ThermionicScott 

Whoa! Did anyone else see those goalposts move?

SlimRider

Scott, if only we could get you into rehab... I'll just bet we could get those goalposts to stop moving on ya!

tagaproject6

So what's the real issue?

You don't like how Trek is marketing their "steel" frame and believe that they are misleading the consumer. You feel it your own personal crusade to inform the public that Trek is using "scam tactics". You want Trek to change their ways.

Good luck with that!

himespau 

As long as they don't claim there's actual platinum in their "Platinum Series Steel" and then don't put it in, what's the big deal? They're not claiming it's something it's not are they? Is it just that you think it's overpriced? I think most bikes are overpriced, that's why I buy used. But then I'm a cheap tightwad.

tagaproject6

You say that like it's a bad thing.

rebel1916

itbl

tagaproject6

Wut?

njkayaker

Huh???

ThermionicScott 

Gotta love equivocation. Standard trolling technique.

cyccommute 

His mind is made up, don't confuse him with the facts. From Trek's website posting on the 2011 Sawyer which uses the Platinum series steel:

Now, perhaps, they have two different Platinum Series steels...a cheap version and the expensive double platinum version?... but I kind of doubt it.

rebel1916

Sorry for my clumsy fingers. ****

tagaproject6

I thought it was some new fangled acronym

SlimRider

I've already stated as much in post #22....You Copycat, you!

rogerstg

On a similar note, we should discuss misleading colors quoted by manufacturers.

For example, I've seen many bikes described by official sales literature as blue, when in reality they range from aqua to azure to cobalt.

It's outrageous!
People are being screwed daily by bicycle companies!

There are probably all sorts of insignificant things with no practical difference that we can find with which to flog the bike companies.

unterhausen

if a thread starts being about each other instead of the topic at hand, it's not an appropriate discussion for this forum.

As far as steels go, if they don't tell you what the composition is you're just speculating anyway. Without significant amount of time in the engineering library, I don't think I would understand much about what the significance of steel composition is anyway. To be perfectly honest, it doesn't really matter to me as a framebuilder. I look at butt lengths and decide if I want to bother with a heat treated steel, but other than that, forget it.

Below a certain price point, you're not going to get very good steel. 4130 is pretty cheap. I'm surprised they butted a cheaper steel than 4130.

njkayaker

This.

himespau 

Which makes me wonder if it's not really just 4130 that they stuck their own name on it. I mean it appears that sometimes it's called chromoly and sometimes it's not. Maybe it's just 4130 that's polished or something in a proprietary way that they're not allowed to tell anyone so they don't even tell their tech support.

njkayaker

Yes, something like this. The "Platinum Series" thing is just a marketing label meant to give the impression that it's made of name brand tubing. It's Trek's attempt to get in on the current fad for steel.

Now you are trying too hard!

Retro Grouch 

Hence my original point. I think that the original topic is the wrong question.

I don't care what the tubeing is. I want a bike frame that is strong, light and cheap. If you can give me all three I don't care what you call the tubeing. Since it's always necessary to make compromises, I want to know how the bike feels when I ride it. If I like how the bike rides, I still don't care what you call the tubeing.

cyccommute 

So rather then look at this in a logical manner, you're just going to stick with your original (erroneous) premise that Trek is trying to rip you off? Let's look at the Trek line, shall we? The Sawyer ($1540) says, quite clearly, that has a frame that is made of Platinum Series chrome molybdenum steel. It also says that the Lane ($1210) is made of Platinum Series steel. The 520 ($1480) is listed as made of "butted chromoly" but not of Platinum Series. The Belleview ($740) says that it's made of CrMo steel but doesn't list it as 'Platinum Series' steel. The Atwood ($490), the 700 ($380), and the 820 ($370) all are listed as being made simply of "steel".

Now I can see the Sawyer costing more than the Lane or the 520 because there's more work and materials involved in making the frame. But are you really going to argue that Trek is trying to pass off a $1200 bike that is made of the same steel as their bikes that are around $400? The parts on the $400 bikes aren't that bad nor are the parts on the Lane that good to make up an $800 difference in parts. If the Lane were as much of a pig as you think it is, the lipstick on it would have to be of a much higher quality. People who shell out $1200 for a bike aren't that stupid!

