# Trek 2.3 vs Giant TCR Alliance 1 vs Specialized Roubaix Compact



## HogFan (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm a soon to be beginner cyclist. I have been an avid runner for some time - distance and races. I'm in great shape but unfortunately one of my hips isn't, so I'm having total hip replacement surgery next week. After the surgery, when I am able, I'm going to start biking. My brain hurts from researching but I've finally narrowed my choices down to 3 bikes, all 2009 models.

Trek 2.3 (small LBS, personal service, free maintenance for 1 year, LBS at top of my list)
Giant TCR Alliance 1 (larger LBS, not as good personal service but nice and helpful folks, free lifetime adjustments, very good rewards program for frequent buyers)
Specialized Roubaix Compact (larger LBS, not really friendly and reportedly not great to deal with after the sale, nothing free, no discount program)

The components and drive trains are comparable, if not almost the same. I've ridden the A1 and Roubaix but not the Trek, because he didn't have the size I needed but will have one next week, so I will ride it. Of the two I've tested, they both feel great to my untrained self, but I don't know that I could tell much difference yet anyway.

I can get each of these for roughly the same price, so that's not an issue, though the A1 is the cheapest. Based on what I've read in this forum each of these manufacturers stand behind their products. The main differences seem to be the frames. The Trek is a AL/CF mix, the A1 is some sort of AL/CF composite mix that is supposedly different than a standard AL/CF bike, and the Roubaix is a full carbon but seems to be their lower-end carbon in the Roubaix line.

For background. 37 year old, male. 5'8", 155 pounds. I plan on racing down the line and will ride probably between 120-150 mpw.

These all seem like great bikes but I have a few minor concerns, mostly based on things I've read. Many people say Treks are overpriced for what you get, but not sure if that is true for the 2.3 or not. The A1 is a unique frame design that I can't find a lot of information and feedback on. The CF that makes up the Roubaix is understandably the lowest in their lineup, so is that a red flag?

I know I'm probably over-analyzing this and any of these would be great. Just looking for any feedback that might help me make a decision.

Sorry for the length. Felt it was necessary to provide enough info for feedback.


----------



## kermit (Dec 7, 2004)

As everyone here will tell you, FIT is the number 1 factor in picking a bike. I am a little partial to Specialized and with your surgery the full carbon with the Zertz will be comfy. Try all three, even more than once and you will know what feels good. I have a roubaix pro, have put thousands of miles on it including sprint tris and it's still my forever bike. My husband is also a roubaix guy, after back surgery he got back into road bikes for fitness. He loves his. Take your time and also ride some high end bikes, for feel. Good luck and post pictures of the new hotness!


----------



## HogFan (Apr 9, 2009)

Thanks for the response, kermit. Good to know about the Roubaix. :thumbsup:


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Specialized for comfort. 
Trek for race oriented performance. 

The Trek 2.3 consistently gets great write ups and was one of Bicycling Magazine's 
(I believe) best bang for the buck bike (try saying that 5 times fast! :lol: ). 

I'm a Trek man myself. I love mine. 



> Many people say Treks are overpriced for what you get,


Define "overpriced"? If the bike fits you well, makes you happy and is what you want, 
but there is another price with slightly better components for just a few hundred bucks less 
(when you're spending over $1,000. a hundred or two here or there ain't much), 
how much will you "save" if you aren't 101% satisfied with your purchase?

The only one who's going to ride that bike and experience it for you is you. 

It's great to solicit and to take advice, but ultimately, "F" what people say. Even me! :lol:
Go by the seat of your pants and do your research. 
Ride them if you haven't already. 

The Trek won't be needing any upgrading any time soon. It's a decently equipped bike. 

Here's a review on it for April 2009: https://www.bicycling.com/gear/detail/0,7989,s1-16-156-2273-0,00.html

My motto is when all things are reasonably equal... get the one that puts the biggest smile on your face. 



Like this: 











*Good luck!* 



:thumbsup:


----------



## WhyRun (Dec 29, 2008)

The Trek 2.3 is my beater bike. Besides the wheel set, it takes the beating fairly well. I've had to get the wheels trued a number of times, but I also have to get my Reynolds Assaults trued up so maybe its just me (I weigh 160ish for reference sake). Components are good. Definitely won't have to worry about them. I believe the 105 set is estimated for 6000-10000 miles? good enough to get into cycling and if you want to upgrade, you can do so in a couple years... I have no perspective on the others, so I guess I am useless for comparison sake.


----------



## HogFan (Apr 9, 2009)

2ndGen said:


> Specialized for comfort.
> Trek for race oriented performance.
> 
> The Trek 2.3 consistently gets great write ups and was one of Bicycling Magazine's (I believe) best bang for the buck bike (try saying that 5 times fast! :lol: ).
> ...



Thanks for the advice. My comment about "overpriced" was definitely just based on reading that comment in various threads. I'm sure there is some $ built into the price for marketing, but price seems to be the only bad thing I've heard about their bikes. The Trek is the only one I haven't test-ridden and I plan on doing that tomorrow.

I'm also looking the used route for great deals, but if I buy used I want it to be a really great deal. I'd rather support a LBS.

