# Newest 08ish Madone...



## no-1 (Feb 24, 2005)

*New Trek Ride*

at least it's something new huh?
any thoughts?


----------



## elistan (Oct 12, 2005)

sounds like you have alot of info already.....
what mill did you hear it from?


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Yeah, what mill would that be?


----------



## elistan (Oct 12, 2005)

clear your pm's whisky


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

All clear...


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*since we are into rumours*



no-1 said:


> So heard through the rumor mill that Trek is in the development stages making a newer high
> end bike than the Madone....
> named the Silo...or Psylo...not sure on the spelling yet....
> 
> ...


My pre-new-year ramblings below since we are into rumours here.

what I have read/heard is that Lance happened to be fond of current Madone geometry so Trek did not dare mess with a successful formula. I would not either. Lance rode a standard Madone size 56cm or 58cm (not sure which one exactly) using a standard 110mm stem and his body/style went well on Madone. 

Now that Lance is retired Trek is free to move to sloping or semi-sloping geometry (with integrated seat pin) which may well suit Basso or whoever the next hero of Trek camp will be. Note that Basso won Giro 2006 riding a semi-sloping semi-compact Cervelo Soloist (or was it R3?). So he would not be wedded to Madone geometry, I think. I would expect to see a semi-compact or compact Madone (or whatever the name) in 2008. I would be surprized if Madone (whatever the top of the range name will be) in 2008 continues with a traditional geometry. 

I have Madone 5.9 (2005) and I have to admit that my body does not fit the Madone mould well at all. The head tube and seat tubes are too short (proportionally to other tubes) and the seat and head tube angles are steep/aggressive. Looking at owner photos on this very forum there are a lot of Madones/5000 with lots of spaces and/or flipped stems suggesting to me that lots of riders have to adjust to Madone geometry more than should be necessary. Even looking at many elite racers on Madones you will see more spacers than on other brands. Lance had what seemed like 20mm which is a lot of spacer at his level. It did not slow him down but it did look rather odd compared to others. These things go away on a compact or semi-compact geometry where head tube can be both taller and stiffer. And there are weight advantages in compact/semi-compact geometry as well as stand-over and head-tube design freedoms.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

*Lance still part of Trek...*

I am a bit skeptical about the rumor. Number one, I could be wrong but I think that the marketing people at Trek could come up with a better name then Silo, makes me think of a old missile silo. Lance is still also part of the "Trek production" albeit not as much as before and I don't think he would like to see a semi-sloping in the top line up because he swears against it. I think he made the original Madone disappear as well. The integrated seat post is the only thing I can see, than again Trek is all about making their bikes for the masses and that would be just to specialized. One more thing, the 6.9SL frame weighs in at 890g (56cm) without a semi-compact frame so I doubt the new one would be heavier especially if its suppose to be a semi.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

*The real deal!*



no-1 said:


> So heard through the rumor mill that Trek is in the development stages making a newer high
> end bike than the Madone....
> named the Silo...or Psylo...not sure on the spelling yet....
> 
> ...


I'm not sure about the name, but the prototype is real. Two were recently tested in Austin, TX by Ekimov and Brajkovic during a Disco team ride. The frames had no paint or markings. I heard the frame could be a permanent part of the team by February. This could be a good thing for a rider like Basso who is used to a sloping geometry of the Cervelo.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

*Really?*



kyler2001 said:


> ...by Ekimov and Brajkovic...



Didn't Eki retire? Isn't that a picture of Tom Danielson?


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

A couple of points.

Lance rode a 58cm.

He didn't "kill" the Madone. He was the impetus for the Madone SL as he felt the original Madone was somewhat harsh. The Madone died because it didn't make sense for Trek to have basically "duplicate" bikes in the lineup, with the additional molds and production hassles.

Finally, sloping top tubes don't really effect geometry. All things being equal (i.e., frame angles, wheelbase, bb drop, etc.) if the effective top tube measurement is the same, the bikes will fit exactly the same. Handling and ride quality are affected as much (or more) by frame material and specific engineering.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

if trek decided to go with this " silo, or psylo " name thing, what'll happen to madone series?? will trek continue to make them ( i owned madone SL and just love them. before that i rode Giants and didn't like it that much )?? if trek decided ( in future ) NOT to continue with madone series, will madone go down in price?? i would love to buy madone 6.9 SSL for 4 K.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

Tlaloc said:


> Didn't Eki retire? Isn't that a picture of Tom Danielson?


For 2007 Ekimov is still with the Discovery Channel as directeur sportif (sporting director). The photo was taken in late 2006. The photo is of Ekimov. Here he is again with the prototype along with Vaitkus, Yates and Demol. How can you miss that cro-magnon face? He's been pedaling everyday with the team.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

*Insert foot in mouth*

Wow, I didn't think they would produce something like that. Its good to see, can't wait to hear the specs.


----------



## harvestlaser (May 13, 2004)

that looks like a standard 1 1/8" fork and head tube is not much taller. 
think it has the trek "standard" lug design? 
hope its not too expensive.


----------



## harvestlaser (May 13, 2004)

looks like a carbon steer tube is part of the plan


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Err, sloping would make it different. Different can be good I guess. Although for now, I swear by my SSL 5.9... I'd like to see how this develops.... Damn!! Looks like something for my wishlist now!! 

Z ken, SSL 6.9 for $4k? That's a little cheap dontcha thing?


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Richard said:


> sloping top tubes don't really effect geometry. All things being equal (i.e., frame angles, wheelbase, bb drop, etc.) if the effective top tube measurement is the same, the bikes will fit exactly the same.


Thank you, Richard. The idea that sloping top tubes inherently affect geometry and fit is an all-too-common misconception.

I blame Giant. Their original "compact geometry" concept (which people tend to equate to sloping top tubes) from the mid/late 90s offered three or four frame sizes......and a vast array of stems and seatposts to shoehorn people into them.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

Forgot to note...Thanks to Enzo Vicennati of _BiciSport_ for the pictures during his interview of Basso and the entire Discovery team.


----------



## boroef (Jun 18, 2005)

that looks like a giant, dudes.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

*this is a giant*

This is a picture of a giant. I have to say that the lines of the Giant flow mutch better than this prototype. I have been looking at the photo a little more and the fork on the Trek doesnt flow well with the bike and what is the extra fin on the integrated seatpost. You know what it looks like to me is a pilot with and integrated headset and seatpost. I wouldn't be suprised if it is the same lugs. Did you guys see the size of that seat tube, it practically eats the top tube. You would think if there working with carbon they would make the shapes flow a little better(like the cervelo soloist). However, I am not an engineer and maybe it works better like this. One more thing, this bike switches back to a wishbone seatstay something they said wasn't as good as the a-stay they went with on the madone. Wait wait, one more thing, this is slightly off topic but you would think that since the UCI mandates a 6.8kg rule and all the bikes now easily exceed this limit they would look to make the more aero, right?


----------



## harvestlaser (May 13, 2004)

if it looks like a giant then it must also look like a ridley and all the others with incorporated seatposts. although it looks like the trek does have a seatpost (external). i would be suprised if you had to cut the frame.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

All bikes look alike but some have skinny tires and some have fat tires. Heck they are just bikes. . . and you paid 8,000 dollars for that bike! I just got one at walmart for a hundred bucks and I am waiting for my rebate ; ) **SARCASM** 

Seriously though, I think integrated seatpost look great but have to be cut to size and theres very little room for change after that. Hard to sell as well.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

never like and will NEVER buy intergrated seatpost bike. many reasons: 1. when riding in flats with club members i'd like to raise my seat. 2. when in a climbing " stage " i'd like to lower my seat. 3. sometimes i do the TT, i also like to adjust my seatpost. basically you got the point. you always have to adjust your seat/seatpost even the pros do. once you got the intergrated seatpost, you've to live it. if one day you decided to sell it, what are the chances you're going to find someone with EXACTLY the same size and inseam as your yours?? someone did mention there's no two people are burn the same.

uzziefly: yup i'd love to get madone 6.9ssl for $ 4k. why?? heck " who " is going ride madone series when the " new " silo or psylo comes out?? well, beside me and some other " wiser riders ".

with that said i do hope trek go head with this intergrated silo/psylo project that way madone 6.9 would be mine for $ 4k ( laughing to the bank ) hahah


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> never like and will NEVER buy intergrated seatpost bike


Who's to say the new Trek design won't offer a few inches of adjustment?


