Why don’t we see more pro triathletes riding Trek bikes?
Triathletes don’t like to ride mountain bikes I guess. 
How about Chris Lieto and all of Team Timex?
I thought all of those “posers” on Timex were on Trek.
Chris, Blake, and Team Timex. I think Fleck’s wife switched?
Record,
Why are we “posers”?
Just curious.
Bruce Gennari
Team Timex
I think he was being sarcastic.
Let’s try an automotive analogy: BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, even Honda are all active in Formula 1 and actively market their brands through visibility in Formula 1, an exotic, ultra-high end racing format. Their *primary *customers make a favorable association with Formula 1 and the sport is visible to their customership.
Hyundai, Volkswagen, Cadillac, Lincoln and Rolls Royce may be active in some types of racing (Cadillac especially in the 24 Hours of LeMans) but their primary customership *is not *largely influenced by racing and does not participate in racing.
Now, with Trek, we have a bit of a looming anachronism with Lance Armstrong’s legacy and brand loyalty. Trek has assuredly benefitted from their association with Armstrong, but they likely are benefitting from a broader association among non-racing cyclists as opposed to Armstrong influencing the buying decisions of the license holding, weekend warrior USA Cycling Category 2,3 and 4 (and even 5) and the rank and file triathlete that populates this forum.
In short, to many authentic competitive cyclists (road racing or multisport) Trek is non-racing *specific *brand with broad appeal and recognition. Other brands such as Cervelo simply only do racing machines. Cervelo has no hybrids, no mountain bikes, no children’s bikes, are only sold in specialty shops (largely). The association is clear: The brand’s heritage is *racing *and only racing.
Notice: Ferrari doesn’t make pick-up trucks.
The Trek racing equipment is valid technologically in many ways. The brand simply doesn’t carry as *exclusive *or specifically race oriented association with race specific consumers as do some race-only niche brands.
Owning a Trek is a fine expereince for all cyclists, from Armstrong to a toddler and everything in between. Owning a race-specific brand is more exclusive “club” or association. Some people like that.
If Timex and Trek are not one of the most exposed Pro teams out there…I dont know what team is. Thus, the smart ass reply to the OP’s question
Why don’t we see more pro triathletes riding Trek bikes?
Interesting analogy but it doesn’t quite work when you look at the offerings from Specialized and Felt. It seems like Trek is considered too plain vanilla even if they make some of the best bikes out there and are one of the few remaining mass producers of bikes in the US. Maybe they need to hire a new PR company and use more hot, sexy models to sell their bikes like the Euros do…
To me Trek is like chevy. It’s a good solid brand and much of it’s lineup is without bells and whistles. But remember chevy also makes the corvette. And Trek has a couple of corvettes too.
To me Trek is like chevy. It’s a good solid brand and much of it’s lineup is without bells and whistles. But remember chevy also makes the corvette. And Trek has a couple of corvettes too.
Very apt analogy. The smart money in sports cars is in the 'vette. And Trek makes great bikes.
You havent driven a Chevy lately have you?
You havent driven a Chevy lately have you?
Made in China now right?
Let’s try an automotive analogy: BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, even Honda are all active in Formula 1 and actively market their brands through visibility in Formula 1, an exotic, ultra-high end racing format. Their *primary *customers make a favorable association with Formula 1 and the sport is visible to their customership.
Hyundai, Volkswagen, Cadillac, Lincoln and Rolls Royce may be active in some types of racing (Cadillac especially in the 24 Hours of LeMans) but their primary customership *is not *largely influenced by racing and does not participate in racing.
Now, with Trek, we have a bit of a looming anachronism with Lance Armstrong’s legacy and brand loyalty. Trek has assuredly benefitted from their association with Armstrong, but they likely are benefitting from a broader association among non-racing cyclists as opposed to Armstrong influencing the buying decisions of the license holding, weekend warrior USA Cycling Category 2,3 and 4 (and even 5) and the rank and file triathlete that populates this forum.
In short, to many authentic competitive cyclists (road racing or multisport) Trek is non-racing *specific *brand with broad appeal and recognition. Other brands such as Cervelo simply only do racing machines. Cervelo has no hybrids, no mountain bikes, no children’s bikes, are only sold in specialty shops (largely). The association is clear: The brand’s heritage is *racing *and only racing.
