Originally Posted by
Axiom
Are there any major differences?
One has a steel frame (the Atwood) and one has an aluminum frame (the FX). Some people think that aluminum is an inferior material. Some people have no problem with it. Either will provide years of service.
There are other differences, however, the Atwood uses a threaded fork while the FX uses a threadless. The threadless is easier to work on but doesn't allow as much height adjustment. The Atwood uses cork grip while the FX uses foam ones. Cork grips can be a bit 'solid' for riding and may not be the best grip for long rides.
The FX uses a few more aluminum parts than the Atwood so, overall, it's going to be a lighter bike. Not hugely lighter but it might feel more responsive then the Atwood.
Originally Posted by
Axiom
Low tier compared to what? I'm just curious, because all my previous bikes were either from wal-mart/target or used, so they must have much higher quality components than a bike from walmart. And no1mad, I can ask, but I don't think that will fly with them.
The FX is at the bottom of the Trek line. There's nothing wrong with it being at the bottom because it's orders of magnitude better than the Helmart bikes. Consider the FX you are looking at to be the gateway drug for quality bicycles. As you pay more money, you get a bike that has lighter components, less weight and is easier to propel down the road. But, for a introduction to quality bikes, you can't go wrong with the 7.2 FX.
Buy it. Don't change too many of the components and ride the wheels off it. When you want to go to the next level, buy a more expensive bike because changing parts will probably cost you more then the bike was originally worth.