# Trek 2.1 vs 2.3 vs 3.1? (2012/2013)



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Hi All,
Noob to roading here. I know similar questions have been posted before, but they were ~2 years old and components change so...

I went to my LBS today and narrowed down my choices to Treks: 2.1 Apex, 2.3 and 3.1. 

Now, I love the idea that my first roadie would be all-carbon (as in the 3.1) but the components on 2.3 are better [105 shifters, front & rear derailers, Shimano r600 compact cranks and 10 speed Tiagra cassette  ]. In addition to mixed components on the 3.1, the wheels seem worse. My final concern about the 3.1 is that the 300 series OCLV might not be worth sacrificing components (ie, is the 300 really much better than the 2.3 aluminum? Does it compare with the 400 & 500?)

Then, I wonder about the 2.1 Apex. The price is ~$400 cheaper and components are all SRAM, so that's good. But, the wheels and brakeset are not so hot. I'm trying to get something price-consciously but I want to enjoy the best bike I can get and be proud of. Also, trying to avoid upgrading components inside of 18 months, unless it makes sense.

Any input from experienced people and/or owners of any of these would be awesome!


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

The 2.1 is the best deal. Functionally Apex can be seen as an _alternative_ to 105 as opposed to just a lower tier. Bontrager Race wheels aren't anything to write home about really. The 3.1 is one to draw in the sucker for carbon.

Eventually someone may chime in and say there's better alternatives to Trek period, and not to get ahead of myself, but I'd agree in advance.


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Ventruck said:


> The 2.1 is the best deal. Functionally Apex can be seen as an _alternative_ to 105 as opposed to just a lower tier. Bontrager Race wheels aren't anything to write home about really. The 3.1 is one to draw in the sucker for carbon.
> 
> Eventually someone may chime in and say there's better alternatives to Trek period, and not to get ahead of myself, but I'd agree in advance.


Thanks... So of the three the 2.1is the best. Any suggestions on the wheel set ie, would you upgrade etc?

I'm open to other models, it's just that LBS had Treks, Giants and Specialized in my price point...then it went to Cervello! So please let me know if you suggest something else


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Wheelset depends on weight, and even then you've got a lot of choices. You go to the Wheels and Tires forums and you'll be given the typical "Kinlin/CX-Ray/WI(or whatever hub)" response. Just ride your wheels out.

My other suggestion would be Cannondale (which is typical). For the price of the 2.3 you could probably find a deal on the CAAD10-4 which has SRAM Rival stuff, or the CAAD10-5 (with 105 stuff) for almost the price of the 2.1. It's known that Trek's aluminum models have a pointless premium on them. CAAD frames are widely popular, and long proven.


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Ventruck said:


> Wheelset depends on weight, and even then you've got a lot of choices. You go to the Wheels and Tires forums and you'll be given the typical "Kinlin/CX-Ray/WI(or whatever hub)" response. Just ride your wheels out.
> 
> My other suggestion would be Cannondale (which is typical). For the price of the 2.3 you could probably find a deal on the CAAD10-4 which has SRAM Rival stuff, or the CAAD10-5 (with 105 stuff) for almost the price of the 2.1. It's known that Trek's aluminum models have a pointless premium on them. CAAD frames are widely popular, and long proven.


Cool, thanks. Yes, I've seen Cannondale being well-referenced on this forum. I'll look at local stores that might carry them. I liked the lightweight feel of Treks so I'm sure the CAAD's will be comparable.


----------



## fltekdiver (Aug 1, 2012)

I just went through this last week. Bought my first road bike after getting outta the hobby 5 years ago

I bought a 2012 Trek 2.3 for $1,499.00 as the 2013 models are out. They had a 56cm which is my fit.
They also had a 2.1, and a 3.1 The Carbon 3.1 was $1,650.00 

So for $150 more I could have had the 3.1 2012

The tires/rims, 105's all the way around, even on brakes on the 2.3 sold me, plus I Loved the RED?WHITE vs just black, it's really nice

I went in their with a budget on my mind of spending $1K, ( Trek 2.1 ) and when I saw the 2.3 discounted, it was a hard choice between that and the 3.1

I really wanted the carbon bike, came with SRAM gearset etc, but when I compared the two , I ended up going with the Trek 2.3

Worse part was they had a 2012 Trek 4.5 for $1,899.00 since the 2013 were out, man that was hard to walk away from


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

fltekdiver said:


> I just went through this last week. Bought my first road bike after getting outta the hobby 5 years ago
> 
> I bought a 2012 Trek 2.3 for $1,499.00 as the 2013 models are out. They had a 56cm which is my fit.
> They also had a 2.1, and a 3.1 The Carbon 3.1 was $1,650.00
> ...


