# Trek 2.1 vs. Trek 1.2



## roadmountain

I've only test ridden the Trek 2, but plan on test riding the Trek 1 soon. 

I was very, very impressed with the 2, which might be expected since it is over $1K. If I could get away with it without compromising quality, I would be happy to spend 200 or 300 less for the 1. 

Should I expect very similar quality or will the component compromise of the Trek 1 become an issue sooner rather than later (performance and durability)?

Thanks for your replies in advance!


----------



## WhoDatDrewDat

*my advice*

my advice would be if you have the money to get the better components, go ahead and do it. when i first started cycling i got a basic trek 1000. i absolutely loved it. it was the perfect bike. however a year down the road i wish i got a bike with a little better components. on the flip side, if you are just going out for a bike ride and enjoy just riding your bike around with no intention on racing then save a few hundred bucks, because you probably wouldnt notice a big difference on the minor upgrade of components. either bike will be a nice bike and you will like it.


----------



## 2ndGen

I'm a champion of the Trek 1.5. 

If I were going for a 2.X Series, I'd go with the 2.3.

Why? Both the 1.5 and the 2.3 get great reviews from bike mags (the 1.5 won Best Entry Level Road Bike by Bicycling in '09 and is currently an editor's choice for '10). 

As for the 1.X vs 2.X Series discussion...that will depend on you really. 
I went with the lowest series because I always knew I'd upgrade to a $3K bike eventually.
I don't personally buy by components groups on bikes I'm going to upgrade anyway.
If you know enough now to know that this will be a very long term bike, 
then I'd definitely say go for the 2.X bike. It's an excellent bike (as is the 1.5).

But in my humble opinion I'd go with the 1.5 or the 2.3.
Either bike will not need upgrading for a long while in their respective categories. 
(1.5, entry level bike, 2.3, recreational rider/possible entry level racer). 

The only real difference in the two from what I've come to learn is (besides components groups) are the carbon stays on the 2.X bikes which give it a slightly better ride that really becomes noticeable on longer rides. 

Personally, I ended up falling in love with my 1.5 and am putting about $2,000. into it. 
Wheels, saddle, cockpit, groupset...for that money I could get a new Madone, but it wouldn't be my upgraded 1.5.

1.X Series bikes are by far the best alumnimum frame bikes you can get for the money.
The only thing that beats it is a CAAD9, but now you're talking about a bike designed more for racing (which is also on my hit list). 

If you're just venturing into road biking and want to get a feel for it more, the 1.5 is a great choice to get your feet wet with. I have guys with $10,000. bikes that like my bike and compliment it even on how it rides. 

If you're more seasoned, the 2.3 is a great bike too.

The jump up in price between the 1.2/1.5 and the 2.1/2.3 is really not much when you figure how much MORE you get for the relatively small difference. 

If I had to do it all over again knowing what I know now however, I'd still get the 1.5.

Good luck and let us know what you choose.


----------



## roadmountain

Thanks for your feedback. I should mention that my budget is about $1300 max for a bicycle.


----------



## karlmichael

it really depends on how much you weight. i have a 4.7 madone and my friend got the 2.1. his bike rides nice and feels very fun and responsive to ride. the only issue he has with the bike is that the wheelset flexes a bit when he climbs. he is 210 and not as smooth of a rider. i would say get the 2.1 as it feels more like my carbon frame and we all know from mountian bike riding that better parts just last longer. enjoy

karl


----------



## zac

roadmountain said:


> I've only test ridden the Trek 2, but plan on test riding the Trek 1 soon.
> 
> I was very, very impressed with the 2, which might be expected since it is over $1K. If I could get away with it without compromising quality, I would be happy to spend 200 or 300 less for the 1.
> 
> Should I expect very similar quality or will the component compromise of the Trek 1 become an issue sooner rather than later (performance and durability)?
> 
> Thanks for your replies in advance!


The 1.x series bikes are essentially entry level road bikes. The outfits (components, etc.) are just barely adequate, IMHO. Plus it is a 9 speed, and your upgrade path/potential involves much more than just changing a cassette. 

The 2.1, on the other hand, 105 shifters and mechs. 105 is good stuff and is raced everyday by people who buy their own equipment. Taken care of, it'll last a long time. Plus you can easily upgrade the components to higher level Shimano offerings with little worries of will it work. If you can get it with the 2010 105...go for it.

