's not a bad thing if you're a manufacturer or retailer.
>>
>>
>>
>> nothing wrong with style but leaving aside the question of durability I
>> don't think a bike without mudguards or a rack or a lighting system
>> could be described as an ultimate commuter
>>
>
> Maybe it never rains in Portland.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing [but that answer is incorrect] :-)
I'm reminded of the cheezy movie "Crocodile Dundee" in which the
outback-toughened Aussie is confronted by a NYC mugger. "He's got a
knife!" the female lead cries. "That's not a knife.... THIS is a knife"
he replies, pulling out a much larger blade.
So, re the Trek "Portland" - That's not a commuter... heck, you couldn't
even fit studded tires on that thing! Necessary in Portland (OR) for
year-round commuting in the ice storms, as "PDX" had last weekend.
[gotta get some pictures of my commuto-tank up, which I sometimes
lovingly refer to as my urban assault vehicle]
Mark
ma...@drumbent.com
A few years ago when I was working at a bike store these "commute"
bikes were being marketed, and they were mainly just cross bikes. We
laughed at them, because anyone who paid $1200 for a commute bike was
going to make sure they had off-street, corporate lock-up, or it came
right into their office with them! For commuting we sold far more of
the $500 hybrid bikes, some of which came with fenders installed.
To me, the biggest feature for a commute bike is the ability for it to
stay outside at work and remain relatively unmolested. While some
workplaces do have secure lock-ups, in downtown situations lots of
folks just have to leave their steed locked up on city streets. This
bike, with its fancy wheels and disc brakes, would not last long in
most urban settings.
Mark
Ozark Bicycle
I suspect the target market for this bike is those who will use it to
"commute" to the local Starbucks for an overpriced cuppa.
maxo
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> I suspect the target market for this bike is those who will use it to
> "commute" to the local Starbucks for an overpriced cuppa.
NING NING NING NING NINGGGG!
We have a winnah!
That bike gets the form over function award. I'd rather see provisions
for mounting real fenders vs. those vestigal jokes that look like a
slight upgrade from those bitty chrome fenders from the early
seventies.
Might make a decent CX bike.
In addition to everything mentioned: a commuter bike needs to be low
maintainance, if you insist on having derailleurs, a single ring up
front to keep it simple is nice (unless you live in SF).
The parts need to be tried and true, not because something new won't
work well, but if your front wheel gets stolen, it's less painful to
replace it with a Sora/Sun CR18, than an exotic number that shaves
0.002 seconds from your commute time.
Commuter bikes also need to have provisions for locking to poles--scuff
guards, but I've yet to see this. Electrical tape works OK, and most
modern powdercoat is almost tough enough, but a clip on plastic sleeve
needs to be standard.
Ozark Bicycle
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Full disclosure: I'm currently turning a 1970s Motobecane tourer into an
> STI-equipped cyclocross bike.
>
Which '70s Moto? Over last winter, I built up a 70s Moto Grand Jubile
frame/fork using newer components (but, all the parts were available
prior to ~'91). At the time, I thought it would be a very occasional
ride, mostly a conversation piece. But it's really a nice ride (and
nice to look at with it's Nervex lugs and classic paint scheme), and I
rode it quite alot this year. It's also an interesting reminder of far
things *haven't* come.
Kinky Cowboy
I like my 37c tyres on my 'Urban' bike (Kona JtS) so much that I'll
fit 42c tyres next time. I don't see space on the Trek for fatties
like that with or without mudguards. Gearing is a matter of terrain -
last time I commuted, it was flat enough to run fixed, and that would
be my recommendation for anybody getting a dedicated commute bike if
the terrain was suitable. My 'Urban' also has to be my
touring/cyclosportif/hill climb/SpoCo TT bike too, so I use all the
gears. If I were building my dream Urban bike, I'd probably be looking
at an On-One 29er with drop bars, Avid BB7 brakes, Scwalbe 60-622 Big
Apple tyres and as few gears as possible.
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
dvt
> Besides, what's wrong with a bit of style in a commute bike? Obviously
> "style" is in the eye of the beholder; some will like it, others won't. But
> it will look distinctive and attract attention (or else this thread wouldn't
> exist), and that's not a bad thing if you're a manufacturer or retailer.
True.
My LBS tells me that the Portland is unable to accept full coverage
fenders, but they couldn't tell me why. Do you know if this is true, and
if so, why? As Werehatrack might say, that seems like a singularly dumb
misfeature for a commute bike.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
rcoder
pitched so heavily on when I went looking for a "commuter" bike, albiet
with a road instead of MTB cockpit. I ended up buying the entry-level
Sirrus, and discovered that it, too, lacked the clearance for even a
full rear fender -- I had to cut off the bottom six inches or so of
plastic (taking the metal clip that held the fender to the frame off,
as well) and zip-tie the thing onto the frame midway down the seat
tube.
A "perfect" Portland commute bike would look very different, I think:
an internally-geared hub makes much more sense for rainy, gritty winter
roads, and a carbon fork is just silly unless you're counting grams. On
the other hand, a slick, fast-looking bike can definitely be a
motivator for many beginning riders -- while I was thoroughly
unimpressed with the Sirrus, (and sold it off only a few weeks after
buying it) I rode my next bike (a Bianchi Imola) into the ground over a
couple of winters commuting, in part because I was more excited to get
on a responsive, sexy piece of machinery.
I've actually been pretty interested in the Trek "Portland," but only
as a light-touring and Spring/Autumn group ride bike to add to my
existing collection, not as a single all-rounder, and certainly not as
a "lock it up anywhere" commuter. That being said, I don't think it's
really worth the price for those limited applications, when a
similarly-equipped true 'cross bike can be had for the same, or even
less, money.
-Lennon
Chalo
>
> If I were building my dream Urban bike, I'd probably be looking
> at an On-One 29er
I agree on the 29" wheels. Fat tires are good; large diameter wheels
are good-- but they are both more effective in combination.
> with drop bars,
In my experience, flat bars placed high are much superior to drop bars
for city riding. They keep your head high so you can see over cars
better, they keep your neck vertical so that you are more likely to be
looking where you need to look at the moment you need to be looking
there, and they keep your brakes always at your fingertips. Having
extra leverage at the bars doesn't hurt either, when you get surprised
by a pothole or sewer grating.
> Avid BB7 brakes,
Avid mechanical disc brakes are very effective. All hub brakes go a
long way towards keeping things clean on wet streets. The big tradeoff
with discs is wheel strength-- any disc front wheel will be only a
fraction as durable as a symmetrical front wheel of like construction.
I like drum brakes in this regard, but they don't stop as well as
either discs or rim brakes. To me there's no single best kind of brake
for urban commuters. I use drums on my rain bike, discs on my favorite
MTB, and front linear pull/rear drum on my electric assist bike. My
other couple of transportational bikes have linear pulls or cantis at
both ends.
> Scwalbe 60-622 Big Apple tyres
Yep. There's nothing else like them (though with any luck that will
change in due time). It's a real shame that only a few bikes to date
are able to fit them.
> and as few gears as possible.
I like using a gearhub, which makes having as many gears as you want
(or can afford) just as robust, mechanically elegant, and structurally
sound as having only three. The Rohloff Speedhub is the ultimate
drivetrain IMO, but I also like the "bike in a can" integrated nature
of a SRAM Spectro S7 hub with a drum brake.
I'm strongly in favor of a single chainring (with guard) for a city
bike. With 11-34 cassettes and 7 to 14 speed gearhubs available,
though, using a single ring does not necessarily mean living with an
abbreviated gear range.
Chalo Colina
(PeteCresswell)
> This
>bike, with its fancy wheels and disc brakes, would not last long in
>most urban settings.
I'm gonna start carrying my little digital camera when I go into Philly. When I
go in there, it seems like every few blocks I see a junk frame U-Locked to a
parking meter or street sign - totally stripped: wheels, pedals, saddle....
--
PeteCresswell
Luke
Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> he big photo on the Trek site makes it obvious that the Portland has
> all the necessary mounting points for a normal rear rack: threaded
> mounts on the sides of the seat stays and holes in the dropout area. It
> looks like there may be two sets of holes near the rear dropouts,
> suggesting a full fender is also possible.
>
> In Vancouver, Standard Procedure calls for the winter training bike to
> have full fenders plus a long fender extension in the rear (the best
> ones come within inches of the ground) to ensure comfortable group
> rides. I believe that our combination of rideable-but-wet-and-gritty
> conditions through most of the winter is particular on this continent to
> the Pacific Northwest. A Hamiltonian visiting us last weekend mentioned
> that fenders on training bikes is an unheard of phenomenon in Ontario,
> but then there aren't many winter group rides in Hamilton, either.
Toronto, about 30cm of snow so far, -10 (celsius) after sundown, and
still no shortage of cycling commuters - almost all sporting full
fenders, many with (homemade) mudflaps. The only training groups still
pedalling are in spinning classes - perhaps it's there that the cool
quick-release mini fenders are used.
<snip>
> Looks like it would make a pretty good disc-cyclocross bike, too, if the
> frame clearances are there.
>
> Full disclosure: I'm currently turning a 1970s Motobecane tourer into an
> STI-equipped cyclocross bike.