How about that! Thanks for the input. Yeah I'm in a similar situation regarding some "favorable" pricing options. I had the feeling that the 3.1 would be nice but suspected it would really be because I wanted a much pricier model. Pretty good price on the '12 4.5. They had some discount on the 4.5 at my LBS but they didn't have 56cm; anyway, it has a triple crank so thats how I talked myself out of regretting it. 

How did you narrow it down to those 3 models? Did you consider any others?

Awesome purchase on the 2.3 and enjoy riding!


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Oh yeah,also the 2.1 has an aluminum seat stem and the saddle is hard! 2.3 has a carbon seat stem.


----------



## fltekdiver (Aug 1, 2012)

I missed a 56cm trek 2.1 on Ebay, got out bid at the last min, went for $965.00 shipped, it was a 2011 model bought new in May 2011 rode 20 miles. So I set a budget based on that, cause I knew if I spent $1K on the bike, by the time you buy the shoes, pedals, shorts, etc, you'll have another $500+

So I called 4 LBS in my area, and asked what models they had left over from 2012

The 3.1 was a 58cm, left over, to big for me, so it was really between what they had left over from 2012, as I wasn't going to pay $500 more to have the 2013 model

The 4.5 was a 56cm, and that was the hardest decesion to make. It really came down to let me see in a few years if I'm still in the hobby, and I can always upgrade

last time around, 5 years ago, I stuck in the hobby for 2 years, then got out, this time, I'm hoping this is a life long commitment

The only other I looked at was from bikes direct , they have Motobecane, good prices to, don't know much about it, as last bike I had was a Trek, so I was trying to stay in the Trek line, not that theirs anything better then any other manafactour

PS, I just bought the Garmin Edge 500 with Cadence, and HR, man, you got to check that computer out, I love it!


----------



## Dan333sp (Aug 17, 2010)

My girlfriend bought me a 2013 3.1 as a surprise 3 days ago (see my thread in general discussion- "Girlfriend Win"). Maybe it's just because I didn't get a chance to test ride the 2.3 or the 4.5, but I love it and I don't think I would have done anything different had I made the choice myself. It's got the newest 5700 105 shifters, which are excellent, and although the front derailleur is Tiagra, the RD is 105 and the shifting has been flawless. The crank is SRAM Rival, which is fine by me. Brakes are no name and the wheels are total crap, but I've got a good set from my old bike to swap on once I convert the freehub from Campy to Shimano to work with the 3.1. The stock cassette has huge gearing (maybe 13-28?), I might get something like an 11-25 n the future because I'm riding a compact for the first time so I'm not used to such low gears, nor do I need them without a prolonged climb in my area. Anyway, good luck with your purchase, there aren't any components on my frame that I can't upgrade later if I choose to, and from what I can tell the 300 series carbon is the stiffest and smoothest bike I've ever been on (but that was previously limited to aluminum bikes!).


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

JayR said:


> Oh yeah,also the 2.1 has an aluminum seat stem and the saddle is hard! 2.3 has a carbon seat stem.


A seatpost is a very late option in addressing comfort. Don't buy into that idea, especially since the 2.3's seatpost might just be _carbon-wrapped_ aluminum.

Comfort is better addressed by tire pressure, saddle selection, and clothing. There's a reason why brands like Ritchey and Thomson continue to sell aftermarket aluminum seatposts.


