Pre Trek Companies
01-31-17, 05:06 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Pre Trek Companies
What is it that Trek does to the brands they buy that makes everyone despise them? I just read an Electra thread over in Cruisers. Then wondered if Electra will be referred to as pre Trek Electra. Of course that got me thinking about all the other small brands they gobbled up.
01-31-17, 05:32 AM
#2
Bikes are okay, I guess.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posts: 6,938
Bikes: Waterford Paramount Touring, Giant CFM-2, Raleigh Sports 3-speeds in M23 & L23, Schwinn Cimarron oddball build, Marin Palisades Trail dropbar conversion, Nishiki Cresta GT
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2647 Post(s)
Liked 2,446 Times
in
1,557 Posts
Bike-rosoft?
01-31-17, 06:46 AM
#3
Sapient
01-31-17, 06:59 AM
#4
ambulatory senior
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Peoria Il
Posts: 5,998
Bikes: Austro Daimler modified by Gugie! Raleigh Professional and lots of other bikes.
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1955 Post(s)
Liked 3,661 Times
in
1,679 Posts
I don't care for the whole racer bike mentality they have now. I really didn't like how they seemed to favor lance over Greg. That whole deal bothered me. My fond memories of trek are from the 70s and early 80s when they made bike touring look so cool.
01-31-17, 07:21 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,238
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,545 Times
in
7,329 Posts
Subscribed.
01-31-17, 07:34 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1581 Post(s)
Liked 1,189 Times
in
605 Posts
Trek, as a company, have a lot to answer for in my opinion.
Especially egregious is their pushing of a 'racer' mentality as noted by a poster above. Trek is, therefore, responsible for a general decline in what I'd call cycling civility, as evidenced by the decline of waving.
In turn, that decline has sparked angst in many on Bike Forums; hence the proliferation of waving threads.
Consequently, Trek is, in my view, single-handedly responsible for the existence of such threads on Bike Forums. That is reason enough to dislike Trek's corporate ethos.
Especially egregious is their pushing of a 'racer' mentality as noted by a poster above. Trek is, therefore, responsible for a general decline in what I'd call cycling civility, as evidenced by the decline of waving.
In turn, that decline has sparked angst in many on Bike Forums; hence the proliferation of waving threads.
Consequently, Trek is, in my view, single-handedly responsible for the existence of such threads on Bike Forums. That is reason enough to dislike Trek's corporate ethos.
01-31-17, 07:38 AM
#7
ambulatory senior
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Peoria Il
Posts: 5,998
Bikes: Austro Daimler modified by Gugie! Raleigh Professional and lots of other bikes.
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1955 Post(s)
Liked 3,661 Times
in
1,679 Posts
Trek, as a company, have a lot to answer for in my opinion.
Especially egregious is their pushing of a 'racer' mentality as noted by a poster above. Trek is, therefore, responsible for a general decline in what I'd call cycling civility, as evidenced by the decline of waving.
In turn, that decline has sparked angst in many on Bike Forums; hence the proliferation of waving threads.
Consequently, Trek is, in my view, single-handedly responsible for the existence of such threads on Bike Forums. That is reason enough to dislike Trek's corporate ethos.
Especially egregious is their pushing of a 'racer' mentality as noted by a poster above. Trek is, therefore, responsible for a general decline in what I'd call cycling civility, as evidenced by the decline of waving.
In turn, that decline has sparked angst in many on Bike Forums; hence the proliferation of waving threads.
Consequently, Trek is, in my view, single-handedly responsible for the existence of such threads on Bike Forums. That is reason enough to dislike Trek's corporate ethos.
Last edited by 52telecaster; 01-31-17 at 07:47 AM.
01-31-17, 07:39 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Richmond VA area
Posts: 2,618
Bikes: '00 Koga Miyata Full Pro Oval Road bike.
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
I've always thought the main reason people hate companies like Trek is that they buy up unique, small companies that produce some smaill-batch high quality products, and then water down said products, or stick that company's name onto lesser quality components. Bontrager comes to mind to me.
I'm not a Trek hater either FWIW. I have a 5900 I'm very fond of, and several of their 90's mtbs. But I kind of agree that smaller companies that get absorbed by very large ones like Trek or Specialized probably lose most of their uniqueness, and often the handmade quality that made their reputation in the first place.
I'm not a Trek hater either FWIW. I have a 5900 I'm very fond of, and several of their 90's mtbs. But I kind of agree that smaller companies that get absorbed by very large ones like Trek or Specialized probably lose most of their uniqueness, and often the handmade quality that made their reputation in the first place.
01-31-17, 07:50 AM
#9
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
Back during the 80s bike boom there were a whole bunch of companies making really beautiful lugged frame steel bikes. Sadly they are gone now.
