I am comparing two different year bikes and the differences between them. The bike in question is the Trek 2.1. double compact. The `09 has carbon seatstays with 105 rederailur and Tiarga shifters while the `10 has complete 105 components with a normal frame. The price difference is about $150-200 more for the 105 group. So the question is; are the 105 components worth an addional $200 or is the carbon seatstays a worthwhile addition?

I tried searching but to search with the name "Trek" doesnt exactly narrow the field much.

I had a similar predicimant last year. I was torn between the Trek 2.3 (with the carbon seatstays) and the Giant Defy Alliance (carbon seatstays, chainstays, and toptube) I was torn between the frames cause of course I wanted the most carbon i could get. I ended up going with components over frame, the 2.3 came with a 105 crank, better wheelset, ultegra rear, and newer 105 shifters. About a week ago I upgraded my frame to a 2010 Felt FC and am moving all my old components over which i still love.
Is the wheelset an upgrade as well? Thats what tipped me over the limit.
As much as i love the 2.3 the carbon seat stays really dont do that much, IMO they shoulda made the chainstays carbon if anything. I'd say a full carbon seatpost will do as much as carbon seatstays, I'd go with a good solid groupo and start saving up for a full carbon frame for next season.

You should get the best frame to fit your body and your needs. The difference in functionality between tiagra and 105 is pretty negligible. It's really easy to upgrade components over time. Start with a great core and fill the rest out.

I personally believe your priorities should be 1. Frame 2. Wheels 3. Components

Besides...i see Tiagra groups going for the same as 105 and ultegra groups on ebay! Wait for a wicked deal on an Ultegra or 105 group (preferably 5700/6700) and sell the tiagra.

I've seen Ultegra 6600 groups going for 550$ brand new! I'm personally looking forward to the new 105.

+1

Frame first, gruppo second. Besides, bike makers always do the funkiest things with their component selections. Makes it too complicated to even tell which one has better components half the time!

I'm gonna assume that the '09 is 9 speed and the '10 is 10 speed from your description. That just makes the decision awful. Buy the one you that you like the feel of the ride the most... If you can't tell, I don't know, buy the one with better components.

Yes, the comments suggesting the better frame over the better group are spot on, I would say. Parts can be replaced as cool deals come up.

Personally I'd go with the full 105 option. I think you'll find a bit less maintenance, and the seat stays won't make or break a ride, but having all the components work will. my 2 cents.

You'd notice the difference between Tiagra and 105 more than you'd notice the difference in seat stays.

105 is solid stuff. It's not the lightest stuff out there, but you'll get plenty of years out of it. If you get the upgrade bug I think the best strategy is to save up your money for a complete new bike and save the old one as a backup. The 105 bike is something you can ride for years without worrying about.

Thanks for the replys. I was thinking that the frame was more important but was't sure if the carbon seat stays were a real benefit versus a marketing ploy by Trek. Just to clarify to make sure my terminology is correct, I am calling the rear triangle (seat, tire, crank) the seat stay.

I have the 08 2.1...not a fan of the frame. Its a bit too flexy for my taste...but it gets the job done.

105

That is some sound practical advice right there!

The seat stays are carbon, you are correct.

My 2009 2.1 weighs in the 19 neighborhood, with the Bontrager SSR wheels. I upgraded to better wheels which shaved about 900-1300 grams since the SSR weighed about 3000 Kilos, and my newer ones weighed about 1755. So it should weigh more than a pound less.

Now Based on about 3300 Miles of riding on my 2009 2.1, i can say that the bike is great for a novice or entry level rider, i havent really rode a higher end frame or a Carbon frame, but i can sprint and climb pretty well with my 2.1

I've never had a serious problem, only problem i have had is wheels going out of true (but the 2010 comes with the same wheelset so this might not matter) and the front derailleur tension gets a bit loose now and then, which is okay because i can adjust it from the adjustment barrells.

Components-
The 09 comes with Tiagra Shifters, Tiagra Front Derailleur, and a 105 Derailleur. Also it has an FSA Gossamer, which isn't bad.

My only complaint would be with the Tiagra Front Derailleur, it shifts pretty hard when downshifting. Shifting to a higher Chainring is O.K.

Brakes are strong, even though they are no-branded. (It's labeled "For Alloy")

The rear derailleur is fine as well, and the Tiagras have no problem shifting the 105, it's fast and responsive.

The Carbon seat stays dampens the vibrations, as well as lightening the bike a bit. However ,I think, it is not signifcant enough to choose over the rest of the 105 group.

Have you tried riding both bikes?

I like the 2009 2.1 more because of it's unique color, i was a bit dissapointed to see the 2010 2.1 in a more black color because black bikes are too common.

Good luck, and whatever choice you make hope you will have a great time with it. I'm having a great time with mine.

I stand by what I first said.... If it was the difference between a full CF frame and an aluminum I would go with the better frame, but the carbon seat stays do about at much as a good seatpost it's very neglegable. I picked the 2.3 for it's wheelset and components because the frame on my other choice was about the same. I've ridden several aluminum frames plus an aluminum frame with carbon seatstays and they are nothing like carbon... Th seatstays make hardly any difference

Thanks for the input. I was hoping to get some first hand knowledge of the bikes in question. For the price difference and my expirence it sound like the `09 is the way to go for me with the knowledge I have room to upgrade in the future once I have more time under my belt. This will be my first serious road bike. I am coming from a mtb and am looking into doing some centries with a group locally.

On a side note, if you name means what I think it does you have a very nice stable of toys there.

Fit trumps all, so if one of these fits better go with the better fit. Have you test ridden them???

So you're going for the 2009? That's sounds great, you'll have a lot of fun with it!

Actually, i do not drive at all, it's just my birthdate number and my ex-favorite car. Haha but i wouldn't mind having one at all!

I have a 09 2.1. You are right in the major differences are the 09 frame vs 10 105 group. I am also a convert from a hybrid/mtb. In the 8 months I have had my 2.1 it was been flawless. It is in the shop right now for a 2K mile service. The rider makes the most difference not the bike. There are fast people on steel and slow people on carbon.

The most important factor after fit is which bike you do love? You want to buy a bike that beckons you to ride to at all times. If you do not love your bike because the color is not right or the wheels are wrong, you will find reasons not to ride. Any spare time I have, i will sneak a ride on my 2.1. To many people it is only a Trek 2.1, but that was the bike I wanted.

Good Luck.

I did go ahead and get the `09 Trek due to the cost difference and potentially better frame. Now the first thing on the to buy list is a new saddle. This one has to go.

Thanks for all of the help.

Does this site have a equipment review section I missed? It seems to me it would take care of a large portion of the newbie questions.

Congratulations, and welcome to the 2009 Trek 2.1 Club!

You can use the advanced search feature on the top left of the page to search for any threads.

Have fun riding!