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> Thank you, Richard. The idea that sloping top tubes inherently affect geometry and fit is an all-too-common misconception.
> 
> I blame Giant. Their original "compact geometry" concept (which people tend to equate to sloping top tubes) from the mid/late 90s offered three or four frame sizes......and a vast array of stems and seatposts to shoehorn people into them.


I used to sell Giant's and up until the 2005 model year, anyone in the 5'10" to 6' range was seriously compromised. Their contention that they could fit everybody with their limited range of sizes was, in my opinion, BS.

E.G. I'm 5'11" and I like (need?) a 56.5 to 57cm effective top tube. The Giant "medium" had a 55.5cm and the "large" was 58cm+. No matter what tweaks I did, the medium felt too small and the large too big. For 2005, Giant came out with what they call a "medium-long" with a 57cm effective.

I actually find Trek's rather easy to fit, as long as the prospective buyer wants a somewhat aggresive riding position (short head tube and all). Otherwise go Pilot if you want a Trek. The Pilot's started off slow, but they are picking up in popularity, particularly with the "aging baby-boomer set" and club and century riders.:thumbsup:


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

Look, Giant, Time, Scott, Ridley etc. etc. all offer a few centimters of adustabilty to their integrated seatpost designs. This allows for both resale and changing rider needs. I'm sure any copycat design that Blech comes up with will also allow for this.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

centimeters?? will that be enought?? i was hoping it would be couple of inches. anyhow intergrated seatpost idea will never fly for me. just a personal thing. guess everyone is different. i just know if i brought an intergrated system and later on i have to sell it good luck finding someone with close enough " compatible " inseam and i'm sure he/she will use this excuse ( s ) to lower couple hundred dollars.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

Centimeters is plenty much of "play" to adjust for different settings you will need at it. However the point of selling the bike is still true.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

QUiTSPiNiNArOuND said:


> However the point of selling the bike is still true.


If this means more used-bike buyers will end up with bikes that *fit properly*....as opposed to jacking the seatpost way up or down to "make it fit"....I'd say the system will be doing everyone a *favor*... 

: )


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

Haha, your right whiskey. I guess all that has to fit is the inseam, but god forbid that the person has to stack spacers and has a long torso and runs a 140 stem. Highly doubtful, but ya, it would fit the consumer nicely. On the bike again, I really hope they do something about the tube shapes or something. Make it more aero looking or taper or somthing!. That is definitely a proto because I doubt they will use a front der. clamp instead of the bolt on they usually use.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

what does an intergrated seatpost " gain " from non-intergrated seatpost?? saving of few grams?? stiffer frame?? someone please show me some lights. i'm real confused here. isn't madone already the best selling bike in the world?? if so why changed it?? may be lance and trek...nah can't be.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

most your points are right, it does save a few grams, it helps make it a little stiffer by eliminating that area, and it also makes it a tad bit more aero. As for your other question, Trek nor any othey bike manufactuer should rest on there laurels. Sure the Madone is hot selling today but it wont be tommorow after better bikes come out. If they were still making the original 5500 as the flagship today, it would be outdone by all competitors. Everyone is always looking to improve.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

*pilot*

The more I look at this bike the more I am convinced that his bike is merely a Pilot with an integrated seat post and head tube. It has the exact same wishbone seat stays, curved fork, and geometrical shape. Look at how they used minimal spacers on the stem. I think this bike might be the new "classics" machine as that was what the pilot was designed for, more comfort, and I think thats what they want on the cobbles.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

oh that's what an intergrated DOES but that means i've to come up with $ 5-6k for a new bike to save a few grams?? i understand trek always looking to be a step ahead its competitors but how long do i have save up enough money for the new trek silo. b/c not everyone is making 1m annually. it took me almost 2 years to saved up for madone 5.2 SL. i have to pay rent, credit card bills, eletric bills and many mouths to feed.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> oh that's what an intergrated DOES but that means i've to come up with $ 5-6k for a new bike to save a few grams?? i understand trek always looking to be a step ahead its competitors but how long do i have save up enough money for the new trek silo. b/c not everyone is making 1m annually. it took me almost 2 years to saved up for madone 5.2 SL. i have to pay rent, credit card bills, eletric bills and many mouths to feed.


Good god man....it's not as though Trek's holding a gun to your head, forcing you to purchase their newest models! Pay your rent, pay your credit card bills, feed the family....then spend what you can on a good, solid bike. : )


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

Ya ken, I agree with you that an ISP is not that important to me and you, maybe not even a pro, but it is slightly better. A pro can use it, but then again they dont have to pay for it. As for us mere mortals, enjoy the 5.2 as I still enjoy my 5200. It's all marketing, how do you think they sell bikes, make it a little better so someone comes and buys it.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

right, it's all about marketing. i never buy michael jordan or kobe bryant shoes ( k-mart, wal-mart and payless shopper here ) b/c it supposed to make me jump higher and scored at will?? hell no!! infact someone actually got shot while wearing lebron james' new shoes couple months ago. also is it just me or ISP just look " plain "?? not color but design. a nobel peace prize should be awarded to whoever came up with ISP idea?? b/c if someone screwed up the cutting ISP, he /she will have to spend another 5-6k. brilliant, just plain brilliant. don't get me wrong i'm ok with trek going with ISP and i wish whoever buying the new silo nothing but lucks. just make sure you hire a " good " lumber jack. j/k


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

It seems what rek was trying to do is to achieve and ISP but still have adjustability. You can see the fin on the exterior seat tube holds the screw which tightens on to the interior seattube. It is a pretty ugly ISP the way they have it set up unfortunately, but maybe it will change, this is just a proto.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

so how many of current trek oweners are going to shell out 5-6k for the new silo?? so far i've one NO.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> so how many of current trek oweners are going to shell out 5-6k for the new silo?? so far i've one NO.


You have a very negative and very accusational attitude. Trek knows a thing or two about selling bicycles. If the photo is indeed representative of a future production model, you can bet they've done their homework and determined plenty of people will indeed "shell out" several thousand dollars each for the new bike.

Also, you don't know for certain that the Madone will be discontinued or replaced. Based on the available information, it's entirely possible that the Madone line will remain in place *alongside* the new bike.

Finally, you *still* seem to be of the opinion that Trek is somehow *forcing* their customers to replace their current bikes. This is not the case. Hard as it may be for you to believe, it's up to the *individual* to determine when to replace their bike(s). Not Trek.


----------



## tellico climber (Aug 14, 2006)

Since I recently bought a Madone 6.5 SSL I dont think I will be buying any bikes anytime soon. My wife has a Pilot 5.2, the prototype sure looks a lot like it


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

whiskey: i'm not having an negative or accused trek of anything. yes trek don't force me to buying any of their bikes but c'mon trek keep coming up with their " new " products. i've a weak mind. when i see " nice " things i want to buy it ( i mean bike not other things. heheh ) just like an i-pod. do apple really NEED to make million type of i-pods?? you know what i mean. i'm a bike freak here. everyday BEFORE and AFTER work, i check with latest buzz ( like here in roadbikereview ) and other websits. last summer i was so tampted of spending alot of money on lightweight wheelset ( $ 5 k ) but instead of i brought myself a madone 5.2 sl and still have 2 k left for either campy's boras or zipp 303 ( tubular ) anyway all this buzz about the new trek silo project is still testing mode. may be i might see basso riding one in tour of california next month in my san jose neighborhood or may be the whole thing just a, well buzzzz.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> i've a weak mind. when i see " nice " things i want to buy it


Ahhhhhhh, ok....that clears things up. You're like me! I didn't realize you were referring to the irrational part of our bike-geek minds. : )


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

my question still remain: how many current trek owners are planning to buy the new silo this falls?? it's alright you can admit it. so far we've two NO...


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*I might. Ok, NO*



z ken said:


> my question still remain: how many current trek owners are planning to buy the new silo this falls?? it's alright you can admit it. so far we've two NO...


I have a 54cm Madone 5.9 OCLV 110. Quality is just fine, but the geometry is very odd, disproportional. I am average guy, 174cm, 67kg, 83cm inseam, yet I can not find comfort on Madone.

