Well, you’ve got to hand it to Trek, they keep their eyes open. Only a couple of days after my previous (slightly ranty) post, they posted a response. You’ve got to give ’em credit for addressing people’s concerns, and for taking the time to post on a tiny blog!
Initially, although I was impressed that they bothered to respond, I wasn’t overly impressed with the reasoning. Neither were some of the posters on the Bike Radar forum, with Supersonic in particular putting TrekChris through her paces. Chris, however, rose to the challenge, and answered all the questions thrown at her.
Apparently, this is the first year that the high-end Fuels have had the same geometry, and the change was made because the higher-end riders preferred it that way – hence why the WSD models in the lower end of the range still have the different geometry. To compensate for those who’d still prefer a shorter top tube, there are additional sizes in between the standard bloke’s sizes.
And that makes sense, really – there’s no point in making a product one way if the majority of the target audience wants it another. So, kudos to Trek for taking the time to explain the research behind certain decisions. You could argue that the marketing blurb about WSD on their sites is still a little misleading (especially on the US site, which makes a bit more of a song and dance about geometry). But then again, given that they have over thirty-odd WSD models that do have differing geometry from the standard bikes, and three that don’t…well, it’s just being picky, really.
Now, if Trek could explain the market research that led them to believe that brown was a good colour for a bike…
I know we ladies have risen up against overwhelmingly pink bikes in recent years…but brown?