# new trek release



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

whens the new trek getting released?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

which new one? the 07 models are all available now.

Project One? Or? The Lime??? :idea:


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

the frame that is in the works, i bet this will be the last year of the madone


----------



## texass4 (Oct 13, 2005)

footballcat said:


> the frame that is in the works, i bet this will be the last year of the madone


Seems like it would be a bad idea to drop the Madone name due to the large amount of brand equity in the product. I would suspect that when (if) this new model debuts, it will replace what is currently called the Madone.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

I still haven't heard anything about htis new frame as yet. Anyone have a link on it or something?


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

i suppose you're all talking about the bike in this thread!? my information is that it is neither clear yet if this prototype will make it to production, nor when it will be available for the public. it is what a prototype usually is: a prototype for test-riding. future and test-riding will tell if the prototype is good enough.

then, after a possible decision for production, the next step would be the decision whether to replace any existing frame series by the new one (my guess would be the pilot as it also features a sloped top tube) or to introduce the new frame as an additional series. i do not think that it would make sense to completely drop the madone. if you look at trek's past, they didn't drop the regular oclv frames (5500/5200) with the introduction of the madone, they moved it further downwards their product range, those frames are now produced in asia, whereas the top of the line madones still come from wisconsin. the worst thing that can happen is that trek moves the madone one step down their product range. but i don't see that happen.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Daddy yo yo said:


> if you look at trek's past, they didn't drop the regular oclv frames (5500/5200) with the introduction of the madone, they moved it further downwards their product range, those frames are now produced in asia, whereas the top of the line madones still come from wisconsin.


Only the 5000 is made overseas. No OCLV product has ever been made in Asia.


----------



## Daddy yo yo (Apr 2, 2005)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> Only the 5000 is made overseas. No OCLV product has ever been made in Asia.


you're absolutely right. i kinda screwed up what i wanted to say. oclv is the material the frames are made of. all oclv frames were/are made in the US. tct is another material, those frames are made in asia.

i just wanted to say that the old shaped frames were downgraded to tct material instead of oclv, the production was shifted from the us to asia. current oclv frames (like the madone) are made in the US.

sorry for that confusion!


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Clarification.*



> _oclv is the material the frames are made of. _


Not quite—the material these frames are made from is carbon fiber reinforced plastic, regardless of what the bike sellers call it.

The term "OCLV" is not a material designation. It is a marketing phrase designed to make the consumer think that the material being used is different (and better) from what others are using. The "LV" stands for "low void," which is correct. But the void contents are nearly the same with most of the processes being used in making bike frames.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

wim said:


> Not quite—the material these frames are made from is carbon fiber reinforced plastic, regardless of what the bike sellers call it.


Actually, the material is a fiber-reinforced matrix. It doesn't fit the common definition of "plastic".



wim said:


> The term "OCLV" is not a material designation. It is a marketing phrase designed to make the consumer think that the material being used is different (and better) from what others are using.


The term "OCLV" is the name of a *process*. The claims made by Trek with regard to OCLV technology are absolutely accurate, and in no way mislead the consumer.



wim said:


> The "LV" stands for "low void," which is correct. But the void contents are nearly the same with most of the processes being used in making bike frames.


I'll believe that when I see some hard data.....


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Another clarification.*

Every reputable manufacturer of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) frames strives for optimum matrix compaction resulting in a low number of voids. Trek simply created and trademarked the marketing term OCLV for that common process.

It's as if Continental came up with the marketing term "CRRT" (Carbon Reinforced Tread Technology) for their more expensive tires. Since the early 1920s, every black tire made is reinforced with amorphous carbon, also known as carbon black.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

wim said:


> Every reputable manufacturer of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) frames strives for optimum matrix compaction resulting in a low number of voids. Trek simply created and trademarked the marketing term OCLV for that common process.


I'm not arguing that Trek created and Trademarked the OCLV marketing term for that common process. I'm arguing that the OCLV process is legitimate, and not just a marketing term. You seem to be suggesting otherwise.

I'm still waiting for data/sources that back up your claim that void contents are nearly the same with most of the processes being used in making bike frames...


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> I'm not arguing that Trek created and Trademarked the OCLV marketing term for that common process.


Well, that's actually a matter of semantics. Trek trademarked the name OCLV, but the actual OCLV process was created out of house by an engineer that was not a Trek employee, and the rights to the process sold to Trek. So it might be more appropriate to say that OCLV was created _for_ Trek, rather than _by_ Trek.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> I'm still waiting for data/sources that back up your claim that void contents are nearly the same with most of the processes being used in making bike frames...


