Trek 7.2 fx
 

Hello,


I have been looking at LBS. Someone mentioned Trek 7.2 fx. I found one here for 390 USD. 510 CDN. What are your thoughts on this as a first bike? The fx series ranges from 400-2800. Is it worth considering the next few models at a few hundred more?

Thank you

I'll be interested to hear what other say too. My LBS has the 2015-16 FX 7.2 at $449, but I've seen other online retailers also offering it for $390. You don't say so, but I suspect the one you're looking at is the 2015-16 model too. The 2017 models are now apparently available. As I compare the 2017 model to the previous one, it looks like they downgraded the front derailleur to a Shimano Tourney (compared to a Shimano Altus), but the main difference is a new stem that is "Blendr compatible."

I was looking at a FX 7.0, but I think the 7.2 is a worthy upgrade: Altus instead of Tourney front and rear derailleurs; 8x 11-32T cassette instead of a 7x 14-34T; puncture-proof tires.

It would help if you could be more specific as to what you are hoping to do with the bike, how much you are looking to realistically ride, and on what surface. In general, the FX 7.2 is a solid, if not exactly exciting choice if you are looking to ride some MUPs, crushed limestone trails, or around town riding. Components are pretty entry level but should be reliable for a few years, at which point you will know if this cycling thing is for you. If it is, you will eventually look to upgrade, and if cycling isn't really your thing, the 7.2 will be just fine for the occasional ride to the coffee shop with friends.

$390 for the new 7.2 is a good deal and i would do it. It's my commuting bike but I rode it on 20+ miles group rides (including one 65 mile ride) and could keep up with 16-18mph group. For more longer ride comfort I put a "trekking bar" from nashbar. I was also experimenting with slicker 700x28 tires but went back to stock ones as I did not see much difference in the speed but less comfort on the poor covered streets. As for other 7.x series - I agree that 7.2 is a sweet-spot in value vs 7.1 and 7.3. The only thing that I would wish the bike had isa carbon fork but you have to go to 7.4 for that and it's almost 2x in price. if you can find a good deal on used 7.4/7.5 - it may be worth it. However, 7.x keep their value quite well. i've seen 5+ years old ones sold for around 70% of the original price. Another worthy upgrade are the disk brakes if you think you would ride in the wet conditions (otherwise - not needed).

They're Fine , My Local Shop sells them..

I spend More on Health care than Canadiens do so a Bit More GST for that is reasonable ..

I currently have a 2016 FX 7.1 and am really thinking about getting the FX 7.3 which does have a carbon fork, slightly narrower tires and a 9 speed cassette. I chatted with a rep. from Trek and she told me that if I wanted to upgrade, I would feel more of a difference with the FX 7.3 over the 7.2. I'm not sure on the color yet and am deciding between red or white. I like white but am a little concerned that it might show scratches a little more. I believe with the 7.3, you get the lighter aluminum frame and carbon fork and is about 2 lbs. lighter I think.

I don't believe 7.3 has carbon forks (at least up till 2016). 7.4 does.

I have a 2016 Trek 7.2 which I bought for $490 last year, roughly around September. They have an Acera 8 spd setup. Last year's model (2016) would be a better value especially if they're gonna be on sale and just basing on msrp itself the newer/rebranded Trek FX 2 is at $530 and like what someone posted, have a tourney fd. So if you can get the 2016 7.2 for a discount that would be an excellent value. Btw, I upgraded my crankset from the stock triple chainring to a Tiagra 50/34, just so it's gonna be more simpler (personal choice) though almost nothing is wrong with the triple especially having the "granny" gear for climbing. Only thing I would upgrade especially if you're going for longer rides if ever you're getting the 2016 7.2 is the grips, ergon or even pseudo ergon grips paired with padded gloves give you a much more enjoyable ride esp if going more than 10 miles. Good luck!

I guess it does for the 2017 model. See link.
Trek FX 3 - Bike Barn - Houston, Texas

that's FX 3 not 7.3. these are different bikes though I am not too sure what the difference is between these new series FX 1,2 and 3 and older 7.X series.

Edit: ok, you are right. FX 3 replaced 7.3 and it now has carbon fork.

At the <$500 level IMHO a bicycle... all of it, should be made of durable and relatively easy to replace steel and/or aluminum. I have trouble believing that the carbon fork and/or chainstays on a sub-$500 bike are any lighter than alloys, and they will be much more fragile! Competition riders take much better care of their bikes than any commuter or casual rider can, and it makes sense for them to have <13lb all carbon equipment. One day carbon will be as ubiquitous (easy to replace) on all levels of bikes as aluminum is now, but that day is not today. The cheap carbon fork will break, hundreds already have, usually not while in use, meanwhile 40 year old steel bikes are being sold for <$50 on Craigslist and they are (the frames/forks) as fit as they were when new. FWIW.

You aren't getting a Trek with a carbon fork for <$500. The new FX3 retails for $700, which is a sensible price point for a bike with a carbon fork.

I don't know... I'd almost double that $700 retail price for a carbon fork, and more than triple it for full carbon. Way above my pay grade, but at those prices you know it will be done right. Light, strong, and with the ride qualities you expect of carbon. Still on the fragile side and IMO not suitable for any except competitive purposes. I don't expect that to change for quite awhile.

Giant Escape 1 retails for $600 and has a carbon fork. I don't own it but I wouldn't hesitate to buy a hybrid with a carbon fork if I were in the market for a hybrid. It seems to me what you give up at that price point isn't frame quality but rather lower end drivetrain components and wheels, both of which could be upgraded later when they wear out.

