# First road bike, 2011 Trek 2.3 or 2.1



## JS321 (Feb 2, 2011)

I looking to buy my first road bike, and to make a long story short, i was leaning towards 2011 Trek 2.3 with new 105's and Bontrager race wheels ($1649+tax). I also looked at the carbon 3.1 and 4.5, but realized I'd be spending more money than I would like to. The 2.3 actually has a better set up and I'm used to aluminum from my mt. biking days. I only plan on using the bike for short 20-30 mile rides and no racing, however I may want to do a tri sprint some day. 
I just found a barely used, (seller claims less than 10miles) 2010 2.1 for $800 it has 2010 105's, 2010 Bontrager SSR 18 spoke wheels & trek computers. 
My question is, should I buy the new 2.3 with the better set up or save the money and buy the 2010 2.1?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Assuming the 2010 2.1 is the size you were fitted to in the new bike (or put another way, fits well), that's a very good price on a year old bike with 10 miles on it. 

The wheelset is slightly better on the 2011 2.3 and the brakes are 105 versus the 2010's Tiagra, but IMO neither are worth the difference in price. For your intended use the 2010 will be fine.


----------



## JS321 (Feb 2, 2011)

Thank you, they are both 54's which is my fit. I'm not sure if the geometry change from last year though.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

JS321 said:


> Thank you, they are both 54's witch is my fit. I'm not sure if the geometry change from last year though.


Unfortunately the archived Treks don't include geo charts, but if you poke around the web you might find it. I know they've recently changed their geo, but can't definitively answer your question. I will say that even when they did change, it wasn't enough to affect fit/ require a different frame size. 

Geo changes aside, I would suggest you test ride the 2010 before deciding, so that'll give you a chance to assess fit as well as mechanical condition.


----------



## cajunman (May 8, 2009)

If the 2010 fits get it. I have the same bike which I purchased last feb as my first road bike and I have had no complaints so far. For a $500 savings over a new one, you would have plenty money left over for accessories.


----------



## 32counter (Feb 6, 2011)

JS, do you mind if I ask how tall you are? I also have a 54 trek but think a 52 may be better for me.

Thanks


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> Unfortunately the archived Treks don't include geo charts, but if you poke around the web you might find it. I know they've recently changed their geo, but can't definitively answer your question. I will say that even when they did change, it wasn't enough to affect fit/ require a different frame size.


In some sizes it DOES. I went from a 47cm to a 50cm frame. There was no way I could standover a 50 in the old geometry. I'm so much happier with the new frame that I got a Madone.


----------



## vtloki (Feb 22, 2011)

I vote for the 2.1 as well, mostly for the $$$ savings. The 2.3 didn't have many more advantages even when new compared to the 2.3, IMO.


----------



## kykr13 (Apr 12, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> Unfortunately the archived Treks don't include geo charts


I have an '08 2.1 and IIRC that was the first year for the model. In '09 the changes were very minor but '10 was when they went to 105 and a different frame with aluminum stays. Geometry may have changed slightly at that point, but I'd doubt that there are many changes from '10 to '11 since the frame was new in '10.

I'd vote for the '10 and it sounds like a really good deal.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

kykr13 said:


> I have an '08 2.1 and IIRC that was the first year for the model. In '09 the changes were very minor but '10 was when they went to 105 and a different frame with aluminum stays. Geometry may have changed slightly at that point, but I'd doubt that there are many changes from '10 to '11 since the frame was new in '10.
> 
> I'd vote for the '10 and it sounds like a really good deal.


IME manufacturers sometimes make running changes to geo across model lines regardless of the year a specific model was introduced. But (as I mentioned) the changes were subtle and would only minimally affect fit. The comment was really meant as informational to the OP since he questioned possible geo changes between '10 and '11.

I can't recall exactly when they were made, but would guess between '09 and current models. Trek has (quietly and subtly) changed the geo of some of their 'race' models (1 and 2 series along with Madones IIRC) and coincidentally (or not) it's now more in line with some Specialized/ C'dale models, specifically in frame reach.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

The 2.3 is getting crowded by the 2.1 on the aluminium side and by the Madone 3.1. I suspect that it will be discontinued soon.


----------

