Replacement headset for Trek 5900
oldman
My bike comes with badly engineered Cane Creek headset. Having problem
after 2 months with the bike. I am sick and tired of adjusting the knocking
headset or a self-tightening headset every other month. BTW, I think the
headset on the 5700 is non-standard if I remember correctly, 11/8 top and
11/4 bottom. Does Chris King make headset in this odd combination?
My mountain bike headset (another Cane Creek)siezed 3 weeks after I
bought it, after one very wet ride.Is it just me or is it really
Cane Crap? I changed to a Chris King on my MTB and it's been a 2 years
without a single problem, including many very wet rides.
cheers!
king young Lee
Bob
"oldman" <old...@teamabsolut.net> wrote in message
news:679e8973.03011...@posting.google.com...
dianne_1234
headset a bad reputation. The lower cup is Trek-specific, and bonded
in. 66% of the ones I've assembled have been significantly out of
alignment. (This is also true of the other OCLV models, but those can
usually be corrected with standard reaming and facing tools).
And on the 33% where the cup is apparently aligned, the bearing is
often bonded in crooked.
And on the few where the bearing is pretty straight, the seal on that
bearing is simply a high-drag seal.
In other words, as far as I know, you're stuck.
Trek knows about this problem, so one remote possibility might be to
ask Trek to un-bond that cup and bond in a normal one. You won't be
able to use the existing fork, but at least the headset won't bind.
A very extreme possibility is that a competent bike shop could saw off
the "cup" part, then ream and face the "bonded in" part. This might
work to convert the frame for a normal lower head set. Measure
carefully first!
old...@teamabsolut.net (oldman) wrote in message news:<679e8973.03011...@posting.google.com>...
Mike Jacoubowsky
same issue (which I lived with for quite some time, until I finally got
around to it last month). It's not that big a deal, in most cases. All you
need to do is remove the fork, remove the lower bearing from the fork,
reinstall the bearing and then reinstall the fork (with bearing attached).
In 90% of the cases, that takes care of it. It doesn't seem to be a
misaligned cup, but rather an issue with how the lower bearing seats in it.
Unfortunately, it's not something that can be done outside of a shop, as
it's often *very* difficult to remove the bearing from the fork, and
reinstalling it requires both slide hammers and a bit of improvisation (due
to the cone-shaped bottom section of the fork).
It is *not* necessary to replace the lower cup, at least not for the ones
I've dealt with (and we sell a whole lot of 5900s, so we have quite a bit of
experience with them). Depending upon how carefully you can remove the
lower bearing, it's a very good idea to have a replacement on hand.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"dianne_1234" <diann...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad63daab.03011...@posting.google.com...
ih8trek
misaligned head tube faces and bb threads and faces. I know, "fool me
once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I feel really foolish
for having bought four Treks!
The first two were not the end of the world, because although I was
shocked such expensive USA frames needed prep (Cannondales don't!),
they used standard headsets and I could fix them with a standard
reamer/facer tool. And I used Ultegra BBs, so the misaligned BB
threads and faces didn't have a very big effect.
But the third and fourth, both 5900s, had that awful Trek lower
headset bearing and Dura-Ace BBs. One frame was so bad I replaced it.
The bb threads on that were so badly misaligned the Campy bb facing
guide wouldn't thread fully in, even after chasing the threads with
the Campy thread chaser! It took three months before I finally gave up
waiting for a replacement 5900 and asked for a 5500.
The other still has a nasty tight headset and Dura-Ace BB, and I've
personally had the lower head bearing out twice (yes, it took some
fritzing around with home-made tools). The first time, I carefully
chipped out the gobs of green locktite from the cup. No change. The
second time I noticed a little of the stiffness was simply in the
tight seal of that nasty Trek bearing. It was stiff even without being
installed! And the misalignment made it even stiffer.
I'm planning to convert that lower cup. Now where's my dremel...?
John Burke, are you listening? Why can't you properly face and chase
head tubes and properly face and thread bbs? How in the world can the
left and right side threads not be coaxial? Bad tooling? Bad
manufacturing? Where are the manufacturing manager and engineering
manager? Asleep? Where are your reps, don't they tell you about this
stuff and the bad will it gives Treks in the marketplace? I bet Lance
won't have that Trek headset in his next 5900...
Don't you have assembly problems putting in the bottom bracket
bearings? How much line stoppage is caused by having to rework bottom
brackets with stuck cups in them? When a bad batch comes through, is
the repair guy hustling to hand-chase these bad bbs? Or do you have a
permanently installed machine to do it it's so frequent? Where is
Trek's feedback system that should tell you this is a big problem?
Where's the assembly supervisor, asleep? Why doesn't he complain to
the manufacturing engineer? Don't the manufacturing engineers in
charge of BB threading ever watch assembly to notice this problem?
Can't you buy threading machinery in China? It would certainly do a
better job than whatever crooked, misaligned or bent system put those
awful threads in my bbs.
Why don't you fix this problem John? It's been 100% in the four I've
bought. That stinks!
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<pWWV9.83$p57.13...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> bought. That stinks!
