Which Frameset? Trek, Colnago, Cervelo

Monty Dog

I can't help thinking that a Trek Madone has a similar reputation to a Beemer - once a good product, but completely overtaken by their own marketing hype and the types of people who ride them . Yes it's capable, but completely devoid of any soul and demonstrates a distinct lack of imagination on behalf of the owner - a bit like a sheep with an arrogant streak!


Retreats to a safe distance and awaits a good flaming!

DaveyL

I'm sure one could easily come up with a similar tirade against Colnago and Bianchio posers, er, owners, if one were sufficiently anti-Italian, rather than anti-American....

giant_man

[quote="Monty Dog"]I can't help thinking that a Trek Madone has a similar reputation to a Beemer - once a good product, but completely overtaken by their own marketing hype and the types of people who ride them . Yes it's capable, but completely devoid of any soul and demonstrates a distinct lack of imagination on behalf of the owner - a bit like a sheep with an arrogant streak!


Retreats to a safe distance and awaits a good flaming![/quote]
I totally agree and think they are still selling frames off the back of a certain Texan years ago. It won't last ..... the latest frames IMO are behind others now technologically and aesthetically. I never was a fan have to say, and I'm even less of one now.

Monty Dog

This is got nothing to do with anti-Americanism - just their marketing strategies that hype the product endlessly, claiming 'firsts' when in fact others have been doing the same for years and bringing out 'new improved' models every year when all they change is the paint colour. The real 'value' of their products are demonstrated every year by the deep-discounts they give to clear 'dead stock' to make way for the new models. The irony is that people don't appreciate that they are the ones being takens for a ride - compare the price of a mass-produced Madone or Tarmac S-Works frameset in comparison to a Colnago C50 or a Time VXRS - they both have similar list prices. I know that because of relative volumes, the price of the latter stays constant because production is matched to demand whereas I know that the former costs a whole lot less, but is priced at a high margin to unsuspecting people who belive that premium price = premium product. I know how much some frames cost landed UK and believe me it bears very little relation to the how much they sell for. If I'm paying that much for a bike, I want pedigree, reputation and exclusiveness - not another wannabe special.

aracer

So a Colnago or Time is worth the money they go for? All you seem to be arguing there is that Colnago and Time manage to maintain their high prices better by not having over-supply like Trek do - can't see any reason to expect the cost of manufacture is any higher (or if it is that that's to do with a better product rather than lower volume and less production efficiency).

il_principe

HarryB wrote:

Well, I've just bought a Pinarello Prince and I couldn't be happier with it. Best bike I've ever ridden by a long, long way

I'm with Harry, just bought a Prince as well and it is just brilliant. I bought my Prince from Sigma who also had the new Madone in stock as well as Cervelo and Colnago. If you really are limiting yourself to those 3 then surely it has to be the Colnago. The Madone just looks nasty.

juggler

actually given the comments and the fact i want a change, i have pretty much discounted the Trek and the missus says the Cervelo looks horrible, plus not sure i want the CSC logo... so out of the 3 guess it would be the Colnago. Actually i think the Look 595 looks fantastic, but it';s a non starter with the integrated seat post (won;t fit in a bike box). However, the Prince sounds good - what's it like to ride, and what's the deal with the curvy forks?

il_principe

I've only had my Prince for 9 days, but so far i'm delighted with it, v stiff but comfy, light as you like and just a pleasure to ride.

As for the curvy stuff:

"The Onda fork was first conceived in 2003, going through an extensive two-year testing period. Using Finite Element Analysis to find the desired perfect balance between lateral stiffness and vertical compliance is how Pinarello ended up with this shape. Using a double S shape resulted in an overall 5% increase in stiffness, while at the same time reducing road shock. This may not sound a lot, but as they say when you add up all the 1% it will make a big difference overall. Many bike companies have used the same principal of curving the stays to increase comfort, while at the same time not reducing the stiffness of the bike. Pinarello were the first to incorporate this into the front fork and the rear stays."

Taken from Roadcyclinguk.com (http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/news/artic ... /2421/v/1/)

All i can say is that the Prince has a suprisingly comfy ride given how stiff the frame is, so perhaps this curvy business has merit, I'm sure Pinarello wouldn't have bothered with on a whim. I did 30 miles on sunday and had no complaints, but we'll so how things go as the miles rack up (providing the weather holds).

