Trek Pilot vs Dawes Audax



J

Jay Hendry

Guest
Hi

Firstly thanks to all those who responded to my posting a week or so ago on
the Dawes Audax riding position.

I've visited a couple of bike shops over the last two weekends and all seem
to be suggesting more an aluminium frame/carbon fibre fork bike as being
good for what I want to do. Get fit in 2006 and then LEJOG in 2007.

So two bike shops seem keen on the Trek Pilot 1.0 or 1.2 as a good bike for
my needs. Light weight, reasonable spec. interesting top of drop bar
mounted additional brake levers, lifetime warranty on carbon forks. Does
anyone have any experience of these bikes as although I've yet to find a
local shop with a Dawes Audax that I can try the concept seemed about right
for what I want to do - or is that now old hat and the aluminium/carbon
fibre the way forward?

Thanks again for any input

Jay
 
X-No-Archive: yes

Jay Hendry wrote:
> Hi

>
> So two bike shops seem keen on the Trek Pilot 1.0 or 1.2 as a good bike for
> my needs. Light weight, reasonable spec. interesting top of drop bar
> mounted additional brake levers, lifetime warranty on carbon forks. Does
> anyone have any experience of these bikes as although I've yet to find a
> local shop with a Dawes Audax that I can try the concept seemed about right
> for what I want to do - or is that now old hat and the aluminium/carbon
> fibre the way forward?
>
>

Is the LEG supported are you going or do you want to carry Luggage. Do
you need panniers on the front.

Has the cycle got mudguard clearance


peter
 
Jay Hendry wrote:
> I've visited a couple of bike shops over the last two weekends and all seem
> to be suggesting more an aluminium frame/carbon fibre fork bike as being
> good for what I want to do. Get fit in 2006 and then LEJOG in 2007.

Might this be because that's what they have in stock?

> So two bike shops seem keen on the Trek Pilot 1.0 or 1.2 as a good bike for
> my needs. Light weight, reasonable spec. interesting top of drop bar
> mounted additional brake levers, lifetime warranty on carbon forks. Does
> anyone have any experience of these bikes as although I've yet to find a
> local shop with a Dawes Audax that I can try the concept seemed about right
> for what I want to do - or is that now old hat and the aluminium/carbon
> fibre the way forward?

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

The upshot being: "The reality is that you can make a good bike frame
out of any of these metals, with any desired riding qualities, by
selecting appropriate tubing diamters, wall thicknesses and frame geometry."

Anthony
 
in message <[email protected]>, Jay
Hendry ('[email protected]') wrote:

> So two bike shops seem keen on the Trek Pilot 1.0 or 1.2 as a good bike
> for my needs. Light weight, reasonable spec. interesting top of drop
> bar mounted additional brake levers, lifetime warranty on carbon forks.
> Does anyone have any experience of these bikes as although I've yet to
> find a local shop with a Dawes Audax that I can try the concept seemed
> about right for what I want to do - or is that now old hat and the
> aluminium/carbon fibre the way forward?

Specialized Sequioa has a similar spec, if you're looking for something
to compare against. Cannondale Touring Light is similar but slightly
more upmarket, and comes with mudguards and rack. Or you could go even
further upmarket and get one of the ubiquitous Airbornes, or have
someone custom build an Audax for you.

Steel is springier than aluminium, carbon composite springier than steel.
Bike with aluminium forks are often criticised for being harsh, which is
why good aluminium bikes now come with carbon forms. But plenty of
people who know what they're talking about say these differences are
really too small to detect. The great advantage of a steel frame,
though, is that it's repairable. Modern bike frames generally are not.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error
 
