Maelochs

Lots of Win here ... glad I found this thread.
Who needs Larrysellerz when we have lance and Locktite?

indyfabz

Look how askew that rack is. The second photo shows a moderately rough part of the surface. There were worse parts with bad washboards. And we had to watch out for wild life.

Jughed

How long was cycling clean before Lance and Trek? How long after? And are you really 100% sure it's clean now?

I was watching the old TT up Huez this weekend... the announcers (Paul) was talking about how Indurain taught Lance how to use a high cadence to generate power vs grinding.

According to Lemond - one can't naturally generate that level of power at high cadence. It's one of the methods Lemond uses to identify cheaters.

Lance was introduced to Ferrari by none other than Eddie Merckx.

So, a lil logic will tell you that Lance's was mentored and helped along by the prior 5x champs - who were guiding him into the world of doping.

IMHO - and I'm not really a "Lance fanboy" - rather just being realistic - that the Lance phenom was not of his own doing, but took on a life of its own. It took a village to build that empire.

Trakhak

Just clarifying: I think Lemond wasn't saying that it was the high cadence that was suspect per se. Hour records are typically set at high cadences. It was Armstrong's turning over that gear for so long with a cadence that made it appear almost effortless.

BTinNYC 

Recently read a how-to on bleeding hydraulic brakes and the writer warned care with the shifter cap bolt, it's "made out of chocolate".

Eric F 

Despite his tremendous flaws, Armstrong brought a lot of visibility and money into the sport, and the sport is still benefiting from that shift. You want Trek removed from pro cycling? Nonsense. What happened with Lemond, etc. is now a bygone era. You're welcome to ***** and moan about history, but you can't change it. These days, Trek puts a lot into the sport, from top WT teams, all the way down to the grassroots level, in lots of different arenas.

Atlas Shrugged

According to Saint Lemond's logic then almost all of the top-tier professional cyclists today are cheaters. He believed that whoever beat him was a cheater and anyone who gained popularity after his retirement was also a cheater. Most of his business partners were also cheaters and frauds, which led to lawsuits in almost all of his post-retirement endeavours. Furthermore, his father, whom he had fired from Lemond Cycles before the merger, was also a cheater. Lemond Cycles was effectively bankrupt before the merger with Trek due to poor sales numbers and substantial losses, which he attributed to cheaters. Trek, who bought the brand and turned the operation around, were cheaters. It seems like there is a pattern here.

Maelochs

The question is not whether Lemond or anyone else doped----most likely Everyone doped Always, by whatever method was popular at the time, because nobody even bothered to check for a long time ....

Lemond was not upset that others were faster, he was upset that he was getting dissed and financially ruined by a person who was not only the figurehead for maximized doping programs, but also a total dick about that and everything else he did.

What happened in "the doping era" was that a carefully calculated, high-tech doping program became the defining factor in cycling success---winning was no longer about riding, but about having the best pharmaceuticals and knowing how to use them better. Lance was the poster boy for US cycling, and also (unbeknownst to some) the poster boy for massive illegal performance enhancement .... and was a loudmouth dickhead about everything he did, ruining the careers of everybody who told the truth or even just disagreed with him.

Trek and everybody else inside pro cycling at the time knew that only cheaters won, and that only the best cheaters won regularly. So blaming Trek for all that is empty.

There is a personal aspect---Lemond surely hated lance because Lance stole his thunder, stole his fame, not by cycling ability but by doping --- and was a dick about it. Everybody forgot Lemond, but Lemond was likely a better rider---if only because he didn't have the huge dope advantage Lance had. Lemond was more on a level playing field, while Armstrong's winning teams won because they had by far the best drugs and the best delivery systems---better riding through science. But once Lance hit the scene Lemond was forgotten, and this probably in part motivated Lemond to make accusations---Valid accusations.

Picking sides is unnecessary ..... There is nothing in any way redeeming about Lance Armstrong or any of his actions. He is simply a bad person. That doesn't make me a Lemond supporter.

here's the deal with history---facts are facts. Distorting, ignoring, deliberately misinterpreting facts in order to support a particular position is the sort of nonsense that is screwing up the world today.

Liking or not liking Trek because of corporate decisions made by the company two decades ago ... whatever.

But hey ... I have also seen people in this thread claiming that everyone who rides Spec has a superior attitude ... so there is nonsense flowing strongly in every direction.

