Road Cycling - Trek 1500 Comments?

Anybody riding the 1500. The 2005 model is sweet, new carbon seatpost, better aluminum, thicker bars for shock absorption and a good ultegra/105 mix. What does you guys think of the 1500 I might buy one.
All under $1000.

I was at the bike shop today and I have been in a few times looking. I have a 1500 want with the 1000 money. The 1000 is ok but the 1500 is way better. Iam just getting into the sport, I rode mountain bikes for about a year and had no company EVER and it got old. I am wanting to do this to get in better shape and I can just ride the bike down the road rather than hauling the mountain bike to the trail head. Anyhow, It looks (at the moment) I will have to suck it up and get the 1000 at $569 you can go wrong, the 05 1000's have the carbon fork this year.

Anyhow, Good Luck

Great question.

Can anyone tell me the big difference between the 1500 and the 2100, other than about $500? The components are similar. I know the 2100 has a carbon seat tube and maybe some very slight differences in frame geometry, but that's basically all the difference. Yet the 1500 is classified by Trek as a "recreational" bike and the 2100 is a "performance" bike. Why?

1500 is a great beginner bike, I am amazed how well it held up , I been riding about 1 year/5-6 days a week on a very hilly route so the bike and components go throught a lot of stress. So far I had 2 major tune ups, and I also make sure that my chain is always cleaned/lubed.

First thing you should do is replace those tires, it's unbelievible how many flats I got with those stock tires, I switched to Continental gp 3000 and they are great.

Here is list of parts that I replaced on my 1500:
Stem (I need it a little bit shorter stem then original)
Clipless pedals
Saddle (I never felt comfortable with stock saddle)
Tires = Continental GP 3000

My 1200 is pretty solid so far. I'm probably going to go up to the performance line (if I stay witha Trek) once I'm in better shape next year.

Great question.

Can anyone tell me the big difference between the 1500 and the 2100, other than about $500? The components are similar. I know the 2100 has a carbon seat tube and maybe some very slight differences in frame geometry, but that's basically all the difference. Yet the 1500 is classified by Trek as a "recreational" bike and the 2100 is a "performance" bike. Why?

The 2005 1500 actually has a carbon seatpost as well so the difference between the 1500 and the 2100 is only that the frame on the 2100 is carbon and the 1500 is aluminum. The way I see it, an aluminum frame with carbon fork and seatpost for under $1000 with ultegra and 105 is awesome.

Regardless of what bike you buy, make sure you go to a shop that will spend some time with you, and set you up with the right seat height, stem etc... it can make all the difference in the world. My bike was setup horribly for me, causing alot of lower back pain on longer rides... now that someone took the time to watch me on the bike, and make some adjustments it is ***ALOT*** better.

Anybody riding the 1500. The 2005 model is sweet, new carbon seatpost, better aluminum, thicker bars for shock absorption and a good ultegra/105 mix. What does you guys think of the 1500 I might buy one.
All under $1000.
Um, those larger diameter handlebars are actually going to be stiffer (see early Alu bikes by CDale, later Klein and others). Larger diameter tubing+thinner material wall equals optimized strength to weight ratio, plus stiffness.
Also, the generic brakes they use on that bike are crap. Those wheels haven't impressed me with their durability, particularly concerning trueness in the areas between spoke pairs. I would suggest checking out some other brands as well; Trek's geometry is not for everyone.

I am quite happy with my 2004 Trek 1500. You get a lot of bike for the money. I was comparing bikes with someone I met that had an older Trek 2200 - his bike had all 105 components, aluminum frame and fork, and his wheelset was not as nice as mine.

I think Trek's classification of bikes is more for marketing purposes than anything else. My 1500 was classified as a "Recreational" bike, but this bike is better than a "Race" classified bike of just a few years ago.

I bought a 2004 Trek 1500 on 7-24 and have ridden around 250 miles so far. I paid $900.00 at my LBS and I am happy with the purchase so far. My only problem has been flat tires, so I might take stirlitz advice and replace the tires. I rode a couple of weeks with the toe clip pedals, but they hurt my toes so I bought some Shimano pedals and I am very pleased with the difference. This is my first bike purchase so I can't make a comparison. I did not get to ride any other bike at the LBS because this was the only one they had in my size.

I have the similar 1200, on which I upgraded the wheels to Race Lite, the cranks/BB/ Cassette/ Chain/ Deraileurs to ultegra. Now If I could only get the brakes fixed would be a great bike. I would certainly go with the 1200 over a 1000 though, and a 2100 over a 1500. One thing with the stock wheels that come from trek is that they dont put rim tape all the way up to the tube stem hole and I kept getting flats right there.

I recently bought a 2004 Trek 2100 for my son for $1,100. If you can swing the extra $100 or so, the componet upgrade is worth it.

I just got my '05 1500 on tuesday. It is pretty sweet, what with the new paint job and all. The new seat post was a pleasant surprise as well. Haven't had time for any serious rides besides the 5 miles to work, but the weekend is upon us in just a few hours. Seems like a hell of a bike for the money though, my main reason for making the purchase. I'm in love already

if you want value for mone check out some Felt's

I think Trek's classification of bikes is more for marketing purposes than anything else. My 1500 was classified as a "Recreational" bike, but this bike is better than a "Race" classified bike of just a few years ago.

True. What is "Recreational" for the US market is "Performance" in other countries.

the difference between the 1500 and the 2100 is only that the frame on the 2100 is carbon and the 1500 is aluminum.

No it's not...

Trek dropped the 2200 from it's '05 line and is only making the 2100 and 2300 and totally upgraded the 2100 (it's actually now a nicer bike than the '04 2200)...but the frame is still ZR9000 with an integrated carbon fork and the SEAT STAYS are also carbon. Fork and seat stays only are carbon in the frame.
They also upgraded the bottom bracket (bearings are now outside the frame like the Dura Ace approach) and used a snazzier paint job.

The 1500 is aluminum, the SL type which is a grade lower than the ZR9000.

Trek's geometry is not for everyone.

Very true...if you have a long torso, a Trek will be a fit issue for that rider.

I recently bought a 2004 Trek 2100 for my son for $1,100. If you can swing the extra $100 or so, the componet upgrade is worth it.


Can I get adopted as well? :D