Ryan, you're so passé. A cyclocross bike just won't do. You'll never
win - excuse me, realize podium based victory derived success! - unless
the Motobecane is transformed into a smoothly welded integrated victory
delivery system! You'll really lay the smack down then!
Luke
(PeteCresswell)
>but I also like the "bike in a can" integrated nature
>of a SRAM Spectro S7 hub with a drum brake.
Is there any special front hub/drum brake that you like?
--
PeteCresswell
barc...@hotmail.com
$30 in the late 70's. They weigh a ton but are tough to break.
Luke
rcoder <rco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This bike reminds me of the higher-end Specialized Sirrus model I was
> pitched so heavily on when I went looking for a "commuter" bike, albiet
> with a road instead of MTB cockpit. I ended up buying the entry-level
> Sirrus, and discovered that it, too, lacked the clearance for even a
> full rear fender -- I had to cut off the bottom six inches or so of
> plastic (taking the metal clip that held the fender to the frame off,
> as well) and zip-tie the thing onto the frame midway down the seat
> tube.
A friend suffered the same the difficulty when installing a rear fender
on his Sirrus. The lack of rear wheel/seat-tube clearance, especially
at the front derailleur, precluded an (unmodified) full fender setup.
Perhaps it may have been accomplished with a thinner tire, 23c or such,
but it's absurd that a bike designed as a utility/recreational ride
can't accommodate what's often regarded as a standard equipment.
Luke
Gooserider
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1135094826.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Trek 520 is a better commuter than the Portland, by a large margin. Trek
could sell more 520s if they pushed it properly. Not a sexy bike, I guess.
Ryan Cousineau
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
We shall see. This is a Motobecane Grand Touring, a model about which I
know little. It has huge frame clearances befitting a touring bike,
though.
The original parts were Huret (Allvit, I think) derailers and a
stronglight crank. It's brown and well worn:
http://flickr.com/photos/gordonr/38816943/
Note that many of the components shown in that pic are replacements: the
drivetrain was bent up, the original crank had a stripped pedal eye, and
the leather saddle has been replaced with something more comfortable for
me.
I don't know lug designs well, but these have a distinctive "cut-in"
design which you can see on the headtube in the full-size version of
that photo.
What little I know about Motobecanes suggests that the Allvit components
date it no later than the mid-70s, as Motobecane switched to Suntour
relatively early. Any other information would be appreciated.
Andrew F Martin
bike that I happen to ride to work on. I carry a small messenger bag
so no need for a rack. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get full
fenders on there in or form or another.
Andrew F Martin
as a rain bike. Who the hell needs a triple!!!!
Ryan Cousineau
"maxo" <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > I suspect the target market for this bike is those who will use it to
> > "commute" to the local Starbucks for an overpriced cuppa.
>
> NING NING NING NING NINGGGG!
>
> We have a winnah!
>
> That bike gets the form over function award. I'd rather see provisions
> for mounting real fenders vs. those vestigal jokes that look like a
> slight upgrade from those bitty chrome fenders from the early
> seventies.
It has provisions for a "real" rear fender, though I agree that it
appears to be missing a mount for a front fender. It's meant to go from
fenders to no-fenders quickly, though, and that's hard to do with real
fenders. Plenty of local riders make do with SKS Race Blades, and
proclaim themselves satisfied.
> Might make a decent CX bike.
>
> In addition to everything mentioned: a commuter bike needs to be low
> maintainance, if you insist on having derailleurs, a single ring up
> front to keep it simple is nice (unless you live in SF).
Considering the amount of maintenance my front derailer demands, that's
an odd thing to insist, especially since I would expect this bike to be
attractive to people carrying racked loads, backpacks, or merely less
oaken-legged than you or I. In any of those cases, the small mercy of a
small ring is a big deal (and as I have mentioned, the Trek site shows
this bike with a triple, not a double).
> The parts need to be tried and true, not because something new won't
> work well, but if your front wheel gets stolen, it's less painful to
> replace it with a Sora/Sun CR18, than an exotic number that shaves
> 0.002 seconds from your commute time.
People who are that worried about bike theft don't generally use a new
bike of any kind. Outside of a few urban centres (New York, presumably a
few other eastern seaboard cities), "pro" bike theft doesn't seem to be
the norm. It's a lot of drug addicts and joyriders making ill-assessed
thefts of opportunity, and most of them would attack the lock of a
dual-suspension Dunlop* before they molested a Ti Serotta, since the
former is a known quantity.
I wouldn't be happy locking any new bicycle outside for very long. There
are locking strategies that make this possible, though, and as Sheldon
has pointed out, a locked wheel is a surprisingly difficult object to
steal:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/lock-strategy.html
> Commuter bikes also need to have provisions for locking to poles--scuff
> guards, but I've yet to see this. Electrical tape works OK, and most
> modern powdercoat is almost tough enough, but a clip on plastic sleeve
> needs to be standard.
Actually, the flat-bar "urban" bike Trek introduced at the same time as
the Portland does have a rubber scuff-guard bumper coating on the top
tube.
*Dunlop is used locally as a popular brand name for some $100-300
department-store bikes. The cheap, rigid versions look like somewhat
tolerable bicycles, but the pricier full-suspension machines are simply
unworthy of any purpose.
Luke
Ozark Bicycle <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >
> > The following description from
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2005/features/trek_urban
> >
> > [quote]
> >
> > Trek Portland's impressive mechanical details start with Shimano 105
> > 2x10 gearing w/ Shimano STI shifting and a Bontrager Compact 36/50
> > Crankset. Hoops are the new lightweight and durable Bontrager Select
> > Disc Road wheel system featuring Bonty's paired spoke technology, a
> > smooth Bontrager Satellite Elite carbon fibre fork, mated to a Trek
> > Alpha SLR (smooth weld) aluminum frame with integrated disc mounts.
> > Avid BB disc brakes make for efficient all-weather stopping and the
> > cool quick-release mini fenders make the Trek Portland a diverse urban
> > commuter that can convert to a weekend fast touring bike.
> >
> > [/quote]
> >
>
>
> And this babble is presented in Cycling News in the guise of a "Tech
> Feature"! What it really is is an overheated magazine hack
> regurgitating the hype of a Trek marketing flak. IOW, this is
> effectively a Trek press release. So much for "journalism".
Well said.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
>convinced me something more in the line of http://www.breezer.com/ is more suitable.
Interesting. I like the look of the woman in the dress too.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Ozark Bicycle
Well, I bought a Moto Grand Touring new in early '76 (For US$225, I
still have the receipt.).
That one had a fancier headbadge (the one many think of as the
"classic", although it only was used for a few years) and the head tube
was painted to match the two bands on the seat tube. It was dark
metallic gray with black accents. It used a Suntour VGT RD and a
Suntour FD, an SR crank and a Weinman centerpull brakeset. From what I
know of Motos, I would place yours as very late 60s to very early '70s.
My two Grand Jubiles (one built, one a frame/fork) also have generous
clearances (a bit too generous in the case of the rear brake bridge:
the bike came with 27" wheels; with 700Cs, it's a long, long reach to
the rim.
The Grand Touring was the middle of the line bike in the '70s. Mine was
built with Vitus (888?) tubing. I liked mine alot, way back when.
Patrick Lamb
<goose...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
>news:1135094826.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> different, as mentioned by all but one of the posters.
>
>The Trek 520 is a better commuter than the Portland, by a large margin. Trek
>could sell more 520s if they pushed it properly. Not a sexy bike, I guess.
Agreed. I looked in about a 100 mile radius for a 520; only answer I
got from any of the Trek dealers was, "We'll order you one if you put
down a deposit." What if I'm not comfortable on one?
Three years after I got a different bike, I made it to the SF Bay
area. Chain Reaction has 'em! Of course, they're 2,000 miles from
home, and I already had a bike. (But the 520 was very, very, nice.
Maybe next time I'll order one.)
Trek lost a customer there. #1 daughter got a Cannondale T800 last
year, in part because she could test ride it; still no Trek 520s in
sight. Trek really could sell the 520, I believe, if they would only
try to sell them!
Pat
Email address works as is.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>Trek
>>could sell more 520s if they pushed it properly. Not a sexy bike, I guess.
>
> Agreed. I looked in about a 100 mile radius for a 520; only answer I
> got from any of the Trek dealers was, "We'll order you one if you put
> down a deposit." What if I'm not comfortable on one?
>
> Three years after I got a different bike, I made it to the SF Bay
> area. Chain Reaction has 'em! Of course, they're 2,000 miles from
> home, and I already had a bike. (But the 520 was very, very, nice.
> Maybe next time I'll order one.)
It's a tough problem. You can't sell what you don't stock, and if you just
bring in a small number of something to test the waters, chances are they'll
sit and rot on the floor because they don't fit in with the rest of the
offerings, and get lost in the mix. Smaller shop (actually, *any* shop) have
to make decisions about where best to spend their limited purchasing $$$,
and rarely does a bike shop have an excess of floor space, so to bring in a
new model, something else has to be removed.
