|Trek OCLV deadwood?||Question|
Jan 19, 2002 10:56 AM
|A lot of people say the Trek OCLV feels dead or wooden. In what sense? Compared to what frames?|
|compared to quality lugged steel||bn|
Jan 19, 2002 11:34 AM
|older DeRosa Neo Pro for example|
|try riding one||gtx|
Jan 19, 2002 12:44 PM
|decide for yourself. Some people like them, some people don't. Purely subjective. Hey, I don't even like the feel of carbon forks all that much. But that's me.|
|Differs among years/models IMO||AUH|
Jan 19, 2002 2:05 PM
|The ride quality you're asking about is hard to describe in words but you'll understand if you test ride such a frame. I guess it could basically be equated with "too much damping."
Having a dead/wooden feel has been said of these frames for a number of years. I have ridden my friend's OCLV 150 (or maybe 120?) frame/fork ('99 or '00 model), and I could understand the "dead" description.
My own frame is 2002 OCLV 110 frame/fork, and does not have a similar feeling. Damped some yes, but without a dead feel. The texture of the road comes right up to the bars/seat/pedals. I find it perfect.
BTW, Look and Kestrel frames are a commonly cited examples of carbon frames that don't have this dead feeling compared with the (older) Treks. Sorry, I've never ridden either, so I can't compare to my frame.
Jan 19, 2002 6:05 PM
|I'm glad you added this comment.
I test rode a 2000? 5200 and I thought it was particularly "dead" feeling. I always wondered if the "newer" 110 frame felt the same.
|re: Trek OCLV deadwood?||bikenut|
Jan 19, 2002 4:17 PM
|I don't know about anyone else, but I've always felt that steel frames feel sort of cheap (you know, tinny) of course, titanium feels pretty much the same except perhaps a little noodlier (is that a word?). I love my Kestrel and after five yeary it still takes the edge off riding tarred and chipped roads|
|I have ridden Trek, Kestrel, and Look||spookyload|
Jan 19, 2002 5:04 PM
|I took the middle of the road with the kestrel 200sci. The Look was too active, and the Trek felt like it was asleep. The Trek had to be ridden through corners. I know people are going to say"what are you expecting it to do", but a good bike will flow through the corners without a lot of man handling. The Trek failed there. The look frame cornered well, but was a handfull going straight down the road. It didn't like riding straight and level. Not a good mix with my Ksyriums. It would probably be a great bike in the mountains. The data I based my decision on was a week on each bike, not a parking lot ride. I am lucky to have friends who ride the same bike size, and all wanted to try my Giant TCR. Note that all bikes were sufficiently stiff in the BB and front end.|
|hey wanna buy some bottle cages?||master|
Jan 19, 2002 5:51 PM
|Insightful reply to this discussion Master||spookyload|
Jan 19, 2002 9:51 PM
|Does this have anything to do with his question about frames? Or do you find the need to be an a$$ too irrestable to pass up the opportunity to cross post. If you try the search engine, you can probably find all of my posts for the last month and tag that cute little phrase on every post I have done. If you don't want to make a comment about frames in this thread, stay out.|
|the best response to these jerks is no response at all....||CT1|
Jan 19, 2002 10:18 PM
|Interesting comparison you made in your original post.
I've got a KG281 and find it quite lively. I like the feel of the bike quite a bit. I also test rode an OCLV and found it VERY "dead" and not pleasant to ride.
Interestingly, my TCR doesn't feel really that much different than my LOOK. It's lively and pretty comfie. Certainly the BEST riding Al frame I've ever been on. I've done 150 mile days on the TCR with no problema. :)
|I agree about the KG281 and the TCR||spookyload|
Jan 19, 2002 10:24 PM
|They have a very similar ride. The biggest difference being ride comfort though. I loved my TCR dearly, but it was a brute on the butt as compared to a carbon bike. I used the burrows post which is absolutely the best thing I ever did with that frame. I probably would have even gone with the KG281 if I hadn't gotten a great deal on the 200sci.|
|Trek as General Motors||Elefantino|
Jan 20, 2002 9:08 AM
|No two people are alike. No two butts are alike. Therefore, the feel of no two frames area alike, because people are different.
That said, I have gathered one truth from being a participant on this board for quite a while: People hate Trek. Trek is loathed for its size, for its predatory practices (Rolf Dietrich), for well, for having the audacity to buy Gary Fisher, Bontrager and Klein (don't forget about St. Greg). Just like GM. Car afficionados love to loathe GM because of the number of cars (and the $*$& SUVs) they make as appliances. Most of GM cars are, to people who like to drive, crap. Yet they make the Corvette, which, despite its flaws, is a wonderful machine.
THAT said, some people like to feel road vibration, others don't. With OCLV, road vibration disappears. Is a "dead, wooden feel" (as Bicycling magazine calls it) bad? If you like to feel every nuance of the road, then yes. If not, no.
I have an OCLV. I love it.
I do not have a Corvette.
What was I talking about?
|Trek as General Motors||Pygme|
Jan 20, 2002 9:39 AM
|I hate it when a post has "That said," in it. It is so cliche'. But two????? Did you have the "audacity" to buy that phrase? Are you a "predator" of that phrase?
Some people like Trek. Some people do not. Some people hate anything "establishment." Some people hate anything "different."
I'd say that most people dont even have a clue of the relationship between Rolf and Trek except for that they used to use his wheels on their bikes.
By the way, I have never heard of anyone "loathing" GM because of the number of cars they make. I have heard the loathing because most of their cars are crap, though.
|Trek as General Motors||Elefantino|
Jan 20, 2002 11:21 AM
|I am not sure what you mean by your post.
That said, I believe some people think Trek's predatory practices make them worth hating. But those people have the audacity to make up their minds without knowing all the facts. One might say those people aren't playing with a full deck.
That said, when one is deciding on ride quailty, it is better to be safe than sorry. Play the field before stepping up to the plate and spending your hard-earned cash. Knowledge is power.
That said, it doesn't mean that if you're in for a penny you're in for a pound. While in some cases the LBS may hold all the cards, the customer knows best. And if it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, split the difference and go with your gut feeling. First impressions are usually the best.
That said, there is no substitute for experience. Be prepared.
That said, have a nice day.
|I'd like to buy a cliche for $200 Pat||spookyload|
Jan 20, 2002 11:06 PM
|Trek as General Motors||Pygme|
Jan 21, 2002 7:17 AM
|That was funny! Great post!|
Jan 21, 2002 8:51 AM
|My advise is try them both, I have a Trek 5900 and a Colnago master X light. So I feel pretty honest in comparing the two, and Yes steel will always have a more lively feel then Carbon any carbon. People knock OCLV but all carbon bikes are bonded together and this is why they have dead feel, the road vibrations just get dampened.
Now after 100 miles on steel vs. Carbon I will always take the carbon. Its stiffer, ligher and more forgiving on the body. Steel on the other hand has an amazing ride feel. So go out and test them both, and judge for yourself. I went from steel to carbon and its been a year and I honestly can say that the ride of my OCLV isn't dead, different yes but not dead.