oneilio

Assuming the two hybrids below have broadly similar frames. Could someone please look at the components listed for the green bike and the red bike and suggest which is better quality and what type of pirce difference you would expect?


Fork Bontrager Nebula, carbon w/Clix dropouts Cannondale Fatty SI dual brake
Wheels Bontrager SSR w/Clix Rims Cannondale TC05 Hubs Shimano Deore/Shimano Deore Spokes stainless black/red ano
Tires Bontrager Race Lite Hard-Case, 700x32c Schwalbe CX Comp Cannondale edition 622 x 35
Pedals Alloy body w/alloy cage MTB M-21
Crank Shimano M443 Octalink 48/36/26 FSA Gossamer Pro 46/36
Front Derailleur Shimano Deore Shi Shimano FD-440
Rear Derailleur Shimano Deore LX Shimano SLX
Shifters Shimano Deore trigger, 9 speed Shimano SL-R440
Saddle Bontrager H2 Flex Form Cannondale Stream
Headset Aheadset Slimstak w/semi-cartridge bearings, sealed Cane creek black/red ano
Brakeset Avid SD SD-3 w/Tektro adjustable reach levers
Brakes Cannondale TKB18 V-brake
BrakeLevers Cannondale XL95
Handlebars Bontrager SSR OS, 25mm rise Cannondale C3 riserbar
Stem Bontrager SSR, 10 degree Cannondale C3 adjustable black
Seat Post Bontrager Nebula Cannondale C3/Cannondale red ano

Additional Info

Cassette SRAM PG950 11-26, 9 speed

BottomBracket MegaExo
Chain KMC X9 silver finish
RearCogs Shimano HG50 11-32

whitecat

Green bike definitively is a level (or two in some components) above the red one. If you are looking at what to buy for a similar amount of money, my advice is green one.

oneilio

The Green bike costs an extra £175 but the componenets are worth it I'll pay it.

whitecat

I would say if you can afford it, take the green bike. Components are worth it, and it has a wider range geared cassette which means you'll be able to climb hills more easily. Out of curiosity, do you have web links to both bikes, I mean manufacturer's web pages?

oneilio

red bike (£625)

https://www.trekbikes.com/uk/en/bikes/bike_path/fx/75fx/

Green Bike (£800)

https://www.cannondale.com/gbr/eng/Pr...7-Quick-CX-700

And perhaps an outsider?

https://www.scott-sports.com/us_en/pr...0/sportster_p3 at £650 or the p2 at £800


Your input is appreciated.

Thanks

Metzinger

In my opinion the Trek and C'dale are very similar quality, but for different tasks. Trek uses mountain/hybrid components and a triple for wider gear range and you get a carbon fork. The Cannondale uses road stuff, which is lighter, but smaller gear range and an Al fork. Component quality is very comparable between them.

The Scott adds disc brakes and a shock. Great for going off-road but you pay a weight penalty.

On a scale from nimble road bike to beefy MTB, I'd arrange them Trek, Cannondale, then Scott. Your riding terrain is probably the most important factor here.

jeffpoulin

I have a Trek 7.7FX and while it's a decent bike overall, I definitely overpaid for it. I'm not a big fan of Trek's house-brand parts because it lets them cut too many corners on what would otherwise be a nice bike. My other commuter is a Cannondale touring bike with mid-range Shimano parts and although it's older and heavier, I enjoy it more. The Trek has been relegated to my secondary commuter.

Bill Laine

Get the one with the best frame. You can change out components. You are stuck with a dead frame.

whitecat

I'd have to disagree here. Cannondale has a wider geared rear cassette which makes more difference in climbing ability then a front double or triple. Also, aluminum fork is an advantage from my point of view, since I rode carbon fork and had one shatter going about 25 mph, from a minor impact (probably a stone or something similar). Also the fork wasn't older then a year, and all considered, prior to that instant failure, it was not damaged whatsoever. So I am not going to ride carbon again, and risk another accident like that. Yeah, they statistically occur pretty rarely, but, I don't like that statistic when it gets all real. So I will not recommend carbon anymore to anyone, who likes to end his/hers ride in one piece

That's also true. That's why I generally cannot recommend Trek too much, because most of the smaller secondary parts are often some chinese products that are re-branded to Trek's in-house brand. I much prefer that those parts are from reputable third party manufacturers. They make a nice bike, but essentially ruin it by putting on all those really non branded parts - that they call their brand. But they will never be up to par with some only slightly more expensive (and sometimes even not any more expensive) products of other manufacturers.

That Scott Sportster also looks like a nice bike, and parts are also pretty good. If you want a faster and harsher ride, I'd say take Cannondale (my personal choice), but if roads are bad around where you are, and if you prefer a bit more comfort over pure speed, go for Scott. P2 or P3 is your choice, there are not much difference between them for normal use. Trek, I would not consider, due to having lower end components, and because of that thing with some re-branded no name components mentioned before.

oneilio

Thanks,

I'm finding all this info helpful.