I would consider this new bicycle if Trek do all of these with it's new frame (not Pilot!):

1. slacken the seat tube angles from current 74 degree to close to 73 (ideally 73 or less) in all sizes. Look at Cervelo R3/Soloist and Time, for good examples of geometry. Look used to be good but now gone silly as well with their STA, too steep.
2. make the head tube a lot taller (like 20-30mm taller) like Look, Spec, Time, Colnago etc
3. offer the same/similar frame but without integrated seat-post using regular post

So, I guess I am with you, I will not be buying it. I am sure they will keep the same odd disproportionate geometry on the new frame. I do not like Madone angles and tube lengths, the TT is too long relative to ST and HT is too short as the result. It works if you have short legs *and* also long torso and also have decent flexibility else you ride with too many spacers and can never move far enough behind BB. No thanks. I have switched brands already. A pity.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

acid_rider said:


> I would consider this new bicycle if Trek do all of these with it's new frame (not Pilot!):
> 
> 1. slacken the seat tube angles from current 74 degree to close to 73 (ideally 73 or less) in all sizes. Look at Cervelo R3/Soloist and Time, for good examples of geometry. Look used to be good but now gone silly as well with their STA, too steep.
> 2. make the head tube a lot taller (like 20-30mm taller) like Look, Spec, Time, Colnago etc
> 3. offer the same/similar frame but without integrated seat-post using regular post


Sounds like a Lemond Triomphe!

Let's see:

1) Seat tube angle - 73 degrees versus the Madone's 74 degrees
2) Head tube length - 154mm versus the Madone's 104mm
3) No integrated post

Just food for thought... : )


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

acid rider: nothing personal but didn't you " test " ride your madone BEFORE you buy it?? i mean couple miles instead of around a parking lot. you can borrow your friend's bike for couple days ( yes i've to beg my friend and buy him a pizza afterward ) at first it was odd feeling ( riding Giants for many years ) the first couple miles was rough but i said what heck give me couple miles. after 5 miles of " adjusting " my riding became smooth and i began to " fall-in ". couple weeks later i decided to go head and buy the madone ( my friend and i have the same inseam, rare but possible ) eversince i've logged many of happy miles. i even bike to work and got alot of praises from my co-workers and strangers. i even buy an x-tra bike lock. it's my precious!!! hahah what happened to old giants bike?? unfortunately it was totally destroyed by a car last summer ( broke my left leg and fracture both my ankles. also broke my right hand. spent 2 months on the wheelchair and 2 months of rehab. i'm ok now. soon i'll receive $ 100k for mine injury. thanks god it's benz driver not illegal " amigo " )


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

same thing happened to me, i got 6 figures, if you need any advice let me know =)


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

same thing happened to me, i got over 6 figures, if you need any advice let me know =)


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*lack of knowledge was my mistake*



z ken said:


> acid rider: nothing personal but didn't you " test " ride your madone BEFORE you buy it??


sadly, no road test, in my geography, in Australia, it is not that easy to get a high end bicycle like Madone 5.9 in my size for road testing and even then the tests are very short, 10 min round-the-block. 

But (my fault), I really did not know anything about bicycle-fit when I bought it 2 years ago. I had a cheap first bike, a Trek 1000 56cm, for 1 year, which was one size too big (even with 90mm stem TT was too long) so I thought if I buy a smaller size (54cm frame) it would work. It did not. My injuries, as a result, caused me to learn a lot so I have to thank my Madone for this. It may be the correct size frame for 5'8".5 male with 83cm inseam but wrong geometry/tube proportions for me and I am of Joe-average proportions, according to very well known bike fitter. Now, I would not buy any brand of road bicycle with steep seat tube angle (>73 degrees) so when I looked at Colnago C-50 in my size and saw 74 STA and I immediately discarded it. Almost the same deal with Look 5x5 and Specialized Roubaix and Bianchi and Pinarello. Not for me. Anything steeper than 73 STA in a road frame is (IMO) not suitable for majority of fitness riders, except with 20mm-35mm setback seatpost and long saddle rails. Keith Bontrager said once that most people fit into 72-74 STA range yet most bikes are quite a bit steeper at 73.5-75 STA (except for the largest frames for >6' folks). And I think Keith was conservative, I think 71-73 STA is the range for most folks. No wonder majority can not ride their bike without a setback seatpost. And a fair number of spacers too. And a flipped up stem. Particularly the Madone/5000 riders - take a poll - how many of you have >=30mm of spacers or a flipped up stem or both? How many of you slide your saddle quite close to the front of the saddle rails? It is a sign that the frame does not fit you as well as it should. Sure, it fits Hincapie and Armtrong and Basso but you aint them. IMHO.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

acid rider: you're right. i did flip my stem upside down and i also move the saddle forward a bit ( used to ride giants ( al ) like i said in the beginning, it's rough but after couple miles you begun to " fall-in ". so far everything have been perfect even the weather. in san jose, california the weather has been between 60-70 and no rain in sight. extremely rare. usally rains and winds. global warming??

carbon 110: you got your check already?? mine should be arriving sometime this week, hopefully. once i got the money i'm planning to buy campy boras or zipp 303 tubular ( you can check the thread in this website: wheels and tire: need advice primary climbing ) surpringly it got very popular and got heated for a while. heheh my bad.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

got a new thread in " shimano section " please check it out and feel free to express your feeeling.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

> One more thing, this bike switches back to a wishbone seatstay something they said wasn't as good as the a-stay they went with on the madone.


Good point, but the new Scott Addict goes from the CR1's A-stay back to a wishbone as well. I guess if you can make it stiff that is all that matters!!


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

nothing against other manufactories but i think people ride bianchi are gotta be " un-wise " or " will and grace " watcher. man, the color just plain " gay ". ( just personal optional. nothing personal ) same thing go for serotta: expensive and it's not even carbon ( i heard rich and old people love them?? ) scott: they look nice but don't like the look of its fork. beside trek, i do like BMC and cevelo. i thought both are very well design, great colors and definately a bling factor. surprisingly i don't find colnago attractive. the colors make me " dizzy ". i like simple design but with nice colors combination. i was thinking about buying LOOK but it's made in france. that mean only " loosers " ride them. heheh nothing personal. giants?? they're alright as long it's not t-mobile pink. time and ripley also two other nice bikes.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

zken,

With your taste and remarks, my advice is, save all your money,you are going to need it 

=)


----------



## highsugar (Apr 14, 2006)

Hope they don't do another cheesy paint/decal job on this one


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

carbon: eversince i laid my eyes on boras/303, i know one of them will be my new wheelset for 2007 ( saw it in the magazine as i laid on the hospital bed. yes i'm a die-hard bike fan even just after having a bike accident ) and some of the money ( may be $ 2k ) for my vegas vocation sometime this spring. hard to believe, i'm 33 years young and i've never went to any vocation ( have to work 6 days a week and a family to feed )

highsugar: you mean the new trek silo, right?? well for me it doesn't matter b/c i'm not going to buy it. i got the money but i just don't like the look and the idea of intergrated seatpost. yes it's lighter, stiffer and more aero or whatever, it just doesn't fly with me. infact yesterday i went to Palo Alto bike store and saw the new LOOK's 595 with iSP. man, it looks terrible. first it's a white color ( sorry white and me will never go together b/c i believe white stands for " weak ", not pure. also white bike hard to keep it clean ) second it's expensive. anyway so far we've 4 NO. any yes on silo?? it's alright you can chime in and yours responds will be respected.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Ken, I've owned more wheelsets than anyone you will ever meet. All high end. Take it from me, save your cash. I know where you are coming from but consider this:


See how well you feel physically before you buy a lot of expensive bike stuff. Make sure your rehab is everything it should be and you are strong

Save your money for yourself n family, screw the wheels. Besides teh Boras, are no big deal. Get some used Cane Creeks for a few hundred bucks. Same wheels, just as fast and better looking

I gave away all my bike stuff to team8s and friends and started running after I raced for a few years after my acccident. But do yourself the favor, and save the 2gs


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

carbon: i appreciated your thoughts but it's so tempting when i got the money and the " meat " is infront of me. how many people can stand the temptation?? you should know better since you owned, or used to, many high-end wheels. first i'm making sure my family is well taking care of. i'm only spending 5% of injury money. please understand. anyway right now my money hasn't arrive yet and may be later on i might change my mind and just buy a cheaper and lighter wheels. right now i'm riding bontrager race-lite ( 1690 grams ) which is heavy but importantly it's one ugly looking wheels. also i've never ridden bladed spoke wheelset until now. take a while to get used to and mostlikely i'm going back to rounded spoke.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*see also tpic in Frames/Forks*



z ken said:


> acid rider: you're right. i did flip my stem upside down and i also move the saddle forward a bit ( used to ride giants ( al ) like i said in the beginning, it's rough but after couple miles you begun to " fall-in ". so far everything have been perfect even the weather. in san jose, california the weather has been between 60-70 and no rain in sight. extremely rare. usally rains and winds. global warming??
> 
> carbon 110: you got your check already?? mine should be arriving sometime this week, hopefully. once i got the money i'm planning to buy campy boras or zipp 303 tubular ( you can check the thread in this website: wheels and tire: need advice primary climbing ) surpringly it got very popular and got heated for a while. heheh my bad.


re taking spacers to new highs (and lows). 