Thank goodness you're around! Without you, some of those evil nasty frames
would make it into my shop. Instead, they seek you out like a magnet, and I
(and my customers) get all the good stuff. No messed up bottom brackets,
including ones that we've installed Campy into. No problems with
improperly-faced bottom bracket shells, either. Sure, if we want to use an
old-style bottom bracket (axle & cup style), then a bit more prep is in
order, but for a current-style Shimano or Campy, they go right in.
But really, why in the world do you keep buying something you hate so
much??? Is this like one of those things where somebody's beating their
head against the wall, and you ask them why they do that, and the answer is
that it feels so good when they stop?
Anyway, I'm thankful that you're out there to suck up all that nasty
product, and create cute email names instead of having a real identity. And
if you ever want to give up on those four awful frames you bought, send them
my way and I'll find somebody who's masochistic enough to want to build a
bike out of them.
dianne_1234
and still isn't half as smooth as a friend's 5500. Does once do the
trick, or is there something the shop should look for in addition to
just R&R?
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<pWWV9.83$p57.13...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
Qui si parla Campagnolo
same issue >>
<< All you
need to do is remove the fork, remove the lower bearing from the fork,
reinstall the bearing and then reinstall the fork (with bearing attached).
So simple that the manufacturer could do it!!!!
Why don't they?
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Mike Jacoubowsky
>
> Why don't they?
Working on it. It's that imperfect world thing, and it is, indeed, more
difficult to properly set up the headset on the 5900 than on the other
bikes. Not an excuse, just a reason. Fortunately it's not that common a
problem, nor does it seem to affect how it handles (and in fact I lived with
it on my own bike for over a year). We see it in maybe one out of ten
5900s, and fix them here in the shop (since I took mine home to build it, I
didn't have access to the tools back then to take care of it).
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReaction.com
Mike Jacoubowsky
> and still isn't half as smooth as a friend's 5500. Does once do the
> trick, or is there something the shop should look for in addition to
> just R&R?
You're dealing with a double-sealed cartridge bearing, so it will always
have a bit more friction than a conventional headset (similar to how a Chris
King headset doesn't turn as easily as an inexpensive headset with lesser
seals). But if it's not smooth (feels rough), you may need to replace the
bearing.
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReaction.com
Paul Southworth
Mike Jacoubowsky <Mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> So simple that the manufacturer could do it!!!!
>>
>> Why don't they?
>
>Working on it. It's that imperfect world thing, and it is, indeed, more
>difficult to properly set up the headset on the 5900 than on the other
>bikes. Not an excuse, just a reason. Fortunately it's not that common a
>problem, nor does it seem to affect how it handles (and in fact I lived with
>it on my own bike for over a year). We see it in maybe one out of ten
>5900s, and fix them here in the shop (since I took mine home to build it, I
>didn't have access to the tools back then to take care of it).
If it causes them such grief to get it right (on a flagship product
no less - the one they should get perfect above all others) why do
they stick with that design instead of something normal like a
press-in headset? Does the strange proprietary design give them
some amazing benefit they can't get with a well-understood
industry-standard solution? It must be something really big to
warrant tolerating the pain of annoyed dealers and customers.
--Paul
Mike Jacoubowsky
> no less - the one they should get perfect above all others) why do
> they stick with that design instead of something normal like a
> press-in headset? Does the strange proprietary design give them
> some amazing benefit they can't get with a well-understood
> industry-standard solution? It must be something really big to
> warrant tolerating the pain of annoyed dealers and customers.
As a matter-of-fact it does give them "some amazing benefit." It allows
them to use an aluminum steer column on a fork that weighs just 360 grams
(in a size that fits a 60cm bike). Why is that such a big deal? Work in a
bike shop for a while and check all the carbon-fork-column forks that
customers have destroyed by either over-tightening or using the wrong type
of star-nut-equivalent. Happens all the time. With the aluminum steer
tube, use of a torque wrench isn't required to tighten the stem, and they're
not going to wreck it from the inside-out either. This is a real-life
benefit, not something theoretical. To me, it's worth the minor
inconvenience. Another benefit is having better support for the fork crown
(less flex, more control) with the wider base there.
So yes, the advantage is "something really big." Unfortunately, I wouldn't
be too surprised if it eventually gets ditched in favor of a more
conventional, heavier fork column. TREK is probably too conservative to
consider a carbon fork column, for reasons I've already mentioned.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
oldman
> If you bought it new? TAKE IT BACK TO THE DEALER!
Yes, I bought it new but I hesitate taking it back to the dealer. I thought
the dealer will do exactly what I am doing, which is readjust the headset.
This will fix the prblm for maybe a couple of months.
Unless this is a known weakness/problem with this model and the shop is
aware of it, I don't think the shop will do anything more than that.
I'll probably do it now that I know it's really not just me having this
problem. Now, I wonder if the shop will charge me if the bearing needs
replacement since this sounds like a design/production issue and not regular
wear and tear.
cheers!
king young Lee
Qui si parla Campagnolo
no less - the one they should get perfect above all others) why do
they stick with that design instead of something normal like a
press-in headset?
