Purchasing a new Trek
 

My LBS is having a black Friday sale, and since I am a VIP member I get the sale one day early. This means that all bikes in stock are 30% off. I have a limited amount of cash to spend, but it looks like I am going to buy the 2012 Trek 7.2 FX.

Thoughts and/or opinion on this bike are appreciated. If there is something you all know I should upgrade immediately, please let me know.

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes...ess/fx/7_2_fx/

ALSO!
I forgot to mention the fact that my LBS will do free tune-ups for life when you purchase a bike from them. They are a licensed trek dealer and they are very professional, so tuneups usually cost around $60.00.

At that price point, I would also consider the Trek Atwood.

- Slim :)

Are there any major differences?

Is that discount only good on 'cash and carry' or could you use the discount plus layaway to obtain a higher quality model?

I have a 7.3fx disc and my girlfriend has a 7.2. We're both very happy with them. I think you'll be quite happy, too!

Sadly the discount is only good for in-stock items. :(

I wasn't referring to special order stuff, but other models that they had in stock that you may want, but couldn't afford/justify the cost normally. Ask if you could use the money it would take to buy that 7.2 as a deposit for a higher quality unit and still get the discount.

lLow tier components but looks like a fun kicking around bike. You can always upgrade as parts wear out.

Post season clearance sale.. at cost.. Taxes on unsold inventory is coming..
as are the 012's in the spring..

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.

30% off a 2012 Trek is a smokin' deal. If it's the bike you want, get it; you'll not likely find a better price...

Low tier compared to the rest of Trek's FX lineup -- starts at 7.1, goes up to 7.7, your potential new 7.2 is closer to entry level than the more expensive, performance oriented bikes. Huge upgrade over department store bikes.

I used to ride bikes when I was younger and am now getting back into riding for exercise, stress relief, and most of all for the fun. Needless to say, I am in the market for a bike. May I ask who and where your LBS is? (I am in Florida also.)

Thanks
Legacy2

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.

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.

I have an older 7.2 (2008 I think) and it's great. I've had no problems with it and is very reliable. Comfortable and components work very well. The only thing I did was go with a skinnier tire. The 35c tires are pretty wide for my tastes but provide a very smooth ride.

I've got a 2011 7.3, and there is nothing to be ashamed of for wanting this bike (or the 7.2)

I think roadies and other 'serious' people don't really start to give the FX line a look until the 7.5 FX - this is where you get the carbon fork that is on the 7.4 PLUS an FSA compact crank, Sora front derailleur and nicer wheels. Obviously, the 7.6 and 7.7 add nicer stuff like 105 components and really awesome Bontrager components, but the price is also a lot higher too - especially if it's just a bike for basic stuff.

Shimano Parts Heiarchy.
http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/vichpv...manoparts.html
Compared to most of the stuff at walmart its still a huge improvement. Its a good entry line Trek that you will get a lot of use out of as is. Most Trek dealers will also include some basic service for a while and you do have a warranty buying new.
Ride the hell out of it. If you wear something out replace it with Deore or better if you dont want a new bike and then ride the hell out of it again.

Personally I'd check your local Craigslist and I bet you can find a better low mile bike for less but I'm cheap. ;)

I've built several of the 2012 7.2FX. It's a well-rounded bike, go for it. They do often come with wildly out-of-round wheels from the factory, by my standards anyway, so hopefully the shop has gotten them at least round enough to befit an FX-series bike.

Axiom says:

Yes Axiom, there is but one major difference, and that's the frame material. The Atwood is made of steel.


Cyccommute says:

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.

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.

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? :rolleyes:

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?

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! :eek:

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 :)

Axiom, based on personally working on thousands of Trek's entry-level aluminum bikes, there's no need to be concerned about the durability of the frames (in real life, that is). They also have a lifetime warranty, but your chances of needing that are approximately zero, judging by my customer base.

30% off is a great deal, too. They're probably basing that off the advertised MSRP, not the suggested MSRP, but it's still a great deal in a business where we basically make nothing on bikes after overhead. Go for it. Throw your LBS a bone by buying some accessories to go on it, maybe some lights and a computer.

I have an 2012 FX 7.2. It's an awesome bike, and just a blast to ride. It's a capable commuter, fun weekend bike, I've even had it on simple trails. I added a rack and fenders, lights, etc. Otherwise it's stock.

