[Sandwich]

ha, word.

Yeti came out with lawill suspension in 96. The dh4, and dh6.

To clarify, the yeti is indeed a horst link, but it moves vertically, if not a little bit backwards.


The outland came out in late 95 or 96, and was definately an original design, perhaps the most original.


Anyways, yeah.

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Yeah, WTF are you people wining for? If you dont like it, dont buy. Its that simple...

I'd try the Trek FR bike. Looks pretty cool to me.

 

[HELLBELLY]

I think that if Trek meets their goals with this rig, it will be one helluva bike. A 7" f/r travel, using a proven link driven design, 1.5 headtube, sub-40 lb bike that rolls at price points of $2000 or $3000 is pretty damn cool. I would definitely consider it and will certainly check it out when it rolls into my lbs.

 

[jackalope]

A few points of clarification:

* The Fuel, a great bike <snicker>...Sure, if you like replacing frames and repeatedly going through Trek's warranty process (which, admittedly is a good one), then by all means race your little XC bike until your heart's content. But the point still stands, they have a serious design flaw in the chain stay crossmember (just behind the BB) and have done NOTHING to address it. The Sugar's have had this problem for years (e.g. my 3 rear triangles in 2 years) and the Fuels have the same issue for years as well. Plus, to top things off, the Fuels have had a real problem with the rocker arm pivot weld (on the seat tube) as well. My room mate (a girl who just rides XC) has broken the crossmember and had the weld crack - now after having the whole frame replaced (which, like I said, is certainly nice), the rocker link weld is showing signs of cracking again (all within a year of getting the new frame!). Trek, please either fix this problem or stop selling the damn things...

* The carbon fiber stays <snicker>...Oh, we don't need a silly little link in the seat stay and chain stay junction, because they will flex enough just as they are...Really? Wow, what a novel idea...Hey, with that in mind, let's just dump all this suspension crap and use the inherent flex of the frames to get all the travel you really need...Damn, Litespeed had it right all along...
Pure excrement...Whether it was the 'Black Magic' seat stays (at least they had the right idea by calling it 'Magic') on the Liquid or the carbon chain stays on the Fuels and Sugars, this was an ill-conceived idea from the beginning IMHO.

* Low price points? Was I the only person who read $2000 and $3000 in that article? OK, they may not be Ellsworth or Intense expensive, but bargain basement deals they are not.

* Shandro likes the bike, so it must be good right? Umm, what in the hell did you expect him to say? If they had come out with some wild new suspension design, and then the Red Bull Rampage podium crowd liked it, then that's one thing. But to take a proven design with scant few modifications (like the 1.5 head tube) and give it to the big hitters, is just not that impressive to me.

* Trek's presence in the FR scene will somehow make it mainstream and expand the popularity of it by 1000%...Just like Trek's presence in the DH scene (i.e. the Diesel) has made it a legitimate sport now...Where would Rennie and Peat be without good ol'Trek? Shudder to think...
Can people not see how this looks like complete bandwagoning from a company that has historically focused on the XC and road rider crowd? Like I said on page one, can Buick make a decent SUV? Probably...But if I really want to go rock crawling or get into some serious mud bogging, I'm going to go with a Defender or a Jeep Rubicon...


In summary, I'm not trying to make Trek out to be some evil corporate juggernaut that is out to take over the bike industry...And yes, it's nice that a manufacturer with the name recognition that Trek has is now dabbling in the FR arena...I also agree that they do seem to have excellent customer service and I appreciate that they make most of their bikes in the USA...I would even seriously consider owning one of their road bikes if and when I get into that...And it's great how they support Lance and the TDF team...But the whole thing looks like a 'johnny come lately' getting into the FR market with a very average (if not technically sound) offering...I mean even Specialized offered the Big Hit several years ago in recognition of the FR scene...And now we're supposed to be wowed by a slightly improved Stinky (and even that may be going out on a limb)? Again, I'm not trying to bash Trek for being Trek, I'm just utterly underwhelmed...

 

[Sandwich]

"maybe we should get an even smaller midget"


reminds me of "O brother where art thou"

 

[Westy]

[internet speculation]Looks heavy, looks flexy, looks weak, looks too expensive, It would suck to see a FR bike that might actually be stocked at an LBS, looks like it would pedal like crap, Y bikes suck[/internet speculation]

I would rather buy an expensive boutique bike with questionable strength and warranty like an Ellesworth.