As far as frames go, they are both aluminum and have, I think, identical geometries. Given that, they should be somewhat similar in ride, certainly nothing that you would really notice. However with the butted and shaped tubes of the 2 series, you are going to get a lighter frame. How much lighter? I have no idea.

If you are serious about riding and are going to stay with it, and you like the ride of the Trek Aluminum, were I you, I would give the 2.3 a serious look. That is a full 105 bike, which with the crankset and brakes too, makes a difference.

Good luck, don't discount the looking at 2008 or 2009 models. You can get some great deals for a higher spec'd bike, which I think at your price point is something to consider. Plus I think the prior year models had the carbon stays which from what I hear made the ride a bit more tolerable over longer distances.

As for your specific question about the component levels: yes you will notice a difference, yes you will notice it sooner, and perhaps right away. IMHO, as far as Shimano goes, anything under 105, (Tiagra, Sora) is basically for occasional light duty use only. I certainly am not saying that it won't work, but if you want day in and day out reliability and durability, mile after mile, season after season, then start with 105 and go north from there (Ultegra and Dura-Ace). Also note that Shimano has finally added 105 to the hidden cable "revolution." Not sure if it is available on 2010 Treks, but it would be a bonus if it is.

HTH
zac


----------



## roadmountain

This is some great feedback, thank you.

I test rode a 2009 Trek 2.1. I was almost amazed. The ride itself was amazing, and the only detractor I could notice were the brakes, which didn't seem to work very well. 

Do you think $1120 is a good price is a good price for an '09 Trek 2.1?


I'll test ride the 1, but the 2 made a very positive impression on me!


----------



## Trek2.3

I like the 2 series. I have a 2.1 and a 2.3. I got all Ultegra parts off ebay for under $300 and I'm upgrading the 2.3 as well as putting the 105 group on the 2.1. With the 105 group, the 2.1 becomes a 2.3 in all but color scheme. Both are super bikes.

I tried a madrone but decided the ride was the same and I'd save the 3 grand.


----------



## 2ndGen

roadmountain said:


> This is some great feedback, thank you.
> 
> I test rode a 2009 Trek 2.1. I was almost amazed. The ride itself was amazing, and the only detractor I could notice were the brakes, which didn't seem to work very well.
> 
> Do you think $1120 is a good price is a good price for an '09 Trek 2.1?
> 
> 
> I'll test ride the 1, but the 2 made a very positive impression on me!


Then you've been bitten! 
Welcome to The Dark Side!
I used to Mountain Bike exclusively, 
but went "Road" (get it? rogue? road?).

Do you mountain bike? 

First of all, I'd say go for the 2.3. Trust me, if you prefer the 2.1 to the 1.X Series, you must know your stuff. 

Think of it like this...it's like going from an LX equipped bike to an XT equipped bike 
and that makes a HUGE difference (Shimano Tiagra VS 105/Ultegra groupset). 

It's the difference between buying a bike that you'll more likely than not upgrade (drivetrain-wise) 
to a bike that you won't HAVE TO upgrade at all (the 105/Ultegra mix on the 2.3). 
Plus, the 2.3 has a much better build & wheels. 

However, color-wise, I'd give it to the 2.1 over the 2.3 any day (but that's personal preference talking). 

The 2.3 might cost you a little bit more now, but won't cost you anything more in the long run drivetrain-wise. 
You might be able to locate one for your budget as an '09 closeout.

I'm assuming you're considering '09 bikes when I gave you those specs.


----------



## roadmountain

To be honest, I have a strong preference for the esthetics of the 2.1 '09 rather than the 2.3 '09. I know, but that's the way it is. The 2010 2.1 looks pretty sharp too. The 2010 2.3 is pushing it on price to be sure.


----------



## 2ndGen

roadmountain said:


> To be honest, I have a strong preference for the esthetics of the 2.1 '09 rather than the 2.3 '09. I know, but that's the way it is. The 2010 2.1 looks pretty sharp too. The 2010 2.3 is pushing it on price to be sure.


Actually, I agree. And while the 2.3 is superior build-wise, I love the 2.1's color scheme.
All the specs I gave you are for the 2009's (if I didn't mention it).


