I am currently looking to buy a new road bike and am considering a Trek 1000 model.
Could anyone please advise me about whether or not these bikes are any good or indeed any better alternatives for a similar price?
I want the bike for leisure rides of up to 40 or 50 miles and not for competitive racing.
I have also noticed that many of the suppliers allow buyers to choose how many gears they want without affecting the price.
For example, a bike may be advertised with an 8 speed cassette and a choice of a crankset with two or three cogs.
I would immediately plump for the 24 gear option rather than the 16 gear option but I would really be pleased if someone could please explain the pros and cons of each option.
I would immediately plump for the 24 gear option rather than the 16 gear option but I would really be pleased if someone could please explain the pros and cons of each option.
The differences are pretty straight forward. The 24 gear (3 chainrings) give you a couple of extra high and low gears. Note that you don't really get 8 extra because probably 5 or 6 will be redundent with the other chainrings. Most likely you will get two more low and two high. So the advantage of the 3 chainring is more gears.
The disadvantage of the 3 chainring is that shifting is not as clean and precise as the 2 chainring, and the 3 chainring will require more maintenance and adjustment.
The decision may boil down to what type of riding you typically do. If you have lots of hills, then the triple will be probably be worthwhile. If you ride on mostly flat roads or rolling hills, I would suggest the double.
If possible, ride both before making up you mind. In the end, it is a personal decision that only you can decide.
[font=Arial]Hi Gruppo[/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]Thanks very much for that explanation which has helped me a great deal.[/font]
[font=Arial]As I don't live in a particularly mountainous area and the smoother changing appeals, I think I'll go for the 2 chainrings option.[/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]Like a lot of people these days, I am only just getting back into cycling[/font] [font=Arial]after many years out of the saddle and I suppose that there is always the option of having a 3 chainring crankset fitted in the future as I tackle more challenging rides.[/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]I notice that Trek are introducing carbon fibre forks to the 2005 version of their 1000 model. I understand that this will offer a weight reduction and a certain amount of shock absorption but I am concerned about whether Carbon Fibre (English spelling) is a strong enough material for such a critical part of the bike which takes so much stress.[/font]
[font=Arial]Are my fears justified ?[/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]I once had a carbon fibre fishing rod snap quite spectacularly on me, and I think my fears stem from that memory.[/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]Once again, many thanks indeed for taking the time to explain the pros and cons of each system.[/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]Best wishes[/font] [font=Arial]Martin[/font]
I wouldn't worry about carbon fiber being up to the task in critical areas, after all, it is used for seat posts, handlebars, and wheels which are just as critical as crank arms.
The more important question is whether all that expensive carbon is worth the weight savings on your particular bike. Carbon is darn expensive and you can go broke trying to save a few grams here and there.
In the end, it is up to you and your wallet to decide, but I wouldn't be concerned about quality and durability of carbon components.
