bikeclone

Thanks to all the readers and their replies. After a few rides, tires aren't much of an issue, even when I thought a 1.95 width would have been better.
Put a few more miles on yesterday and now realize crank forward designs are a strange development in bikes [my opinion] and intuitively, I didn't want it, but decided this bikes' pluses outweighed that single minus, so really just a minor quibble, however....

My Observations:
1. My guess is that to place the crank forward 4-6", the frame would have to be a bit longer [all else equal, this bike is likely 4-6" longer than non-crankforwards?] to ensure toe clearance between pedals and front wheel while turning.
2. Either because of the crank forward location, or the extended frame length, when making a sharp turn [leaning into a fast turn], I have had either my foot or the pedal make contact with the ground. Never had this with any of my standard bikes.
3. Feels like it takes more energy [leg muscle] to pedal a crank forward bike; maybe b/c most of your weight is no longer over the crank.

After thoughts:
I believe the basis for this crank forward design is likely from the idea of marketing to peeps that might not otherwise want to ride a bike; the accommodation of being able to avoid contacting ones ankles while straddling the bike at a stop is likely a big security comfort for many. To be fair, it might also just be a style thing too. Though I've never ridden bikes for more than maybe 10 miles at a time, I have ridden since the days of wheelies on StingRays, to paper routes, to those stiff and heavy Schwinn Varsity's in college and somehow was able to adapt to the crank location and my feet getting along.
Given the other positive aspects of this bike, I'll adapt to it, but I won't buy another crank forward bike [this purchase was a compromise].
All things considered though, this being my first Trek, I would definitely buy another Trek- very nice quality overall.

brdeleo49

Very nice bike indeed. It does look better without the backrest. If you're okay riding the 10 miles without it, then leave it off. I don't know if you could fit 3.00 tires, but then again maybe you could....

bikeclone

Thanks for the reply brdeleo, jimmie65 and ballenxj.
If anything, I'd be more inclined to a 1.95 width for a bit less roll resistance on longer pavement rides. In fact most all of my rides are on pavement, except for occasional dirt or decomposed granite roads created as 'natural bikeways', and those surfaces is still fairly smooth. Tho its beside the point, I think 3.0 widths are waaay to fat for the forks, but I could be wrong.
Funny thing about that backrest:
Initially, I thought it was a bit of a 'senior look' so was gonna lose it for that reason alone. I think the real reason it exists is as fulcrum point to make up for the loss of 'pedal power' due to the crank forward by 4-6" vs. regular bikes. Crank forward has the effect of reducing your leverage on the crank since your weight is further back- however, the rider can offset that loss [a bit] by bearing against the backrest to counter that leverage loss. Still, I don't like that I have to raise my leg an extra 10" every time to get on or off the bike. Like I said, these 'crank forward' frames are a weird development.
I'll keep this bike until I see something on the Used market with all same features, except for 'Crank Forward'.

fietsbob

another way they get described , is semi recumbent for obvious reasons

particularly when adding a back rest..

Ballenxj

^^ This might be an argument for leaving the back rest on. ^^
My biggest reason for removing it would be emergency dismounts. Looking at it again, I'm thinking you might be able to swing a leg over the top tube since it seems pretty low. Anyway, something to be aware of and plan for if you ever find yourself needing to make a hasty exit from the bike.

bikeclone

Ballenxj- nah. Swinging a leg 10-12" higher on every mount/dismount is courting a good one-footed pivot and fall eventually.
I can get the bike going fast enough w/out the backrest. Although between the extra pedal effort and the pedals making contact w/ground on small radius-hi-speed turns, I'll definitely be adapting my riding style a bit.
Anyway, still a nice riding bike. I vote to archive this thread. Anyone else?

tds101 

Why archive this thread? It's here for comment as desired,...

bikeclone

OK by me. None the less, it just seems a bit misleading by its title now, at least since I never actually followed thru on building a custom beach cruiser.
Just didn't want to bore anyone.