YUK, indeed. fashion forward, it is but will anybody want to catch up ?? the seattube thingie looks OK, but the rest sucks IMHO. the headtube tube area is too big and all wrong. the seatstays look radiussed the wrong way, and downtube is just whack. it reminds me of a corima-like or even a mrazek funk-bike. man, they blew this one looks wise if you ask this wisconsin bred yayhoo. i didn't know they could GET those kind of drugs in waterloo !!!

I'd heard about this bike. Supposedly, the top tube used to slope even more, but Lance wouldn't ride it because it looked like a girl's bike. I guess the tube shape changes and rear wheel cut-out are all the rage right now in Europe. (Like the current Look, Merckx, and Lightspeed, just to name a few.) I guess it's an okay bike, but I won't be riden it, unless they give me one.

The Trekless Gopher

---

I don't work here, I just live here

I think it's funny that this moronic cut out is about an inch from the tire.

Pretty poor ...
Dre'

It look like Trek finally decided that they have finally gotten every last bit of usefulness from their original OCLV moulds.

I dunno, it seems like they're trying to do what everyone else does. It reminds me of why I used to like Volvos until they had decided to go more shapely: because they're doing their own thing. Now, I can't differentiate Volvos from anything else. That is the same as with this bike. I could easily mistake it for the Look model with the faired seat tube.

Although I own a compact geometry bike and love it, I think its fairly telling that the "top rider" in the world didn't jump on the chance to incorporate it into this redesign, when he is known to be very interested in the technical aspects of performance. Surely if there were a real performance advantage related to his racing and racing style, he'd have incorporated a sloping top tube no matter his feelings that it looks like a girl's bike. After all, this is the man who continues to use a down-tube shifter for the front mech in order to save weight.

of course, the top rider in the world got his a$$ handed to him yesterday by a dude on a sloping tt cervelo, so there ya go. :)

seriously tho - i don't know of anybody who is actually trying to say the sloping thing is a performance advantage in a serious/nonmarketing sense. that trek is butt ugly and overdone as it is, and the tubes/lines are all going the wrong way - i bet it DID look like a foo foo barbie bike if sloped more. contrast to the cervelo, which looks like a fastback mustang.

[reply]of course, the top rider in the world got his a$$ handed to him yesterday by a dude on a sloping tt cervelo, so there ya go. :)

seriously tho - i don't know of anybody who is actually trying to say the sloping thing is a performance advantage in a serious/nonmarketing sense.[/reply]

The differences are actually very easy to measure and understand, unfortunately few people in the industry are interested in the actual differences or in testing and rather just make up stuff for their brochure.

The differences between sloping and horizontal are small, but if you use the same tubeset for both frames, the following differences will occur:

1) slightly higher bottom bracker stiffness for the sloping frame
2) slightly higher torsional stiffness for the horizontal toptube frame
3) slightly lighter frame with the sloping toptube
4) slightly lighter seatpost wit the horizontal toptube frame
5) slightly more seatpost compliance with the sloping frame.

issues 3 and 4 are a wash, and for us at Cervelo the choice between sloping and horizontal depends on whatcombination we are looking for out of 1, 2 and 5. For our Alu bikes, which have plenty of bb and torsional stiffness anyway, we go with a sloping toptube (or a dropped toptube on the tri bikes which has the same effect) to get a bit more seatpost compliance.

For the steel frames, this is not necessary and so we can increase the torsional stiffness by keeping the toptube horizontal, especially nice for the twisting and turning on rough roads.

For the new carbon frame, the seatpost compliance wasn't an issue but we did want to get the highest possible bb stiffness, so we opted for a sloping frame.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

right on gerard. i am glad you are staying up nites figuring this stuff out, brother. the key word is " "for a given tubeset" - which you could use or not use depending. most of those differences , i believe, could be ironed out one way or the other by different gauges/butting etc, just as a larger frame differs from a smaller in tubing choice no matter what the tt does. or so i have been told. . . . . .:)

but either way - i am guessing you might admit that having the thing look as cool as a fastback mustang doesn't hurt any !! :)

congrats on a fine a$$ looking bike and a killer win on the world stage - you deserve it. :)

anyone know what brand/model of bottle cages those are in the photos?

T-T-N, love your Mustang Fastback description. Suits it perfectly.

the word slightly was used a lot when listing that advantages of a slopping top tube. add up enough slightly you get 'sorta' or 'kinda'. such as 'sloping top tube frames are kinda lighter until you put a seat post on it.'

trek oclvs are the most vanilla bikes on the block. lance's made the plain oclv bikes ugly.

p.s. gerard your bikes are really sweet. even after what i just said i love the soloist.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Anyone notice the front brake?? looks like the old AX brakes from the 80s,i know Lance has used them on a TT bike,the rear brake might be a dual pivot but the front sure looks like a updated AX brake

i think it's a nice looking bike. it probably isn't aero, but few road bikes are. i'm sure it's stiff, fast, comfy and corners great just as the current oclvs do. they are great bikes with no bad qualities other than their popularity. i like it.

---

http://www.echelonbicycles.com