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Dan333sp said:


> My girlfriend bought me a 2013 3.1 as a surprise 3 days ago (see my thread in general discussion- "Girlfriend Win"). Maybe it's just because I didn't get a chance to test ride the 2.3 or the 4.5, but I love it and I don't think I would have done anything different had I made the choice myself. It's got the newest 5700 105 shifters, which are excellent, and although the front derailleur is Tiagra, the RD is 105 and the shifting has been flawless. The crank is SRAM Rival, which is fine by me. Brakes are no name and the wheels are total crap, but I've got a good set from my old bike to swap on once I convert the freehub from Campy to Shimano to work with the 3.1. The stock cassette has huge gearing (maybe 13-28?), I might get something like an 11-25 n the future because I'm riding a compact for the first time so I'm not used to such low gears, nor do I need them without a prolonged climb in my area. Anyway, good luck with your purchase, there aren't any components on my frame that I can't upgrade later if I choose to, and from what I can tell the 300 series carbon is the stiffest and smoothest bike I've ever been on (but that was previously limited to aluminum bikes!).


Awesome! Glad to get a user review of the 3.1. It sure is tempting. The upgrade in wheels will surely make for an enhanced ride. I don't know if imreasy or able to upgrade any components so I'm leaning towards the best overall out-the-door bike. Anyway, enjoy the carbony goodness of your 3.1 and congrats to your gf on awesome buy!


----------



## Dan333sp (Aug 17, 2010)

Thanks! Here she is, just to gloat a little. I'd probably have preferred a red/white or blue/red/white color scheme, but the silver and black looks very sharp and matches a lot of my gear, rear wheel to be swapped to Vuelta Corsa Lite once I get the new hub-


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Dan333sp said:


> Thanks! Here she is, just to gloat a little. I'd probably have preferred a red/white or blue/red/white color scheme, but the silver and black looks very sharp and matches a lot of my gear, rear wheel to be swapped to Vuelta Corsa Lite once I get the new hub-


Wow, that's a great looking bike! Yep,the color schemes sharp, same as the one I saw in the store and the Vuelta is nice. Thanks for posting the pic!


----------



## AythanNyah09 (Jul 14, 2012)

If I started the "hunt" for a new bike this month instead of last... you can find tons of close out deals! What worked for me is telling my LBS (that carried the same types of bicycles) that the "further away" store had this bike for this low price... can you match? And it worked for me... unless you want the 2013?


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

Silver and black doesn't show dirt. Be happy!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Seeing as this is your first road bike, I suggest staying at the lower end of your budget. Reasons being,
1) Even at the lower end, as long as the bikes suite your intended uses, you have some fine choices
2) You need time to determine your preferences, and this bike will give you that time
3) If you stay with this, the 2.1 (or similar) can be your rain/ trainer/ commuter bike
4) if you decide to sell, you'll likely lose less than if you got a higher priced bike

I think the 2 series Treks are fine choices, but IMO it would be to your advantage to check out (and test ride) some other brands/ models. You might well go back to the Treks, but at least then you'll have a better reason why and make a more educated purchasing decision.

Re: SRAM versus Shimano components, IMO it comes down to personal preferences in ergonomics and shifting methods. Try both and decide which you prefer.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

PJ352 said:


> Seeing as this is your first road bike, I suggest staying at the lower end of your budget. Reasons being,
> 1) Even at the lower end, as long as the bikes suite your intended uses, you have some fine choices
> 2) You need time to determine your preferences, and this bike will give you that time
> 3) If you stay with this, the 2.1 (or similar) can be your rain/ trainer/ commuter bike
> ...


+1.. I have to agree. These bikes will hold their value better when it's time to resale than higher end stuff completely. Check out other brands as well. You should be able to find some awesome buys out there. Treks tend to be on the higher end pricewise for comparable bikes. Make sure that try out many different bikes. don't let brakes disappoint you. A bike with Tektro brakes that cost $200 less would be an awesome deal when you can spend $20-25 on a set of Kool Stop pads and likely have better performing brakes than the higher level brakes. Components make a difference but sometimes the lower end model is a better buy. 
Also, Apex is the level of Tiagra. Weight obssession makes people think it's on par with 105 due to it being a little lighter than Tiagra, but 105 is on par with Rival. I see that crap on this forum all of the time. However, if you talk to a SRAM rep, they will tell you that while they are impressed that people think that, in reality, Rival competes with 105.....not Ultegra. You get a little more weight with 105 but it is a no-nonsense group (dressed in Shimano's industrial look) that always deliver the goods and is polished while doing it. It is as race worthy as Rival. Noone would call Apex race-worthy. Regardless Apex is a good group.


