Conference noted::bicycle

    I recently had the opportunity to go to Wisconson to the TREK facility
    for the 1992 product kick off.  The 52/5500's are oversized carbon
    tubed frames with carbon fiber lugs and forks.  They seem to be much
    stronger and stiffer that Kestrels.  They are amazingly rigid and
    comfortable at the same time.  Retail suggested prices are approx $2000
    for the 5200 and $3000 for the 5500.
    
    As a side note almost everyone that rode them fell in love with the
    feel of the bike.  At 225 pounds I couldn't notice any appreciable
    frame flex.  3 guys from the shop I work in have put their bikes on the
    market so that they can buy 5200's.   
    
    ...keith
    
    

    
    A friend just bought a 2100, and described the 2500 as having
    carbon-fibre tubing (aluminum lugs) throughout, including fork.
    
    What kind of fork are they using?  Not an EMS, I'm sure...
    
    (As for the 5000 series, it sounds interesting!)
    
    -john

    
    
      While we are on the subject of Carbon Fiber.
    
      Has anybody managed to wear out a Carbon Fiber frame?
    
      I finally have the cash to go out and get a new frame and
      the durability of Carbon Fiber over the long haul is a major
      concern of mine.  My current steel frame has six years of very
      hard riding on it.
    
      John C.
    

    
    At present, I don't plan to push the Kestrel to exhaustion.
    Sorry, I'm just not enough at ease with the material's durability.
    (I'll put the bigger miles on the steel bikes.)
    
    Short-term durability: it seemed so out-of-place to see a brilliant
    white Kestrel with fenders, lights, wires, all sorts of electrical
    tape, etc., doing PBP, but there was one there like that - Art Crowley's
    from the NYC area.  But when you think of it, the material should 
    give good comfort on long rides like those.
    
    	-john

    RE: .3
    
    	I pulled the chainstay off the bottom bracket shell on my
    Specialized Allez Epic.  This problem was a glue failure.  They solved
    the problem on the new frames.
    
    							Norm
    
    

    Mine's been on order for almost a week...
    
    Haven't had a NEW bike in soooo loooong.
    
    ed

VERY Nice!!

Will be a hot seller!!

Eric

(Better than their tandem intros...)

    April's Bicycling has an article comparing the 5500 to the Kestrel 200
    (?).  Their 58cm 5500's frame is 2.58 lbs, .09 lbs lighter than the
    comparable Kestrel.  They say it's as stiff as anything short of SLX
    and not as soft a ride as they';ve become accustomed to getting from
    Carbon fiber.
    
    Btw, the OCLV is for the Optimally Compressed Low Volume Lugs,
    apparently wrapping carbon fiber causes minute air spaces between the
    fibres leading to [ohmigawd] softness.  By Optimally squishing out the
    air, the frame is stiffened.  Also the lugs extend a goodly way into
    the tubes.
    
    Read all about it in April Bicycling -- you know, the one with the
    ads for the March Super Sale and Schwinn Madness sale.
    
    ed

     I read it and personally thought that a comparitive analysis
    (exercise) ought to have a fairly consistent population (sorry,
    it's the engineering in me)...
    
     Kestrel is in a much different class... Maybe bumping it up against
    Look's or Trimble's might be a more on the even...
    
     Chip

    Why is it a bad comparison? If the frames are priced about the same,
    and are meant for the same type of riding/racing (roughly equal
    frame geometries), it shouldn't matter.
    
    John

     Uhhhh, the price ain't even close... The style and aesthetics
    aren't either (in my opinion). Performance would be a tough
    one to judge (since I've never been on a TREK).
    
     My guess would be judging from the frame only price of the
    Kestrel (2290) compared to the finished bike prices of both,
    there will be a DIFFERENCE...
    
     Chip

    Has anyone compared the Kestrel 4000 (1989 model with Spectra and not 
    produced any more) with the newer Kestrel's either EMS or SC's?  
    I do believe, although cannot substantiate since haven't ridden the
    newer models that the 4000 was a stiffer frame.   I know mine is a
    super climber and decender (stiff top tube).  In addition, the look
    of the 4000 is certainly an eye catcher. 
    
    Also any knowledge on breakage of older frames?  I don't wish to part
    with my 4000 for a long time.    
    
    steve
    
    

     If you can believe them... I've read that Kestrel states their
    repairs are nearly exclusively from accidents. They note a particular
    cause of damage being from repair stand clamps...
    
     Chip

    
    RE: "from repair stand clamps"
    
    The cure worse than the disease, eh?

