Want to buy road bike - head spinning.

Local said:

I would appreciate input from anyone who has been in a similar situation.

Thanks,

Greg

Test rides, test rides, test rides! Go to different dealers and try
different bikes, different brands. Also think about 'shopping' for a
bike shop. Sounds like you are going to be making changes and buying
new equipment (if only shorts, etc.) over the next year, so find a
dealer that you are comfortable with.

http://www.chainreactionbicycles.com/roadbiketestrides.htm

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

Local said:

I looked at a Trek 1000, 1500, and 2100.

i vote 1500.

well, actually i vote 5200..

the delta between the 1000 and 1500 is in better components, wheels and
a carbon fork (notably 105 shifters over sora). the delta between the 1500
and 2100 seems to be mostly in the frame (carbon seat stays, prob'ly not
worth it).
--
david reuteler
[email hidden]

Local <[email hidden]> wrote in news:spam-88F83F.21011922072004
@corp.supernews.com:

Quoted message said:

I am attempting to find a suitable road bike for serious fitness riding
(soon to be ex-runner 50 to 60 miles running per week). I have no plans
to race, but could imagine doing 1 or 2 centuries per year.

I went to my Trek dealer and my head started to spin.

I looked at a Trek 1000, 1500, and 2100.

Any of those bikes will be suitable for 2 centuries a year. The better ones
will be slightly faster on very hilly rides. All should be very durable if
maintained properly.

In article <[email hidden]>, Ken <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Any of those bikes will be suitable for 2 centuries a year. The better ones
will be slightly faster on very hilly rides. All should be very durable if
maintained properly.

Thanks for the input, Ken.

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Reuteler said:

well, actually i vote 5200..

hehe...

Quoted message said:

the delta between the 1000 and 1500 is in better components, wheels and
a carbon fork (notably 105 shifters over sora). the delta between the 1500
and 2100 seems to be mostly in the frame (carbon seat stays, prob'ly not
worth it).

David, thanks for the advice. I find that the most confusing aspect of
making this selection is knowing which deltas are important. With no
experience, it is hard for me to tell if an upgraded component like a
seat stem is a big deal or not.

So, I end up feeling like I am guessing in the end.

Thanks, Dan. Good links.

Local said:

I looked at a Trek 1000, 1500, and 2100. I left very confused.

Take your time, read about them, test ride, check out other brand name bikes, find one
that fits your goals and body.

---
"BitwiseBob" - Bob Anderson
Eugene Oregon

Bob Anderson said:

Local said:

I looked at a Trek 1000, 1500, and 2100. I left very confused.

Take your time, read about them, test ride, check out other brand name bikes, find one
that fits your goals and body.

---
"BitwiseBob" - Bob Anderson
Eugene Oregon

For the more 'mature' rider, you might even look at the 1800C. It has
nice components and less severe angle from seat to drops, plus brake
levers for the straight bar section.

-B

Local said:

I am attempting to find a suitable road bike for serious fitness riding
(soon to be ex-runner 50 to 60 miles running per week). I have no plans
to race, but could imagine doing 1 or 2 centuries per year.

Based on the fact that you logged 50 - 60 miles running a week, I would guess you would log around 150 miles on the bike assuming you keep dedicating the same amount of time. With that in mind, you should get a bike with Ultegra components. They are going to hold up to your increased usage the best. If you were interested in racing, then I would suggest Dura Ace, but not. 105 components are good but they will not hold calibration as long as Ultegra and this will cause sloppier shifting over time and require more maintenance.

That means that the lowest Trek bike you should be looking at is the 2300, which rules out your three choices. Also keep in mind that Trek bikes have a name brand premium price built into them and cost more than other bikes of the same quality. Look around at other brands (such as Felt, Fuji and Jamis for example) and look for end of season sales comming in the next month or so to get the best overall bang for the buck.

I got my Jamis Ultegra bike for less than a 105 bike because I bought it as the new year models were comming out.

jitteringjr said:

105 components are good but they will
not hold calibration as long as Ultegra and this will cause sloppier
shifting over time and require more maintenance.

What do you base this on? What do you mean by "hold calibration."

I've used both Dura Ace and 105 shifters and found little difference in
performance or reliability.

Art Harris

Local said:

I am attempting to find a suitable road bike for serious fitness riding
(soon to be ex-runner 50 to 60 miles running per week). I have no plans
to race, but could imagine doing 1 or 2 centuries per year.

Quoted message said:

I went to my Trek dealer and my head started to spin.