Peter Simons <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Jay Hendry wrote:
>> Hi
>
>>
>> So two bike shops seem keen on the Trek Pilot 1.0 or 1.2 as a good
>> bike for my needs. Light weight, reasonable spec. interesting top of
>> drop bar mounted additional brake levers, lifetime warranty on carbon
>> forks. Does anyone have any experience of these bikes as although
>> I've yet to find a local shop with a Dawes Audax that I can try the
>> concept seemed about right for what I want to do - or is that now old
>> hat and the aluminium/carbon fibre the way forward?
>>
>>
>
> Is the LEG supported are you going or do you want to carry Luggage.
> Do you need panniers on the front.
>
> Has the cycle got mudguard clearance
>
>
> peter
>

We intend doing B&B/YH without a backup vehicle so basic kit and spares and
_hope_ we don't end up carrying that much that we need front panniers

Yes we're told the Trek will take mudguards and a rear carrier

Thanks

Jay
 
Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Jay Hendry wrote:
>> I've visited a couple of bike shops over the last two weekends and
>> all seem to be suggesting more an aluminium frame/carbon fibre fork
>> bike as being good for what I want to do. Get fit in 2006 and then
>> LEJOG in 2007.
>
> Might this be because that's what they have in stock?
They'd have to order in for me as I need a 58cm frame
>
>> So two bike shops seem keen on the Trek Pilot 1.0 or 1.2 as a good
>> bike for my needs. Light weight, reasonable spec. interesting top of
>> drop bar mounted additional brake levers, lifetime warranty on carbon
>> forks. Does anyone have any experience of these bikes as although
>> I've yet to find a local shop with a Dawes Audax that I can try the
>> concept seemed about right for what I want to do - or is that now old
>> hat and the aluminium/carbon fibre the way forward?
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html
>
> The upshot being: "The reality is that you can make a good bike frame
> out of any of these metals, with any desired riding qualities, by
> selecting appropriate tubing diamters, wall thicknesses and frame
> geometry."
>
> Anthony
>
Yes I searched before posting and saw the link to that. Agreed it's
trying to make an informed judgement about what would give the best mix
of cost and reliability. I did comment in one bike shop about hearing
that carbon fibre forks _could_ be more susceptable to total failure if
damaged whereas steel will take a dent or two and not fail as
catastrophically - not that I'm looking to spend my time in a heap in the
gutter. The comment back well I've seen steel frames creased behind the
head tube and they don't make racing cars out of steel...
 
X-No-Archive: yes

Jay Hendry wrote:

>
>
> We intend doing B&B/YH without a backup vehicle so basic kit and spares and
> _hope_ we don't end up carrying that much that we need front panniers
>
> Yes we're told the Trek will take mudguards and a rear carrier
>

So next step do they feel comfy. I now this is hard to tell. Even if
you take them for a test ride.

If you have nor riden a bike for some time. It may be worth tring to
hire a bike for some long wides to try and get a feal for what is right
for you.

Peter
 
> Does anyone have any experience of these bikes as although I've
> yet to find a local shop with a Dawes Audax that I can try the concept
> seemed about right for what I want to do - or is that now old hat and
> the aluminium/carbon fibre the way forward?

The carbon fibre fork is simply a cost effective way of making the bike
lighter. With regards to alleged greater comfort of cf, I can tell the
difference between my carbon fibre framed bike[1] and my steel one, but I
couldn't tell you which is comfier - I can feel every little bump in the
road on both of them[2] :)

Out of the two pilots my personal preference would be the 1.2. The £80
difference is spent on better hubs and rims, front and rear mech (none of
which you'll really notice :) but most importantly (for me) the tiagra
shifters. The sora ones have a stupid design that makes it
impossible/difficult to shift down a ring when you're on the drops.

Now, pilot 1.2 vs Dawes Audax. I couldn't find the weight of the Pilot
(Trek don't list 'em) but the Audax is listed at 11.3kg (is this
suspiciously light for a steel framed bike?). The alu/cf combo will be
significantly lighter than the steel dawes but we're only talking a few
kilos here, and it's bike + person that counts). The cromoly steel frame
of the Dawes will last a lifetime, and can be repaired if it doesn't :)

The dawes has a the same front a rear mechs. The 105 shifters are
probably mechanically the same as the tiagra on the 1.2 (it's 9 speed, so
they probably won't be the new -10 speed- 2006 105, which are better).
The other components all seem just as lovely as the 1.2. Both are
triple, which you _will_ need :)

The geometry of the audax should be suited to exactly the kind of riding
you're doing, whereas the pilot is pure racing geometry. However, the
differences are likely to be fairly minor and only a test ride will tell
you what you need to know.

