Page 1057 of 1889

"PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:43 pm
by ultyguy
At least he got the tires right ;-)

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:51 pm
by Kjetil
Trek. This bike is so stupid it needs a rider of real cunning to win.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:51 pm
by Weenie

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:20 am
by Liggero
Well, the trek hate goes far beyond the quality of their products, which is of course quite average. But the brand couldn't be more wrong, as the graphic and the general image, what they represent, etc... It's the chosen bike from diverse wrong characters, from Lance Armstrong to president George Bush. Trek bought and then destroyed brands which were infinitely better, like Gary Fisher, KLEIN, and even Lemond...

Not hating Trek enormously shows quite a lack of knowledge regarding cycling equipment culture, history, tradition and development. Not hating trek it's a shame, it's embarrasing. :shock: :shock: :shock:

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:45 am
by Tapeworm
stella-azzurra wrote:I've yet to hear of a pro rider complain that their equipment is sub par and hampers their performance.
Even when they are not on the team they work for.
It's either bad luck, a mechanical (which happens from time to time), bad decisions, bad timing, or no legs.
If the bike works without any mechanical it's never the bike.
Mind you they have trained on this bike since the beginning of the season and all the issues will be sorted out in training not during their target race.


That is because they are *professional*. It is not wise to shit in ones nest. Hence you will never hear a bad word about equipment - they are paying the bills. Hence also why riders always give rave reviews when the new bike sponsors are on board.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:35 am
by Kjetil
Re: Liggeros post above.
Trek teaming up with Qhubeka is perhaps part of a strategy to get back into the public concience as a "good" brand. Their previous figurehead backfired enormously, but of course not before he'd helped them shift tons and tons of bikes.

I'm sure the Domane is a pretty nice bike. Shame it says Trek on it.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:05 am
by Murphs
Tapeworm wrote:
stella-azzurra wrote:I've yet to hear of a pro rider complain that their equipment is sub par and hampers their performance.
Even when they are not on the team they work for.
It's either bad luck, a mechanical (which happens from time to time), bad decisions, bad timing, or no legs.
If the bike works without any mechanical it's never the bike.
Mind you they have trained on this bike since the beginning of the season and all the issues will be sorted out in training not during their target race.


That is because they are *professional*. It is not wise to shit in ones nest. Hence you will never hear a bad word about equipment - they are paying the bills. Hence also why riders always give rave reviews when the new bike sponsors are on board.


Phillipe Gilbert made a thinly veiled swipe at Easton wheels in a tweet just before the TDU.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeGilbert/status/293228929035153408

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:40 am
by Tapeworm
And if Easton was the sponsor probably the same style of tweet.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:27 pm
by LeePaton
Kjetil wrote:Re: Liggeros post above.
Trek teaming up with Qhubeka is perhaps part of a strategy to get back into the public concience as a "good" brand. Their previous figurehead backfired enormously, but of course not before he'd helped them shift tons and tons of bikes.

I'm sure the Domane is a pretty nice bike. Shame it says Trek on it.


I might have missed it but why the Trek hate? So they backed rider who doped, is there a bike brand who hasn't?

I'm thinking Taylor Phinney is going to win a classic this spring and going to do it great style.

"PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:30 pm
by milroy
The way I remember it Klein were virtually insolvent when they were bought by Trek, so if anything they were kept alive by the sale.

Klein died because they were known for producing fat tubed aluminium frames in a world of thin tubed steel frames. As carbon took over and alloy became unfashionable, they lost their brand image completely. Litespeed and Cannondale almost went the same way and had to reinvent themselves.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with Pro cycling.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:44 pm
by Kjetil
It's always fun taking a dig on Trek, LeePatron.
Their treatment of Greg Lemond (with their wonderboy LA pulling the strings) was appalling. But I'm not hating, unless that word thas been watered out. I'm more like indifferent to the brand. I'd rather get a Merida.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:37 pm
by NS
Trek dumped the Lemond brand as a business decision if they had been the cash cow or the goose that laid the golden egg they would have kept it going. They were obviously a loss making part of the business so had to go. Maybe LA did have a say but if that had been bad for the business I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have happened.

I enjoyed my 6.9ssl it was a good bike now however I am over 40 so I had to get an Italian bike

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:04 pm
by nathanong87
LeePaton wrote:I'm thinking Taylor Phinney is going to win a classic this spring and going to do it great style.


yea i [s]think[/s] hope so too
Image

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:47 pm
by stella-azzurra
Tapeworm wrote:
stella-azzurra wrote:I've yet to hear of a pro rider complain that their equipment is sub par and hampers their performance.
Even when they are not on the team they work for.
It's either bad luck, a mechanical (which happens from time to time), bad decisions, bad timing, or no legs.
If the bike works without any mechanical it's never the bike.
Mind you they have trained on this bike since the beginning of the season and all the issues will be sorted out in training not during their target race.


That is because they are *professional*. It is not wise to shit in ones nest. Hence you will never hear a bad word about equipment - they are paying the bills. Hence also why riders always give rave reviews when the new bike sponsors are on board.


Pros will offer a good professional critique of equipment and that sponsor will listen and make the necessary fixes before they race. They depend on a pros honest opinion before it they get to the target race or gets to market in some form.
The bottom line is that a pros performance is based on their fitness when it comes time to perform. Like I said there is bad luck, a mechanical, bad decisions, bad timing, or not being physically and mentally prepared.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:13 pm
by ultyguy
Like stella says, it comes down to legs. These days, nobody make total rubbish. I think even up until a few years ago, there were some brands in the bunch not making stuff that was as good as others. The spread between performance of the major and minor brands now is very minor. The only exceptions I can see are contact points (long time users of one brand etc) or people w/ really funky geometry that might need something not offerred by a monocoque frame for example.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:13 pm
by Weenie

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:35 pm
by wojchiech
watching Dwars door Vlaanderen, Stannard looked super strong considering the blizzard of a race a couple days ago...