# My first road bike is a TREK!!!!



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

Hi All!

So I've been wanting to get into shape and thought I would get into Road Cycling. I don't have much know knowledge so I was going to buy one of those Schwinn RB from Wallyworld.

Then I started googling about it, and found a post from here that said it'd be better to look for an older quality bike from my local ad. So I did that yesterday and found a great deal on a 2010 Trek 1.1 with some upgrade that fit me.

The guy wasn't much of a talker and it wasn't the best shape, but it seemed like a good deal.

Here's what it has changed:

Alex Rims Ace19 Rear Wheel with Bontrager Sport Tires
Fort ESP-R Carbon Road Pedals
Selle Italia X2 Saddle

The fork has a warning label about carbon forks, but it looks like the factory fork which is aluminum..?

Does anyone know why he has this specific set up? Seems odd that he would change just one wheel.

Any advice, or info about what I have here would be much appreciated!
Is there anything you would change out or do first to make it more enjoyable? Opinions welcome


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

The original rear wheel was broken or severely damaged so it had to be replaced. The owner probably just bought the cheap wheel he could find. Have you ridden the bike yet? Is this a picture of the bike right when you got it or is this how you ride it? The way the bike is set up your going to be sitting incredibly upright. This means you'll be taking a lot of wind and it will be added resistance. Getting a basic fit from you lbs would probably be a good idea.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

The only advice is to ride it. A shop or someone knowledgeable who knows a bit can help you get the seat at the right height so your reach to the pedals is correct -- that's the most critical adjustment. After you ride some you can figure whether you want the handlebar lower or more forward. Don't worry at all about the relatively upright stance it has now -- you might find you have the flexibility for a lower position, but many people don't when starting out, so it may suit you fine right now. Wind resistance doesn't matter as much as comfort at this point.

It's probably worth a few bucks to have somebody at a shop adjust your fit.

You'll need cycling shoes (and the appropriate cleats) to use those pedals.

And welcome to the sport, and to the forum.


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

If it has a carbon warning on the fork...it's probably carbon. This may seem like a lame way to test it but flick on it with your fingernail. Carbon vs aluminum sounds entirely different. In my expirence, aluminum has a bit of a "ting" sound to it and carbon more of a "click". ...or you could look up an archive in the specs.

The bike looks a bit used (not sure if abused though). I definitely would take it to a reputable local bike shop and get it thoroughly checked out. Like Warp said, also get a simple fit done...that will make a word of difference concerning ride quality and will really help with possible injury due to poor riding position.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

doubleagentvo said:


> Then I started googling about it, and found a post from here that said it'd be better to look for an older quality bike from my local ad. So I did that yesterday and found a great deal on a 2010 Trek 1.1 with some upgrade that fit me.


How good of a deal did you get? Hopefully not more than $300. The bike was $660 new. And isn't in the best condition (possibly abused). 
2010 Trek 1.1 - BikePedia



> Here's what it has changed:
> 
> Alex Rims Ace19 Rear Wheel with Bontrager Sport Tires
> Fort ESP-R Carbon Road Pedals
> Selle Italia X2 Saddle


I wouldn't consider those upgrades. The wheel isn't any better so given that just one was replaced indicates he damaged the original. I would've asked the guy (who wasn't much of a talker) for specifics of why he changed it. 
Bikes don't come with pedals so pedals aren't considered upgrades.



> The fork has a warning label about carbon forks, but it looks like the factory fork which is aluminum..?


The fork is alum. Weird that it has a carbon warning label.


----------



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

Thank you guys for the welcomes, and the advice. Already starting to learn a lot from reading posts today.

I'll go and have my LBS fit me and give it a once over.

That's the bike as it sits now, without adjustments. 

Appropriate cleats... I'll have to do some searching and learn more about that...



Typetwelve said:


> If it has a carbon warning on the fork...it's probably carbon. This may seem like a lame way to test it but flick on it with your fingernail. Carbon vs aluminum sounds entirely different. In my expirence, aluminum has a bit of a "ting" sound to it and carbon more of a "click". ...or you could look up an archive in the specs.





tlg said:


> The fork is alum. Weird that it has a carbon warning label.