01-31-17, 08:19 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 2,977
Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon 4 Rival; 2014 Cannondale Trail 7 29; 1972 Schwinn Suburban, 1996 Proflex 756, 1987(?) Peugeot, Dahon Speed P8; 1979 Raleigh Competition GS; 1995 Stumpjumper M2 FS, 1978 Raleigh Sports, Schwinn Prologue
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Trek makes some good bikes. I've never regretted owning one. But as mentioned above, they take some really good small operations, buy them up and stick those names over mediocre frames/components. I hate Bontrager products (though wouldn't mind owning a pre-Trek Bontrager bike).
Brands that come to mind are:
Lemond, Bontrager, Fisher, Klein, Diamont
Somewhere I read a story I'm 90% sure was about Trek and them not giving credit where credit was due...I know, vague. I'll do a little searching to see if I can find it again
Brands that come to mind are:
Lemond, Bontrager, Fisher, Klein, Diamont
Somewhere I read a story I'm 90% sure was about Trek and them not giving credit where credit was due...I know, vague. I'll do a little searching to see if I can find it again
01-31-17, 08:46 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 2,977
Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon 4 Rival; 2014 Cannondale Trail 7 29; 1972 Schwinn Suburban, 1996 Proflex 756, 1987(?) Peugeot, Dahon Speed P8; 1979 Raleigh Competition GS; 1995 Stumpjumper M2 FS, 1978 Raleigh Sports, Schwinn Prologue
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Found it. Make of it what you will, and Trek is far from the only company to exploit another's work. But that's kind of Specialized level a$$holery there
https://jacquiephelan.org/2015/04/16...obbed-wombats/
https://jacquiephelan.org/2015/04/16...obbed-wombats/
Last edited by cb400bill; 01-31-17 at 01:49 PM. Reason: never mind
01-31-17, 09:00 AM
#12
Senior Member
01-31-17, 09:30 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 3,783
Bikes: Bianchi San Mateo and a few others
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
9 Posts
Speaking in a broader sense, and not about Trek in particular...
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
01-31-17, 09:34 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,238
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,545 Times
in
7,329 Posts
No one can steal your job. Just sayin'.
01-31-17, 10:11 AM
#15
ambulatory senior
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Peoria Il
Posts: 5,998
Bikes: Austro Daimler modified by Gugie! Raleigh Professional and lots of other bikes.
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1955 Post(s)
Liked 3,661 Times
in
1,679 Posts
Speaking in a broader sense, and not about Trek in particular...
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
01-31-17, 10:12 AM
#16
staring at the mountains
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Castle Pines, CO
Posts: 4,560
Bikes: Obed GVR, Fairdale Goodship, Salsa Timberjack 29
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked 197 Times
in
112 Posts
I remember not wanting to even look at a Trek because, at the time (early 1990s), folks like Keith Bontrager and Gary Fisher were actively on the mtb scene, racing, promoting, making bikes (heck, KB was even active on mtb newsgroups). The Trek ceo was nowhere to be seen. So I didn't want a Trek.
Then during the budding Lance years, I went shopping for a road bike, and I ended up with a Trek 2300 (aluminum, ultegra). It fit and felt better than the others at the time, and worked with my budget. Shrug.
Acquisitions happen. Buy-outs occur for people, or technology, brand cachet, or just to gain market share. It's the way business works...
Then during the budding Lance years, I went shopping for a road bike, and I ended up with a Trek 2300 (aluminum, ultegra). It fit and felt better than the others at the time, and worked with my budget. Shrug.
Acquisitions happen. Buy-outs occur for people, or technology, brand cachet, or just to gain market share. It's the way business works...
01-31-17, 12:20 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Richmond VA area
Posts: 2,618
Bikes: '00 Koga Miyata Full Pro Oval Road bike.
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Speaking in a broader sense, and not about Trek in particular...
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
I also agree with the comment that companies get bought out all the time. It's just a part of business. Personally I've always thought of Trek as putting out a quality product, better than many, imo. Yeah I wouldn't feel the same way about a Trek Bontrager product as I would about a pre-Trek version, but again, it happens all the time. And as the poster above mentions, in a broader sense it happens in many business types.
01-31-17, 12:23 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,238
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,545 Times
in
7,329 Posts
01-31-17, 12:33 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 6,319
Bikes: 2012 Salsa Casseroll, 2009 Kona Blast
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 208 Times
in
146 Posts
Speaking in a broader sense, and not about Trek in particular...
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
When there's a small company that makes some cool niche products, there are often people at that company who are personally invested in those products. The company grew up on the premise of making its own widget, and making it better (or at least different) than anyone else. When a bigger company comes along and buys that smaller company, the whole dynamic changes. The cool widget becomes just another piece of IP (intellectual property) in the parent company's patent portfolio. The people who cared to make that widget special become just another cog in the machine, if they're kept around at all. If the widget stays in production, it gets farmed out to other makers and sometimes becomes more generic. The old company ceases to exist and its name becomes just another brand name on a sticker, to be applied to the parent company's products whether or not those product have anything to do with the original company.