John.T

Juggler. As you can see you have uncovered a lot of predujiced and biased replies (as expected). At the price level you are looking at there are not really any bad bikes. You need to look at what you will be using the bike for wether racing, sportive riding or just general club or solo use. If doing longer rides around the 100 mile mark then a full on super stiff frame will perhaps not be first choice. Do your homework based on your needs and draw up a list of possibles. Look at and test ride if possible all of these to eliminate those that do not fit you or you do not like the look of (at this price how it looks is important but not over fit and feel). Give each one a score out of ten. Then go for the one that got the eleven. Who made it only matters to posers. How it rides for you is what matters.
Unless you have already got a good level bike from a manufacturer and know you like the way it rides keep an open mind.
Just to get my bit of bias in, and try to answer your post. I have just added a Trek 5.2 to my 2000 Trek 5200. I liked the handling of my old Trek and I think the new one looks much better than the old Madone so had a 65 mile road test on the new one. It is stiffer and more comfortable than my old one and handles better but in a simmilar way. Now I have done some miles on mine I am sure I made the right choice.

wildmoustache

to the OP, if you're widening out the field you should bring Look into the frame. Point taken on ISP, but they also have the 585 and 585 Ultra. Two of the best frames on the market and available for £1500.

dennisn

Buy what you like, not what someone else says you would like. If you spend that much
money on a bike it doesn't really matter which one you buy because you're going
to get a good one. Is there really much differance between top of the line bikes??
Sure, they all have a different name on them.

Dennis Noward

aracer

As usual, Dennis has it spot on.

wildmoustache

dennis and aracer - you guys should write for C+. they're all the same except the name would put paid to the mag in about two editions.

aracer

If I wrote for C+, I'd recognize that it's impossible to fill a magazine every month if you don't bow down to the powers of marketing. Fortunately I don't have to sell my soul that way.

Then again, maybe it would do OK if I wrote like this:
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2007/11 ... truth.html

...and on a similar subject to this thread, he has this to say:
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2007/08 ... otout.html

GeorgeShaw

Thanks for the links aracer. The second one is a real tea-snorter.

Down the Road

Monty Dog wrote:

BTW it wasn't just the C+ article that didn't rate the Madone, but the CW one as well - and I expect countless others too - the old Madone was oft criticised for a poor fork / front end stiffness too. People might criticise Colnago as being an 'old man's' bike - but they've often set the standard that others still follow - apart from Look, there's few others with a similar pedigree in carbon. I know lot's of old guys who ride them too, me included, if I'm old at 42 - but hey, only racing bikes for 25 years makes me a poor judge of what's good because adverts in magazines are more informative?

Remeber OCLV Treks have been around since 1992 not many with a longer heritage in carbon than that.

Ask me about Look frames and I'll tell you the news you don't want to hear

Anonymous

Down the Road.
I would like to ask you about Look frames.

wildmoustache

Down the Road wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

BTW it wasn't just the C+ article that didn't rate the Madone, but the CW one as well - and I expect countless others too - the old Madone was oft criticised for a poor fork / front end stiffness too. People might criticise Colnago as being an 'old man's' bike - but they've often set the standard that others still follow - apart from Look, there's few others with a similar pedigree in carbon. I know lot's of old guys who ride them too, me included, if I'm old at 42 - but hey, only racing bikes for 25 years makes me a poor judge of what's good because adverts in magazines are more informative?

Remeber OCLV Treks have been around since 1992 not many with a longer heritage in carbon than that.

Ask me about Look frames and I'll tell you the news you don't want to hear

You're right not many ... oh look ... one of them is Look!

The evidence (just about... that is sarcasm) suggests both Trek and Look know how to produce a carbon fibre bicycle frame.

pcd993

Can I add my vote for the Look 585, without integrated seat post. I have been running mine for 2 years. I have other Colnagos (which I still love to ride but are not "better" bikes), I owned an S-works Tarmac (horrid) and I have tested the Trek (non-descript), Time (stiff) and Scott (ditto). The Look just ticks all the boxes - responsive yet comfortable, geometry is spot on (the head tube is not annoyingly short nor too long), can mix it in the climbs or sprints. The only bike I have tested which is better in some respects is the Parlee Z4- this is a noticeably lighter and stiffer bike with a more positive front end. The head tube is a bit short for me, and it is not quite as cushioning as the Look IMO. You can pick up a 585 for a bargain now too.

wildmoustache

pcd993 wrote:

Can I add my vote for the Look 585, without integrated seat post. I have been running mine for 2 years. I have other Colnagos (which I still love to ride but are not "better" bikes), I owned an S-works Tarmac (horrid) and I have tested the Trek (non-descript), Time (stiff) and Scott (ditto). The Look just ticks all the boxes - responsive yet comfortable, geometry is spot on (the head tube is not annoyingly short nor too long), can mix it in the climbs or sprints. The only bike I have tested which is better in some respects is the Parlee Z4- this is a noticeably lighter and stiffer bike with a more positive front end. The head tube is a bit short for me, and it is not quite as cushioning as the Look IMO. You can pick up a 585 for a bargain now too.

pcd, you have had access to some fine bikery over the years i must say. Why didn't you like the Tarmac?

