Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area - Is Felt joking?

The latest bike in the Felt track stable is a new steel framed bike.

http://www.feltbicycles.com/USA/2011/Track/Track-Series/TK4130.aspx

Leather seats and "faux wooden rims"? Are they just trying to tap into the hipster market, or is this a serious track bike? If serious, why would one choose this over the TK3 at the same price???

they do have a "fixie" category, that has more of the street fixed gear offerings. odd that they didnt classify this as such.

even weirder: inch pitch chainring?

1/8" pitch chain with missing teeth.

Horrible, horrible, horrible. After that and the carbon ss, im beginning to loose faith in Felt.

Horrible, horrible, horrible. After that and the carbon ss, im beginning to loose faith in Felt.

...for trying new stuff?

Felt still has the #1 elite track racing bike on the market with the TK1. The also the best Entry to Advanced level complete bike on the market with the TK2.

It sounds like they let their bike designers have some fun and produce some unusual bikes. Felt offers ten track and Fixed Gear bikes. TEN. That's pretty amazing in my humble opinion. Especially when most manufacturers make maybe 1 or 2.

I doubt that Felt's bike designers had much to do with this one; except for the graphics and some components, this thing smacks of "catalog fixie."

Although I dont think the bike looks all that appealing. It would seem they just wanted to offer a 'classically' styled frame instead of just aluminum and carbon frames for the track.

I still got my eyes set on the tk1 though!

...for trying new stuff?

Felt still has the #1 elite track racing bike on the market with the TK1. The also the best Entry to Advanced level complete bike on the market with the TK2.

It sounds like they let their bike designers have some fun and produce some unusual bikes. Felt offers ten track and Fixed Gear bikes. TEN. That's pretty amazing in my humble opinion. Especially when most manufacturers make maybe 1 or 2.

Yes, for trying new stuff. I think the faux wood rims is a horrid idea and the mock quill style stem looks bad. I am not saying they dont make a good bike but some of the bikes that have been posted on here as of late are just ridiculous. A $1,600 carbon ss thats pretty heavy and this thing. I dont really care that they offer 10 different bikes to choose from. I dont buy complete bikes. I wouldn't mind 10 different framesets to choose from but thats not gonna happen.

In my opinion the TK's are not the best looking bikes either. Not saying they are not a good bike. I just dont like the styling.

Good for Felt for doing something that other companies are not but that does not mean I have to like them.

I can kind of dig it, but the TIG'd frame with sloping top tube screws up the whole thing. And it seems to me that a skip tooth ring with a standard chain is asking for derailment.

I have a good (and light!) pair of track wheels built up with wooden rims (real wood, and modern) and could whip up a lugged, standard diameter steel frame frame with traditional geometry in a few days. One of these days, maybe...

they are DEFINITELY going for the sweet fixie riders with that bike

I doubt that Felt's bike designers had much to do with this one; except for the graphics and some components, this thing smacks of "catalog fixie."

Actually everything from the rims, bars, cranks, pedals, and even the tires were designed exclusively for this bike. Styled after early '60s bikes, the bike appeals to those who prefer the retro styling. I wouldn't argue that the Tk3 is a better pure track bike for competing, but the Tk4130 has the geometry to be used on the track as well.

-SD

Well i wouldnt race in that bike, too much trail and its too long, it must ride fine in the street tho and in the track must ride like a truck. Fugly stuff, i agree.

1/8" pitch chain with missing teeth.

1/2" pitch chain, as almost(?) all modern bikes have, in 1/8th inch width... with a skip-tooth (I think) chainring. Also called 'inch-pitch.'

Nah. For it to be in the fixie catagory it would need risers. I dont think its all THAT ugly actually.....change the saddle and you'd be good. But what do I know, i dont ride track.

One question: Whats a fluted crank?

I know why most people race alum frames, but is there NO ONE here that would ride a steel track bike? XD

One question: Whats a fluted crank?

Fluting is machining away of material to form grooves, as can be seen on the crank arm and spider. It does save a tiny bit of weight, but is done mainly for cosmetic reasons. Fluting is also done on vintage seatposts.

http://www.feltbicycles.com/Resources/ProductPhotos/Bikes/TK4130_2011_chrome-tips-sm.jpg

I know why most people race alum frames, but is there NO ONE here that would ride a steel track bike? XD

Not if it is the same price as an Alu frame. I have one friend that has problems just keeping the chain on with his steel bike - he cranks so hard that the frame geometry changes and the chain pops off. :-(

Not if it is the same price as an Alu frame. I have one friend that has problems just keeping the chain on with his steel bike - he cranks so hard that the frame geometry changes and the chain pops off. :-(

Just because a bike is steel doesn't mean it is more flexible than an aluminm or carbon one... it has more to do witht he wall thickness, tubing diameter, construction than the material. Steel track bikes were the norm for many events until the early/mid mid nineties. You buddy probably either has a too-light steel frame, or perhaps his chainline is borderline and the miniscule flex in the frame puts it past the acceptable limit.

