Seven Cycles is not a bike company but a "process" company. What you are buying into is their process. The product of that process is a bike made with good materials and good workmanship to specifications determined by consensus of you, your bike fitter and your contact at Seven. Their workmanship (specifically, ability to weld tubes together and buiild a frame to the determined specifications with good alignment) is very good, certainly as good as Litespeed, Airborne, Trek, Cannondale, Guru, Cervelo. A couple thoughts to keep in mind when inquiring about Seven Cycles:

1. Asking other Seven owners to describe how they like their bikes describes more how they liked the process of obtaining and then the result of owning the bike rather than the bike itself. In my experience Seven owners who were not happy with the bikes were not happy becasue the process of buying it (through either the responsibility of the customer, the fitter, Seven or some combination) failed them- not becasue the bike was no good.

2. Since each Seven is a one-off, custom (I'm not talking about their custom and semi-custom bikes in this post), comparisons are erroneous. Every bike is different and they cannot be accurately compared.

3. It's Garbage in, garbage out: Send Seven a rotten set of measurements and I guarantee they'll make a rotten bike. They have a good set of checks and balances in place at Seven to avoid obvious mistakes, but ultimately the thing is a good or bad as the fitter,you and Seven design it.

In my opinion having a custom frame built is like getting an amputation: You don't do it until it's a last resort, you can't tell what the outcome will be like until after its over and don't do it for fun.

I've owner 5 custom geometry frames from various manufacturers. Because my body dimensions are utterly unremarkable I am better of on a well designed, built and fitted stock frame size and geometry from a company with a good design history for a given geometry.

Custom is a last resort. The reults often reflect that.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

”In my opinion having a custom frame built is like getting an amputation: You don't do it until it's a last resort, you can't tell what the outcome will be like until after its over and don't do it for fun.”



Tom, I can’t disagree with you more. Are you saying all custom products are like getting an amputation or just frames? How about golf clubs, clothing, kitchen cabinets, sail boats, prosthetics …the list goes on and on. Getting custom in any product adds an incredible value as long as the “consultant” you are dealing with has an excellent reputation of success in their field of expertise. I do 60 plus custom frames a year with extremely positive results. My athletes don’t come to me as a last resort. They come to me as a viable option in maximizing their performance.



You are correct to say “It's Garbage in, garbage out” with Seven’s process, or any process for that matter. But to have an athlete measure themselves and use this information as a basis for design, is way too unscientific for my liking. How many custom bikes and body measurements does your typical athlete work with each year? Athletes should find a fitter/designer team that has a proven track record to maximize their odds of getting the perfect bike.



As for stock bikes, I spend the rest of my time making stock frames fit people by changing components out and correcting poorly fit designs. It is my experience that until bike manufacturers’ start spending time fitting people themselves and understanding the limitations that their frames actually offer in a good fit nothing will ever change. Triathletes will continue complaining about trap/neck pain and lower back pain as their primary discomfort issues. I know many athletes on this forum will say that is not an issue for them, but take a survey and you will find it is an issue for the majority of triathletes. Do you think it could be the stock frame designs?



And let’s not be so naive to think that stock bicycle manufacturers design every frame size to perform in a specific manner. Stock manufacturers build bikes based on manufacturing efficiencies and limitations. Jigs, molds, minimum stocking tube inventory and efficiency of production are what make stock manufacturers money. Compromises in performance are valued versus production costs.



Thanks for letting me rant.

Hi Paul,

Actually, and I'm not being condescending or obsequious (ob·se·qui·ous: Full of or exhibiting servile compliance; fawning.)when I say I think we actually agree.

"as long as the “consultant” you are dealing with has an excellent reputation of success in their field of expertise."

That is a pretty big "as long as", and my contention is the quality of the custom bike is largely dependant on that factor. As you and I both say: Garbage in, garbage out.

On a good day I consider myself an OK bike fitter. But I have designed some real abominations for myself that fit perfectly but handled like pooh.