I am also a 585 fan. just does lots of things well and is comfortable. isn't too flashy or outrageously expensive. you might like the ultra version if you're after a bit more stiffness.

some people on this forum say high end frames are more or less all the same.

pliptrot

What of the new monocoque Look (596?)? ANyone heard anything about their foray into lugless frames?

wildmoustache

pliptrot wrote:

What of the new monocoque Look (596?)? ANyone heard anything about their foray into lugless frames?

586 ... would love to try it just to see what they've done without the lugs as you say. it is a bit lighter than the others 940g for an ISP frame is seriously light. looks nice in black and red as well.

there is a review on Pezcycling I think.

Matchstick Man

Down the Road wrote:

[Remeber OCLV Treks have been around since 1992 not many with a longer heritage in carbon than that.

Colnago C40 came out in 1993 and that is a modern classic. before that they were manufacturing the carbitubo.

Hudster

pcd, I am also very interested as to why you didn't like the Tarmac.

I'm in the market for a new bike and the Look is certainly getting itself high up on the list. The new Tarmac is also there however, as is the Trek - I'm not a brand snob. However, I'm very interested to know all I can about the Look. I'm still not so sure about the ISP designs, if only just because it maybe difficult to transport them in my bike bag!

wildmoustache

Hudster wrote:

pcd, I am also very interested as to why you didn't like the Tarmac.

I'm in the market for a new bike and the Look is certainly getting itself high up on the list. The new Tarmac is also there however, as is the Trek - I'm not a brand snob. However, I'm very interested to know all I can about the Look. I'm still not so sure about the ISP designs, if only just because it maybe difficult to transport them in my bike bag!

hudster, have a look over at the look forum at roadbikereview. you'll find info on carrying an isp bike in a case there. it is doable if you don't need a massive frame.

the 595 is available for £2k right now, same as the 586.. between the two I'd probably give the 586 a go, and throw on record for an ultra light build. sounds like 586 is similar to the 595 origin - i.e. less stiff than the ultra. in all honesty though i prefer the more understated and cheaper 585 / ultra.

Rich.H

You can easily remove the e-post from the 595 which means you lose c.150mm when packing in a bag / box. Mine is a size Med and fits in a Neil Pryde bag with the chainset still attached and the e-post removed...

Lovely bike by the way!!

Rich

Monty Dog

I've ridden a Tarmac and found that the front-end handling isn't as sharp as I'd like it to be - lateral stiffness isn't up there with the best and therefore it's harder to hold a tight line - the fork is too 'soft' and tends to chatter and let go on when cornering. I can get a special deal on Tarmacs and I could have one if I wanted - but I prefer the ride of my other bikes. Maybe the new model has a better fork?
I've often considered a Look too but the top-tube length isn't right for me - I prefer something a bit shorter.
As I ride a small frame, I find that the most of the Italian brands have got their geometry sorted and not just making a scaled-down version of their 'medium' frame - this was a big problem with the Trek OCLV and Giants, for example. I still see 13cm headtubes on small 'race' frames too which means I can't get the bars low enough.

pcd993

I had the Specialized S works Tarmac and rode it for about a year in 2006. I did two Alpine trips on it, including the Marmotte course. It was fine going uphill, although it did not have the snap of acceleration of the Look 585. It was also fine comfortwise, although a little detached from the action. Things got hairy on the high speed descents, where the bike did not seem to want to hold a steady line. It was very nervous through the hairpins too. I attributed this to a headtube which is too short and steep, and a flexy fork. It was so bad it was a struggle to ride with no hands!

I changed to the Look, and the specifications of the two bikes is essentially identical - I even took my Ksyrium wheels from the Specialized and put them on the Look. So I do think this is a valid comparison.

The Look costs the same as a Specialized, but is a truly sorted bike. It does everything well. My fleet currently consists of two Colnagos, a Look 386 and a steel Condor single speed. If I could only keep one, it would the 585 (but perhaps with a regretful look at my Colnago CT1).

Monty Dog

Funnily enough, my favourite ride is a CT1 too...Colnago missed a trick by letting it go - even with a 1" fork it still rails hard enough on fast alpine descents and got me out of a few hairy moments too. I have a full carbon Battaglin and whilst it is a competent ride, it's a little dead and doesn't have the same 'zing' as the Colnago

pjh

I'm thinking of buying a Trek 5.2 Madone .... but I'm a little baffled by what seems to be a lot of 'anti-Trek' comments.

I'm a newbie to cycling and have been riding a (flat-barred road-bike) for the last few months.

I want to switch to a proper road bike and have a budget around the £2k - £2.5K mark.

What else should I consider?