Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (http://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)
-   -   Craigslist Trek Road Bike (http://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/938233-craigslist-trek-road-bike.html)

anthony408 03-14-14 12:35 PM

Craigslist Trek Road Bike
 
Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster. Please be gentle! :D
I'm looking at 2 bikes on Craigslist and am about to pull the trigger on one.
Which one would you choose and would you say the asking prices are reasonable?

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/bik/4372113148.html

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bid/4372652002.html

Thanks for all the help.

-Tony

dtrain 03-14-14 12:41 PM

I kinda like the Trek that is black with some red.





The private party one is the better bike...but I'm trying to decide how much value to place on buying from a shop that has tuned it up, etc.

RIRview 03-14-14 12:46 PM

Ultegra vs. Tigra and Sora components is no comparison. Go for bike #2 .

dtrain 03-14-14 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIRview (Post 16577838)
Ultegra vs. Tigra and Sora components is no comparison. Go for bike #2 .

That's pretty old Ultegra though...and an Octalink triple, Alex wheels, and a threaded headset/fork.

The Sora (RD at least) is the latest 9-speed 3500.

CenturionIM 03-14-14 02:01 PM

First trek seems like a 2011 2.1 to me. Had one of those but with 105, works fine. Stock saddle is terrible, ride is a tad harsh. This one's fork is replaced as stated and wheels are not stock.

Tim_Iowa 03-14-14 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtrain (Post 16578011)
That's pretty old Ultegra though...and an Octalink triple, Alex wheels, and a threaded headset/fork.

The Sora (RD at least) is the latest 9-speed 3500.

What dtrain said. The Trek 2300 is a 2000 year model (or so), and the 2.1 is a 2010 model (or so). That's a huge difference; my 2000 Ultegra isn't the same as 2010 Ultegra. So it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison here.

Also, the newer trek doesn't have full Sora, just the derailers. The shifers are Tiagra, a bit better. I had a 2010ish Trek 1.2 with full Sora, and it was fine.

Both are ok deals for a used Trek. Ride them both and buy the one that feels best.

mprelaw 03-14-14 02:26 PM

If the first one fits, I'd go with that for the newer frame and the better wheels, for a $25 difference. New Sora front and rear mech kind of trumps 14 year old Ultegra anyway. If you don't like the thumb button on 2010 Tiagra shifters, new Sora shifters did away with it, and it won't be an expensive swap.

dtrain 03-14-14 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mprelaw (Post 16578097)
If you don't like the thumb button on 2010 Tiagra shifters, new Sora shifters did away with it, and it won't be an expensive swap.

There's no thumb button on Tiagra...just on older Sora and lower (2200/2300).

copswithguns 03-14-14 06:00 PM

Personally, I would buy the 1st one 6 days out of the week and twice on Sunday. Seems like a solid deal. The older bike has Ultegra, but it's pretty old. Go with the newer.

link0 03-14-14 06:08 PM

I would definitely go with the newer Trek 2.1. It's in far better condition.

clydeosaur 03-14-14 07:38 PM

Yes, the new one.I'd say components are a level playing field between the two.

fstshrk 03-14-14 08:05 PM

Bike #1 has my vote.

The second one looks really old.

fstshrk 03-14-14 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mprelaw (Post 16578097)
If the first one fits, I'd go with that for the newer frame and the better wheels, for a $25 difference. New Sora front and rear mech kind of trumps 14 year old Ultegra anyway. If you don't like the thumb button on 2010 Tiagra shifters, new Sora shifters did away with it, and it won't be an expensive swap.

You have this wrong. Tiagra 4500 (9 speed) and the Tiagra 4600 (10 speed) never had a thumb button. Sora 8 speed did. The new Sora 9 speed does not.

In Shimano Line up, it goes 105 better than Tiagra better than Sora.

anthony408 03-14-14 09:32 PM

Thank you all very much, I really appreciate it. I think I'll be going with the first one.

never_recover 03-14-14 11:42 PM

Definitely the first one... no comparison..

For future reference: Tiagra 4400 (9spd, octalink v2, hood shape) is functionally equivalent to Ultegra 6500 (2nd bike)... Tiagra 4500 (1st bike) is actually better than 6500 (external BB, hood shape), it's basically 5600/6600 with one less speed (not necessarily a bad thing)..

Then there's the carbon fork, better construction, better aesthetics (for me), compact crank, etc.

Note: I do have lots of miles on all these groups...



Now here's the catch: if I was looking for a rugged 2nd bike to commute on, I would take the 2nd one (no carbon, "serious" wheels, etc.), but I have a ridiculous amount of spare parts :)

Long Tom 03-15-14 11:54 AM

Tiagra shifters from that era are quite nice. That's what's on my winter bike. Works just fine.

anthony408 03-16-14 09:21 AM

Well, I really had my heart set on the first one, but the seller never responded. Found out that the friend of a friend had a 2004 Cannondale R600 CAAD5 for sale. Picked that up for $250, so I can't complain. Currently at the shop getting a tune up with some free tubes :).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:19 AM.