I'm a fitter, not a frame builder or designer. That gives me a limited perspective. I see bike fit not frm the perspectiv e of a "vehicle designer" who knows how to make the bike interact with the road with a given passenger payload- I only kow how to make a person efficient and comfortable on a bike. In my book, that does not qualify me to sell a custom geometry frame. It may qualify me to consult with a qualified, experienced frame builder to acheive that result- but I have proven my inability to do it on my own using me as a guinea pig.

I think your post is a restatement of mine. But then again, I am always looking for a way to agree.... :).

Tom.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

A good bike fitter does not need to be a good designer. He/she just needs to be associated with one. A good fitter will put you in the appropriate position and provide the designer/builder with the points of contact in space as it relates to the bottom bracket. The designer/builder should take it from there. It sounds like you designed your own bikes.

The difference between and expert and a professional is that an expert knows all the answers and a professional knows where to get them. I consider myself a fit professional. I surround myself with Orthopedics, Podiatrists, Chiropractors, Coaches, Engineers, frame designers and other professional fitters like Christopher Kautz and Dr. David Berkoff as people to use as sounding boards for fitting ideas and advice. The industry would be much better off if we all raised our level of professionalism and provided our athletes with the same professionalism that other sporting industries do.

I will get off my soap box now.

I think both of you have substantial information to share and provide, and this is, by far, the most interesting thread posted here in quite some time (a welcome relief from the usual drivel of "which race is cooler" or "why didn't my $1K wheel purchase win me a Kona bid").

The two of you come at the same problem from two different directions, yet you both strive to arrive at the same result--proper fit resulting in a comfortable and therefore more efficient rider. Whether or not that's done with a custom or stock frame is inconsequentian when juxtaposed with the final outcome. The common denominators are fit, biomechanical efficiency (viewed wholistically, not just based on wattage output), comfort and, ultimately, consumer satisfaction. The common limiting paramter is, more often than not, price--the literal opportunity cost of buying the most bang for the buck. Let's face it, not everyone can get to a FIST or Serotta certified fitter, and not everyone can afford a custom Yaqui, Seven, Serotta, Moots, etc....

With all that in mind, I'll state again that your discussion with one another on this particular board is one of the most thought-provoking, interesting exchanges of ideas here pertinent to ALL of us in a long time. In fact, I'd say it's so important, that I'd really like to hear Emp, Ves and Cobb (if you're still lurking out there) weigh-in as well. Hell--this would make for a grand feature article, specifically a round table discussion between you all, but I'm sure Dan already has enough stuff brewing.

In any case, please, stay on your soap boxes and keep expressing your ideas on this. The more information the better....

Thanks for listening,

Scott

Scott,



It has taken years for triathletes to realize that their biggest bang for their buck is getting properly positioned on their bike. Let’s face it, buying the latest coolest stuff has a lot of sex appeal. Spending money on equipment that your friends can admire and wish they had isn’t only isolated to bikes. Most of us think that performance is directly related to dollars spent. What is sexy about a good fitting? You can’t touch it, play with it or even sell it on ebay when you’ve out grown it. But a good fitting will make everything you spend your money on from that time on that much better.



I am always up for a great discussion and debate. I’d be happy to entertain any comments, ideas or criticisms as it relates to bike fit, design and fabrication. People that know me will tell you that I am opinionated and never back down from an opportunity to share my ideas. Being challenged only makes us better.



I truly enjoyed my time with Dan at his FIST clinic because he was open to challenges.



Thank you for listening.



Paul

"It has taken years for triathletes to realize that their biggest bang for their buck is getting properly positioned on their bike."

I wish more triathletes did realize this Paul.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom,



It is the responsibility of the people selling the equipment to educate the triathletes. It is short term thinking if you sell equipment that doesn't fit your client. It takes proper education and a concerted effort to get triathletes to want to listen to what you have to say. It is much easier to just take their money and sell them the latest “aero” widget and send them on their way.



Bike shops should have to earn the right to sell equipment to triathletes. We are in the performance industry and people come to us for just that, “I want to be faster”. Making people faster is easy. You just need to sell knowledge. Products will sell themselves.



