Utility Cycling - Trek's 2011 Utility Bike

Full Disclosure: I work sales at a Trek Retailer

I happened across Trek making a huge announcement today that they are removing the Gary Fisher brand and replacing the lineup with a "Gary Fisher Collection by Trek" series. If you care about any of that, check out trek's site.

The bigger news that I am personally very excited to see is the Trek GFC Transport. It's an Aluminum cargo bike with basic components (Acera RD, Disc-Ready Rear with a basic Tektro rear v-brake, BB5 Disc Front). Comes with a big cargo back ad built in folding side racks and a big front rack. Super neat but I expect to be expensive is the Ride+ electric assist version. No word yet on pricing for either.

Check it out: http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/gary_fisher_collection/urban_utility/transport/

Hopefully these take off and put more cargo bikes on the streets!

I am about to gag! This is the mother of triplets (Big Dummy, Yuba and Ute) and pretty damn smooth. Shoot, I want to know how much that thing cost because I am about ready to buy a Madsen.

They're also doing the Gary Fisher Signature Collection Transport. And even more exciting, the Transport+, with trek proprietary BionX pedelec electric assist.

Huge.

They seem to have dropped the Fisher Simple City 3 and 8, I'm hoping it's to clear out stock for a better IGH/utility line of bikes more in the Specialized Globe model of utility bike. Sad to see them go, but never huge sellers.

Excitement in the mtn bike end of things--finally a budget mtn ss bike, and my fav bike of 2011 so far, the retro, rigid Sawyer... With 2x9 drivetrain and separable stay of some kind to facillitate belt drive conversion.

Interesting times...

Not bad! I like the look of the bag, and the folding horizontal racks. I wonder what the bike's load capacity is.

That is pretty sick. Trek really seems to be dedicated to adding some well thought-out practical bikes to their lineup.

My girlfriend just got the mixte version of the Belleville (which shares a front rack with this model). Comes with the front porteur rack and a wonderfully styled matching rear rack, internal gear hub (thanks to a lucky craigslist find, she's about to upgrade from a 3 spd to an 8 spd Alfine), front dynamo hub, fenders, lights and internal wiring for the electronics. If that wasn't enough, it also has a derailleur hanger if you want to change up the drivetrain and the porteur rack's lower attachments double as low-rider brazeons. I honestly cannot think of a more versatile, well-thought out mass-market bike. The Cross-Check comes close for sure.

And did I mention it is totally beautiful?
http://www.besportier.com/archives/urban-bikes-for-sale-trek-belleville-wsd.jpg


(ps, I am not a trek sales rep, i just think this bike is the bee's knees!)


eta: just noticed that the bike Mr Fisher is standing next to proudly on the Gary Fisher Collection main page is the men's version of the Belleville. Perhaps he approves?

They're also doing the Gary Fisher Signature Collection Transport. And even more exciting, the Transport+, with trek proprietary BionX pedelec electric assist.

The bikes I mentioned were the Gary Fisher Collection Transport and Transport+.


They seem to have dropped the Fisher Simple City 3 and 8, I'm hoping it's to clear out stock for a better IGH/utility line of bike.
The new Waubesa is an 8-speed internal. Certainly not the styling of the Simple City, but just as practical.
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/fisher_fast_city/waubesa/

The bikes I mentioned were the Gary Fisher Collection Transport and Transport+.


The new Waubesa is an 8-speed internal. Certainly not the styling of the Simple City, but just as practical.
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/fisher_fast_city/waubesa/

D'oh! Yes, reread your OP a bit more carefully, sorry about the repeat info.

Here's the Transport+

http://www.trekbikes.com/images/bikes/2010/large/transportplus_bronze.jpg

This may very well be my next new car.

Missed the waubesa--good to see them keeping an IGH, chain drive bike in the lineup. Price is good.

The rest of the Fast City line seems to duplicate what Trek has going on with their PDX and Valencia bikes. I'd say it is next on the block if they are looking to get rid of duplicate models. Would be great to see either one line or the other go with IGH option, from a 3sp all the way up to a full-zoot Alfine 11sp bike.

