View Single Post
Old 01-15-05, 09:45 PM
  #8  
alanbikehouston
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by merlinny
Thanks for the replies everyone. I did end up going with the 7500fx. I think it will be the right balance for me between performance and comfort.

For what it's worth, I did find on the Trek site a weight spec for the 2002 model 7500fx, which was 25 lbs. But there's no weight information for more recent models, including the current model. The guy at Metro bikes didn't know the weight either, and nothing in the material I was given mentions it. Maybe the weight isn't all that important, but I still find it odd that it isn't included at all in the specs. It's at least as important, I would have thought, as some of the other items that are included.

Thanks again.
You bought a nice bike. Don't worry about the weight.

Honest bike companies do NOT like to print weight specs. The weight of the bike depends on the size of the frame, the size and model of tire, the saddle selected, and the pedals selected. Companies that "brag" about ultra-low weights are seldom using their LARGEST frame, and the most popular choices of tires, saddles and pedals. Heck, most catalog weights are based on NO pedals.

The first thing I do when I buy a new bike is to add padded gel bar tape, a wider saddle, BMX pedals, and lots of reflectors and strobe lights, front and back. Then, I add thicker inner tubes and wider tires. I can easily add five pounds of weight while setting up a bike to be safe, comfortable, and reliable, rather than "light".
alanbikehouston is offline