Quoted message said:

I looked at a Trek 1000, 1500, and 2100. I left very confused. Any of
these bikes are vastly superior to my deceased 1980's schwinn 10-speed.
From that perspective the Trek 1000 would be the nicest bike that I
would have owned. On the other hand, I really don't want to buy it and
find out in a year that I should have bought the 2100.

Quoted message said:

My gut feeling is that the 1000 series should contain a bike that would
work well for my purposes.

For long rides, the most important consideration is comfort. If your
neck, back, and butt are hurting 75 miles into a century, it won't matter
which component group you've got.

A comfortable fit, appropriate saddle, and clearance for 25 or 28mm tires
is more important than component choice. If you're riding in a hilly area,
a triple crankset is a good idea. You'll probably want to use clipless
pedals as well.

The 1000 is quite a bargain, but not if you're going to start "upgrading"
components in a year. Over the life of a bike, the little more you invest
up front doesn't really amount to much. But that's a personal decision
that only you can make.

Art Harris

jitteringjr said:

Local said:

I am attempting to find a suitable road bike for serious fitness
riding
(soon to be ex-runner 50 to 60 miles running per week). I have no
plans
to race, but could imagine doing 1 or 2 centuries per year.

Based on the fact that you logged 50 - 60 miles running a week, I would
guess you would log around 150 miles on the bike assuming you keep
dedicating the same amount of time.

I might quibble with this a bit. If he's running quality 50 - 60 miles
per week and has been doing so for > 5 years, then 150/week on the
bike would be -way- too low, IMO, unless the terrain is moderately
hilly.

50 miles/week at 3-4 days per week means ~12-15 miles/run. In my
experience it's difficult to recover if you're running every day.
That's about 2 hours per day on the road.

Looking for similar 'runner's highs', we're talking 30-40 mi/day which
would mean about 2.5 hours per day. Even then you'd have to really
push it on some days to get the endorphins out depending on the amount
of hills. In addition, I think the OP would find that he wants to ride
every day, so that's doubling the amount of time above what you
suggested above

So IMO, on flats, in 6 months, 200-250 mi/wk for a good middle of the
pack 10K runner switching to a bike. On mod. hills, 150/week, yeah.

Perhaps a decent compromise is to still do some jogging, but cut back
to 4-5 miles, three times a week, and cut pace to 7:30ish, but add 150
miles per week of biking. That would give a similar amt of fitness,
but the running ability would still decline in the course of the next
year or two.

Hope that doesn't sound too confusing...(d'oh). ;-D

-B

In article <[email hidden]>, Local says...

Quoted message said:

Any of
these bikes are vastly superior to my deceased 1980's schwinn 10-speed.

Don't be too sure. Yes any new bike you get from a bike store will be better
but not anything like *vastly* unless your schwinn was junk to begin with. I
have an 1999 3x9 speed bike and an 1988 2*6 speed bike, both mid price bikes.
The difference are that the newer bike shifts more quietly and better under load
and the brakes require less squeeze to operate. You will hear of many other
improvements but these are the only ones that rise above the noise for me. On
the other hand I only ride recreationally, typically 50 to 80 miles per day.

If you care about appearance however the more you spend the prettier the bike.

Harris said:

jitteringjr said:

105 components are good but they will not hold calibration as long as
Ultegra and this will cause sloppier shifting over time and require more
maintenance.

What do you base this on? What do you mean by "hold calibration."

I've used both Dura Ace and 105 shifters and found little difference in
performance or reliability.

Art Harris

Holding calibration is usually due to using quality cables.

I wouldn't go above 105 for "sport riding" unless you've got the bucks and
like the "look" (Ultegra is the handsomest group imho), or find a good
deal. Often one can find bikes that combine 105/Ultegra in an intelligent
manner. That's yet another consideration.

Local <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I could appreciate some guidance on purchasing a new road bicycle.

I am attempting to find a suitable road bike for serious fitness riding
(soon to be ex-runner 50 to 60 miles running per week). I have no plans
to race, but could imagine doing 1 or 2 centuries per year.

I went to my Trek dealer and my head started to spin.

I looked at a Trek 1000, 1500, and 2100. I left very confused. Any of
these bikes are vastly superior to my deceased 1980's schwinn 10-speed.
From that perspective the Trek 1000 would be the nicest bike that I
would have owned. On the other hand, I really don't want to buy it and
find out in a year that I should have bought the 2100.

My gut feeling is that the 1000 series should contain a bike that would
work well for my purposes.

I would appreciate input from anyone who has been in a similar situation.