Notice: Ferrari doesn’t make pick-up trucks.
The Trek racing equipment is valid technologically in many ways. The brand simply doesn’t carry as *exclusive *or specifically race oriented association with race specific consumers as do some race-only niche brands.
Owning a Trek is a fine expereince for all cyclists, from Armstrong to a toddler and everything in between. Owning a race-specific brand is more exclusive “club” or association. Some people like that.
Tom’s comments are one opinion, and holds much weight. What he forgot to mention is that all the so called “race specific” companies use Trek developed technology to bring them to the for front, much like large car companies push technology so that smaller companies can adopt, copy and sometimes perfect.
From looking at the ST survey currently on the front page only about 6% of us STer’s are influenced by what the pros ride anyway (not sure I believe this). While individual pros seem to switch bikes quite often maybe Trek has focused on having a few pro teams out there mainly for the purpose of testing and development of new products over any advertising and exposure advantages they give. Trek is now one of the few large companies left that still does make many of their own bikes so maybe they are still thinking like a bike company more than a marketing company. (also think Hed, Desoto) Just a guess. I do know that Trek has a real focus on after sales service and warranty that has earned them many life-long customers.
Tom,
I like the analogy. However, Mercedes is one of the most wide ranging auto brands in the world making everything from Semis (or Lorries) to passanger cars to their partnership with the Mercedes Mclaren F1 team. As for Ferrari, yes Enzo created the brand to support the race team, however, considering their association with Fiat they are in a similar boat to Mercedes. I think similar comparisons can be made throughout the auto industry.
My point is, just because a company (such as Trek) is wide ranging in their brand doesn’t mean they can’t excel on the top end. In fact considering their resources they might have a better opportunity for R&D and thus build a better product.
I find it interesting that triathlon, in general, is slow to accept bikes from large companies and will stubbornly stick to brands triathletes have built up in their minds to be tri specific, or more competitively successfull in triathlon (both of which are almost always innacurate). For example there was a thread the other day comparing a P3C with a Specialized Transition. Someone actually posted that the Transition hasn’t been very successfull in competition compared to the P3C, which is rediculous, if anything they are very similar in competitive results.
Anyway, I always like to see the auto racing analogies. I’m a huge F1 fan. Let’s go Hamilton!!!
Jimmy
I find it interesting that triathlon, in general, is slow to accept bikes from large companies and will stubbornly stick to brands triathletes have built up in their minds to be tri specific, or more competitively successfull in triathlon (both of which are almost always innacurate). For example there was a thread the other day comparing a P3C with a Specialized Transition. Someone actually posted that the Transition hasn’t been very successfull in competition compared to the P3C, which is rediculous, if anything they are very similar in competitive results.
Jimmy,
That’s a good point. Triathletes as a whole are very appreciative of brands and companies that they feel are part of the triathlon scene - that started out in triathlon, that are triathlon, that live and breath triathlon. There are numerous examples of this. They are also suspect of bigger brands coming in and doing the triathlon thing. More than a few bigger players have tried this in various product areas with mixed success at best - even when some of that product has been cutting edge and very good, triathletes for some reason eschew it and buy the core tri-brand.
This is really the story of Cervelo. What has been remarkable about Cervelo is that they have done what few companies who started off in triathlon have done, going way beyond their triathlon roots, while at the same time maintaining their interests in triathlon. Indeed, even becoming a more dominant force in triathlon. **This is extraordinarily rare. In fact I can think of no other company that had it’s true origins in triathlon, that has done this.
Getting back on topic, Tom’s description is spot on. Trek makes some amazing bicycles - but they are making a much wider range of bikes, than Cervelo, or Guru or Planet X. They are appealing to a much wider market. Aligning with Lance Armstrong creates buzz and sales, across their full line. It’s like Nike and Michael Jordan: Having Jordan on the tab, sold more than just basketball shoes - it helped right across the Nike line.
The price of Treks makes them exclusive to me…
You guys are making it too complicated
- Trek is an American company
- Trek want to sponsor Americans
- Trek wants to sponsors the best
- There are no outstanding American Triathletes
Therefore, there are no Triathletes riding Trek.