daredevil

I have a dilemma. My lbs currently has a couple 05 models marked down. I'm a fairly serious recreational rider that in peak season rides 1-3 hours a day. I might get in a century some day and I've done a metric century.

Anyway, they have a couple comfort road bikes which is the style I've already decided on. One is the Trek 1200c for around 600 (normally about 900) and the other a Pilot 5.0 for 1700 (normally around 2200). I could afford the 1200c right now but the Pilot would be a stretch. I would probably have to wait to afford a ride like that but depending on your folks' opinion you never know, i may say what the heck. The basic difference as I see it is the frame composition, carbon vs aluminum. The components are almost a wash even though the Pilot has Dura Ace in back. I do have a set of Shimano R-550 wheels I could put in the 1200 to upgrade that bike a little.

The opinion I'm looking for is given my type of riding, am I going to notice that much difference in the ride? $1000 dollars worth of difference? Would I be wise to wait until I could afford one of those carbon comfort rides (Giant OCR, Specialized Roubaix, etc)? By the way, a ride around the block isn't going to answer the question for me and it's not like I can take them out for an hour each so I don't think a test ride will help. I know they both fit me. Thanks for the help!

Sharpknife

Being new I can't offer much. But I bought the Trek 1000C about 3 months ago and I have thouroughly enjoyed it coming off the Walmart Tank. That said I really wish that I had waited a bit and stretched every dollar. I am saving now to get something carbon with and better component group. I am not at all displeased with the Tiagra/ Sora, but I am thinking that the carbon will offer the ride I am looking for with a frame weight decrease. I am still pretty heavy though (233)and have been watching threads discussing the carbon weight limitations and the like. It is unlikely that I wil get below 200lbs and I will continue to watch and learn.

I can only offer: Go all out and get everything you can afford with out getting in financial trouble, it is easier to justify component upgrades on the frame that you are happy with than it is buying complete new bikes.

MrCjolsen

I have a 1000c. I've been thoroughly happy with it. The only thing I don't like about it is that it has the Sora groupset, which works perfectly but only has 8 speeds. I've also removed a few of the "comfort" components -- the adustable stem (too long), the suspension seatpost (I think the 1200 comes with carbon anyway) and the Tektro inline brake levers (invaluable when I first got the bike but then I eventially quit using them)

BTW $600 is nearly what I paid for my '04 1000c.

I've used my 1000c in two triathlons and it's worked fine.

MrCjolsen

It also depends on what you're riding now. If you're new to road biking, then you'll definitely need to invest some money in some good bike clothing, some good shoes and pedals, and a good computer.

oneradtec

For what you are doing...the Trek 1200 will be fine. What does the C mean as in Trek 1200c ?

Is this a comfort version?

I have a 2005 Trek 1200 road bike that has been upgraded for racing....but the stock 1200 is a very nice bike that will serve you well for centuries, club rides, and all the solo miles you care to do alone.

daredevil

Thanks for the help so far everyone. I am not new to road riding. I currently have an older heavy steel road bike that I've upgraded over the years and a fairly nice 2001 Sirrus Pro aluminum flat bar road bike that I use for commuting.

daredevil

Yes the "C" is the comfort version. One of the compact frame styles.

ruppster

"Yes the "C" is the comfort version. One of the compact frame styles."

If the geometry is the same as a 1200, I wouldn't call it a "compact" frame. I think of the Pilot, with the sloping top tube and very few frame sizes, as more of a compact frame.
The only thing that is different between the 1200 and 1200C are the adjustable stem and the suspension seatpost. I test rode a 1000c; the stem did not feel very substantial and the seatpost was mushy. I purchased a 1000 because of it.
$600 is a pretty good price for a Tiagra group. Maybe replace the C parts with normal (fixed) parts?
I also didn't see the C models listed on the Trek website. Looks like they are discontinued.

krazyderek

i say get the bike that's designed for comfort if you're doing that much ridding. get the pilot

Mariner Fan

I have a 1200c and it has been a fine bike.

daredevil

"The only thing that is different between the 1200 and 1200C are the adjustable stem and the suspension seatpost."

The 1200 and 1200C are completely different frames. The 1200 is considered a performance frame and the 1200C is a comfort road frame with a sloping top tube. Additionally it has a suspension seat post and an adjustable stem.

So both the Pilot and 1200C are designed for comfort. It seems that the main difference will be either an aluminum or carbon frame as mentioned earlier. And of course price.

Thanks again for the responses.

stonecrd

You could look for the Pilot 2.1 which is the same geometry with Al alloy frame and the 105 set. I have this bike and have put about 1200 miles on it since Aug and am very happy with it. You could probably find this for $1,100

daredevil

I live in a remote area where the choices are slim. A 2.1 won't be an option unless I order it on line.

wagathon

Maybe the 5.0 is the one to consider this year. I see that Trek has broadened the offerings under that model name for the current model year. However, the Pilot 5.2 is what caught my eye last year.

Before that, I had always had steel road bike triples. I was looking forward to owning my first CF bike and wanted a bike that fit me out of the box. The midnight blue paint was a bonus.

If did not want CF, personally, I'd perfer steel for a road bike. I do like big-tubed Aluminum MTBs but that is just a preference of mine that helps me simplify choices among a lot of competing options in an area where there are no absolutely right or wrong answers.