Reality, what a concept. Please tell me why propriatary, intergrated hs are a
good thing
????<< Does the strange proprietary design give them
some amazing benefit they can't get with a well-understood
industry-standard solution?
I think it has something to do with the strength/weight qualities of the fork,
vs price.
A more normal fork would cost more.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
consider a carbon fork column, for reasons I've already mentioned.
Surprizing to me that they are so non-conservative in frameset design but they
balk at carbon steerer forks which have shown to be VERY reliable and strong
and perform just like aluminum steerer forks do....perhaps a light
weight/strength/cost equation?
Mike Jacoubowsky
use a conventional carbon steer tube rather than a fancy-shaped aluminum
one. The reason they use it has to do with the testing they've done of
various forks. There are a lot of them out there, and the results, for most
of them, are not what their engineering department considers OK for a
company like TREK (which, being large and successful, is a magnet for
lawsuits). You say carbon steer tubes are "VERY reliable and strong"- so
you haven't seen people mangle them the way we have? I find this strange.
We sometimes see a couple mangled carbon steer tubes a month come into the
shop (can this be saved?).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030120090245...@mb-cs.aol.com...
John Dacey
Campagnolo) wrote:
>Paul-<< If it causes them such grief to get it right (on a flagship product
>no less - the one they should get perfect above all others) why do
>they stick with that design instead of something normal like a
>press-in headset?
>
>Reality, what a concept. Please tell me why propriatary, intergrated hs are a
>good thing
Well, the question is: good for whom? If you listen carefully, you
might be able to hear the sales pitch to Trek dealers still echoing
through the halls at Interbike - "... and of course, they'll have to
come back to _you_ for service..."
Last year, when faced with a customer with a badly deteriorated
pressed-on fork crown bearing on the subject frame, I contacted Trek
to acquire the requisite parts to mend it. The person at Trek I spoke
with was particularly unhelpful and seemed to take real satisfaction
in trotting out the line ending in "... voids the warranty if carried
out by anyone other than an authorized Trek dealer". When I told my
customer Trek wouldn't sell me the bearing nor "special tool" to
effect the repair and he'd have to go back to the Trek dealer, this
Lance-alike went justifiably Postal.
-----
http://www.businesscycles.com
John Dacey
Business Cycles
Miami, Florida
-----
Now in our twentieth year.
Our catalog of track equipment: seventh year online
Mike Jacoubowsky
> problem. Now, I wonder if the shop will charge me if the bearing needs
> replacement since this sounds like a design/production issue and not
regular
> wear and tear.
If the problem was there from the beginning, and the shop is the one you
purchased the bike from, it's quite possible they won't charge for the
repair. However, you're in Singapore, not the US, so it could be that
getting the bearings isn't quite so simple for them as it is for me. In our
case no, there most certainly wouldn't be any charge on a bike we've sold
(it's part of what I see as our obligation to the customer to take care of
things like that), but again, that's our shop, in the US. Realities may be
different elsewhere.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"oldman" <old...@teamabsolut.net> wrote in message
news:679e8973.03011...@posting.google.com...
Paul Southworth
Mike Jacoubowsky <Mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> If it causes them such grief to get it right (on a flagship product
>> no less - the one they should get perfect above all others) why do
>> they stick with that design instead of something normal like a
>> press-in headset? Does the strange proprietary design give them
>> some amazing benefit they can't get with a well-understood
>> industry-standard solution? It must be something really big to
>> warrant tolerating the pain of annoyed dealers and customers.
>
>
>As a matter-of-fact it does give them "some amazing benefit." It allows
>them to use an aluminum steer column on a fork that weighs just 360 grams
>(in a size that fits a 60cm bike). Why is that such a big deal? Work in a
>bike shop for a while and check all the carbon-fork-column forks that
>customers have destroyed by either over-tightening or using the wrong type
>of star-nut-equivalent. Happens all the time. With the aluminum steer
>tube, use of a torque wrench isn't required to tighten the stem, and they're
>not going to wreck it from the inside-out either. This is a real-life
>benefit, not something theoretical. To me, it's worth the minor
>inconvenience. Another benefit is having better support for the fork crown
>(less flex, more control) with the wider base there.
>
>So yes, the advantage is "something really big."
OK, but what all that sounds like is that the advantage is a few
ounces of weight savings. I mean, compared to other forks out there
with aluminum steer tubes. I realize from a marketing perspective
that would be an impossibly foolish thing to do but IMO it would
still be a better bike that way.
--Paul
Qui si parla Campagnolo
you haven't seen people mangle them the way we have?
We have but have also seen mangled aluminum steerers.
<< We sometimes see a couple mangled carbon steer tubes a month come into the
shop (can this be saved?).
But that really doesn't explain TREK's insistence to use the fork they do. Why
not a conventional aluminum steerer fork, w/o the pressed on oversized bearing?
Sounds like the problem is the fork crown race and bearing design, not the
steerer material.
Jon Isaacs
>be too surprised if it eventually gets ditched in favor of a more
>conventional, heavier fork column.
