# Trek Pilot 2.1 - 5.0 - 5.2 question



## docc (Mar 14, 2007)

Hi,

I am looking to purchase my first road bike. I have a Trek 7.3 FX ( 15 inch / 38 cm frame) for grocery shopping, etc. I am 5.4 inches tall. My inseam is only 26 inches. I am looking at the Pilot 5.0 and 5.2 for a more raised/touring stance and a slightly rear sloped top tube. My LBS has both of these in 47. I tried the 47 and 50 and the manager thinks I fit better on the 47 and will take fewer changes to fit me. I touch the bar standing over with both and of course more with the 50. The 5.0 has an updated Dura-Ace rear derailleur and 105's on the rest. It has cane creek for brakes. The 5.2 has a better wheel set (race light vs. race on the 5.0) and all Ultegra components. Both are 9 speeds and I believe are either 05 or 06's. The 5.0 is $1600 and the 5.2 is $1900-2000. They are both silver in color. Is it worth the upgrade to get the 5.2? The new Pilots they have are at most MSP's I have seen $2100 and 2800. Should I be looking at another bike? I also think the Pilot 2.1 might work well. I am not sure I need a full carbon bike. The price is so similar to a new 2.1 vs the closeouts the LBS has should I just go full carbon anyway? I know Specialized makes a similar model, and are new models and priced similar to the Treks. I like the idea of saving a bit on my first road bike. ANY input would be GREATLY appreciated. I am going to check out both 47's in 5.0 and 5.2 Saturday and hopefully make my decision.

Thanks,
John


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

re: fit

- Standover clearance is less important on road bikes. Anything more than an inch is nice, but not necessary. I'd rather ride a bike that fits me perfectly while I'm riding it, even if it means giving up a bit of standover clearance

- Take fit recommendations on this forum with a huge grain of salt. Unless your flexibility and range of motion are closely examined and taken into consideration, the fit recommendation is absolutely meaningless.

re: bike choice

- Trek beats Specialized in the warranty department. Bontrager hard goods have five-year warranties. Specialized recommends replacing their carbon seatposts every three years. Bontrager parts do not have user weight limits. Specialized parts (carbon ones, anyway) are not recommended for riders at or above 240 pounds.

- A full carbon frame may not be <b>necessary</b>, but it will be very nice to have. None of the options on your car are <b>necessary</b>, but I bet you like having them. It's ok to buy something simply because you <b>want</b> it. : )

Keep us posted!


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

The Pilot is a more comfort oriented bike but the most important thing here is to get fitted and try out the bikes in question first. Try out a few bikes to see how they eel when you ride them.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

Try the new carbon Lemonds, too. They have taller head tubes than the Pilots.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

WhiskeyNovember said:


> Try the new carbon Lemonds, too. They have taller head tubes than the Pilots.


Oh yeah?? My LBS kinda doesnt carry LeMonds anymore so I haven't seen one for a while..


----------



## rugger (Mar 1, 2005)

I'll make a plug for the Pilot 2.1, mine is 2 years old, 4000 miles not counting the hours on the trainer through the winter, with stock components (Shimano 105) and has performed almost flawlessly, other than the usual derailleur adjustments and shifitng quirks. It has plenty of capability for speed. I am 47 years old, my average speeds have been in the 21-22 mph range, I chase down alot of people, and have never been passed. This bike will not be the limiting factor, although I am tempted to grade up to more carbon.


----------



## acckids (Jan 2, 2003)

Another plug for the 2.1. I liked the 5.0 Pilot but could not justify the $700 difference. If you could get the full carbon for $1600, I would have probably spent the extra money. With that said, I like the ride, handling and specs of the 2.1.


----------