Paul

Again, I find myself in "heated agreement" with both of you here. I'd consider myself an "early middle age" tri-nerd, meaning I've been at the sport for about 10 years now. I've fallen into many of the traps that I constantly read of here. ...Which gizmo/widget is the fastest/slipperiest/newest/lightest/mostestest neat.... Blah, blah, blah. And in the course of my development, I've spent stupid money on expensive equipment that didn't always suit my needs. It was new, flashy and totally trick, yet the best designs cannot compensate for poor execution.

To that end, I've also watched the "old-timer" on the mid-80s Raliegh with non-aero Campy NR gum hoods smoke-check the bike course. How can this be, considering he was riding on a positively ancient (tongue in cheek) 531 anchor with cloth bar tape, toe clips and non-aero Wobler rims? I'll tell ya how...he was a) in great shape, 2) comfy on his bike with a terrific fit; and, c) having a blast as a result of the other two.

Technology is good stuff, and I ooh and ahh as much as the next guy, salivating over new goodies and the latest EICMA or Interbike photos. Still, as far as biking is concerned, fit, comfort and their resultant products of efficiency and confidence are the most important aspects. Without those, the slickest Lotus or wiggliest Dogma won't do squat fer ya.

That's my insistence, and I'm sticking to it.

The rest is fun stuff that's still important, but definitely second seat to those first critical factors. Frame material, fork design, rim depth, wheel dish, saddle design.... They are cool, but they are only minor parameters of the larger equation, namely how the rider interfaces with the machine.

Like I said, I think the two of you discussing/arguing/airing opinions on this forum is terrific. The more there is to read, the more we can all learn and benefit. Thank you both.

Now, I'm back to falling into old habits and, more succinctly, back to the Serotta site to drool over imagined paint combinations on a new CXII. Old dogs, new tricks, and such..... ;-)~

Scott

"Hell--this would make for a grand feature article, specifically a round table discussion between you all, but I'm sure Dan already has enough stuff brewing."

the closest thing to that round table is going to occur at maplewood bicycles in early december, in st. louis. steve hed, chris kautz, and i will be there doing just that. i've never spent any real time with chris, and this is going to be interesting for me to see, as i don't know how much chris and i agree or disagree. we may hug each other all weekend, we may get into a food fight. don't know.

there will be three different approaches represented. me as former manufacturer, with the experience of building tri bikes for more pro athletes than any other during my era ('89 - '99), steve hed and his interest in making bikes/riders more aerodynamic thru wind tunnel testing, and chris kautz with his more empirical approach to fit. perhaps we'll find a common ground, perhaps not.

when i think of serotta, the bikes that paul levine has built for his triathlon clients, i think of a bike that is going to be very comfortable, powerful, stable, durable, but with nothing specific to the bike itself that's in the least aerodynamic (bike + rider, the whole complex being aero, yes, the but the frame itself, no). maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't. probably gerard would disagree with paul, saying that his production bikes are just as comfy and powerful with a cm or two longer or shorter stem, add or subtract a spacer, and the lack of a custom is more than compensated by intrinsic frame features that make the whole complex more slippery.

what would be the best of all worlds? cervelo's frame features available custom, so that paul levine could integrate them into the frame he wants to have built. but that doesn't exist in nature, does it? probably a custom litespeed blade is the closest you could come to a ti bike that tries to approach a cervelo p2k.

if you can, show up at maplewood and we'll try to solve the problem. i believe i'll have something on this up on slowtwitch by tomorrow, with when/where, where to stay if you're traveling in, etc.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Hi Tom,

I'm glad to hear that Paul misunderstood your original post, as I read it the same way that he did - meaning that custom bikes are a bad thing.

It's unfortunate you've had such bad luck with poor handling custom bikes. I think one of the true advantages of a custom bike is the ability to get someone into the right position, and then make a bike to match it that handles well. I've seen too many bikes with 8cm, +25 degree stems with 5 cm of spacers under them - necessary to get ther person in the right position, but you don't even have to ask how it handles...

The caveat here is to make sure you work with a good fitter AND frame builder.