On the other hand, if the frame material on the $1200 Lane is the same as the $400 bikes, why isn't Trek ballyhooing those frames as being made of "Platinum Series" steel? They are in the business of selling bicycles and part of selling bicycles, as in selling steaks, is selling the sizzle.

Then there is the usage of terms. The term "Hiten" or "high ten" or "high tensile strength" when applied to steel is mostly meaningless. Those terms were used back in the bike boom era of the late 70's and early 80's as a marketing term to differentiate low strength steels that had been used to construct bicycles from better quality steels that were being used on more expensive bikes. Although Helmart wasn't the force then it is today, Sears, Penney's, Wards, Western Automotive, and a whole host of other places were selling 'bicycles' which were every bit as BSOs as today's BSO offerings from Helmart. What the metallurgy of the steel was...or is...is mostly unknown without some fairly sophisticated materials analysis. However, all of those terms refer to a steel that has a higher tensile strength than weaker steel alloys used for frames of old (and of cheap bikes now). By definition, a iron product that has chromium and molybdenum added to it is a "high tensile strength" steel.

As with most conspiracy theories, you've taken a little kernel of misinformation, fertilized it with a modicum of misunderstanding and watered it with a vast quantity indignance and now have a giant beanstalk of outrage. Chop down the beanstalk with the sharp edge of logic and go about your merry way.

SlimRider

Darn Cyccomute,

You must be keeper of all the rainy days and Mondays, that could ever get me down....Gloomy...Gloomy...Everything is gloomy with you.

First of all, your very premise is wrong. If you've been keeping up with the thread, you should have noticed that I myself, have serious doubts about whether Trek is even aware of this ordeal. I've even cast the blame towards possible human error in the form of a typo. I've also indicated that it's quite possible that perhaps the Trek people are just out of the information loop with respect to the Steel Cross Lane.

So therefore, if you've followed the progression of the thread, I've allowed room for other possible explanations and mechanisms for this unfortunate event to take place. Thus, the conspiratorial aspect becomes somewhat less concentrated, yet present nonetheless. Now, we both can agree that it makes more ethical sense to butt chromoly steel than the cheaper hi-tensile type. However, given the potential volume that Trek Lane sales possess, the profit gained from such trickery would indeed be quite sizeable.

Now would Trek risk its name being involved in this level of public deceit? One has to wonder....It just doesn't make sense to me that Trek would go to such an extent to build its reputation, just to destroy it with such inanity. However, once I received the email from the tech-guy, that the Steel Cross Lane was indeed hi-tensile steel, I was absolutely shocked.

Now what am I left to think?....Who am I to refute Trek's own tech guy?...Who are you to defend the Lane's composition and affirm it as anything else, other than hi-tensile steel after both the AlmostGreenGuy and myself have had the Lane confirmed as hi-tensile steel?

I would agree with you and the few others logic, who protest and proclaim that the Lane just couldn't be made of the hi-tensile grade steel. However, the Trek's own email and this post is just too hard to trump! I'm not going to argue with Trek about its own product. That would be just a little to silly! Wouldn't you agree?

njkayaker

??? Yet you prefer the loony conspiracy theory!

The person who replied just read the same web page you did. No mystery at all.

SnowJob

njkayaker

^^^
"SnowJob"? Hmmm.

SlimRider

So you're saying the Trek tech-guy read the same webpage that I read? ...Why would a qualified Trek tech-guy need to read the same webpage that I'm reading?...Shouldn't they be trained and and tested for their current up-to-date knowledge concerning the technological facts about each and every model of bicycle?

Shouldn't the right hand of Trek know what the left is doing?

PS.

Don't be so quick to drop the conspiracy ball...

While I don't prefer the conspiracy explanation, I don't eliminate it as a possiblity, either.

Conspiracies do exist! Just ask any CEO or lawyer...

In most cases, the entire marketing department is involved in one big conspiracy!