----------



## nrg4isu

2ndGen said:


> I'm a champion of the Trek 1.5.
> 
> If I were going for a 2.X Series, I'd go with the 2.3.
> 
> Why? Both the 1.5 and the 2.3 get great reviews from bike mags (the 1.5 won Best Entry Level Road Bike by Bicycling in '09 and is currently an editor's choice for '10).
> 
> As for the 1.X vs 2.X Series discussion...that will depend on you really.
> I went with the lowest series because I always knew I'd upgrade to a $3K bike eventually.
> I don't personally buy by components groups on bikes I'm going to upgrade anyway.
> If you know enough now to know that this will be a very long term bike,
> then I'd definitely say go for the 2.X bike. It's an excellent bike (as is the 1.5).
> 
> But in my humble opinion I'd go with the 1.5 or the 2.3.
> Either bike will not need upgrading for a long while in their respective categories.
> (1.5, entry level bike, 2.3, recreational rider/possible entry level racer).
> 
> *The only real difference in the two from what I've come to learn is (besides components groups) are the carbon stays on the 2.X bikes which give it a slightly better ride that really becomes noticeable on longer rides. *
> 
> Personally, I ended up falling in love with my 1.5 and am putting about $2,000. into it.
> Wheels, saddle, cockpit, groupset...for that money I could get a new Madone, but it wouldn't be my upgraded 1.5.
> 
> 1.X Series bikes are by far the best alumnimum frame bikes you can get for the money.
> The only thing that beats it is a CAAD9, but now you're talking about a bike designed more for racing (which is also on my hit list).
> 
> If you're just venturing into road biking and want to get a feel for it more, the 1.5 is a great choice to get your feet wet with. I have guys with $10,000. bikes that like my bike and compliment it even on how it rides.
> 
> If you're more seasoned, the 2.3 is a great bike too.
> 
> The jump up in price between the 1.2/1.5 and the 2.1/2.3 is really not much when you figure how much MORE you get for the relatively small difference.
> 
> If I had to do it all over again knowing what I know now however, I'd still get the 1.5.
> 
> Good luck and let us know what you choose.



Note: The 2010 2.3 does NOT have carbon stays. That was something trek ditched after the 2009 bike and instead went with full 105 group components. Just adding my 2 cents. 

I own the 2.3 and although I haven't put many miles on it yet (40), I love it. The only thing I'd change so far is the seat... and I'm giving it some break-in time before I really decide on that. I chose the 2.3 over the other bikes mainly because I know that I'm going to have this bike for a loooong time. I love the frame (hydroformed) over the 1.X frames, and appreciate the better wheels and full 105 group.


----------



## Trek2.3

Be careful, Trek built down the 2010 2.3 because it was too competative with the much more expensive madones. Still a nice bike but the *2009's* with carbon stays are THE BEST BUY. If you don't like the brakes, change the pads -- they are cheap.


----------



## roadmountain

I have a strong preference for the alu at this point, simply because I've test ridden one and loved it. 

My only qualm with the 2.1 would be the brakes. They didn't seem to work very well. I suppose I could swap out the pads, but dual pivot is supposed to offer a leverage advantage so maybe they could be adjusted for better power. 

A 10 speed cassette would be nice too, but man, the memory of the 2.1 is of a spectacular ride....

I'm having a hard time thinking about this logically! I was ready to cut a check right then and there!


----------



## 2ndGen

nrg4isu said:


> Note: The 2010 2.3 does NOT have carbon stays. That was something trek ditched after the 2009 bike and instead went with full 105 group components. Just adding my 2 cents.
> 
> I own the 2.3 and although I haven't put many miles on it yet (40), I love it. The only thing I'd change so far is the seat... and I'm giving it some break-in time before I really decide on that. I chose the 2.3 over the other bikes mainly because I know that I'm going to have this bike for a loooong time. I love the frame (hydroformed) over the 1.X frames, and appreciate the better wheels and full 105 group.


Yeah, just found that out that they went full aluminum. 
I wonder why they did that? 
Carbon supposedly gave it a better ride. 

I'd like to see Trek make a premium aluminum frame ala' CAAD9. 

I'm starting to upgrade components on my 1.5.
So far, an Ultegra SL Crankset with Dura Ace 7800 Bottom Bracket.
Everything else will be full Dura Ace 7800 (shifters, brakes, etc...) 
except for the cassette which'll be an Ultegra (since they are more durable). 

Now that the weather is finally getting nicer, I can get a new wheelset 
and turn my stock SSR wheels into a training/bad weather set.


