# Trek 7300 V. 7300FX



## DecafPoetess (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm back! OK, I've literally narrowed my choices down to two models (not counting of course, my dreamy cruiser). The description of the FX on the website says "Great for fitness workouts and training rides," and the normal hybrid "From bike lanes to bike paths and everything in between." I don't know what this means in terms of bike components, quality, and comfort. The FX is slightly cheaper. I don't plan on using it as a "fitness" bike -- just casual riding, however, I'd like to know what the technical differences are between the two and what it means for me. Also, does anyone own either and have oodles of praise for it?

Cheers!
Ilana


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

DecafPoetess said:


> I'm back! OK, I've literally narrowed my choices down to two models (not counting of course, my dreamy cruiser). The description of the FX on the website says "Great for fitness workouts and training rides," and the normal hybrid "From bike lanes to bike paths and everything in between." I don't know what this means in terms of bike components, quality, and comfort. The FX is slightly cheaper. I don't plan on using it as a "fitness" bike -- just casual riding, however, I'd like to know what the technical differences are between the two and what it means for me. Also, does anyone own either and have oodles of praise for it?
> 
> Cheers!
> Ilana


You can compare the two side-by-side:

* The two of them seem to have very similar frames. The 7300FX's frame is probably slightly lighter. 

* The 7300 has a suspension fork, the 7300FX has a steel fork.

* The 7300 has a suspension seatpost, the FX does not.

* The 7300 has an adjustable stem, the FX does not.

* Component-wise, the 7300FX seems to have better parts. I don't know much about components at this range though. 

So the 7300FX seems like a better deal if you don't care for a suspension fork and a suspension seatpost. I have no idea how good/bad the forks and seatposts are, but at that price range I think I would go with non-suspension.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*The store where I work part time sells lots of these.*



DecafPoetess said:


> I'm back! OK, I've literally narrowed my choices down to two models (not counting of course, my dreamy cruiser). The description of the FX on the website says "Great for fitness workouts and training rides," and the normal hybrid "From bike lanes to bike paths and everything in between." I don't know what this means in terms of bike components, quality, and comfort. The FX is slightly cheaper. I don't plan on using it as a "fitness" bike -- just casual riding, however, I'd like to know what the technical differences are between the two and what it means for me. Also, does anyone own either and have oodles of praise for it?
> 
> Cheers!
> Ilana


Speaking as a cyclist and not as a salesperson; the FX bikes seem to be for people who want to ride, the "Comfort" models are for folks who don't like to ride.

With the big fat tires these bikes come equipped with any additional suspension (like the fork) just adds weight and takes away rolling efficency. I was really pleased to see Trek and other manufacturers add "Fitness" bikes to their hybrid lineups.

Get the FX, it and you will ride better and enjoy riding more.


----------



## Jett (Mar 21, 2004)

DecafPoetess said:


> I'm back! OK, I've literally narrowed my choices down to two models (not counting of course, my dreamy cruiser). The description of the FX on the website says "Great for fitness workouts and training rides," and the normal hybrid "From bike lanes to bike paths and everything in between." I don't know what this means in terms of bike components, quality, and comfort. The FX is slightly cheaper. I don't plan on using it as a "fitness" bike -- just casual riding, however, I'd like to know what the technical differences are between the two and what it means for me. Also, does anyone own either and have oodles of praise for it?
> 
> Cheers!
> Ilana


The 7300 is design more for comfort. It comes with a 50mm suspension fork, suspension seat post + an elastomers cushioned saddle. The bike designs to smoothen out the road a little. 

Where as the 7300FX is design to deliver more power into the drivetain (in other words, more speed). It has rigid fork and seat post, so you going to feel the road a little more. IMHO, it has a slight better drivetrain and shifters.

Either of these bikes will fit your needs. If you want something a little more comfortable got with 7300. If you want something a little faster get the 7300FX. And I do mean a little here. Don?t expect a night/day type of difference.

Hope this helps.


----------



## DecafPoetess (Jun 19, 2005)

orange_julius said:


> You can compare the two side-by-side:
> 
> * The two of them seem to have very similar frames. The 7300FX's frame is probably slightly lighter.
> 
> ...



Does adjustable stem meaning you can change the height of the handlebars? If so, isn't that kind of an important feature? What if I don't like the initial position they're in on the FX? Also, isn't "steel" a big no-no? Also, if the components of the FX are better, why is it cheaper? 