There is a response from Trek there where they recommend no less than 5mm of spacer and no more than 40mm of spacer on alloy steerer. And on Madone/5000 I see a lot more riders with 30-40mm of spacers than any other mainstream frames. I saw Matt White (Disco rider from Australia) 2006 Madone photo in latest cycling magazine - he has 30mm of spacer and he is a pro rider.

On carbon steerer I believe the recommended maximum is 30mm of spacers.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

repost ...................


d=(^^)z


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

z ken, i respect your feelings completely and can emphathize thoroughly.

Two things:

1) If you MUST buy a wheelset, I have owned them ALL. Make no mistake I am not joking. So, take it from me, the ebst wheels for the perfomance you can buy and for the use are the follwing; A) Reynolds Carbon Clincher 46mm deep and BOMB proof,rode them in mud, hard dirt roads, in rain, snow, bad pavement, rode them daily, beat the sh!t outofhtem, stayed perfect. B) Nimble wheels, anything from this company is superb and promised to make u happy they have a good wheel selection C) If you must have deep dish, really deep dish get some of hte new Bontrager CLinchers coming out this year, 52mm deep clincher and super light (lighter than Reynolds) but I implore you to ge tthe Reynolds 46mm deep clinchers 800 bucks off ebay almost every week and they look equally impressive in person

2) imagine I am you Ken, I am you from one year after you get your pay check. I did what you did. I've been where you are. My adivce from you to you, keep the coin, rehab yourself, it takes at least a year for you to really be strong in the legs and ankles, your growth after a year is enormous, and save the money or buy the 800 Reynolds off ebay. BE SMART. The measure of a persons success rate often depends on how they can delay gratification. Timing is everything in many areas of life, wait my friend, wait. Had i not given my wheels away I'd send you a pair to use

wait Ken and you will respect yourself even more, by not having to go through the expierence to know better - you would be an intelligent being my man and above a majority ofpeople who resolve to jsut have what they want when they want regardless - the Reynolds are yoursolution if you must be so compelled


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

z ken said:


> yesterday i went to Palo Alto bike store and saw the new LOOK's 595 with iSP. man, it looks terrible. first it's a white color (...) second it's expensive.


well, i've been following this thread since the very beginning 'cause i had heard the rumours about a sloping trek frame with isp some months ago and was interested in the design of the new top-end trek-bike. do i like the prototype? no, looks like a giant. besides, i am no friend of sloped top tubes. and integrated seatposts are difficult to handle as long as you're not a pro (consider this: you cut the seatpost according to your size. what do you do if you wanna sell the frame? i guess the number of possible buyers goes down to almost zero; and what do you do with that bike when you got a small car just like many europeans do? you'll never get a bike with isp into your car!).

but one thing i want to remind you of: ken, *the look 595 doesn't look terrible*. maybe *you *don't like it, but still it doesn't look terrible. the same goes for the color (it comes in carbon black white/blue and ud-carbon as well as in light blue (women's)). is it expensive? the answer is: it depends. it's still cheaper than a parlee. and here in europe, it's not much more expensive than the 2007 trek madone ssl 6.9 which i just bought. all i wanna say is, don't generalize.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

carbon: thanks and i think you're right. like i said before i've not buy it yet since my check hasn't arrive. once the money is here i'll make a decision. timing will be the key. may be later i could get 303 for 1 k or less ( very unlikely espcially it's tubular ) but you never know. stay tune!! meanwhile i'm 100% heal and have been riding last 3 months. initally my doc told me it'll take 6-12 months for fully recovery but less than 3 month after accident ( july, 12, 2006. i named my bike " 7-12 " ) i was able to walk/bike ( spent 2 and half months on a wheelchair and another month of rehab. part of my rehab involved riding stationary bike ) side note: was thiking buying mavic ES but i don't like bladed spoke and what's up with that one red spoke thing. just a bad idea. imho. SL look great but it's bit heavy.

daddy: at first you " sounded " like you DON'T like the new trek silo/giants ( slope/ISP ) concept but later on you're praising how great LOOK's slope/ISP look. what give?? also i said i find that white LOOK look terrible. everyone is different but i do respect your thought.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

z ken said:


> daddy: at first you " sounded " like you DON'T like the new trek silo/giants ( slope/ISP ) concept but later on you're praising how great LOOK's slope/ISP look. what give?? also i said i find that white LOOK look terrible. everyone is different but i do respect your thought.


the thing is, on other bikes, sloped top tubes look quite ok. but trek and sloped top tubes!?!?!??!

i didn't praise how great look looks. for me, it just looks way better than trek's prototype! i prefer the classic design of a madone - which is why i bought the current ssl 6.9!


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

acid_rider said:


> Particularly the Madone/5000 riders - take a poll - how many of you have >=30mm of spacers or a flipped up stem or both? How many of you slide your saddle quite close to the front of the saddle rails? It is a sign that the frame does not fit you as well as it should. Sure, it fits Hincapie and Armtrong and Basso but you aint them. IMHO.


This always annoys me to no end. It's not a case of being pro, or anything like that. You just need a tiny bit of flexibility.

When I was on a 5.2SL (about 2 weeks), I rode quite comfortably, with my saddle at 50/50, maybe a bit back. No spacers, -17 degree stem flipped *downwards*.
Just do some stretches and get some flexibility, and it's wonderfully comfortable.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

estone2 said:


> *It's not a case of being pro,* or anything like that. You just need a tiny bit of flexibility.
> 
> When I was on a 5.2SL (about 2 weeks), I rode quite comfortably, with my saddle at 50/50, maybe a bit back. No spacers, -17 degree stem flipped *downwards*.
> Just do some stretches and get some flexibility, and it's wonderfully comfortable.


i totally agree. but the spacer-towers and the upwards-flipped-stems are a north american thing. you don't see this in europe that much. and if you do, other riders will "let you know".


----------



## harvestlaser (May 13, 2004)

having no spacers has turned into a total fashion thing. i am sure those than run your stem as low as possible have been beat and will get beat by those that have flipped up stems and spacers. in fact if you do the math a flipped up stem with less spacers is lighter than spacers and flipped down stems. 
just ride flipped up or down. the only point that i will make is trek headtubes are pretty short.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

harvestlaser said:


> having no spacers has turned into a total fashion thing.


i disagree. my opinion is that in north america, having more than 2cm of spacers and the stem flipped upwards (in europe, we call it an "erected stem"  ) is a fashion thing. what is it good for? it's not more comfortable once you're used to less spacers. and then, you ride a pro bike but you sit on it like my grandma!?!? where's the point???


harvestlaser said:


> i am sure those than run your stem as low as possible have been beat and will get beat by those that have flipped up stems and spacers.


i completely disagree.


harvestlaser said:


> in fact if you do the math a flipped up stem with less spacers is lighter than spacers and flipped down stems.


it's just a question of the amount of spacers. whether you flip your stem upwards or downwards doesn't make a difference.  but i do get your point: where's the sense in having a spacer-tower of 3-4cm and then flipping the stem downwards!? cut the steerer tube!


harvestlaser said:


> just ride flipped up or down.


i agree. but let me also say that if you're not comfortable on a road bike with less than 3cm of spacers and with your stem flipped downwards, hey, ride a fitness bike...


