This is my post from the other thread:
I've known people (on the internet) to not be able to see through the name Schwinn. To them, every Schwinn from Paramount on down was a 60 pound paper boy bike.
I didn't realize the same sort of thing applied to Trek as well.
Yeah, I get that Trek is "The Borg" of a corporate entity and assimilates anything that gets in it's way, but the 70s and 80s Trek was a bike company that only made good ****.
What I like about Trek is partially what so many people
don't like about Trek. A very midwestern company rooted in touring and sport bikes. It didn't have a fancy accent, or pretend to have a fancy accent. It didn't have a fancy pedigree. It was about riding, not necessarily competitive riding.
Yes, Waterloo is like 50 miles west of here. The first Trek I ever saw was at a friend's house, probably around 1980 or so- talk about this new company that made a bike that you could pick up with one finger. One finger. I wasn't into bikes back then- but that "one finger" thing made me remember Trek.
I look at touring bikes and I see what Trek innovated- and I look at the full-flower iteration of the flagship gran tourer. My 3 mid-80s Treks are beautiful bikes- the paint is so gorgeous.
I can see where someone not into that sort of thing, or into the eliteness of European racing, would not find Trek interesting, and would, in fact, be irritated by Trek's success. That says nothing about people who hate 15 years worth of bikes before Lance Armstrong had anything to do with Trek- just the association is enough. I sort of get it.