A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

About Trek liquids



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 14th 04, 03:23 PM
Gamarús
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default About Trek liquids


Hi all,

I would like to know the feedback of trek liquid 25/55 owners, and the
rest of people, of course .

I’m coming from a hardtail trek 6700 2003 and I would like to upgrade it.
6700 is perfect to climb up, but it’s obviously a little limited when you
go down . For my week exists around Barcelona (Catalonia, Europe)
through Collserola Park 6700 is fine. Tracks are good and you can go down
faster, jumping several times. Normally you have two climbs up of about 30
minutes each one, in a typically exist of about 30 km. There are also
tracks as in the Trondheim video posted some days ago in the group, but
then my first problem is pedals, not the bike (well...) At the weekends I
usually go to the Pyrenees, mountains up to 3,000 meters, with climbings
up to 4 hours (normally 2 hours), very steep sometimes, where 6700 is
perfect, but the problem is going down in terrain tracks with a lot of
rocks.

I’m looking for a comfortable frame, and trek it’s comfortable enough for
me. I need a full suspension bike for recreational, not competition (maybe
some one some day). Going down hard, jumping several times, and some
technical tracks. I’m thinking in trek Liquid 25 (2500 EUR) or 55 (3500
EUR); or Fuel 95 (3000 EUR).

Geometry in Liquids seems to be the same. Although I’ve not been found any
official numbers, I think 25 weights about 30 lbs (13.6 kg), and 55 27 lbs
(12.25 kg). Am I right?

In 25 there are some LX components (I would like to improve them), brakes
are different, and front fork is a Manitou Black Elite (25), and Manitou
Minute 2 (55).

Is it reasonable to pay 1000 EUR more for 3 lbs less, and these better
components for my use? Taking in account that it’s a lot of money for me.

Another thing that worries me is the behavior of rear shock in climbs.

Any comment would be welcome.

TIA,

--

Gamarús
Ads
  #2  
Old August 14th 04, 03:58 PM
Monique Y. Mudama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2004-08-14, Gamarús penned:

Any comment would be welcome.


Do you have any stores that will let you rent high-end bikes for a day? It's
expensive, but not as expensive as buying a bike that doesn't do what you need
it to do.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain
  #3  
Old August 14th 04, 04:20 PM
Gamarús
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

El Sat, 14 Aug 2004 08:58:28 -0600, Monique Y. Mudama
va escriu

Do you have any stores that will let you rent high-end bikes for a day?
It's
expensive, but not as expensive as buying a bike that doesn't do what
you need
it to do.


In Barcelona, I don't think so. But, I'm thinking in a store that inside
it you can ride for a 100 meters or more track, any bike. That could
provide you some basic feelings about the bike (basically, comfortability,
that it's very important to me), but I'll manage to inform about this.

Thanks, Monique.
--

Gamarús
  #4  
Old August 14th 04, 08:51 PM
SuperSlinky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

=?utf-8?Q?Gamar=C3=BAs?= said...

Is it reasonable to pay 1000 EUR more for 3 lbs less, and these better
components for my use? Taking in account that it’s a lot of money for me.

Another thing that worries me is the behavior of rear shock in climbs.

Any comment would be welcome.

TIA,


I don't think the 55 is worth all the extra money. LX works just fine.
Both bikes have SPV shocks in the rear which should make them very good
climbers, considering the type of bike they are. A Trek Fuel or other XC
bike would climb better, but won't be as good on the downhills. Giant,
Specialized, Kona and others sell bikes that compete head to head with
Trek. I would research all of them.
  #5  
Old August 15th 04, 03:10 AM
Zilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gamarús wrote:
Hi all,

I would like to know the feedback of trek liquid 25/55 owners, and the
rest of people, of course .

I'm coming from a hardtail trek 6700 2003 and I would like to upgrade
it. 6700 is perfect to climb up, but it's obviously a little limited
when you go down . For my week exists around Barcelona (Catalonia,
Europe) through Collserola Park 6700 is fine. Tracks are good and you
can go down faster, jumping several times. Normally you have two
climbs up of about 30 minutes each one, in a typically exist of about
30 km. There are also tracks as in the Trondheim video posted some
days ago in the group, but then my first problem is pedals, not the
bike (well...) At the weekends I usually go to the Pyrenees,
mountains up to 3,000 meters, with climbings up to 4 hours (normally
2 hours), very steep sometimes, where 6700 is perfect, but the
problem is going down in terrain tracks with a lot of rocks.

