angrytaxman

I apologize if a question like this has been asked before, but there are just too many threads to go through to get a good picture. I'm a beginner in the world of road bikes and want to get into it so that I can get in shape and commute to work a few days a week. I'd say that my budget goes up to about $1300 for the bike alone with a bit of wiggle room above that price. I've already purchased some nice semi baggy Pealr Izumi shorts and a new helmet since mine was sitting in the garage for 10 years.

In the last two days I've test ridden 4 bikes. The first was a Trek 1.1, then a Trek 2.1, and then today I rode a Cannondale CAAD9 5, and a 2009 Specialized Allez Elite Compact Double. I'll break down what I think that I liked and disliked about each bike, but I don't really know enough to have strong tastes yet, what I might find to be a con might actually be a pro, but I don't know yet.

First we'll start with the easy one, the Trek 1.1. I'm pretty much set against this bike since it's $600 and doesn't really have anything that will "last". I figured out that if I wanted to upgrade to Shimano 105 components I'd be looking at like $800 which is more than the difference between the 1.1 and the 2.1. I found that I was much slower on this bike (it was a 56cm and I rode all 58cm from then on) and that I felt more fatigued. Now keep in mind this was my first time ever on a road bike when I rode this one. I took it on a 3.5 mile test ride on terrain with a 100' drop going, and 100' climb on the way back, but it was gradual. I felt very winded after riding.

Second I rode the Trek 2.1, let me tell you this bike felt like a Ferrari compared to the 1.1 which already felt awesome compared to my ****ty mountain bike. I found that my pace was much quicker on this bike and I felt less fatigued. In fact I ended up riding just over 5 miles on this test ride in the same area. I'm not sure if I felt better afterward because I was warmed up by then, or if the bike was that much better. It also seems to stop much more quickly and wasn't so wobbly (but I think that's because it was the proper size). Obviously I like the Shimano 105 components on this bike and the carbon fork felt a bit more forgiving on my arms.

Then I went to another LBS today and test rode a Cannondale CAAD9 5. I think that the seat was a bit too high, but didn't figure that out till I was away from the shop so I just dealt with it. I found that my reach on this bike was HUGE. I mean I was bent over so far and extending myself a lot. I also felt like I was really far over the front wheel. I don't think that I really liked that about this bike. I guess the BB30 crank is a big deal with this bike, but I'm not exactly sure if it's worth the $150 price premium over the Trek 2.1. I got a bit more used to the long reach as I went along in my ride, but can't say that I ever felt very comfortable on it. Everything I read says the CAAD9 is a better bike than the Trek 2.1, but at the end of the day it has to feel right. Could the long reach be a byproduct of the seat being too high?

Finally I rode the Specialized Allez Elite Compact Double. This was a 2009 bike that they had for $1200, which is 20% off. The biggest difference between this and the rest of the bikes that I've tested is the carbon seat stays. I think this bike had a more upright riding position as well. It was probably the most comfortable of all of the rest. I think it might have been heavier and slower though it's kind of hard to tell. My "butt dyno" was telling me that it was slower though. I forgot to use my iPhone GPS on these last two rides to be able to compare my average speeds, otherwise I might be able to know how different my times were. I'm kind of leaning toward this one since it was so comfortable and since I'd be getting $300 off of it, I'm essentially getting a $1500 bike for $1200. Is it really a better bike than the other two that I'm seriously considering (Trek 2.1 and Cannondale CAAD9 5)?

I guess if I had to sum up everything I'd put the bikes in this order from least favorite to most favorite: Trek 1.1, Cannondale CAAD9 5 (even though I know people love this bike, maybe I'm wrong), Trek 2.1, and then the Specialized Allez Elite Compact Double. Does this seem like a good order, or am I totally off base? Also am I nuts for jumping in and spending $1200+ on a bike when I've never ridden before? The one thing that concerns me about getting a cheaper bike is that I'll just want to upgrade in the next year or so and then be out a good chunk of change, where if I go with one of the better bikes it should last me for years to come. Sorry that this was so long winded, but I want to make sure that I make the right choice, so what do you guys think?