I did the fingernail test, it sounds COMPLETELY different then the frame, not even close at all. The frame has a twangy sound, like hollow metal. The fork has a more plastiky sound.

I know the spec calls for aluminum, but is it possible that it was upgraded?


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

One more important caution: It looks like those pedals (Forte is a house brand of the online seller Performance Bike) are these:
CPSC - Bicycle Pedals Recalled by Performance Inc. Due to Fall Hazard
THEY HAVE BEEN RECALLED; THEY BREAK; DON'T RIDE THEM.

Your seller should have returned them for a refund, and certainly should not have sold them to you.

You are wise to get the shop to take a good look.

It sounds like you have a carbon fork. Which could mean somebody wrecked the original one in a crash.


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

I was pleased to see the picture of your new bike. I had that exact model and year for a couple of years, and just sold it to a kid.... a week and a half ago.

The fork _is_ aluminum. You'll become intimately acquainted with this. 
The Bontrager tires are good-wearing, but drag. When that centre strip is worn down, they're slowwww. They're harsh too.
The fit, if you get it sorted, is fantastic. 
Flip that 17 degree stem down and it'll look the business.
Be relieved that you are not using the factory saddle, it's a narrow rock. I changed it before leaving the store.
The rear wheel possibly hit a curb or pothole, and turned into something like a planetary orbit, so it's a new one.

I loved riding that bike. It rode and turned in so well and was nicely balanced. If you don't mind the jarring ride, it's a great ride.


----------



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

So I called my LBS who happens to be the same company that made those pedals. They said I can just bring it in. 

I took off the one pedal fine... The second seems like it cemented permanently!!

I literally just broke a screw driver trying to unscrew it out. I've never seen a screw driver break and twist like that before. This thing is seriously stuck. Has anyone any idea how to budge this thing?


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Screwdriver? Where did you put a screwdriver? 

Are you aware that the left pedal is reverse threaded?


----------



## MyaLover (Aug 8, 2011)

That was my first road bike as well! It's highly unlikely that the fork is carbon as it matches perfectly and this was Trek's bare bones road bike that year.

I'm guessing the previous owner destroyed the rear wheel and just threw on another he got along the way.

As je said, the original seat was terrible so no matter what, I think the Selle saddle will be better.

I'd take it in for a once over and quick fitting with your local shop. 

Have fun!


----------



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

JCavilia said:


> Screwdriver? Where did you put a screwdriver?
> 
> Are you aware that the left pedal is reverse threaded?


See pic. The left pedal came off fine. The right pedal just isn't budging, lefty loosey or righty...

View attachment 281865


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

You'll need a pedal wrench or an hex key with a long handle with some leverage to get a pedal off. It isn't at all surprising that you can't get it off with that tool.

Pedal wrench:









T-Handle Hex wrenches:







Using the long 'leg' for leverage and the short hex key in the pedal hex socket, you can get a lot of leverage. But I almost always use it T-handle style.

Socket drive hex wrenches:









Remember: right pedal threads normally, left pedal opposite.
Just don't get all caveman on it unless you know what you're doing. If you can't get it off with normal force using the above tools, take it in to the bike shop and let them get it off. You could ruin the crank if you don't know what you're doing.

As for the fork - boy, three pieces of evidence would lead me to think it's carbon fiber: the warning label, the shape and appearance, and your tap test. I can't argue with those who think it's aluminum because of the Trek spec, but if I hadn't been told that, I'd have bet money it's CF.


----------



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

Camilo said:


> As for the fork - boy, three pieces of evidence would lead me to think it's carbon fiber: the warning label, the shape and appearance, and your tap test. I can't argue with those who think it's aluminum because of the Trek spec, but if I hadn't been told that, I'd have bet money it's CF.





MyaLover said:


> That was my first road bike as well! It's highly unlikely that the fork is carbon as it matches perfectly and this was Trek's bare bones road bike that year.
> 
> 
> I'd take it in for a once over and quick fitting with your local shop.