I agree that a few hundred dollars is not worth sweating too much over. I've just been over-thinking this whole thing.

A related question. A 54 cm bike is the right size in all the ones I've looked at. I may have an opportunity to get a great deal on a 56 cm. Is a 2 cm difference something that can be made up for with positioning of the seat and stem? I'm 5'8" with a 30" inseam and the stand over is 30" for this particular bike.


----------



## HogFan (Apr 9, 2009)

WhyRun said:


> The Trek 2.3 is my beater bike. Besides the wheel set, it takes the beating fairly well. I've had to get the wheels trued a number of times, but I also have to get my Reynolds Assaults trued up so maybe its just me (I weigh 160ish for reference sake). Components are good. Definitely won't have to worry about them. I believe the 105 set is estimated for 6000-10000 miles? good enough to get into cycling and if you want to upgrade, you can do so in a couple years... I have no perspective on the others, so I guess I am useless for comparison sake.


Still very helpful. Thanks.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

HogFan said:


> Thanks for the advice. My comment about "overpriced" was definitely just based on reading that comment in various threads. I'm sure there is some $ built into the price for marketing, but price seems to be the only bad thing I've heard about their bikes. The Trek is the only one I haven't test-ridden and I plan on doing that tomorrow.
> 
> I'm also looking the used route for great deals, but if I buy used I want it to be a really great deal. I'd rather support a LBS.
> 
> ...


I'm 5'9" with a 33" inseam and ride a 56cm. Speaking for myself, anything less was a no go. I felt it in my wrists after a period of riding. That's why riding them for a while is very important. 

If you feel comfortable on the 56 after a reasonable amount of time riding it, go for it. 
Our arms might be exactly the same length even if our other dimensions are different. 
That being said, think of it like shoes too...a Trek 56 might feel different than a Specialized 56. I'd say stick with the 54cm, but only you can know what's best. 

Best of luck and you've come to the right place...these guys here helped me out a ton.


----------



## HogFan (Apr 9, 2009)

2ndGen said:


> I'm 5'9" with a 33" inseam and ride a 56cm. Speaking for myself, anything less was a no go. I felt it in my wrists after a period of riding. That's why riding them for a while is very important.
> 
> If you feel comfortable on the 56 after a reasonable amount of time riding it, go for it.
> Our arms might be exactly the same length even if our other dimensions are different.
> ...


:thumbsup: Good stuff. The 56 is online, so not getting to ride it. I'll stay clear. I'll find something that works and it's better to get a good fit on a more expensive bike than a bad fit on a cheap one.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

HogF said:


> ... it's better to get a good fit on a more expensive bike than a bad fit on a cheap one.


I love that. It's the best advice anyone can give, and you gave it yourself!! :thumbsup: 

As a newb, IMO stay away from used. No (good) advice on fit and no warranty. Beyond that, considering your pending surgery I think a dose of comfort may go a long way, so Roubaix's full CF frameset and relaxed geo may better suite you. As you mentioned, it is Spec's lower end CF, but a few short years ago it was their high end, so quality isn't lacking, it just isn't cutting edge technology.

BTW, I don't think you're over thinking this at all. It took me the better part of two years to decide and I ended up with TWO bikes I love, so take your time. It's worth the wait.


----------



## hrumpole (Jun 17, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> I love that. It's the best advice anyone can give, and you gave it yourself!! :thumbsup:
> 
> As a newb, IMO stay away from used. No (good) advice on fit and no warranty. Beyond that, considering your pending surgery I think a dose of comfort may go a long way, so Roubaix's full CF frameset and relaxed geo may better suite you. As you mentioned, it is Spec's lower end CF, but a few short years ago it was their high end, so quality isn't lacking, it just isn't cutting edge technology.
> 
> BTW, I don't think you're over thinking this at all. It took me the better part of two years to decide and I ended up with TWO bikes I love, so take your time. It's worth the wait.


+1 to that. I learned the hard way, and it's still costing me $$.


----------



## fstbckadct (Mar 8, 2009)

just picked up a Trek 2.3, rode a TCR Alliance 1 and a Specialized Allez Ellite, Giant was pretty stiff, the Specialized just didn't feel as solid as the Trek.. I've only put a few miles on it, but love it.. Good luuck!


----------



## HogFan (Apr 9, 2009)

fstbckadct said:


> just picked up a Trek 2.3, rode a TCR Alliance 1 and a Specialized Allez Ellite, Giant was pretty stiff, the Specialized just didn't feel as solid as the Trek.. I've only put a few miles on it, but love it.. Good luuck!


Glad you love it. I also decided on the Trek 2.3. I just had my surgery yesterday so it will be a while before I can do anything with, but I went ahead and ordered it already in hopes of doing some of my rehab on a fluid trainer with it.

I test rode one and really liked the fit and feel plus the LBS was my favorite.


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

Welcome to the (Trek) family. :thumbsup:


----------



## 2ndGen (Oct 10, 2008)

WhyRun said:


> The Trek 2.3 is my beater bike...


*
Off topic, but I love your name! :lol:

I hit a trail for 3 hours yesteday on my Gary Fisher Hardtail and saw some runners.

First thought that came to my head was; *

"_Why the hell would anybody run on a trail when they could bike it_?"


----------

