Axiom says:
Are there any major differences?
Yes Axiom, there is but one major difference, and that's the frame material. The Atwood is made of steel.
Cyccommute says:
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.
This statement is fundamentally true Axiom. However, one must always remember that aluminum intrinsically has a short fatigue life. This essentially means that everytime it's utilized for the purpose for which it was made, it is getting closer to its point of failure. No matter how long that time may be, that finite point does exist. It exists in both theory and application and can be proven in any well-equipped laboratory. Aluminum also lacks yield strength or yield capacity. That simply means that in an accident, or whenever an event occurs where the bicycle's aluminum tube is subjected to impulse forces, the aluminum tube will tend to snap, break, collapse, or fail, as oppose to just bending. At this point, the prediction or anticipation of years of service, also fails.
Of course, this is not to say that there is no place for aluminum framed bicycles, because there are a few venues that exist, where aluminum bicycles serve us well. One of which would be racing. The success of road racing aluminum bicycles has lasted for years, but now seems have given way to the prominence of carbon. While carbon fiber is still having difficulty entering into the downhill mountain bike racing arena, aluminum still reigns as the favored frame material. Aluminum is also favored in BMX racing! However, if you're not racing a bicycle, and you're merely commuting, or perhaps cycling just for the exercise or enjoyment, then aluminum might not be your wisest frame of choice. I say this because steel, if kept dry will last for decades, despite the frequency of its use. There is no time limit or fatigue life limit that continual use will approach, when used appropriately. Therefore, chances are, that the Atwood can be willed to your grandkids and still be quite functional. However, the aluminum-framed FX would have long ago been recycled, and at the same time of the will reading, would be some part of a future coffee maker.
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.
These are very minor differences and statiscally pose absolutely no practical inconvenience to any prospective cyclist. Grips can easily be replaced and exactly which tends to be more comfortable as opposed to another, is largely subjective.
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.
Yes, and each of those aluminum parts, will share in a shorter fatigue life and lack the same yield capacity, as the same frame material from which they were all sprung. Besides...You're talking less than one ounce of weight here?
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.
I think what Cyccomute was attempting to say here, is that the Trek 7.1FX and perhaps the 7.2FX are near the bottom of the Trek FX hybrid line-up. However, it is most definitely a misnomer to assume that the entire Trek FX line-up is at the bottom of the entire Trek line, because there are different bicycle types that feature different models of bikes, that fill the various needs of world cyclists. The hybrid FX line includes the 7.7FX and the FX+ models. These bicycles either have 105 drive trains or Deore LX, respectively.
What's so "bottom of the Trek line" about that?
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.
Again, this makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you're placing this statement within the context of other Trek FX hybrids or other hybrids made by other reputable bicycle manufacturers. The FX is most definitely a quality line of aluminum-framed hybrid bicycle. Trek makes superior aluminum-framed bicycles! And I almost choked to get that out!
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.
No. Buy it, if you want a quality aluminum-framed bicycle. You can always upgrade your components on any bicycle, that will improve upon its overall function. However, there's only one way to step up from an aluminum-framed hybrid bicycle, and I'm certain that at this time, I don't have to repeat myself.
Therefore, by all means Axiom, buy the FX, if you truly want to make the decision to have an aluminum-framed bicycle. If that turns out to be your choice, then that's great! Hopefully, it will provide you many years of uninterrupted service. However, the odds for greater and longer service will be shifted more in your favor as time transpires, if you were to select a steel-framed bicycle. IMHO...The Trek Fx would be a good choice for a hybrid bicycle. OTOH...The Atwood, would be an excellent choice for a hybrid bicycle. That's if, you want greater longevity of service!
- Slim
