Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Trick question, coming from you Blush

If you need to be UCI compliant in all respects, you can't run the stock SC post as it's outside the 3:1 rule. What the Shack has been riding is the TTX post with a shim and special seatpost clamp, and we're working to package the shim and clamp hardware as a kit for those who need it. ETA TBD. We also plan to introduce UCI-compliant versions of the Kammtail post and the SC RXL bar system next spring.

If 5cm rearwards is simply your preferred position, the 35mm offset head is what you need.

Whoah...did I miss this in the rollout? This is the first I've heard that the seatpost isn't 3:1 compliant....hmmm....



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quickly turning into a bad bike for tt riders needing a UCI compliant bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Quickly turning into a bad bike for tt riders needing a UCI compliant bike.

Why? Sounds like you just need to change a few bits and then it is UCI legal. Yes maybe it isn't UCI legal off of the showroom floor, but UCI racers are about 0.00001% of the market for this type of bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
2 things bug me about this.
Why did Trek design a UCI legal bike with non UCI legal components. (I am pretty sure it was tested with the non UCI legal parts on it as well)?
Also, if you were going to make it a triathlon platfrom with non UCI legal components as part of the package, why not go full monty and design an illegal but even faster bike?
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
2 things bug me about this.
Why did Trek design a UCI legal bike with non UCI legal components. (I am pretty sure it was tested with the non UCI legal parts on it as well)?
Also, if you were going to make it a triathlon platfrom with non UCI legal components as part of the package, why not go full monty and design an illegal but even faster bike?

Because they need to be able to support high profile UCI teams like Radio Shack. The frame with all those Trek logos is all that anyone will notice, they will be on TV, in magazines, etc... People will see the bike, say "that's cool!" and go buy one. They can just make custom bits&bobs like seatposts, stems, bars, etc... on their CNC machines for the 50-100 bikes they need for their high profile teams to make them UCI compliant. If there is enough customer demand they can send the files to Taiwan for mass production. Frames, well not so much. If the frames weren't UCI compliant then they would have to make UCI compliant molds, layup processes, and do all of the research and engineering just to make a few hundred bikes. Not even close to being worth it. Frames are much harder to design and manufacture than bits&bobs, basically.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They were rhetorical questions-
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
2 things bug me about this.
Why did Trek design a UCI legal bike with non UCI legal components. (I am pretty sure it was tested with the non UCI legal parts on it as well)?
Also, if you were going to make it a triathlon platfrom with non UCI legal components as part of the package, why not go full monty and design an illegal but even faster bike?


Because they need to be able to support high profile UCI teams like Radio Shack. The frame with all those Trek logos is all that anyone will notice, they will be on TV, in magazines, etc... People will see the bike, say "that's cool!" and go buy one. They can just make custom bits&bobs like seatposts, stems, bars, etc... on their CNC machines for the 50-100 bikes they need for their high profile teams to make them UCI compliant. If there is enough customer demand they can send the files to Taiwan for mass production. Frames, well not so much. If the frames weren't UCI compliant then they would have to make UCI compliant molds, layup processes, and do all of the research and engineering just to make a few hundred bikes. Not even close to being worth it. Frames are much harder to design and manufacture than bits&bobs, basically.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that...Carl told us that when they saw how good the KVF shapes were AND that they were so close to being 3:1 that they decided to go ahead with it for the frame tubes. So, why would the seatpost have been any different? You can't tell me that a 3:1 compliant seatpost will be significantly different in shape than the post they have on there now. Even if they were "caught out" by the 3:1 "clarification" over a year ago, that was before the first protos were even spotted with Contador and Armstrong.

The bars are a slightly different issue...but again, it seems as if there was plenty of time between over a year ago when the "clarifications" about 3:1 being applied to bars (and seat posts) was handed down. Why not go "all in" on the 3:1 and KVF foil on the bars as well. Heck, make them so that you can use them on regular stems and sell them across the board. They should be the fastest 3:1 legal bars, right?

Of course, all of this discussion also brings up the "fairness" of comparing the SC with it's non-3:1 compliant parts against other bikes that all had 3:1 compliant bars, and most with 3:1 compliant posts as well (did the P4 have a 3:1 post in the test?)...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not sure where you're coming from there. Anyway the SC is a TRI bike that can double as a UCI-legal bike. Trek is in the business of selling bikes and has wisely identified that they will sell 100 bikes to triathletes for every one they sell to a UCI team. Actually it is probably a much higher ratio than that. They are also smart enough to recognize that high profile UCI teams are important for advertising, so their frame should be able to do double duty. And they are even smarter still, making sure that their design can be built in configurations for everyone at a triathlon, not just the top 5-10%. As for why they didn't make some super-exotic hi-tech UCI-illegal frame, again, then they would miss out on all the advertising from their UCI team sponsorships. Business 101.

Also, this is a TRI forum so don't expect too much sympathy that you might have to wait a few months to get a UCI-legal seatpost for your SC. We know you want one :-)
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you work for Trek. Or just a do it yourself shill?
Actually- I am going to hold off. For those reasons that you mentioned. Maybe Trek will come out with the UCI legal parts that I want, but also because there will be a new Scott and a new version of the Shiv.
I might as well see if someone can scratch my full itch- not just part of it.
Don't think that I am hating on the bike. I think Trek did a great job with this bike and the introduction. At least they have bikes- Specialized introduces something and you cannot even get it!
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Of course, all of this discussion also brings up the "fairness" of comparing the SC with it's non-3:1 compliant parts against other bikes that all had 3:1 compliant bars, and most with 3:1 compliant posts as well (did the P4 have a 3:1 post in the test?)...