Eddie Merckx' (sp?) hour record was done on a superlight steel bike, and not only is his record awfully close to the modern record, but the chain never fell off during his ride, either.

KHS made a batch of welded steel track frames a decade or so back. We had a bunch at the track where I worked; the blue ones with the curved seat tubes. Between the ultra-flexible frames and the mismatched drivetrain components, you could pretty much count on the chains coming off periodically.

At the time, of course, steel ruled the track racing scene and those KHSes were the only bikes I'd ever seen with a chain retention problem. So any argument that steel track bikes don't work because the chains fall off is, well, so ridiculous I barely believe anyone would make it.

the question is, is that a brooks saddle? if not, what seat is it?

Not Brooks. Either Gyes or Velo Orange, which is the same thing.

I like how superfeltguy felt the need to reply to a post from 2010

I like how superfeltguy felt the need to reply to a post from 2010

He works for Felt as a Product Manager and Brand Manager (I think). He's actually a pretty cool guy. He helped me when I had questions about my TK1.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/10/bsnyc-interview-dave-koesel-of-felt.html

He works for Felt as a Product Manager and Brand Manager (I think). He's actually a pretty cool guy. He helped me when I had questions about my TK1.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/10/bsnyc-interview-dave-koesel-of-felt.html
I stand corrected ha!

…So any argument that steel track bikes don't work because the chains fall off is, well, so ridiculous I barely believe anyone would make it.

That is too funny! Of course it is ridiculous – it is an extreme example of how steel flexes (the bike is a Marioni by the way).

But, you are missing the point. With $800 to spend on a track bike, would you get a felt TK3, or a steel KHS/Felt/Fuji/etc?

Seriously, do you race steel? I’ve spent a lot of time on steel and a TK3. While they are both decent entry bikes, the TK3 is something I would consider putting upgrades on, but a steel bike would be a waste – I would never be able to overcome the limitations of the frame. And with steel, you do have to put up with the flexing. Steel is OK but you will eventually outgrow it (I did, and know plenty others who have).


Eddie Merckx' (sp?) hour record was done on a superlight steel bike, and not only is his record awfully close to the modern record, but the chain never fell off during his ride, either.

What is with that? Have you seen his bike? It would fall apart under the stress of a typical race. He shaved everything he could off it and still have it hold up under the steady torque of the hour event. Besides, there is no comparison between an hour event and a typical velodrome race. With no jumps, no sprints, no swings up and down track – the limitations of steel practically disappear in an hour event.

Just my opinion though. Buy this bike, and let us know what you think.
Besides, its Friday - lets enjoy the weekend and ride!

That is too funny! Of course it is ridiculous – it is an extreme example of how steel flexes (the bike is a Marioni by the way).

But, you are missing the point. With $800 to spend on a track bike, would you get a felt TK3, or a steel KHS/Felt/Fuji/etc?

Seriously, do you race steel? I’ve spent a lot of time on steel and a TK3. While they are both decent entry bikes, the TK3 is something I would consider putting upgrades on, but a steel bike would be a waste – I would never be able to overcome the limitations of the frame. And with steel, you do have to put up with the flexing. Steel is OK but you will eventually outgrow it (I did, and know plenty others who have).



What is with that? Have you seen his bike? It would fall apart under the stress of a typical race. He shaved everything he could off it and still have it hold up under the steady torque of the hour event. Besides, there is no comparison between an hour event and a typical velodrome race. With no jumps, no sprints, no swings up and down track – the limitations of steel practically disappear in an hour event.

Just my opinion though. Buy this bike, and let us know what you think.
Besides, its Friday - lets enjoy the weekend and ride!

I haven't raced in years. When I did race, I raced on steel frames exclusively, as did 99.9% of all others on the tracks and roads, including elite level track sprinters. A steel frame can easily be designed to handle the loads from racing at the highest level. Just because you have a steel frame that you don't think measures up doesn't mean steel cannot be made to work well.

Steel has a higher modulus of elasticity (is a stiffer material) than aluminum, but if aluminum is allowed to flex much it is likely to crack, so builders design stiff frames.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying steel is better than aluminum (aluminum generally has a higher strength to weight ratio and so can build a lighter frame) but your generalization of the performance of steel frames is erroneous.

Why spend a bunch of money and a hastle to get a super beefy custom steel bike, when there is an off the shelf aluminum bike that can do all the same things? All of this theoretical partical physics doesnt really matter much when it comes down to which bike to ride.

1/8" pitch chain with missing teeth.
the pitch of the chain is 1/2 inch...the width of the chain is 1/8 unch

I don't race on my steel frame anymore because I also have a Dolan. But I train on my steel bike and it doesn't flex enough to bother me at all.
I'm a 180ish pound sprinter/kilo guy.

That is too funny! Of course it is ridiculous – it is an extreme example of how steel flexes (the bike is a Marioni by the way).

