Need some help with 3 Trek models please
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Need some help with 3 Trek models please
Hi guys, been enjoying reading the board lately and decided to sign up and join the party.
I need some help with selecting the right Trek model.
I'm not sure if it matters but a bit about me - I'm 6'0, fit guy, been a 10K runner for a few years now and I really want to start riding a bike again! I'm talking about city riding, to friends and to and back from to work, around 11 K ride (one way).
I've done my research and came up with 3 models I believe will fit my needs and budget nicely :
7.3 FX :
7.3 FX | Trek Bikes
FX 3 :
FX 3 | Trek Bikes
7.4 FX :
7.4 FX | Trek Bikes
Would really help me if someone could break down the main differences in these models and rate them "best to worst". I'm not sure I can get the 7.4 (which seems to be the best one) so would be very happy to read a explanation about the difference between 7.3 and FX 3.
How come a Carbon fork in the FX3 (instead of Alloy in the 7.3) only cost 40$ more? I was led to believe Carbon cost a lot more?
Appreciate any help
I need some help with selecting the right Trek model.
I'm not sure if it matters but a bit about me - I'm 6'0, fit guy, been a 10K runner for a few years now and I really want to start riding a bike again! I'm talking about city riding, to friends and to and back from to work, around 11 K ride (one way).
I've done my research and came up with 3 models I believe will fit my needs and budget nicely :
7.3 FX :
7.3 FX | Trek Bikes
FX 3 :
FX 3 | Trek Bikes
7.4 FX :
7.4 FX | Trek Bikes
Would really help me if someone could break down the main differences in these models and rate them "best to worst". I'm not sure I can get the 7.4 (which seems to be the best one) so would be very happy to read a explanation about the difference between 7.3 and FX 3.
How come a Carbon fork in the FX3 (instead of Alloy in the 7.3) only cost 40$ more? I was led to believe Carbon cost a lot more?
Appreciate any help
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Brisbane Aust
Posts: 1,643
Bikes: Giant ToughRoad Giant talon
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 705 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
Welcome to the forum Rex.
I think I'd go with the 7.3 as first choice, that chick beside it is a total babe.
Second would be the 7.4 because of it's lovely White colour scheme
I'd put the FX3 last, because its colour scheme really doesn't do it for me.
I think I'd go with the 7.3 as first choice, that chick beside it is a total babe.
Second would be the 7.4 because of it's lovely White colour scheme
I'd put the FX3 last, because its colour scheme really doesn't do it for me.
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well this wasn't very helpful but thanks
#4
Senior Member
My vote is for the 7.4 FX. It's only about $100 more than the cheapest of the 3 and has better components.
The cost of carbon components has dropped quite a bit in recent years and the quality has gone up. I've owned 2 CF bikes and my next one will probably be CF also.
The cost of carbon components has dropped quite a bit in recent years and the quality has gone up. I've owned 2 CF bikes and my next one will probably be CF also.
#5
Senior Member
I'm not sure of this, but it looks like Trek may have streamlined its FX line for 2017 and changed the naming scheme. As such, I'd bet the 2017 FX 3 is the equivalent of the 2016 FX 7.4. The only real difference I see is the rear derailleur went from Deore to Alivio. That's down one step in the Shimano hierarchy, but since it's one year newer it might actually be the same technology. As for pricing, I know that Giant dropped their prices by a good bit for the 2017 models compared to the 2016 ones, so maybe Trek is doing the same thing.
Of the bikes and prices you asked about, the FX 3 makes the most sense. I have a Fuji which is pretty much identical to that one, and it has served me well for two seasons so far. My typical rides are about 15 miles on country roads, 3 or 4 times a week, with an occasional 30+ miler thrown in, as well as leisurely rides on rail trails. It's a great bike for that purpose, so I'm confident in saying the FX 3 would be as well.
If you've got a Giant dealer nearby, you might also consider the Escape 1 which lists for $600.
Of the bikes and prices you asked about, the FX 3 makes the most sense. I have a Fuji which is pretty much identical to that one, and it has served me well for two seasons so far. My typical rides are about 15 miles on country roads, 3 or 4 times a week, with an occasional 30+ miler thrown in, as well as leisurely rides on rail trails. It's a great bike for that purpose, so I'm confident in saying the FX 3 would be as well.
If you've got a Giant dealer nearby, you might also consider the Escape 1 which lists for $600.
#7
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Recommendation
Hi Rex,
I'm 6'4" about 200 lbs and was in the same situation. Using my bike for commuting to work grocery store beach etc... I ended up buying the 7.2 simply because the 7.3 didn't come in a 25" frame for some weird reason. Good thing though because I used the extra monies for some upgrades like a rack a bag some mud guards and reall really bright lights for my commute at night.