With Trek the situation is a bit more difficult than with most suppliers,
since Trek makes such a huge number of different models. There's simply no
way a dealer can represent the entire line, and once you get into
cherry-picking mode, the less-popular bikes get ignored.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Feature"! What it really is is an overheated magazine hack
>> regurgitating the hype of a Trek marketing flak. IOW, this is
>> effectively a Trek press release. So much for "journalism".
>
> Well said.
Does anybody read the "Tech Feature" section of CyclingNews and assume
otherwise? Still, even regurgitated press releases have their purpose, in
terms of getting information out into the market, particularly to people who
might not have otherwise had exposure to the product.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Luke" <lucasi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:201220051819169484%lucasi...@rogers.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> fenders, but they couldn't tell me why. Do you know if this is true, and
> if so, why? As Werehatrack might say, that seems like a singularly dumb
> misfeature for a commute bike.
I don't think there's an issue with full fenders; used to be a problem with
the disc brake mechanism in the rear, but I believe they've altered the
mounting points to take care of that (had been a problem for rack
installation as well).
Mike Jacoubowsky
> conspiracy to not let us buy normal commuter bikes. Scary.
Afraid not. Trek brought in large numbers of L200 & L300 bicycles to the US.
John Burke, president of Trek, really thought that the time was right to
introduce *exactly* the same bikes that sell very well in Europe. "Real"
commute bikes, ready to go right off the sales floor.
It was a very expensive mistake. Those bikes just sat & rotted in the
warehouses, because shops couldn't relate to them. The shops that did bring
them in, often had the sale results we did- the bikes just sat & rotted on
the sales floor. Nobody wanted to buy a full-on commute bike, because it
didn't look cool enough, or it was too expensive, or it wasn't set up
EXACTLY THE WAY THE CUSTOMER WANTED. That last part is very important. The
domestic (US) market seems very different from Europe; here, if a customer
is going to spend $600+ on a commute bike, they have a very specific idea of
what it should be. Something generic doesn't cut it. Somebody else's idea of
lights, fenders, integrated lock etc., is fine... for somebody else.
If such a bike sold for $300-$400, my guess is that it would be very
successful. But you can't start at the high end on a fully-equipped machine
like that in the US market.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"maxo" <land...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135099383....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The trek L200-400 range are ultimate commuters, and I bet they're
> designed in Holland:
> http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/citybike/l200.jsp
>
> I asked about that model at my local Trek dealer, the saleslady said,
> "I have no idea what you're talking about" then turned, walked away,
> and ignored me.
>
> The second Trek dealer was unable to find it on the site. I begged:
> "just google Trek L200", but the young man refused. He did say that if
> I was to find a SA hub, they could build me a wheel.
>
> Third bike shop around here that I visited recently, the kid behind the
> counter asked, "what are those cool silver strips over your tires?!"
> Obviously he had never seen a skinny tired bike with full coverage
> fenders before.
>
> All this leads me to believe that Trek and Co. are part of a big
> conspiracy to not let us buy normal commuter bikes. Scary.
>
> Some shops like Chicago's Rapid Transit remain unbrainwashed.
>
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> FUCK! They made it a triple? I wanted that bike with a double to use
> as a rain bike. Who the hell needs a triple!!!!
Take off the inner chainring?
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> commute a round trip back home.
>
>
> I suspect the target market for this bike is those who will use it to
> "commute" to the local Starbucks for an overpriced cuppa.
If Trek managed to succeed at getting people out of their cars and onto a
bike for their trip to Starbucks, that would be an incredible
accomplishment. I would love to see that day come to pass. It would give me
hope that the bicycle *could* be incorporated into everyday routine. To
suggest that such a use for a bike is bad blows me away.
You gotta start somewhere. Right now, bikes, as commute and around-town
utility vehicle are so far off the back it's laughable. If it became
fashionable to ride a bike to Starbucks...
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:1135104471.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> Dan Connelly wrote:
>> > What's up with those wheels? Maybe the roads in Portland are extremely
>> > well maintained :).
>> >
>> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=photos/2005/tech/features/trek_urban/trek_portland1
>> >
>> > Dan
>>
>> No racks, lights, fenders...hardly a 'commute' bike at all. Unless you
>> commute a round trip back home.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> spoke
> capacity. One breaks, I true up the rest, and still get to work. I am
> skeptical
> those wheels have the robustness or strength of 36 hole 3-cross. So,
> "durability aside"? Nothing aside about it: durability is the whole
> point.
Why is 36 a magical number at which a wheel is strong enough? Why not 72? Or
at least 48?
I get to deal with wheels like these in the "real world", not an engineering
laboratory, and in that real world environment, spoke failure simply isn't
an issue, outside of nasty crashes where something goes into the wheel. And
in those cases, the imagined effect of a reduced-count Bontrager wheel
becoming a potato chip simply don't come true.
What I ought to do in my spare time (that's a good excuse for why it won't
happen for a while) is document what happens when you remove a single spoke
from a 36-spoke wheel vs 20 or 24. In my real-world experience, I just
haven't seen the differences everyone worries about.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:43A81668.5040507@i_e_e_e.o_r_g...
> mt9...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>>What's up with those wheels? Maybe the roads in Portland are extremely
>>>>well maintained :).
>>>
>>>They are *very* durable wheels.
>>
>>
>>>Besides, what's wrong with a bit of style in a commute bike? Obviously
>>>"style" is in the eye of the beholder; some will like it, others won't.
>>>But
>>>it will look distinctive and attract attention (or else this thread
>>>wouldn't
>>>exist), and that's not a bad thing if you're a manufacturer or retailer.
>>
>>
>> nothing wrong with style but leaving aside the question of durability I
>> don't think a bike without mudguards or a rack or a lighting system
>> could be described as an ultimate commuter
>>
>
> Maybe it never rains in Portland.
>
> On the question of durability: for a commuter, I want a bike with excess
> spoke
> capacity. One breaks, I true up the rest, and still get to work. I am
> skeptical
> those wheels have the robustness or strength of 36 hole 3-cross. So,
> "durability aside"? Nothing aside about it: durability is the whole
> point.
>
> For many people, my experience in Vietnam
> me: http://www.djconnel.com/photos/VietnamThailand2005/hue_djcbike.jpg
> more experienced cyclists:
> http://www.djconnel.com/photos/VietnamThailand2005/hue_loadedcyclist.jpg
> convinced me something more in the line of http://www.breezer.com/ is more
> suitable.
>
> I still like my "racing" bike, though....
>
> Dan
Werehatrack
<mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Besides, what's wrong with a bit of style in a commute bike? Obviously
>"style" is in the eye of the beholder; some will like it, others won't. But
>it will look distinctive and attract attention (or else this thread wouldn't
>exist), and that's not a bad thing if you're a manufacturer or retailer.
It can be a very bad thing indeed if you don't have the option of
parking your bike in your offfice. Those wheels would mark the bike
as Theft Target Alpha-One.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Ryan Cousineau
Since full, extended fenders are mandatory on my racing club's winter
rides, I have seen great numbers of low-clearance, no-fender-mounts
frames equipped thus.
The hot setup is usually to cut a full fender and bolt it to the front
and rear of the brake arch bolt, thus leaving a small gap so the fender
doesn't have to pass between the tire and brake.
SKS Race Blades, although not full fenders, are also popular for their
quick-on, quick-off mounting.
Andrew F Martin
the same as double...yada yada yada
Phil, Squid-in-Training
>> All this leads me to believe that Trek and Co. are part of a big
>> conspiracy to not let us buy normal commuter bikes. Scary.
>
> Afraid not. Trek brought in large numbers of L200 & L300 bicycles to
> the US. John Burke, president of Trek, really thought that the time
> was right to introduce *exactly* the same bikes that sell very well
> in Europe. "Real" commute bikes, ready to go right off the sales
> floor.
> It was a very expensive mistake. Those bikes just sat & rotted in the
> warehouses, because shops couldn't relate to them. The shops that did
> bring them in, often had the sale results we did- the bikes just sat
> & rotted on the sales floor. Nobody wanted to buy a full-on commute
> bike, because it didn't look cool enough, or it was too expensive, or
> it wasn't set up EXACTLY THE WAY THE CUSTOMER WANTED. That last part
> is very important. The domestic (US) market seems very different from
> Europe; here, if a customer is going to spend $600+ on a commute
> bike, they have a very specific idea of what it should be. Something
> generic doesn't cut it. Somebody else's idea of lights, fenders,
> integrated lock etc., is fine... for somebody else.
> If such a bike sold for $300-$400, my guess is that it would be very
> successful. But you can't start at the high end on a fully-equipped
> machine like that in the US market.
I have to clean the dust off the Castro Valley in the shop every few months.
"It's so cool!" and never another peep of interest.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
maxo
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > All this leads me to believe that Trek and Co. are part of a big
> > conspiracy to not let us buy normal commuter bikes. Scary.
>
> Afraid not. Trek brought in large numbers of L200 & L300 bicycles to the US.
> John Burke, president of Trek, really thought that the time was right to
> introduce *exactly* the same bikes that sell very well in Europe. "Real"
> commute bikes, ready to go right off the sales floor.
>
> It was a very expensive mistake. Those bikes just sat & rotted in the
> warehouses, because shops couldn't relate to them.