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Daddy yo yo said:


> i completely disagree.


And you're completely *wrong* 

A stem flipped downward does not automatically generate efficiency or speed. In fact, depending on the rider, it can very easily (and often) have the *reverse* effect.

It all comes down to the individual's flexibility and range of motion. Contrary to what many people believe, neither can be expected to change significantly or permanently, even with regular stretching. 

To claim that a particular bike setup is universally faster or better is absolutely wrong, and very uneducated. The speed or quality of an individual's positioning on a bicycle is entirely dependent on the *individual*, and his or her limitations.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> And you're completely *wrong*


i'm not, my friend. and i will explain you why: i did *not *say that a downwards flipped stem automatically makes you faster. i just disagreed with what you said:


harvestlaser said:


> i am sure *those than run your stem as low as possible have been beat and will get beat by those that have flipped up stems and spacers*.


because this is not automatically true. just as a downwards flipped stem doesn't necessarily make you faster, the same goes for an upwards flipped stem!


WhiskeyNovember said:


> A stem flipped downward does not automatically generate efficiency or speed. In fact, depending on the rider, it can very easily (and often) have the *reverse* effect.
> 
> (...)
> 
> *To claim that a particular bike setup is universally faster or better is absolutely wrong, and very uneducated. The speed or quality of an individual's positioning on a bicycle is entirely dependent on the individual, and his or her limitations.*


i totally agree on this! but please bear in mind that i never claimed that a downwards flipped stem automatically makes you faster. i just disagreed on your opinion that those who run their stems as low as possible have been and will get beat by those who have upwards flipped stems!


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Daddy yo yo said:


> i'm not, my friend. and i will explain you why: i did *not *say that a downwards flipped stem automatically makes you faster. i just disagreed with what you said:because this is not automatically true. just as a downwards flipped stem doesn't necessarily make you faster, the same goes for an upwards flipped stem!
> i totally agree on this! but please bear in mind that i never claimed that a downwards flipped stem automatically makes you faster. i just disagreed on your opinion that those who run their stems as low as possible have been and will get beat by those who have upwards flipped stems!


Well, sir, it's official....I'm an idiot. I completely mis-read your post. Please accept my apologies. 

<img src=https://forums.roadbikereview.com/images/icons/icon11.gif>


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> Well, sir, it's official....I'm an idiot. I completely mis-read your post. Please accept my apologies.


c'mon! maybe i just didn't express my thoughts well enough (english is not my mother tongue). there's no need for apologies and no need to call yourself an idiot.  (hope your post wasn't cynical)


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Daddy yo yo said:


> c'mon! maybe i just didn't express my thoughts well enough (english is not my mother tongue). there's no need for apologies and no need to call yourself an idiot.  (hope your post wasn't cynical)


I think I'm just becoming overly conditioned to counter the ever-popular "low handlebar" argument. That, and I hadn't had my coffee when I replied to your post. 

Oh well. So how about them Bears?


----------



## no-1 (Feb 24, 2005)

*New Trek Ride*

mmmmmkay......
....lots of new stuff coming out for Trek in the near future.
stay tuned


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

no-1: man you already " know " all the spec.?? are you going to buy it or join me and hand full of " thanks but no thanks " riders?? it's alright you're free to buy whatever you like but just won't expect me and others to like it. heheh

side note: this thread begun as " rumor " and now it's one of the hottest topic out there on the street/road. thanks everyone for chiming in. so far we've more " nay " than " yeah '.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

no-1 said:


> mmmmmkay......
> Silo/psylo is the 2010 name....sorry...not the coming years.
> New bike should be out to the dealers by march they say....hummmmmm...we'll see.
> The steer tube=1.5 inch on lower fork crown race....regular 1.125 upper...tapered carbon steer.
> ...


don't believe that the new bike with sloped top tube will be out in 2007. i believe that we'll see some of the disco-boys riding it, then we'll have the chance to have a look at the bike at several trade shows in autumn and then the bike will be available for the 2008 season. just my 2 cents.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> thanks everyone for chiming in. so far we've more " nay " than " yeah '.


z ken.....exactly what point are you trying to make? 

I *think* you are assuming that the bike pictured is a finalized example of the next Trek OCLV road bike.

I *also* think you are trying to make the point that nobody will purchase a Trek with the configuration pictured in those photos. 

Am I correct on either supposition?


----------



## no-1 (Feb 24, 2005)

*hummmmm*

nothing more to say.....


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

whiskey: i think the pic. we saw in this thread is going to pretty close to an actual real bike when it said and done. i'm sure there'll be some small changes ( has basso test ride the silo since he's THE man for disco?? ) but the main " problem " still remain: ISP. you either like it or not. it's a personal thing. with that said i believe silo will be a hot seller b/c of discovery channel.

i did ask local bike store owners about ISP and so far people kind of shy away from it due to " proper cutting " and resell value. like i said what're the chances you're going to find someone with the same or real close of your inseam when you decide to sell it in the future.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

z ken said:


> but the main " problem " still remain: ISP. you either like it or not. it's a personal thing. with that said i believe silo will be a hot seller b/c of discovery channel.
> 
> i did ask local bike store owners about ISP and so far people kind of shy away from it due to " proper cutting " and resell value. like i said what're the chances you're going to find someone with the same or real close of your inseam when you decide to sell it in the future.


i agree on this! i like the look of isp (for example on the look 595 or scott addict; not on the trek prototype) but would never buy a frame with isp because of the above mentioned reasons. the problem with isp is the seatpost clamp as we can see with scott addict: the frame won't be available with isp as long as they haven't resolved the clamp problem (they say that weight problems are the reason why they don't offer the isp for now, believe it or not).


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> the main " problem " still remain: ISP. you either like it or not. it's a personal thing. with that said i believe silo will be a hot seller b/c of discovery channel.
> 
> i did ask local bike store owners about ISP and so far people kind of shy away from it due to " proper cutting " and resell value. like i said what're the chances you're going to find someone with the same or real close of your inseam when you decide to sell it in the future.


You're assuming (among other things) that Trek's ISP will have little or no vertical adjustment. In the photos we've seen, the seat "sleeve" that fits over the frame could very easily offer several inches of vertical adjustment. 

Even with a standard seatpost, virtually all of the riders who *fit* a given frame size will only require 4-5 inches of vertical adjustment. If they need a seat height *beyond* that range...higher or lower...chances are, they're on a very incorrect frame size.

It's a mistake to assume the Trek design has the limitations you describe. Wait for the facts before criticizing the design, because at this point, the details are simply not known.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

whiskey: c'mon bro i only " assume " all of these base on rumor/pic. we've seen so far. no one, not even lance, know what the " final " outcome will look like. may be it's different from look's or scott's or a mere copy cat?? anyway have you or anyone out there seeing someone ridng an ISP bike?? so far i've not. one month and the tour of california will finally be arrive and hopefully i'll see the new and improve trek silo?? i heard basso will be making his disco. debute. last year i went to event and saw alot of " stars " but no lance in sight. tom boonen/mceven/valverde won't be here this year. bummer!! 

whiskey: are you going to buy silo when it becomes available come spring/summer?? may be all of these just a " one year wonder?? ". may be come 2008 trek might abandon silo and go back to " meal ticket ". hmm just a thought.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> whiskey: are you going to buy silo when it becomes available come spring/summer??


It depends on the fit. If it fits like a Madone, probably not. If it has a taller head tube, absolutely. Based on the photos I've seen in this thread, I'm willing to bet there will be enough vertical adjustability in the seat mast to accommodate most riders, so the seat mast doesn't bother me at all.




z ken said:


> may be all of these just a " one year wonder?? ". may be come 2008 trek might abandon silo and go back to " meal ticket ". hmm just a thought.


Carbon molds aren't cheap....nor is the engineering and design work required to manufacture an OCLV frame. You can bet Trek has done their homework on this.

Do you actually think they're stupid enough to have overlooked the impacts....both technical and marketing....that have been brought up in this thread? I don't. Trek isn't dumb. They've been doing this for quite a long time now. 