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Ventruck said:


> A seatpost is a very late option in addressing comfort. Don't buy into that idea, especially since the 2.3's seatpost might just be _carbon-wrapped_ aluminum.
> 
> Comfort is better addressed by tire pressure, saddle selection, and clothing. There's a reason why brands like Ritchey and Thomson continue to sell aftermarket aluminum seatposts.


Ok, I didn't know about this since I'm really going on what I've read vs experienced. Good info, thanks. And I'm also going to check out the Cdale 10-5 & 10-4 if I can make it to lbs today. Of course another subjective question, but any suggestions between those two?


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

PJ352 said:


> Seeing as this is your first road bike, I suggest staying at the lower end of your budget. Reasons being,
> 1) Even at the lower end, as long as the bikes suite your intended uses, you have some fine choices
> 2) You need time to determine your preferences, and this bike will give you that time
> 3) If you stay with this, the 2.1 (or similar) can be your rain/ trainer/ commuter bike
> ...


Good point about the resale value and you're right about taking time to determine my preferences. Of course I want the "best" bike I can get now, but I don't even know what "best" is for me..it makes sense to start with a good lower end model. Thx


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

terbennett said:


> +1.. I have to agree. These bikes will hold their value better when it's time to resale than higher end stuff completely. Check out other brands as well. You should be able to find some awesome buys out there. Treks tend to be on the higher end pricewise for comparable bikes. Make sure that try out many different bikes. don't let brakes disappoint you. A bike with Tektro brakes that cost $200 less would be an awesome deal when you can spend $20-25 on a set of Kool Stop pads and likely have better performing brakes than the higher level brakes. Components make a difference but sometimes the lower end model is a better buy.
> Also, Apex is the level of Tiagra. Weight obssession makes people think it's on par with 105 due to it being a little lighter than Tiagra, but 105 is on par with Rival. I see that crap on this forum all of the time. However, if you talk to a SRAM rep, they will tell you that while they are impressed that people think that, in reality, Rival competes with 105.....not Ultegra. You get a little more weight with 105 but it is a no-nonsense group (dressed in Shimano's industrial look) that always deliver the goods and is polished while doing it. It is as race worthy as Rival. Noone would call Apex race-worthy. Regardless Apex is a good group.


True, in fact I'm going to check out the CAAD 10's to see how they feel. Thanks for the component comparison points too. That will help me when considering the 10-4/10-5. I'm getting over my newbie component-lust


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

JayR said:


> Good point about the resale value and you're right about taking time to determine my preferences. Of course* I want the "best" bike I can get now, but I don't even know what "best" is for me.*.it makes sense to start with a good lower end model. Thx


Really, the best bike for anyone is the one that fits and feels the best, but I'm confident you can find those things at the lower end of your price range.

BTW, terbennett is spot-on with his explanation of the Shimano versus SRAM tiers. In your travels to shops and during your test rides, i suggest checking out both the new Tiagra 10 speed and Apex groupsets. Going with either will save you some money and both function/ perform well. Which you prefer will depend on ergonomics and shifting preferences.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

I started on a 2.1. Still have it and ride it. I also have a new 4.7.
One's full 105 and one's Ultegra. Both fit perfectly.
Honestly, I can't tell the difference between the bikes.


----------



## JayR (Aug 12, 2012)

Ventruck said:


> Wheelset depends on weight, and even then you've got a lot of choices. You go to the Wheels and Tires forums and you'll be given the typical "Kinlin/CX-Ray/WI(or whatever hub)" response. Just ride your wheels out.
> 
> My other suggestion would be Cannondale (which is typical). For the price of the 2.3 you could probably find a deal on the CAAD10-4 which has SRAM Rival stuff, or the CAAD10-5 (with 105 stuff) for almost the price of the 2.1. It's known that Trek's aluminum models have a pointless premium on them. CAAD frames are widely popular, and long proven.


Ventruck, a few changes over the last few days ...now I'm considering between a 2012 CAAD10-5 or a 2011 Carbon Synapse 5. I haven't ridden either yet (have to wait for weekend) but any suggestions/opinions about the two?

Thx!


----------

