# 2010 Trek 2.x bikes for crit racing?



## YQBRider (Jul 27, 2008)

I need a new bike. The best I can afford in the Trek products line is a 2.1 maybe a 2.3 if I really stretch my budget. I would love a Madone 4.7 but... in another life. Are the 2.x race worthy? I would like to get a Trek. Not for the brand itself but because this is what my prefered local bike shop sells (along with GF Bikes of course). Good guys and excellent service, free (and good) advices, lifetime free tuneups etc. I can live with the aluminum road vibrations. Is the frame geometry appropriate for racing? Is the frame quality good? Is the frame good enough to upgrade the components slowly over a few years (as buget allows)? I have been considering a Cannondale CAAD9 as well but I am not a fan of the BB30 design (those cranks are very expensive!) and the shop that sells them is not offering the same great customer service. Thanks.


----------



## ping771 (Apr 10, 2006)

Your 2.1 or 2.3 is plenty good to race on. In fact when you're just starting out, all you need is a 9 speed or 10 speed cassette bike in good working order and you'll be fine. Bike fit and personal fitness are probably 90% of the game in racing CAT 5 through 3. The bike itself (in terms of bike material and componentry) makes very little difference. If you buy the less expensive 2010 2.1 (which is very pretty btw) you have 105 components (drivetrain, (which is the most important), which are more than adequate. The frame geometry on a 2.1 or 2.3 are fine for crits. Unless you're riding a hybrid, I would say that most general road bike geometry works for beginning racing purposes. 

I would only buy 2 more things when your budget allows: 1) lighter wheelset (get it used from ebay, craigslist or here) 2) basic heart rate monitor (probably more important than wheels). That will be an invaluable training tool more than upgrading parts for bling factor or cosmetic reasons. 

And look how happy you'll feel when you beat people riding $5k bikes! Just have fun!


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Either is fine. But at the end of the day between the two, my vote would be the 2.3 over the 2.1. 

The 2.3 is, but for two things, essentially race ready. I would be looking to ask the LBS to swap the compact crank for a standard double and looking to tighten up the range on the cassette. Plus I really like the fact that the 2.3 is full 105, including the brakes. (just change out the pads to some kool stops or swiss stops, or the new DA 7900 pads.)

As to the crankset: I don't know your level of fitness, but if you are serious about riding and training, you will outgrow that compact and 12-27 long before you wear them out. The incremental spacing is just too wide on the 12-27. I am not a fan of compacts, of course everyone is different, but I ride in some fairly hilly country and know very few serious riders who didn't regret their choice of a compact.

As to the wheels: Either way, don't sweat the wheels. Those are essentially take offs and you will be upgrading them pretty quickly.

Lastly, I wouldn't be so dismissive of the CAAD9s they are awesome bikes with a huge and well deserved pedigree. If I am thinking crit bike, I am thinking CAAD. (period) (Notice, I didn't limit it to aluminum either.) That bike at that price point is hard to beat.

Good luck
zac


----------



## S80 (Sep 10, 2007)

zac said:


> I am not a fan of compacts, of course everyone is different, but I ride in some fairly hilly country and know very few serious riders who didn't regret their choice of a compact.
> 
> zac


Zac - are you saying that serious riders didn't regret using a compact? Just didn't understand the statement. I seem to have outgrown my compact too but am reminded each time I'm on a 10%+ climb for over one mile of its benefits as I seem to keep in contact with the lead group during road races with a higher cadence.. Coming down the other side of the climb is when I wish I had a std crank.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 13, 2009)

S80 said:


> Zac - are you saying that serious riders didn't regret using a compact? Just didn't understand the statement.


I think he meant that they did regret getting a compact. But he also added it was "serious" riders. I love my compact and 12-27 cassette, but only race a local sprint tri and duathalon. I'm sorta decent on a bike, but not serious as I swim and run also. To the original poster, I would get the 2.3 with compact crank, it should last awhile. If you need to go faster, a tighter cassette, as Zac mentioned, would be an inexpensive upgrade.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Yeah, I am not a fan of compacts at all, and not too many that I ride with are either. I was just trying to make a suggestion to the OP. I find way too many who have been "sold" on a compact only to end up swapping out cranks after a short while.