And to think that I am satisfied with steel forks....
jon isaacs
Mike Jacoubowsky
Why
> not a conventional aluminum steerer fork, w/o the pressed on oversized
bearing?
Because it would either be considerably heavier than the one they use, or
not as strong. It's not smoke & mirrors, the fork really does weigh 360
grams (at least the one in my bike does, which is 60cm). Standard fork
columns are not optimal. They're strong enough because you use enough
material, but not the best shape if you want the lightest-possible column
with the greatest-possible strength. Unfortunately, designing that way
means you can't use conventional equipment, nor can you expect it to become
a standard, because it's so much more expensive to shape a fork column that
way.
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReaction.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030121090427...@mb-ci.aol.com...
Jon Isaacs
>not as strong. It's not smoke & mirrors, the fork really does weigh 360
>grams (at least the one in my bike does, which is 60cm). Standard fork
>columns are not optimal. They're strong enough because you use enough
>material, but not the best shape if you want the lightest-possible column
>with the greatest-possible strength. Unfortunately, designing that way
>means you can't use conventional equipment, nor can you expect it to become
>a standard, because it's so much more expensive to shape a fork column that
>way.
>
>--Mike--
>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>http://www.ChainReaction.com
>
Mike:
A couple of comments:
I believe the 5900 is a full on racer. For a true race bike, these sorts of
measures are justified.
The fact is that most people who buy bikes like this would be better served by
something simpler with more traditional technology, bikes like this belong in
the hands of people who can justify a 360 gram fork from a performance
standpoint.
Now me, the only time I would consider using a 360 gram fork would be at the
dinner table and that would be a steel fork anyway, stainless no less.
jon
Mike Jacoubowsky
> ounces of weight savings. I mean, compared to other forks out there
> with aluminum steer tubes. I realize from a marketing perspective
> that would be an impossibly foolish thing to do but IMO it would
> still be a better bike that way.
Correct, it's all about sqeezing a few extra ounces out of the frameset,
nothing more. I originally thought it was a really dumb idea, since it
meant creating a new world order in which the 5200 customer was no longer
buying the exact same frameset as Lance (although, truth be told, they have
Lance riding the standard 5200/5500 frameset as often as possible, for
marketing reasons). I thought this was detract from its sales for that
reason. I was wrong. What it did was make the 5200/5500 a "safe" choice
for the person who could now rationalize that he was being responsible and
saving money by getting the more establish, less-expensive model.
Are those few extra ounces important? To Lance they are. In a climbing
stage, he wants the frame as light as he can get it, and still have it
reliable. He wants to push the weight limit hard, without having to resort
to stuff that doesn't hold up well. Those five or six ounces saved between
the 5500 and 5900 frameset buy improved reliability elsewhere, while
maintaining the same overall weight.
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReaction.com
"Paul Southworth" <cnhyf-10...@usenet.etext.org> wrote in message
news:9Y7X9.30146$A%3.38...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
Mike Jacoubowsky
served by
> something simpler with more traditional technology, bikes like this belong
in
> the hands of people who can justify a 360 gram fork from a performance
> standpoint.
Regarding "traditional technology", keep in mind that I have yet to see, or
even hear of, a "failure" of the 5900 headset. A bit stiffer than others,
yes. It's not a technology to be scared of though. It's very, very simple
stuff, a pressed-in bearing that operates at loads that are miniscule
compared to its design parameters that it just isn't going to cause trouble.
But you're also bringing up a another point, which is whether you should
shell out $$$ for a relatively-small benefit. That's something that's a
personal decision. There are definitely rapidly-deminishing returns as
bikes get above $2500, but some people put a value on having something
that's perceived as the very, very best (perhaps because, with a bike, it's
possible for many to do so without refinancing, unlike what it would cost to
own the very best car), some put a value on something because it's rather
exclusive (due to price), and others feel that they can make use of whatever
advantage it might have, no matter how small (they're willing to pay for
those diminishing returns).
We sell almost zero bikes over $5,000. We could, and we probably should,
but I have a difficult time relating to them. What do they give me that a
less-expensive bike (my 5900) doesn't? But that's the problem. I shouldn't
be asking what they give *me*, it's what it does for *them* that's
important.
I won't make fun of your steel fork attached to whatever your bike of the
day is. You love being out on a bike, and you've got a certain way of
looking at bikes & components that works for you. And even if you're not
buying and/or extolling the virtues of the 5200s I sell in such large
numbers, you're still helping me sell them by having people see you out
there on a bike, having a good time, and helping people in need (either on
the road or in the newsgroups).
But if you become one of those guys who rides in with a 25+ year old Bell
Biker and thinks that there's no reason to change it for something else...
*or* our favorite (and this is a real example)- the guy who rides
everywhere, lives for riding his bike, thinks nothing else in the world is
better... and has a 20 year old road bike that's at the moderate-to-lower
end of the scale from back then, with a seat that's deteriorated terribly
(and probably wasn't too comfortable when new) and derailleurs that don't
shift well because they're simply worn out, and brakes that he complains
don't work as well as those on his friend's bike (and thinks it's only an
adjustment)... basically, a bike that is rapidly devolving into its
component atoms.
