PDA

View Full Version : Re: Trek Madone 2008


Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
12-31-1969, 08:00 PM
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> ...
> One...lessseee..Scott made a BB shell w/o threads already, Pinarello
> has an oversized BB shell, Cannondale has a 1.5 inch headset bearing,
> MANY have non-seatposts. What this really does is attempt to take
> seatpost, crank and fork/headset makers out of the market. Trek is
> big, but I think the 'other frames', made well and selling well, may
> not automatically hop on board with these 'items'. PLUS, I would love
> to see any real advantages to these three items when compared to 68(or
> 70mm) BB shells, everyday seatposts and 1 1/8 inch headsets(even THAT
> size requirement is questionable).

The current bottom-bracket standard is inadequate for larger riders, as
either spindle diameter or bearing size has to be compromised.

The larger diameter headsets allow more room for suspension components
in the head tube, which has its benefits for road use suspension.

> Sorry Mike, you are not invited to comment....

This is a non-moderated forum, you know.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

stankurz@gmail.com
01-03-1970, 06:49 AM
On Jul 8, 8:04 am, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>
> > ...
> > One...lessseee..Scott made a BB shell w/o threads already, Pinarello
> > has an oversized BB shell, Cannondale has a 1.5 inch headset bearing,
> > MANY have non-seatposts. What this really does is attempt to take
> > seatpost, crank and fork/headset makers out of the market. Trek is
> > big, but I think the 'other frames', made well and selling well, may
> > not automatically hop on board with these 'items'. PLUS, I would love
> > to see any real advantages to these three items when compared to 68(or
> > 70mm) BB shells, everyday seatposts and 1 1/8 inch headsets(even THAT
> > size requirement is questionable).
>
> The current bottom-bracket standard is inadequate for larger riders, as
> either spindle diameter or bearing size has to be compromised.
Please expand on this observation: by larger do you mean heavier?
what compromise?