Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - What About Scott Sub 30 or Scott Sub 20?

Anybody have one of these? I'm 5'10 and 275 and looking for something to cruise to and from work on, as well as bike paths on the weekends. Probably nothing more than 20-30 mile round trips.

I was pretty much dead-set on a Trek 7.2 FX, but the guy at my LBS said that the Scott has a better built frame and wheelset and after riding both it does feel very solid. The Sub 20 is about $100 more than the trek, but for a commuter and suburban trail bike it seems to really fit what I'm looking for.

Anybody over here have one?

Thanks :)

Hmmm,site shows the Scott 240 more than the fx2,100 more than the fx 3.

100 less than the fx 5 but fx5 has a carbon fork.:D

Components look better on the fx5 for a few more bux.

The fx looks like it has a more upright position. The Scott looks more race like and low profile in the frontside.

The 7.2FX here at the Trek dealer is 429. The Sub30 is avail at a LBS for $500 and the Sub20 is $580--very good deal.

Did you feel a difference in the position of the bikes? FX looks more upright. Just curious.

I'd say thought that Trek has been around for a long time. Scott has faded in and out. To say Scott is a better frame? Hmmm, Trek has the proven technology. Just a thought.

Yeah, the FX is more upright--but actually I liked the feel of the Scott a lot.

The guys at the bike store said they've had great luck with bigger guys on the Scott's--so that is swaying my decision a bit.

I'd get the 7.2 over the 7.3 as it has a sturdier wheelset than the lighter set on the 7.3. Components are fairly comparable so that's not an issue.

The scott is pretty nice, and also has a fender and carrier set from Scott for $60... :) Seems easy.

The trek is nice too.

This is a tough one. Money isn't really the issue as is having a super sturdy bike.

-S

The Scott looks like my Trek 8000 as far as race position. I added bar ends on to aid with climbing. Also adds more hand positions. Consider them for more comfort.

There are some cool models out there. I put some inexpensive Performance brand carbon fiber on my mtb. Looks cool. I thought I wanted some very nice expensive carbon bar ends, but after eating it a few times, glad I didn't.

I don't think you'll eat it though if you're commuting.:D

Well this morning I am leaning towards the Scott unless anybody has any good reasons from a build or component standpoint to steer me away.

I rode both for a half hour yesterday and they felt pretty similar. The LBS guys swear the frame on the Scott is going to hold me better than the Trek. Essetntially saying that Scott puts money into wheels and frame, where trek puts money into components?

For what I need components aren't as important as long as they can stand up to me for a year. Once I figure out exactly what I want I figure if I'm riding enough I'll want to try something different by then.

Has anybody else made the decision between these two rides? Just general opinions?

Thanks.

Just to update everybody, I ended up buying a Trek 7.3 FX instead of the 7.2 or the Scott. The Scott was a nice bike, but didn't feel as solid to me as the Trek after I found a place I could ride them all together.

Overall I'm very happy with the decision. Now I just need to get my road kit together again and remember how to fix a flat :)

Thanks for the tips Mr. Beanz.

Cheers,

-Scott

Either way you go you win dude. You made the right decision for you and what felt good to you! All brand name bikes nowadays are great bikes. Just glad you had a chance to test them all together.

I just gave opinions dude, you made the right choice! But cause we are clydes, I feel all STOCK wheels will need an upgrade in the near future.

Like I said, either way, I'm just happy for you that you got a sweet new bike. Now go ride that SUCKAH!:D

Don't forget the mandatory new bike pix!:D