Well, after my experience with bike shop employees around here--it was
about employee education more than anything else. Three shops with Trek
as their flagships, and they don't even know that the bikes exist.
That's a problem.
You've got to sell your iron. I could have sold plenty had I worked at
a shop when I commuted daily on a San Anselmo Nexus bike--people
constantly asked me about my "cool" bike, and lamented that they
couldn't find one like it. It helped that I was never dressed "Fred" on
it, but in hip clothes and light boots--people saw the package--a young
happenin' guy on his cool black vehicle, that happended to be a
bicycle.
I'm a Swede living in the south, and I understand that the cycling
cultures are different in our respective nations. But shops need to
know their flagship line, even the obscure models--with Trek, you can
scan the website in a couple hours and get the gist of it.
But the shops never got it. Where were the display windows with a
commuter bike and a sexy mannequin in urban garb to lure the buyers?
Nowhere. A product without a proper marketing campaign is nada.
It's like designer coffee in the early nineties--we had to be told that
we needed it, now nobody thinks it's odd when Wendy in the office
suddenly MUST HAVE a *bucks drink.
Of course shops in Omaha and Birmingham wouldn't sell tons of these,
but they should have moved at a good clip in SF, Portland, Chicago,
Boston, and other cycling savvy markets.
>The shops that did bring
> them in, often had the sale results we did- the bikes just sat & rotted on
> the sales floor. Nobody wanted to buy a full-on commute bike, because it
> didn't look cool enough, or it was too expensive, or it wasn't set up
> EXACTLY THE WAY THE CUSTOMER WANTED.
BS. Shop employees didn't have the enthusiasm to sell these bikes
because they didn't understand them. If you can sell landriders, you
can sell a $6-800 commuter.
Trek may have done a smarter deal by shipping the bikes fairly naked,
with only fenders and racks, but w/o the integrated lock and lighting
systems.
The L200 set up in such a way could have been priced at a healthier
$500, a very magic price point.
$7-800 seems to be the magic point in Scandinavia for somebody shopping
for a serious commuter bike, but there's also a $300 type bike, that's
set up sorta like the L200, but with cheap stuff like steel stem, post,
etc, that's very popular.
>That last part is very important. The
> domestic (US) market seems very different from Europe; here, if a customer
> is going to spend $600+ on a commute bike, they have a very specific idea of
> what it should be.
and often flawed, tbh, that's we need to educate resellers. Certainly
there are long time riders that just know what they want and there's
more money to be made off of those nice customers.
> If such a bike sold for $300-$400, my guess is that it would be very
> successful. But you can't start at the high end on a fully-equipped machine
> like that in the US market.
>
Agree with that totally. the Trek "L" range should have included the
Nexus three speed and ranged from $350 -1000.
Chalo
I have mixed feelings about drum brakes. On the one hand, they are
very consistent and clean and hardly ever require any sort of
maintenance. On the other hand, they just don't offer as much braking
power as rim brakes or disc brakes.
The one front drub hub I've had the most success with has been a Sachs
VT3000 hub that I bought in NOS condition along with its rear
counterpart. It's a 48 hole hub-- which is what attracted me to it--
but the brake is stronger and less fade-prone than most other drums I
have used. A short stint with a Sachs VT5000 hub in a 26" wheel left
me with a similar overall impression.
My guess is that the SRAM i-brake would deliver braking performance
comparable to, or better than, that of its Sachs predecessors.
I have a bike with a Sturmey Archer Elite front drum, and it works,
well, OK. It's laced to a 20" wheel, and after an acceptable initial
bite it fades gradually towards ineffectiveness. The Shimano roller
brake I have on the 20" rear wheel of the same bike is pretty comical--
it feels almost as strong as a rim brake at first, but then fades so
abruptly that sometimes I feel like I should have packed a parchute.
In my experience, drum brakes are the most sensitive of all brakes to
brake lever gain, cable throw, and cable stretch. 4-finger MTB levers
generally work best for me, but one of my buddies who uses drums on his
heavy load-carrying bike prefers Dia Compe PC-7 EXA levers. Those
levers use a little bell crank to deliver an adjustable rising rate,
somewhat like Shimano's Servo-Wave in effect. Be sure to avoid 7x7
strand cable and the misleadingly named "compressionless" housing with
drum brakes.
I understand that there are places where one can bring in any drum
brake-- truck, car, or bike-- and have sintered metal pad material
bonded on. I've heard that this makes a bicycle drum brake work as
affirmatively as a disc brake, but I imagine that there might well be
serious complications arising from having increased braking power
without improved heat rejection. If nothing else, I'd repack the
bearings of such a hub with CV joint grease or other high-temperature
lubricant.
Chalo Colina
Luke
<phil_leeIHEA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have to clean the dust off the Castro Valley in the shop every few months.
>
> "It's so cool!" and never another peep of interest.
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training
Hmmm. The bike's name is too proletarian, too evocative of tyranny and
despotic depths. Rebadging the two wheeler to appeal to a sense of
patriotism might lead to a sale - say Rummy Ridge or Bush Canyon.
Ozark Bicycle
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> And this babble is presented in Cycling News in the guise of a "Tech
> >> Feature"! What it really is is an overheated magazine hack
> >> regurgitating the hype of a Trek marketing flak. IOW, this is
> >> effectively a Trek press release. So much for "journalism".
> >
> > Well said.
>
> Does anybody read the "Tech Feature" section of CyclingNews and assume
> otherwise?
They might assume they were going to read a "Tech Feature"; i.e., a
somewhat objective look at the "technical features" of a product. Go
figure!
> Still, even regurgitated press releases have their purpose, in
> terms of getting information out into the market, particularly to people who
> might not have otherwise had exposure to the product.
Regurgitated press releases might have their place if labeled as such,
or even if listed under the banner of "New Products".
Ozark Bicycle
> >> No racks, lights, fenders...hardly a 'commute' bike at all. Unless you
> >> commute a round trip back home.
> >
> >
> > I suspect the target market for this bike is those who will use it to
> > "commute" to the local Starbucks for an overpriced cuppa.
>
> If Trek managed to succeed at getting people out of their cars and onto a
> bike for their trip to Starbucks, that would be an incredible
> accomplishment. I would love to see that day come to pass. It would give me
> hope that the bicycle *could* be incorporated into everyday routine. To
> suggest that such a use for a bike is bad blows me away.
>
> You gotta start somewhere. Right now, bikes, as commute and around-town
> utility vehicle are so far off the back it's laughable. If it became
> fashionable to ride a bike to Starbucks...
>
C'mon, do you seriously believe that a warmed over version of an
existing bike (the Trek XO-1) whose bullet points are disc brakes, a
visually distinctive CF fork and ever-so-cute but oh-so-useless fenders
that sells for over $1500 is going to have *any* significant impact on
the use of bikes as "commute and around-town utility vehicles"?
More likely these will appeal to those whose CF "racing bike" is way
too precious to be ridden to Starbucks. Just another bike to talk about
and hang on the wall.
Luke
Jacoubowsky <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On the question of durability: for a commuter, I want a bike with excess
> > spoke
> > capacity. One breaks, I true up the rest, and still get to work. I am
> > skeptical
> > those wheels have the robustness or strength of 36 hole 3-cross. So,
> > "durability aside"? Nothing aside about it: durability is the whole
> > point.
>
> Why is 36 a magical number at which a wheel is strong enough? Why not 72? Or
> at least 48?
For commuting or utilitarian uses where durability and serviceability
are foremost, is not a gauge of component suitability the degree of
design redundancy? What are the relevant benefits of the Bontragers
over a 'traditional' 36 spoke option? They're costlier, more difficult
to true and, should a component fail, less retailers are certain to
stock a replacement. I suspect that the Bonts are also weaker.
http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/wheels/wheelsets/Bontrager/PRD_104397_
2490crx.aspx
> I get to deal with wheels like these in the "real world", not an engineering
> laboratory, and in that real world environment, spoke failure simply isn't
> an issue, outside of nasty crashes where something goes into the wheel. And
> in those cases, the imagined effect of a reduced-count Bontrager wheel
> becoming a potato chip simply don't come true.
>
I'm curious. Joe Sixpack walks into your shop looking for a
commuter/utility bike. He weighs 180 or 190 lbs, wants to outfit his
bike with racks, panniers, fenders, lights, etc... for his daily to and
fro; doesn't know much about servicing bikes and doesn't want to know
much. Based solely on their technical merits, would you honestly
recommend the Bontrager Selects as the superior choice?
Luke
(PeteCresswell)
> spoke failure simply isn't
>an issue, outside of nasty crashes where something goes into the wheel.
I'm about 220#. Every so often I break one or more spokes.
I carry a spoke wrench in my tool roll, but have never used it in the field.
Once, when I found three spokes broken, the wheel was a noticeably out of true -
but not taco'd and broken spokes have never, ever stranded me or even caused me
to cut a ride short by turning back.
This is on 26" MTB wheels and on an old sixties-era 10-speed.
Maybe it's different on road bikes.
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>landriders
MTBs?
--
PeteCresswell
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > All this leads me to believe that Trek and Co. are part of a big
> > conspiracy to not let us buy normal commuter bikes. Scary.
