View Single Post
Old 09-20-13, 10:27 PM
  #35  
catonec 
Senior Member
 
catonec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: burlington VT.
Posts: 2,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
so first off, welcome to BF.

This thread is pretty old, you have resurrected a zombie.

I went to the trek page and compared a 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 all fx's

the only difference between the 7.2 and 7.3 other than price is the fork. the frame, wheels, and components are the same. the 7.2 uses a steel fork which will definitely be heavier than the aluminum one on the 7.3 but will probably provide a slightly nicer ride, not so jarring.

the 7.4, at $250 more than the 7.2 uses a carbon fork and has some nicer components. This will be the lightest of the 3. the carbon fork will also provide the nicest feel. is %50 extra money worth it? probably not. will you notice a huge weight difference between the 2 and 4? not really.

if you are planning on riding on pavement only I would buy a proper road bike w/skinnier tires and better gearing.

if you need a road/offroad bike all of them will be heavy comparably.

if I were to spend approx $800 i would look at the cannondale quick $740
http://www.cannondale.com/catalog/pr.../category/953/

or bikes direct
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...afe_sprint.htm
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/.../cafe_noir.htm

road bikes from BD
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...ntnoir_xii.htm
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...omp20_gold.htm
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...quila_xiii.htm
__________________
2010 Kestrel RT900SL, 800k carbon, chorus/record, speedplay, zonda
1997 Trek ZX6000, 6061w/manitou spyder, xt/xtr, time atac
catonec is offline