 

[jackalope]

[internet speculation] It's completely bombproof, it's not too heavy, it'll have a lifetime warranty, it will pedal better than Trek's road bikes, etc...[/interent speculation]

As for LBS's stocking FR bikes, the ones around here carry Bullits, Big Hits, and Geminis...Nothing groundbreaking there...

And if you don't like Tony E's bikes (which I can certainly see your point on that one), buy a Banshee...

 

[MtnbikeMike]

Originally posted by jackalope
A few points of clarification:

* The Fuel, a great bike <snicker>...Sure, if you like replacing frames and repeatedly going through Trek's warranty process (which, admittedly is a good one), then by all means race your little XC bike until your heart's content. But the point still stands, they have a serious design flaw in the chain stay crossmember (just behind the BB) and have done NOTHING to address it. The Sugar's have had this problem for years (e.g. my 3 rear triangles in 2 years) and the Fuels have the same issue for years as well. Plus, to top things off, the Fuels have had a real problem with the rocker arm pivot weld (on the seat tube) as well. My room mate (a girl who just rides XC) has broken the crossmember and had the weld crack - now after having the whole frame replaced (which, like I said, is certainly nice), the rocker link weld is showing signs of cracking again (all within a year of getting the new frame!). Trek, please either fix this problem or stop selling the damn things...

* The carbon fiber stays <snicker>...Oh, we don't need a silly little link in the seat stay and chain stay junction, because they will flex enough just as they are...Really? Wow, what a novel idea...Hey, with that in mind, let's just dump all this suspension crap and use the inherent flex of the frames to get all the travel you really need...Damn, Litespeed had it right all along...
Pure excrement...Whether it was the 'Black Magic' seat stays (at least they had the right idea by calling it 'Magic') on the Liquid or the carbon chain stays on the Fuels and Sugars, this was an ill-conceived idea from the beginning IMHO.

* Low price points? Was I the only person who read $2000 and $3000 in that article? OK, they may not be Ellsworth or Intense expensive, but bargain basement deals they are not.

* Shandro likes the bike, so it must be good right? Umm, what in the hell did you expect him to say? If they had come out with some wild new suspension design, and then the Red Bull Rampage podium crowd liked it, then that's one thing. But to take a proven design with scant few modifications (like the 1.5 head tube) and give it to the big hitters, is just not that impressive to me.

* Trek's presence in the FR scene will somehow make it mainstream and expand the popularity of it by 1000%...Just like Trek's presence in the DH scene (i.e. the Diesel) has made it a legitimate sport now...Where would Rennie and Peat be without good ol'Trek? Shudder to think...
Can people not see how this looks like complete bandwagoning from a company that has historically focused on the XC and road rider crowd? Like I said on page one, can Buick make a decent SUV? Probably...But if I really want to go rock crawling or get into some serious mud bogging, I'm going to go with a Defender or a Jeep Rubicon...


In summary, I'm not trying to make Trek out to be some evil corporate juggernaut that is out to take over the bike industry...And yes, it's nice that a manufacturer with the name recognition that Trek has is now dabbling in the FR arena...I also agree that they do seem to have excellent customer service and I appreciate that they make most of their bikes in the USA...I would even seriously consider owning one of their road bikes if and when I get into that...And it's great how they support Lance and the TDF team...But the whole thing looks like a 'johnny come lately' getting into the FR market with a very average (if not technically sound) offering...I mean even Specialized offered the Big Hit several years ago in recognition of the FR scene...And now we're supposed to be wowed by a slightly improved Stinky (and even that may be going out on a limb)? Again, I'm not trying to bash Trek for being Trek, I'm just utterly underwhelmed...

Okay, I've ridden the same fuel for 2 1/2 years, it been taken out for 4 days of downhilling, and NOTHING has broken. Having the rear flex saves weight by eliminating pivots. Next year they are redesigning the Fuel line. The fuel 100 will be closer to 4 pounds.

2 or 3k for a complete FR bike w/ 7 inches of SPV travel at both ends? that's damn cheap. Esp. when many frames cost 2K and then you pay for the build.