# 02 Trek 2000 or 05 Trek Pilot 2.1 (New to the sport)



## JWang (Jan 31, 2009)

I'm a long time MTB, never even thought I would consider a road bike. I'm going to be participating in a 72 mile charity ride which requires a road bike.

Can anyone explain the differences between a Trek 2000 and a Trek Pilot 2.1? From a quick glance it seems like the Trek Pilot is going to have a more comfortable upright position. I have a weak back and definitely can't imagine being hunched over for 72 miles.

It also seems like both use Shimano 105 components with the trek 2000 having a ultegra front derailleur and the pilot having an ultegra rear derailleur.

What would be the pro's and con's of each? I plan on test riding each but would like to know specifically what to look for.

Much appreciated!


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

JWang said:


> I'm a long time MTB, never even thought I would consider a road bike. I'm going to be participating in a 72 mile charity ride which requires a road bike.


Does the ride itself require a road bike? Or is it just because it is on a road, that you feel you need a road bike to participate? Charity rides tend to be slower paced and with frequent stops. Just get some slicks for your MTB wheels and run that on the road, total cost <$100 and you have a bike you are familiar with and comfortable on.





JWang said:


> Can anyone explain the differences between a Trek 2000 and a Trek Pilot 2.1? From a quick glance it seems like the Trek Pilot is going to have a more comfortable upright position. I have a weak back and definitely can't imagine being hunched over for 72 miles.


True, the Pilot was designed for a more upright position, but that being said, it is also the Pilots "compact geometry" that gives it the more upright illusion. If so inclined to go this route, get the bike that is more comfortable to you and your back. The size will have a lot to do with this. An ill fitting bike, not matter what the intended purpose (ie. designed for an upright ride) will punish you if you are not used to the miles. If you are not used to riding 72 miles, then no bike, no matter what the design or fit is going to make your day (and your back) an easy one. That being said both these rides are aluminum, with the Pilot having carbon seat stays. IIRC the Pilot series was initially popular with riders looking for a more comfortable road ride, but still with an edge of performance, however, the actual product never delivered. It was indeed a harsh wet noodle ride...(ie vertical stiffness and lateral compliance...exactly the opposite of what you want.) The 2000 is an entry level aluminum racer, probably a better frame despite being older than the Pilot, but again, not what you are looking for - it is laterally and vertically stiff. 





JWang said:


> It also seems like both use Shimano 105 components with the trek 2000 having a ultegra front derailleur and the pilot having an ultegra rear derailleur.


Don't worry about it, not important. Go with the components that are in better shape...Those STI shifters don't last forever, and you are talking about entry level components on a 4+ year old bike. Make sure they shift easily and crisp. I think both bikes are triples so the front shifting is going to be dodgy, especially under load.




JWang said:


> What would be the pro's and con's of each? I plan on test riding each but would like to know specifically what to look for.
> 
> Much appreciated!



Cons for you:
-Both are aluminum frames. While aluminum is designed to be stiff and that usually translates into a harsh ride, it is not always true. I don't think either one of these bikes were renowned for being comfortable. I think the 2000 with the alpha aluminum frame is the better of the two but not really what you are desiring for a ride.

-Saddles: if stock, both of them suck big time. Change at all cost. While everyone's sit bones are different, those early Trek and Bontrager saddles were known for being butt-busters.

-brakes: unspecified on each, they are generic calipers and of doubtful reliability. If your MTB is a decent machine, its brakes will have far better feel and stopping power in comparison.

Pros for you:
-hard to tell.

Things to Compare, as I am assuming both bikes are used.
-wheels: Not sure if original, but I like the 32 spoked wheel of the 2000 over the low spoked Bonty selects. Just for sheer maintence. Neither are a performance wheel, but the 32 spoked wheel will most likely be longer lasting...assuming the rim and hubs are any good. 

-condition: mileage, care and condition of the two bikes. How they shift, brake, roll, pull, lean, cables, tape etc.

-And lastly and most importantly: FIT, fit and fit. if the bike dont fit, doesn't matter if it is an 09 Madone 6.9Pro....you will not like it after mile 20 and you will be cursing your mother for your birth after mile 50. Assuming both bikes fit you, take them out on a road that is less than ideal...chip seal for instance. That will magnify the harshness, if any of these bikes, and you will get to experience first hand what ride you like best or worst.



Anyway, HTH and good luck, and seriously look to riding slicks on your MTB.
zac


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

zac said:


> -And lastly and most importantly: FIT, fit and fit. if the bike dont fit, doesn't matter if it is an 09 Madone 6.9Pro....you will not like it after mile 20 and you will be cursing your mother for your birth after mile 50.


_Priceless._ :thumbsup:


----------



## acckids (Jan 2, 2003)

My vote is for the Pilot. I have an 06 Pilot and find the ride to be great. The Pilot has a quality frame with the ZR9000 tubing and complete carbon wishbone seatstay. I like the ride as well as my Gunnar Roadie and Jamis Quest which are both steel. I have not found the Pilot to be noodle-ly. It has a stiff bottom bracket. 

The Pilot offers the best of both bikes just by changing the forks. The Pilot has a Satellite Plus fork with axle to crown height of 385mm. Put a Reynolds Ouzo on it that has a 372 axle to crown height and it changes the geometry of the bike to a quicker handling bike like the Trek 2000. 

My 63cm Pilot seatube/headtube changes from 72.1/72.6 to 72.5/73.4 by changing from the Satellite to the Reynolds. One bike with two different rides just by changing the forks. I found my Ouzo for $99. 

I think you might just like road riding with with the Pilot. 

Again, fit is the most important like said above.


----------

