First Post! I've been lurking on these forums for quite awhile now and have learned a great deal just by doing that, so thanks to the whole community in advance just for that.

So after some test riding for about 8 months around the city I've decided it's something I really dig. With that said, I was using a Trek singletrack 800 mountain bike to test, so my legs are right about done with that at this point, and I've chosen to find a single speed commuter/road bike for a replacement(live in chicago mostly flat). So after some looking around, I'm trying to decide between either the

11' Trek Earl $367

or 11' Trek soho s $495

Both pretty talked about on the web, so I have a good idea of pros and cons for both yet I would appreciate advice that is a little more personal.

When it all comes down to it, the price is getting to me. I wanted an alum bike because my priority is speed, even if it's at the expense of comfort. I want to stress this because what i am looking for is the quickest fastest ride over anything else, i like riding aggressively, I never cruise. But at a $130 price difference, it's a tough call. Not that I am trying to be cheap, but being a college student on loans, every penny counts. On top of that, I noticed some saying the weight difference between cromo and alum isn't significant to city riding, and if this is true, I'm probably going to go with the Earl. my roundtrip to and from school is 16 miles, 4 sometimes 5 days a week if that matters. However it should be noted that with the soho, i would be getting a smaller 17.5 inch frame, where as the Earl would be a 54 cm, making the Earl that much more heavier.

So based on this, any recommendations? are there more to the soho components that make it worth the $130 that i am naive about? Does the fact that i ride aggressively mean alum really will be an advantage? etc...

any help is greatly appreciated.