Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
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?)...
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 :-)
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!
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.