Since these pics were taken, the handlebar stem was replaced with a Giant mtb stem, flipped to give the XO1 a slightly more upright riding position, but shorter and less upright than the orig. stem when flipped... as well as replacing the orig. seat with a San Marco Era. The 52t outer chainring was also replaced with a 48t ring. [Current pics coming soon!]
I also put the original rims back on, but installed a road cassette on the rear, as the narrow-geared one it had was more the the 'cross racer, and put on the stock 32c tires.
My next mod will be shelving the steel inner ring (42t) for an aluminum 39 or 36'er, once i decide which. Also considering eventually replacing the bar end shifters with STI -- I'm thinking Shimano -- if it's practical.
This was a gift I got myself almost a year ago. Since then it has has a few minor tinkerings here and there, as described.
Why a cyclecross bike? Actually, I had test-rode the new Specialized Allez with it's sloping top tube, and it seemed comfy and real darn quick. So why opt for a heavier, older bike? Simply put, the cyclecross bike is intended for rough use. Most modern road bikes are made to appeal to the faux racer; "recreational" riders, or those of us who rarely pass 40mph on a daily basis, are left with two real choices; "comfoirt bikes" which really aren't efficient for longer road rides, or mountainbikes.
Some "touring" bikes are still available which are also tough customers, but they are few and far between -- and expensive as any high-end racer. And they arenot quite as "performance" oriented as the 'cross bike.
The cross bike is intended for racing -- but offroad cyclecross racing. It therefore strikes a nice balance between performance qualities; lightweight, stiff, good handling -- and durability aspects; strong frame, durable and not exotic components, wide tire clearance, and mucho stopping power.
Because of this, a cyclocross bike has many of the same characteristics as the tourer; wider tire clearance, sturdier frame and componentry, cantilever brakes, a less aero, but less uncomfortable, riding position -- but can still "go fast" and feel racey enuff to justify wearing those stupid alien-looking sunglasses [I know, I have a pair too ;) LOL!]. It IS a potential race bike -- for cyclecross racing, that is. But it is not a road racing machine and this shows.
For those who ride often, but do not "race", the XO1 was the best "road" bike yet; the bike is less likely to get damaged for potholes or bumps, being intended for off-road use, and the comonents are less likely to need costly adjustment or repair as is the case with many lightweight $1000-plus road machines. If it were only made out of steel, like my Lemond! But, it's aluminum frame is nice 'n stiff, and reasonably light, too. Plus, you can take it offroad on occaision, or down dirt paths, across grass, etc. with no ill effects.
Plus, the Trek XO1 can even mount a fender or rack -- though I haven't tried.
The handmade in the USA sticker on the chainguard sold me. The bike was mine.
The XO1 is a lightweight aluminum frame, made in the USA by Trek. Unlike cheap aluminum frames which are heavier than decent steel ones and ride lousy, this bike handles excellently and is light. The made in the U.S. is also a plus as many of Trek's lower-model bikes are outsourced (though still well made). [Trek is an American company but many of their low-end frames are actually built in Tiawan -- not necessarily a bad thing as the Tiawanese learned framebuilding from the Japanese, who borrowed heavily from the Italians, giving us lightweight joys like vintage Fujis... But it's always good to see bikes built here in the US!]
Stock equipment was 180mm cranks, double, 52 and 39? or 40 t inner [unsure], SPD clipless pedals, Bontrager bars and seat, Matrix double-walled rims [700c of course], size 35 tires with knobbys, bar-end shifters and Shorty cantilever brakes ["Those brakes have enough power to stop a loaded tandem", I recall the guy at the 'shop telling me]. I was skeptical but the brakes, if anything, are almost TOO powerful for the bike; front wheel lockup can happen to the unwarry, which is why I clean my rims and go light on the brakes. Being used to my fixed gear I really am not used to handbrakes, anyway!
The bike has red-white-and-blue paintjob. It was an NOS model from 2001 when I bought it in early '04, marked down significantly from it's original $999.99 price tag.
That price was shocking, which is why I was glad I didn't have to pay it, but the bike is not cheap. I got a deal -- but I'd say even at full price it would be worth the nine nine nine bills. This year's model is priced at $1,249.99, which makes it more pricely than even the high-end Cannondale 'crossbike. While price in itself is usually not proof of quality, despite what the snobs tell you, this bike is a pro piece and woth it. A recent issue of an adventure magazine had a female cyclecross racer on the cover, riding this very same blue Trek to victory in a muddy, dirty, tough 'cross race. She had upgraded the shifter/brake levers to STI but that is about par for the course as the current model comes with those integrated shifters, as well as a smaller [46t] big ring. That the bike could be ridden in a real race, with just a few part upgrades, says volumes -- the frame is indeed raceworthy, though I'm sure I'll never enter such a competition, it is good to know the bike can handle whatever I'll throw it at, and then some. In itself, this shows quality, as do the little touches such as the integrated removable derailiuer hanger that looks as if it's part of the blue frame, the bontrager handlebar, and the name "TREK" in relief on the downtube right below the front end welds. The frame's performance -- stiff but not "harsh" -- shows that tho it may be aluminum, this bike isn't cheap.
_____________________
Better pics of bike coming soon!
Back...
...back to Lonerider's main page