One area the Dawes wins out is that it has proper full length mudguards
(on proper mounts) already (take £20-35 from the price difference) and
has proper mounts for a front and rear rack - the carbon fork of the
Pilot won't take a front rack.

It's a close thing, but for the lejog I'd go for the Dawes. It has the
advantage of being designed to have mudguards (it can be a bit fiddly if
your bike doesn't have proper mounts -or if the clearance is an ickle bit
tight- for them) and both front and rear racks. The pilot does look
sexier but the performance promised by the lower weight will be very
(very) small (it's bike plus rider or in your case bike + rider +
luggage, so the difference really isn't worth it, however sexy a carbon
fork sounds).

The main thing tho is to get whatever feels the best. With the sort of
money you're spending whatever you get will be a nice bike, and long as
it'll take a rack and mudguards it'll serve you perfectly - my
recommendation for the dawes basically comes down to it taking a rack and
mudguards better than the other one :~)

Mark.

[1] Carbon fibre frame, aluminium forks. Weird.
[2] Literally, down to the road buzz caused by the individual lumps of
stone in the tarmac.
 
Jay Hendry wrote:
>>Might this be because that's what they have in stock?
>
> They'd have to order in for me as I need a 58cm frame

Perhaps my experiences of bike shops have made me overly cynical. :)

> Yes I searched before posting and saw the link to that. Agreed it's
> trying to make an informed judgement about what would give the best mix
> of cost and reliability. I did comment in one bike shop about hearing
> that carbon fibre forks _could_ be more susceptable to total failure if
> damaged whereas steel will take a dent or two and not fail as
> catastrophically - not that I'm looking to spend my time in a heap in the
> gutter. The comment back well I've seen steel frames creased behind the
> head tube and they don't make racing cars out of steel...

The comparison to 'racing cars' seems to be pretty meaningless to me --
if you're a formula 1 team, you presumably don't worry too much about
the cost of checking parts for damage and replacing if necessary.

I think that you just have to judge any bike on its individual merits --
trying to generalise based on frame material is probably not the best
way to make a decision. Several other posters have made good suggestions
as to what to look out for, but it sounds as if either the Trek or the
Dawes would do a fine job to me.

Anthony
 
in message <[email protected]>, Jay
Hendry ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The upshot being: "The reality is that you can make a good bike frame
>> out of any of these metals, with any desired riding qualities, by
>> selecting appropriate tubing diamters, wall thicknesses and frame
>> geometry."
>>
> Yes I searched before posting and saw the link to that. Agreed it's
> trying to make an informed judgement about what would give the best mix
> of cost and reliability. I did comment in one bike shop about hearing
> that carbon fibre forks _could_ be more susceptable to total failure if
> damaged whereas steel will take a dent or two and not fail as
> catastrophically

I had a heavy crash in October which I'm still recovering from. We sent
the (all carbon) frame and forks back to the makers for damage
assessment, and their assessment was 'frame's OK, don't trust the
forks'. Damage to carbon composite structures very often cannot be
detected without x-raying, and sudden failure of your forks is very,
very unfunny indeed.

At the scale of bike parts, too, carbon composite cannot be economically
repaired. Steel, if it's damaged enough to fail, is visibly damaged,
and, furthermore, is repairable.

Don't get me wrong: carbon is a wonderful frame material, amazingly
strong and light, and, in my experience, the carbon framed bikes I have
ridden have all been very comfortable. I will continue to ride an
all-carbon bike, and, if I had had to replace the frame as well as the
forks, would have bought another carbon one. But steel is still a really
good frame material.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee
 
in message <[email protected]>, Mark
Thompson ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Now, pilot 1.2 vs Dawes Audax. I couldn't find the weight of the Pilot
> (Trek don't list 'em) but the Audax is listed at 11.3kg (is this
> suspiciously light for a steel framed bike?).