Hey man the other manufacturers could have done the same thing as Trek and built a bike that could be configured either UCI or non-UCI compliant. Actually the P4 fits into this category now that I think about it. And they tested the P4 with the water bottle (UCI illegal) if I recall correctly. No one forced everyone else to design TT bikes for maybe 500 pro cyclists in the world and then try to adapt them to the tens (or probably hundreds) of thousands people doing triathlons.

It doesn't matter what they do in their testing, people are going to complain that their tests were unfair. If they hadn't done any competitive testing then people would complain that they're hiding something. Anyway, they are getting ready to sell about a kazillion of these things.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Do you work for Trek. Or just a do it yourself shill?
Actually- I am going to hold off. For those reasons that you mentioned. Maybe Trek will come out with the UCI legal parts that I want, but also because there will be a new Scott and a new version of the Shiv.
I might as well see if someone can scratch my full itch- not just part of it.
Don't think that I am hating on the bike. I think Trek did a great job with this bike and the introduction. At least they have bikes- Specialized introduces something and you cannot even get it!

Don't work for 'em. I just own a lot of their bikes. I've ridden others but have always come back to Trek. And I always buy frames made in the USA when possible, so I am super-stoked about my new 9 series SC. I buy enough Chinese and Taiwanese stuff as it is, they get plenty of my dough.

BTW I took the SC for the first spin today, it is a different feeling ride than my last bike, but it rides great. Looking forward to racing it.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Hot Tip: try to get the box the bike came in. It's pre-set with straps and foam and blocks and spacers which make it a great shipping container. Our showbikes and demo bikes travel everywhere in those.


Would you say this would be better than a hard case for airplane travel? I was planning on getting a 400 BikeBoxAlan case for my SC but if the delivery box is up to the job I'm happy to save the money.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
No one forced everyone else to design TT bikes for maybe 500 pro cyclists in the world and then try to adapt them to the tens (or probably hundreds) of thousands people doing triathlons.


I think you GREATLY underestimate the number of people who would be in the market for a Speed Concept that need to comply with UCI regulations...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Jun 7, 10 17:01
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thing is the tt population (even though they are a small %) had pent up demand for this bike. Now they will hold off on purchase-
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Do you work for Trek. Or just a do it yourself shill?
Actually- I am going to hold off. For those reasons that you mentioned. Maybe Trek will come out with the UCI legal parts that I want, but also because there will be a new Scott and a new version of the Shiv.
I might as well see if someone can scratch my full itch- not just part of it.
Don't think that I am hating on the bike. I think Trek did a great job with this bike and the introduction. At least they have bikes- Specialized introduces something and you cannot even get it!


Don't work for 'em. I just own a lot of their bikes. I've ridden others but have always come back to Trek. And I always buy frames made in the USA when possible, so I am super-stoked about my new 9 series SC. I buy enough Chinese and Taiwanese stuff as it is, they get plenty of my dough.

BTW I took the SC for the first spin today, it is a different feeling ride than my last bike, but it rides great. Looking forward to racing it.

Where do you think all the carbon fiber came from to make that bike?



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Thing is the tt population (even though they are a small %) had pent up demand for this bike. Now they will hold off on purchase-

I hear ya man but there ain't gonna be any stock for the TT crowd anyway, the triathletes are gonna buy 'em all! One thing I noticed on Trek's website that says a lot about their strategy with the SC line is that under the "Bikes" tab it says "Triathlon". Not "TT/Triathlon" which is what you'll see on every other major bike manufacturer. Just "Triathlon".
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I test rode a 9.8 at my local shop today. Only went on a quick 4 mile loop, but the bike felt extremely fast and stable, it was pretty windy.

How can we have 10 pages on this topic and no one post their official pics of their own bikes yet! Let's see em!
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
all of this discussion also brings up the "fairness" of comparing the SC with it's non-3:1 compliant parts against other bikes that all had 3:1 compliant bars, and most with 3:1 compliant posts as well (did the P4 have a 3:1 post in the test?)...

Indeed, it does seem that regardless of the route that got them there, Trek's final tests have been stacked in their favor.
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [need4speed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
And I always buy frames made in the USA when possible, so I am super-stoked about my new 9 series SC. I buy enough Chinese and Taiwanese stuff as it is, they get plenty of my dough.

I was told by a Trek sponsored pro that only the top end SC is made in the US. The SC's below that are made overseas.



Powered by Dark Horse Coaching: http://www.darkhorsetriathlon.com
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [mile2424] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
X2...LET'S SEE SOME PICTURES PEOPLE!

http://www.turbeaucurbeau.com
turbeaucurbeau@gmail.com
The Cycling Formula - QT2 Systems - Fast : Splits
USAT Level 1 Coach
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [mrchopsaloty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For airplane travel maybe not. With additional padding to take up the empty space and provide a little more structure it might be OK, but I'd personally opt for a hardshell case when flying my bike. As a general shipping container for UPS, etc, the box works well.


Carl

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I thought this was the owners thread?

"One Line Robert"
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The P4 had its non-compliant post and non-compliant bottle.


As for fairness, our goal was to simulate on the competitor bikes to the greatest degree possible the range of adjustment offered by the new bar&stem system, on bikes of comparable frame size. In that context, is a non-UCI-compliant system which requires extreme stem angles and/or large spacer stacks (and longer lengths of exposed housing) to get to Manny's position really fairer? Open to the possibility, but not convinced just yet.

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Utah, actually.

Carl Matson
Quote Reply
Re: Official Speed Concept Owners Thread [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Utah, actually.

I stand corrected...is that true for both the 9 and 7 series? Just curious...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply

Prev Next