For reference here are links to each bike
2010 Trek 1.1: https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/1_series/11/ ($600 at LBS)
2010 Trek 2.1: https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/2_series/21/ ($1250 at LBS)
2010 Cannondale CAAD9 5: https://www.cannondale.com/usa/usaen..._0RA95C-CAAD9-5 ($1400 at LBS)
2009 Specialized Allez Elite Compact Double: https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc...52&menuItemId=0 ($1200 at LBS)

rangerdavid

CAAD9, hands down.









first****

roadandmountain

You said you liked the Allez Elite best. You've already made up your mind. YOU are going to ride and own this bike, you're not buying it for someone on this forum!

Specialized is a reputable brand, and they've always been a leader in innovation. Seems like they won you over!

PS: I gave the Specialized consideration immediately, but the standover clearance was lacking: same issue with the 'Dale.

RacerOne

Specialized makes a great bike, you like it the best. I think you've answered the question.

subie

Specialized Allez is my first bike and I really like it so........

dennisa

I've gone through the same process recently, I liked the Allez as well, I also checked out a Felt, and then a CAAD9-5. In the end I bought the Cannondale. The main deciding factor for me was the fit. I liked all the bikes I test rode but in the long run the Cannondale just had a better overall fit for me.

FlatSix911

Take a look on-line if you want to find the best value in your price range ...

Shimano 105, 20 Speed Road Bike Kestrel Evoke Carbon Road $1,299.95
2009 Shimano 105 20 Speed Drivetrain -Shimano 105 cranks, Shimano 105 Derailleurs and Shifters and Brakes.
https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...l/evoke_09.htm

7bmwm3gtr

I'd take a Trek 2.1 over a Caad9 5 anyday because of the statement above.

I prefer sloping tubes over Traditional straight top tubes because for some reason i'm more relaxed, and I can establish a proper position which is suitable for climbing hills. I can put my arms on the brake hoods while the bend in my arm is at 90 degrees. With a traditional frame, i just cant find that reach. Also, when I sprint , the bike seems more responsive when I pull the bike left and right.

I have a Trek 2.1 and I'm the fastest climber in my group rides. My one riding partner owns a Fuji Roubaix Pro, which has a traditional frame geometry. My other partner has a Wal Mart Schwinn which is also a traditional frame geometry. My other riding partner has a Carbon Scattante which also has a traditional frame geometry.

Really, the comfortability on the Trek 2 series frame is far more superior to a CAAD9 frame in my opinion. I wouldn't even say the CAAD9 is considered comfortable.

Get the comfortable bike. If you like the Trek 2.1, get it you won't be disappointed.

Edit: I would recommend the Allez Elite over the Caad9 as well.

Kimmo 

All else being equal, a sloping top tube only makes a difference to standover height (and should also give you a slightly stiffer frame and more compliant ride). I'm pretty sure compact frames don't all subscribe to a different school of thought on the geometry that matters.

And if you're not used to a road bike, you might find you get used to leaning so far forward over a month or two, so I'd be wary of making a decision on that basis.

If you can borrow a bike in your size for a while, that'd be a good move before deciding on a purchase.

timwu12

personally, i tried the specialized allez, thought it was alright, tried the trek 2.1, was sold on it and bought it as my first bike

fskywalker

Check out Giant Bicycles, they are really good and have pretty modest prices as compared to others like Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and Felt. If you like aggressive, racing geometry their line is called TCR, their more relax series are called Defy. If I were you would focus on getting the best frame possible, full carbon if possible (look for old stock, from last year or even 2008) since that is what is more expensive to replace at a later time.

The Kestrel Evoke pointed out by timwu12 is a great deal, full carbon and shimano 105 components, if were you would give it serious consideration (if they have your size left), Kestrel is a great brand. Just my 2 cents!

