In message <
[email protected]>, Saint <
[email protected]> writes
>> Either way they both seem to be more than
>> adequate for the puposes you describe.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jo B.
>>
>
>
>Hi Jo
>
>Observation acepted. I guess I am lucky that I have enough budget for either - my question was
>therefore intended to ask whether the 7700 was indeed worth the extra dosh over the 7300. More than
>anything I need comfort from a bike and am prepared to pay for it , having suffered from not doing
>so in the past.
>
>Bike will be used quite a lot (>50mls per week and perhaps more once I get my fitness).
>
>Saint
>
>
I agree with Jo B. that both these bikes are more than adequate for the 50 miles per week you
suggest. However, I think you'll soon find that you can do much more than this and day tours of 30+
miles will be no problem.
There's another thread entitled "Saracen any good?" which is discussing a similar type of bike to
these although at a lower price. It contains a rather heated debate on the pros and cons of front
suspension for this type of machine.
It's interesting that the 7300FX has front suspension as an option but the 7700FX doesn't (according
to the Trek UK website). Unless you think you might do a lot of riding on very rough tracks I don't
think the suspension is necessary. There are plenty of people doing tours of over 50 miles per day
(mostly on roads) and they wouldn't dream of having suspension. They would argue that the extra
weight isn't countered by an appreciable increase in comfort.
Comparing both bikes without suspension forks I don't think there'll be any noticeable difference in
comfort. The Trek website doesn't give weight details but the 7700 is likely to be lighter - you can
check this in the shop.
The most important factor in determining your comfort is getting a bike that fits you properly. I
strongly recommend you go to a dealer who has a fitting system of some kind and will make the
necessary changes to the bike afterwards. My wife and I have both done this recently and our new
bikes have not been in the least bit uncomfortable. The dealer credited the cost of the fitting
against the price of the bikes.
A possible alternative to these Treks is a Giant FSR2. My wife is perfectly happy with hers.
Price was £600.
In your original post you mentioned the possibility of touring. If you mean a tour where you need to
carry luggage (or even a picnic) then you should ask about the ease of adding a rack to these bikes.
You might want to ask about mudguards, too.
--
Michael MacClancy