upgradable?

I think the Trek is a good bike, but once you start looking to upgrade wheels, groupset, components etc...your upgrades will exceed the initial purchase price!

I had a similar situation a year ago where I had a low'ish budget, but I knew that I would get more serious about the sport, so I wanted a bike that would be worth upgrading for 5 years or so. In short, go for a good frame. I bought the previous season's LOOK carbon frame with lower quality (but still reasonable) components. So I was able to afford a high quality frame by getting cheaper parts on it. Then as I got into cycling more, I slowly upgraded the bike with eBay and web purchases. I haven't touched the groupset (105), but basically everything else is new. I'm comfortable in knowing that the upgrades are commensurate with the quality of the frame.

Talk to the LBS' in your area and see if they have previous models or runnout frames that they'd be willing to fit out with cheaper components.

I like the Trek 1000 (I have a friend who has one), but I think upgrading it properly wouldn't be worth the money.

thombo said:

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum, but the search function isnt working currently... Anyway, I dont have a lot of cash and I am about purchase an '06 Trek 1000 - I'm new to cycling so I want to get a new bike from an LBS to make sure everythings fit well and such. Anyway, if in a year or two I am still enthusiastic about cycling and want to upgrade components, is the 1000 worth doing that to? or am i getting myself into a situation where I'd be throwing out money for components for a bike that's not worth upgrading? I've read relatively good things about the bike, in terms of entry level bikes, but I've also read that the bike just isnt worth it and if you start riding anything other than recreationally then you'll have to purchase an entirely new bike.

Anyway, i guess what i'm asking is, before I buy the 1000, can i get some opinions as to the feasability of upgrading without having to drop $$ for a whole new bike? And about how long would an entry level bike last under average usage before upgrading is all but necessary?

I know that's all pretty confusing, so if its difficult to answer I'll understand. But thanks for any help that ya'll can provide.

Bruce

I agree with Walrus. Look for a previous year model on closeout and get the best framed bike that you can afford. This is the time of year to get the end of the year deals. A few years back a picked up a 105-equipped Kestrel in November for less than the price of a frameset and over the years have upgraded most of the parts as they have worn out. The only 105 remaining are the FD and brake calipers.

If you can't get a deal on an 05 bike, the 2006 Trek would still be a good bike at a good value point, and frankly would be good enough for most riding.

John M said:

If you can't get a deal on an 05 bike, the 2006 Trek would still be a good bike at a good value point, and frankly would be good enough for most riding.

John's right, there's nothing really wrong with the Trek 1000, it'll serve you well. My mate is over 90kg (200lbs) and it serves him well! But if you want to upgrade...there might be better options.

thombo said:

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum, but the search function isnt working currently... Anyway, I dont have a lot of cash and I am about purchase an '06 Trek 1000 - I'm new to cycling so I want to get a new bike from an LBS to make sure everythings fit well and such. Anyway, if in a year or two I am still enthusiastic about cycling and want to upgrade components, is the 1000 worth doing that to? or am i getting myself into a situation where I'd be throwing out money for components for a bike that's not worth upgrading? I've read relatively good things about the bike, in terms of entry level bikes, but I've also read that the bike just isnt worth it and if you start riding anything other than recreationally then you'll have to purchase an entirely new bike.

Anyway, i guess what i'm asking is, before I buy the 1000, can i get some opinions as to the feasability of upgrading without having to drop $$ for a whole new bike? And about how long would an entry level bike last under average usage before upgrading is all but necessary?

I know that's all pretty confusing, so if its difficult to answer I'll understand. But thanks for any help that ya'll can provide.

Bruce

What would you want to upgrade? Granted, the wheels might be marginal ("Alloy hubs; Alex alloy rims w/eyelets" ain't too informative), but ~$200 for a set of Mavic Open Pros on Ultegra hubs at Nashbar/Performance/Supergo solves that. What else? You can pretty cheaply swap out the cassette to get either lower or "tighter" gearing. A really comfortable saddle of your choice. Clipless pedals. Better tires when the OEMs wear out. You can even remove the inner chain ring (if you don't use it) and adjust the FD accordingly to look more like a racer, if you want. Really, that's about it. To spend more on this bike just doesn't make sense.

You asked about durability, which is somewhat of a slipery question. The "average" cyclist riding a few thousand miles a year can probably get 5-10 years out of something like the Trek 1000 without wearing out anything major, assuming proper maintainence.

Another option if you're new to the sport is to look for a good used bike. There are a lot of them out there, and you can get a better bike for less money. This should leave you with enough extra cash for things like shorts, shoes, and a helmet.