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/