[Frame question] Orbea Orca or Madone 5.9 ?

NetWiz wrote:
Dear all,

I've spent most of the day hunting the net on informations on those
bikes. While positive feedback is plenty for the trek madone 5.9
(everyone loves it), Orbea Orca's is another story. Some articles put
it above the trek, some put it under. Whatever, I need to make a choice
;-)

Practically, I'm a heavy rider (85 kgs), enjoying comfort on distances
in the 50-100kms range. I'm looking at longer distances too. I'm
planning to move my Ksyrium elites and Shimano group to the new frame.

So far, I'd be tempted to look at it and think they're the same
quality. Therefore the best design wins (and here Orbea wins all the
time over Trek).

Are there other feedbacks ? Any reason why I should prefer one vs the
other ?


yep, easy, which one fits you the best?

Also look at some other carbon frames out there. All have goods and
others.

Calfee, Merckx, Look, to same just a few.

Also ride the two examples as well as others. We try to not say how
anything rides, but have some demo bikes so that the rider can decide.
Ride it for an hour or so, NOT a ride around the block. Some have said
the Treks are somewhat unlively, some like them but YOU decide.

Thanks !

NetWiz.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:


Trek also has an advantage over most others in that they build the frames
themselves, rather than contract it out to someone else (very rare in the
bicycle industry; most carbon frames are built by one of three facilities in
China & Taiwan). Presently, the advantage Chinese manufacturing has is
cost, while the advantage Trek has is technology. The chief technology
engineer at Trek tells me that, as long as they can keep a 3-4 year lead on
technology,

I guess that's true of frames such as Giant and Specialized but most
'high end' carbon frames that are 'competative' with the Mad-One, are
not from Taiwan or China, rather from small makers that also hand build
their frames, in the US, many using the same tubeset maker as Trek.

they can remain competitive despite cost advantages overseas.
The tough part is maintaining that lead, since the Chinese can
reverse-engineer just about anything. The day Trek can't will mark the end
of their domestic carbon production, which is something they hope not to
see.

Do keep in mind that anything I say is to be regarded as highly-suspect,
since we're the largest Trek carbon-fiber road bike dealer in the US. :)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"NetWiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear all,

I've spent most of the day hunting the net on informations on those
bikes. While positive feedback is plenty for the trek madone 5.9
(everyone loves it), Orbea Orca's is another story. Some articles put
it above the trek, some put it under. Whatever, I need to make a choice
;-)

Practically, I'm a heavy rider (85 kgs), enjoying comfort on distances
in the 50-100kms range. I'm looking at longer distances too. I'm
planning to move my Ksyrium elites and Shimano group to the new frame.

So far, I'd be tempted to look at it and think they're the same
quality. Therefore the best design wins (and here Orbea wins all the
time over Trek).

Are there other feedbacks ? Any reason why I should prefer one vs the
other ?

Thanks !

NetWiz.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:43:07 -0700, jim beam
wrote:



it's not a matter of faith - it's a matter of intrumentation. if the
rate of transmission is reduced, as is unarguably the case with
composites, so is the acceleration and therefore the force tranmitted to
whatever you touch your bike with. having taken the trouble to buy, fit
& ride no less than 5 carbon forks into the same steel frame so i could
make reasonable comparison with the original steel fork, even without
instrumentation, i can tell you that all 5 carbon forks transmit
noticably less road buzz than the steel.


But forks are not trusses and behave completely differently than
frames in terms of vertical flex so you troublesome high-cost
experiement says nothing about frames.

don't be a victim of misinformation john: axial transmission is axial
transmission.


JT

PS -- on your fork test, I assume you ran it blind somehow. No?
Hmmm.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article .com,
says...

Dear all,
I've spent most of the day hunting the net on informations on those
bikes. While positive feedback is plenty for the trek madone 5.9
(everyone loves it), Orbea Orca's is another story. Some articles put
it above the trek, some put it under. Whatever, I need to make a choice
;-)
Practically, I'm a heavy rider (85 kgs), enjoying comfort on distances
in the 50-100kms range. I'm looking at longer distances too. I'm
planning to move my Ksyrium elites and Shimano group to the new frame.
So far, I'd be tempted to look at it and think they're the same
quality. Therefore the best design wins (and here Orbea wins all the
time over Trek).
Are there other feedbacks ? Any reason why I should prefer one vs the
other ?

At that price range I would want to make sure the company I am buying from will
still be around if I have warranty issues. Assuming the fit is right I would
lean heavily towards the Trek.
------------
Alex

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:51:37 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:



JT

PS -- on your fork test, I assume you ran it blind somehow. No?
Hmmm.


Let me guess, you don't trust your senses, and only believe that
blind, preferably double blind, testing is relevant.

I personally trust my senses.


Life is Good!
Jeff

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:35:42 GMT, Jeff Starr
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:51:37 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:



JT

PS -- on your fork test, I assume you ran it blind somehow. No?
Hmmm.


Let me guess, you don't trust your senses, and only believe that
blind, preferably double blind, testing is relevant.

I personally trust my senses.

I trust my senses when I have no pre-conceptions. And I trust them
when they contradict my biases. But when they merely confirm them I
need other information befor deciding something.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article ,
says...

Let me guess, you don't trust your senses, and only believe that
blind, preferably double blind, testing is relevant.

I personally trust my senses.

I'm sure your senses are real good. Especially your sense of sight. Your
sense of sight will heavily influence what your other senses tell you.
-------------
Alex

Let me guess, you don't trust your senses, and only believe that
blind, preferably double blind, testing is relevant.

I personally trust my senses.

I'm sure your senses are real good. Especially your sense of sight. Your
sense of sight will heavily influence what your other senses tell you.
-------------
Alex

Alex: I'll bet you're incorrect in assuming that "sight" is the
most-important sense in terms of comparing bike frames. I vote for sound.
People fail to appreciate the degree to which acoustics comes into play when
saying they prefer one frame over another. Frame material changes how things
sound when you're shifting, when you hit bumps, probably even noises coming
from the wheels.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...

Let me guess, you don't trust your senses, and only believe that
blind, preferably double blind, testing is relevant.

I personally trust my senses.

I'm sure your senses are real good. Especially your sense of sight. Your
sense of sight will heavily influence what your other senses tell you.
-------------
Alex

In article ,
says...


Let me guess, you don't trust your senses, and only believe that
blind, preferably double blind, testing is relevant.

I personally trust my senses.

I'm sure your senses are real good. Especially your sense of sight. Your
sense of sight will heavily influence what your other senses tell you.
-------------
Alex

Alex: I'll bet you're incorrect in assuming that "sight" is the
most-important sense in terms of comparing bike frames.

That's not what I said. Sight is not the most important, but it has the
most influence on you.

I vote for sound.

I don't think I ever paid attenttion to the way a bike sounded.

People fail to appreciate the degree to which acoustics comes into play when
saying they prefer one frame over another.

Add me to that list.

Frame material changes how things
sound when you're shifting, when you hit bumps, probably even noises coming
from the wheels.

The two ridable bikes I have do sound different. But only when I hit uneven
pavement. Otherwise, they are both pretty quiet.
--------------
Alex

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:35:42 GMT, Jeff Starr wrote:

Let me guess, you don't trust your senses, and only believe that
blind, preferably double blind, testing is relevant.

I personally trust my senses.

So do the people who say they can hear the difference between $10 worth of
lamp wire and $1000+ worth of speaker cable. Who, surprise surprise,
cannot manage anything more than random luck even in single blind AB or
ABX testing, let alone doubleblind.

Jasper