----------



## roadmountain

Do you sell your old parts? Keep them around?



2ndGen said:


> Yeah, just found that out that they went full aluminum.
> I wonder why they did that?
> Carbon supposedly gave it a better ride.
> 
> I'd like to see Trek make a premium aluminum frame ala' CAAD9.
> 
> I'm starting to upgrade components on my 1.5.
> So far, an Ultegra SL Crankset with Dura Ace 7800 Bottom Bracket.
> Everything else will be full Dura Ace 7800 (shifters, brakes, etc...)
> except for the cassette which'll be an Ultegra (since they are more durable).
> 
> Now that the weather is finally getting nicer, I can get a new wheelset
> and turn my stock SSR wheels into a training/bad weather set.


----------



## 2ndGen

roadmountain said:


> Do you sell your old parts? Keep them around?


I keep them as spares.


----------



## 2ndGen

nrg4isu said:


> Note: The 2010 2.3 does NOT have carbon stays. That was something trek ditched after the 2009 bike and instead went with full 105 group components. Just adding my 2 cents.
> 
> I own the 2.3 and although I haven't put many miles on it yet (40), I love it. The only thing I'd change so far is the seat... and I'm giving it some break-in time before I really decide on that. I chose the 2.3 over the other bikes mainly because I know that I'm going to have this bike for a loooong time. I love the frame (hydroformed) over the 1.X frames, and appreciate the better wheels and full 105 group.


Is there a difference between the 1.5 hydroformed frame and the 2.1/3 hydroformed frame? 

On paper, they look identical. 

Both the '09 1.5 and the '10 2.1 are Alpha Black frames.


----------



## Trek2.3

A spectacular ride only comes once in a while. Buy the 2.1. You can always upgrade next winter.


----------



## roadmountain

I'm ready to start researching bike racks so I can bring it home, lol.

Any suggestions?


----------



## aggarcia

I have an 09 Trek 2.1. It really is a great bike. I upgraded the pads and now it stops on a dime - they are awsome now. I ride with fast group rides and have never had issues. I paid $1100 May 09, so try and get more off. I did change the bar tape to black and just changed to Soul S4.0 wheels. The 09 colors are brighter than the 10 model. I think either 2.1 is a great buy for a advanced entry level bike. Good luck.


----------



## roadmountain

Yeah, I'm getting frustrated that everyone who posts got a lower price than I am likely to get. Is it because I'm in Cali?

PS: test rode a Felt 75 today. The Trek is clearly nicer.


----------



## 2ndGen

roadmountain said:


> Yeah, I'm getting frustrated that everyone who posts got a lower price than I am likely to get. Is it because I'm in Cali?
> 
> PS: test rode a Felt 75 today. *The Trek is clearly nicer.*


----------



## aggarcia

Get the best price you can on the bike you want. Markets vary on pricing, so take that into consideration. Cali is always strong, hence the lower need to discount. I love my 2.1. In the Fall with all the new groups coming out, I will upgrade, but because I want to not because the bike needs it. 

I riide some vey fast 18-20 mph avg B rides and the 2.1 runs will much more expensive bikes. The biggest factor is the motor. Good luck.


----------



## Trek2.3

I paid $1099 for my 2009 Trek 2.1 and didn't feel cheated. Next week it gets the 105 group off my 2.3 so it will be a second super bike.

BTW ebay is great. I assembled an Untegra group for my 2.3 for about $250 by watching the slow movers.


----------



## roadmountain

Went to a "high end" shop to test ride the new 2010 2.1 I was underwhelmed. First, the shop is in a very affluent, vanilla conservative town, and I felt slightly out of place. 

Second, even though the shop was "high end" the employees were slightly challenged. The employee who "helped" me said the bike I confirmed was ready for a test ride wasn't in stock. He said it might be in stock at their warehouse down the street.

Fifteen minutes later he arrives back empty handed. He looks up and the bike I'm to test ride was directly above his head when I asked him!

The bike didn't feel right. There were some mechanical noises and vibrations coming from the bottom bracket. The saddle height was adjusted improperly, as a result, ironically, of this employee's trying to adjust it. The front derailleur wouldn't shift. I didn't like riding it. 

Whatever they pay their employee's it's not enough to attract talented help. 

I was bored. Sometimes, you get it right the first time.


----------