No. Steel is not necessarily a heavy frame material. It's a /dense/ frame
material, but it's strength to weight ratio is such that you can use a
lot less of it. In any case the frame makes up a surprisingly small part
of the weight of a bike.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.
 
> No. Steel is not necessarily a heavy frame material. It's a /dense/ frame
> material, but it's strength to weight ratio is such that you can use a
> lot less of it. In any case the frame makes up a surprisingly small part
> of the weight of a bike.

Ah, this explains my confusion: stones and pounds along the top of the
dial, metric along the _bottom_. I thought something was odd.. :)
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Mark
> Thompson ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Now, pilot 1.2 vs Dawes Audax. I couldn't find the weight of the
>> Pilot (Trek don't list 'em) but the Audax is listed at 11.3kg (is
>> this suspiciously light for a steel framed bike?).
>
> No. Steel is not necessarily a heavy frame material. It's a /dense/
> frame material, but it's strength to weight ratio is such that you
> can use a lot less of it. In any case the frame makes up a
> surprisingly small part of the weight of a bike.

Pushing things out further, the choice of tyres makes a huge difference to
the all up weight; differences of well over 0.5kg per tyre are possible, and
250g per tyre are not uncommon. Add in the effect of the weight of a tyre
as a flywheel which has to be accelerated and slowed, and the tyres make a
huge difference to the perceived weight of the bike.
(eg. from one maker's website: Schwalb Marathon Plus 32mm x 700c weigh 790g
each, Schwalb Stevio 23mm x 700, 235g each ).


As well as tyres, for an End-to-End, the selection of luggage makes a huge
difference: ultra-light with a big saddle bag will weigh far less than a
light rear rack (eg. Tubus fly) and small panniers. A normal rack is
heavier again, and a hefty "tour the planet" rack heavier again.



On steel frames, the niche hand-build makers come in very close in weight to
equivalent aluminium/carbon mix frames; I've seen web page reports of a
5.5kg Roberts (and that had S&S frame couplers to take it apart!).



- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
>> No. Steel is not necessarily a heavy frame material. It's a /dense/
>> frame material, but it's strength to weight ratio is such that you
>> can use a lot less of it. In any case the frame makes up a
>> surprisingly small part of the weight of a bike.
>
> Ah, this explains my confusion: stones and pounds along the top of the
> dial, metric along the _bottom_. I thought something was odd.. :)

11.3 pounds *would* be light! :)

All this talk of top quality lightweight steel frames is academic though
unless you're wallet weighs 11.3 kilos.

~PB
 
>> Ah, this explains my confusion: stones and pounds along the top of the
>> dial, metric along the _bottom_. I thought something was odd.. :)
>
> 11.3 pounds *would* be light! :)

Not really sure what I did, but I managed to think my 8kg bike weighed
12kg. I shall cross the wine I was drinking off the list and continue my
search for a cheap but nice alcoholic drink that doesn't get me drunk.
 
> You might find looking for a cheap but nice /non/ alcoholic drink works
> better from that point of view...

True, but doing it this way is much more rewarding.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Simon Brooke wrote:
>in message <[email protected]>, Mark
>Thompson ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> I shall cross the wine I was drinking off the list and continue
>> my search for a cheap but nice alcoholic drink that doesn't get me
>> drunk.
>
>You might find looking for a cheap but nice /non/ alcoholic drink works
>better from that point of view...

Alternatively, consider an expensive alcoholic that you won't drink enough
of to get drunk because all that money would be wasted once you can't
fully appreciate it?
 