I'm certainly veering towards the Cannondale. The last post has put paid to the trek as it agrees with a few of things I had read and put a doubt in my mind. I hadn't been able to get any info or rewviews on the Cannondale other than one boy in work suggesting that the components where a grade better but not able to put any figure on it. I had origonally planned on a Boardman but found that it would be too harsh a ride and also too small as the largest frame was 20 inch and I'm 6ft 6.

I liked the look of all of the other three except I could only see the Trek 7.3 in the flesh?!. The boy in the bike shop told me that as you went up through the range it tended towards the road bike end of the spectrum so I was already thinking I would be happier with the tires on the Cannondale. I had looked at the Scott in Evans but can't buy from there so I'll be buying from Alpine Bikes which is more like an LBC. Despite my lack of cycling knowledge I would certainly like to go somewhere as close to an LBC as possible due to what I've read across the forums, but am buying through the Halford's C2W scheme. I just found out that Alpine can accept the voucher so I'll go there. The advice there was by far the best that I was offered and I had plenty of time to ask questions.

My use will be commuting on roads and cycle paths but I would also like to go to the park with my childred but the oldest is 5 so it won't involve anything more significant that tracks or perhaps a bit of grass but that could be avoided.

kaliayev

I've used carbon forks on a number of bikes for years with zero problems. Cannondale also uses inhouse rebadged parts it just calls them Cannondale. These parts are usually outsourced overseas as well. And at least Trek owns Bontrager and has more quality control over them. Another point, the FSA crank is junk.

kaliayev

Who ever posted about the gearing is also wrong. Check out Sheldon Brown's gear calculator and you will find that the gearing in the Trek is better than the C'dale.

CACycling

Absolutely. The C'dale has a range from 46/11 to 36/32 while the Trek ranges from 48/11 to 26/26. The Trek has higher and lower gearing plus more choices in between than the C'dale.

CCrew

Which can be a good thing or a bad thing dependent on the terrain the bike is used for. For me, the flatter the terrain the closer I'd lik the cassette, as it allows to maintain cadence when shifting, rather than taking larger steps between gears

whitecat

Please read again;
I was not talking about whole range, but about rear cassette. It gives a different feel to the bike, then to have a narrow range cassette, I prefer wider range cassettes. In my expirience, it is easier to change out front double for triple, if needed down the line, then to change rear cassette, fiddle with RD, and all of the rest of the fun. And btw, I have a feeling it's easier to climb for me at least, when rear cassette has a wider range. Front is a 36 on Cannondale, which seems low enough for most hills when coupled with that rear cassette. Concerning Sheldown's calculator, I'm familiar with the calcucations it gives, but, as I said, if in need, you can always swap that double for a triple. It's just that it's a completely different feel while climbing with a wider geared rear cassette. And also, my reservations for Trek, still apply, and Cannondale looks like a better bike allround, not that anyone here has to share my opinion.

That should not be a problem for Cannondale, however, I would recommend avoding going on harsher terrain with it. And about tires, what you said, I consider a 700x35C tire as a minimum for bearable riding if your roads have lots of potholes, cracking in surface or similar. Anything below, and for me, it gets too uncomfortable. 700 sized wheels and tires are also quite smaller and thinner then MTB 26" tires, so any added width substantialy adds to comfort. If you are going to use the bike for commuting as you said you will, may I recommend also that you put some money aside for some additional equipment that I consider essential for road commuting - helmet, gloves, full fenders, kickstand, front and rear lights, and an handlebar mounted rear view mirror. Also, optional but useful is rear rack and panniers for longer distances.

Metzinger

There's been a lot written since I last posted.
To summarize; the Trek, in absolute terms, has a wider gear range and smaller jumps between gears. It can climb a steeper hill than the C'dale. But in order to do so, one needs to shift onto the small chainring, which on most bikes is the clunkiest shift.
The Cannondale uses a double on the front, which can mean snappier shifting, but the rear cassette has larger jumps, which has the opposite effect.
It's hard to imagine how you could have come to this conclusion. To change from a double to a triple, you may need to change left shifter, bottom bracket, cranks, and front derailleur. A cassette swap usually requires a new cassette and a slightly longer (or shorter) chain.

With regard to forks; no material choice is a guarantee of indestructability. It's true that CF forks have broken, but so have Al ones. I ride mostly with steel. But the only fork I've ever broken happened to be a steel one. Go figure. Choosing a reputable manufacturer, then riding appropriate terrain, is most of the battle.

Sounds like the OP is leaning towards the Cannondale. Wider tires do inspire confidence, especially on rougher terrain. Since only the Trek is available he could ask to test ride it with wider tires (maybe a wheelset from another bike in the shop) to see how he likes it. Shops will often do part swaps for little or no money in order to make a sale.