>
> Afraid not. Trek brought in large numbers of L200 & L300 bicycles to the US.
> John Burke, president of Trek, really thought that the time was right to
> introduce *exactly* the same bikes that sell very well in Europe. "Real"
> commute bikes, ready to go right off the sales floor.
>
> It was a very expensive mistake. Those bikes just sat & rotted in the
> warehouses, because shops couldn't relate to them. The shops that did bring
> them in, often had the sale results we did- the bikes just sat & rotted on
> the sales floor. Nobody wanted to buy a full-on commute bike, because it
> didn't look cool enough, or it was too expensive, or it wasn't set up
> EXACTLY THE WAY THE CUSTOMER WANTED. That last part is very important. The
> domestic (US) market seems very different from Europe;
ya think??
Some of the stuff sold here would be laughed at in the Netherlands,
Denmark, in terms of 'transportation'.
Andrew F Martin
worthless for anything more than a sprinkling and any self-respecting
rain rider will replace them anyway. They are a throw away...just like
the saddle and pedals (and probably stem/bars).
Jay Beattie
They are on back order at the Bike Gallery in Portland. Somebody
likes them. I think the bike is cool, particularly for our wet
climate -- assuming you put on full fenders. As for the bike
gettting people into commuting, forget it. People make the
decision to commute and then pick their equipment --whether it be
a racing, touring or mountain bike or something else. The choice
of machinery comes after the choice to ride, and few people who
chose to ride are deterred by their equipment, at least not for
long. Some equipment or bike choices will make a big difference,
like when a person with a disability discovers a comfortable
recumbent or something like that, but a new bling-bling bike with
fenders is not going to turn a couch potato into a commuter. --
Jay Beattie.
Ozark Bicycle
I'm sure the boys at Trek are toasting the good fortune that allows
them to sucessfully sell a cheap to produce, Asian made aluminum frame
bike for $1500+. Perhaps next year there will be a Trek Barnum ;-)
> As for the bike
> gettting people into commuting, forget it.
(snip)
> a new bling-bling bike with
> fenders is not going to turn a couch potato into a commuter. --
>
Agreed.
Andrew F Martin
other sites (PezCyclingNews.com being the biggest yes-man in the game).
Ryan Cousineau
"Andrew F Martin" <andrew_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'd say cn.com takes a lot more critical look at their reviews than
> other sites (PezCyclingNews.com being the biggest yes-man in the game).
Cyclingnews couches its reviews far too much. They do seem to be pretty
good about writing up flaws in products, however diplomatically they do
so ("great wheels, after we had them retrued..."). But reading their
reviews is a bit like reading a newspaper in the USSR: the story is
usually there, but between the lines.
Also, I have come to regard their ratings as being on a scale from 4 to
5. So a 4 is the worst product they review, and a 5 is probably good.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> utility vehicle are so far off the back it's laughable. If it became
>> fashionable to ride a bike to Starbucks...
>>
>
> C'mon, do you seriously believe that a warmed over version of an
> existing bike (the Trek XO-1) whose bullet points are disc brakes, a
> visually distinctive CF fork and ever-so-cute but oh-so-useless fenders
> that sells for over $1500 is going to have *any* significant impact on
> the use of bikes as "commute and around-town utility vehicles"?
You gotta start somewhere. If Starbucks were to capitalize on the idea of a
new way to get your Starbucks fix... maybe come out with their own
handlebar-mounted coffee mug... it's better than nothing. Revolutions were
started with less.
As for making fun of the Portland model, it might not be what *you* are
looking for, but we already have orders from customers for them. It's not a
"warmed over" version of an X0-1 (although curiously, I've been the #1 fan
of the idea that the X0-1 is the foundation for a killer utility bike, and
that it should have been marketed as the ideal 2nd road bike, for rain, for
bad roads, for commuting, for 'cross... all the things you wouldn't want to
subject your "nice" bike to... but Trek would rather come out with a
different model than show how you can better-use an existing one).
> More likely these will appeal to those whose CF "racing bike" is way
> too precious to be ridden to Starbucks. Just another bike to talk about
> and hang on the wall.
You're talking out of both sides here. Yes, it's exactly the right bike for
the person whose high-end racing bike isn't what they want to ride to
Starbucks. Why do you assume it will just be hung on the wall? If a bike has
a purpose, it's always possible a small number of people will get a clue and
use it for that purpose. Many will hang it on the wall, sure, but is that so
different than anything else in a consumer-oriented society? It's those
people who hang stuff on the walls that essentially subsidize stuff for the
rest of us, by allowing things to be made in large enough numbers that costs
become reasonable.
Still, for me, the #1 thing that makes me cringe is the thought of a lonely
bike in the garage, never (or rarely) ridden. As a company, we (Chain
Reaction) go out of our way to keep that from happening. Absolutely hate it
when we see a bike come in 4 years after it was purchased, with no miles,
because something wasn't quite right, whether it was comfort, something
mechanical, or maybe they just didn't know about the riding opportunities in
the area. How many never come in?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:1135166841.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Or
>> at least 48?
>
> For commuting or utilitarian uses where durability and serviceability
> are foremost, is not a gauge of component suitability the degree of
> design redundancy? What are the relevant benefits of the Bontragers
> over a 'traditional' 36 spoke option? They're costlier, more difficult
> to true and, should a component fail, less retailers are certain to
> stock a replacement. I suspect that the Bonts are also weaker.
In a major wheel failure (trashed rim from a nasty crash), the most-likely
repair option will be to buy a new wheel, not rebuild the existing one. The
cost of labor, spokes & rim are nearly always greater than the cost of an
entire stock wheel. And if you did want to rebuild, the parts can be ordered
from any Trek/Klein/Fisher/LeMond dealer and are usually readily in stock.
If neither option works, you can substitute any other front wheel of your
choice; aside from appearance, it's not like a car where you get into
handling issues having different wheels or tires front & rear.
At about $220/pair, the wheels aren't costlier than other moderately-priced
wheelsets. Someone who says they're more difficult to true probably hasn't
worked on them and is making assumptions about that; I've found them very
easy to work with. Spokes, by the way, are entirely standard garden-variety
DTs that you can pick up just about anywhere (maybe not so easy to find in
black, but a bit of black felt-tip marker can do wonders in a pinch).
Like so many other things, you find people there who love them, and people
who hate them. People who say they're really stiff, others who say they're
not. It's the Internet; if it takes more than 2 minutes to find reasonable
(and completely opposite) opinions on something, you're not very good at
searching for things.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Luke" <lucasi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:211220050707577675%lucasi...@rogers.com...
Andrew F Martin
parts of the East coast which bike they put the most miles on, and I
imagine most will tell your their "Rain Bike". All the more reason for
Trek to market to this bike as a true road bike and not just a
re-cobbled, super stiff cross bike. I want the best possible rain bike
I can afford (half my team has carbon rain bikes) and as soon as I saw
it I knew this is the one I'd get. My LBS just called and said they
are now sending orders to Trek so I'm in. I'll post pics with proper
fenders, saddle, cranks, bars when it gets built up.
Andrew F Martin
with Ultegra group due to sourcing issues with 105 10sp? They also
said that ship dates are ???.
Any insider info to confirm this?
Bill Sornson
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7205208935&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1
Bill "too lazy to track down that 'grocery capacity' thread" S.
Luke
Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> >> You gotta start somewhere. Right now, bikes, as commute and around-town
> >> utility vehicle are so far off the back it's laughable. If it became
> >> fashionable to ride a bike to Starbucks...
> >>
> >
> > C'mon, do you seriously believe that a warmed over version of an
> > existing bike (the Trek XO-1) whose bullet points are disc brakes, a
> > visually distinctive CF fork and ever-so-cute but oh-so-useless fenders
> > that sells for over $1500 is going to have *any* significant impact on
> > the use of bikes as "commute and around-town utility vehicles"?
>
> You gotta start somewhere. If Starbucks were to capitalize on the idea of a
> new way to get your Starbucks fix... maybe come out with their own
> handlebar-mounted coffee mug... it's better than nothing. Revolutions were
> started with less.
Thankfully those revolutions failed. Is the public so effete and
degenerate that it can't recognize the merit of an undertaking unless
tarted up by gimmickry and superfluity? Or that it requires the
sanction of a corporate marketing ploy to define its behavioral
patterns? How long before the handlebar-mounted coffee mug must be
transformed into an aero carbon-fiber thermal fluid suspension system
to sustain sufficient interest in cycling? Pathetic.
>
> As for making fun of the Portland model, it might not be what *you* are
> looking for, but we already have orders from customers for them.
What's there about the bike to make fun of? It was its presentation by
cyclingnews.com - the puffed up marketing bafflegab, that came under
fire. Pointing out possible issues with the wheels and full fenders is
fair game.
<snip>
> Still, for me, the #1 thing that makes me cringe is the thought of a lonely
> bike in the garage, never (or rarely) ridden. As a company, we (Chain
> Reaction) go out of our way to keep that from happening. Absolutely hate it
> when we see a bike come in 4 years after it was purchased, with no miles,
> because something wasn't quite right, whether it was comfort, something
> mechanical, or maybe they just didn't know about the riding opportunities in
> the area. How many never come in?
