RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


2003 Trek 5900(27 posts)

2003 Trek 5900elviento
Aug 14, 2002 7:58 PM
I caught a very brief look of a new 5900 paintjob today with black in the front and silver at the back. Does anyone know where to find a photo of it? Thanks.
re: 2003 Trek 5900swvegg
Aug 14, 2002 8:12 PM
From LanceArmstrong.com
Much better, now just sell it with Mavic wheels like they ridespookyload
Aug 14, 2002 9:10 PM
If the bontrager wheels were that great, you would figure the pro team would use them. It seems odd that anytime money is on the line they race Cosmic Carbone's or Ksyriums.
Much better, now just sell it with Mavic wheels like they rideCARBON110
Aug 15, 2002 3:40 AM
They raced Bontragers in NY City and the Tour. I bet they will again in SF
Bontrager wheelspmf1
Aug 15, 2002 4:01 AM
Come on ... this is just Trek's latest attempt at building boutique wheels in-house, but trying disguise them by using someone else's name. Did Bontrager even make wheels before Rolf and Trek parted ways? I'm sure its a hell of a lot more profitable to make Bontrager wheels in-house than to buy Ksyriums from Mavic.

US Postal is sponsered by Trek bikes, but not Trek (aka Bontrager or Rolf) wheels. I believe Mavic is their wheel sponser.
Bontrager wheels...they use DT Hugi hubs.cabinfever
Aug 15, 2002 4:15 AM
I just bought a set for a bike I built. I found the build kit on Ebay, and the supplier's best wheels were the Race X Lite Ti's, same as on the 5500. I was skeptical about them, but they are built with some fine hubs. I have King's on my MTB, which is about the best IMHO. I have to say the hubs on my Bonty's are very close.
notwithstanding what wheels were actually used in races...ET
Aug 15, 2002 6:27 AM
people of limited means want to say they have the same frame as Lance, and they do at a relatively affordable price (and maybe they'll upgrade later when they have more cash and their sig other has calmed down over the first purchase). But if you add up all the boutique embellishments, even if it does increase performance (as if the increased amount will matter much to the masses), it becomes unaffordable for many. So even if the components aren't up to to the par of Lance & Co., I don't blame Trek for this at all. Besides, unlike Litespeed, you can still buy a Trek frame only, can't you?
Much better, now just sell it with Mavic wheels like they rideNo_sprint
Aug 15, 2002 7:06 AM
Kyseriums? When? Where? I don't think so. I think the debadged wheels they were using on the climbing days were Zipps. Telekom has been using Lews.
Man, nothing new here.Sintesi
Aug 15, 2002 5:20 AM
Some would say I'm arguing against perfection but I'm ready for a change in the Trek line up. I'm getting tired of the ubiquitous 5500, 5900 profile. Can't they drop the top tube or something? Or diddle with the stays? Anything! Trek should look at the Cannondale or Litespeed catalogues, at least they have something new and cool every stinking season. GAH!
Change for change's sake is good thing? (nm)DCP
Aug 15, 2002 5:45 AM
I'll take meaningless change driven by soulless marketers. (nm)Sintesi
Aug 15, 2002 6:09 AM
Amazing misinformationJohn_Brown
Aug 15, 2002 5:46 AM
If you guys would check facts for once before posting you would see that Lance rode Bontrager Race X Lites and Lightweight wheels throughout the tour. The only time he rode Mavic was during one of the time trials and that was a rear disc. He did not ride Cosmic's or Ksyriums at any point. Yes, the rest of the team did ride Cosmic's some, but they also rode the X Lite's. None of the posties rode Kysriums at any point in this years tour. Check the photos and then post again.
www.cyclingnews.com
www.grahamwatson.com
www.lancearmstrong.com
Here's Zinn's article on the Lightweightsdjg
Aug 15, 2002 6:46 AM
http://vn1.velonews.com/race/tour2002/articles/2748.0.html
Are you talking this year or ANY year?cyclejim
Aug 15, 2002 9:01 PM
I've seen at least one very prominent photo of Lance riding Cosmics in the yellow jersey on the Champs. This was probably the 2001 tour.
if they want to make a change...ET
Aug 15, 2002 6:20 AM
they should make the top tube shorter than it is for the given fake size, the current effect being that it dramatically lowers the reach to the handlebars so much so that even Lance has loads of spacers.

A bike's size is determined by seat tube, but how far up you define seat tube varies. Center-to-top of top tube (cttt) and center-to-center (c-c) are well understood. But some, including Trek, stubbornly cling to measuring to some point above that, and since you often don't know where since it can vary a lot among companies and even among a company's own line, this is rather useless information. Asking others often leads to more confusion.

A 56 Trek is really a 54 c-ttt. But how many 54 c-ttt bikes come with a 56 top tube? Not many. (As a comparison, the 53 c-c Lemond (know for its longish top tubes) has a 54.5 top tube. Yet 53 c-c is *larger* than 54 c-ttt. So why does Trek push geometry ill-fitting even for the serious riding masses (the exact opposite to their objective), including Lance? Let them change to a more common seat tube measure, and change to a more common top tube length. If they want the top tube a bit little longer for a given true size, fine, but not so extreme.

---
They called it pro geometry or something.elviento
Aug 15, 2002 6:32 AM
basically promoting a more stretched out and lower position, which many recreational riders find uncomfortable. I guess that's why they are still using alloy fork steerers.
it's way past thatET
Aug 15, 2002 7:50 AM
How many pros riding other than Trek have such exaggerated "pro" geometry? The only manufacturer I know of that is in the same ballpark, and then I believe only with its older frames, is Hampsten, known for being extreme in this regard. So just about no pros are riding this kind of "pro" geometry.