Mark Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Now, pilot 1.2 vs Dawes Audax. I couldn't find the weight of the
> Pilot (Trek don't list 'em) but the Audax is listed at 11.3kg (is this
> suspiciously light for a steel framed bike?). The alu/cf combo will
> be significantly lighter than the steel dawes but we're only talking a
> few kilos here, and it's bike + person that counts). The cromoly
> steel frame of the Dawes will last a lifetime, and can be repaired if
> it doesn't :)
>
> The dawes has a the same front a rear mechs. The 105 shifters are
> probably mechanically the same as the tiagra on the 1.2 (it's 9 speed,
> so they probably won't be the new -10 speed- 2006 105, which are
> better). The other components all seem just as lovely as the 1.2.
> Both are triple, which you _will_ need :)
>
> The geometry of the audax should be suited to exactly the kind of
> riding you're doing, whereas the pilot is pure racing geometry.
> However, the differences are likely to be fairly minor and only a test
> ride will tell you what you need to know.
>
Hi

Thanks for those comments - yes it's the 9 speed not the 10 speed that
the 2006 will apparently have. The weight being quoted at LBS for the
Trek was 20lbs which is a bit lighter than the Dawes but add a 15 stone
rider and their kit for the journey then I guess it's not a big
difference?

I've been trying to work out the geometry bit - Dawes sent me some
figures that didn't seem to differ much from those for the Trek but I
know find out from Dawes this morning they were actually for the old 531
61cm frame bike! Can you compare manufacturer with manufacturer - do they
measure the same way? Certainly the bike shop seemed to say a frame size
from one manufacturer could measure up different from another so 58cm in
one might be a 60cm from another.

Anyway thanks for the help and I'm trying to get hands on a Dawes for
fair comparison.

Jay
 
>
> I had a heavy crash in October which I'm still recovering from. We sent
> the (all carbon) frame and forks back to the makers for damage
> assessment, and their assessment was 'frame's OK, don't trust the
> forks'. Damage to carbon composite structures very often cannot be
> detected without x-raying, and sudden failure of your forks is very,
> very unfunny indeed.
>
> At the scale of bike parts, too, carbon composite cannot be economically
> repaired. Steel, if it's damaged enough to fail, is visibly damaged,
> and, furthermore, is repairable.
>
> Don't get me wrong: carbon is a wonderful frame material, amazingly
> strong and light, and, in my experience, the carbon framed bikes I have
> ridden have all been very comfortable. I will continue to ride an
> all-carbon bike, and, if I had had to replace the frame as well as the
> forks, would have bought another carbon one. But steel is still a really
> good frame material.
>

I guess that's whats driving my thought processes.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned and a born pessimist:)

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rocman777
Trek Pilot 2.0 VS Specialized Secteur Elite
Replies
1
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Sid Nitzerglobi
Sid Nitzerglobi
rocman777
Trek Pilot 2.0 VS Specialized Secteur Elite
Replies
1
Views
2K
Road Cycling
oldbobcat
oldbobcat
Terp84Alum
Trek Pilot 2.1
Replies
3
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
saintsfan342000
saintsfan342000
J
Trek Pilot 1.0 issues
Replies
4
Views
888
Road Cycling
landotter
L
airosen
Trek 1000 and Pilot 1.0
Replies
6
Views
9K
Bike buying advice
kestrel0222
kestrel0222
ga1044
Newbie to the cycling world, A 2006 Giant tcr2 or Trek Pilot 1.2
Replies
0
Views
2K
Bike buying advice
ga1044
ga1044
ga1044
Newbie to the cycling world, A 2006 Giant tcr2 or Trek Pilot 1.2
Replies
5
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
barry_h20
barry_h20
paul43
Trek Pilot 5.2
Replies
1
Views
1K
Road Cycling
MartinInMass
MartinInMass
Ebergram
Can't decide Trek Pilot 5.2 or Specialized Roubaix Expert
Replies
14
Views
14K
Bike buying advice
oldbobcat
oldbobcat
beril123
trek 1.0 pilot for racing
Replies
1
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
topcat
topcat
Top Bottom Back