Road Cycling - $600 Trek Bike and a great ride why pay more?

I have owned many bikes in my life time and have never had such good riding fun as last weekend. I just bought a Trek 1000c for $639. My rides have been sheer riding pleasure. The bike is light, the fit is geat for me (5' 1" 110 lbs female), and the components seem to work okay (not great) but it does not interfere with the ride (I am not racing but ride hard for cross training).

For commuting and riding 25-50 miles on the weekend this bike seems to be perfect.

I could have spend much more $1500 to $2500 fore better compoents and frame. My quesiton out there for experts is when and why should I move up to a better bike? What would I gain from spending a significant amount of money.

Thank you for considering my question.

well if your not going to race or ride competitively then I don't see the point in getting a high-end bike, unless of course you just WANT a nice bike and you can afford it.

My uncle for example, commutes everywhere on his bike. The only time he drives is when he needs to go to places 80+ miles away. His commuting bikes are:

Cannondale Scalpel 800 w/lefty and now full XT components, he also has a Dean with full record groupo.

Now these are commuting bikes, If he was racing I don't even want to know how much money he would spend on a bike.

To a point, you will get more precise, longer lived, and lighter components as the price tag goes up. Aftre that point, you are getting stuff that is really light and expensive, but not necessarily better for the long haul. Remember that the pros have mechanics with them all the time, and a truck full of spares if something breaks. Moving up the Trek line from what you bought will get you 9 speed shifting and a carbon fork, which might make your ride more comfy. If you love what you got, then you made the right choice. When it no longer suits your riding, sell it to someone who will love it as much as you do now, and buy something better. Or keep it strictly for commuting or foul weather use, and get a prettier bike for the longer and faster rides that you will graduate to.

If you enjoy it, it is a good bicycle. You are the only person on your saddle, pedaling your pedals. My understanding is that the 1000C is a cross between a road bike and a comfort bike and the geometry is relaxed. It comes with pedals that have straps (clips) and it may take you awhile to get used to that. If these pedals will be a learning experience, you may want to consider switching to SPD style pedals with some mountain bike type shoes.
I don't have any experience with the Sora components. If they wear out, I think they can be upgraded.
With your light weight, you may also want to consider skinnier tires. They would have lower rolling resistance.

Better wheelsets, smoother shifting, and smoother ride are what you would get in a higher-end bike.

In the case of Sora, the front derailleur is fairly problematic, but otherwise the group is fairly reliable.

In any case, it is only some $25 to swap the front derailleur to Ultegra and get MUCH smoother shifting up front...

dmtracy, you've got a nice bike that's putting a smile on your face. Right?
When you find that the smile is no longer there, and it's because of the bike, then try something else.

tracy... sounds like you got the right bike for you!

the right bike for me costs a bit more, though. i work at a bikes shop that sells trek, and i try almost every road bike [in my size] that comes out of the pit. imo, the trek 100c is a nice bike. i found the ride harsh, though, and the geometry too slack, yet short in the top tube. i couldn't imagine spending more than trhree hours in the saddle. the components are sora, which i find generally inaccurate and short-lived, and i don't like the shifters. the bike is heavy by my standards, with heavy, soft wheels. climbing would be a brute for me.

considering the distances i ride, and the fact that i ride in groups that usually cruise between 35-45 km/h, i'm willing to pay a bit more for a bike.

the fit is geat for me (5' 1" 110 lbs female),

My girlfreind is about the same size. What size Trek did you get?

The 1000c has a Sora drivetrain...

1) The first problem with 8-speed Sora is that the parts are built cheaply (example: using nylon materials in the shifter rather than metal) which will not hold up in the long haul, particulary if you are heavy handed or ride a lot.

2) The second problem with Sora 8 speed is that it is difficult and costly to upgrade to 9 speed (next step up is Tiagra, a much better compromise between price / durability / weight) - you'd have to change shifters, derailleurs, cassette, chain, and possibly a chainring (that's already over $300 in parts, not to mention labor, definitely not worth it, considering the original cost of the bike).

3) The last problem is that the bike won't carry nearly as much resale value.

Having said all that, more for the benefit of anybody else reading this thread that is making a bicycle buying decision, if you are having a good time on the bike, then forget everything about what I said above and just have fun riding. You definitely don't have to spend megabucks to get a decent ride that will last many years. As was mentioned above, if you spend too much, you'll get the super flyweight race parts that wear out extremely fast. It's best to consider your circumstances and pick the best compromise from the triumverate of price/weight/durability along with comfort. And since, like a car, bike buying tends to be an emotional decision, go with the kickarse paint job as well!!!

I think a good choice in the sub $700 market right now is the KHS Flite 500 (last year's 2003 model) - many website have it for about $550 on closeout (see: http://gallery.bcentral.com/Gallery/ProductDetails.aspx?GID=4038672&PID=2047626&page=1&sortOrder=0, or http://www.getawaybikes.com/Detail.cfm?Categoryid=33&BrandID=10&ProductID=833&CFID=3702457&CFTOKEN=86513999) or search for it on eBay. It has a CroMoly frame, carbon fork, Tiagra triple 9 speed (with Sora front, could be very cheaply upgraded), has super trick looking wheels (not great wheels, but they look kewl), and the red/black version is pretty nice looking. I've been thinking of picking one up as a rainy day bike. One of the bike mags reviewed the 2002 models and siad it was great, but didn't like the Sora 24 speed, so for 2003 they upgraded to Tiagra.

--------------------------------------------

Please deposit 2 cents.

Just as a warning, the Cyclone crankset on that KHS Flite 500 is HORRIBLE. Very heavy, flexy, and the steel chainrings leave a lot to be desired.

The same crankset came on my 2003 Flite 300. Once I swapped the crank for a Truvativ Elita Triple, things have gotten much better.

dmtracy,

I generally agree with your post. I have a Trek XO cyclocross bike, which I consider sort of on the low-end of mid range. I've had it for three years, use it almost every day and have not had any major problems. I replaced the original tires and chain about a year ago, and the original wheels a few months ago. Other than that, I just have in professionally serviced (tune-up, wheel truing) about once a year, and it works fine.

When you pay more for a bike, you aren't necessarily getting better reliability. My XO still has the original Sora components, and they work just fine. They aren't as smooth or light as 105 or Ultegra, but I'm a commuter and recreational rider, so that's not a big deal. When the Sora comps finally give out, I'll probably upgrade to ultegra.

Unless you're talking about really cheap bikes (bought at department stores), most mechanics I've talked to agree that when you pay $1200+ instead of $800-1000 your primarily paying for lighter weight and higher comfort, but not reliability.