OK, fine you say, he's out riding, it's his choice. Correct. But, he buys
new cars every few years, he's always impeccably dressed (when in civilian
clothes; his cycling clothes are in tatters), and generally spends lots of
money on things he claims not to like (he says he hates cars).
He's the exception, and he's actually quite the nice guy.
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReaction.com
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030121173838...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Jon Isaacs
>But you're also bringing up a another point, which is whether you should
>shell out $$$ for a relatively-small benefit. That's something that's a
>personal decision. There are definitely rapidly-deminishing returns as
>bikes get above $2500, but some people put a value on having something
>that's perceived as the very, very best
Yes people do sometimes have that attitude.
I am just pointing out that there is a difference between the perception of
what is the very best and of what the best bike for them might actually be.
>I won't make fun of your steel fork attached to whatever your bike of the
>day is.
Yeah, those steel forks have some good things going for them, ductility and
lateral stiffness.....
>And even if you're not
>buying and/or extolling the virtues of the 5200s I sell in such large
>numbers,
I had one, I sold it, so in that way we are somewhat similar, you sell 5200's
and I sold the one I had.. <g>
>
>But if you become one of those guys who rides in with a 25+ year old Bell
>Biker and thinks that there's no reason to change it for something else...
>*or* our favorite (and this is a real example)- the guy who rides
>everywhere, lives for riding his bike, thinks nothing else in the world is
>better... and has a 20 year old road bike that's at the moderate-to-lower end
of the scale from back then, with a seat that's deteriorated terribly
>(and probably wasn't too comfortable when new) and derailleurs that don't
>shift well because they're simply worn out, and brakes that he complains
>don't work as well as those on his friend's bike (and thinks it's only an
>adjustment)... basically, a bike that is rapidly devolving into its
>component atoms.
Better riding a 20 year old bike that works than owning a brand new bike that
sits in the garage everyday. ----
So yeah, I mostly riding an 18 year old frame these days. But as a bicycle, I
think it probably does better a better job than most new bikes available these
days.
The good thing about those 20 year old bikes:
You can fit reasonable size tires on them and still fit fenders.
Sure that 5900 is pretty nice to look at but on a rainy night, I much prefer my
1994 Specialized Sequoia with the racks to carry the rain gear, fenders to keep
me dry and true 700C x 28 tires to handle those branches and pot holes I miss
seeing.
I ain't stupid,d its got STI, dual pivot brakes and a cassette rear wheel, (and
surprisingly a wheel made by Trek) and its got a retro seat even, well sort of,
one of the original Flite saddles, the best ever IMHO.
But in my view, it does the things that a bike really needs to do better than
fancier bikes like my Waterford Paramount or my Eddy Merckx or that 5200 I had
a few years ago.
So, I promise not to laugh at the next 5900 Trek I see, but I will point out to
them that their dealer should know how to fix the head set problem..
Funny thing about headsets. The one in my Specialized is original. Wonder
how many 5900 Head sets will be original in the year 2021.
Jon Isaacs
PS: No 20 year old helmets for me, however I did by this one used.
http://www.damonrinard.com/tt/00mar19/jonisaacs.jpg
Nothing like a titanium helmet for those rain rides, with that helmet, i am
sure the helmet won't rust.. <g>
Pete Harris
about 4000 miles. Not great, but no big deal. The real problem was
that this design (the 1 1/4 inch lower bearing) locked me not just
into the nonstandard headset but also the Trek 110 fork--which I think
was the cause of much bigger grief.
From day one I had handling problems. The bike was EXTREMELY squirrly
at speed on anything but a perfect surface. It also felt strange in a
sprint--like it was winding up and springing back. My bike was a 60CM
and I'm about 190 lbs. After eliminating the obvious causes, I
ultimately attributed the problems to excessive steerer tube flex,
which is quite visible when you look down while going over bumps.
This was the flip side of the impressively silky ride. This frame/fork
combo might be fine in a smaller size and/or a lighter rider. The
problem was that I couldn't even try out another fork due to the
proprietary headset design.
I also found it interesting in a sad, ironic way that Lance Armstrong
rarely rides this frame, even in TdF, and then only on climbing
stages. I've yet to see a picture of any other USPS rider on the
frame. I wonder why. Maybe this excerpt from
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2002/features/probikes/usps.shtml is
revlevant:
(CN - Cycling News, JMV - US Postal mechanic Jean-Marc Vandenberghe)
CN: Can you tell us about Lance's new race bike for 2002?
JMV: Yes, this is his Trek 5900; it has the same frame as he used
in the hills last year. For Milano-San Remo which is a fast race on
good roads, we chose the light bike for this race. It's almost 1kg
lighter than the regular bike.
CN/Tim Maloney CN: Which bike will Lance use in the Classics?
JMV: Lance will ride a Trek 5500. With the cobbles and the bad roads
in the classics you need more stability so he'll use that slightly
heavier bike.
Makes me wonder why I paid $4K for a unstable bike!
