Road Cycling - Trek 1500 vs. 2100

Since Trek changed the component makeup of the 2100 (and the 1500?) not too long ago, I'm having a little trouble find good info/reviews to compare these two bikes. Yes, I plan to test ride them when I get the chance, but I'm still trying to research at the moment, and I won't be back home to go for a test ride for probably 2 weeks.

Both the 1500 and 2100 are pretty equally 105 equipped right now. At least when Trek yanked Ultegra from the 2100 they upgraded the Tiagra front derailleur to 105. Anyway, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two bikes as far as components go, at least as far as I can tell. The 2100 does have 105 brakes, whereas the no-name brakes on the 1500 are the most common complaint I've heard about that bike. Still, is there really that much of a difference in the components?

The 2100 does have better wheels than the 1500, although I don't know if I'd still need to upgrade those considering I weigh some 270lbs. If the Bontranger Race wheels on the 2100 would not require upgrading, but the Select wheels on the 1500 would, then that would be a big selling point. Do any of you know what would be the case?

The carbon seat stays are an attractive addition to the 2100, and the few reviews I found that compared the 1500 and 2100 said that the 2100 definitely had a better ride (although the reviews compare the 2004 models, and the 2004 1500 did not have a carbon seat post, if I'm not mistaken). Many of the reviews I saw of the 2100 said it's a great climber, and that's something I'm looking for. Yes I know, I need to lose a bunch of weight, but I need all the help I can get. If I can't climb hills, which I absolutely hate doing on my current bike, my choices for riding locations and groups is severely limited, and thus the opportunity to lose that weight is limited.

So the main question is this. Is it worth $580 to get carbon seat stays, better (lighter?) wheels, and some very slight, IMO, component upgrades? We can call it $500, since I wouldn't need to get a new set of pedals if I got the 2100. I'm also not too crazy about the red white and blue paint scheme on the 1500. Am I missing anything, or are those few things really worth that extra money?

Thanks a bunch. :)

I was faced with the same decision last year (1500 vs 2100) and I chose the 2100.

Everyone will have their own opinion and ultimately you'll need to go with your gut but I bought the 2100 because I thought that the ride quality was much better on the 2100. If you are planning on biking quite a bit (I had more than 2500 miles this year - my best ever!), I think that the ride quality will be important to you. If you break the extra $600 down per mile for all the miles you'll put on the bike over the time you own it, it's a good value. Not only that, but if your bike is easier to ride, you'll want to ride it more!

I would ride both of them and see if you can tell the difference.

Also, I'm not sure that you'd need to upgrade the Select or Race wheels. The quality is probably comparable but I know that the Race wheels had sealed bearings. Not sure if the select uses sealed bearings in 2004.

I think that you are right on about components. It really matters very little for the derailleurs and the only component I wish was better on my bike is the brakes! Last year's 2100 did not have 105 brakes and I've wondered if that made a difference. You want to be able to stop fast!

Also, buy the bike you think looks cool! You'll own it a long time. It's worth it to get the one you want because you'll use more. Either way, you'll love your new bike!

I have an '04 2100. It came with the select wheels. After ~1000 miles I picked up a pair of race on ebay. They are considerably stiffer and much lighter. The hubs are more of an ultegra quality. Plus the 2100 has ZR9000 Al whereas the 1500 is Alpha. I know the 2100 is handmade in the US and am not sure about the 1500 if this matters to you. I think the 2100 is worth the money.

IMHO - I wouldn't want to go with Carbon seat stays.

Despite what the designers say and what lab tests show, those seat stays are eventually going to crack way before the zr9000 frame does.

I'm also interested in the 1500. It looks like a great bike for $1,000.00

Despite what the designers say and what lab tests show, those seat stays are eventually going to crack way before the zr9000 frame does.

Is there any evidence to back that up?

I think that Treks have a lifetime warranty on most of their frames.

http://www2.trekbikes.com/Inside_Trek/Warranty/Index.php

Same decision here... actually my LBS ordered a 1500 and a 2100 in 63 cm and I rode them both extensivly before going with the 2100.

2100 is more than just a frame upgrade...

Things like the stem, the handle bars, seat post, crankset, pedels, wheels and fork are all upgrades. I did not ever intend on keeping the race wheels as I instantly upgrades to Race x lite areos from new. The frame is different, considerably lighter than the slr al frame of the 1500. The 1500 has a lower quality seat post, heavier fork, etc. I got my 2100 with full ultegra vs 105 after fighting with the trek rep over it. I waited 1 month for my bike from trek and all the other 2100's had ultegra compared to the one they shipped me.

Since I have the 63 cm I can not say either of the bikes are super light, my 2100 tips the scales at 20 pounds unloaded, 23 loaded. The 1500 is approximatly 1.8 pounds more than the 2100. (63cm). The brakes on the 1500 are a little less powerful than the 105's that originally came with my 2100. I was not happy with these either and went with dura ace brakes front and rear. Now remember that I am a 230 rider who rides in the mid 20 MPH range (23 - 25 MPH) on the road. 105's are good brakes expecially if you are considerably lighter. Overall comparing Ultegra 9 to 105 they are close to the same quality.

The ride on the 1500 was noticable harsher than the 105 using the race x lite wheels. Note I did ride almost 60 miles and both bikes before settling on the 2100. The carbon seat stays do help a little with the ride comfort and weight, the 1500 is defintly a little heavier on the back than the 2100. The bike is noticable lighter picking it up.

I have now put some 2500 miles on the 2100 and have had very little in the way of problems. I was hit by a car riding it some 3 weeks ago and it actually bent the crankarm tortionally, declared a factory defect and a new crankset and bb was sent. Everything else survived except the chrome caps on the shifters. This after a car hit me at 50 MPH and me doing 25 MPH into a pole.

The price 1100 to 1650, a 550 dollar difference. If you like the seat stays and are planning on keeping the bike for sometime and can not afford full carbon this is the bike to get. If you are on a budget then the 1500 will do fine.

BTW I am thinking about picking up the 05 1500 from my LBS at a 900 price point, repaint and make into a cyclocross bike. I can not find a good cyclocross bike in a 63 cm size.

Good luck with your decision.

As you're talking about 2 treks I would suggest you get the best bike you can afford...

I'm liking the 2100 more and more...I better not look at the 2300 or any of the higher end bikes or I might get in real trouble. :p

The only difference is the ultegra 10 on the 2300... not worth it if you do not need the 10 speed. As to the higher end bikes from what I read they will not be worth it for you.

The 1500 or 2100 are all you need right now...

As you ride you may decide to get a little better bike...