Yes, they serve a purpose, and tend to make climbing a bit more enjoyable for those not looking to red line on a climb (so do triples), but I just feel for a younger, strong, dedicated rider looking to break into racing, he would be better served with a standard double.

zac


----------



## Lawr52 (Jul 19, 2009)

*I've a 2009 2.1 with carbon stays*

I like my bike. It is my first road bike. I've never raced, and I've never participated in a crit. I am not sure what the mechanical needs are for a crit, but if crits require some tight turning, I am finding that I am long becoming accustomed to the turning radius on this bike--I don't feel comfortable on tight turns yet (I've had the bike 3 months/800miles). (I've rubbed the toe of my shoes on the front wheels once or twice.) Otherwise, the geometry is nearly identical to the 6 series Madones' Performance Fit. The Pro Fit seems to have a longer reach and shorter stack, with a minuscule difference in overall wheelbase. The big difference that I see is in the head tube length. I have lowered the handlebars on my bike by moving the spacers above the handlebars rather than below. 

As for the compact, I am developing my climbing technique on a couple of climbs not far from Limerick city, where I live: one's in the Cratloe Hills northwest of the city and one's in the Aras Mountains in Co. Tipperary, about twenty miles northeast of the city. The one in Cratloe Hills, called Gallows Hill, is an 850 rise over three miles, a 3% slope overall. There are plenty of slopes within that climb that seem to be straight-up walls. They are not, of course, but they are probably approaching 30-40 degree grades. They're steep. The climb in the Aras Mountains, from Ballina to Portroe is a 3 or 4 hundred foot climb over seven miles. Though less of a climb overall, it poses some incredibly steep climbs, one of which I am yet to be able to climb on my bike even with the compact crank. I'm 52 and only off the **** for a year and a half, so maybe that's the problem. I don't know. But I think that the compact, like the 53/39, is appropriate or inappropriate to strength and environment. I don't think it is a matter of better or best in some idealised way. 

Overall, I would recommend the bike. I have had few problems with it. The wheels are great. The roads here are brutal, and there are stretches where it is like riding a jackhammer for miles, but the wheels are still true and roll well. The brakes and seat, two things reviews had poo-pooed, are fine. I have found no discomfort or lack of braking power. In fact, on the decent from Gallows Hill, I have to pump my breaks as I descend as the road is curvy and cows, sheep, dogs and humans stray. Also, you can't depend on the sanity of drivers, I'm afraid. (I am uncertain of how long it takes to stop from 25mph or more, but I don't want to find out under those circumstances. Would I be better able to stop were I to have 105s? Ultegras? I don't know.)

I love my bike. I intend to upgrade the components when things begin to wear out. Derailleurs seem to go first if my last bike is any indication. Shifters go too. The crank seems fine, but after developing my climbing skills, I may want to switch to a 52/36 or a 53/39. I will probably go for the Sram red group. I would prefer that I didn't have to wonder if it is a case of reduced weight *or* engineering. I would like to think that it is reduced weight *and* good engineering that I am paying for. I am considering the Campy stuff too, especially that 11 speed. That 11 speed might make a 53/39 more feasible. I'll invest in Bontrager X Lites, as well, eventually. And that is about as far as I'll take it. By the time I've paid for all of that, I might look around for a lighter, better engineered frame. We'll see. By then I'll be 60.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I'd look at the Fisher Ion over the Trek 2.x... much nicer bikes for the $$... stiffer and carbon stays.


----------



## sf_loft (Oct 5, 2009)

If you're in the budget I would recommend getting an '09 Gary Fisher Arc Pro. They replaced it in 2010 with the ION, but at the same they are not using a full 105 component set to save cost. The improved the stiffness of the frame and according to an article, it is the stiffest bike in their line up, even more than the Chronus. The '10 frame although stiffer also weighs more than the '09. The 2010 Trek 2.3 is the same bike as the '09 GF Arc Pro. Full 105 group, but the GF has both the chainstay and seatstay in carbon fiber. I own the Arc Pro and love the way it rides. The stock weight is 19.3 lbs but I swapped out the wheelset with Ksyrium SL and the cassette with 11-23 set of ultegras. The bike now weighs close to 17 lbs. The carbon rear triangle and cf fork will give it a comfortable smooth ride. There are still plenty of 09's left at dealerships and you can get a good deal on them.


----------



## jellis25 (Oct 6, 2009)

I am not sure if you are sold on a new 2010 bike but you may want to look at either last years models or a slightly used one.

You may be able to get a 2009 4.5 for $1,800. And if it is slightly used you could do even better then that.


----------