So do you all think that a carbon fork is a good idea? I've been riding for almost a year and have had one big crash on my previous Trek MTN 6000 (heavy bike) and was bad enough that it bent the rear wheel which I had to replace. On my current FX 7.1, I fell off the other day doing something really stupid which I won't do again. Took it to the bike shop where I bought it and they said that there was no damage to the bike and nothing needed to be adjusted. In general, I'm a pretty safe and cautious rider. I average 100 to 125 miles a week. I'm just about ready to commit to a FX 3 with the carbon fork and 9 cog cassette in a couple of days (maybe tomorrow if I can decide between white or red). I never thought about the durability of a carbon fork for I was only thinking about weight. I don't ride off road (on purpose anyway). I stay on asphalt pavement or concrete. I think a carbon fork would be okay for me. The Trek rep. from their website told me that if I wanted to upgrade from my FX 7.1, then the FX 3 would be a far superior upgrade than the FX 7.2. Just trying to make the right decision. I ride almost every day but not in competitions. Still learning and some things learning the hard way. BTW, I really like white but I think it will show scratches more...don't really know which is why I'm leaning towards red.

-From what you said it seems FX3 is a worthy upgrade for you... The only alternative I would consider is to keep FX 7.1 and buy another (road or drop-bar-gravel) bike if you thinking of doing long-distance group rides.

I can really only afford to have one bike. I need t sell my FX 7.1 to help pay for my new FX3. I'm getting a new bike computer for the FX 3 made by Trek that's wireless. The new bike and computer is around $850.00 (after tax). I'm selling the FX 7.1 for $325.00 which will come with a wired computer and other extras totaling around $97.00 free in extras. I may consider a road bike at some time.

you pick one out yet?

I am a huge trek fan and have had four fx's in the last 6 years.

to anyone considering a new higher model fx, i would recommend looking at craigslist for a 2011-2016 used model.

why? the current fx's are so expensive and the components are such "lower" quality when you look at cost + components. in short, they're a rip off.

My 2011 fx 7.7 had a carbon fork, bontrager race wheels and all shimano 105 stuff. to get a bike like that in trek's current line up is prohibitively/stupidly expensive, IMO. i paid maybe $1600 for my 7.7 at that time and sticker price was i believe 2k (i dont remember the exact number) but look at the bike i got for the money! for $1600 now, you get nothing near the components of my old 7.7!

but a new bike is a new bike. my 2015 fx 7.4 has a carbon fork and rides like a dream. i paid $650 in total for it (no tax), iirc. there is no way in hell i would pay $1k or more for a similar 2017 bike.

fwiw. i love treks and i love the fx series but i think the current prices are super inflated. if you can swing a huge discount, get an fx, otherwise, consider even the emonda s4 which is all carbon and currently on sale for $1400 in some places - even cheaper since the season is coming to an end! buy remnant 2016 inventory! the entire emonda s4 is carbon! and it's tiagara everything! (yes i know the fx vs emonda is not an apples to apples comparison, i am simply stating the emonda s4 is a great value for the $ you put forth.)

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bi.../1408000-2017/

that being said, i think the current fx3 is the sweet spot of the lineup. bring cash and fight tooth and nail for a discount!

Indeed I did! I got a 2016 Trek FX 7.3 for $540 in the Matte Black. (The new 2017 FX 3 is $700 and really the only upgrade is a carbon fork.) First ride out was a bit disappointing since it turns out the rear spokes were not tight, so the wheel kind of clattered. It's fixed now, and I've taken 3 rides for over 30 miles.
I would have been satisfied with a 2016 FX 7.2, but they didn't have any in stock, and the new 2017 FX 2 is a downgrade (tires and front derailleur which now uses Shimano Tourney) from the 2016 FX 7.2 model, and the best price I could get was $500. For $40 more, I got a lot more bike.
It's a lot faster (about 1.7 mph) and more nimble than my 2005 Trek Navigator 100!
Thanks for the help here!

You don't even get the Gold Frame now on 7.2, Trek has to keep their price point. To stay low on price don't go for the Chinese carbon fork, the steel is fine, just get 28mm tires and you go a lot faster. You pay too much for upgrading 7.2 to 7.3 etc.

New Fx3
 

Just picked up a 2018 Fx3 for the same price as the 2017 ! No brained for me ! Wasn’t a big Trek fan, was looking at the Giant Escape 1 But they wouldn’t deal on last years model, so went over to the Trek camp. Better Grips, more comfortable seat, and metal cage pedals ! All that I would had eventually had to replace on the Escape. Plus I like red !

I owned a Trek 7.2FX .... great bike and I'm sad that I sold it (I used it for commuting)..... add some good fast tyres such as Schwalbe Marathon Supreme and you have a really good bike

So, I'm reading through this thread as I have recently purchased a new FX and wanted to see what other people thought abut the model range. Then I read this and clicked the link. Holly crap! It looks like the second year in a row thatchy are giving these things away at the end of the year. Even the NORMAL price on theses bikes is fantastic. IMHO, if you re "roadie" enough to be considering the 4+ version of the FX and you DON'T give the Emonda a serious think, you're doing yourself a HUGE disservice.

To throw my useless 2 cents into the topic (in a basically dead thread) I think that the current FX line offers very little in the jump from 3 to 4 and you lose the really low "mountain" gearing and some flexibility when it comes to hauling stuff (no front braze-ons on the fork of the 4 even though both models have carbon forks).

Fixed