My response was to your ridiculous qualifier.

I totally believe that the Cinelli Supercorsa is still in production very much the same as it always has been. So what? I find nothing interesting about being utterly determined to make zero progress in an industry that is continuously evolving and innovating. I get that there’s a market for such a product, but there reality is that it’s a tiny niche. It doesn’t mean the product is superior to new products, only that there are enough customers to stay in business.

$3200 for a Supercorsa frameset that is a 60 year old design and tech. Who's getting fleeced?

Well, I’m very much not surprised, since Trek had an unnamed version of that thing at the Giro. The speculation since then was they were going to dump the Emonda and this would be the new Madone.

Gues the prognosticators were right.

Not sure I can mentally grasp the gravity of all those changes in one model year.

these engineers are dramatically under paid for these extreme moves…….or their marketing department is over paid.

Quality and style and elegance always costs.

That’s why an analog Rolex automatic using 20th century technology will always cost more than the highest-tech Timex or Casio digital watches.

Hell, even my Hamilton 992s made over 100 years ago cost more than the best plastic digital watches.

Anyone need anything? I made plenty.


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d045a6c624.png

He just went over to his latest thread.

Hi! What’s this thread about?

Mostly about how Trek’s “biggest launch ever” blew up over the Atlantic.

I make better popcorn.

(I do. Using what movie theaters actually use for butter and salt).

Eleven pages.

Small scale production of niche products always costs.

Trek is interested in innovation rather than stagnation.

HA! Okay, if you say so.:rolleyes:

Can you please put me on ignore? Please?

It would be more efficient if you quit posting.

Nope. Not gonna quit posting on your “advice.” I take the high road and have never put anyone on ignore, and won’t give you the honor either.
You however, don’t offer much useful information, usually commenting sillyly on others’ posts, which isn’t helpful. The “information” you provided is generally useless. You’re like comic relief if anything, and I have laughed, I admit it. I ask that you ignore me. I beg of you!

If Trek is on the ball, when they do the gravel version they will put a suspension element in the part that juts back to hold up the mini seat tube. Probably have to pay spesh royalties though.

Like it or not, Koyote is correct. If you aren’t able to recognize that, you’re being willfully ignorant.

The Cinelli no doubt requires a lot of hand work by trained and experienced craftsmen, doing it the same way they have for decades. Some folks find that kind of product worth a high price. A high price also gives it a level of rarity that adds to the perceived value. Funny, though, how it works out to fit right into the price range of many top level modern frames. I bet that’s not by accident. If you want a new bike built exactly the way old bikes were built, the Cinelli is a very nice option. In terms of measurable performance, however, it’s not in the same realm as modern race machines - heavier, less aero, and less efficient. For folks in love with the feel and look of a classic steel race bike, those performance factors generally aren’t a concern.

Nothing new there. Just a variation on Trek’s existing IsoSpeed flexible joint that already exists on the current Checkpoint.

I remember that now, I hated it. Far too complex. The nice thing about spesh's solution is they just stuck a rubber plug sorry, elastomer in a hole in the frame. But you may be on the right track, it will probably have a hidden linkage thingy in there.
So I can continue to hate it.

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/i...trek/isospeed/

I have an IsoSpeed on my Procaliber hardtail MTB. I like it. It takes the edge off when pedaling in the saddle, but maintains the purity of a hardtail. That said, to each, their own.

I own some very nice mechanical watches, but functionally they are very limited and not even very good at their primary function. They are redundant technology, just like old bikes. The only reason I still wear them (less and less these days) is for their style and engineering novelty. But with bikes I’m only really interested in how they perform, so old bike tech has little interest for me and I’m not into period cosplay either.

Rolex are just bling these days. Way too much of a cliched status symbol for my taste. I would rather wear a classic Casio and often do.

It was a little wordy, but thanks for agreeing with me, Pete!

Sure, if you say so.

Agreed. Though if I wanted a lugged steel frame, I wouldn't spend that much money on an off-the-rack model. I'd go to a good custom builder and get something special.

I think the word you're looking for is inferior: needlessly expensive, complex, fragile, and lower-performing.

Trek Management: Sales are down, inventory is piling up, we have too many bike models. Reduce our SKUs!

Trek Marketing: No problem, we'll make this lemon into lemonade by smashing two models together. Engineering, work your magic!

Engineering: Wut?