Occam's Razor would suggest that the burden of proof that the void contents OCLV are lower should lie with Trek, not the other way around.

Contrary to what the bicycle industry would like us to believe, the bicycle industry does not expend much investment in basic research and development. Other industries, such as aerospace, automotive, bio-medical, etc., are far larger generators of new materials, processes, etc than the bicycle industry. Very little of the technology in the bicycle industry was created within the industry, most of it was borrowed from other industries. Carbon fiber processing is certainly one of those technologies.

Instead, bicycle innovation is driven mostly by marketing rather than technology. It is far faster, easier and less expensive to slap an impressive sounding name on something than to actually produce an impressive technology.

Further evidence of the influence of marketting can be found in the basic assumption of your challenge. In other industries, if one company develops an improved technology, it is up to the creater of that technology to demonstrate that it was an improvement. But for some perverse reason, in the bicycle industry once a company has made a claim for technological improvement, it is automatically accepted without proof, and up to others to try to disprove it.

So, Trek has been saying for years that the OCLV process produces lower void content. Where is there proof?


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Mark McM said:


> Well, that's actually a matter of semantics. Trek trademarked the name OCLV, but the actual OCLV process was created out of house by an engineer that was not a Trek employee, and the rights to the process sold to Trek. So it might be more appropriate to say that OCLV was created _for_ Trek, rather than _by_ Trek.


So what? My original point.....that the OCLV process is legitimate, and not just a marketing term.....still stands.




Mark McM said:


> So, Trek has been saying for years that the OCLV process produces lower void content. Where is there proof?


With the exception of Trek, I've never seen any companies that publicly communicate the void content of their carbon fiber. According to Manufacturing Engineer Scott Nielson, the OCLV process makes frames with void content of less than half a percent.

To put that in perspective, Lockheed-Martin produces spars and ribs used in composite airframes that have a void content of approximately one percent.

Given that most manufacturers of carbon-fiber composite bicycle frames farm production out to Asia, and given that Trek sources their carbon prepreg and their molds from aerospace suppliers, I seriously doubt that much of Trek's competition is achieving such a low void content.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## tellico climber (Aug 14, 2006)

Crap, I guess I just wasted my money on my Madone ssl 6.5 a few months ago, should have just bought the cheapest carbon frame out there, it would have ridden identical. I guess my perception of rocket acceleration and beating the best times of all my rides the first few times I rode it is just in my head. Everybody forget about Trek, Colnago, Time,Orbea, etc and just order you a Scattante from performance, it will ride the same because there is no diffence and no innovation in the bicycle industry.


ps. Whisky November, you can never convince the anti Trek crowd, believe me I have tried.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

*I know why! 8^)*



tellico climber said:


> Crap, I guess I just wasted my money on my Madone ssl 6.5 a few months ago, should have just bought the cheapest carbon frame out there, it would have ridden identical. I guess my perception of rocket acceleration and beating the best times of all my rides the first few times I rode it is just in my head. Everybody forget about Trek, Colnago, Time,Orbea, etc and just order you a Scattante from performance, it will ride the same because there is no diffence and no innovation in the bicycle industry.
> 
> 
> ps. Whisky November, you can never convince the anti Trek crowd, believe me I have tried.


Yes, it is a major conspiracy! We are all being watched! All expensive carbon frames have data collection and tracking devices inside their high voids! This is the reason for global warming too! Prove me wrong! 8^)

On a more serious note: price/performance-wise it is always better to buy in a sweet-spot i.e. avoid top of the range and bottom of the range carbon frames of any maker (unless you are made of money and dont care about price). Stay in the middle or upper-middle for best bang for buck. IMHO. The frame weight is nothing if it does not fit well. Look at Tom Boonen new Specialized alloy bike frame which is 300-400 grames heavier than his ill fitting Tarmac carbon and yet he is winning races on it. The bike is aluminium (relatively) low-tech device which is also heavy but because of much better fit Booned is performing better. Which is to say that much of bicycling industry "OCLV"-like talk (all makers are guilty, not just Trek) the reality on the road is different.


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

treks frame have alot less void then other carbon bikes, look at cut outs of the frame

i have seen a ten year old trek, and a new giant less then 2 years old, the giant you can see the filler in


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

footballcat said:


> treks frame have alot less void then other carbon bikes, look at cut outs of the frame
> 
> i have seen a ten year old trek, and a new giant less then 2 years old, the giant you can see the filler in


Good point, footballcat. I've seen frame cutaways from 6 or 7 popular manufacturers, and all had some degree of visible voids or delaminating carbon inside. 

