I already tried searching the forums for some feedback and I all I read were a few posts from Trek haters who had no experience riding the bike. I test drove one last week and really liked it after riding a P3 and S22. I like the carbon and definitely want 700’s. I understand the seat angle is less aggressive than others, but I am very intersted to hear some other replies.
Thank you
Well, I am not a Trek hater, but the Equinox 11 has some fairly unusual geometry which causes it to be a bike that will fit very few people.
As you pointed out, it languises in the netherworld of slack angle tri/TT bikes. That is like high-heeled running shoes. Interesting idea for some, but not likely to have much practical acceptence compared to other bikes.
You mentioned you took a test ride. That worries me. Did you get measured? Why did you take a test ride?
Test rides reveal so little real, usuable information I discount them heavily as an evaluation tool, espeically initially. To me, a test ride lasts three months.
the Equinox 11 has some fairly unusual geometry which causes it to be a bike that will fit very few people.
As you pointed out, it languises in the netherworld of slack angle tri/TT bikes.
I think that’s correct for the Trek Team Time Trial (I’m no Trek expert or dealer either) but I understand that unlike the Team Time Trial, the Equinox 11 has a multi-position seatpost which allows it to be set up between about 73 and 78 degrees. So… how then is it different than the revered-on-this-forum Cervelo P3?
I’ve ridden it. As far as test rides go, it was awesome. The head tube is radically short, and is slightly long over the top tube. Has anyone seen weight specs for this frame/ Team time trial frame? Word was it wasn’t the lightest ever. For a TT bike, slack angle, it fits me alright, but the slightly long top tube with a shorter head tube doesn’t help much. For head tube height, look at any photo of the USPS team on it. All of them have about 1.5-2 inches of spacers. If it fits, though, its awesome.
I’m guessing the primary differences boil down to geometry, specifically, the headtube. I’m too lazy to look, but suspect the cervelo and trek sport different headtube angles which will make a tremendous difference in handling when the front wheel is loading with the weight of the rider on aero bars. The Trek may amount to a road bike with a forward seatpost - i.e. sketchy handling on the aero bars.
what are your current bike measurements spinner?
Headtube angles:
Equinox: 73.3
P2: 73
Negligible difference.
I currently own two treks and love them, so while I was trying to come up with differences, I really follow the same line of thinking as you originally stated.
sorry tom-but you are dead wrong. bikes do not need to be test ridden for three months…a reasonably fitted bike will reveal itself within seconds…handling geometry- (bb drop, front center, trail/fork rake/head angle ) is what makes a bike what it is even more so than fit…and bicycles do reveal themselves quite quickly…by the way people the trek tt bike is a great bike as is the equinox 11…there are many ways to get the saddle setback whereever you need it…the bicycle was designed to be uci compliant but to balance properly with a rider scooched forward on the saddle…the things stays are short enough to balance wonderfully with the post flipped around…is there a moroe accomplished time trialist than lance armstrong? is there a bike company with a larger r&d budget than trek? .sorry boss but you are wrorng on this one.
I tend to take issue with the often used and VERY GENERAL statement “longer top tube.” Longer with respect to what? A 58 top tube is a 58 top tube. If it is longer than your current bike, then its probably not your size. Folks throw this statement around, claiming that a certain bike won’t fit because its top tube is too long. Well, DUH. It ain’t yer size then. Check out a smaller size in that bike. The only issue then becomes that bikes like the Equinox and TT only come in a few sizes. If they don’t make a size that fits you, then you’d be foolish to buy that bike. If you aren’t flexible enough to ride a bike in your size with a short head tube, then you need to look elsewhere. I just cringe every time I read that someone can’t ride such and such bike because its too long in the top tube (often attributed to the P3/P2 on this forum).
I suspect folks who make that statement experience the “this 58 doesn’t fit like that 58, its too stretched out.” The fact is, the way companies are measuring bikes these days is often very divergent. You can’t take two “58s” off the shelf and compare them directly. Rather, you need to compare the actual measurements.
