I brought a 2004 Trek 1000 as my first road bike just over a year ago and i cannot rate it enough as a starter bike. since then i have covered 2500 miles or so and used it in races, TT's and circuit racing as well as club runs and rides into work. I am using it on a 1000 mile charity ride through the Alps next week (but with a new cassette to suit the climbs).
$300 in uk money sounds an absolute bargain, the only gripes are that the wheels spec'd by Trek are not good and they flex way too much. I ugraded to some bontrager race wheels and they made such a difference to the handling, it is like riding a different bike. apart from the wheels, all i have done is put on some clipless pedals and replace the chain and cassette when needed. the other gripe is that now i'm looking to upgrade the gears and brakes (to 9 speed 105/ Ultegra from the 8 speed Sora), i have found that i'll could easily spend another 50% on the overall new cost and it makes more sense to go out and buy a new bike with the bits i want already fitted!
that said, when the new bike comes (probably a 2005 trek 2300 in the spring), i'll be using my trek 1000 as a winter and commuting bike.
I'd definately recommend it as an entry level bike if you don't want to spend too much intially, as long as you realise that you'll probably want to upgrade in a year or two.
Good luck!
southsanjose said:I too am new to the cycling world and came across a 2 month old 2004 Trek 1000 in exc. shape for sale - $300. I test drove a few other entry level bikes (Giant, Specialized) at my local bike shop and liked the way the Trek 1000 rode. My questions are as follows:
1. Does it make more sense to buy the 2005 Trek 1000 model because of better derailers (Tiagra vs. Sora) and a front fork (Carbon vs. Alum) than the 2004 Trek 1000?
2. Should I not be concerned at this stage since I don't know how much I will like the sport and I can always upgrade the deraillers (estimate for parts and labor??) and fork (estimate for parts and labor??)?
Thanks.