Trek 5500 Question
Jiyang Chen
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:DG3z8.2420$_p6.110...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Paul:
>
>
> #1: In 1997, they switched to the Icon Air Rail fork instead of the Icon
> Classic used previously. This was a *major* improvement, as the "Classic"
> fork is a bit on the wimpy side and doesn't track as well under hard
> cornering or on bumpy roads. In addition, I found the older fork to
perhaps
> be just a bit smoother on small bumps, but nowhere near as nice a ride on
> bigger ones. My theory is that the original fork was so much more flexy
> than the frame that it tended to isolate itself, not allowing the frame to
> act with it. Basically like what you'd have with a suspension mismatch on
a
> car.
>
> #2: In late 1997/early 1998 they phased in a new, much improved bottom
> bracket shell. The original shell wasn't bad, but because the internal
> aluminum sleeve ended flush with the carbon fiber surrounding it, it was
> possible to put a compressive load on the carbon when installing a bottom
> bracket, which, in some cases, caused a disbond between the aluminum shell
> and the surrounding carbon. This didn't happen often, but we did see some
> frames that had to go back for replacement (under warranty) of the bottom
> bracket shell.
>
> The new shell (still in use today) has the aluminum internal sleeve going
> all the way out past the end of the carbon part of the frame and over the
> edge, so that there's no possible way to make contact or compressively
load
> the frame when installing a bottom bracket. It's also a bit beefier
overall
> in the carbon part of the fitting, which has virtually eliminated the
issue
> of an under-shifted chain chewing a hole through the chainstay (although
> that wasn't an issue anyway as long as the adhesive stainless steel
> chainstay plate was in place). The beefier design is something some
people
> find a noticeable improvement in climbing & sprinting.
>
> #3: In 2000, the fork switched to a 1" threadless design. All other
> aspects remained unchanged (still a steel steer tube, same Icon Air Rail
> blades etc).
>
> #4: In 2001, the frame changed materials from OCLV 150 to OCLV 120 carbon
> fiber. The number refers to the grams of carbon in one square meter of
the
> sheet that the tubing's made of, if I understand it correctly. So you'd
> think that the new frame might considerably lighter than the older one,
but
> that's not the case, because the carbon fiber is only one component in the
> frame, the other being the epoxy resin that binds everything together.
Thus
> the actual weight difference between the two is very, very small (on the
> order of a couple of ounces).
>
> #4b: In 2001, the frame also changed to a 1 1/8" fork column, allowing
the
> use of aluminum instead of steel. This dropped a small amount of weight
and
> further improved lateral stiffness in the front end of the bike, as the
> front fittings were entirely redesigned and beefed up a bit.
>
> No frame changes happened in 2002, nor is the frame expected to change for
> 2003 either (aside from cosmetics). It's possible we'll see an updated
> appearance to the fork at some point, but from a performance standpoint,
it
> will be hard to improve upon the current Icon Air Rail.
>
> So, overall, there is actually quite a bit of difference between a 1995
and
> current-model 5500, some of it noticeable in terms of ride quality, some
of
> it relevant in terms of making it even more durable.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> "oh yeah" <lo...@emailbelow.biz> wrote in message
> news:look-E2512C.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > Hi...
> >
> > Can you tell me if there is much difference in the frames from a 1995
> > Trek 5500 and a new one?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paul
> > pa...@siriusmusic.org
>
>
Jiyang Chen
on the comp.
"Jiyang Chen" <Jiy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc0lmm$4...@dispatch.concentric.net...