# Why did Trek drop carbon fiber seat stays on their 2010 aluminum road bikes?



## Treker (Nov 7, 2007)

I was looking at Trek's web site the other day and noticed that they have dropped their aluminum framed road bikes with carbon fiber seat stays from the 2010 model lineup. Does anyone know why they did this?

I personally ride a 2006 Trek 2100, which is of this type of "blended" design, and have felt it was a very good bang-for-the-buck design. It rides much smoother than a full aluminum frame road bike at a much lower price than a full carbon fiber framed bike. I have recommended the new models of these bikes (2.1, 2.3) to others that were looking for a good road bike but didn't want to jump all the way up to the expense of a full carbon bike. Now I won't be able to do that, at least not in the Trek family anyway.

In any event, I was just curious why they did this. It can't just all be a plot to get people to buy their more expensive carbon fiber road bikes, could it? 

Regards,

Jay B.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

cost!


----------



## Treker (Nov 7, 2007)

a_avery007 said:


> cost!


Maybe it was more about profit than cost! Or maybe the importance of hitting a certain price point in their line.

"Let's see, if we lower our cost (and the quality), and sell it for the same price, we will make more profit on one of the high volume bikes in our line. No brainer!" Trek product planner

Jay


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

that was implied;-)


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

It's been on it's way for a couple of years. Have you seen the cheesy carbon seatstays on the 2009? A buddy of mine has an '08 2.1 with the carbon stays. The older model (the 07 2.1 and the 2100s) had nicer rear seatstays anyway. Still, these are Taiwanese made frames so it's not like they paid a lot for them anyway. Why couldn't they just keep them onboard? Could it be to make the mass move to full carbon if they don't like the ride of aluminum? Smart move Trek. Now you can overcharge people (like you generally do) on a full carbon (non-OCLV) 105 bike for $2000 +. Not to knock the super- reliable 105 group or the well-made TCT frame,but a 105-equipped Trek bike (that's not OCLV carbon) for over $2,000? Doesn't sound like value to me. That's alright because the masses will buy. It has "Trek" on the downtube.


----------



## Oracle7775 (Sep 16, 2009)

Guy at my LBS told me that, while the CF stays on the Trek bikes were out the door, that feature would be more prevalent on this year's Gary Fisher Ion models. Maybe Trek is trying to develop a "niche" for GF blended road bikes...?


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Heck, I'm still wondering why they stopped making the bonded aluminum frames. No visible welds. The whole thing looked like it was machined from one piece of aluminum...very pretty. I sold my '96 Trek 7000 ZX a few years back and I regret not keeping it for a rebuild.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Opus51569 said:


> Heck, I'm still wondering why they stopped making the bonded aluminum frames. No visible welds. The whole thing looked like it was machined from one piece of aluminum...very pretty. I sold my '96 Trek 7000 ZX a few years back and I regret not keeping it for a rebuild.



Yeah, I used to own a 1989 Trek 1400 Aluminum and I have to agree. The bonded aluminum frame on that bike looked way better than the welded aluminum machines of today. It was heavy by today's standards but the bonded aluminum frames looked smart.


----------



## bruni94 (Dec 20, 2006)

*carbon stays*

LBS told me that trek realized that the aluminum with carbon stays were just as smooth as the tct's and cutting into sales ie they wanted people to move up ala gm and segmented marketing theory


----------



## Treker (Nov 7, 2007)

bruni94 said:


> LBS told me that trek realized that the aluminum with carbon stays were just as smooth as the tct's and cutting into sales ie they wanted people to move up ala gm and segmented marketing theory


That has been my experience. I have ridden several of the lower end CF bikes and so far have been underwhelmed. My aluminum/CF seat stay/CF fork 2006 Trek 2100 is smooth, relatively light, fast, and fits me well. I have yet to ride a CF bike that I felt was a big improvement over what I currently ride, so as of this point, I feel no need to upgrade frames. Components on the other hand are another matter...


----------



## TerranATG (Jul 29, 2009)

I was debating on getting the '09 4.5 but ended up getting the '10 2.3. There was little to no difference in ride quality between the two. The big difference is when you go to oclv. 

For those worried about the carbon stays, you will not miss much. Besides the '10 2.3 is cheaper than the '09. Retail price for '10 is slightly cheaper than an '09. I got my '10 for $1500 and change with 105 pedals and R0-86shoes.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

bruni94 said:


> LBS told me that trek realized that the aluminum with carbon stays were just as smooth as the tct's and cutting into sales ie they wanted people to move up ala gm and segmented marketing theory


That's funny that you say that because my LBS told me the same thing.