I've also seen a photo of an Asian-sourced carbon fork that had a colorful newspaper molded into the carbon, plainly visible.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

I still like my Madone nonetheless.


----------



## azuredrptp (Feb 8, 2006)

uzziefly said:


> I still like my Madone nonetheless.


I still LOVE my Madone. :thumbsup:


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

azuredrptp said:


> I still LOVE my Madone. :thumbsup:


Ok I meant, I still LOVEEEE my Madone, both looking at it and riding it.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

tellico climber said:


> Crap, I guess I just wasted my money on my Madone ssl 6.5 a few months ago, should have just bought the cheapest carbon frame out there, it would have ridden identical. I guess my perception of rocket acceleration and beating the best times of all my rides the first few times I rode it is just in my head. Everybody forget about Trek, Colnago, Time,Orbea, etc and just order you a Scattante from performance, it will ride the same because there is no diffence and no innovation in the bicycle industry.
> 
> 
> ps. Whisky November, you can never convince the anti Trek crowd, believe me I have tried.


Well, we can have a good discussion without throwing out a strawman.

There is no "anti-Trek" crowd (not in this discussion anyway). No one said that Trek bikes are bad, or worse than others. We just haven't seen anything to indicate that Trek bikes are somehow leagues ahead of others.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Mark McM said:


> We just haven't seen anything to indicate that Trek bikes are somehow leagues ahead of others.


Nor have we seen any data that indicates otherwise.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> Nor have we seen any data that indicates otherwise.


You've proven that we have no data, so your earlier belief that Trek does something special is based entirely on their marketing...you've proved Mark's point.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> You've proven that we have no data, so your earlier belief that Trek does something special is based entirely on their marketing


My earlier belief that Trek does something special is *NOT* based, even _partially_ on their marketing. It's based on logical conclusions.

It is a *FACT* that Trek sources their OCLV carbon from aerospace suppliers. It is a *FACT* that Trek sources their molds from aerospace suppliers. It is a *FACT* that the resulting void content is lower than fuselage structures currently manufactured by Lockheed-Martin.

As I previously mentioned, I do not know where Giant, Specialized, et al source their materials and equipment, nor do I know their void content. I do, however, have first-hand experience examining about a half-dozen frame cutaways that plainly show numerous large voids and putty fillings.

Based on these facts and observations, one can logically conclude that Trek's OCLV very likely provides a legitimate advantage, in the form of lower void content, over much of the competition.


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

i love my trek


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> My earlier belief that Trek does something special is *NOT* based, even _partially_ on their marketing. It's based on logical conclusions.
> 
> It is a *FACT* that Trek sources their OCLV carbon from aerospace suppliers. It is a *FACT* that Trek sources their molds from aerospace suppliers. It is a *FACT* that the resulting void content is lower than fuselage structures currently manufactured by Lockheed-Martin.
> 
> ...


I see FACTS but they don't directly support your conclusions...it's been fun.


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

silas have you ever seen the difference in a frame cutaway? If you havent next time im at the shop ill take a picture of the difference


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

I'd be happy to check it out, thanks.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> I see FACTS but they don't directly support your conclusions...it's been fun.


Well, I had a look at three more cutaways today, and sure enough....Trek's competitors are downright shoddy compared with OCLV. Peeling carbon, voids all over, putty filling in gaps, etc, etc, etc. The OCLV is clean, well-finished, and void-free. 

This observation supports my conclusion that Trek's process provides fewer voids. Fewer voids = increased strength and reliability. Conclusions supported.

It's been fun, indeed.....


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Whatcha ride anyway Silas? :idea:


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

uzziefly said:


> Whatcha ride anyway Silas? :idea:


A Merckx...which I bet is not much different than a lot of other bikes out there, but I like the geometry. My next bike will be a different beast entirely...thinking gunnar roadie.

Rode treks for many years and found them to be nice bikes. My dad's old 5200 OCLV was solid until all of the laminate started peeling off and Trek wouldn't pay for the repairs...the exposed CF bits look pretty shoddy now.


----------



## eddiec (Jul 15, 2006)

*08 madone*

it's being made now and is sweet , same name madone


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

I just washed my Madone an polished it. Somehow I love i but still wanna get another bike. :mad2:

Merckx eh silas? I'm sure it's no different. Actually, I'd say a Cervelo is the same as a Specialized, which is the same as a Trek and so on and so on. dfference? Weight. Geometry. Ok maybe a little other stuff but that said, any bike is just a good bike when you compare the higher ends.

eddiec, what's your source?


----------



## eddiec (Jul 15, 2006)

*new trek*

source a worker at waterloo


----------