BTW, I want very much to turn one of these into my next commuter. Looks like it would be perfect with different crank/chainrings, add on commute/utility accoutrements:

Sawyer:

http://www.trekbikes.com/images/bikes/2010/large/sawyer_gray.jpg

D'oh! Yes, reread your OP a bit more carefully, sorry about the repeat info.

Here's the Transport+

http://www.trekbikes.com/images/bikes/2010/large/transportplus_bronze.jpg

This may very well be my next new car.


I build cargo bikes, trailers and recumbents and I will go on record as saying that the weight distribution on that Trek Cargo bike is going to be a problem. Specifically, the fully loaded rack or pannier will put the centre of the load behind the rear axle. It will be less stable than any of the current crop of production long-tails and even the Xtracycle conversion itself. Ideally, the cargo is best placed ahead of the rear axle to actually distribute the weight evenly between the front and rear wheel.

:)ensen.

I build cargo bikes, trailers and recumbents and I will go on record as saying that the weight distribution on that Trek Cargo bike is going to be a problem. Specifically, the fully loaded rack or pannier will put the centre of the load behind the rear axle. It will be less stable than any of the current crop of production long-tails and even the Xtracycle conversion itself. Ideally, the cargo is best placed ahead of the rear axle to actually distribute the weight evenly between the front and rear wheel.

:)ensen.


Agreed. The same thing was noted on the rootsradicals Xtracycle group.

The bike seems to be almost a clone of the Kona Ute with similar wheelbase, frame layout and material choice. The Trek does appear to have the cargo pannier mounted slightly further to the rear, a poor choice as you correctly point out.

Both the Kona Ute and Trek are compromizes between a normal bike and the longtail standard. The shortened wheelbase makes for easier storage but compromizes cargo hauling use.

It's nice to see that 10 years later, Trek is embracing the LongTail concept. This is what we can call visionaries. I do agree about the weight distribution issue especially with an added elec hub.
Bags are nice copies of the Go-Getter (http://yubaride.com/yubashop/21-utility-bike-panniers.html) bags from Yuba.
Anyway cool to see an other long bike.

Looks like the Gary Fisher Klunker. Swap the bars for a cool cruiser bar and now you're crusin' in style!

Agreed. The same thing was noted on the rootsradicals Xtracycle group.

The bike seems to be almost a clone of the Kona Ute with similar wheelbase, frame layout and material choice. The Trek does appear to have the cargo pannier mounted slightly further to the rear, a poor choice as you correctly point out.

Both the Kona Ute and Trek are compromizes between a normal bike and the longtail standard. The shortened wheelbase makes for easier storage but compromizes cargo hauling use.

I don't get it. With the rear rack frame, the bike is that long anyway. Why not just move the rear wheel back???????

I don't get it. With the rear rack frame, the bike is that long anyway. Why not just move the rear wheel back???????

Maybe they want it to fit on some rail-based rack.

:)ensen.

I have a feeling that a big part of the wheelbase issue comes from material choice. The Xtracycle Free Radical kit, Xtracycle's Radish, and the Surly Big Dummy are all steel bikes and the Ute and Trek Transport/Transport+ are Aluminum. Perhaps extending the wheelbase to match the steel designs caused some stresses on the weld points or tubing when loaded with cargo. Rather than sacrifice weight savings for Aluminum, they took a hit to heavy-loaded smoothness.

looks interesting, not enough to get rid of my X.

Looks like it is made to fail. With the load behind the rear axle, how is this different than any bike with a rear rack? It is going to be wonky to ride with any weight in it. Doesn't Trek have ANYONE that rides utility bikes?

Looks like it is made to fail. With the load behind the rear axle, how is this different than any bike with a rear rack? It is going to be wonky to ride with any weight in it. Doesn't Trek have ANYONE that rides utility bikes?

Load it up with milk and beer and canned goods behind the rear axle, fire up the electric hub to 30mph, and ride an EPIC WHEELIE all the way home!!!!