Is it *possible* for them to screw this up? Sure. Is it *likely*? Not by a long shot.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

whiskey: last time i check trek pilot series isn't a hot seller. hard to believe i've not seen anyone riding it on the road. same go for LOOK's or scott's ISP. you know what they said no matter how smart or well-educated you're, you WILL make a mistake some point in your time. did you know Albert Eistein " was caught " by his wife for cheating with other women?? don't get me wrong, i do believe trek have some of the brightest engineeers/workers afterall they did produce my favorite bike, madone but i'm still skeptic about ISP/slope. so whiskey: if silo fit you, you're going to buy it, right??

sidenote: trek was founded in 1976?? but how come it never got popular until lance used it?? it's all about marketing. you can created an " ok " bike but along it's used by basso, big-george or levi, people will buy it. just look at bianchi, what an ugly bike but people still buy it b/c it's " made in italy ".


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> whiskey: last time i check trek pilot series isn't a hot seller.


Based on what? The lack of Pilots in your area? I assure you, the Pilot series sells *very* well...



z ken said:


> you know what they said no matter how smart or well-educated you're, you WILL make a mistake some point in your time.


You'll notice I never claimed Trek is immune to error...only that, in the area of bicycle development and sales, an error as large as you suggest/imply is *highly* unlikely.



z ken said:


> i'm still skeptic about ISP/slope.


And it's GOOD to be skeptical! At the same time, though, I think it's a mistake to form such confident conclusions and predictions regarding a design about which so little is known.

Let it be released. Look at it. Touch it. Examine the design first-hand. *THEN* form your conclusions and opinions. At this point, anything resembling a conclusion about the design is far too premature to be remotely accurate. 



z ken said:


> so whiskey: if silo fit you, you're going to buy it, right??


If it fits me, you bet I will. 




z ken said:


> sidenote: trek was founded in 1976?? but how come it never got popular until lance used it??


I suggest you refine your definition of "popular". I assure you, Trek has met the common definition of "popular" long before Lance was ever a factor.




z ken said:


> it's all about marketing. you can created an " ok " bike but along it's used by basso, big-george or levi, people will buy it.


Are you of the opinion that Trek's success is primarily a result of pro sponsorship? While I recognize pro sponsorship has been *partially* responsible for Trek's success, I believe more customers have been sold on the product's technical merits and company's customer service.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

z ken said:


> whiskey: last time i check trek pilot series isn't a hot seller. hard to believe i've not seen anyone riding it on the road. *same go for LOOK's or scott's ISP*.


z ken: where are you from? the u.s.? maybe you shouldn't forget that the u.s. market is definitely not the most important market for road bikes. here in good old europe, i have already seen several look 595, even in areas which are not as famous for road biking as italy, spain or france. scott addict? not available yet. trek pilot? not here, people prefer the real stuff (if europeans buy a road bike, we don't look for an overly comfy bike).


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

daddy: i'm from bay area ( california, united states, home of levi leipeimer ) trust me i saw alot of madone more than any other bikes ( lance who?? haha ) i do see some giants/cannondale/specialized. i only assumed pilot is not a hot seller since i didn't see anyone riding it. also i hardly see anyone riding colnago ( too expensive?? ) look ( made in france?? aka land of losers?? no offense. guess war in Iraq have some effect ) a very few merckx, some old school. in other word in america trek and madone, NOT pilot, is the king, everything else is just another bike. that shows you how armstrong really has changed cycling in u.s. before him, no one watch cycling including me ( ok, beside greg lemonds' family. haha you got the idea ) last year ( 2006 ) without armstrong, the rating went down significantly on t.v, not only here in u.s but also in TDF. just like shoes business, when michael jordan was playing, man every kid on the block want to buy it ( some even will shoot you for it, seriously ) now jordan has retired, Nike shoes is still popular but people say, "nah, i can wait until it's on sale ".

daddy: since you don't see anyone riding pilot in europe and i haven't either here in u.s. may be pilot is real popular in africa?? haha. in europe, colnago, look, orbea, merckx, pinarello or cevelo might rule the road but here it's will always be a " second tier ". 

acid rider: got give you some credit for creating a hot and flaming topic[ applaud ] now everyday after work i've " something " to get excited about. i'm tired and sick of doping and floyd landis craps.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

z ken said:


> i only assumed pilot is not a hot seller since i didn't see anyone riding it.


ok, but only because no one in your area rides a pilot, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a slow seller.


z ken said:


> also i hardly see anyone riding colnago ( too expensive?? ) look ( made in *france?? aka land of losers?? no offense. guess war in Iraq have some effect* ) a very few merckx, some old school.


uhm, i don't want to get too political here but here in europe those *not *taking part in this (senseless) war are *not *considered as the 'losers'. u.s. americans are and have always been excited about wars. whether the war is justified or not has never interested anyone. anyways, no offense. you've got your opinion about iraq, europeans have theirs. americans prefer american brands over european brands, europeans prefer european brands. btw, just as some americans possibly have altered their customer behavior, europeans have too. american products are not too popular here, and that has several reasons like iraq, environmental policies, etc.).


z ken said:


> in europe, colnago, look, orbea, merckx, pinarello or cevelo might rule the road but here it's will always be a " second tier ".


cervelo is canadian.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

*A lot of heat, not much light!*

I had a long conversation with our Trek rep yesterday. He's an old "roadie" and pretty knowledgable.

Yes, this is a prototype of a new sloping top tube road frame. Trek's goal was to create a frame that is as aerodynamic as the original Madone (with the flared seat and down tubes) without the weight penalty over the SL. They also wanted to extend the head tube for a variety of reasons, most alluded to above. As to the ISP, yes it will have an extended seat tube, but not to the extent that cutting that seat tube will ever be required to fit the intended size of the rider (sounds like a compromise - compact frames like the Giant require very long seat posts which are inherently flexier than the seat tube, thus pedalling while seated obviates the "stiffer" main triangle of a compact frame.)

It's not a modified Pilot, as the Pilot's geometry differs somewhat form the 5000-Madone series in more ways than just head tube length.

We may see it at the Giro and probably not for the whole Disco team yet.

And it definitely won't be a production item until 2008 at the earliest. It may or may not phase out the Madone. Trek carried the original Madone for nearly three years alongside the SL and just killed it for '07, not to mention how long they kept the original 5000 alive.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

no-1 said:


> *New bike should be out to the dealers by march they say*....


*they* were wrong.


daddy yo yo said:


> don't believe that the new bike with sloped top tube will be out in 2007. i believe that we'll see some of the disco-boys riding it, then we'll have the chance to have a look at the bike at several trade shows in autumn and then the bike will be available for the 2008 season. just my 2 cents.


*i* was right.  


Richard said:


> We may see it at the Giro and probably not for the whole Disco team yet.
> 
> And *it definitely won't be a production item until 2008 at the earliest*.


i told ya!


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

daddy: like i said before you and i don't see anyone riding pilot then where in the world all pilots bikes went to if it's a hot seller?? dumpster?? oh i remember now it's still the bike stores. no one is care or watch pilot models when walking in store. people just walk to madone aisle and check out the new 6.5 and 6.9. no one is saying you were wrong about ISP. point is..cevelo is canadian made?? that is it. cevelo is no longer in my top-3 favorite bikes ( trek and bmc ) nothing against canada but people here, in u.s, just don't like canada or any other countries. well americans do like italian made: shoes, cloth, cars, foods and women?? hahah that's why american usually not welcome anywhere else, england?? may be richard and his " friend " might be right about this new silo. by the way it's not even sure it'll be called, silo. how about MFL ( money for lance )?? trek MFL, sound catchy.

richard: do me a favor and please ask your " trek friend " about the pilot ( selling like hot cakes )?? so only basso will be riding silo/MFL bike since he used to ride canadian-made cevelo??


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

z ken said:


> richard: do me a favor and please ask your " trek friend " about the pilot ( selling like hot cakes )?? so only basso will be riding silo/MFL bike since he used to ride canadian-made cevelo??


Pilots took off rather slowly, but lately I've sold as many Pilots as Trek's "classic" bikes. We even special-ordered a 5.9. A 54cm, it weighed in at 16 lbs. Not for me but a nice ride nonetheless.