And then there is the crowd who is new to the Tri/TT paradyme which demands that one ride a shorter top tube measurement than on a road bike. If you ride a 58 top tube on your road bike, you will inevitably find that trying to ride 58 on your TT setup is “too stretched out” and the top tube will feel “too long.” But that doesn’t mean that that company makes their bikes with “longer top tubes”. They make a 58 top tube, period. It just doesn’t fit you. Try a 56 or even a 55 top tube.
Anyway, that’s today’s rant. Tear it up Demerly and Slowman.
Well, first, show me a picture of anyone on a Trek TT, besides Deboom with his modified seat tube angle contraption, without any spacers. Not many out there. Not even a certian professional team that is riding short distances, and should be able to compromise some comfort for speed. I think that says something. I will look, not on the site, at the head tube heights next time I am at the shop. For the top tube, you are right. I was making generalizations based on my experience with the bike. But experiences were what was requested.
I still maintain. . .what in the world does having an extremely short head tube have to do with the length of the top tube being “longish?” Diddly squat, that’s what. The only thing it does is further limit the number of folks that bike might fit. If you are less than flexible, you are going to have a hard time making this bike fit in any decent manner. . .not because the top tube is too long, but because the head tube is so short that even 2 inches of spacers still leaves your bars quite low, compared to other bikes. If this bike were a steep angled bike, the head tube would work well. Being slack angled, the head tube is really short. Only a very few athletes in the world are flexible enough to go sans spacers on this thing and still ride with decent power.
Well, first you have to assume that one can only put a maximum of about 2" of spacers on a steerer tube. Not necessarily true, but… Ok. Now, I don’t have the longest torso out there. So, in a hypothetical situation, with a 130 mm head tube, or something like 2-3 cm higher than the trek, with a 54.2 cm eff. top tube as per a medium Trek, I can make the reach, with spacers. Now, keep the same position specs etc. and jump down to the actual head tube. The distance the upper body needs to go is much further than with a higher head tube. Pythagorean theorem to get tricky there. I will check on the head tube specs for sure, tommorow.
I understand fully, what you are saying about inter-relating the two measurements. You are right. But a shorter head tube compounds the problem. If I am being totally incoherent, forgive me.
Basically, make sure it fits. I made it fit, it worked, but took some spacers, and a short stem. Still rode awesome though.
Thanks for all the feedback on the Equinox. I was out of town and did not have access to a computer. Here is my scenario I am coming off of a Trek 2300 which I rode for three years and put about 5K miles. I liked the bike very much but now I want a tri specific bike. Originally I wanted a Felt S22 since on paper it sounds great. After finally riding this bike I did not particularly like the 650 wheels and felt like the carbon X bars were too narrow when out of the saddle. Next I rode the P3. I am not sure why but the bike had a totally different feel which I did not like very much. I am not sure what my reasons are, but I knew I liked the feel of the 700 wheels better. Next I rode the Trek and it fit like a glove from the start. I have a fuel 100 and I am a fan of carbon frames. To be honest I wanted to but something other than a Trek because I know they are not a big player in the tri community and it would be nice to avoid all the Lance comments. I rode a 52 cm road bike and the Small Trek frame fit me very well. In regards to the seat angle, I really didn’t notice a difference in any of the bikes. I am sure it is because I am new to tri bikes, but the steeper Felt was not uncomfortable either. I can buy this bike for $2800 with Ultegra cranks and it seems again to be the best bang for the buck, Felt excluded!
Thanks
If you like it, get it. Just make sure you can fit it without some crazy stem length or something. Have fun, and enjoy the lance comments. They are just pi**ed off because you have a better bike.
What wheels are you running?
Enjoy
trijunior,
Since I sold my road bike with everything I am starting from scratch. The bike comes stock with Bontrager Race Aero (not the race x lite aero) so I will train on them and save for a pair of race wheels. I will definitely look for a deal on wheels since it is so expensive to have wheels which only get used for races.