It looks too much like a Ute. The load looks it is going to be carried too high. I like the fold down wide-loaders.

The transport looks very good. I just sold my Ute because I'm not pleased with the handling. 26" wheels make more sense for a utility bike anyway. I think the large bags give the impression that putting weight that far back is a good idea. It's not but on my Ute I had two big fold out bags that held a large cloth grocery bag in each and they were located as far forward as possible, not anywhere as huge as those bags. Also the OldManMountain front rack helped the handling on the Ute and would be more to my preference than the Trek one as it located the rack close down to the tire and not as far forward as the Trek appears to. That kickstand looks like it'll be as useless as the side kickstand on the Ute I got. I had to get an extra kickstand for the back end as the bike barely stayed up without the bags loaded.
So what's the price?

I would expect that pricing will be fairly high, especially for the electric version. My prediction is that the electric version will be priced between $2,900-$3,400 USD. Having read threads posted in the e-bike forum on problems with the new Trek line of e-bikes, I think I'd steer clear of the electrified version for a while. Trek needs to work out bugs, not just on the builds with the Bionx system but with its process in handling system/warranty problems with their line of e-bikes. I suspect that Trek's going to have problems competing with the Big Dummy and the Xtracycle.

To all those who say the weight will be distributed too far back:

Don't you think that Trek, a professional bike manufacture, would be aware of such issues and design a way to solve that problem?

To all those who say the weight will be distributed too far back:

Don't you think that Trek, a professional bike manufacture, would be aware of such issues and design a way to solve that problem?

Yeah, I like how everyone is talking about the ride quality of a bike they've never even actually seen, let alone ridden

To all those who say the weight will be distributed too far back: Don't you think that Trek, a professional bike manufacture, would be aware of such issues and design a way to solve that problem?


Yeah, I like how everyone is talking about the ride quality of a bike they've never even actually seen, let alone ridden

It's not just talk. I build cargo bikes and know first hand how poorly a bike will ride loaded behind the rear axle.

:)ensen

The rest of the Fast City line seems to duplicate what Trek has going on with their PDX and Valencia bikes. I'd say it is next on the block if they are looking to get rid of duplicate models. Would be great to see either one line or the other go with IGH option, from a 3sp all the way up to a full-zoot Alfine 11sp bike.

Nope. It would freaking make sense to have the Wingra, Monona and Mendota have IGH. Until this year, they also had useless suspension forks. Now they vaguely resemble something you'd see around the lakes.

The Atwood is still an insult to the neighborhood tho.

It's not just talk. I build cargo bikes and know first hand how poorly a bike will ride loaded behind the rear axle.

:)ensen

No, regardless of your credentials, it is still just talk. Nobody has ridden this bike yet, nobody has even seen this bike in person. You cannot possibly know how this bike handles. You may have a preconception of how it rides, and that preconception may even prevent you from wanting to ride it or enjoying the ride you have on it.

But until the bike is released.... it's nothing but talk.

To all those who say the weight will be distributed too far back:

Don't you think that Trek, a professional bike manufacture, would be aware of such issues and design a way to solve that problem?

No. I don't.

Case in point: My 2006 Trek Portland. Wonderful bike, except for the routing of the rear brake cable.

Those infallible factory engineers of yours forgot the first rule of cables: Thou shalt not have S-bends in the housing. The S-bend in the rear brake cable made actuation spongy and impossible to lock, then releasing the cable often didn't release the brake. It was genius: A brake that doesn't stop, and drags all the time.

I've run it correctly myself, (although it required ugly zip ties) and they finally noticed and fixed it two years later with the 2008 model.

So no, I don't think they considered the impact of the load racks and the battery pack aft of the rear axle, and putting the battery pack up nice and high waving like a flag either.

Oh, BTW, you have heard of the steerer breaking off on the 2010 Madone's carbon fork, haven't you?

I think someone's grumpy...

;)

But until the bike is released.... it's nothing but talk.

You realize, of course, that your defence of Trek's design is also just talk.... and so far, without indication of any analysis behind the opinion.