---

Christopher Kautz
Director of Technology, Product Development, and Education
GURU Sports, a division of Cannondale Sports Unlimited

Sports Med. 2001;31(7):559-69. Related Articles, Links
Improving cycling performance: how should we spend our time and money.

Jeukendrup AE, Martin J.

Human Performance Laboratory, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, England. A.E.Jeukendrup@BHAM.AC.UK

Cycling performance is dependent on physiological factors which influence mechanical power production and mechanical and environmental factors that affect power demand. The purpose of this review was to summarize these factors and to rank them in order of importance. We used a model by Martin et al. to express all performance changes as changes in 40 km time trial performance. We modelled the performance of riders with different ability ranging from novice to elite cyclists. Training is a first and most obvious way to improve power production and was predicted to have the potential to improve 40 km time trial performance by 1 to 10% (1 to 7 minutes). The model also predicts that altitude training per se can cause a further improvement of 23 to 34 seconds. Carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks may decrease 40 km time by 32 to 42 seconds. Relatively low doses of caffeine may improve 40 km time trial performance by 55 to 84 seconds. Another way of improving time trial performance is by reducing the power demand of riding at a certain velocity. Riding with hands on the brake hoods would improve aerodynamics and increase performance time by approximately 5 to 7 minutes and riding with hands on the handlebar drops would increase performance time by 2 to 3 minutes compared with a baseline position (elbows on time trail handle bars). Conversely, riding with a carefully optimised position could decrease performance time by 2 to 2.5 minutes. An aerodynamic frame saved the modelled riders 1:17 to 1:44 min:sec. Furthermore, compared with a conventional wheel set, an aerodynamic wheel set may improve time trial performance time by 60 to 82 seconds. From the analysis in this article it becomes clear that novice cyclists can benefit more from the suggested alterations in position, equipment, nutrition and training compared with elite cyclists. Training seems to be the most important factor, but sometimes large improvements can be made by relatively small changes in body position. More expensive options of performance improvement include altitude training and modifications of equipment (light and aerodynamic bicycle and wheels). Depending on the availability of time and financial resources cyclists have to make decisions about how to achieve their performance improvements. The data presented here may provide a guideline to help make such decisions.

---

http://www.fabish-sport.com

I meant to add to this that I think that this article should be required reading for anyone wanting to figure out the biggest bang for their bucks...

---

http://www.fabish-sport.com

This has become a good discussion. Paul mentions, correctly so, that it is our obligation to put people on the appropriate equipment for their goals and dimensions.

That is what I live (and often die) by. I agree with this 100%.

However, I will use this paraphrased, dramatized example to illustrate the environment we operate in. While this exchange is a dramatization, it accurately reflects an amalgam of actual phone conversations here at Bikesport. It is not an exageration:

Phone rings:

Bikesport: "Good afternoon, Bikesport. What can we do for you?"

Customer X: "Ahh, Hi. Is Tom Bemmerly there?"

Bikesport: "No, Tom Demerly is not in at the moment, this is Mike. Tom is out training for a race in Thailand right now, can I be of assistance?"

Customer X: "Ahh, yeah. Do you have a 56cm Cervelo Duelist in stock?"

Bikesport: "Oh, the Cervelo Dual, yes we have those in stock."

Customer X: "How much is the Duelist?"

Bikesport: "The Cervelo Dual is $1499.99"

Customer X: "Oh. Do you have the Cannondale Guru?"

Bikesport: "Ahh, yes, we carry Cannondale bikes and we're also a Guru dealer. As a matter of fact I think Tom bought a new Guru for his upcoming race."

Customer X: "OK. What do you have in a 56cm frame. I'm about 5'7" and I know I need a 56cm. My Trek is a 56cm."

Bikesport: "Hmmm, that's interesting. Did you get fitted for your Trek?"

Customer X: "Yeah. I stood over it and they did a full fitting and adjusted the seat. I took it for a test ride too. It fits perfectly. They set my seat highness there. I have aerobars too. Profile Strikers. It's a 56cm."