Also, from
http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2003/road/5900.jsp
FRAME Ultralight OCLV® 110 Carbon creates the lightest, fastest
stock frame ever made. Quick handling and amazing comfort on long
rides. Lance Armstrong's Tour de France frame.
Then look at
http://www.trekbikes.com/tour_de_france/news/photo_gallery/index.jsp
to see pictures of Lance Armstrong on either a 5500 or else a 5900
which has been modified to accept a conventional Look/Time/Reynolds
sort of fork.
After 6500 miles I traded the Trek for a stiff aluminum bike and love
it!
- Pete
John Dacey <jda...@businesscycles.com> wrote in message news:<6j5p2v0g0quqp5po5...@4ax.com>...
Dave
> Mike
> Perhaps I should have started by saying that I have had enough broken aluminum
> frames that I will never trust my life to another ever again.
That may very well be true, but I hardly know where to begin with the
metallurgical misinformation in this post.
> Is you look at the molecular structure of aluminum, steel, and titanium they are
> very different.
> Aluminum at the microscopic level looks like balls individually packed together.
> It has no significant interlocking grain structure. Pure aluminum has such low
> strength as to be useless and needs to be alloyed with other materials for it to
> be engineered to bicycle applications. Copper is a common alloy ingredient.
> Problem is that when welding, copper tends to "run away" from the heat source.
> Under the microscope it looks similar to what happens to a nylon rope when a
> match is put to it. The welding rod will have higher levers of copper to try and
> offset this problem and post heat treatment is also used to help "straighten"
> the copper back into place. In practice not all the copper straightens out so
> right next to the weld there will be a small but significant gap of aluminum
> with the incorrect amount or none of the alloying materials. Note... not all
> grades of aluminum are considered "weld able"
This makes very little sense. All metals are lattices of "packed
balls". The main alloying elements in 6XXX alloys are silicon and
magnesium, 7XXX alloys use zinc as the main alloying element. While
there is some copper in these alloys, if you are seeing it in
a microscope something is really wrong.
> Pure iron is also useless for bicycles. Alloyed it becomes steel.
OK.
> Steel at the microscopic level looks a lot like wood with long strands of fiber
> interlocked together all headed in the same direction. Steel has
more welding
Pure BS.
> options such as silver brazing, fillet brazing, MIG welding, TIG welding. When
> looking at the high strength alloys as used in bicycles, if, during the welding
> process the parent material becomes "molten" then a post treatment will increase
> strength and the service life. For some reason no one post treats steel bicycle
> frames. Why? Market forces?
> With titanium, the more pure it is the higher the strength. Add some alloys it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wrong, wrong, wrong. High purity titanium is too soft for any
structural purpose. Essentially all commercial Ti alloys have enough oxygen to
be fairly strong.
> becomes stronger still. Under the microscope the molecule looks like a snow
> flake with velcro. The molecules interlock in all directions. Welding doesn't
More BS. Metals are not molecular, by definition. The atoms do not
form molecules, but arrange themselves into a lattice. There may be
particles of molecular compounds in the microstructure, but no
titanium molecules of any shape.
> disturb the matrix like other materials.
> Ride or sell aluminum if you like.
Referring to a previous post, welding technique definitely can affect
the microstructure in the heat affected zone of aluminum alloys, and
the durability of the weld.
I would love to see some micrographs of this stuff that you are
claiming. Your notions about the microstructure of metals and alloys
are fundamentally wrong.
Dave Korzekwa
Pete
>I had a 2001 Trek 5900. Had to replace the lower headset bearing at
>about 4000 miles.
Mine made it about 12,000, but was in sad shape by that point.
> The real problem was
>that this design (the 1 1/4 inch lower bearing) locked me not just
>into the nonstandard headset but also the Trek 110 fork--which I think
>was the cause of much bigger grief.
It's actually 1 5/16", I believe.
>From day one I had handling problems. The bike was EXTREMELY squirrly
>at speed on anything but a perfect surface. It also felt strange in a
>sprint--like it was winding up and springing back.
Might want to check the fit of the *upper* bearing in the cup. Mine
had .007 *clearance*!!!
I cut a piece of .003 stainless shimstock and did a full circumference
wrap of the upper bearing and slid it into the cup.
Voila! -- a whole new bike!
-- disclaimer -- I'm 140 lbs, so I know I'm a bit easier on the parts
that quite a few people out there.
Mike Jacoubowsky
that
> sits in the garage everyday. ----
>
in a garage, but the point was that this particular 20 year old bike is
literally becoming dust. He could invest in new components to replace those
worn out, but believes there's no point because, after all, the cranks still
turn, the wheels still go. He just doesn't seem to draw the connection
between the problems he has with things not working that well and the fact
that it's just plain worn out. He's willing to spend huge sums of money on
cars and clothing, but virtually nothing on the one thing in his life he
says he really loves doing. This isn't something to try to twist into a
piece about the utility of a 20-year-old bicycle vs those sold now.
> So yeah, I mostly riding an 18 year old frame these days. But as a
bicycle, I
> think it probably does better a better job than most new bikes available
these
> days.