Perfect fit and I honestly feel better about a steel fork. In fack I just got into a bad accident (totally my fault) I had to replace the stem and handle bars (upgrade time) and no other damage to the bike.
I'm 6'4" about 200 lbs and was in the same situation. Using my bike for commuting to work grocery store beach etc... I ended up buying the 7.2 simply because the 7.3 didn't come in a 25" frame for some weird reason. Good thing though because I used the extra monies for some upgrades like a rack a bag some mud guards and reall really bright lights for my commute at night.
Perfect fit and I honestly feel better about a steel fork. In fack I just got into a bad accident (totally my fault) I had to replace the stem and handle bars (upgrade time) and no other damage to the bike.
#8
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just curious, can you explain what and why are the better components you like in the 7.4? (as opposed to the FX3)
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm not sure of this, but it looks like Trek may have streamlined its FX line for 2017 and changed the naming scheme. As such, I'd bet the 2017 FX 3 is the equivalent of the 2016 FX 7.4. The only real difference I see is the rear derailleur went from Deore to Alivio. That's down one step in the Shimano hierarchy, but since it's one year newer it might actually be the same technology. As for pricing, I know that Giant dropped their prices by a good bit for the 2017 models compared to the 2016 ones, so maybe Trek is doing the same thing.
Of the bikes and prices you asked about, the FX 3 makes the most sense. I have a Fuji which is pretty much identical to that one, and it has served me well for two seasons so far. My typical rides are about 15 miles on country roads, 3 or 4 times a week, with an occasional 30+ miler thrown in, as well as leisurely rides on rail trails. It's a great bike for that purpose, so I'm confident in saying the FX 3 would be as well.
If you've got a Giant dealer nearby, you might also consider the Escape 1 which lists for $600.
Of the bikes and prices you asked about, the FX 3 makes the most sense. I have a Fuji which is pretty much identical to that one, and it has served me well for two seasons so far. My typical rides are about 15 miles on country roads, 3 or 4 times a week, with an occasional 30+ miler thrown in, as well as leisurely rides on rail trails. It's a great bike for that purpose, so I'm confident in saying the FX 3 would be as well.
If you've got a Giant dealer nearby, you might also consider the Escape 1 which lists for $600.
Appreciate it, I wonder what kind of a real life difference does the Carbon fork make in your opinion?
And if you ignore the pricing, which bike is better..the FX3 or the 7.4?
#10
Senior Member
And if you ignore the pricing, which bike is better..the FX3 or the 7.4?
Other than that, it's just the Deore vs Alivio rear derailleur. Deore is one step up from Alivio. But if you're comparing this year's Alivio to last year's Deore, it may be the same. And if that's the case, then you might also expect that on the front derailleur, this year's Acera is better than last year's Acera. If so, then the FX 3 would be slightly better than the 7.4 FX. But understand, I'm just guessing about the FX 3 being newer than the 7.4 FX, and about the year-to-year comparison between Deore and Alivio.
So all-in-all, there's not much difference between those two bikes... not enough to justify the $70 price difference. If I'm right about the FX 3 replacing the 7.4 FX in the Trek lineup, then your LBS might drop the price of the 7.4 FX to match the price of the FX 3. I know my local Giant dealer did that this year with the 2016 models when the lower-priced 2017 models were released. If they do that, then it really would just boil down to a color preference in my opinion.
#12
Senior Member
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 275
Bikes: 2015 Giant Roam 1 | 2002 Giant Sedona LX | 1980s Norco Monterey SL
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Since the only bike I've owned as an adult is the one I have now, I can't really make a comparison. The general consensus on this forum is that carbon does make a noticeable difference, especially when compared to aluminum (as opposed to chromoly steel). Given the small difference in price in the models you referenced, I wouldn't even consider the 7.3.
The FX 3 has an 11-34 cassette, and the 7.4 has an 11-32. This gives the FX 3 a very slight advantage if you will be riding a lot of hills. The 26-34 combination produces a 0.765 gear ratio, while the 26-32 produces 0.813. In reality, you may not even be able to notice that difference, but technically the lower ratio will make it more suited for climbing. The trade-off is that since they are both 9-speeds, there will be a bigger gap somewhere in the progression for the 11-34 compared to the 11-32, which would matter (again, very slightly) if you ride more on relatively flat roads.