Bikesport: "Hmmm, I'd like to see you on that bike. Can you bring it in? We could put you in the trainer and see if a Cervelo Dual or a Cannondale or a Guru might work for you. It would be worth checking out. We don't charge for it if you buy a bike here. We shoot some digital photos of you and look at them to evaluate your bike position and fit, and we take some joint angle measurements and watch you pedal on the indoor trainer. We'll take a full set of measurements too to see where you're at. I think it would be worth your time if you are considering a new bike."

Customer X: "Yeah."

Bikesport: "Would you like to make a fit appointment? There is no charge."

Customer X: "Ahh. I saw the Cannondale Guru in a magazine, the one with the Olympic rings. Do you have the one with the Olympic rings?"

Bikesport: "Oh, the Guru Crono with the Olympic '04 paint scheme? I saw that at Interbike. That is cool. We have Guru Cronos in stock but not in the new paint scheme. We have one with that flame paint job. It is pretty cool."

Customer X: "I want either that 56cm Cervelo Duelist or the 56cm Olympic Cannondale Guru. But you don't have that Cannondale Guru in 56cm with the Olympic rings?"

Bikesport: "Ahh, no. No Gurus with that paint job yet. It just came out..."

Customer X: "Oh."

Bikesport: "Would you like to make a fit appointment to see which bike might work best for you?"

Customer X: "Oh, I had that. I take a 56cm."

Bikesport: "OK."

Customer X: "When will you have Cannodale Gurus in stock with Olympic rings?"

Bikesport: "Ahh, I think Tom's bike might have that paint job. I'm not sure. You could check that out when it gets here in the next few weeks."

Customer X: "Oh. OK. Thanks. I'll call you back...."

Bikesport: "OK, thanks! Let us know if you'd like to schedule a fit appointment. It takes about an hour and a half and there is no charge. It might be worth your while."

Customer X: "Yeah. But my Trek is a 56 and it fits perfectly. My back is sore sometimes though. I got that Specialized Body Man seat. I was going numb, I mean, like... you know..."

Bikesport: "Oh yeah, been there. We might be able to fix that."

Customer X: "OK, well thanks....."

Bikesport: "Thank you for calling. Let us know when you like to have us take a look at your bike fit."

Customer X: "Ahh, OK. Thanks. Bye."

Bikesport: "Bye bye."

As we said in the Army: Welcome to the real world.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Two things..... I very much respect Paul Levine's fitting expertise... I have designed over 300 custom frames and fit 99% of those people with no problems and the customer being very happy. We had an issue with a well respected and qualified Serotta certified fitter doing a tri fit . We built the bike based on his fit numbers and because the weight distribution by fit was wrong the bike wobbled at 37mph. No doubt the customer was comfortable, but all of the blame comes back to me the manufacturer. It is not as simple as a good fitter and a good frame builder working together in some cases.

Second, Make your reservations early for the Maplewood Bicycle Science Behind Speed Forum with Dan Empfield, Steve Hed, and Chris Kautz. We have been getting nailed with calls this afternoon. We are only letting 100 people attend to not dilute the info. See www.MaplewoodBicycle.com for more info. The meeting is held at Ritz-Carlton St. Louis and they have passed on extremely good discounts for our attendees. This will be a good time with good grub and drinks Saturday night at the legendary Maplewood V.I.P. party for Maplewood's top clients of 2003 and Tri-Forum attendees.

If anyone doesn't like what I said above, come tell me at the forum!!!!! Oh yeah, first you have to pay the admission.









I'm not blaming

"I've seen too many bikes with 8cm, +25 degree stems with 5 cm of spacers under them - necessary to get ther person in the right position, but you don't even have to ask how it handles..."

you're so right about this. as regards the rider you describe above, let us say that his position is proper and it's his bike that's wrong. this therefore means that the cervelo, felt, QR, whatever, that was sold to this person was the wrong bike, and the LBS did a bad job of matching the bike to the customer. what this person should've been sold was an aegis trident (taller head tube, shortish top tube), or a kestrel talon (taller head tube and variable seat angle) or perhaps even a road race bike instead of a tri bike (or, of course, the bike is right and the fit is wrong, but that's not the hypohetical chris was describing).