Even that's a bit misleading. 18 years ago, your bike wasn't typical of
road bikes being sold. It happens to serve your purposes very well indeed,
but you'd have no more difficulty finding a similar bike now than you did
back then. Is your bicycle really all that different from a current
Cyclocross bike with road tires, for example? Or a "classic" touring bike
like a 520? I was selling a lot of road bikes 25 years ago (and all the
time in-between then and now), and am very familiar with the offerings. We
may have more "racing" choices than before, but I honestly don't think we
have fewer "utility" choices.
95% of the time the problem isn't with what's available. The problem is
properly defining what someone needs for their purposes. Once you define
that, it's really not all that difficult coming up with a solution. Trouble
is, most people work the process backward. They start with the bicycle, and
then try to force it to work how they need it to.
> Sure that 5900 is pretty nice to look at but on a rainy night, I much
prefer my
> 1994 Specialized Sequoia with the racks to carry the rain gear, fenders to
keep
> me dry and true 700C x 28 tires to handle those branches and pot holes I
miss
> seeing.
For that rainy night, my current first choice would be a TREK X01 Cyclocross
bike, outfitted pretty much exactly as you mention. However, I compromised
and resurrected my old 1973 Cinelli, which was a bit of an oddity for a
racing bike in that it will also fit 28c tires and fenders. That's what I
was on this morning, in the rain (which is just a bit more plentiful and
colder here than down your way!). However, please note it's not a "proper"
rain bike, since I don't use fenders. A British cyclist who sometimes
attends our Tuesday/Thursday morning ride-no-matter-what rides will attest
to that. But of course they're not to be called fenders, they're mudguards!
> Funny thing about headsets. The one in my Specialized is original.
Wonder
> how many 5900 Head sets will be original in the year 2021.
Your experience is similar to mine, but is not typical. I haven't damaged
or worn a headset in over 25 years, and am absolutely convinced that
headsets are invariably damaged from being mis-adjusted (typically way too
tight, especially when new). But most people have gone through many, and I
have no doubt the typical 5900 headset is going to last considerably longer
than the typical headset found in 20 year old bikes (simply because it's far
less likely to be damaged by improper adjustment).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Mike Jacoubowsky
> rarely rides this frame, even in TdF, and then only on climbing
> stages. I've yet to see a picture of any other USPS rider on the
> frame. I wonder why. Maybe this excerpt from
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2002/features/probikes/usps.shtml is
> revlevant:
This was answered earlier, either in this or another thread. Lance is asked
to ride *both* bikes, for marketing purposes. Lance is paid ungodly sums of
money and, in return, he offers product exposure (by riding the bike). If
you ask Lance directly (as many have), he'll tell you that the 5900 is his
"secret weapon" that he brings out whenever he needs that extra edge in the
hills. He claims it makes a noticeable difference.
If Lance rode a 5500 frameset in classics etc because it was more "solid" or
whatever, and TREK wanted it to appear otherwise, the solution would be very
simple- paint a 5500 to look exactly the same as a 5900. Very, very simple.
But the truth is that he rides the 5500 because they're both great bikes and
he's asked to give exposure to each.
As for handling differences between an '01 5900 and the 5500, I'm very
qualified to speak on that one, having ridden the 5500 frameset since 1992
and the 5900 (an '01 model at that) shortly after it came out. I also
happen to be 6' and weigh 187lbs (should be less, sigh). The 5900 is most
definitely a faster-handling bike than the 5500 was, since the '01 model had
a fork that was borrowed directly from the Klein side of the family (Aeros
fork), complete with the stock Klein offset. I noticed that on the very
first ride, but within a day or two of riding I was completely at ease with
it (including sprinting).
Different people look for different things in a bike though, and I'm glad
you've found something you really like. The most important thing is to find
the time to get out and ride!
Jon Isaacs
>money and, in return, he offers product exposure (by riding the bike).
Funny how he used those old Look/Shimano pedals until Shimano finally came out
with a copy.
I guess that just goes to show that the right pedals are probably more
important than a few ounces here and there on the frame.
Jon Isaacs
Jon Isaacs
>road bikes being sold. >It happens to serve your purposes very well indeed,
>but you'd have no more difficulty finding a similar bike now than you did back
then.
>Is your bicycle really all that different from a current
>Cyclocross bike with road tires, for example?
Dual Pivot brakes rather than Cantis, I think dual pivot work better than
Cantilever brakes with STI, the levers and brakes were designed to match. The
only bike I know that is similar is the reserrected Specialized Sequoia, just a
simple road frame that takes 47 mm-57 mm brakes rather than 39-49 mm brakes.
Another bike I had which was quite similar to this was a steel Trek 420 from
about 1988, again normal reach brakes with a sport/touring geometry.
>We
>may have more "racing" choices than before, but I honestly don't think we
>have fewer "utility" choices.
How many bikes does road Trek sell that take normal reach brakes???
At one time I thought short reach brakes were the way to go but a few years
ago, upon purchasing some "normal reach" dual pivot RX-100 brakes from Sheldon,
I realized there are no disadvantages to these brakes, other than a few grams
and the ability to use fenders and larger size tires is a real advantage.