I've been thinking about changing to drop bars, but since adding bar-ends (to try a cheaper solution first) my hands get enough of a break that I've been comfortable. I WANT a brooks saddle, yet the stock saddle is plenty comfy for me.

Good luck!

Yes, The Atwood has a steel frame. Therein lies one of the differences. And you are right that it is a major one. Because the bikes are similar in geometry and price, they probably use a similar volume of metal to make the frames. That will make the Atwood a much heavier bike to ride than the FX.

mechBgon has said it best. I will add that aluminum is not anymore likely to "snap, break, collaspse or fail" than steel like some steel proponents will have you believe. There are hundreds of thousands of aluminum bicycles in service and they aren't ticking time bombs. You know that Slim and all your post does is make you look like a fear monger.

Steel bikes can, and do, break. I've broken two of them. They didn't bend. They didn't slowly crack. Both (and one broke at least 3 times) went 'ping' and snap at the place where they broke. I've broken steel parts and they broke with the same mode.

I've broken aluminum parts and aluminum frames, too. All of them broke slowly over a relatively long period of time. They did develop cracks but they didn't explode.

If, as you say Slim, aluminum has no place in regular riding, why are there so many aluminum mountain bikes on the market? Mountain bikes go through more abuse than any commuting bike will ever experience and yet it is the metal of choice for so large a part of the market that steel is almost never used for mountain bikes today.

I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: Do you ride with steel components like rims, handle bars, seatposts, stems, etc. because if you are so concerned about the "short fatigue life" (something that you are blowing all out of proportion), then you should replace all of the aluminum parts on your bike that could cause you to crash if they break. Aluminum wheels? Replace them because they are hoops of death. Handlebars? Replace them because they are going to fail suddenly and catastrophically. Seat post? Replace it before it gives you a self inflicted proctology exam.

And,no, we aren't talking about 'an ounce of weight here'. A steel stem, steel seatpost, steel headset and steel frame are going to make the bike significantly heavier than the 7.2FX

Context, man, context. Rather then type 7.2FX each time I talked about the bike that axiom is looking at I used the short hand "FX". If you read the post in the context of the bike that axiom is looking at , what I said is very clear. To make it clearer, just replace "FX" with 7.2FX and it becomes crystal clear.

If you need it any clearer, the Trek 7.2FX is an entry level bike that is far better than any bike from Walmart or other big box store.


You are grasping at straws. What I said is very clear and was meant partly in jest. But it is true that the more money you pay, the lighter bikes get. That's the way all bicycle lines work.

So the Atwood would be a step up from, say, a 7.7FX because it's a steel bike? Really? I doubt that Trek thinks so.

Yeah, I plan on buying a much more expensive Trek, but this one caught my eye because it seems perfect for me right now. And they sell their bikes at the same price the Trek website does. I assume they make their money of the labor and accessories they sell, and not really the bikes. Anyway, I do plan on buying a computer and lights, biking shorts, and gloves. I really appreciate everyone's help, and you are going to make my purchase even more pleasurable than it would have been if I haven't asked.

I see it like this: It's like purchasing a brand new BMW (Trek) instead of a Honda (Wal-mart). The BMW has cheaper, low end models, but they are far superior than a Honda. Even the bottom of the line Trek beats the top of the line Wal-mart bike. I cannot wait until I get it -- I will, as you mentioned, ride the wheels off this bike.

@Cyccommute

Do you know what the 7.2FX weighs in at? And the weight capacity of the bike? I am a Clydesdale and part of my concern would be the durability of the bike at a bulk 285Lbs. I know for a fact that my current Wal-Mart Schwinn weighs nearly 50Lbs.

No, I'm not sure of the weight. But, given the level of components on it, I'd put the weight at around 30 lbs. That's as it sits in the showroom. Anything you add will add weight to the bike.

I can weigh a 7.2FX tomorrow since it's a point of interest. I assume you'd take one of the larger sizes?

At 285 pounds, you may fatigue the spokes in the rear wheel sufficiently to begin breaking them after 1-2 years if you ride quite a bit. If the shop has a good wheelbuilder, you could ask them for a quote on rebuilding the rear wheel with top-quality spokes, which you can expect to far outlast the OEM ones. Or you can just cross that bridge when you come to it.