I'm looking for a comfortable frame, and trek it's comfortable enough
for me. I need a full suspension bike for recreational, not
competition (maybe some one some day). Going down hard, jumping
several times, and some technical tracks. I'm thinking in trek Liquid
25 (2500 EUR) or 55 (3500 EUR); or Fuel 95 (3000 EUR).

Geometry in Liquids seems to be the same. Although I've not been
found any official numbers, I think 25 weights about 30 lbs (13.6
kg), and 55 27 lbs (12.25 kg). Am I right?

In 25 there are some LX components (I would like to improve them),
brakes are different, and front fork is a Manitou Black Elite (25),
and Manitou Minute 2 (55).

Is it reasonable to pay 1000 EUR more for 3 lbs less, and these better
components for my use? Taking in account that it's a lot of money for
me.

Another thing that worries me is the behavior of rear shock in climbs.

Any comment would be welcome.

TIA,

--

Gamarús


(sigh) Drum roll for Ja Dude!

--
- Zilla
Cary, NC
(Remove XSPAM)



  #6  
Old August 15th 04, 04:54 PM
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gamarús wrote in message news:opscp7l8ijyiboxa@ruc...
Another thing that worries me is the behavior of rear shock in climbs.


Ride a hardtail then.

JD
  #7  
Old August 16th 04, 04:10 PM
Dan Volker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gamarús" wrote in message
newspscp7l8ijyiboxa@ruc...

Hi all,

I would like to know the feedback of trek liquid 25/55 owners, and the
rest of people, of course .


I'm looking for a comfortable frame, and trek it's comfortable enough for
me. I need a full suspension bike for recreational, not competition (maybe
some one some day). Going down hard, jumping several times, and some
technical tracks. I'm thinking in trek Liquid 25 (2500 EUR) or 55 (3500
EUR); or Fuel 95 (3000 EUR).


Is it reasonable to pay 1000 EUR more for 3 lbs less, and these better
components for my use? Taking in account that it's a lot of money for me.

Another thing that worries me is the behavior of rear shock in climbs.

Any comment would be welcome.

TIA,

--

Gamarús


Gamarus,
I bought 2 Trek Liquid 25's back around last Christmas, one for myself and
one for my girlfriend. When I bought my Liquid, I was weighing 237 pounds,
and needed the 5 inch full suspension to make very rooty trails more
comfortable to ride---I believe a rider over 200 pounds "needs" more travel
than a 145 pound rider, due to the greater inertial mass. In any event, the
Trek Liquid worked perfectly for me, and handled plenty of abuse. I'm now
at 203 pounds, and its still a hot ticket for me. I use Panaracer FR 2.4
tires on front and rear, and the bike rips turns better than most of the
people that I ride with, can do with typical X-country bikes or Hard tails.
Clearly I'm at a small disadvantage when having to rapidly accelerate from a
near stop to 10 miles per hour in a few feet, but better technique is
preventing most near stops, and when I can "carry" the speed, I don't feel
any liability from the extra weight. Even when my body fat hits 8% and I
weigh 185 pounds, I will still have an issue with constant re-acceleration
if riding terrain that causes this, if the people I am riding with are 150
pound racer types. Since my weight is more of an issue than a few pounds for
my bike, picking a bike and tires that can "carry" speed better though turns
and technical sections, seems a better way to go.

For my girlfriend, the Liquid has been awesome. She a Cat 3 Women's road
racer, with few mountain bike skills. She loves mountain biking, but when
she comes to a log or big rock, rather than clearing it by lifting the front
end, her motus operandi is to ram it at high speed, rarely lightening the
front end very much. The Liquid gets her over almost everything, whereas
previous mountain bikes she rode ( Cannondale hardtail with Monoshock, and
Trek hardtail) would send her over the bars in the same scenarios. The
Liquid has made her really like mountain biking, so once her road season is
over in the fall, she may actually ride the Liquid enough to learn some
techniques :-)

As to high speed descending, I have been riding this bike in Florida so far,
with the largest vertical descents at Razorback. Others on this list can
rate the downhills at Razorback for you, but my description of them is very
steep, about 30 to 60 foot lengths, allowing speeds on these downhills over
35 miles per hour. They are littered with rocks and boulder type debris, and
most would consider fast descents on these as technical. My Liquid seemed to
handle the downhills much better than my friend's Santa Cruz, though this
may be partly because I run light Downhill tires, and he rides X-country
tires. In any event I rode the downhills much faster than the people I was
with, because my bike was far more stable and responsive going very fast
over lots of good sized rock and debris. Sudden turns thrown in to the mix,
were easy for the liquid, and it tracked like it was made for exactly this
type of environment.