SteelCan

CompetitiveCyclist.com had a deal on a BMC for 1700 if that isn't too much of a jump.
https://www.competitivecyclist.com/ro...AM+Bike+031110

But another excellent option is the used market. You could get a decent 2-3yr carbon old frame with 9spd ultegra/dura ace for under 1300. (ie Trek Madone 5.2)

EKCooper

If you like Cannondale and want a more upright position, try the Synapse. Very comfortable. Good luck!

agarose2000

Is there a significant weight difference between the Trek 1.1 and the 2.1? If not, I highly doubt that riding an incline with the Trek 1.1 is so much slower than the Trek 2.1 as you thought you experienced. The shifters may be smoother, the ride quality slightly different (if even that), but odds are 99% that unless there was a big weight differential between the two bikes, your actual climbing time was identical.

Sounds like you want the 105 and above - 105 is a good sweet spot in pricing for components. (I have a Giant Defy3 as a 2nd bike and I have NO problems with the Sora/2200 components, even riding hard.)

pdedes

timing your test rides is meaningless. the ability to adjust the bike for correct fit is most important. buying a bike that is outside your fit parameters (ie. tt measurement requiring the use of an ultra long or ultra short stem) will never serve you.

agarose2000

Of course - nobody is denying that fit is the most important thing when buying a new bike.

But if he's testing Trek 1.1 and 2.1 at an LBS, we should be assuming that the fit is not way off - and in that situation, I highly doubt that even with Sora components, that the 1.1 is "much slower" than the 2.1 as claimed on subjective testing. The 2.1 may cost more and have better parts, but when it comes to comparing road bike to road bike without big weight differentials, the speed difference is likely difficult to notice without actually timing it.

rangerdavid

if you think the CAAD you test rode was HUGE, maybe it was a bad fit or just the wrong size bike. Nevertheless, you really should get the bike that you like best, that feels the best, fits the best (you body and your pocket book), and that you will enjoy riding the most. That's what is really important.

Big_Red

Seems to me that you have already done all the work. Stop wondering what we think and listen to yourself. My advice here is get the bike that is most comfortable for you. Also consider that you will be getting stronger and more flexible the more you ride. This might change what feels good at a later date, but you need to be comfortable now or you won't ride enough to see any difference.

Mountain to road, anything will feel like a fine Italian sports car! No matter what you decide, a year from now you will be asking what you should upgrade, Frame or Group... It's a disease for which there is no cure.

roadandmountain

The 2 is at least 2 lbs. lighter.

Paul Y.

Go with what you felt after your test rides. What do we really know just reading your options.
It's nice to have a bunch of opinions but you rode them. Good luck and happy riding.

milkbaby

In addition to what Kimmo said, a 54 cm Trek 2.1 does not have the equivalent effective top tube measurement as a 54 cm CAAD9. The 2.1 has an effective top tube of 53.8 cm whereas the CAAD9 is 54.5 cm, so it's no wonder you might've felt stretched out. To judge comparable bikes, you'd probably have to ride the 52 cm CAAD9 with an effective top tube of 53.5 cm.

mtnroadie

I have the Specialized that you are looking at. Very nice bike, but sometimes I wish that it had a triple on it. That's one option that you have with the Trek.

angrytaxman

I finally made up my mind on Monday evening. I went back to the Cannondale dealer and asked them to properly size up the bike for me. So they did a free "digital" sizing where they measured me with a laser and then printed out the results. He then set the bike up for me and it was so much more comfortable. I took it on a quick 4 mile ride and bought it on the spot. I took it for a 7 mile ride last night and it was pretty awesome. I had the chain slip off the front crank at one point, but I think I was shifting pretty clunky. Overall it was awesome. I finished the 7 mile ride in 30 minutes including stopping to put my chain back on. The only complaint I have is that my right knee hurts today. I'm not sure if it's because I'm out of shape, or if something is set up wrong on my bike, any ideas?

Here's a pic:

EKCooper

And that's all you need to hear. Good luck!

You do have to get used to it, but you may not be positioning your knees correctly.

milkbaby

Congrats on your nice new bike and hope you enjoy the ride!

Here is a link with pictures for some guidelines to general bike fit:
https://bikedynamics.co.uk/guidelines.htm

If you are just starting riding, it may just be you are riding farther and faster than you are ready for. On the other hand, it may be you don't have your fit dialed in yet. I know I've raised my saddle almost 2 inches from where it was originally set and it's eliminated knee pain for me -- but each case is different so don't just go and raise your saddle because I did.