Sadly, I think you believe this is all just Trek-hating, but it's not. I happen to have a Trek (a Fisher actually) and it's a great mtb bike. My own Trek experiences aside, if this was just an issue of style or some minor engineering gaffe, I'd probably not care. But when I see something on a bike that could be a problem, I'm going to point it out, especially on a safety issue, like handling. If a Trek designer sees this thread and they make changes before product release, that's would be the best outcome.

Credentials aside, proof is pudding. Get your cargo bike and hang 40 pounds on the tail end of the rack. If the front wheel even stays on the ground, try riding it and let us know what you think.

:)ensen.

You realize, of course, that your defence of Trek's design is also just talk.... and so far, without indication of any analysis behind the opinion.

Sadly, I think you believe this is all just Trek-hating, but it's not. I happen to have a Trek (a Fisher actually) and it's a great mtb bike. My own Trek experiences aside, if this was just an issue of style or some minor engineering gaffe, I'd probably not care. But when I see something on a bike that could be a problem, I'm going to point it out, especially on a safety issue, like handling. If a Trek designer sees this thread and they make changes before product release, that's would be the best outcome.

Credentials aside, proof is pudding. Get your cargo bike and hang 40 pounds on the tail end of the rack. If the front wheel even stays on the ground, try riding it and let us know what you think.

:)ensen.

If you're talking to me (I assume so, since you quoted me), all I've said about the bike is that I think it's great that a major manufacturer is releasing utility-oriented bikes for the masses. This much is clear from the mere fact that they're releasing the bike. I make no further assumptions about anything I can't possibly know. The vast majority of my discussion here was about a completely different bike (one that I have ridden) and how well Trek did with that one.

I couldn't care less about the Trek brand name and who likes it or who doesn't. I have no idea if the bike will handle well or explode once touched. I'm just simply making the point that you cannot possibly know how a bike handles until you've ridden it. You can make assumptions based on experience, but to say you know how a bike handles just from looking at a 2 inch square picture is absurd.

And even if the design turns out to be completely flawed, I still stand by my original statement: it's great to see a major manufacturer making these kinds of lifestyle bikes.

-jets, I have to disagree with you. If a major manufacturer comes out with a crappy design, it will probably reduce use of utility bikes. Most people buy a bike and are stuck with it, they don't keep buying bikes until they find one that works. Most people wouldn't know why a bike doesn't work for them, they just don't use it.
As far as not being able to have a rough idea of how a bike will ride by looking at a picture, well, if you have never ridden a loaded touring bike or utility bike, I would agree with you. But if you have ridden a few, certain designs are obvious to those with experience.

-jets, I have to disagree with you. If a major manufacturer comes out with a crappy design, it will probably reduce use of utility bikes. Most people buy a bike and are stuck with it, they don't keep buying bikes until they find one that works. Most people wouldn't know why a bike doesn't work for them, they just don't use it.
As far as not being able to have a rough idea of how a bike will ride by looking at a picture, well, if you have never ridden a loaded touring bike or utility bike, I would agree with you. But if you have ridden a few, certain designs are obvious to those with experience.

I agree as far as cargo carrying bikes are concerned. Some designs work and some do not. Weight behind the rear axle will upset weight distribution and handling. I can change the feel of my Big Dummy just by shifting cargo weight forward or aft. On my Swobo Dixon with shopping panniers fully loaded the front end was too light for easy mounting and dismounting too. I can see why the French developed Porteur and Randonneur bikes with frame geometry intended for front end cargo carrying.

So, why aren't any of these manufacturers licensing the xtra designs?

The Xtracycle design is an open standard, however, all dimensions and setup are based around using steel is a material source. A lot of bicycle manufacturers are focusing on aluminum, probably because it's easy to market the benefit of lighter weight than steel. This causes steel bikes to be placed at the low-end (cost-centric, low-precision builds) high-end (strength and durability-centric, such as cross bikes, touring bikes, and the niche market of cargo bikes) of bikes without much room for the average rider to buy one. This is why you see a lot of smaller brands like Surly, Masi, Spot, and others focus on steel bikes, though similarly equipped to aluminum counterparts, they tend to be slightly higher prices because of economies of scale.