my point is, we all agree that LBSs sometimes, maybe often, do an abysmal job of tri bike fit. but this doesn't necessarily mean a custom bike is called for. maybe in this case the LBS did a good job of fit, and a bad job of bike selling. there are so many bikes out today, so many geometries, that production bikes are usually available to match the customer's fit. when you consider that (among titanium bikes) a production tiphoon at $4000 might do the job as well or better than a similarly-spec'd $6000 custom serotta, and with a more TT-specific set of tubes and dropouts, well, then what? (which is to reiterate that it's not about custom or production, but about finding the guy who REALLY knows how to fit you and has the ability to suggest appropriate options for purchase).

now, to be fair to paul. what i understand about paul levine's service is that he will ONLY sell you a custom serotta. that's it. however, his FIT service (sold separately) is such that part of what you get is an analysis of those bikes that would fit you, even if they're not bikes that he'll sell. so the fact that paul ends up selling a lot of custom serottas doesn't mean he believes that this is the solution for everyone. after a levine fit he'll say something like, "a cervelo in this size will work, or a felt in the same size but with that length/pitch stem, or an aegis trident so long as you're using a low-profile aero bar (e.g., hed or vision), or we can make you a serotta to match your body." something like that. paul can chime in if i've got this wrong.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You are right on the money with this one Dan - many athletes fit just fine on production bikes, but often have the wrong one or the right one in the wrong size, and so such fixes are necessary.

You're also right about Paul's fitting business. Paul and I are quite similar in some (but not all) respects of our businesses. Ideally when someone is looking for a new bike they come to me (or Paul, etc) BEFORE they go the LBS so I can size them and then determine what (or if) production bike will fit them, in what size, what stem, etc. Saves the heartache of having to tell them they should have gone with a different manufacturerer, size, and so on.

FYI - you can't do a custom P2K, but there is a close option. The GT Superbike (SB1, not the SB2 from Project 96), after which the original P2 was modeled (correct me if I'm wrong, Gerard, but I think this is the case), is still being built by Dave Tiemeyer, who built the SB1 at GT when they were still around. I've put many clients on these when they need custom and want soemthing aero.

---

Christopher Kautz
Director of Technology, Product Development, and Education
GURU Sports, a division of Cannondale Sports Unlimited

"The GT Superbike"

i went from a p2k liker to a p2k lover when cervelo installed rear-facing adjustment screws into its rear-entry dropouts (and also cleaned up this bikes cable routing).

i don't see how bikes with faired rear wheels can be viable for most day-in, day-out users without this sort of dropout, unless one is willing to live with a sloppy fit between tire and seat tube (but that sort of defeats the purpose, it seems to me).

the bike you describe sounds interesting, i didn't know that bike was still being made. i would hope for the general user it has such a mechanism fir microadjusting the tire clearance. that's one reason i'm high on QR's tiphoon and litespeed's blade. it would help make the superbike a nice custom option.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That was hysterical, and I've witnessed that sort of exchange many times in two of San Diego's more well-known LBSs (no names, but one has two letters and a "&" in the middle and the other starts with N and ends with O).

Then again, I've also seen the reverse, where an LBS will attempt to sell either based on poor fit ethic or, as I've seen more often than not, based upon what's on the showroom floor at the moment. ...Not that I've ever been victimized by that,...well, mostly,...kinda...sorta.

Two weeks ago I accompanied a friend who is a former domestic pro bike racer for a couple of tri-fit consultations, one with a custom builder and the other with a new, albeit well-pedigreed LBS here in SD. To their credit, the builder and the LBS manager both empathically urged my pal to try as many bikes as possible, and not to be lured by gimicky bullshit. Good on 'em both (although I would have expected nothing less than that given both gentlemen's well-deserved reputations).

Unfornately, I'm doubtful that John or Jane Q. Trinerd living in the hinterlands have easy access to such folks/LBS. ...Thus the importance of Emp's tri-shop list, forum exchanges (here, RBR and others), and websites such as your own.