>
Right on the money. What's the saying? The best bikes are those that
are ridden and enjoyed.
Luke
Jay Beattie
"Andrew F Martin" <andrew_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135204588.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The discs on the Portland are nice if you spend a lot of time in
the rain. They will spare your rims, but then again you cannot
swipe a set of wheels off another bike in a pinch. The Portland
also gives you the option of large profile tires, which probably
is not a big selling point for the racer-set who ride nothing
bigger than 25mm regardless of clearance. The CF Pilot is
probably a more bitch'n winter training bike. The downfall of the
Portland is that it is not a cross bike, which is not a problem
if you have no illusions of racing cross. If you do, just buy a
cross bike. -- Jay Beattie.
Ozark Bicycle
Andrew F Martin wrote:
> I want the best possible rain bike
> I can afford (half my team has carbon rain bikes)
"My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends! Oh Lord, won't you
send me a Mercedes-Benz." J. Joplin
Ozark Bicycle
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
(snip)
>
> As for making fun of the Portland model, it might not be what *you* are
> looking for, but we already have orders from customers for them. It's not a
> "warmed over" version of an X0-1
Well, I compared the frame geometry (on the 56cm): same ST angle, same
HT angle, same chainstay length, same trail, wheelbase within 0.4"
(production tolerances?), BB height within 0.1" (again, production
tolerances?), TT length within 0.2" (again?). Would anyone really
design a new frame and come up with something so similar to something
they already produce?
Where they _do_ differ, the XO-1 seems to have the edge: a durable
anodized finish v. paint, "interupter" levers on the bar tops, and an
aluminum fork (a plastic fork on a commuter Seems, well, just dumb).
The Portland has discs and those vestigial fenders.
(although curiously, I've been the #1 fan
> of the idea that the X0-1 is the foundation for a killer utility bike, and
> that it should have been marketed as the ideal 2nd road bike, for rain, for
> bad roads, for commuting, for 'cross... all the things you wouldn't want to
> subject your "nice" bike to...
Agreed on that idea!
but Trek would rather come out with a
> different model than show how you can better-use an existing one).
Another bike is another sales opportunity. Why blow it by suggesting
the extant cross bike makes a good commuter?
>
> > More likely these will appeal to those whose CF "racing bike" is way
> > too precious to be ridden to Starbucks. Just another bike to talk about
> > and hang on the wall.
>
> You're talking out of both sides here. Yes, it's exactly the right bike for
> the person whose high-end racing bike isn't what they want to ride to
> Starbucks. Why do you assume it will just be hung on the wall? If a bike has
> a purpose, it's always possible a small number of people will get a clue and
> use it for that purpose. Many will hang it on the wall, sure, but is that so
> different than anything else in a consumer-oriented society? It's those
> people who hang stuff on the walls that essentially subsidize stuff for the
> rest of us, by allowing things to be made in large enough numbers that costs
> become reasonable.
>
Help me here; exactly what, aside from the assertions of the Trek
marketing department, makes the Portland a "commuter"?
Stephen Greenwood
<snipped>
> I get to deal with wheels like these in the "real world", not an engineering
> laboratory, and in that real world environment, spoke failure simply isn't
> an issue, outside of nasty crashes where something goes into the wheel. And
> in those cases, the imagined effect of a reduced-count Bontrager wheel
> becoming a potato chip simply don't come true.
Mike, when you say "wheels like these", I assume you mean any of the
strong-rimmed, low(er) spoke-count wheels. I can contribute one data
point outside your experience: My first road bike, a Bianchi Talladega,
came with Shimano WH-R535 wheels that had 16 "paired" spokes. I rode it
for about 9 months, using it for my Sunnyvale-Newark (CA) commute plus
some pleasure riding. Somewhere around the 4000 mile mark, a left-hand
rear wheel spoke broke during my evening commute, causing a "potato
chip" wheel deformation to the extent that the tire rubbed on the
chainstay. The wheel was undergoing no inordinate stress at the time
(no crash, pothole, abnormal riding position, or the like). Nor had I
abused the wheels: I'm 6'0", 185 lbs. including my cargo, and my
experience riding unpaved roads has made me "light on the pedals". So
in my limited experience with this type of wheel, spoke failure *was*
an issue, and the consequent wheel deformation disabled my bicycle.
In contrast, I once broke a spoke on a 36-spoke wheel on an MTB. I bent
the fallen warrior around neighboring spokes to prevent movement, then
finished my (off road) ride with no problems and repaired it at home.
Two years ago I built myself a set of 36-spoke 700c wheels that have
been subjected to harsher use than anything I dished out previously.
I've never had a problem with those, and if I do, I can ride home. With
my 16-spoke wheel that was impossible.
Your experience in the shop shows that it cannot be argued that
low-spoke-count wheels will fail for everyone. But for my weight and
the kind of riding I do, I don't see any significant advantage to using
fewer than 36, so I stick with that and use a lighter rim than a lower
spoke-count wheel can handle.
Regards,
Stephen Greenwood
Andrew F Martin
Yup.
Tired of trying to hang with current rig. It's bombproof, steel, and
comfortable - but it's a tank.
Gooserider
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:j35qf.43536$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> With Trek the situation is a bit more difficult than with most suppliers,
> since Trek makes such a huge number of different models. There's simply no
> way a dealer can represent the entire line, and once you get into
> cherry-picking mode, the less-popular bikes get ignored.
>
>
It is inevitable that people will buy Portlands simply because the dealer
had one on the floor. I wonder how many dealers would try to convince a
customer to order a 520 instead? I'm not slagging the Portland, but I don't
think it's outfitted properly for its intended usage. I would have been
happy to see it with full coverage fenders, a rack, 36 hole wheels, and
Ruffy Tuffys. But that's just me. :-) I'm sure Grant wouldn't mind the $.
Gooserider
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <phil_leeIHEA...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Ul7qf.4904$NS.1559@dukeread04...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> All this leads me to believe that Trek and Co. are part of a big
>>> conspiracy to not let us buy normal commuter bikes. Scary.
>>
>> Afraid not. Trek brought in large numbers of L200 & L300 bicycles to
>> the US. John Burke, president of Trek, really thought that the time
>> was right to introduce *exactly* the same bikes that sell very well
>> in Europe. "Real" commute bikes, ready to go right off the sales
>> floor.
>> It was a very expensive mistake. Those bikes just sat & rotted in the
>> warehouses, because shops couldn't relate to them. The shops that did
>> bring them in, often had the sale results we did- the bikes just sat
>> & rotted on the sales floor. Nobody wanted to buy a full-on commute
>> bike, because it didn't look cool enough, or it was too expensive, or
>> it wasn't set up EXACTLY THE WAY THE CUSTOMER WANTED. That last part
>> is very important. The domestic (US) market seems very different from
>> bike, they have a very specific idea of what it should be. Something
>> generic doesn't cut it. Somebody else's idea of lights, fenders,
>> integrated lock etc., is fine... for somebody else.
>> If such a bike sold for $300-$400, my guess is that it would be very
>> successful. But you can't start at the high end on a fully-equipped
>> machine like that in the US market.
>
> months.
>
> "It's so cool!" and never another peep of interest.
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training
I think the Castro Valley is very cool. My local dealer is ostensibly a
Bianchi dealer, but he has no Bianchis on the floor. I don't trust him,
either. Had another shop who was also a Bianchi dealer, but it closed up. I
thought about the Castro Valley but went with a Gunnar instead. Now I'm
looking for a cheaper steel commuter, and the Castro Valley fits the bill.
No dealer though. :-(
Gooserider
>>> No racks, lights, fenders...hardly a 'commute' bike at all. Unless you
>>> commute a round trip back home.
>>
>>
>> I suspect the target market for this bike is those who will use it to
>> "commute" to the local Starbucks for an overpriced cuppa.
>
> If Trek managed to succeed at getting people out of their cars and onto a
> bike for their trip to Starbucks, that would be an incredible
> accomplishment. I would love to see that day come to pass. It would give
> me hope that the bicycle *could* be incorporated into everyday routine. To
> suggest that such a use for a bike is bad blows me away.
>
> utility vehicle are so far off the back it's laughable. If it became
> fashionable to ride a bike to Starbucks...
I would like to see more people on bikes, but my area was not designed with
bikes in mind. Lots of high traffic areas, on old small town roads. I
usually only see DUI-type riders. The ones who do ride tend to do so with no
lighting on the wrong side of the road. It's scary. You have to be committed
or desperate to ride here. Convincing people to brave US 19 is a stretch.
Mike
Mike Jacoubowsky
> low-spoke-count wheels will fail for everyone. But for my weight and
> the kind of riding I do, I don't see any significant advantage to using
> fewer than 36, so I stick with that and use a lighter rim than a lower
> spoke-count wheel can handle.
>
> Regards,
> Stephen Greenwood
Stephen: It's not so much the number of spokes as it is the total package
that's relevant. I broke a spoke in a rear Rolf Vector Pro (16 spokes) on a
bike with marginal rim clearance (Y-Foil) and had no problem riding home.
But look at the difference in rim design and you can see why; Shimano used a
much-lower-profile (and lighter) rim than did Rolf, so the wheel was much
more dependent upon the spokes for maintaining a reasonably-round shape.
