# Trek 1.5 vs Trek 2.1



## Tobsterius (Mar 29, 2009)

I'm sure this has been asked many times before, so forgive me in advance if it has...

I currently ride a Trek 820 MTB (mostly street riding, rarely go on trails). I bought it about two years ago in an effort to get into riding. I wasn't sure I was going to be into riding, so I wanted to get an affordable bike. 

To make a long story short, I enjoy the hell out of it and I'm itching to buy my first good road bike. I've decided between 1.5 and the 2.1 but I can't seem to decide between the two. Are the components that come with the 2.1 that much of an improvement over the 1.5 to warrant the price difference? 

I'm sold on the Trek brand. I like the design and build quality to justify the cost over another brand. However, even though I'm posting this in a Trek sub-forum, if any of you know of an equal model from another manufacture that is just as good as these two bikes, I'm more than open to it. 

Below are links to the specs for both bikes. Any help is great appreciated. 

Trek 1.5 specs

Trek 2.1 specs

Also, I'm pretty short -- 5' 7" to 5' 8" -- is a 50cm (19.6in) too big for me?

Thanks,
Anthony


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Either bike is okay. But were I you, now that you know you like road bikes and want to continue with it, would to be looking used. For instance you should be able to find a full 105 or Ultegra bike in either an aluminum or full carbon frame with better wheels for the same price or less. Either frame on the 1.5 or the 2.1 should be a decent platform. The wheels however are boat anchors from what I understand, and the Sora and Tiagra STI units are basically disposable parts IMO. Some of the other main parts (crankset and brakes) are generic and either servicable or total crap. 

Probably not what you want to hear
zac


----------



## fstbckadct (Mar 8, 2009)

i ended up picking up a 2.3 for about 1500 at my LBS, went with the 2.3 due to the componentry/wheelset. Was looking at a Specialized allez elite as my other option as well as a Giant TCR Alliance.. All good bikes, Giant was super stiff good components, Specialized was not as stiff all 105 gear and was a bit cheaper than the 2.3 but just didn't have the "solid" feel that the 2.3 did, however it was a very nice bike though. My wife ended up getting a dolce elite 50cm and she's 5'5".


----------



## Tobsterius (Mar 29, 2009)

Thank you both for your input. 

I'll take a look at used bicycles. I never looked at it from that angle.

Can anyone clear up what various bike shops mean when they advertise a bike as 'compact'? 


Example: http://campusbicycle.com/itemdetails.cfm?LibId=47748


Thanks.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

If I were going for a 2 Series Trek, hands down it'd be the 2.3.
If you just want a starter bike, then the 1.5 is perfect.
No need in spending the extra coin just to upgrade anyway later on. 

A 2 Series bike is something you can ride/keep significantly longer than a 1 Series. 
I knew I'd be going into a 5 Series bike anyway, so for me a 2 Series wasn't reasonable. 

I have a 1.5. *Love it to death*. Even when I get a 5 Series Madone, I'll keep my 1.5 
(which will be seeing substantial upgrades too...wheelset, tires, saddle, etc...).


----------

