Old 08-24-21, 08:33 AM
  #42  
ClydeClydeson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,259
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked 647 Times in 379 Posts
Originally Posted by rustystrings61 View Post
Schwinn’s demise due to poor marketing and business decisions and Trek’s rise to power helped in large part by their sponsorship of a cheat stripped of 7 Tour titles are irrelevant in discussing the relative merits of these two bikes.
Originally Posted by The Golden Boy View Post
Seems to me Trek was pretty much "in power" by the mid 80s, long before anyone knew Lance Armstrong's name.
The Golden Boy is correct - Trek's fortunes were already headed steeply upwards when they started sponsoring pro teams , incl. Armstrong. Furthermore, while I believe Armstrong was a cheat, and a particularly nasty one, that was (is?) the reality of pro cycling (and most pro sports) in general. Man many other riders, and even whole teams were caught doping.
Schwinns, while generally very good value, were never as good quality as Treks, with few exceptions. Schwinn also made the mistake of helping develop Giant into the behemoth they are today in order to cut their own costs, while Trek continued investment in their USA manufacturing capabilities until the mid 90s, when the bulk of their frame production started being done overseas.
ClydeClydeson is offline  
Likes For ClydeClydeson: