waanfiride

Just stopped by the LBS looking to upgrade my roadie, and I found a trek 2.3 for 1k last year's model (I couldn't care less if I was riding this years or last years). It's got 105 shifters/front D, cranks, and a tiegra rear D. Has the carbon fork, and carbon in the rear triangle, also with bontrager "Racing" wheels... (what ever that means, lmao)

Is $1000 a good price on this, or should I pass?



Thanks

clink83

I would say no. That's alot of money for an AL frame and tiagra. I got a Fuji Team(all carbon, 105/ultegra) for 1300, and have seen quite a few all carbon bikes w/ 105 in the 1200-1300 range on sale.

Blackdays

^+1

waanfiride

Thanks for the advice guys. I got my father a Fuji and I was impressed, I think I'll look more into those for myself.

CNY James

+1
I got my leftover 2010 Felt F5 for 1300... full carbon, full 105.

bengreen79

Funny it has a Tiagra RD. On most bikes if the RD doesn't match, it seems that it is usually the next model up, not down.

2ndGen

It's not it's aluminum that doesn't make it "not" worth it,
it's that it has a rear carbon triangle that makes it not worth it.
If it had been the all aluminum 2.X, then it'd definitely be worth it.
And as everybody knows, good aluminum is better than poor carbon anyday.



Plus, that bike is $50. away from being a 105 equipped bike.
And, the Tiagra Rear Der is actually as smooth as butter.
Worthy of thousands of miles.


I got lucky with my CAAD9-7. It was supposed to come with a Tiagra rear and Sora front.
It came with both fr & r Tiagra and better OEM tires than originally spec'd with.
Sometimes, you get a better bit(s), sometimes you don't.

canam73

Hmmm. I just looked at bikepedia and you are right that on 2.3s that don't have 105 RDs that it goes to an Ultegra. But without knowing if this is a std, triple or compact I can't say what this should have had. Maybe a mechanic swapped it out for their own bike.

To OP, if you like the bike but just don't want to pay to much then offer them less. I'm sure they don't want old stock if they can help it and use the RD as a bargaining chip. It actually won't effect performance so much, but take a close look and see if everything else is what it should be. For what it's worth my lbs only has last years 2.3 compacts left and they want $1700. Of course that does get you a 105 RD, though.

znomit

Lasts years 105 is likely 5600 too.

2ndGen

Yeah. True. Actually, I think that that 2.3 would be a 2009, not a 2010, right?
It should be going for $800. or so. It'd be worth it if the OP wants a comfortable bike (and at that price).

ilovecycling

I don't know what kind of 2.3 you are looking at, but last year I bought a brand new 2010 2.3 and it came with full 105, brakes, RD, everything..and it didn't have a carbon rear triangle. It had the alpha black aluminum frame.

It was a very solid bike. I didn't have any problems with mine and enjoyed every mile I put on it. However, after one season on it I felt like I was ready for an upgrade to carbon fiber (aluminum is more fatiguing on 50+ mile rides). I sold it on eBay just a few weeks ago for $1075 shipped. So if you can get it with full 105 (not Tiagra) for $1k, then I say it's a good deal.

By the way, what color is it? I have a feeling you're looking at a 2.1 if it's got Tiagra and it's only $1k.

2ndGen

I thought so. It was last year that the 2.3's abandoned the carbon rear and began using 1.5 framesets.
(My first bike! )

bhdavis1978

Huh? I think you need to define 'everybody', 'better', 'good aluminum', and 'poor carbon'.

trek2.3bike

There is nothing wrong with the carbon rear. I have over 6000 miles on my 2.3 (full 105 now upgraded to Ultegra) with no problems.
If it is actually a 2.3, not a 2.1, then it's worth 1K.

2ndGen

Everybody=those in the know (at least, anybody who read that statement "now" knows!)
Better=superior
Good Aluminum=Trek Alpha Black Frameset
Poor Carbon= https://www.bustedcarbon.com/

How's that?

2ndGen

Not at all...depending on the rider's needs.

And it did it's job so well, that they had to discontinue it because (according to a Trek Dealer I dealt with when I bought
my '09 Trek 1.5) it was taking sales away from the Madone 4.X which they supposedly made more money on per bike.

They supposedly had very close ride qualities (almost indistinguishable to recreational riders).

Supposedly (and you can enlighten us more), the 2.X with the carbon rear was more comfortable than the all aluminum 1.5 frames.
It was also "not" as stiff/responsive as the all aluminum 1.5. This would make the
2.x more geared towards comfort with the 1.5 giving a more responsive ride.

trek2.3bike

I have, in fact owned both a 1.5 (for a month before I traded up) and a 2.3. I noticed less "bounce" on the 2.3. I found them to be equally responsive.

I have also ridden both a 4.5 and a 2.3 and there is no discrenable difference. At a savings of $1000, I'd go for the 2.3. Especially one with the carbon inserts.

2ndGen

Pretty much what I said.

How much do you weigh?

Agreed.

Which again, is why it was discontinued.

They probably took the same amount of time/labor/cost to produce a carbon frame and made more money.
From what I've read, entry-level carbon is now easier, less labor intensive and requires less skill to produce than metal frames.
But they can charge more for carbon. That might explain Trek dropping their entry prices on Madones to $1,800.
For just $300. more than a "cheap" carbon bike, I'd take the 105 5700 equipped TCT Trek any day.

With the cheaper carbon bikes, you get more drivetrain than frame, but with the Trek,
you get more frame than drivetrain and even the drivetrain it has is damn good enough.



With a $400. wheelset, matching 105 pedals & brakes w/SwissStop or Kool Stop pads and if necessary, a little
tweaking in the cockpit department, for $2,500. total, a recreational/light race rider would more than enough bike.
That is a whole lot of bike for that relatively paltry sum. With the cheaper carbon bike, that's it.

They (cheaper carbon bike) already come loaded as far as a groupset goes. Not much more improving that can be done
(except the same as this particular Madone example, but the frame still wouldn't be up to the Trek's level).
The frame is going to be the frame is going to be the frame is going to be the frame no matter what.

wrr1020

Like someone else stated OP i think the 2.3 your looking at was a 2009 or even possibly a 2.1. In 2010 Trek dropped the carbon rear stays on the 2.1 and 2.3. I have a 2010 2.1 and its got a 105 front and rear derailleurs. If the lower model is equipped with that then your definitely looking at an older bike.

mechBgon

Currently, the 2-series frame is hydroformed, whereas the 1-series aren't. I don't remember seeing any hydroformed 1-series.

Regarding whether the bike's worth $1000: if you like the carbon rear end (I don't myself, but whatever), and you like the 5600-series 105 (shift-cable routing being one notable difference from 5700), then it would be worth considering even if it's an '09. That's $700+ less than the current 2.3. The paired-spoke wheelset on the '09 is prone to cracking around the driveside rear spoke holes, but Trek will cover it if/when it does.

2ndGen

Today's 2.X framesets are carry-overs of 2008-2009 1.5 Alpha Black Aluminum frames which were hydroformed.
They are identical framesets in every way/shape/form besides color. Today's 1.5 is the original 1.2.
The 1.1's are the newest aluminum additions to the 1.X Series.
Look at pictures of the welds and the drops.

Funny, but my previous 2009 Trek 1.5 beat my current 2009 Cannondale CAAD9-7 in an entry-level comparison test.
And I got rid of it and got the CAAD9. https://www.bicycling.com/gear/detail...2364-0,00.html

mechBgon

My bad, you're right, I guess was thinking of the '10s. I have that frameset myself, in 2011 2.3 colors, and it's not the lightest thing evar (560-gram fork, ouch) but the ride's OK for what it is... lack of carbon stays isn't bugging me at all.

2ndGen

I miss my 1.5. My CAAD is tougher on me than the 1.5 was.
When I'm riding hard, I prefer the CAADs ride characteristics,
but when I just want to have a high speed run back home
for the last 10 miles, the 1.5 was better for that.