And, more to my original point, thus the importance of a discussion thread such as this one. I only wish I could make it to the St. Louis forum--work can be a drag at times. I look forward to reading about it.

In the meantime, thanks to everyone. I really think this was the most thought-provoking thread in quite some time.

Education is a journey, you know, not a destination.

Scott

"i don't see how bikes with faired rear wheels can be viable for most day-in, day-out users without this sort of dropout, unless one is willing to live with a sloppy fit between tire and seat tube (but that sort of defeats the purpose, it seems to me). "

I agree that seat tube cutouts with standard vertical dropouts are not ideal from an aerodynamic standpoint, but they do allow you to have an aero section seattube AND short chainstays.

Tom,

I agree with most everything you have posted here, garbage in garbage out, "most" people can fit on stock frames, with modifications to their components. I do disagree completley on your statement:

"Their workmanship (specifically, ability to weld tubes together and buiild a frame to the determined specifications with good alignment) is very good, certainly as good as Litespeed, Airborne, Trek, Cannondale, Guru, Cervelo. "

I have seen, ridden, owned, and sold most of the high end frames from Litespeed, Trek, Cannondale etc. and none of them compare to the workmanship placed in a Seven. In my humble opinion, the only company that is remotely close is Merlin (where Rob Vandermark came from and is now owned by the parent company of Litespeed).

Some people buy bikes simply for the beauty or workmanship. Sevens are not for everyone, however if you want to do it right the first time and not have to spend senseless amounts of time and money on different frames and components trying to achieve a forever bike, Seven should definitly be considered. Obviously I am a Seven owner and had a great expirience with Seven and their process. I even went to the customer weekend tour a few years ago and was impressed with their process and professionalism. My only complaint was the long wait in getting the bike. I forgot that I was not buying Litespeed that was already hanging from a rack.

[reply]maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't. probably gerard would disagree with paul, saying that his production bikes are just as comfy and powerful with a cm or two longer or shorter stem, add or subtract a spacer, and the lack of a custom is more than compensated by intrinsic frame features that make the whole complex more slippery.
[/reply]

I don't think Paul and I disagree, I think we agree that the process starts with the rider. You figure out the correct position for the rider, and then determine which bike pits underneath that position. If there is a stock bike that fits, there are several advantages to that (cost obviously being one of them). If no stock bike fits (or if cost is no object, or if other requirements need to be met that stock bikes won't), then a custom bike would be the solution.

I talked with Paul only briefly at the show, but from that and previous conversations I believe that we're on the same page. Heck, he steers some clients towards Cervelos (despite the fact that he doesn't sell them and he thus "loses" a sale) and I ride a custom Serotta mountainbike. OK, it was custom-built for Steve Larsen, not for me, but it's the thought that counts.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

Tom,



With all due respect, the “real world” is what you make of it. From your phone scenario is sounds like Mike needs better training on how to handle phone inquiries. Mike is trying to sell/provide Customer X a bike fit, which ultimately is the goal. But Customer X needs to be asked a lot more questions about him and his real concerns before he is ready to make the commitment of his time for a fitting. Mike is acting like someone who wants to sell something; he hasn’t convinced Customer X that he actually wants to help him buy the bike. I know it sounds like a small difference. But think of it this way: I don’t sell sixty plus custom bikes a year, I help people buy sixty plus custom bikes a year. People love to buy but hate being sold.



Have Customer X give me a call… J



Paul

Paul,

I have to disagree. I don't think "Mike" was trying to sell a bike fit. In this scenario, I think the example being made is that a lot of buyers don't listen. The way I took it was that Mike was saying - Why don't you come in, let us take a look at you and find out what size bike you need and then we can show you what we have. I know if a salesperson said, why don't you come in for a free bike fit, I'd be there. And I'm learning that each "Fitter" is different.

Unlike the buyer in this situation, from what I've read and researched, a tri bike size should be smaller than your road bike size. He didn't want to hear that and was convinced because he rode a 56 road bike, he has to have a 56 tri bike.

Mike

---

TheBikeRacer.com