Keep in mind also that heavier rims have advantages beyond resistance to
distortion with spoke failure. They're also much less likely to become
dented from impact. We used to joke that the Rolf Vector Comp was
responsible for any broken curbs we came across.
In the past, rim replacement due to impact damage (denting) was far more
common than it is today. We still see it on lightweight, low-profile rims,
but virtually never on those with a deeper cross-section. Instead, the
typical rim-bashing rider now gets far more mileage before eventually
needing to replace them due to fatigue failure (usually cracks at the spoke
holes).
In a nutshell, we're moving weight away from the spokes and into the rim. If
appropriately designed, this makes a lot of sense... because if spoke
failure isn't an issue (which it shouldn't be, but of course we don't live
in a perfect world), we absolutely positively have something to gain by
using heavier, stronger rims. You don't get something for nothing though, so
potentially the worst of all-possible worlds might be a very light rim with
very few spokes (such as the original Shimano, which also had issues due to
the manner in which the spokes were attached to the rim).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Stephen Greenwood" <stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135220335.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
dvt
You just made the case... Or was that first question rhetorical?
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Ozark Bicycle
Luke wrote:
> In article <J7kqf.43676$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, Mike
> Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > >> You gotta start somewhere. Right now, bikes, as commute and around-town
> > >> utility vehicle are so far off the back it's laughable. If it became
> > >> fashionable to ride a bike to Starbucks...
> > >>
> > >
> > > C'mon, do you seriously believe that a warmed over version of an
> > > existing bike (the Trek XO-1) whose bullet points are disc brakes, a
> > > visually distinctive CF fork and ever-so-cute but oh-so-useless fenders
> > > that sells for over $1500 is going to have *any* significant impact on
> > > the use of bikes as "commute and around-town utility vehicles"?
> >
> > You gotta start somewhere. If Starbucks were to capitalize on the idea of a
> > new way to get your Starbucks fix... maybe come out with their own
> > handlebar-mounted coffee mug... it's better than nothing. Revolutions were
> > started with less.
>
> Thankfully those revolutions failed. Is the public so effete and
> degenerate that it can't recognize the merit of an undertaking unless
> tarted up by gimmickry and superfluity? Or that it requires the
> sanction of a corporate marketing ploy to define its behavioral
> patterns? How long before the handlebar-mounted coffee mug must be
> transformed into an aero carbon-fiber thermal fluid suspension system
> to sustain sufficient interest in cycling? Pathetic.
>
Here's a picture of the other Trek "commuter/urban" bike, the Soho. See
what's in the bottle cage?
(Standing next to the bike is a member of the "target market" for this
device. ;-)
>
> >
> > As for making fun of the Portland model, it might not be what *you* are
> > looking for, but we already have orders from customers for them.
>
> What's there about the bike to make fun of? It was its presentation by
> cyclingnews.com - the puffed up marketing bafflegab, that came under
> fire. Pointing out possible issues with the wheels and full fenders is
> fair game.
>
A "commuter" that's sold with useless fenders and will not readily
accept full coverage fenders is definitely fair game for derision.
Andrew F Martin
buy from a store stock and ride it as is. Even my Madone I changed the
saddle, stem, bars, seatpost, headset and wheels (+pedals). I just see
the fenders as one more thing to change. I'm glad it doesn't come with
full fenders because they would probably be cheap and obtrusive and I'd
probably end up taking those off in favor of my prefered type (SKS full
+ flaps) anyway.
With the "new spec" Portland - I'm planning to alter it with some
GossamerEXO cranks, front and rear derr, bars, stem, post, saddle, and
FENDERS to make it all work as I like.
-a
Dan Connelly
>>On the question of durability: for a commuter, I want a bike with excess
>>spoke
>>capacity. One breaks, I true up the rest, and still get to work. I am
>>skeptical
>>those wheels have the robustness or strength of 36 hole 3-cross. So,
>>"durability aside"? Nothing aside about it: durability is the whole
>>point.
>
>
> Why is 36 a magical number at which a wheel is strong enough? Why not 72? Or
> at least 48?
>
> laboratory, and in that real world environment, spoke failure simply isn't
> an issue, outside of nasty crashes where something goes into the wheel. And
> in those cases, the imagined effect of a reduced-count Bontrager wheel
> becoming a potato chip simply don't come true.
>
> happen for a while) is document what happens when you remove a single spoke
> from a 36-spoke wheel vs 20 or 24. In my real-world experience, I just
> haven't seen the differences everyone worries about.
You're right: I'm making the following assumptions:
* commuting 10 miles daily for 10 years, there's at least a 10% chance of breaking
a spoke (more or less).
* the wheels with this bike cannot be retrued to a usable state, following one
spoke failure
* a wheel with 32-36 spokes can be thus retrued.
If I'm wrong, I stand corrected!
Dan
Luke
Ozark Bicycle <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> Here's a picture of the other Trek "commuter/urban" bike, the Soho. See
> what's in the bottle cage?
<rolling my eyes> The latest accessory, a vertically compliant,
laterally stiff stainless steel - is real! - coffee jug! I can see the
various rbt camps mobilizing for battle over the benefits of anodized
aluminum mugs over those of steel.....
>
> http://tinyurl.com/a7ph2
>
> (Standing next to the bike is a member of the "target market" for this
> device. ;-)
lol! She reminds of a girl I knew, but this one has more personality.
And apparently she likes bikes, though her taste is suspect.
Luke
Stephen Greenwood
>
> Stephen: It's not so much the number of spokes as it is the total package
> that's relevant. I broke a spoke in a rear Rolf Vector Pro (16 spokes) on a
> bike with marginal rim clearance (Y-Foil) and had no problem riding home.
> But look at the difference in rim design and you can see why; Shimano used a
> much-lower-profile (and lighter) rim than did Rolf, so the wheel was much
> more dependent upon the spokes for maintaining a reasonably-round shape.
The Shimano WH-R535 wheels had a 28mm rim depth. I've had no experience
with Rolfs other than having seen them in shops, but I found a web page
(http://www.tc-homes.com/bike/features/wheels/cover.htm) that shows the
'99 Vector Pro as being 30mm deep. It also lists the weight of the
Vector Pro as 1784g, substantially less that of the R535 at 2055g. If
the R535 rim was "much-lower-profile (and lighter)", then you must have
had a version of the Vector Pro from another model year, in which the
rim depth and weight were dramatically increased over the '99 model.
How deep were they, and how much did the pair of wheels weigh? Compared
to more conventional rims, that Shimano rim was deep and heavy, but it
wasn't strong enough to resist significant deformation resulting from a
single broken spoke. The quantitative value of "significant" depends on
frame and brake clearance, but I'm curious to find out what it took to
make the rim on your 16-spoke wheel that didn't suffer on your frame
"with marginal rim clearance".
Ozark Bicycle
Luke wrote:
> In article <1135256114....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Ozark Bicycle <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Here's a picture of the other Trek "commuter/urban" bike, the Soho. See
> > what's in the bottle cage?
>
> <rolling my eyes> The latest accessory, a vertically compliant,
> laterally stiff stainless steel - is real! - coffee jug! I can see the
> various rbt camps mobilizing for battle over the benefits of anodized
> aluminum mugs over those of steel.....
>
Serious Starbuckies will be waiting for the CF version; every gram
counts when yer sprintin' for a latte!
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/a7ph2
> >
> > (Standing next to the bike is a member of the "target market" for this
> > device. ;-)
>
> lol! She reminds of a girl I knew, but this one has more personality.
> And apparently she likes bikes, though her taste is suspect.
>
>
I think she may actually be a member of the Trek marketing team going
incognito at the photo shoot. Probably the "brains" behind the Portland
and the Soho. ;-)
Mike Jacoubowsky
> with Rolfs other than having seen them in shops, but I found a web page
> (http://www.tc-homes.com/bike/features/wheels/cover.htm) that shows the
> '99 Vector Pro as being 30mm deep. It also lists the weight of the
> Vector Pro as 1784g, substantially less that of the R535 at 2055g. If
> the R535 rim was "much-lower-profile (and lighter)", then you must have
> had a version of the Vector Pro from another model year, in which the
> rim depth and weight were dramatically increased over the '99 model.
> How deep were they, and how much did the pair of wheels weigh? Compared
> to more conventional rims, that Shimano rim was deep and heavy, but it
> wasn't strong enough to resist significant deformation resulting from a
> single broken spoke.
To prove that you were incorrect on the Rolf rim, I went and measured the
depth... and you were *way* off... it's not 30mm like it says in the
catalog, it's 31mm! Sorry, trying to be funny. My memory was faulty; you're
correct about the Rolf profile, and probably the Shimano as well (although I
don't have one around to measure).
What I can't tell you is why the Rolf wheel would move so much less, with a
spoke failure, than the Shimano does. I know the R535 hub was a tank, but
the Rolf hub wasn't all that light either.
> The quantitative value of "significant" depends on
> frame and brake clearance, but I'm curious to find out what it took to
> make the rim on your 16-spoke wheel that didn't suffer on your frame
> "with marginal rim clearance".