Thanks fellas!

I went to performance bike for the recall, they said it's only applicable to the Carbon version of the pedals, and the three techs did the tap test and told me it's a carbon fork.

I went to my LBS to get the bike tuned up, and me fitted. He also confirmed that the fork is indeed carbon. Right when I was pulling the bike in his shop, the first thing he said was "Nice Carbon!" I said how did you know, he flicked it and said, "hear the difference?"

It's odd however, that the specs call for aluminum... Even the stickers match.


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

Your fork might be Carbon, here's my old bike:
View attachment 282107

The profile at the top of the fork is different from yours, and the blades look different too.
It's strange, because the 2011 specs are for aluminum as well, so it's not a running change, if it's a change.
I'm still surprised it would be carbon, and painted up the same as my aluminum fork (which was definitely not carbon). It did sound a little different from the frame tubes, due to its shape. It'd be worth looking at a 1.2 fork to see if it's the same as that one, but painted blue. Anyway, maybe it's carbon.

Have fun!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

doubleagentvo said:


> It's odd however, that the specs call for aluminum... Even the stickers match.


There are other possibilities, but since companies do (at times) alter their specs based on region, I think it's possible that your bike wasn't originally offered in the US. 

You've already purchased it, so the seller may be more inclined to provide info, so you could just ask. He may have purchased it overseas.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> There are other possibilities, but since companies do (at times) alter their specs based on region, I think it's possible that your bike wasn't originally offered in the US.


I thought that too as companies will often spec out different components for different countries. I just did a quick search of Treks bike archives for various countries (which had archives on their site). Every one I could find had the alum fork.

I noticed that the 1.2 model has a carbon fork. I wonder if it was a replacement fork and they were out of inventory or production on the alum 1.1 model so upgraded it to the 1.2 carbon and painted it to match.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

tlg said:


> I noticed that the 1.2 model has a carbon fork. I wonder if it was a replacement fork and they were out of inventory or production on the alum 1.1 model so upgraded it to the 1.2 carbon and painted it to match.


I thought about it being a replacement fork as well, and while I can see a company upgrading a replacement part, can't see them going so far as to color match.

Unless, of course, the fork is spec'd on another year/ model in that same color scheme, which brings us back to it possibly being region specific. 

May be forever a mystery....


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> I thought about it being a replacement fork as well, and while I can see a company upgrading a replacement part, can't see them going so far as to color match.
> 
> Unless, of course, the fork is spec'd on another year/ model in that same color scheme, which brings us back to it possibly being region specific.
> 
> May be forever a mystery....


No the mystery must be solved damnit. I'm not losing another night of sleep.

I can't see them color matching a single fork. But perhaps a batch of them to make up the difference of an order or inventory.
I didn't see the same color scheme on another year or model. I looked for that too.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

tlg said:


> No the mystery must be solved damnit. I'm not losing another night of sleep.


Well, you're the resident detective here on RBR, so knock yerself out! :wink5:



tlg said:


> I can't see them color matching a single fork. But perhaps a batch of them to make up the difference of an order or inventory.
> I didn't see the same color scheme on another year or model. I looked for that too.


I won't say I think it's out of the realm of possibilities to say Trek would put the effort into upgrading, then color matching a batch of warranty replacement parts, but color me skeptical. 

Of course, this brings up the possibility that the OP's bike - or at minimum, the fork - was (at some point) damaged/ crashed.

All alu forks seem to have a better track record for reliability compared to alu/ CF.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

doubleagentvo said:


> I went to performance bike for the recall, they said it's only applicable to the Carbon version of the pedals, and the three techs did the tap test and told me it's a carbon fork.


Good. I assumed they were the carbon ones, and didn't realize they make a black-painted version of the aluminum one that looks nearly identical.

FWIW, my experience with Performance house-brand pedals has been very good over the years. A real value for the price, and they've performed and lasted well.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Of course, this brings up the possibility that the OP's bike - or at minimum, the fork - was (at some point) damaged/ crashed.