One can't (or at least shouldn't) use Xtracycle's open-source (no need to license) design when building a bike out of Aluminum.

A second problem is that large brands have a hard time building product that is supported by a smaller brand. For Trek, in order to build bikes to the Xtracycle platform (with steel), they would also need to either reproduce other pieces (such as the H-Racks and freeloader style bags) or order them from Xtracycle and stock their warehouses with Xtracycle product so nationwide retailers have reliable access to add-on components. Perhaps with Xtracycle being relatively small, they couldn't get a large enough supply (at a price acceptable to Trek).

Given that Gary Fisher was given an Xtracycle by the X guys some years back, I'm sure the idea was explored. I had high hopes that Trek would produce an Xtracycle, but I am happy to see that at least they are offering a cargo bike.

Nice! Just noticed these on the Trek website and figured I'd find a thread about it here. For those who are critical of the design, I understand the concern but still think it's amazing that Trek has finally come out with a real utility bike that could potentially be featured in hundreds of deaer shops across the country. That's huge! If it sells well, then maybe they'll improve on the design for next year. I have a 2008 Kona Ute and I know the 2009 and 2010 versions introduced big improvements, so give them a year or two to work out the kinks.

On another note, I *really* want a Belleville, but have been unable to see one, much less test-ride it. Latest word (as of Thurs) is that they're unavailable indefinitely. My local dealer said they might get mine (on backorder) in July, or maybe August, but then again they might not get it at all since 2011 models are coming out soon. So sad!

Nice! Just noticed these on the Trek website and figured I'd find a thread about it here. For those who are critical of the design, I understand the concern but still think it's amazing that Trek has finally come out with a real utility bike that could potentially be featured in hundreds of deaer shops across the country. That's huge! If it sells well, then maybe they'll improve on the design for next year. I have a 2008 Kona Ute and I know the 2009 and 2010 versions introduced big improvements, so give them a year or two to work out the kinks.

+1


On another note, I *really* want a Belleville, but have been unable to see one, much less test-ride it. Latest word (as of Thurs) is that they're unavailable indefinitely. My local dealer said they might get mine (on backorder) in July, or maybe August, but then again they might not get it at all since 2011 models are coming out soon. So sad!

That is a major bummer—you don't have any other trek dealers near you? When my girlfriend got hers, it took every ounce of willpower I had to not throw down for my very own :) Absolutely amazing bikes for the money. We upgraded hers with an Alfine 8-spd hub that I found a deal on ($150 for the wheel and shifter!) and it is astounding now.

I have to agree with purplepeople, it wasn't something I had considered, but looking at the weight distribution on that bike, I strongly suspect it's going to have problems. I would not be surprised to find in the owners manual a comment to the effect that you should load the front rack first. I would also like to know what they rate the racks for loading.

I don't design cargo bikes, but I've ridden many miles on laden motorcycles, and know that it's a good idea to keep weight on a line between the headstock and rear axle. The further away you get from that line, the more...interesting, life becomes.

I've just taken delivery of a BD, and have been struck by how light the steering is, even unladen. The bike is still very stable, but wouldn't want to ride it with a heavy weight hanging off the back. And the center of gravity of that battery pack seems to be inline with the back of the rear tire. We could all be wrong, but the more I look at that layout, the worse it looks. The BD, Yute, Mundo, all have the deck area close to the top of the tire, as close as is practicable with room for a fender, they all have the bags ending at the trailing edge of the rear wheel. I hope we are wrong, it will do no good to have people going round bad mouthing cargo bikes because one manufacturer goofed.

It's good to see more brands getting in on the cargo bike market, but if this bike doesn't have good handling, it could have some negative effects on the whole scene. I think it more likely that they will do more damage to their own reputation though.