As to who will ride what this season, it remains to be seen. But I guarantee it won't be "just Basso."


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> daddy: like i said before you and i don't see anyone riding pilot then where in the world all pilots bikes went to if it's a hot seller?? dumpster??


How about that little area between California and Europe, zken? It's called "The Rest of the Country", and it's where the other 265 million US residents live....


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

I see a lot of people put that this is just a prototype and the looks can change but I don't think it will. I can't think of any "proto" that trek has built and not used the molds off of it(please correct me if im wrong) When they made the Original Madone they used those molds, however it was a different lay up. The only thing I can see changing on this proto is that the clamp on derailleur will dissapear, lay up might be different, and a splash of paint on it. Trek has always said that makinga mold was hundreds of thousands of dollars to make, plus with there cg work, it's basically built on the computer 100's of times. I want to see hold Trek makes this more aero than the Original Madone, from the looks of the initial photos I see no distinct aero features on the tubes like a flat oversized downtube. The only thing I can make out is the ISP which is a lot thinner than a standard one. Again it has a wishbone seatstay which I can't figure out why they went back to that because they claimed the a-stay was lighter and stiffer and it's probably more aero. The only reason I can see them using that is it is on the pilots. I want to hear what trek has to say about this bike and what makes it so special, while I sit here and keep on specualting, haha.


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

Richard you argued that this is not a pilot because it is not the same geometry as the Madone, but who said it was the same. A 56cm madones seat tube angle is 73.5 to a pilots 73.3. The head tube angle of a madone is 73.8 to a pilots 72.5. The eff. top tube is 56.2 to 56.1 respectfully. Not much difference between the two except for headtube legnth and angle. Thats why I suggest that most of the molds used on this prototype is of the pilots. Thats why I also said that this could be a complementary bike to the madone as a classics bike. Just as when they built there classics rig for the past few years, the spa bike. It was just a 5500 with a spa insert at the seatstay.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

whiskey: do you know anyone between you ( europe ) and me ( california ) ride pilot?? for sure i don't. who in the right mind will pay ( almost the same as madone ) for pilot?? well beside women and san francisco's treat ( you know what i mean?? ) hahah you can check out the classifield in this website and so far i've seen no pilot on sale. i do see alot of scott's, cannondale, specialized, giants and some look's and colnago. of course few trek bikes too ( mostly lower end ) you can create a new thread ( under trek forum ) with " post your trek pilot pics. here ) i think less than a week later, the thread will be dead.

as of silo/MFL and ISP: i think basso and levi will be the only two riding it since both of them used to ride slope-geo bikes before ( cevelo and specialized ) the rest of disco. will be riding madone 6.9 ssl. surprise me basso/levi not riding madone sslx ( baron )


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> whiskey: do you know anyone between you ( europe ) and me ( california ) ride pilot??


Since the introduction of the Pilot line in late 2004, I have literally met hundreds of Pilot owners throughout that little area between California and Europe. I have heard *very* few complaints about the line.



z ken said:


> as of silo/MFL and ISP: i think basso and levi will be the only two riding it since both of them used to ride slope-geo bikes before


z ken.....as previously pointed out, a sloping top tube does *not* affect bicycle geometry. In terms of fit and/or handling, a rider cannot become "used" to a lowered top tube, because a lowered top tube affects neither.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

whiskey: i beg the differ. i used to ride giants for 2 years ( alum. ) and recently just brought my new favorite ride, madone. it took me almost 2 weeks to " really sink in ". giants bike do " help " me climb a tad better due to upper geometry while not as fast on the flats. trek bike do make me noticable to other riders and i've heard enough joke of people calling me, " loser " referring to jan ullrich always finishing second to trek and armstrong. so i want to buy " winner's " products. i'll be honest here, i belive BMC got the best look/bling bike out there but what has BMC accomplished?? it belongs to doper ( landis )?? i also used to like Cevelo but after i found out it's made in " canada ", it's no longer in fav. bikes list. so as of now trek madone, not pilot, is my lone favorite bike. i do want to fall for specialized ( its HQ locates 15 miles south where i live ) but i don't like its " arc " top tube. like i said before " look will always come before performance ) in my book, anyway. i just glad madone got BOTH aspects. whew!!


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken....all of the handling and fit characteristics you describe....in reference to the Trek and Giant....are the result of the head tube angle, seat tube angle, top tube length, head tube height, chainstay length, and wheelbase. Your body doesn't care how angled (or horizontal) the top tube is, just as the angle of the top tube doesn't affect how the bike handles.

You're absolutely correct that the two bikes fit and handle differently....no argument there. I'm simply pointing out that these differences are in no way related to the angle of the top tube. They are the result of other factors.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

i do believe top tube play some kind of roles here ( not sure what since i'm not an expert ) i did test ride orbea. the bike owner claimed it's the " most stable " bike out there. after riding for couple blocks, it felt real funny: it seem like the bike doesn't want to " go ". handling was somewhat questionable ( valverde did use it so must be personal thing ) not to mention it's not cheap either. i was thinking about giving specialized a shot ( before buying my madone while trying to save some cash ) but the bike owner told me it " has " the same riding style as orbea. i quickly reject the testing ride ( should've give it a shot, some regret ) next i went to BMC dealer ( only couple here in bay area ) but wow when i saw the price ( for framset only ) i quickly glanzed at something else. part of my heart still wanting to ride that beauty but reality told me i'm never going to buy BMC ( complete bike with d/a 10 costs almost 7K ) yes i got the money. sadly i walked away with nothing to cheer for. my friend called and told me to try out his madone ( 5.2sl ) and i could get it for less than 3k ( on sale ) after test ride i decided to buy the madone ( same one, 5.2 sl ) but when i went to store, man i saw that 6.9 ssl, it blew me away, what a beauty ( not the pricetage, $ 6,999, on sale ) ok i said may be a tad lower, 5.9 sl. what 5k?? err lower. 5.9, 5.5sl, 5.5, all over 3.5k?? so in the end decided to buy 5.2 SL for 2.5K and still got 30K left for family and vocation. happy ending. heheh

p.s: did also see madone sslx for sale $ 8k. not as good looking as 6.9 but may be lighter/stiffer as it claimed?? i want to test ride sslx but need to have 7k on the credit card. i got the cash but don't to buy it by " accident ". i did test ride on 5.9 sl, 5.9, 5.5sl and 5.5. all are great but considering the x-factor ( price ) 5.2sl was a steal + i already got all d/a 10 speed group from my crashed-giants, my 5.2 sl is THE SAME as 5.9 sl and still got over 2K left for boras or 303 ( 5.2 sl and 5.9 sl share the same frameset/fork, oclv 100 and xxx-light )


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

what shop? what state? I'm packing as we speak! 

Who carries a 6.9 and a SSLX lol 

any single cuties at the shop looking to exploit a nice guy


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

carbon: too bad it's only one day sale, black friday--the day after thanksgiving. the store was packed, as expected, and alot of great deal. the stores is located in redwood city, california, 35 miles south of san francisco and 15 miles north where i live, san jose. unfortunately all the cuties were already taken by those west side choppers ( motocycle ) and lamborghini owners. [ sight ] damn those bastards. heheh


----------



## waterloo (Nov 8, 2005)

*It's baaaack*

Janez Brajkovic appears to be riding it


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

i think half of the team disco. might ride the new silo and the rest ride 6.9. what happened to sslx ( baron ) supposely " special " made for mr. armstrong in 05?? sslx supposed to the lightest madone series or any other bikes out there since we all know lance was a weight weenie. he even measured his foods in milligrams. talk about " demanding ".


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

Like I said in my first post..."I heard the frame could be a permanent part of the team by February." The 2008 figure people are saying is probably for when it will be available to purchase.


----------



## tellico climber (Aug 14, 2006)

z ken said:


> i think half of the team disco. might ride the new silo and the rest ride 6.9. what happened to sslx ( baron ) supposely " special " made for mr. armstrong in 05?? sslx supposed to the lightest madone series or any other bikes out there since we all know lance was a weight weenie. he even measured his foods in milligrams. talk about " demanding ".


I believe the sslx was slightly heavier than the ssl frame but a little stiffer in the bottom bracket area. The boron added stiffness but also added a little weight.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

tellico climber said:


> I believe the sslx was slightly heavier than the ssl frame but a little stiffer in the bottom bracket area. The boron added stiffness but also added a little weight.