This is one area where I think the use of racing stuff is a detriment for
almost all other uses.
>However, I compromised
>and resurrected my old 1973 Cinelli, which was a bit of an oddity for a
>racing bike in that it will also fit 28c tires and fenders.
Yeah, in the days of center pull brakes there was enough room to run larger
tires and "mudguards."
There have been some real advances since then, but in my view, short reach
brakes seriously limit the options. Take just about any frame, add those 10 or
so millimeters of clearance (less than 1/2 inch) and that frame can do just
about anything.
Jon Isaacs
Mike Jacoubowsky
We sell two bikes in the TREK line (and have access to two others in the
LeMond line) that take longer-reach (or linear pull or cantilever) brakes,
all of which allow clearance for mudguards. Back in the day (1988 if you
choose) we also had, I think, two bikes that took longer-reach brakes, the
420 and the 720 (it may have been the 520 by then, not sure... the two bikes
evolved into each other). The vast majority of bikes all required
short-reach brakes, including the 1000, 1100, 1120, 1200, 1220, 1400, 1420,
1500, 1520, 2000, 2300 and 2500 (the '20' designation denotes a bike with a
triple).
> There have been some real advances since then, but in my view, short reach
> brakes seriously limit the options. Take just about any frame, add those
10 or
> so millimeters of clearance (less than 1/2 inch) and that frame can do
just
> about anything.
It's worse than you think. The general public often thinks that drilling &
tapping holes for a rack or fenders. So, newer road bikes are now coming in
without eyelets on the rear dropouts, because of "style" concerns.
There are some issues with giving the clearance you want for the rear wheel
though, and the brake bridges aren't the limited factor. The problem is
near the bottom bracket, which has evolved significantly since the early
days, with a lot more beefiness down there to combat fatigue issues (ok, to
keep frames from breaking!). Tubes are larger, the bottom bracket itself is
larger, but the overall width isn't subject to change due to chainline
considerations. This is one area where it is, in fact, easier to design a
relatively-short-wheelbase bike out of steel, if you want that clearance.
If we could get away from the fascination with really short chainstays, it
wouldn't be a problem. Heck, I get some people who think TREK chainstays
are *long* because they run about 415mm. Saw a bike the other day that was
truly running about 400mm (and boy did it shift poorly because of that).
The designers seem to have forgotten that, with the days of alternative
materials with larger diameters, they no longer have to have super-short
chainstays to have a responsive (not flexy) tail section.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030122094558...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> important than a few ounces here and there on the frame.
Or, how important it was for him to lose weight elsewhere so he could keep
using those old (heavy) pedals. It's all about getting down to that UCI
minimum weight, and still having the stuff you want. Remove weight where
you can, so you retain flexibility for the stuff you can't drop weight off
of. I'm not suggesting that for you or me, but it's most certainly Lance's
reasoning.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030122092915...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Jon Isaacs
>using those old (heavy) pedals.
Yeah, they were heavy, but weight is only part of the equation obviously. A
better performing pedal is probably worth whatever it weighs.
>Remove weight where
>you can, so you retain flexibility for the stuff you can't drop weight off
>of. I'm not suggesting that for you or me, but it's most certainly Lance's
>reasoning.
Yeah, me I don't worry about weight on the bike.
jon isaacs
Jon Isaacs
>LeMond line) that take longer-reach (or linear pull or cantilever) brakes,
>all of which allow clearance for mudguards.
Curious about "normal reach" ie 47-57 mm caliper brakes, these are the ones
that match up nicely with dual pivot brakes. The only current big
manufacturer bike I know that builds a frame that uses these is Specialized.
>It's worse than you think. The general public often thinks that drilling &
>tapping holes for a rack or fenders. So, newer road bikes are now coming in
>without eyelets on the rear dropouts, because of "style" concerns.
Yeah and without pump pegs too... <g>
>There are some issues with giving the clearance you want for the rear wheel
>though, and the brake bridges aren't the limited factor. The problem is
>near the bottom bracket, which has evolved significantly since the early
>days, with a lot more beefiness down there to combat fatigue issues (ok, to
>keep frames from breaking!).
Actually as with most design issues, it is probably a trade off between weight
and bulk. Maybe lugged frames are superior in this regard.
>Tubes are larger, the bottom bracket itself is
>larger, but the overall width isn't subject to change due to chainline
>considerations.
Probably the use of "low profile" cranks with their higher Q factor is part of
the problem. The lower the Q factor, the lower the bending forces are on the
BB. Not a big factor but one factor.
>If we could get away from the fascination with really short chainstays, it
>wouldn't be a problem. Heck, I get some people who think TREK chainstays
>are *long* because they run about 415mm.
I am afraid I have to go with Jobst on the foolishness of short chain stays,
sounds like you must agree as well.
I think of myself as a retro-techno-geek. Take the good old stuff, the good
new stuff and put em together and you get a pretty good bike...
Sounds like you might be a retro-techno-geek in training... <g>
jon isaacs