Say what you want about Surly, but they did make several iterations of the BD before releasing it to market, mostly publicly. They have good justifications for most of the design details

I won't be selling my Big Dummy to buy one of these....hopefully Trek will stay in the cargo bike game and work on the design over the next few years. Looks to me like someone was ordered to add a cargo bike to their line up so they slapped something together to fill that role.

If you are thinking of buying one do yourself a favour and load it up heavily then go for a 5 mile test ride with hills and some obstacles to get around....then ride at least one proven cargo bike design with a similar load [BD, Xtra, Yuba, etc...]...base your decision on that.

Just rode the Transport+ (electric assist version) at Trek World. No load, but people were carrying other people
around on them. Handling is decent, very bike-like. I don't have any other cargo bike frame of reference, but it sure handles better than riding a tandem with no stoker. Electric assist feels like their other pedelec offerings, seemless, like you have a stoker kicking in real hard, or a real solid tailwind at lower settings.

According to Trek Pavement product manager, racks are rated 20lb up front, 100 on top of the rear rack, 50lbs on the side racks. I specifically asked about the axle placement stability issues and was assured that it wasn't a problem.

I liked it well enough that it will be the bike I EP this year, so once I get one, I'll report back on it.

Couple more notes.

Took it down a pretty lengthy gravel road and it handled very well.

Trek went with a 33 cell battery to keep weight off the bike; I think I'd rather they stuck with the 44 cell battery they have on their other electric bikes.

Comes with a big honkin' sidestand, but not sure how stable it will be, with cargo.

Bike is built so you can flip it up on the rear rack/frame and store it vertically.

Mconlonx, what is your guess as far as weight of the bike? I am thinking of this for my EP also, but I want the model without the electric motor.

judging from the side view photo, the transport looks like it has severe toe overlap. any notice of that mconlonx? i have big boats for feet so i look for these things.

Must weigh mid- high-40s?

No toe overlap noted, plenty of people doing slow, paking lot maneuvers on them. I got average feet, overlap was not an issue eve with the platform pedals.

Rear dropouts are the new flip-flop design, so you could go IGH if you wanted to.

Comes with one bag but both sides have auxillary bolt on rails of
more typical rear rack diameter. So if you happen to already have a set of panniers, there's room to run two on either side.

According to Trek Pavement product manager, racks are rated 20lb up front, 100 on top of the rear rack, 50lbs on the side racks. I specifically asked about the axle placement stability issues and was assured that it wasn't a problem.

I can't imagine the PM was going to say "ya we totally screwed up the axle placement relative to the load!"...he is trying to sell them after all.

I can't imagine the PM was going to say "ya we totally screwed up the axle placement relative to the load!"...he is trying to sell them after all.

Very true, and I certainly was unable to test loaded handling; just reporting the partyline answer straight from the product manager. I believe it was something like, "Not an issue... extensive testing... blah, blah, etc." Dismissed the issue entirely.

On one hand, you could believe someone whose job it was to be responsible for testing and release of the bike vs. Builder guy's opinion based on photos only, no first hand experience with this particular bike.

On another hand, no escaping physics, and loading the extreme rear of the rack sure looks like a bad idea that would have to affect handling.

Maybe they made a compromise toward more bikelike feel while unloaded or more typical light loads over ultimate stability while heavily loaded.

Who knows. I'll get one because we want the elec assist one, and I can EP it at substantial discount.

Then I'll load it up and get back to you. I'll be sensitive to this specific issue since the subject came up.

We're told some crazy Icelanders managed to fit 6 people on one bike...

I'll look forward to your reports about your Trek.

Sorry... What does "EP" mean??? Your going to "EP" one?
Thanks.

Sorry... What does "EP" mean??? Your going to "EP" one?
Thanks.

Employee Purchase

I'm in as far as interest goes.

I saw one of these at trek dealer and thought it was nicely designed but didnt get to ride it. At the $1000 sale price it seems hard to beat. Trek being Trek, they can afford to load the bike with value and in this case they did with the exception of just including one bag (seriously, who isn't gonna want two?). I liked the bags better than the bags that came with my big dummy.