You're exactly right.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

tc: are you positive or just guessing ( not that i don't believe you or anything )?? i mean i know lance want everything to be the very best: lightest possible frame, wheels, shoes, sock and even specially made TT suit. so when i heard sslx ( frame ) is heavier than ssl, it kind of doesn't make any sense. why would lance used a heavier frame in his last tour ( 05 )?? i do still believe 6.9 look better than sslx and lighter too?? then how come sslx cost more than fully-loaded 6.9??


----------



## tellico climber (Aug 14, 2006)

z ken said:


> tc: are you positive or just guessing ( not that i don't believe you or anything )?? i mean i know lance want everything to be the very best: lightest possible frame, wheels, shoes, sock and even specially made TT suit. so when i heard sslx ( frame ) is heavier than ssl, it kind of doesn't make any sense. why would lance used a heavier frame in his last tour ( 05 )?? i do still believe 6.9 look better than sslx and lighter too?? then how come sslx cost more than fully-loaded 6.9??


I have read that the process of using boron in the bottom bracket area of the SSLX frame is a more expensive process. I was very pleased that the newer 6.5/6.9 framesets which incorporated defense grade high modulus carbon instead of the boron in the bottom bracket area were less expensive. I just bought a Madone 6.5 SSL a little over a month ago and have put about 1200 miles on it. I can attest to the frames ride quality and responsiveness especially when sprinting or climbing. The new SSL frames are definately lighter than the SSLX frames were, but I have not seen any information about which frame is stiffer in the bottom bracket area. Thanks


----------



## QUiTSPiNiNArOuND (Mar 15, 2002)

I wonder why Janez is the only one testing it. You would think they would try to get Basso or Levi to test the frame as well. I also haven't seen Eki riding it, he's back on the Madone, it would have been cool if Lance gave it some feedback, but im pretty sure he already hates it, haha. 

P.S. They should just get rid of the team car and let Eki and Yates ride a bike with a trailer and direct. Those guys are die hards.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

tc: first congr. on owning a swet ride ( 6.5 ) second you actually HAVE ridden sslx?? spin: you're right: the pro tour should ask/force the riders to carry their food/drink and stuffs since they're the one getting paid handsomely. hahah


----------



## elistan (Oct 12, 2005)

the 06 sslx wieghed the same as the 06 ssl, but the sslx had a way (yes thats quantifyable  ) stiffer bb area. To compensate for the extra wieght the boron added check out all the alloy parts on the sslx. They are all drilled out rounded off, every extra gram was taken out. So..... you didnt take a wieght hit but gained stiffness. the 6 series were a complete redesign. I think the engineers did a great job on it.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

z ken said:


> we all know lance was a weight weenie.


lance was no weight weenie. i remember him riding a madone with 7.0kg in 2003 (lightweight wheels already included), whereas the uci-limit allows 6.8kg. so, if he really was a ww, he would have ridden a 6.8kg bike.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

tellico climber said:


> The new SSL frames are definately lighter than the SSLX frames


true. not much, but still...


tellico climber said:


> I believe the sslx was slightly heavier than the ssl frame but a little stiffer in the bottom bracket area.


that's what i've heard too. well, actually i've heard that the new ssl frames are lighter than the sslx and i've heard that the sslx frames were made of boron-added carbon fibre in the bb area for increased stiffness. but i have NOT heard that the new ssl frames aren't as stiff as the sslx. maybe they are, maybe they're not. the sslx were stiffer than all previously produced frames but i don't know if the same goes for the current ssl frames (6.5 & 6.9)


elistan said:


> the 06 sslx wieghed the same as the 06 ssl, but the sslx had a way (...) stiffer bb area. To compensate for the extra wieght the boron added *check out all the alloy parts on the sslx. They are all drilled out rounded off, every extra gram was taken out*. So..... you didnt take a wieght hit but gained stiffness. the 6 series were a complete redesign. I think the engineers did a great job on it.


have you had the chance to have a closer look on the 6.9? i own one myself, bought it as frameset. the bearing cups in the head tube are all drilled out, and the rear dropouts have been completely redesigned. check out the picture which i took the day i got my new preciousssss.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

FYI, the 2007 Madone SSL is 179 grams lighter than the 2006 Madone SSL. The weight savings are a result of:

Modified BB lug (25g savings)
New seat lug/insert (30g savings)
Molded down tube/seat tube (12g savings)
New dropouts (37g savings)
New housing stops/SSLX inserts (16g savings)
New low solids paint (20g savings)
Drilled BB cups (25g savings)
110 GSM scrim (14g savings)


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

wn: you're comparing 6.9 ssl to 5.9ssl or sslx ( baron BB )?? if you're indeed comparing to sslx one, why would sslx costed " extra " 2 k more than 6.9 ( 10k to 8k ) + it's one year older too?? though 6.9 does look better than sslx. today on ESPN cycling page, i saw disco. training camp in central california and i DID NOT see silo/mfl bike instead of 6.9. what give?? may be all this time we're " compromising " for nothing. well atleast it entertained me before/after work.[ smile ]

p.s: basso/levi will make their debute for disco. next month's tour of california ( bruyneel confirmed ) yeah!! too bad Boonen, Valverde and of course lance won't be there ( my five favorites riders )


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

z ken said:


> wn: you're comparing 6.9 ssl to 5.9ssl or sslx ( baron BB )??


The SSLX (with boron) was not included in my comparison above.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

OOO, wrong topic!! i'm asking between 6.9 ssl vs. sslx ( baron BB ) anyone got the " official " spec numbers, please fill me in. thanks in advance.


----------



## waterloo (Nov 8, 2005)

z ken said:


> OOO, wrong topic!! i'm asking between 6.9 ssl vs. sslx ( baron BB ) anyone got the " official " spec numbers, please fill me in. thanks in advance.


It is bOron.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

waterloo: yes i know and everyone here know the different is baron. what i'm asking is the weight spec. numbers between 6.9 and sslx. someone please fill me in. thanks.


----------



## elistan (Oct 12, 2005)

Daddy yo yo said:


> true. not much, but still...
> that's what i've heard too. well, actually i've heard that the new ssl frames are lighter than the sslx and i've heard that the sslx frames were made of boron-added carbon fibre in the bb area for increased stiffness. but i have NOT heard that the new ssl frames aren't as stiff as the sslx. maybe they are, maybe they're not. the sslx were stiffer than all previously produced frames but i don't know if the same goes for the current ssl frames (6.5 & 6.9)
> have you had the chance to have a closer look on the 6.9? i own one myself, bought it as frameset. the bearing cups in the head tube are all drilled out, and the rear dropouts have been completely redesigned. check out the picture which i took the day i got my new preciousssss.


Yeah, i have seen the new 6.9. I got to put about 500miles on it. It was a nice ride. My comparison was just based on the 06 ssl and sslx models about drilling and rounding. The 6 series are a whole new animal.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

eliston: how's the bontrager's carbon clincher wheels?? thinking about buying one after failing to land boras or 404. bummer!!


----------



## elistan (Oct 12, 2005)

i liked them. They felt fast. The accleration was incrediable. I could go 0-60mph in under 5sec  or so it felt. Very stiff.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

update: yesterday i went to my local book store and i found that basso is riding 6.9 during training camp in cantral california. cyling america is the name of magazine. check it out!!


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

z ken said:


> update: yesterday i went to my local book store and i found that basso is riding 6.9 during training camp in cantral california. cyling america is the name of magazine. check it out!!


Not hard to see what he's riding even from your own home...Free of charge!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/newsphotos.php?id=/photos/2007/news/jan07/jan31news/gallery-jan31news

http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/interviews/?id=ivan_basso071


----------



## harvestlaser (May 13, 2004)

i am affraid trek is trying to keep it a bit of secret. i am sure basso will be on it later in the year or he might even suprise us at the amgen tour.


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

it's odd seeing basso in disco. black/blue rather CSC red/black. i guess armstrong said " no " to silo.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

z ken said:


> i guess armstrong said " no " to silo.


of course. and i am sure that george *walker texas ranger* bush asks him about foreign policy too.


----------