----------



## asad137 (Jul 29, 2009)

Interesting to note that Cannondale also eliminated their aluminum main triangle/carbon rear triangle model (the Six) for 2010.

Asad


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Something a friend of mine (who works at a bike shop that sells mainly Trek) mentioned to me was that the ride is different on the carbon rears with the wishbone seatstays than the straight carbon seatstays. Don't know if it matters but the earlier models had the wishbone while the '08/09s had the straight ones. Sounds like cost is dictating the decision trek made with this one.


----------



## quickfeet18 (Mar 2, 2007)

they got rid of the carbon stays so they could add more 105 components to the bike. shifters went to 105 and the cranks were a huge upgrade from the cheesy bontrager cranks from last year. I would much rather have the nicer components at that price range.


----------



## knobster368 (Aug 29, 2009)

2009 2.3
-------------
Drivetrain

Shifters Shimano 105 STI, 10 speed 
Front Derailleur Shimano 105 
Rear Derailleur Shimano Ultegra 
Crank Shimano 105 50/34 or 50/39/30 
Cassette Shimano 105 11-25 or 12-27 (triple), 10 speed 
Brakeset Alloy dual pivot w/Shimano 105 STI levers 

2010 2.3
------------
Drivetrain 

Shifters Shimano 105 STI, 10 speed 
Front Derailleur Shimano 105 
Rear Derailleur Shimano 105 
Crank Shimano 105 50/34 or 50/39/30 
Cassette Shimano 105 12-27, 10 speed 
Brakeset Shimano 105 w/Shimano 105 STI levers 

So, for 2010 the only upgrade from the year before was the brakes. I asked a Trek rep. why they made the changes they did for the 2010 model and he told me. The economy was slowing down sales so they made some changes to put some bike into a lower price bracket to try and boost sales.


----------



## quickfeet18 (Mar 2, 2007)

the 2.1 is a higher speced bike, that is the one I was referring to. Because they share a frame the 2.3 is really less of a value.


----------



## Doug B (Sep 11, 2009)

TerranATG said:


> I was debating on getting the '09 4.5 but ended up getting the '10 2.3. There was little to no difference in ride quality between the two. The big difference is when you go to oclv.
> 
> For those worried about the carbon stays, you will not miss much. Besides the '10 2.3 is cheaper than the '09. Retail price for '10 is slightly cheaper than an '09. I got my '10 for $1500 and change with 105 pedals and R0-86shoes.



I just bought (four weeks ago) an '09 2.3 for $1500. Three different stores in the local area all had the same price. MSRP is like $1900 - but who pays MSRP?

The '10 2.3's I saw this past weekend are going for $1500 too. I like the white paint scheme on the 2010 model a little better than the black/red on the '09, and was originally disappointed I didn't get a 2010... but after putting about 450 miles on the '09 2.3, I'm completely happy. I like the wheels on the '09 better than the wheels on the '10 too.

I road a Madone 4.? and the 2.3... couldn't tell the difference in a three mile test ride.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Treker said:


> I was looking at Trek's web site the other day and noticed that they have dropped their aluminum framed road bikes with carbon fiber seat stays from the 2010 model lineup. Does anyone know why they did this?
> 
> I personally ride a 2006 Trek 2100, which is of this type of "blended" design, and have felt it was a very good bang-for-the-buck design. It rides much smoother than a full aluminum frame road bike at a much lower price than a full carbon fiber framed bike. I have recommended the new models of these bikes (2.1, 2.3) to others that were looking for a good road bike but didn't want to jump all the way up to the expense of a full carbon bike. Now I won't be able to do that, at least not in the Trek family anyway.
> 
> ...


I have their 2010 Catalog.

Looks like they morphed the 1.X/2.X Series into all aluminum. 

Besides, they best 2.X costs about as much as an entry-level Madone 4.X. 
I don't see how a 2.X could compete with an entry-level Madone at that price point.
They were only like $500. apart.
Just a theory though. 

In Europe, Trek sells the 1.X that goes up to a 1.7 & 1.9. 
They seem to love 1.X Series all aluminum bikes.

Judging by the specs, it seems that a European 1.7/9 is an American 2.1/3.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

The Fisher Ion is definitely the better Aluminum bike in Trek's line for 2010.


----------