But, you are missing the point. With $800 to spend on a track bike, would you get a felt TK3, or a steel KHS/Felt/Fuji/etc?

Seriously, do you race steel? I’ve spent a lot of time on steel and a TK3. While they are both decent entry bikes, the TK3 is something I would consider putting upgrades on, but a steel bike would be a waste – I would never be able to overcome the limitations of the frame. And with steel, you do have to put up with the flexing. Steel is OK but you will eventually outgrow it (I did, and know plenty others who have).

It's been many years since I held a racing license. At the time, steel was it for almost everyone. Cannondales were available but generally considered throw-aways because they dented easily and the rear ends got chewed up by constant gear changes. And they were cheap, of course. But even though they were stiffer than the typical steel bike, few if any riders thought they were better. This was also the time when carbon started to make inroads, but frankly, most of the designs of the time were a bit iffy (Lotus, Hotta) and usually offset any benefits with severe trade-offs.

At any rate, were I to take up racing again for some insane reason, I honestly don't know what bike I'd choose. I doubt it matters much. As far as I can tell, modern carbon bikes only offer three potential benefits: the first is weight, which is almost totally irrelevant in track racing. The second is aerodynamics, and the aerodynamics of a frame are such a tiny part of the whole picture that again it's not really relevant. The third is stiffness, and I long ago decided stiffness is vastly over rated in racing frames. As long as it's not so flexible that handling is affected, I don't believe stiffness has any effect on performance.

There is, however, a big problem with reliability these days. I recently went to a world cup event as a spectator and saw more broken frames and forks in three days than I had in my entire prior career. That may not be a problem for a top level rider, but if I was the average cat. 3 or 4 I'd be pretty concerned about my annual budget.

That's an excellent point Six Jours makes, crashability. I've seen carbon bikes destroyed by relatively innocuous crashes that would be utterly inconsequential on a steel frame.

And I do see people racing on steel these days. I saw a beautiful Yamaguchi at Masters Nationals that was every inch the serious racing bike my Dolan is.

That is a good post, and a good point about durability - steel is pretty tough and fixable.

I'm not sure my experience matches yours though. Weight and stiffness make a very noticable difference to me. I have an Alu and a steel bike. The alu accelerates much, much better, and handles so much better. It is a huge difference, and I'm much happier on the more responsive bike. I'm going to stick with the light, stiff bike on the track.


It's been many years since I held a racing license. At the time, steel was it for almost everyone. Cannondales were available but generally considered throw-aways because they dented easily and the rear ends got chewed up by constant gear changes. And they were cheap, of course. But even though they were stiffer than the typical steel bike, few if any riders thought they were better. This was also the time when carbon started to make inroads, but frankly, most of the designs of the time were a bit iffy (Lotus, Hotta) and usually offset any benefits with severe trade-offs.

At any rate, were I to take up racing again for some insane reason, I honestly don't know what bike I'd choose. I doubt it matters much. As far as I can tell, modern carbon bikes only offer three potential benefits: the first is weight, which is almost totally irrelevant in track racing. The second is aerodynamics, and the aerodynamics of a frame are such a tiny part of the whole picture that again it's not really relevant. The third is stiffness, and I long ago decided stiffness is vastly over rated in racing frames. As long as it's not so flexible that handling is affected, I don't believe stiffness has any effect on performance.

There is, however, a big problem with reliability these days. I recently went to a world cup event as a spectator and saw more broken frames and forks in three days than I had in my entire prior career. That may not be a problem for a top level rider, but if I was the average cat. 3 or 4 I'd be pretty concerned about my annual budget.

"Feel" is great, but how have your results been? I'd be willing to bet (and have, without ever losing my money) that the bikes don't actually make any difference that shows up in the results sheet...

They do, and it has made a difference. People really notice the difference between my riding and my performance on the two bikes. I get comments on it all the time, both from fellow riders, and the people who run the track.

But yes you are right on many points. There isn't going to be a whole lot of difference between an $800 steel vs Al frame other than the AL is going to tend to be more responsive, and take upgrades better.

Double the price though, and the story is different. There are a lot of good bikes in the $1600 range, but I don't know of any steel bikes in that range. Is there a steel bike competitive with something like a Felt TK2?

"Double the price though, and the story is different. There are a lot of good bikes in the $1600 range, but I don't know of any steel bikes in that range. Is there a steel bike competitive with something like a Felt TK2?"

Waterford? http://waterfordbikes.com/now/models.php?Model=1928

Again, Yamaguchi.

Independent Fabrication base track frame is around $1600,its a steel Crown Jewel.

The latest bike in the Felt track stable is a new steel framed bike.

http://www.feltbicycles.com/USA/2011/Track/Track-Series/TK4130.aspx

Leather seats and "faux wooden rims"? Are they just trying to tap into the hipster market, or is this a serious track bike? If serious, why would one choose this over the TK3 at the same price???


Shoot, Colnago now has a singlespeed offering...that includes front and rear brakes!

Lee