As for myself ... I buy bikes to ride and I ride bikes. I am not particularly interested in which corporation owns which holding company owns which other holding company, etc. if a bike has the features I want at a price point I find acceptable, .... but that is not how threads last a dozen pages or more .....

wheelreason

"Apollo, stand by to stir the bottle, in three, two, one, stir..."

Pouhana

By far the best LBS in our region is a very large Trek store 1/2 the local stores went out of business from Covid days to post covid. He had hundreds of bikes in stock.

Trek opened at different times 2 other small Trek dealers here. Both did not last. (i wonder what kind of territorial clauses are written in old dealer agreements)

We have a new Scheels sporting goods super store which I see stocks Trek and may sell a few.

I am impressed with Trek requiring a bike be set up by a dealer before customer takes it home. We had good luck with Trek. (toured Waterloo plant with kids during Tour de France.. Did not see inside rag and glue assembly area. )

Camilo

I have no inkling

Camilo

I choose our bikes according to a simple criterion: not TrekSpecializedGiant. Home to Felt, Jamis, Litespeed, Lynskey, Kona, Sannino,....Oops and a 30 year old Giant.

indyfabz

Ying ling.

t2p

this mirrors what happened to our LBS - second generation shop in business since the 1950’s

first Specialized - then more recently Trek

seypat

For me it has to do with branding. I don't want proprietary parts on my bike. I also don't want parts made by another manufacturer but with in this case a Trek/Bontrager name on it. If the headset on that bike is made by Tange for example, then it needs to have the Tange logo on it or nothing at all. Not a Trek, or a Bontrager logo. I don't want something like a Giro helmet or pair of shoes that's labeled as a Trek/Bontrager. Same for other accessories. If a blinky light is "manufactured for Trek/Bontrager" by Cygolite, even if they come out of the same plant/on the same assembly line, I want Cygolite on that light. It's a bike light. Cygolite makes bike lights, not bicycles. The last thing I want is to be dependent on that/those stores/brands and their lack of choices for my purchasing needs. Don't get me started on Nike.

terrymorse 

Proprietary parts are fine with me, as long as replacements are made for many years and are easy to find. When you get beyond the most basic (bearings, cables, tires, etc.), many bike parts are proprietary. Especially the drive train, which, no surprise, is a wear item.

Derailleur hangers are super proprietary, but there's a company that specializes in making compatible hangers. Problem solved.

If some vendor slaps their logo on a part made by another vendor, what's the problem? Now you have two sources to buy from when you need to replace a part.

tomato coupe

I guess that rules out a 7-Eleven team bike built by Serotta, but labelled as a Huffy?

Eric F 

There was also the Litespeed painted as a Caloi that Armstrong rode to his WC win. Tons of other examples, too.

bampilot06

Thats all optics. I am sure trek regrets that today, but at the time the Armstrong Train was strong. I would hate to use political, but the Lemond buisness was small compared to the revenue Armstrong brought in.

At this point water under the bridge.

seypat

I wouldn't be actively looking for one. As Eric F said tons of examples out there. Those Zunow built IMs that Dave Scott stashed around the country and rode come to mind. Lots of brands with World Champion stripes were rebadged other brands. But, back to those Huffies. Are you sure they were made by Serotta?

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features...-giro-ditalia/

blue192

The issue with me is not that I dislike Trek, I just want a decent bike with reasonably higher quality components. I also dislike using a bike with carbon fiber because I tend to ride my bike hard and do not want to keep up with maintaining something like that. Trek's bikes with the level of quality I want come with at least a carbon fork if not the entire frame hence why I went with a different brand.

Jughed

I guess no Pagani's then? 3.5 mil Zonda is a no go because it has a rebranded Mercedes engine...!!

Eric F 

As you documented, Hampsten's was built by Land Shark. It's fairly well known that Serotta built most of the 7-Eleven bikes, branded as Murray and Huffy.... https://roadbikeaction.com/the-real-...ven-team-bikes

Eric F 

What maintenance do you think you have to do with a CF bike that you don't have to do with one built from other materials?

seypat

I had to look those up. Those engines clearly have Mercedes/AMG stamped on them.(They also have some Pagani markings) Like my headset example, there better be a marking of the manufacturer on there somewhere.