Thanks,

Greg

Hi Greg, While I'm not currently in the market for a Trek, I'll admit
those models you mention are very nice, I have seen them, and not too
costly IMO. My local Bike Dealer is a Trek Dealer, and I notice right
now many of his models on the floor are on sale at very good prices,
so I imagine that many dealers now are perhaps putting bikes on sale?,
as maybe the new year's models are about to roll in?

I recommend getting the make/model you have your heart set on. If it
is a Trek, so be it. Otherwise, you may have regrets further down the
road, that you didn't originally get what you desired/wanted. Pride in
ownership compliments the hobby greatly, and you'll certainly enhance
your enjoyment with a bike that your "in love" with.

Most good dealers also offer free check-ups-adjustments-repairs should
anything go wrong for a period of one year (Ask about this when you
visit, they usually quickly tell you this up front).

It's a great "fun" thing to have a good relationship with your local
dealer. When I visit my LBS for repairs/help/advice, or most recently
just to drop in to chat about the TdF, I usually tote along a few
sasparillas for them, and it is always deeply appreciated by them.

I recommend trying the buy the best that you can reasonably afford.
When it comes down to a $50-100 difference, spring the additional cash
if you can, for the slightly better model. I'm sure they'll work with
you, and thoroughly explain the differences in components-frames.

Hope this helps, Mark

maxo said:

Harris said:

jitteringjr said:

105 components are good but they will not hold calibration as long as
Ultegra and this will cause sloppier shifting over time and require more
maintenance.

What do you base this on? What do you mean by "hold calibration."

I've used both Dura Ace and 105 shifters and found little difference in
performance or reliability.

Art Harris

Holding calibration is usually due to using quality cables.

I wouldn't go above 105 for "sport riding" unless you've got the bucks and
like the "look" (Ultegra is the handsomest group imho), or find a good
deal. Often one can find bikes that combine 105/Ultegra in an intelligent
manner. That's yet another consideration.

My LBS guy said the big plus with Ultegra was 'sealed bearings', and
"stuff". ;-)

Sound reasonable?

-B

Ken said:

Any of those bikes will be suitable for 2 centuries a year. The better ones
will be slightly faster on very hilly rides. All should be very durable if
maintained properly.

If you have the $$$ for a higher quality bike then get it.

The Trek 1000 bike is very nice for the price, but the 8 speed
cassette and Sora group severely limit your upgrade path. On a test
ride you might think of the iffy shifting of the Sora as only a slight
inconvenience, but after a few thousand miles you'll begin to get
seriously annoyed with it. The derailer trim feature of Tiagra and
above are also well worth the money, IMHO.

I have a 2003 Trek 1000. I'm not a weight-weenie, but I really wish I
had spent the extra $100 or two for a Tiagra equipped bike.

RFM

Wow I really opened a can of worms on the 105 comment.

I have owned two modern groups: Sora and Ultegra. The Sora had to be dialed in almost weekly to keep itself shifting smoothly. The Ultegra can go forever and not miss a beat in comparison. That is what I ment by "calibration."

I have no personal experience with 105 stuff but a bike mechanic friend of mine told me that I would notice a slight difference in shifting over time, for the better, in having Ultegra over 105. Thats comming from a mechanic who deals with 100's of bikes. The average person with only one or two bikes might not notice a difference.

Also, Badger South, I agree with what you are saying. I was just using a general thumb rule of how fast I ran as a runner before I had to switch to cycling compaired to how fast I ride now. My point in general is if you are going to spend 150 miles or especially 200 miles a week on a bike, that you should get the best quality you can afford. I learned that the hard way after not being satisfied with the performance of my Sora group.

(Fritz M) said:

Ken said:

Any of those bikes will be suitable for 2 centuries a year. The better ones
will be slightly faster on very hilly rides. All should be very durable if
maintained properly.

If you have the $$$ for a higher quality bike then get it.

The Trek 1000 bike is very nice for the price, but the 8 speed
cassette and Sora group severely limit your upgrade path. On a test
ride you might think of the iffy shifting of the Sora as only a slight
inconvenience, but after a few thousand miles you'll begin to get
seriously annoyed with it. The derailer trim feature of Tiagra and
above are also well worth the money, IMHO.

I have a 2003 Trek 1000. I'm not a weight-weenie, but I really wish I
had spent the extra $100 or two for a Tiagra equipped bike.

RFM

So I'm guessing the Tiagra is a 9 speed and does not limit your
upgrade path? Is that the 1200?

-B
Web browser being -very slow- right now...yep that's it:
http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/road/1200.jsp
http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/road/1200c.jsp