Commuting - scott sub 10 vs trek 7.x
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
12-01-07, 01:48 AM
Finaly getting back into bike riding after about a 5 year hiatus, and i'm hoping to do so by getting myself a comfortable communter bike.
I am very impressed with the specs/price and looks of the scott sub 10 untill i was told i could get a good discount from a friend on any of the trek bikes.
So at around the same price point after discount is the 7.6. How do the specs (in your opinion) compare for the two? and should i be thinking of other possible alternatives. and finally, if you were to be given one of the two for free which would you choose.
Thank you, and look forward to reading some replies.
A little info about myself. Most actual commuting will be over short distances <10kms, however, i hope to use the bike more often and for longer rides for fitness. I am after a bike that has more stability and easier to ride than a full on road bike yet remains fast and is comfortable to ride (Which leads me to think i should opt for 26" and carbon forks).
12-01-07, 11:01 PM
I have about 2500 miles on a scott sub 20, modified for commuting (fenders, rack, shimano generator hub, and 12-19 cluster). No complaints other than I should have gone with the 700C wheels rather than the 26-inch. It goes fast, it goes slow, rain, snow, sun, and I can load the crap out of it without any problems or concerns. My commute is 6 mi (9 km) each way. I tend to ride other bikes when it is nice out and I don;t have a heavy load, but that shouldn;t take away from the utility of the thing.
I looked at the Sub 10, but for less than half the price, the sub 20 works fine.
I looked at the Sub 10 a LOT! I would have bought it but my commute is 18-28 miles one way and I didn't feel this bike was up to the task. With that said, I still believe that the Sub 10 in white is the best looking bike I've ever seen. There is just something about it that draws me to it from the first time I laid eyes on it. My LBS owner knows my tastes pretty well and when I come in I hear the usual, "Hey Barry, come check this out!" I usually pull my wallet out before we start walking because I know I'm going to like what I saw. Here's what he showed me last time that I'm going to probably pick up in the spring...
Ummmm, yeah! Check out the weight! I probably won't get the 10 (can't justify that price in my head) but I do really enjoy the VERY FEW companies that post their prices like Scott does. I think Trek does it also.
12-02-07, 05:13 AM
No complaints other than I should have gone with the 700C wheels rather than the 26-inch
Care to expand on that and share your thoughts? I'm looking at a Sub 10 and can't decide between 26" or 700c wheels. 26" wheels steer and accelerate faster and are more robust (and I think look tougher), whilst 700c wheels roll faster and ride over bumps better.
Also how have you found the ride? Harsh and bumpy?
12-02-07, 01:11 PM
The 'justification' for the bike in the first place (it is an '05 model) is that I wanted my mountain bike back. It had been 'commutered' with fenders, slicks, racks, etc. Figure in studded tires for winter, etc, I have probably $500 in after market stuff for commuting that I did not want to replace. Thus, I went with the 26" version as it was a direct transfer.
Even at 26", the bike is fast and hadnles well. The geometry is frankly alot like the late 80's/early 90's Bridgestones with a long top tube and stem to match which spreads you out not unlike a road bike. However, it is also alot like a MTB frame which I think is probably the truest example of a hybrid bike.
It is a stiff ride. If you commute 10 miles over dirt, either swap the forks or look for something with a front shock. That said, I don't think this bike was made for that. It was designed for speed and utility in an urban environment, and I think it does an outstanding job at just that. I have 15 bikes to choose from when I leave in the morning. It is not always my first choice. However, if I owned one bike, it would be the pick of the litter. Go to work, put knobbies on it and ride off road, pull a trailer, go to the store, go to the bar, or try to hang on during a club ride, it will do it all.
Here is a picture in it's current Alaska commute form:
12-03-07, 12:45 PM
So at around the same price point after discount is the 7.6. How do the specs (in your opinion) compare for the two?
Acually,I think Trek's Soho line would be comparable to the Scott Subs.
I have a Marin Pt Reyes(almost the exact same bike as the 26" Sub 10),and I've test ridden a 7.3 disc and an older 1x9 Soho. I think I'd go with the top model Soho with Alfine internal hub. Nice ride with low maintenance.
12-04-07, 09:59 PM
i have been looking at the kona range, and will add the kona phd to my short listed cycles. Have many people had experience with this bike?
If you can get a discount, I don't see why you don't pounce on a Trek... personally at that price point (over a grand) I don't "get" the whole performance hybrid thing and I'd look at the 520.
EDIT: The Trek SU 2.0 would seem to fit the bill of a 26" commuter.
I was looking at the sub10 earlier this year then I found the cannonda road Warrior. You might want to check them out. I ride it just about everyday on a 12mile communte
12-06-07, 09:18 PM
Off the top of my head, the Scott looks more like a mountain bike, while the Trek looks more like a road bike.
I would all depend on the terrain/weather.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.