New Trek Urban bikes

trek bike

I am not really a huge fan of Trek bicycles or anything, but once a year when the new models come out, the pictures of their ‘Urban’ line are fun to look at. Update: If you did not enjoy those, then you will also not enjoy the new Specialized Globe bikes (they finally got rid of the stupid city-specific Langsters and made some bikes that will make fixie aficionados drool).

7 thoughts on “New Trek Urban bikes

  1. Well, I recently spent 6 months living in Miami without a car. And I can tell you that after you’ve biked home with an overflowing shopping basket worth of groceries + a 12-pack, the appeal of this bike will crystallize for you (laughable “eco-friendly” marketing notwithstanding).

    They do not, however, have my dream 2nd bike, which would be a Cro-Moly fixed gear with a front break and mounting points for a rear rack.

  2. Every bike (or daily bike) should have a rear rack. Mine has a rear rack and saddlebags.

    The (faux?) leather seat, the front rack, and the upright bars are what kind of throw this thing over the top.

  3. (Kind of like how bikes beyond a certain price don’t come with pedals, they really shouldn’t come with saddles either, because anyone who spends more then an hour at a time on a bike is going to buy their own saddle. Then again, I think this bike might be meant for short trips, so the Brooks is not necessary? The Trek website is down right now so I can’t check exactly what it is, but it looks like a decent compromise of ‘probably discarded’ low quality and decent-lookingness?)

    Since the overwhelming majority of your weight is on the rear wheel, doesn’t it make sense to add cargo to where the weight will be on the front wheel? Also, if you overload the bike in dramatically slipshod fashion (which in the aforementioned 6 months I often did with great relish), having tons of poorly balanced crap in the front lets you keep an eye on it. Plus, duh, it’s two racks instead of one, so you can haul more stuff when you don’t have the saddlebags.

    Aesthetically, I agree that a used european bike from several decades ago that looks exactly like this would be much much cooler (this is your real point, isn’t it!!), but (1) you’re just not going to find it, accept that and (2) this bike is made with modern techniques and components, so what it lacks in intangible appeal it makes up in light weight, reliability, and (possibly, ymmv) tactile appeal.

  4. “you’re just not going to find it”

    Have you taken a look at Craiglist? Several old Peugeots and even the odd Colnago.

    This Trek, me no likey. Looks heavy.

  5. Aren’t modern Cro-Moly bikes much lighter then older ones, on account of improved manufacturing techniques?

    That’s why I’d prefer a newer bike to a cragislist job (there’s lots of Schwinns on there that’d fit the bill).

    I’m sure this one is still heavy, but then again it’s not built for great speed or distance. It’s be a real classy all-weather no-car bike if you didn’t have more then 5 miles to go.

  6. Yes. My Marin looks heavy but it’s feather weight. But look at the gauge of that frame. An old road bike frame is much thinner and looks a ton cooler:….. I’ve been tempted a couple times.

    The one on your post just reminds me of the old Russian and Chinese bikes. The 3rd District on the other hand…

Comments are closed.