I'm leaning this way given that the rear wheel was replaced from stock too, and not an upgrade. Now if it was the front wheel along with the fork that didn't match, I think Sherlock Holmes would put it to rest.

Also, the warning label on the fork is in English. I think I checked all the Trek Archives from english speaking countries. All the 1.1 has alum forks.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

tlg said:


> Also, the warning label on the fork is in English. I think I checked all the Trek Archives from english speaking countries. All the 1.1 has alum forks.


Labels can be removed/ replaced, so I wouldn't say that's a definitive sign of where the fork was originally intended to be marketed. 

I (thankfully) have no personal experience, but from some things I've read, warranty claims/ crash replacements can come from just about anywhere there's inventory. 

Another oddity is that the seller didn't make mention of this. Considering how sellers sing the praises of 'upgrades' (even if they really aren't), I'd say this lends credibility to the fork being a crash replacement.

At any rate, good for the OP.


----------



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

I was cleaning my bike last night and saw some rock chips in the paint on the forks. It appears to be black under the paint. If this was aluminum wouldn't it be grey or silver?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

doubleagentvo said:


> I was cleaning my bike last night and saw some rock chips in the paint on the forks. It appears to be black under the paint. If this was aluminum wouldn't it be grey or silver?


Sheesh. Well now there's only one solution. You're gonna have to take a hack saw and cut her open to see inside.


----------



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

.je said:


> Your fork might be Carbon, here's my old bike:
> View attachment 282107
> 
> The profile at the top of the fork is different from yours, and the blades look different too.


Hey you're right, I can't seem to find any other 1.1 with that type of profile, and the blades do look different.


----------



## doubleagentvo (Jun 3, 2013)

tlg said:


> Sheesh. Well now there's only one solution. You're gonna have to take a hack saw and cut her open to see inside.


Maybe if I accidentally destroy it make the report of my findings lol


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

doubleagentvo said:


> I was cleaning my bike last night and saw some rock chips in the paint on the forks. It appears to be black under the paint. If this was aluminum wouldn't it be grey or silver?


There's white primer under the thick blue enamel paint, on the aluminum.

Here's a photo from Trek's website, if it helps at all:
View attachment 282737


Now have a look at this Trek 1.2 website : 
MTmyndd: Arrival of my road bike TREK 1.2
View attachment 282145


This is a Trek 1.2 2009, if you want to compare the forks:
View attachment 282146

It's the same blue, but with different white graphics than the 2010 1.1, and your bike. 

Be confused, be _very _confused!


----------



## areFish (Jun 10, 2013)

I'm surprised the warning sticker wasn't affixed higher on the fork so it wouldn't cover part of the Trek logo.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

A big FWIW re the fork, and probably not relevant at all. When I bought a Felt frame/fork a couple years ago, it came with a surprise fork upgrade, painted to match.

I can't remember the exact item numbers/names, but the frameset was spec'd on their website as having a carbonfiber fork with an alloy steer tube (call it the "1.3 fork"). The upgraded, lighter, more expensive CF fork came as part of the higher cost frame/fork and was offered as a separate part. Call this fork the "1.2" (which I think it is). The upgraded frameset was quite a bit more expensive (almost $1,000 more expensive), and the fork bought separately was about $350. 

When I ordered the frameset, I decided to buy the upgraded fork, install it immediately, and sell the other fork for what I could get for it on Ebay as a "new, mounted but never used" and take my lumps.

LUCKILY, the frameset came in within just a couple of days, and low and behold, it already had the upgraded "1.2", full CF fork! My dealer noticed that immediately, and had already cancelled the order for the separate fork before I even knew what had happened. He was as surprised as me.

So, the moral of the story is that frame manufacturers- and I'll bet it might happen on whole bikes - sometimes upgrade things under the radar. I think what had happened with my bike is that Felt, or their supplier, ran out of the "1.3" forks, so they simply painted up a run of the "1.2" forks to match the frames and put them on, knowing that no customer in the world would complain with a free upgrade.

I'll bet that's what happened with OP's fork - a simple substitution. Probalby not a one-off substitution, but a large enough batch that were all painted to match the lower-grade bike.


----------