Not sure what you're asking. It didn't "take" anything; I didn't touch the
wheel (couldn't adjust spoke tension if I wanted to that day, since I didn't
have a 3/16 thinwall nipple driver with me), and was able to ride home by
opening up the rear brake. The tire didn't hit either the chainstay or
seatstay.
The only way to really resolve this question is by removing a spoke from
various wheels and measuring the result. It would be easiest if this was
done by loosening one, but could be that a broken spoke causes greater
deflection than one where tension is gradually reduced prior to removal. Or
not.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Stephen Greenwood" <stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135283590.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> * commuting 10 miles daily for 10 years, there's at least a 10% chance of
> breaking
> a spoke (more or less).
10 miles * 5 days/week * 48 weeks * 10 years (assuming 4 weeks off, one way
or another)= 24,000 miles of riding. I'd guess the odds to be better than
10% of a spoke failure, if using the same wheels during that time... and
lower than that if the rim dies from the "normal" causes... worn-through
sidewalls (common on commuter wheels in wet environments), dent-causing
potholes and collisions.
> * the wheels with this bike cannot be retrued to a usable state, following
> one
> spoke failure
Not sure what this means. Are you saying that the wheel cannot be retrued
later, due to permanent damage, or rather that it can't be ridden to its
destination with a missing spoke because it's too far out of true?
> * a wheel with 32-36 spokes can be thus retrued.
OK, I'm thinking you're suggesting that, with a spoke wrench, you can alter
the tension of adjacent spokes enough to make a rideable wheel, and that
more spokes makes this easier to accomplish. Could be, but that's a
different question than whether a spoke failure results in an unridable
wheel... my assumption was that we weren't talking about using a spoke
wrench to try and repair the wheel in the field. As easy as that may be for
many of us to do, I don't think that was the original question.
And if that *is* the direction we're going here, then I'd point out that,
with a paired-spoke arrangement, reducing tension on the opposite spoke
(opposite being Left/Right side of flange) will create a wheel that's true
laterally, but with a hop in it.
> If I'm wrong, I stand corrected!
>
> Dan
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:43AAFD6B.2090600@i_e_e_e.o_r_g...
Kinky Cowboy
>Here's a picture of the other Trek "commuter/urban" bike, the Soho. See
>what's in the bottle cage?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/a7ph2
>
I'm looking at the tyres; wasn't it only a couple of years ago
everybody was being sold mountain bikes with 2" knobblies for urban
use with marketing BS like "aggressive tread pattern for confident
cornering"? Now urban bikes seem to need tyres which would have looked
a bit skinny on a road race bike not so long ago.
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
Dave Larrington
Ozark Bicycle (bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com) wrote:
> Serious Starbuckies will be waiting for the CF version; every gram
> counts when yer sprintin' for a latte!
I saw just such a thing at Eurobike in 2003. c/f coffee cup, saucer and
spoon. The same company also made a c/f beer mug and, even at 130
euros, I was tempted...
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Give the anarchist a cigarette.
Gooserider
Trek has enough buying power to spec SKS fenders and not have to raise the
bike's price too much. For that matter, I'm sure Trek's in-house boys could
design a nice set of full coverage fenders.
Dan Connelly
>
>
>>* the wheels with this bike cannot be retrued to a usable state, following
>>one
>> spoke failure
>
>
> Not sure what this means. Are you saying that the wheel cannot be retrued
> later, due to permanent damage, or rather that it can't be ridden to its
> destination with a missing spoke because it's too far out of true?
The latter -- can't get to work, or forced to take up someone else's time with
a rescue mission.
>
>
>>* a wheel with 32-36 spokes can be thus retrued.
>
>
> OK, I'm thinking you're suggesting that, with a spoke wrench, you can alter
> the tension of adjacent spokes enough to make a rideable wheel, and that
> more spokes makes this easier to accomplish. Could be, but that's a
> different question than whether a spoke failure results in an unridable
> wheel... my assumption was that we weren't talking about using a spoke
> wrench to try and repair the wheel in the field. As easy as that may be for
> many of us to do, I don't think that was the original question.
I was probably unclear -- it was a major part of my original motivation
in commenting on these wheels.
>
> And if that *is* the direction we're going here, then I'd point out that,
> with a paired-spoke arrangement, reducing tension on the opposite spoke
> (opposite being Left/Right side of flange) will create a wheel that's true
> laterally, but with a hop in it.
Well, with a 32-spoke 3-cross wheel, an emergency retrue is also far from
round and true.
Dan
Ozark Bicycle
Of course they could have done either. That they chose not to is an
indication that the Portland is all about image ("See the one with the
cute lil' fenders and the disc brakes? That's Trek's cool new commute
bike.") and not about function.
Andrew F Martin
me, in Seattle. Problem is - even if they did spec it with SKS, I'd
still make mods like adding a long flap, and probably re-working how
the fenders connect.
The SKS thing is worthless for probably a good fraction of the country
where some simple splash gards are plenty good for most uses. I think
Trek's fender spec is probably the best comprimise - that, and they
don't want to sink an hour of man-time into installing SKS on each bike
(or saddling the dealer with that task).
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> the
>> bike's price too much. For that matter, I'm sure Trek's in-house boys
>> could
>> design a nice set of full coverage fenders.
>
>
> Of course they could have done either. That they chose not to is an
> indication that the Portland is all about image ("See the one with the
> cute lil' fenders and the disc brakes? That's Trek's cool new commute
> bike.") and not about function.
This thread has demonstrated nothing if not the fact that people have
different ideas of how they'd like a "commute" bike set up. So I'd say Trek
has succeeded greatly, given that-
A: People see it, one way or another, as a "commute" bike (due to
positioning, marketing, whatever).
B: People also see it as something that's like a piece of clay, a starting
point to which they can make a few tweaks and come up with their own idea of
ultimate commute bike.
C: Function is different for different people, and goes beyond being a
purely-utilitarian concept. If the Portland gets more people thinking about
riding a bike to work, that's not a bad thing. If it creates dialog like
this, as opposed to conversations about whether to use a carbon or
lightweight aluminum stem, I'd suggest that's an excellent direction.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycle...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:1135344602....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew F Martin
Andrew F Martin
Thanks for writing. Yes, this bike will be equipped with an Ultegra
Triple. This is bike should be available late Jan, early Feb.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>
> Thanks for writing. Yes, this bike will be equipped with an Ultegra
> Triple. This is bike should be available late Jan, early Feb.
My rep didn't have any reference to delivery dates changing; he still thinks
early January. Sooner the better!
I am *so* tempted by this bike. Not for commuting (can't do that, since I
have to transfer bikes back & forth between two stores), but as a "rain"
bike.
Bill Sornson
> Bingo
...was his name-o?
Stephen Greenwood
> What I can't tell you is why the Rolf wheel would move so much less, with a
> spoke failure, than the Shimano does.
That's what I was getting at. Since the R535s had similar rim depth and
spokes, but were substantially heavier than the '99 Vector Pro listed
on that web page, I assumed that your Rolfs must have been a different
version that was stronger and heavier. I was wondering just how much
heavier they had to be in order to decrease the deformation down to the
point where it wasn't a problem on your low-clearance frame.
> Not sure what you're asking. It didn't "take" anything;
(see above) I assumed your Rolfs were a stronger and heavier version, I
meant how much extra wheel weight (compared to the R535) it "took" to
gain that increased strength. This certainly could be a bad assumption,
since Shimano may have made poor use of the weight.
> The only way to really resolve this question is by removing a spoke from
> various wheels and measuring the result.
Right. I've neither the opportunity, nor the time, nor sufficient
motivation to do it. I was hoping it was an easily-answered curiosity.
Let us spend our free time bicycling instead.
Luke
Jacoubowsky <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> This thread has demonstrated nothing if not the fact that people have
> different ideas of how they'd like a "commute" bike set up. So I'd say Trek
> has succeeded greatly, given that-
>
> A: People see it, one way or another, as a "commute" bike (due to
> positioning, marketing, whatever).
>
> B: People also see it as something that's like a piece of clay, a starting
> point to which they can make a few tweaks and come up with their own idea of
> ultimate commute bike.
To a point: buying a Hyundai with the intention of transforming it into
a pseudo-Ferrari is self defeating. Bike designs are not malleable like
clay; I suggest they more resemble a clay pot once it remerges from a
kiln - its form set and predicated upon specific uses. Yes, bikes can
be embellished with different components, but, to overstate the point,
you'll never make the ultimate road racer from a downhill FS frame.
>
> C: Function is different for different people, and goes beyond being a
> purely-utilitarian concept. If the Portland gets more people thinking about
> riding a bike to work, that's not a bad thing.
But, to me, commuting is not on the prospective buyer's mind. Exactly
what is I can't say; esoterically, perhaps it's the idea of commuting
rather than the reality which will soon assert itself in the form of
out of true wheels, drenching wheelspray, and coffee dribbling down the
cyclist's kit. An inappropriate bike can quickly sour the novice on the
experience - who wants more bikes gathering dust in the garage?
> If it creates dialog like
> this, as opposed to conversations about whether to use a carbon or
> lightweight aluminum stem, I'd suggest that's an excellent direction.
Darn, I agree.
Luke