Hi! I have going through th net to help me decide on a suitable model for me. I identified that I do not need a racing road bike. I just need a good comfortable bike to commute 4 miles one way. Also something I can take out on weekend for some fitness ride.

Now based on LBS proximity and reviews I had narrowed it down to

Trek 7200
Specialized Crossroads Sport

But then I learnt about Cheap fromt suspensions adding no values but actually needing more effort while riding. So next I started looking at FX bikes but these are all for hunch back mode style of riding which I am not really looking for atleast in the begining. Also they are at least $150 - $200 costlier.

So before I invest that extra cash I was wondering if some body can ellaborate the difference between these 2 types.

Thanks
Viki

To be honest, for a four mile commute you're splitting hairs between those two bikes. Four miles is very short. Six or half-dozen, same thing. Both fine for fitness riding.

But FX bikes aren't "hunch over" bikes, they have straight bars. Maybe they're not "sit up and beg" bikes, but you won't hurt your back. Those sit-upright bikes are murder on your butt, because your arms bear little of your body weight... it all goes straight down on your tushie.

My wife and I just got a pair of 7.5 FX bikes (she got the WSD version). These are not hunched-over bikes at all.

In my opinion (which will I'm sure differ from others') the suspension on hybrid bikes is not good enough to be of any use unless you are riding on a surface that's smooth enough that you don't need suspension in the first place. It's just extra weight, maintenance, etc. And the bikes that come with them generally have slightly more upright riding positions which aren't good for any kind of serious riding.

For a 4 mile ride anything will work ok. But if you have any bigger plans than that I would really suggest the FX-type bike instead of the non-FX (in the Trek line).

The FX bikes are still pretty upright; my wife has one. The FX is faster than the hybrid, lighter in weight. You can get an adjustable stem on your FX to set the geometry just the way you like it. Plus the FX will take racks and fenders just like the hybrid.

I have a Trek 7200. I really like it. I mostly ride bike paths on rides up to 35 miles. I can't comment on the merits of the suspension compared to not having it, but for the short commute that you are talking, I believe that the 7200 would do you well. The extra money that you save could provide you with other accessories.

My ride is a Trek 7100fx and it has served me well.
I agree with bbattle. The seat/handlebars are adjustable, so you can set it how you like. After a little adjustment, the saddle a touch higher than the handlebars, my bike feels a good fit. That said, I'm not really that hunched over.
I've ridden 3 metric centeries on mine ( & I'm trying for another one this morning), so 4 miles should be no problem.
Also added on are a rear rack & some bar ends (with some comfy padding) on mine. I recommend bar-ends, as they provide another hand position & help give more power on hill climbs.
Oh, and they're handy for carrying shopping bags too!

I ride an old 7300 that is sans suspension. the 7xxx series will be a bit more upright and wider tires so if road only Id go fx for crushed gravel etc Id go 7xxx series, as stated...for 12 miles a day bot much diff. However there are many that will sat the 7300 or 7300fx gives the most cost/value if you can go a bit higher

My wife just got a new WSD FX....
For the price it appears to be a great bike (except for the
wack shift stuff) but I sort of wish she got a very small framed
mans style....the WSD is very, very twitchy. I can recommend
the FX, just ride both before you decide.

(except for the
wack shift stuff) but I sort of wish she got a very small framed
mans style....the WSD is very, very twitchy.

What do you mean by wack shift stuff (drivetrain looks pretty standard to me), which FX WSD does she have? Also, I think that the geometry is almost exactly the same as the non-WSD FX bikes. Why do you think the WSD ones are twitchy? The geometry is pretty close to a touring bike I think (long chainstays, etc.).

Go to the shop and ride all of the models you are interested in. You'll have a much better idea about what works for you. Suspension bothers me, but other people swear by it. It largely comes down to personal preference.

What do you mean by wack shift stuff (drivetrain looks pretty standard to me), which FX WSD does she have? Also, I think that the geometry is almost exactly the same as the non-WSD FX bikes. Why do you think the WSD ones are twitchy? The geometry is pretty close to a touring bike I think (long chainstays, etc.).



Its a 7.3.
I should have not commented on 'wack shift stuff' because I dont know anything
about it except it is unecassarily complicated and needed adjustment a few times
after we brought it home. To keep it in perspective though.....I think friction bar ends
are the best shifters available, but, I digress.....
I dont know anything about the different models or any Treks for that matter but the
top tube model seemed longer than the WSD. In the end she wanted the one that was
easier to step through but for her, a very new beginner, it is a little twitchy. I rode it and
think it is too...

Oh, I see, the 7.3 FX is available in a step-through women's style frame. It's not listed in the Trek catalog as a WSD bike (though it is clearly designed for women). The WSD bikes I'm talking about are the 7.2, 7.5, and 7.6 FX WSD, which all have men's style frames but with slight tweaks (shorter stems, wider saddles, shorter reach brake levers) to fit women better.