These questions come from true confusion -- I haven't tested these bikes yet, I only like them on paper!


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

DecafPoetess said:


> Does adjustable stem meaning you can change the height of the handlebars? If so, isn't that kind of an important feature? What if I don't like the initial position they're in on the FX? Also, isn't "steel" a big no-no? Also, if the components of the FX are better, why is it cheaper?
> 
> These questions come from true confusion -- I haven't tested these bikes yet, I only like them on paper!


Sure adjustability is a nice feature, but not necessary. With most bikes one can usually move the stem up and down, subject to the amount of space above/below where the stem is set up on the fork.

Sounds like you actually want to do some decent riding, so the FX is a better bet. I don't care much for "comfort" bikes with suspension seatpost and fork.

The FX is cheaper because the suspension stuff costs a lot more!!

Stop thinking and start test riding ;-).


----------



## DecafPoetess (Jun 19, 2005)

orange_julius said:


> Sure adjustability is a nice feature, but not necessary. With most bikes one can usually move the stem up and down, subject to the amount of space above/below where the stem is set up on the fork.
> 
> Sounds like you actually want to do some decent riding, so the FX is a better bet. I don't care much for "comfort" bikes with suspension seatpost and fork.
> 
> ...



Quite right! This weekend will be test ride time!


----------



## Danimal (Jan 4, 2005)

I just helped my roommate buy a 7300FX yesterday, he's not a cyclist, but was looking for a good bike to ride around town and do the occasional workout on.

For me, I'd recommend the FX hands down. The suspension fork on the 7300 is not an exciting fork. It adds considerable weight for a minimal increase in comfort. The FX is extremely comfortable thanks to the nice saddle and very well thought-out geometry. The ride is not at all harsh like a true road bike. We have some rough roads in our neighborhood and I was perfectly comfortable when the roads got nasty.

After we brought his FX home last night, I rode it around the block. I couldn't believe how fast the bike was! The comfort level was off the charts (I'm used to the road bike) and the bike was extremely efficient.

Good luck with your decision, you'll be happy either way.

-Danimal


----------



## Jett (Mar 21, 2004)

DecafPoetess said:


> Does adjustable stem meaning you can change the height of the handlebars? If so, isn't that kind of an important feature? What if I don't like the initial position they're in on the FX? Also, isn't "steel" a big no-no? Also, if the components of the FX are better, why is it cheaper?
> 
> These questions come from true confusion -- I haven't tested these bikes yet, I only like them on paper!


An adjustable stem allows you change the angle of the steam. This allows to you to bring the handles higher and closer to you. By doing so you’re in a more upright riding position (which is more comfortable). 

If you don't like the initial position of the steam on the FX, you could have the shop swap it out. Most decent LBS will do that when you size on the bike.

As the old saying goes "Steel is real". Steel will give you a smoother ride. It's not as harsh as say aluminum. The only downside would be weight but giving today's tube technology (for a lack of better term) that not really a problem.

The reason that 3700 is more expensive then the FX is because of the suspension fork and seat post. They really jack up the price of the bike. In order to keep prices relative competitive Trek downgrade the drivetrain.


----------



## RodeRash (May 18, 2005)

Steel forks -- 

The reason they're shunned on a ROAD BIKE (racing machine), is because they're not as stiff as carbon fibre or alum. Also, they're a bit heavier. You're not concerned with either stiff nor heavy, not in terms of a race machine. It's damn fine steel on a damn fine bike. There's not a durability nor a quality issue about steel. The issues are about weight, stiffness, and cost. 

I posted elsewhere about your bike selections ("I tested bikes today!") comparing the FX to the 7300. I missed some details between the two. 

Discussion here from those who ride them and sell them shows me that the FX is more a riding bike and the 7300 builds some cushion into the features with the seatpost and suspension fork. You don't need either one. 

Seatpost and fork suspension will drive up the cost on equipment and so the way to bring the cost back down is to downgrade the components in the drive train. Skip the suspension and go for a nicer set of drive train components. 

You can always swap out the stem, but chances are it's fine to begin with, and your requirements won't necessitate the subtle differences a stem swap would give you. 

Now I'm voting for the FX. It has what you need and want, provides better drive train components, and dispenses with a lot of extra baggage and cost that you don't need.


----------