If a rider wants a more exaggerated, stretched out, lower postion, he usually achieves this through any combination of sizing down, knocking off spacers (desireable anyway, isn't it?), an angled-down and possibly longer stem, or a custom frame. Regardless, if Trek wants to be extreme and cater just to those who prefer this or to the group having proportionately longer torsos than leg, fine, but then they should fess up to it by using more uniform sizing methods, which might prevent a lot of Lance wannabes from buying a very ill-fitting bike. Either that, or change to something a bit more mainstream, if still longish.
Do you really think there is much improvement in C'dale and LS'selviento
Aug 15, 2002 6:35 AM
new lines every year? 4-5 years ago CAAD3 was something Indurain would pay his own cash for, but now it's too crappy even for Shimano Sora group.

You question would be whether to dump $4000 on a CAAD9 or wait another 8 months for CAAD10.
At least there is a possiblilty of improvement.Sintesi
Aug 15, 2002 6:52 AM
Octagonal shaped tubing, tricked out BBs, bladed stays or twisty stays...who gives a crap if it really works? And if it does all the better. Companies like Cannondale, Litespeed, Look, etc., understand my mentality. Seen that Phonak bike with the CNC'ed bottom bracket? YUM!

The OCLV has had the same basic look for 10 years or so. Trek's in a rut and with all their money they can afford the hot shot designers, the R&D guys and NASA engineers. Seems like their biggest development has been making the frame a few ounces lighter and giving it a new gee whiz paint job.

You like it when the new Cadillacs come out, right? A little gimmickry is to be tolerated if not lusted for outright.

Okay, I'm getting carried away, but I dare you to stare at that BRAND NEW '03 TREK 5900 for 1 minute without a yawn. YAWN!
At least there is a possiblilty of improvement.filtersweep
Aug 15, 2002 7:42 AM
I completely agree... they have a stanglehold on the carbon market... there are relatively few other carbon frames on the road, and few alternatives at the LBS to choose from, and their price is comparable with mid-range aluminum. They keep selling them, and their resale value (see ebay) is relatively high, since they are not instantly out of date. Seems Trek is doing everything right from a marketing perspective.

I don't think their target market is an overly discerning buyer, but rather the recreational rider with a bit more money to spend. It is probably no accident that they sell many more built bikes than bare framesets.

It would be much more intesting if Specialized, Cannondale, etc... built carbon, or when Giant releases their frame. Then, the gimmickery will begin. You have to admit, Trek keeps their prices low- the R&D costs were likely recouped years ago. Now, if you want a carbon alternative, it takes a bit more effort. I know a few friends that ride OCLVs, and they are almost apologetic about it (but they all seem quite satisfied).
re: 2003 Trek 5900elrey
Aug 15, 2002 7:12 AM
After looking at the pictures on www.grahamwatson.com, it looks like Lance and the team used Ksyriums and Cosmics. I have never seen a Bontrager with material shaven of the rim between the spokes. Maybe I'm wrong.
re: 2003 Trek 5900John_Brown
Aug 15, 2002 7:25 AM
nope, those are 2003 Bontrager Race X Lite's. They have material machined away between the spokes. That's really the only change they have seen for the new year, other than color of course. See the wheels on the 5900 posted above, those are 2003 Bontrager Race X Lite's, notice the machining between the spokes.
re: 2003 Trek 5900elrey
Aug 15, 2002 7:37 AM
I didn't know that! Thanks for pointing that out.
One More Time...CARBON110
Aug 15, 2002 8:09 AM
The USPS Cycling team used BONTRAGER WHEELS and Lance used lightweight wheels on all mtn stages. Bontrager NOT Mavic. Trek makes the ost affordable performance bikes around. A 5200 for $2400 is nicer than a Litespeed or Cannondale of the same level ( ie not tip top but close )Treks engineers are great..lok at theTT and the 9.9 or he Fuel. They dont need to change the design of the bikes since they perform S WELL! Especially for the $$ And if you pay retail for a new bike your a jackass. You can find $2-400 off just frames let alone new bie for the 2003 models already. I have a 5900 with zipp 303s an it is about $2000 less than a c40 and weighs less. The carbon is top notch. There is nothing boring about Trek frames and it shows in every race. Trek bikes outnumber every other bike in everyrace I have done this year except 2.
Just curious...jtferraro
Aug 15, 2002 12:36 PM
what bike manufacturer(s) outnumbered the others in the OTHER two races?

-Jeff
Just curious...CARBON110
Aug 15, 2002 5:17 PM
Hey Jeff,

I think it was a toss up between Giant,Cannondale and Litespeed when you race in the SouthEast...but in the north its Cannondale and Serrottas..by the way the coach is Applegate. Who is yours?

best,
Carbon110
I don't race...yet. I'm presently in the process of finding...jtferraro
Aug 16, 2002 6:46 AM
the right road bike for myself. I have, for the most part, narrowed it down to the '03 Cannondale R2000 Double and the Trek 5200. I'm dying to see the new 5200. Any idea on what the MSRP will be? I definitely want to keep it below $2500! Where do you live? How long have you been racing and what Cat are you in now? Sounds like you're really happy w/your 5900. Nice bike...AND nice wheels!

-Jeff