So in that sense, when "brand X" gets acquired by a bigger company, it's a whole different entity before and after that acquisition.
well put and pretty much why Trek bikes don't really get me all that excited these days.
01-31-17, 12:49 PM
#21
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,614
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10964 Post(s)
Liked 7,490 Times
in
4,189 Posts
I dont hate Trek as a company, I just dont lust after any of its products.
I dont want modern road bikes as my 80s steel frames are what I love. I dont want modern MTBs as my 90s MTBs are what I love. And I for sure dont want any Bontrager components as I can get a slew of other brands which are just as nice or nicer for the same price or less.
It should be pretty obvious why some people dislike Trek for how they handle acquisitions. The acquired companies are rolled into Trek via technology, name, or both. Those people dont like that. Pretty simple.
Between Trek's road bike offerings and LeMond's, there would have been a lot of overlap too.
The only old brand I wish was still around is LeMond. Those late90s-mid00s bikes were beautiful. The Poprads, Buenos Aires, and Zurich in high level Reynolds steel(and later carbon) were subtle but memorable looking.
I dont want modern road bikes as my 80s steel frames are what I love. I dont want modern MTBs as my 90s MTBs are what I love. And I for sure dont want any Bontrager components as I can get a slew of other brands which are just as nice or nicer for the same price or less.
It should be pretty obvious why some people dislike Trek for how they handle acquisitions. The acquired companies are rolled into Trek via technology, name, or both. Those people dont like that. Pretty simple.
Between Trek's road bike offerings and LeMond's, there would have been a lot of overlap too.
The only old brand I wish was still around is LeMond. Those late90s-mid00s bikes were beautiful. The Poprads, Buenos Aires, and Zurich in high level Reynolds steel(and later carbon) were subtle but memorable looking.
01-31-17, 12:54 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,904
Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2604 Post(s)
Liked 1,933 Times
in
1,213 Posts
It's just business these days. Trek is basically a business that happens to make bikes. They are in it for money, as is true of any business. (If you're not in it to make money, you're running a charity; how much money can you spend on it?)
So to stretch Skydog's point, a small company's owner(s) are losing money, or not making as much as they could by selling to a bigger company. Here comes Trek with a checkbook; what's an owner to do?
Trek (or any other new owner) will use the smaller company's assets. They'll trade on the name, or the new technology. Sometimes the technology is so good it goes mainstream; good for the corporate buyer, they're an early adopter, they can sell more bikes. If buyers liked the brand they bought, they'll sell you bikes with that label on it.
When even drug companies' R&D is tilted more toward buying startups than developing new drugs, how is a bike manufacturer going to build their company? Trek is taking the low-risk way buying these small companies. The other option is what Surly has been doing, finding radical new ideas like fatbikes and popularizing them.
So to stretch Skydog's point, a small company's owner(s) are losing money, or not making as much as they could by selling to a bigger company. Here comes Trek with a checkbook; what's an owner to do?
Trek (or any other new owner) will use the smaller company's assets. They'll trade on the name, or the new technology. Sometimes the technology is so good it goes mainstream; good for the corporate buyer, they're an early adopter, they can sell more bikes. If buyers liked the brand they bought, they'll sell you bikes with that label on it.
When even drug companies' R&D is tilted more toward buying startups than developing new drugs, how is a bike manufacturer going to build their company? Trek is taking the low-risk way buying these small companies. The other option is what Surly has been doing, finding radical new ideas like fatbikes and popularizing them.
01-31-17, 01:18 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,248
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
48 Posts
Why are you calling it a monopoly?
You might have a reason, I just don't know what it is. As I see it, cycling comes close to a free market. There are a large number of suppliers, all are fairly similar. There are no significant power differences (you probably are not going to die if you don't get a bicycle). As far as the information asymmetry, it is there a little; but it is nowhere as bad as it is in some industries.
They might be big, but I do not see them as a monopoly. One of the few companies that might be in a position to exercise monopoly power is Giant. However, they don't seem to abuse their position.
You might have a reason, I just don't know what it is. As I see it, cycling comes close to a free market. There are a large number of suppliers, all are fairly similar. There are no significant power differences (you probably are not going to die if you don't get a bicycle). As far as the information asymmetry, it is there a little; but it is nowhere as bad as it is in some industries.
They might be big, but I do not see them as a monopoly. One of the few companies that might be in a position to exercise monopoly power is Giant. However, they don't seem to abuse their position.
01-31-17, 06:32 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
Nobody sells a healthy business against their will, unless it's some kind of bankruptcy or divorce sale. The person who sells a business must have a reason. The Econ 101 reason is that the buyer can manage it better. Another typical reason is that the owner wants to retire.
The alternative to selling out might be to go under.
The alternative to selling out might be to go under.
01-31-17, 06:51 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: US
Posts: 811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked 184 Times
in
120 Posts
I never realized that Trek was indirectly responsible for why some cyclists don't wave and for creating the racer mentality. Did this world wide?