I'll have it in the North Carolina area soon, where I can ride on some real
mountain sized downhills, but for now I feel confident in saying the Liquid
is a good bike.

Regards,
Dan Volker


  #8  
Old August 17th 04, 12:30 AM
Gamarús
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

El Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:51:23 GMT, SuperSlinky va
escriu


I don't think the 55 is worth all the extra money. LX works just fine.
Both bikes have SPV shocks in the rear which should make them very good
climbers, considering the type of bike they are. A Trek Fuel or other XC
bike would climb better, but won't be as good on the downhills. Giant,
Specialized, Kona and others sell bikes that compete head to head with
Trek. I would research all of them.


Yes, LX really works fine enough. I have LX at my Trek 6700 . But,
Liquid 25 has a mix of LX/XT components and other brands in brakes, and as
I'll upgrade to a better bike, I would like a complete XT. No worried
about, I think I'll be able to change in the shop.

The question is if the frameset is exactly the same in liquid 25 than in
Liquid 55. I think is the same material and the same geometry, but I don't
know if weights the same or not (any structural change). Anybody knows
about it? If the answer is Yes, then there is any complaint, the front
fork is the only difference important to me if I change into XT
components. If not, well...

On the other hand I tested some Kona. Geometry is agressive, and I'm
looking for a comfortable enough . Maybe is the age...

Last week, I tested a Specialized Epic in a rocky forest track, and worked
really fine compared to my hardtail. But, although geometry is also a
little agressive, I read in some magazine that the suspension system is
something between Hardtail and All-mountain, beeing in the last not good
as a typical all-mountain.

However, I'll test inside the shop, before purchasing a Trek, some Kona,
Cannondale, Gt, Specialized and some local brand (that are cheaper).

I also read, that 2005 Liquids would change slighty the rear suspension
system, improving perfomance and travel, and the higher bar would have
more sloop, having a more agressive look (I don't know is overall geometry
will change). A true redesign of the Liquid's series. In Fuel series also
would increase travel's suspension into 100 mm.

Regards,

--

Gamarús
  #9  
Old August 17th 04, 12:45 AM
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan Vo2lker" wrote in message ...
I bought 2 Trek Liquid 25's back around last Christmas, one for myself and
one for my girlfriend. When I bought my Liquid, I was weighing 237 pounds,
and needed the 5 inch full suspension to make very rooty trails more
comfortable to ride---


HAHAHAHA

I believe a rider over 200 pounds "needs" more travel
than a 145 pound rider, due to the greater inertial mass.


Can you say "fallacy"? Nobody *needs* travel, except goobers who are
conned by the marketing creeps.

In any event, the
Trek Liquid worked perfectly for me, and handled plenty of abuse.


Yeah, we've seen how "abusive" your trails are. What a laugh...again.

snip more non-expert opinion

As to high speed descending, I have been riding this bike in Florida

snip laughable claims/terrain

Tell us all, Vo2lker, how does one descend a molehill? What's the
high point in Fla?

I'll have it in the North Carolina area soon, where I can ride on some real
mountain sized downhills, but for now I feel confident in saying the Liquid
is a good bike.


A glowing review from someone who doesn't know jack shiite, except the
sad little world of Fla "mountain biking". What a joke.

JD
  #10  
Old August 17th 04, 12:54 AM
Gamarús
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

El Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:10:26 -0400, Dan Volker va
escriu

(...)

Thanks Dan for providing such generous information .

And, what say you about uphills with a Liquid 25? Rear shox moves, bounce?
I'm more worried about uphills behaviour, than downhills, as I think you
always have to suffer in uphills, and have fun in downhills. I'd prefer
less suffer than more fun . But obviously, I need more fun than a
downhill with a hardtail.

Best regards,

--

Gamarús
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2004 - Trek 1400? Trek 1200? comments? yuri budilov Techniques 1 April 4th 04 10:53 PM
Klein vs. Trek (crossposted) Lester Long Techniques 9 September 29th 03 06:47 PM
FA: TREK Aluminum Investment Cast Lugs & Tubing The Ink Company Marketplace 0 September 8th 03 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.