    
    Catching up on my reading, I've gotten to the April, 1992 issue
    of Bicycling, and their head-to-head review of :
    
                      Trek 5500 vs. Kestrel 200 EMS
    
    As with any review (movie, book, riding lawnmowers...) you can take
    this one with a grain of salt (especially since the reviewer, a Cat 3
    racer, has been using a Kestrel 200 EMS for some time), but some high
    points:
    
       o  Stiffness - Trek is stiffer (less lateral flex by .1 inch or
          so, as measured with their equipment) - so stiff that it loses
          the famous carbon fibre shock absorption - for which Kestrel,
    	  et al., are well known.  Trek's stiffness compared with SLX's.
          "Big bruiser" racers may appreciate the Trek's added stiffness
          on sprints or all-out climbs; everyone might well prefer the
          Kestrel's silky (but not mushy) ride.
    
       o  Fork Stiffness - A footnote is that the Kestrel EMS fork absorbs
          shock better and yet has better lateral rigidity (a plus).  The
          EMS forks, by the way, find their way to Titanium and other bikes.
    
       o  Aesthetics - ...are in the eye of the beholder, right?  But
          distinctions include: Kestrel has aero-shaped tubing (including
          the fork), in-tube routed cabling (cleaner appearance), etc.
    
       o  Weight - the Trek frame & fork is lighter by several ounces;
          the built-up bikes as spec'd make the Trek lighter by more than
          a pound.
    
    There was also a critique of components (Dura-Ace in both cases, with
    variants), but to my mind (and to some extent the reviewer's) this is
    inconsequential - people buying bikes at that level will spec them
    individually, if they have any problem with the delivered components.
    
    Bottom line from the reviewer was the Kestrel was the more refined,
    "nicer" bike (with the exception of those who want an SLX frame in 
    carbon fibre) but the price differential you pay for all this is $800.
    
    NB: I'd be curious comparing the Trek 5x00 with a Kestrel 200 SC - 
    the SC is not quite as light, but same monocoque construction, and 
    significantly less expensive.  (The article said Kestrel would like
    you to compare the Trek 5x00's with the Kestrel 190i - a lugged frame
    like the Trek's.)
    
    Now the suspense builds as we await a ride report from our in-house
    reviewer... Ed "Stable of Bikes" Fisher.  :-)
    
    -john

    I like my Treks, especially the 5500.  Have even commuted on it.
    I thought the "several ounces" was "less than 2".  It compares
    favorably with my SLX frames and my aluminum Trek 2000.
    
    Haven't noticed any "harshness" yet but about all I've ever ridden
    is SLX.
    
    ed

    
    
    Well Ed let me ride his 5500 yesterday on a short lunch time ride...8^)
    I only went a couple miles but felt it had a very silky ride...yet when
    one stomped on the pedals it responded instantly.  A very nice ride.
    I liked the STI enough that I think I'll start saving my pennies for
    the Campy Ergos for my Bianchi.  Yes, poor me, back to my all Campy
    Bianchi (SL)...8^(
    
    Shouldn't have let myself ride it!
    
    

    Ed,

    I noticed in the catalogue that the c-to-c of the 5x00's ran around 3
    cm less than the frame size.  Did you yourself moving up a size from
    say the 2000? If so, do you find you are stretched out a bit more? For
    me, I could use the 58 cm (55.x c-c), and get a considerably longer top
    tube, vs. the 56 cm 1400 I have now.

    john

    I think the 3cm differnce is just because of the much fatter tubes.  I
    ususally ride 55cm C-C and bought a 56cm C-T 5500, and find it to be
    quite compatible.
    
    ed

    The latest Bicycling (October?) has a Lightened 5500.  They took
    4 lbs off it to get it down to 15+.
    
    They say that they did not go for all out weight reduction (this time)
    because they wanted it to still be raceable.  By using a combination of
    Ti and other light weight components including down tube shifters,
    gl330 tubs, 15/17/15 spokes and a single bottle cage.
    
    They didn't mention whether or not the tires were inflated or
    if they used dry air to inflate them.
    
    ed

    
    RE: tire inflation... remember Fina's "pink air" from a few years back?
    
    The article is interesting - I like their approach - lightweight but
    robust.  I thought I remembered that you could get an EMS fork for the
    Trek (no, I guess it was a titanium bike like a Merlin that offered
    that)... but in any case, if you did swap out their alu fork for the
    EMS, wouldn't that save more weight?  I guess that's not fair, since
    Trek would never offer that configuration.
    
    -john

    hmmm, I thought my fork was CF.  No?
    
    ed

    
    You should know, Ed.  May have been a careless assumption on my part. 
    The one they showed in the article (and ones I've seen in shops) are
    spindly forks, that look like aluminum unicrown.  But I've never tapped
    on one. I assumed a carbon fiber fork would need to be beefier (though
    still ending up lighter), like the Kestrel's.
    
    -john

    FWIW: the Control Tech stem on my '94 5500 developed a hairline crack
    near the top of the headset, to be replaced by Trek for no charge.
    Glad it didn't fail all the way thru; looked like it was just a
    matter of time.  Just last weekend it was up to 50mph.
    Kratz

    re. 24
    I believe there was a recall on this stem. Unfortunately it is
    difficult to keep track of recalls without the tracking like auto
    manufacturers.  Recently it seems that there have been a lot of them,
    especially front forks.  
    
    steve