Other than that, it's just the Deore vs Alivio rear derailleur. Deore is one step up from Alivio. But if you're comparing this year's Alivio to last year's Deore, it may be the same. And if that's the case, then you might also expect that on the front derailleur, this year's Acera is better than last year's Acera. If so, then the FX 3 would be slightly better than the 7.4 FX. But understand, I'm just guessing about the FX 3 being newer than the 7.4 FX, and about the year-to-year comparison between Deore and Alivio.
So all-in-all, there's not much difference between those two bikes... not enough to justify the $70 price difference. If I'm right about the FX 3 replacing the 7.4 FX in the Trek lineup, then your LBS might drop the price of the 7.4 FX to match the price of the FX 3. I know my local Giant dealer did that this year with the 2016 models when the lower-priced 2017 models were released. If they do that, then it really would just boil down to a color preference in my opinion.
The FX 3 has an 11-34 cassette, and the 7.4 has an 11-32. This gives the FX 3 a very slight advantage if you will be riding a lot of hills. The 26-34 combination produces a 0.765 gear ratio, while the 26-32 produces 0.813. In reality, you may not even be able to notice that difference, but technically the lower ratio will make it more suited for climbing. The trade-off is that since they are both 9-speeds, there will be a bigger gap somewhere in the progression for the 11-34 compared to the 11-32, which would matter (again, very slightly) if you ride more on relatively flat roads.
Other than that, it's just the Deore vs Alivio rear derailleur. Deore is one step up from Alivio. But if you're comparing this year's Alivio to last year's Deore, it may be the same. And if that's the case, then you might also expect that on the front derailleur, this year's Acera is better than last year's Acera. If so, then the FX 3 would be slightly better than the 7.4 FX. But understand, I'm just guessing about the FX 3 being newer than the 7.4 FX, and about the year-to-year comparison between Deore and Alivio.
So all-in-all, there's not much difference between those two bikes... not enough to justify the $70 price difference. If I'm right about the FX 3 replacing the 7.4 FX in the Trek lineup, then your LBS might drop the price of the 7.4 FX to match the price of the FX 3. I know my local Giant dealer did that this year with the 2016 models when the lower-priced 2017 models were released. If they do that, then it really would just boil down to a color preference in my opinion.
For 2016/2017, I'm pretty sure only SLX was upgraded with trickle-down from XT. It's model numbers have changed from m690 to m7000. Deore, Alivio, Acera and Altus all appear to be the same as the 2015 models.
Cheers TRJB
#14
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think the "this year vs. last year" discussion about components is misleading... Shimano does NOT upgrade or trickle-down technologies in all of its component groups every year. In fact, many of them stay static for several years at a time. You can check their detailed yearly product spec book on their Web page to confirm, they have the Pdf's archived back to 2009.
For 2016/2017, I'm pretty sure only SLX was upgraded with trickle-down from XT. It's model numbers have changed from m690 to m7000. Deore, Alivio, Acera and Altus all appear to be the same as the 2015 models.
Cheers TRJB
For 2016/2017, I'm pretty sure only SLX was upgraded with trickle-down from XT. It's model numbers have changed from m690 to m7000. Deore, Alivio, Acera and Altus all appear to be the same as the 2015 models.
Cheers TRJB
That's good to know, interesting stuff.
Unrelated question - I noticed that all these Trek models come with V brakes. I wonder if it would be possible to upgrade them to hydraulic Disc break if I wanted to in a few months?
I'm' not sure if Disc breaks require a "special frame" for them to fit or could they simply be installed on any bike.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 54
Bikes: 2017 Giant Quick-E, 2015 Trek Domane 4.0 Disc, 2014 Trek 7.2FX
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Have you seen the Allant 7.4? Allant 7.4 | Trek Bikes
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Turku, Finland
Posts: 109
Bikes: Trek Allant 7.2, Trek Soho S
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Some of the Surly frames, e.g. Troll, are compatible with both discs and rim brakes.
Last edited by gemini; 08-30-16 at 02:02 PM.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,970
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2475 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times
in
513 Posts
The FX 3 has an 11-34 cassette, and the 7.4 has an 11-32. This gives the FX 3 a very slight advantage if you will be riding a lot of hills. The 26-34 combination produces a 0.765 gear ratio, while the 26-32 produces 0.813. In reality, you may not even be able to notice that difference, but technically the lower ratio will make it more suited for climbing. The trade-off is that since they are both 9-speeds, there will be a bigger gap somewhere in the progression for the 11-34 compared to the 11-32, which would matter (again, very slightly) if you ride more on relatively flat roads.
#18
Senior Member
Yep. Even my 11-32 has a bigger gap at the high end than what I like. If I lived in a relatively flat area, I'd probably replace it with an 11-28 or something like that. But with the hills I ride, I like having the 32. It's a trade-off, and boils down to the type of riding you'll do.